Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft and Yahoo Reach Deal

e9th writes "We know that Microsoft failed last February in its attempt to buy Yahoo. Now, Advertising Age reports that they've reached a deal. Instead of a buyout, the two will enter into a revenue sharing agreement, and Bing will become Yahoo's default search engine. The meat of the AdAge article can be found in Yahoo News. This deal may give Google something to worry about."

301 comments

  1. Goodbye old friend. by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 5, Funny

    BRB, cancelling my Yahoo! account.

    1. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Good idea. Most people probably wouldn't think to cancel their account, but an announcement from an important person like yourself will serve as an example to others. If it were anyone else we wouldn't care, but you..... you are truly special. Thanks for taking the time to share your personal life with us. Please, in the future, continue to let us know which companies you will abandon out of spite.

      Just one reminder though, Yahoo was never your friend. Nobody working at that company gave two liquid shits what you or anyone you know has ever done. It's OK though. They didn't care, but we do.

    2. Re:Goodbye old friend. by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 5, Informative

      Others may joke, but I agree with you. I'll miss them, but goodbye to my.yahoo.com and www.yahoo.com.

    3. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It actually took you this shit to actually cancel your Yahoo account. Between their atrocious web email, and their pedophile chat network, what do they really have that's decent? Maybe yahoo sports.

      On another note what is with all these stupid names Microsoft has been giving their search engines these days? It's like Microsoft is the tiny kid in the playground when it comes to the web. I guess all you guys who talk about how stupid FOSS project names are, are going to keep mum on Bing (soon to be named Bukkake or something another). Best of luck to a floundering Microsoft and an increasingly irrelevant Yahoo. Seriously, Google does need some competition in their default realm of search and content aggregation.

    4. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how does changing the underlying search engine affect your yahoo account?

    5. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I had set Yahoo as Firefox's address bar search engine only a few days ago...

    6. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's a pedophile. I ain't saying, I'm just saying...

      I used to get a lot of pussy out of yahoo chat, before it became infested with bots and fags. Of course, I kept it all legal.

    7. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      The bean counters at Yahoo! should care if a big enough percentage of their current users cancel their accounts.

    8. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And my Firefox's address bar search engine was only two days away from retirement!

    9. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Amiralul · · Score: 1

      I would have canceled my yahoo account years ago, but Y!Messeneger is very used by a lot of my friends.

    10. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why a few no name nerds on Slashdot whining about this aren't going to make them care in the least bit.

    11. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And how does changing the underlying search engine affect your yahoo account?

      He already answered that. Changing the underlying search engine to Bng leads to him cancelling his yahoo account.

    12. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, so true. Take it from Mr. UID Millionaire+: If you had rocketmail account from the days of Web 0.2, you don't belong on his slashdot.

    13. Re:Goodbye old friend. by nazsco · · Score: 1

      I would have canceled my yahoo account years ago, but Y!Messeneger is very used by a lot of my friends.

      You can use msn and y!im seamlessly for some time now... but i fail to see why i am saying this. I've used ICQ since the 90's and had offline message support since ever.

    14. Re:Goodbye old friend. by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      I migrated from My Y! to iGoogle (mainly for my portfolio - Yahoo! Finance sucks when it comes to Indian stocks), but the iGoogle page looks like crap. For all its weaknesses, My Yahoo! was good in appearance. I looked at NetVibes and PageFlakes, but neither of them seem to have any good stock portfolio tracker that can track India exchanges. Otherwise, I'd like to switch to one of them.

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    15. Re:Goodbye old friend. by remmelt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, too bad it's linked to my Flickr account as well.

    16. Re:Goodbye old friend. by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      This far the only whining no namers are the AC's -I'm looking at you- who bitch about thatkid saying that he is cancelling his Yahoo account.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    17. Re:Goodbye old friend. by LordSnooty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why a few no name nerds on Slashdot whining about this aren't going to make them care in the least bit.

      Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to "irony".

    18. Re:Goodbye old friend. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I suspect a lot of us can't even remember our yahoo account details ... we just used them as a source of throw-away emails before discovering mailinator, etc.

      The same could probably be said for gmail and hotmail ... some site wants you to register, you don't want lots of spam, you quickly register an account, then ignore it.

      In the end, it still means the death of yahoo. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Welcome to the search/advertising duopoly; duopolies, because of their lessened competition, end up costing end-users more, and it's not like google doesn't already set an artificial floor price for all their adwords.

    19. Re:Goodbye old friend. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I've been using Yahoo mail since the late-90s. Everyone knows that as my address, and it would be a lot of hassle to move, so I'll just stick with it.

      But I'm definitely not using their search engine anymore. Microsoft's Bing search engine sucks dingo balls. Yahoo should have stayed with their own.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:Goodbye old friend. by executivechaos · · Score: 1

      Yep...me too.

    21. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big question is what effect this deal will have on porn searching?

      For example, Yahoo were more choosy in their selection of cliental, so to speak, whereas Google would happily take just about anyone any way they can. Microsoft on the other hand, judging by the way they work, are most likely into S & M.

    22. Re:Goodbye old friend. by koolfy · · Score: 1

      Still, they[miscosoft & yahoo] do are more trustful about your privacy than Google...

      PS: I'm using Yauba right now, it's pretty powerful :)

      --
      Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.
    23. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      For anyone who is seriously cancelling their account (not necessarily the parent):

      Seriously? You hate MS that much? Yahoo accounts are more for other features and less for search anyway. Well whatever, if you're going to do it, do it quickly so they'll know the spike in cancellations is due to this. I guess the overall goal is that no other company will ever deal with MS again for fear of losing all their users over it. Even if it's the only way they can be competitive in a field.

      Seriously?

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    24. Re:Goodbye old friend. by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1

      Google to search, yahoo for mail. This has always worked for me.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    25. Re:Goodbye old friend. by nkh · · Score: 1

      Don't know if it's useful but I found http://23hq.com/ today.

    26. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone explain the joke here? I'm not trying to troll, I'm just not sure what this is referencing.

    27. Re:Goodbye old friend. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would any company need to deal with MS to be competitive? Especially Yahoo? Honestly, before this move, there were three main search engines for the English-speaking world: Google, Yahoo, and MS (Bing, formerly "LiveSearch"). Now, for some inexplicable reason, Yahoo has abandoned its #2 search engine and decided to use the #3, and worst, search engine available.

      To make yet another car analogy, this would be like GM seeing that it's #2 to Ford in the US, and deciding to partner with Yugo to make cars. Yeah, GM sucks, but not as much as Yugo. (I realize Yugo isn't around any more, but I can't think of a still-existing car maker that makes truly horrible cars.)

      It's not like Yahoo is partnering with MS to help move into a market where they have no expertise or penetration in.

    28. Re:Goodbye old friend. by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1
      Actually, I can remember my Yahoo details.
      thatkid_2002 is also thatkid_2002@yahoo.com.au - the reason that my Slashdot account is the same is because DDevine seems to be taken.

      I was actually already considering dumping my Yahoo account because the massive amount of spam that the filters miss. My main email hosted on Google Apps gets a lot of spam as well, but it goes straight into the spam bucket and not my inbox.

