Slashdot Mirror
Closing the Cover on Microsoft Book Scanning
Chris_Keene writes "The Live Search blog announces that the Live.com Book and Academic Search are to close. Book search in particular has had quite a bit of coverage, and often seemed like a race with Google. The Live blog says 'we are winding down our digitization initiatives, including our library scanning and our in-copyright book programs. We recognize that this decision comes as disappointing news to our partners, the publishing and academic communities, and Live Search users [...] this past Wednesday we announced our strategy to focus on verticals with high commercial intent, such as travel, and offer users cash back on their purchases from our advertisers.'"
Competition fights stagnation. I hope that Google doesn't sit back on its laurels and slow their improvements of Google Print/Google Books.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
which the rest of the world already knew; that they cannot kill google by cloning their every product.
I thought I was keeping up with all the free public-domain projects, but somehow I missed this one. I've found one thing I've been looking for that's not on Google Books or Gutenberg (Norman bel Geddes's manifesto on Streamline Moderne, _Horizons_) and is hard to find in a library.
And yet I had no idea that they were doing this. OTOH, my university library has a Google book search box on their front page.
The problem is that Microsoft has too much money. To a "normal" company, a venture such as this would require a significant investment, which in turn gives the company a big incentive to pull out all the stops to try and make it work. Succeed or die.
To Microsoft, on the other hand, a venture such as this require relatively little investment. If it works, it works; if it doesn't, oh well. Virtually everything Microsoft does outside of their Window and Office monopolies loses money.
These are the same tactics Microsoft has been using since the early 90s. They're just playing defence to whatever the competitor-of-the-day is doing, and they do it solely to protect the monopolies. The venture doesn't need to "successful" in the traditional sense, and it certainly doesn't have to make money, but if it's disruptive in some way to what their competitor is trying to do then it at least has some value for Microsoft, because at least Microsoft can afford to take a financial hit where their competitor usually can't. In the 90s you have Oracle vs. SQL Server, Netscape vs. IE. Now you have whatever-Google-does vs. MSN-Live.NET, iTunes vs. PlaysForSure. The difference is that at least back in the 90s Microsoft was actually capable of turning a disruptive stinker (say, SQLServer 6) into a real and competitive product; these days, not so much. But then again, Microsoft has a lot more money to throw around.
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
Decisions like this don't surprise me, and they sum up why MS will lose.
Firstly, MS is starting to build a rather unattractive profile for themselves as "droppers". Any time they can't be bothered with something or some part of "the management" takes a decision then something gets culled. They did it with their DRM music that left thousands high and dry, and now they have done it with this. The folks at MS have to realise that nobody is going to want to deal with them if they keep it up. Because no matter what the gee whiz initiative or idea, everybody knows fine that if MS get frustrated with not having dominance with it, or gets bored and want to spend the money elsewhere, then they will drop it with a "screw you guys, I'm going home" attitude. Will they get as many vendors signing up to the "search cashback" program when they know (and we know) it will likely be scrapped in a year or two?
Secondly, it sums up MS in another way. They just don't get "it". They think of everything through some corporate eyes that requires dominance and control. Google scans books (and I am absolutely sure will continue to scan books) not because they want to "bury MS", but because they want to "organize the worlds knowledge". Criticisms of privacy et al. are all very valid, but part of a different argument strand. When it comes down to it Google scan books because they realise the importance of digitizing knowledge, and aside from the altruistic benefits of digitizing otherwise inaccessible paper - when it is digitised it can be searched, when it can be searched it can be monetized.
MS are stuck - and will always be stuck - in the 1990's. They treat all this as "the search wars" - they treat the whole thing as some second version of the browser wars. The only catch is that the tactics that won them that one won't work any more. The decision to end book scanning just reeks of the war mentality. They didn't scan and weren't scanning books to help the end user, they were doing it in an attempt to "bury Google". That is why they will lose - they are stuck in the past.