      Yahoo is now wholly locked into the path of being an advertising company, so I am severing my ties with this company that has become nothing but another distraction on the web, instead of the central hub it used to be.
      I know Google is an advertising company, but that's not my point

  2. Lol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now, the people who were avoiding Bing, will now avoid Bing and Yahoo...

    What, exactly, does Google have to worry about, except MS cashback?

    1. Re:Lol... by revlayle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people don't "avoid" Bing (except maybe people like on slashdot, which aren't a consumer majority, by a longshot). People do not use Bing because most people have already used Yahoo! and Google for years, most people won't know the difference that much except maybe "hmm it looks a little bit different". If Bing's engine is better than Yahoo!'s, then maybe people will stay with Yahoo! even longer - well, as long as Yahoo can survive that is.

    2. Re:Lol... by koreaman · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the loads of people who get Bing by default with IE8.

    3. Re:Lol... by shacky003 · · Score: 1

      "People do not use Bing because most people have already used Yahoo! and Google for years, most people won't know the difference that much except maybe "hmm it looks a little bit different"..."

      Oh, so you mean just like what happened when Google hit the scene?
      I'm by all means a fan of Google over Bing, but the above logic is ever so slightly off, considering the history of the search engine battles..

    4. Re:Lol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with MS cashback is that the underlying search is far inferior to Google's. Microsoft's is a paid program while Google's is free, so Google has about a bajillion more stores than Microsoft does. Searching for anything besides popular electronics will give you absolute crap results from MS.

      MSCB is good for getting money back on something you already know you want, but it's completely worthless as a search.

    5. Re:Lol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "Bing" you speak of?

    6. Re:Lol... by TheP4st · · Score: 1
      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    7. Re:Lol... by zeromorph · · Score: 1

      I actually avoid Google search. Don't get me wrong, it is still the best and not always and not easy to avoid, but I love GMail and I really don't like all my searches and emails in hand of a single company.

      My search engine of choice is ixquick. It has a very good privacy policy, e.g. you can use https and it's not storing IP addresses - I'm looking at you Google Inc. - that makes it the first place for me to go. Ixquick uses - among other engines - Bing , but I couldn't care less.

      Most people here at slashdot are not MS-phobic, but hell, there are good reasons to distrust MSFT. This however is true for any company, so I for my part maintain a relaxed, unagitated distrust against every company (or governmental agency) and try not to depend on any single company too much.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
    8. Re:Lol... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just a gut feeling, but google's search has been getting a bit sucky recently.

      First, I seem to get more and more dross before getting to what I wanted. Another thing is if you search for all of a group of keywords it leaves one out and tells you at the foot of the page with a link "Show results that include $LEFT_OUT_TERM". See here: http://www.google.com/search?q=x41+tablet+sale+uk&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&sa=2
      Why not just go ahead and show them - do they think I typed it for the exercise? Retarded.

      Not a fan of MS or yahoo but if it shakes google up a bit then everyone's a winner.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Lol... by fullgandoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like you get Google by default on the Safari search bar on Mac. Whereas on IE8, you can easily change it to whatever by a simple click, on Safari there is no such option.

    10. Re:Lol... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Most people don't "avoid" Bing (except maybe people like on slashdot, which aren't a consumer majority, by a longshot). People do not use Bing because most people have already used Yahoo! and Google for years, most people won't know the difference that much except maybe "hmm it looks a little bit different".

      Most people use Bing without even knowing it because Microsoft browsers "search-jack" and default to Bing. Seriously, how many times have you seen the majority of clueless web users using IE and typing search strings into the default upper-right hand search pane, which defaults to Bing...

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    11. Re:Lol... by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      To be honest, IE8 is only this way because MS knows if they default it to Bing and give no options to change it they will end up in anti-trust hot water again. This is a result of MS abusing their monopoly position. If Apple ever gets to the same point then we'll be able to have a (sorry about this) apples to apples comparison, but right now your point fails a little.

    12. Re:Lol... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Google seems like its getting gamed more often, and I REALLY hate that it decides that no, I didn't REALLY want the word "disconnected" in my search. I mean, its just as common as "the" right?

    13. Re:Lol... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Works if you put a + symbol in front of all the terms.

      I dunno why it's leaving the 4th term off.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    14. Re:Lol... by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      Apple is still taking an unfair advantage, and IMO even without a monopoly this is still bad. Goes to show that the top management at Apple runs exactly like MS in a lot of ways, they just don't have the OS monopoly to take advantage of.

      You can see it with the iPod; there's a lot of stuff that's proprietary that could have been standard, especially when it comes to docking stations that only work on iPod. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but docking stations that can use both the iPod and other MP3 players need to have a separate port for both? That's the vibe I get from this article (admittedly from an MS affiliated site).

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    15. Re:Lol... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not to challenge everything else you wrote, but for the sake of factual correctness - the ability to change search engines was there since IE7 already (not IE8).

    16. Re:Lol... by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      I now what you mean. I use Google Search and Gmail, but Google Desktop was a bit much for me. I think the problem is that it was too good. I didn't use it much so my paranoia outweighed the convenience.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    17. Re:Lol... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      How the hell does apple get an "unfair advantage" from using Google's search engine exclusively on Safari? Considering Apple's position in the browser market, the only reason why that limitation is bad is because you're getting crap functionality. As much as I like my Mac, I'm not giving away chrome's address bar search engine integration any time soon.

    18. Re:Lol... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If I wanted it to search for some/any of the keywords, there's a place for that and I'd type them there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Lol... by revlayle · · Score: 1

      like you can do in most any current browser now you mean?

  3. I just asked Google if it had any reason to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It said 0 results found.

  4. Moot point by Sporkinum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yahoo search was useless anyway, so having bing won't change anything for me. It will give them great insight into how people use yahoo's web site though, which will probably allow MSN to poach yahoo users.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    1. Re:Moot point by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      So I use M$'s search and its like here's your answer 'dumbass' you should have already know it.

      ...yet something tells me that anyone who refers to Microsoft as "M$" has no problem using something called "The Gimp".

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Moot point by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      no time for the old in-out, love... i'm just here to read the meter

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    3. Re:Moot point by Vovk · · Score: 1

      Actually, microsoft might wind up grabbing all of yahoo to try to assimilate a userbase to compete with google. PS: about your sig, newtons applied to what?

    4. Re:Moot point by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      i don't know what the newtons are applied to - it's just what you get if you type that into google. it gets people scratching their heads though :)

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    5. Re:Moot point by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Yahoo!'s video search engine is better than Bing's. I can get to the videos directly instead of being linked to the page that linked/embedded it (which may no longer have it, even though the video still exists).

  5. Google worrying. by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Google worrying. by joe_bruin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recall Fake Steve Jobs had some rather insightful thoughts on this.

      The Borg-Yahoo merger won't work. Here's why. It's like taking the two guys who finished second and third in a 100-yard dash and tying their legs together and asking for a rematch, believing that now they'll run faster.

    2. Re:Google worrying. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      He missed out on the part that one of them gets shot as part of the tying process...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Google worrying. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Insightful? In what way? All I see is a bunch of Microsoft and Ballmer bashing with little in the way of content or commentary.

    4. Re:Google worrying. by bjourne · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a bad analogy. It's like instead of the most beautiful woman you two slightly more ugly ones at once. Plus, you get to Bing and Yahoo! them instead of merely Googling. I could be a nice tradeoff.

    5. Re:Google worrying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Following his logic, if two guys who finished 1st and 2nd in a 100-yeard dash and tying their legs together and asking for rematch, believing that now they will run faster?

      But the answer is YES.

    6. Re:Google worrying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spot on ... however, who gives a shit whether to search on Bing or Yahoo.
      I think the merger is justified and alll of of NERDS to to get a life or just wank ur selves off :)

    7. Re:Google worrying. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Ya, that's why two smaller companies merging to take on a big competitor never works.

    8. Re:Google worrying. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      From your link:

      Here are the month-to-month figures, percentage of searches each search engine handled in the United States

      Things are quite different elsewhere. I've no idea what the overall worldwide stats are, but I know that Yahoo is way ahead of Google in many Asian countries.

    9. Re:Google worrying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the netflix $1,000,000 prize competition? Pooling different algorithms proved to be the key to success.

  6. Bing... by freedomlinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bing will become Yahoo's default search engine.
    I think I just cried a little...

    1. Re:Bing... by Itninja · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yahoo has always been the swinger of the search engine party. For a while it was even powered by Google. When Bing gets old and fat Yahoo will move onto some other nubile young thing.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:Bing... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has always been the swinger of the search engine party. For a while it was even powered by Google. When Bing gets old and fat Yahoo will move onto some other nubile young thing.

      Considering they'll be owned by Microsoft, I doubt it.

  7. Google in trouble? by lordharsha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one. I don't really think Google has anything to worry about. Kindly take your rabble rousing elsewhere.

    --
    I am, and that is sufficient.
    1. Re:Google in trouble? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one.

      But it never stopped anyone from trying!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Google in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      dude, you really believe bing is an inferior technology. It has less market share. less market share != inferior technology. If you look at search results from the bing and google, if you remove branding, it's almost impossible to tell the which is which.

    3. Re:Google in trouble? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one.

      Hey, it worked for Reese's!

    4. Re:Google in trouble? by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

      Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one.

      Damn straight, it gives you a SuperInferior(TM) technology! Or, you know, just Super. With all the SuperShiny(TM) bells and whistles you've come to know and loathe! Well, we've still got the marketing to work out, but trust us, we will fucking bury Google!

    5. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's interesting how people side with Google on this site, even though they're guilty of many of the things people complain about Microsoft doing, such as putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success, attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform, and collecting data on users. Merely suggesting a competitor could actually make Google worry about something is even labeled rabble rousing.

    6. Re:Google in trouble? by Panzor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, do not deem chocolate OR peanut butter to be an inferior technology. Fellow chocoholics and peanut butter enthusiasts! Grab yer pitchforks!

    7. Re:Google in trouble? by killthepoor187 · · Score: 1

      People keep saying this, but any time that I've used Bing I've spent more time sifting through results, although I could just be more accustomed to entering queries for google after a decade or so.

      And while less market share definitely != inferior technology *cough*linux*cough, in this case Google's vastly superior data-pool gives them a huge advantage in developing efficient search algorithms. They just have a shitton more data to work with to figure out how to give people what they are looking for.

    8. Re:Google in trouble? by shish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      such as putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success

      I can't say I've ever even seen anyone complain about either company doing this o_O What are you talking about, and why is this supposed to be a problem? :S

      attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform

      Having a large platform is fine, if it's based on open standards, and people using third party clients and servers aren't shunned

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    9. Re:Google in trouble? by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think the "You got Bing in my Yahoo!" commercial would fly so well. I'm sure someone would misinterpret it.

    10. Re:Google in trouble? by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      1. They don't charge for those side products, if you don't like them don't use them. Unlike overpriced software you're forced to deal with because it truly does have a monopoly on office software.

      2. The first step to anything google is to manually go to google.com. Microsoft comes installed into almost every premade computer, with it's own software like IE and Outlook pre installed as defaults and using their services as default.

      3. Google gives a very clear policy on what information they save and why.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    11. Re:Google in trouble? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think the "You got Bing in my Yahoo!" commercial would fly so well. I'm sure someone would misinterpret it.

      I dunno - that kinda sounds like you captured the essence of the business relationship pretty well there.

    12. Re:Google in trouble? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Showing that you, like many other here on /. mistakenly think of Google as only a search company - rather than considering how Google is an also-ran in many of the areas that Microsoft and Yahoo! dominate in. There's more to the web than search.

    13. Re:Google in trouble? by myxiplx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but Google are also *not* doing rather a lot of stuff Microsoft did:

      - They're not forcing you to use their products.
      - They don't deliberately break backwards compatibility, using peer pressure to force you to spend more money to upgrade.
      - They're not breaking competing products.

      There's a massive difference between Google and Microsoft. I *choose* to use a vast number of google's products, simply because they are better than anything else out there. I'm *forced* to use Microsoft products, often at great expense, when I would much rather be using alternatives.

    14. Re:Google in trouble? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could be talking of American chocolate, the point is valid :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:Google in trouble? by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      I don't think the "You got Bing in my Yahoo!" commercial would fly so well. I'm sure someone would misinterpret it.

      +Funny if I could for you.

      Though trust me, "Yang happy to merge with Ballmer" would sound much, much worse. Hell, it could be an AP headline.

      The summary is tagged with Binghoo, but I'd argue "Ying" is more appropriate. These deals always have a light and dark side.

    16. Re:Google in trouble? by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      I think "You got Yahoo in my Bing!" sounds much better.

      --
      My page.
    17. Re:Google in trouble? by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      dude, you really believe bing is an inferior technology. It has less market share. less market share != inferior technology. If you look at search results from the bing and google, if you remove branding, it's almost impossible to tell the which is which.

      Dude, it's not inferior, it's merely outdated. See, if you compare the results from both, and carefully go over the details, you'll notice why Google is where it's at, and why Bing will never get there.

      Notice that what essentially looks like two almost-identical sets of results is not the whole point. On Google's result page, I can promote a result, comment on it, or even remove it. Why? Because that's human computation. So you see, google is not just a stupid tin-can that's been fed algos to get you crapola results. It actually listens to users (however small the number of those that actually moderate results may be) and it benefits from that. It's not being nice to us, but it's just using us... in a incredibly smart way, and we all benefit from that. So, why bing works out an even better algo, Google will have to do nothing but use our brains, and it'll still be much ahead of Bing for a loooong time.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    18. Re:Google in trouble? by kamatsu · · Score: 1

      i'm pretty sure clicking a link in a search result also gives that link a little boost

    19. Re:Google in trouble? by kamatsu · · Score: 1

      Except the yin yang is not the ying yang.

    20. Re:Google in trouble? by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. And a lot of other things. But a conscious intervention by the user is a great tool. And it's not just the human computation that is interesting. It's also the fact that Google keeps incorporating every bit of knowledge that could make the search engine more potent, while others mostly either engage in failed experiments, or try to do what Google's done a long time ago.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    21. Re:Google in trouble? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      I'm a programmer, and admittedly not a genius. I couldn't come up with a decent search algorithm to save my life.

      BUT, all of those differences you mentioned are a piece of cake- even a moron like me could do it. It really is simple stuff.

      Bing is pretty much brand-new. Give them some time to add on the little niceties. It will come, and it won't take too long.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    22. Re:Google in trouble? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Not only that...

      But the Bing API is the best search API that I've seen.

      Amazingly open.

      Too bad most people will miss it.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    23. Re:Google in trouble? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how people side with Google on this site, even though they're guilty of many of the things people complain about Microsoft doing

      Not even close. What about patent trolling, bogus lawsuits, atroturfing using the names of dead people, bogus TCO studies, bogus benchmark studies, bribing public officials, outright lying to the US-DoJ, and so much more.

    24. Re:Google in trouble? by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are a piece of cake, once you realize you can do that. That's what makes it so effective.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    25. Re:Google in trouble? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      considering how Google is an also-ran in many of the areas that Microsoft and Yahoo! dominate

      Areas Yahoo dominates? Where? What?

      Wouldn't it make more sense to say "considering how Google is an also-ran in many of the areas that Microsoft dominates"?

    26. Re:Google in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get where Microsoft have ever forced you to use their products. There have been alternative OS's out there since the beginning of Windows.

      Break backward compatibility? They are the best OS at keeping backward compatibility for as long as possible.

      Microsoft has definately had their problems but the three you listed are not them.

    27. Re:Google in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If approved by regulators and when ultimately implemented - this agreement would boost Microsoft's search market share to about 25-30% (by June/July data).

      It is good that there is more competition in the search market. Any move of Microsoft to take market from google by competition (e.g. Microsoft Office Online) brings immediate advantage to everybody. A question for me however is: could this move affect significantly (read: slow down) the market introduction of Google Chrome OS?

    28. Re:Google in trouble? by rackeer · · Score: 1

      If approved by regulators and when ultimately implemented - this agreement would boost Microsoft's search market share to about 25-30% (by June/July data). It is good that there is more competition in the search market. Any move of Microsoft to take market from google by competition (e.g. Microsoft Office Online) brings immediate advantage to everybody. A question for me however is: will this move affect significantly (read: slow down) the market introduction of Google Chrome OS, which many hope could bring more competition to the OS market?

    29. Re:Google in trouble? by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success

      Yes

      attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform

      Google uses open formats and platforms, and does not "shove" its additional products down users' throats in an effort to extend a monopoly in one area into others.

      Microsoft behaves badly, people dislike them for it.

      Google behaves well, people like them for it.

      Except for Microsoft apologists, who struggle to come up with some reason Google is evil (OH NO THEY HAS OUR DATAS!, etc.)

    30. Re:Google in trouble? by ukyoCE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market which has resulted in (some) software being written only for Windows, which is then required to participate in certain work or play sectors of the market.

      Microsoft has a monopoly on Office software by using closed formats which prevent competing software from participating (in any meaningful way) in the Office software market. Good luck going into work and saying "Hey Boss, go ahead and save $200 and get me OpenOffice instead of MS Office".

      Microsoft has bundled numerous applications into its monopoly Operating System for the purpose of extinguishing competition in additional markets. Products such as Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express have taken huge chunks of their respective markets, or destroyed the market entirely.

      This is because Microsoft is able to "give it away" by charging every user of a Microsoft OS for the development of those products, and automatically distributing those products to "every" (90%+) new computer.

      I don't have a choice of whether to use MSN Messenger. I have to, because it comes on all of the computers at work, and thus that is what everyone at work uses to communicate.

      No one uses Eudora anymore, because Outlook Express is bundled with Windows and has the same functionality. Eudora, on the other hand, has to pay their employees somehow.

      Microsoft is in a unique scenario compared to Google, Linux, or Mac because of their OS monopoly. Even if you try to argue Google has a monopoly on something (Search? Advertising?), they haven't abused it to compete unfairly in other markets.

      If I had the choice to use superior products instead of using Microsofts' products, I would. I do not have that choice.

    31. Re:Google in trouble? by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      1. They don't charge for those side products, if you don't like them don't use them. Unlike overpriced software you're forced to deal with because it truly does have a monopoly on office software.

      Forced by, by whom? Probably the one paying for the overpriced software?

      How did you manage to complain about the software's price and being forced to use it in a single sentence? If you don't like using it, then don't pay for it.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    32. Re:Google in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of your complete bullshit fails to disprove anything said above. You failed to demonstrate that *Microsoft* forces you to use their software. If everyone at the office uses it, that's not Microsoft's fault, it's the fucking office's fault. Get a clue.

    33. Re:Google in trouble? by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Not even close.

      You are naive if you think Google is pure like the driven snow. I'm no lover of Microsoft, but I'm no lover of any large corporation. Google's not better than their competitors - they just haven't been big long enough to have done as much bad stuff.

      What about patent trolling,

      Overall, they're pretty good about this one, but remember - Google's a relatively young company. Their cry for patent reform is in their own interest, since they're much more likely to defend patent suits than prosecute them. They certainly aren't afraid to go after folks they feel have violated their patents. This air duct patent doesn't bode well.

      bogus lawsuits,

      How about suing Grupa Mlodych Artystow i Literatow for using gmail.pl? Or suing GMail, a pre-existing physical mail service in Europe? Then there's Android Data Services.

      astroturfing using the names of dead people,

      Oh yes they do. Google hired the very same company that sent letters from dead people.

      bogus TCO studies,

      They aren't afraid of misleading TCO studies, by counting unpatched, pirated IIS servers as affecting the TCO of Windows Server.

      bogus benchmark studies,

      They do that, too.

      bribing public officials,

      There've been allegations of this in China and of media bribery in the US. They're one of the top DNC contributors, as well, which in my view boils down to bribery.

      outright lying to the US-DoJ,

      Of course they do that.

      and so much more.

      Sharing board members with nominal competitors, swiping copyrighted work, the whole AdWord thing going on, and so much more.

    34. Re:Google in trouble? by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      By making document formats convoluted and sometimes impossible to implement fully, they created a barrier to entry. By implenting internet explorer into the OS so deep that you can't work around it sometimes also makes it hard to not have to use it at least once in a while. The list goes on, when is the last time your couldn't just go around and find the same thing on yahoo,google,bing because they have some proprietary results you can reimplemented without breaking some sort of patent, agreement or something similar. The closest thing I can think of is Google book search where they are trying to get exclusive rights to digitize the books. I think that one will be shutdown soon.

    35. Re:Google in trouble? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one.

      My impression was that it isn't really "cobbling" the search engines together so much as it is Yahoo switching to Bing as the search for their portal. It actually makes some sense that way, as Yahoo gets more relevant search results which would hopefully let them keep their portal popular, and Microsoft gets all Yahoo portal users to use Bing.

    36. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      I can't say I've ever even seen anyone complain about either company doing this o_O What are you talking about, and why is this supposed to be a problem? :S

      Are we visiting the same site? People mock Microsoft for MSN Search/Bing, Windows Mobile, Silverlight, the Xbox, all the research lab projects it announces that never go anywhere, and more, which have all had varying levels of success in the market.

      By the way, those smilies come off as an obnoxious 12-year-old girl.

      Having a large platform is fine, if it's based on open standards, and people using third party clients and servers aren't shunned

      Google only uses "open standards" when it suits it. They haven't open sourced their search engine, have they? Google is an advertising company that makes money through ads and data collection, and they leverage their hugeness as a search company all the time to push other products that contribute to their revenue.

    37. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      Aaaaand here come the Google fanbois to the rescue. Microsoft is evil, but Google is okay!

      1. They don't charge for those side products, if you don't like them don't use them. Unlike overpriced software you're forced to deal with because it truly does have a monopoly on office software.

      Google has a search monopoly and is already under investigation, as reported on Slashdot. Google DOES charge for those side products--they charge advertisers. Google is an advertising company, so the expenses of their software development are made up by charging for ad views and data collection. They're not giving away software for free from the goodness of their hearts.

      2. The first step to anything google is to manually go to google.com. Microsoft comes installed into almost every premade computer, with it's own software like IE and Outlook pre installed as defaults and using their services as default.

      So what? Microsoft is free to add value to Windows by including an email client and a web browser. You guys are the ones who bash them for it, and I'm saying you don't bash Google for doing the same thing. You think Chrome OS is going to include the option for using Bing or Silverlight?

      3. Google gives a very clear policy [google.com] on what information they save and why.

      This is exactly what I was mocking. You guys don't trust anything Microsoft says, but you trust everything Google says. Google knows more about you than the NSA does, and they've given into government requests for information in the past. They're collecting data on you in order to make money and sell advertising. You only defend Google because they get hyped up by Slashdot as a Linux-using company that's taking on Microsoft.

      Why don't you look up some of the stories about Google closing AdSense accounts for no reason or warning and not returning the money? How about the infamous cookie they store on your computer? Did you know Gmail parses all your email to deliver relevant ads and stores your messages indefinitely? Did you know Privacy International ranked Google "Hostile to Privacy" in 2007, the lowest rating available and the only company to receive that rating? What about censoring its search results to meet foreign demands?

      All of this is stuff you'd criticize other companies for--especially Microsoft--but for some reason Google gets your praise.

    38. Re:Google in trouble? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The radio station I listen to started doing ads for Bing, and one of the guys doing the ad makes a couple dirty comments about the name. Of course the guy is well-known for making dirty comments, but it's still funny to hear them during a paid ad.

    39. Re:Google in trouble? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Don't feed the trolls.

    40. Re:Google in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like chocolate is inferior.

    41. Re:Google in trouble? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      You say that like chocolate is inferior.

      If it's milk chocolate, that is quite true. Dark chocolate is another matter entirely. Milk chocolate always needs something to help it along (peanut butter, caramel, whatever). Dark chocolate, however, can be eaten straight, and be enjoyed without anything else as a crutch.

    42. Re:Google in trouble? by shish · · Score: 1

      Are we visiting the same site? People mock Microsoft for MSN Search/Bing, Windows Mobile, Silverlight, the Xbox, all the research lab projects it announces that never go anywhere, and more, which have all had varying levels of success in the market.

      Yes, people complain about those all the time, generally because they're technically poor -- I've never seen someone complain about them because of their "levels of success in the market". You seem to be implying things like "Microsoft are evil because the xbox was a commercial failure", which not only have I never seen anyone say, but also doesn't even make sense.

      By the way, those smilies come off as an obnoxious 12-year-old girl.

      And irrelevant personal attacks come off as douchey :-P But hey, maybe I am an obnoxious 12-year-old girl, doesn't make my points any less valid~

      Google only uses "open standards" when it suits it

      Their email service speaks IMAP and POP (not sure what hotmail does), their web pages are cross-browser HTML (whereas microsoft's have a history of not only being broken in non-IE browsers, but being *deliberately* broken), their chat network is the standardised XMPP (as opposed to the closed MSN with a history of locking out unofficial clients), and when they wanted to extend that they published specs for the extensions (as opposed to keeping extensions proprietary to lock in users and extinguish other clients), when they want a new protocol (eg wave) it comes with open specs and an open source server for reference... Really not sure how you can say that google and MS are acting the same here.

      Come to think of it, can you list the google products that only speak closed protocols, and the MS ones which only speak open ones? Off the top of my head I can't think of any...

      They haven't open sourced their search engine, have they?

      As long as it speaks standard protocols, the fact that their end is closed source isn't a problem -- open protocols means I'm free to choose what software (eg, browser) runs on my PC, and if I stop liking their search then I'm not locked to them, I can use any other server which speaks the standards.

      Google is an advertising company that makes money through ads and data collection, and they leverage their hugeness as a search company all the time to push other products that contribute to their revenue.

      They advertise their other products all the time, yes; I've never seen them say "you can only have product X if you first pay for unrelated product Y" though, or bundle two completely separate apps together with no option to have them individually, or push products which only speak closed protocols thus locking you to that product family forever, etc...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    43. Re:Google in trouble? by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Oh. Gee.

    44. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      Yes, people complain about those all the time, generally because they're technically poor -- I've never seen someone complain about them because of their "levels of success in the market". You seem to be implying things like "Microsoft are evil because the xbox was a commercial failure", which not only have I never seen anyone say, but also doesn't even make sense.

      People make the same complaints about Google. You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.

      And irrelevant personal attacks come off as douchey :-P But hey, maybe I am an obnoxious 12-year-old girl, doesn't make my points any less valid~

      Crap like "O_o" is annoying to read.

      Their email service speaks IMAP and POP (not sure what hotmail does), their web pages are cross-browser HTML (whereas microsoft's have a history of not only being broken in non-IE browsers, but being *deliberately* broken), their chat network is the standardised XMPP (as opposed to the closed MSN with a history of locking out unofficial clients), and when they wanted to extend that they published specs for the extensions (as opposed to keeping extensions proprietary to lock in users and extinguish other clients), when they want a new protocol (eg wave) it comes with open specs and an open source server for reference... Really not sure how you can say that google and MS are acting the same here.

      Where is the open source release of Google's server code? Did you know that the GPL doesn't require release of code for remotely accessed software, so Google keeps it all closed? Did you know Google Code won't even accept the GPL Affero license that closes that loophole?

      All you listed was email, HTML, and XMPP. Those are standards that everyone already used, and Google wants its ads on what everyone is using. Google isn't doing all this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're an advertising company with an IPO. They're only open when it suits them--that's why the other stuff remains closed source and proprietary.

      As long as it speaks standard protocols, the fact that their end is closed source isn't a problem -- open protocols means I'm free to choose what software (eg, browser) runs on my PC, and if I stop liking their search then I'm not locked to them, I can use any other server which speaks the standards.

      "Speaks standard protocols?" Do you even understand what I'm talking about? Google's core product is closed source, just like Microsoft. I can't install my own Google search engine on a server at home.

      As for the rest of the paragraph, you're getting into monopoly territory which wasn't the point I was making. My point was that Google does many of the things Microsoft is criticized for doing--trying to tie products together to create a giant advertising platform, putting out a bunch of non-core products that go nowhere, and collecting user data for its own money-making purposes.

      They advertise their other products all the time, yes; I've never seen them say "you can only have product X if you first pay for unrelated product Y" though, or bundle two completely separate apps together with no option to have them individually, or push products which only speak closed protocols thus locking you to that product family forever, etc...

      Then you're purposely not looking because you're a fanboy, which was my original point.

    45. Re:Google in trouble? by shish · · Score: 1

      People make the same complaints about Google. You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.

      People make what complaints about both MS and google? Your first post seemed to imply "Company X are evil because not all of their products are successes", which I've still never seen said about either company, and I still don't see any logic in.

      Crap like "O_o" is annoying to read.

      So are irrelevant personal attacks ^_^

      Where is the open source release of Google's server code?

      As said; yes it's closed source, but closed source isn't a problem -- closed standards and vendor lock-in are.

      Did you know that the GPL doesn't require release of code for remotely accessed software, so Google keeps it all closed? Did you know Google Code won't even accept the GPL Affero license that closes that loophole?

      Yes, I know this, and I still don't care. Their company could explode and their products rot, but as long as I've stuck with open standards, I'm free to switch to an alternative.

      All you listed was email, HTML, and XMPP. Those are standards that everyone already used, and Google wants its ads on what everyone is using

      At the time it was created, an ad-supported webmail service with IMAP access was pretty new. Also, their IMAP interface doesn't have any ads (or at least didn't last I checked, it has been a year or so since I tried it).

      I also mentioned Wave, which is a standard that nobody already used. I then went and attempted to do your research for you, looking for closed google specs to cite -- first thing I randomly picked was google earth, turns out that that's spawned an open standard too.

      [Stuff you say is off topic snipped]

      My point was that Google does many of the things Microsoft is criticized for doing--trying to tie products together to create a giant advertising platform

      As said, I've never seen MS criticised "for creating a giant advertising platform", only "for creating a giant lock-in platform" -- different things.

      putting out a bunch of non-core products that go nowhere

      I've also never seen MS criticised "for making non-core products", only "for making extra products to push a competitor out of business and then dropping them" -- also different things.

      and collecting user data for its own money-making purposes.

      One out of three I think is a good point -- however, I do see this point frequently made in comments, which goes against your original "slashdot <3 google" point :-P

      Then you're purposely not looking because you're a fanboy, which was my original point.

      Or I'm purposely not looking because I can't be arsed -- I've seen their major products, and based my points on observations of them, just as I've based my points on MS's most popular and visible products. If there are secretly hundreds of closed google products and open MS products, then since you're the one making the point, I'm expecting you to be the one who points them out.

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    46. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      People make what complaints about both MS and google? Your first post seemed to imply "Company X are evil because not all of their products are successes", which I've still never seen said about either company, and I still don't see any logic in.

      I didn't even use the word "evil."

      Microsoft is often criticized by analysts for having too many employees and an unfocused product line. Too many products, too many updates, too many platforms, too many frameworks. They often make research lab announcements about things that never see the light of day. They have their hand in game consoles, mobile phones, music players, tablet PCs, and so on. However, their core business is still Windows and Office. This is why they're often criticized.

      They're also criticized for having no cultural taste and a cumbersome hierarchy that gets in the way of their development process. They hold dozens of meetings for pointless things.

      Google is doing the same thing. They're putting out a lot of side products that do nothing, which dilutes the brand and the platform they're trying to build. And Google's lead designer left Google because he said working at Google was frustrating. Google actually ran focus group tests on 41 shades of blue. This is the kind of stuff you hear about at Microsoft and laugh at (such as when the Microsoft developer posted on his blog about the lengthy design process behind the Vista shutdown menu).

      Google and Microsoft are both giant, bloated corporations looking out for themselves. Google just happens to have a different market than Microsoft that affords them the ability to offer services for free in exchange for valuable advertising space. That's the only reason Google uses some open standards.

      As said; yes it's closed source, but closed source isn't a problem -- closed standards and vendor lock-in are.

      Which is what Google uses. They only use open standards when it suits them, such as to sell web advertisements or collect user information.

      Yes, I know this, and I still don't care.

      And that was my point about Google fanboys.

      Their company could explode and their products rot, but as long as I've stuck with open standards, I'm free to switch to an alternative.

      It's interesting that you think you're free to switch to an alternative if all your data is kept on Google servers. If Google explodes, your Gmail is gone forever, your bookmarks are lost, your RSS feeds destroyed, your YouTube subscriptions evaporated, and so on. "Cloud computing" is putting all your data in the hands of a self-serving company that wants to make money. Again, people on Slashdot mock Microsoft for lock-in and money interests, yet Google is even worse because they discourage you from local copies of your data.

      At the time it was created, an ad-supported webmail service with IMAP access was pretty new. Also, their IMAP interface doesn't have any ads (or at least didn't last I checked, it has been a year or so since I tried it).

      Gmail didn't even have IMAP until October of 2007. They were forced to implement it when other web mail services began to offer it as a service. They're fine with allowing you to access via a desktop client, because they still index your email and deliver relevant ads when you use other Google sites such as the search engine.

      [Stuff you say is off topic snipped]

      Just as I thought. You don't actually know what "speaks open protocols" means. Google's propietary search engine isn't speaking any open protocols other than the HTML it spits out at you.

      I also mentioned Wave, which is a standard that nobody already used. I then went and attempted to do your research for you, looking for closed google specs to cite

    47. Re:Google in trouble? by shish · · Score: 1

      They're putting out a lot of side products that do nothing, which dilutes the brand and the platform they're trying to build.
      ...
      If you haven't heard this stuff said about Microsof, I don't know what to tell you, because it's one of the most common complaints about the fumbling Ballmer era.

      Ok, that's at least something negative; but in all my time reading slashdot comments (at +2, perhaps that plays a major part?) I still don't remember this being a widely made complaint, amongst google fanboys or anyone else. And until one of us figures out a way to accurately survey slashdot's collective opinions, I shall counter the useless "you're blind" with the equally useless "you're imagining things" :-P

      It's interesting that you think you're free to switch to an alternative if all your data is kept on Google servers.

      Just because stuff is in the cloud doesn't mean I don't have local backups too - having open protocols is what allows me to make backups, which can then be restored a different server.

      Yes, I know this, and I still don't care.

      And that was my point about Google fanboys.

      They don't care about things that you still haven't demonstrated are relevant? Good for them :-P

      [Stuff you say is off topic snipped]

      Just as I thought. You don't actually know what "speaks open protocols" means.

      WTF? You say something is missing your point, then when I drop that tangent mid-discussion, it's suddenly totally relevant and proof that the point was flawed? Sometimes an emoticon is worth a thousand words --> :-/

      ---- stuff from this point on I consider to be the biggest point; while I'd rather only discuss the biggest points and come to a conclusion, the previous text has been included anyway to demonstrate the difference between "not being able to continue" and "perfering to get to the point" ----

      They're the same thing. Microsoft's platform exists to advertise and promote Microsoft branded products--just like Google.

      Similar reasons, but different approaches -- I consider advertising to be more acceptable than DRM / undocumented binary blobs / other lock-in.

      Google's propietary search engine isn't speaking any open protocols other than the HTML it spits out at you.

      Nor do I need it to. For mail, there are clear benefits to the consumer if the server speaks IMAP (while a mail server which perfers it's own protocol is a pain in the ass). For chat, there are clear beneifts to the consumer if the server speaks XMPP (while a closed network which occasionally blocks third party clients is to their detriment). For search, there are no widely used standards, so HTML + a well documented API is the most useful for the consumer (while HTML which only works in one browser reduces consumer choice, which reduces competition, which reduces incentive to improve, which reduces the quality of the market for the consumer).

      Looking at the last two quote / reply pairs together -- Perhaps this debate is "both google and MS are selfish" ("They are the same") vs "Google's selfishness is of benefit to the consumer while MS's is against it" ("They are opposite")?

      Taken to extremes, "Company X harvests babies for free employee food, while company Y runs an orphanage and suggests that when grown up, the children work for the company (but they're free to go elsewhere)" -- yes, you would be completely right to say that both companies are only doing what they do because of their greedy self-interests, and in that respect you would be correct to say "They're the same thing", but I still think that I'd be justified in preferring to do business with the latter.

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    48. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      Ok, that's at least something negative; but in all my time reading slashdot comments (at +2, perhaps that plays a major part?) I still don't remember this being a widely made complaint, amongst google fanboys or anyone else.

      You keep saying this, but it doesn't matter. I wasn't even referring just to Slashdot.

      Just because stuff is in the cloud doesn't mean I don't have local backups too - having open protocols is what allows me to make backups, which can then be restored a different server.

      There's no such thing as "the cloud." It's just you using a server in the usual client-server paradigm. If it were actually a cloud, your data would be spread across multiple locations redundantly. You keep going on about open protocols, and I keep having to tell you that Google's core business is search and advertising, none of which is open, and that the only things that are open are things that Google wants you to use so they can index it and deliver relevant ads.

      They don't care about things that you still haven't demonstrated are relevant? Good for them :-P

      As a fanboy, of course you won't think it's relevant.

      WTF? You say something is missing your point, then when I drop that tangent mid-discussion, it's suddenly totally relevant and proof that the point was flawed? Sometimes an emoticon is worth a thousand words --> :-/

      It was always relevant. It's not my problem you dropped it. You keep claiming Google uses open protocols, and I keep pointing out to you that their search and advertising is closed. This leads me to believe you don't know what "speaking open protocols" means.

      Similar reasons, but different approaches -- I consider advertising to be more acceptable than DRM / undocumented binary blobs / other lock-in.

      As a fanboy, of course you'll find Google's methods acceptable. As for lock-in, you didn't answer my question about which search engine comes up when you enter a search term into the Chrome browser. I'll assume you had no counterargument for that point.

      Nor do I need it to.

      It doesn't matter what you need Google's search to do. The point is that you keep saying Google is all about open protocols, and I keep having to point out to you that their core businesses are entirely closed off. They only use open protocols as an advertising vehicle to get eyeballs for their marketing space. That's why Gmail and the other services exist.

      For mail, there are clear benefits to the consumer if the server speaks IMAP (while a mail server which perfers it's own protocol is a pain in the ass). For chat, there are clear beneifts to the consumer if the server speaks XMPP (while a closed network which occasionally blocks third party clients is to their detriment). For search, there are no widely used standards, so HTML + a well documented API is the most useful for the consumer (while HTML which only works in one browser reduces consumer choice, which reduces competition, which reduces incentive to improve, which reduces the quality of the market for the consumer).

      I've already explained why Gmail and the other non-core services exist. The rest of your paragraph was completely irrelevant, discussing the HTML pages they spit back at you and ignoring--once again--that the indexing engine itself is closed off. If you think a public API is good enough, then how is that any different from Windows? I could say Windows uses "open protocols" because anyone can program using Win32.

      The rest of your post was gibberish. The point remains--Google is a selfish advertising company that gets a pass on things Microsoft has been criticized for during the Ballmer era.

    49. Re:Google in trouble? by shish · · Score: 1

      You keep saying this, but it doesn't matter. I wasn't even referring just to Slashdot.

      Ummm... ok, I've obviously forgotten what your point was. Let's look at the first post to see what your point is...

      It's interesting how people side with Google on this site [Slashdot]

      Are we visiting the same site [Slashdot]?

      Ok, so maybe that's not your point. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that "this site" = "Slashdot". Let's look at your posts for where you say clearly and explicitly what your point is.

      You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.

      Oh.

      It was always relevant.

      Ok, so when I was talking about monopoly territory, that was the point you were making?

      you're getting into monopoly territory which wasn't the point I was making

      Oh.

      You keep claiming Google uses open protocols, and I keep pointing out to you that their search and advertising is closed

      Beacuse search and advertising are the only thing that google do, and everything else is insignificant and ignorable?

      Too many products, too many updates, too many platforms, too many frameworks.

      Oh.

      As a fanboy, of course you'll find Google's methods acceptable.

      I'm pretty sure that any logical person would prefer advertising to DRM and proprietary format lock-in

      They only use open protocols as an advertising vehicle to get eyeballs for their marketing space. That's why Gmail and the other services exist.

      Their code hosting service seems to be ad-free and unlinked to the main search engine; their widget toolkit can be used without ads or link to them; GsoC not only seems non-profit, but actually more of a money black-hole. Yes, you can argue that things like these will benefit them in roundabout ways in the long run; but I'd rather work with a company that benefits the whole open community (selfishly, because they're a part of it) than a company who's selfishness is manifested as only helping themselves.

      As for lock-in, you didn't answer my question about which search engine comes up when you enter a search term into the Chrome browser. I'll assume you had no counterargument for that point.

      Assuming makes an ass out of you :-P Actually I didn't answer because I thought it was rhetorical. As to the point that I think you're getting at -- yes, it defaults to google. I'm free to change that to any other search engine. Hell, if I so much as browse to another site which supports the OpenSearch standard, then that search engine will be automatically added to the list of alternatives. You call that lock-in?

      I could say Windows uses "open protocols" because anyone can program using Win32.

      You would be correct to say that the win32 API is open (although the WINE people might have something to say about the completeness of the documentation...), but that still leaves the major protocols of SMB, AD, MAPI, MSN, and a lot of minor protocols too.

      The rest of your post was gibberish.

      As an "anti-fanboy"-fanboy, of course you'd find anything which doesn't fit your views to be gibberish :-P If you're still having difficulty understanding, see the final sentance in this post for the point made as simply and clearly as possible.

      The point remains--Google is a selfish advertising company that gets a pass on things Microsoft has been criticized for during the Ballmer era.

      For clarity: Yes, both companies are designed to be selfish and only in it for themselves, and they do have some things in common. But their core business methods are implemented differently (closed s

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    50. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      Ummm... ok, I've obviously forgotten what your point was. Let's look at the first post to see what your point is...

      Since you need things explained so often, I'll list it chronologically:

      1.) My point was that people give Google a pass for many of the things Microsoft is criticized for.
      2.) You said you never saw those Microsoft complaints.
      3.) I list them and said those complaints are made everywhere, not just Slashdot.

      Ok, so maybe that's not your point. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that "this site" = "Slashdot". Let's look at your posts for where you say clearly and explicitly what your point is.

      Since you need things spelled out for you so often, I'll clarify again what my point was. It involved the following premises:

      1.) People in the tech world often criticize Microsoft for certain things.
      2.) Google is guilty of many of those things.
      3.) On Slashdot, you don't see Google criticized for those things, even though they're guilty of them. However, you do see Microsoft criticized for them.
      4.) This is what we call a "double-standard."

      Ok, so when I was talking about monopoly territory, that was the point you were making?

      Again, you demonstrate your inability to follow a conversation. You have apparently forgotten what you were even talking about in your own posts--open protocols.

      Beacuse search and advertising are the only thing that google do, and everything else is insignificant and ignorable?

      Exactly. Search and advertising are Google's core business, and everything else is intended to push their search and advertising on consumers.

      I'm pretty sure that any logical person would prefer advertising to DRM and proprietary format lock-in

      Once again, you ignore the fact that Google's search engine is closed and proprietary, its source code kept under lock and key due to Google's exploitation of a GPL loophole. According to your logic, Google is still open because its proprietary engine communicates with the world using protocols anyone else can use. That means Windows must be as open as Google, because it speaks through the Win32 APIs, which anyone can use to develop on Windows for free using Visual Studio Express, as well as the officially standardized .NET API. But you wouldn't consider that being open, would you?

      Their code hosting service seems to be ad-free and unlinked to the main search engine

      Have you even heard of Google Code Search? Google indexes everything.

      their widget toolkit can be used without ads or link to them; GsoC not only seems non-profit, but actually more of a money black-hole. Yes, you can argue that things like these will benefit them in roundabout ways in the long run; but I'd rather work with a company that benefits the whole open community (selfishly, because they're a part of it) than a company who's selfishness is manifested as only helping themselves.

      Of course you would rather "work with" Google. We've already established that you're a Google fanboy who blindly accepts anything and everything they do as benevolent and wonderful, beneficial to the community at large.

      Assuming makes an ass out of you :-P Actually I didn't answer because I thought it was rhetorical. As to the point that I think you're getting at -- yes, it defaults to google. I'm free to change that to any other search engine. Hell, if I so much as browse to another site which supports the OpenSearch standard, then that search engine will be automatically added to the list of alternatives. You call that lock-in?

      And again, by that logic, Windows Internet Explorer is as open as Google, because you can change the search engine. "You call that lock-in?"

    51. Re:Google in trouble? by shish · · Score: 1

      [List of comparison points, where every point lists google as either more open, or at worst, equally closed]

      All completely irrelevant facts. Google is just as closed as Microsoft.

      Ok, I give up. If you completely ignore the giant list of ways that google are more open than MS, then they aren't more open than MS. You win.

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    52. Re:Google in trouble? by bonch · · Score: 1

      Basically, you have no counterargument, so you're trying to get out of the debate by claiming I'm "ignoring" something. You're the one ignoring Google's similarities to Microsoft. I've already explained, over and over, why Google offers its free services and how it doesn't make them less self-serving than Microsoft. I've explained how Google's core business--search and advertising--is as closed as Microsoft's core business.

      You choose to ignore it all because you adore Google.

  8. Everybody needs competition by nitroamos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    including Google.

    1. Re:Everybody needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      When that competition arrives, I expect to read about it here, today is not that day.

    2. Re:Everybody needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still need to learn how to read?

    3. Re:Everybody needs competition by Korbeau · · Score: 1

      What is this Google thing you are talking about? Should I Yahoo it?

    4. Re:Everybody needs competition by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Bring up your preferred search engine and do a search of the Internet for more info.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Everybody needs competition by nazsco · · Score: 1

      What is this Google thing you are talking about? Should I Yahoo it?

      ...you mean Bing it?

    6. Re:Everybody needs competition by ashtophoenix · · Score: 1

      Well, how is a collaboration of MS and Yahoo and replacement of Yahoo as its default engine more competition? Isn't it *less* competition? Previously we had Yahoo as well as MSN (or Bing if you'd rather call it that) competing with Google (albeit they offered negligible competition), but now you might end up with *just* ... well...Bing!

      --
      Life is about being a Phoenix!
    7. Re:Everybody needs competition by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      If there was competition yesterday (Yahoo AND Bing engines), there is *LESS* competition today.

    8. Re:Everybody needs competition by jawahar · · Score: 1

      Isn't this deal between Microsoft and Yahoo collusive instead of competitive?

  9. Tech version of Stearns County Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is why we don't allow cousins to marry...

    What strange mutations/recessive genes are we going to see sprout out of all this coupling???

    1. Re:Tech version of Stearns County Syndrome by Yvan256 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Either Yahing or Boo!

    2. Re:Tech version of Stearns County Syndrome by sonicmerlin · · Score: 0

      Hey, cousins marry all the time in the rest of the world. Studies have demonstrated no genetic "inbreeding" issues arise from first cousins having children.

    3. Re:Tech version of Stearns County Syndrome by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Hey, cousins marry all the time in the rest of the world. Studies have demonstrated no genetic "inbreeding" issues arise from first cousins having children.

      Bullshit!
      http://books.google.ca/books?id=tTz4-MmNwzkC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=first+cousins+recessive+genes&source=bl&ots=zmwsEcZ601&sig=29u4SAuwaRFyznVKYwH0XEXs57c&hl=en&ei=VztwSoPtEJ-qtgflqf39DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

      The actual figure, from the study, is that it doubles the risk of recessive genes being expressed.

  10. Two wrongs don't make a right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But two trains traveling a break-neck speeds towards each other with no sign of stopping makes me feel like throwing some popcorn in the microwave.

  11. Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I switched from Google to Yahoo! search recently because Yahoo! promised to discard user search data after 3 months. I'm guessing that the switch to Bing negates that promise, so what search engine(s) are left that are both useful & ethical?

    1. Re:Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      scroogle is a good search engine. http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html

    2. Re:Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by vain+gloria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Cuil was launched last year with great fanfare regarding its privacy policy which promised not to track users' personally identifiable information. See their current policy alongside a warning that it is soon to change somehow here: http://www.cuil.com/info/privacy/

      I use and normally recommend Clusty which says in plain English that "We at Clusty don't track you." (http://clusty.com/privacy) and in legalese that they do collect "Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, referral data, the date and time of your query and one or more cookies (described below) that may uniquely identify your browser" (http://clusty.com/privacypolicy).

      That's either ethical or useful for you. tl;dr - one beginning with "C".

    3. Re:Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Why can't you just block cookies, or am I missing something here?

      Hopefully this provides the competition Google needs to better their search results.

    4. Re:Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      You could check out https://startpage.com./

      (I have not tried to verify their service claims.)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    5. Re:Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Do they still keep it if you change your Google search history settings to not save past searches under account settings?

    6. Re:Yahoo's promise to discard data after 3 months? by kamatsu · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but there is no guarantee that it is completely gone, or at least not yet.

  12. Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yahcrsoft or Microhoo!? Which name are they going with?

    Or Yahsoft? Or Microshoo?

    Binghoosoft?

    Anyone?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by kinabrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bob

    2. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like "Anyone" the best.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyone but..."

    4. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Panzor · · Score: 1

      Colbert?

    5. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bing - Bing is not Google.

      Its recursive and good enough.

    6. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by trouser · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microyahtzeehooshat.

      --
      Now wash your hands.
    7. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Taikutusu · · Score: 1

      Yahoosoft.

      Just think of it in sexual terms, and the joke will come.

    8. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

      Which name are they going with?

      Bendover.
      They'll deliver a personalized bendover search, if you like/want that sort of thing.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    9. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i prefer mircomonopolyhoo

    10. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I like HooBing myself.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingoo!

    12. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by ggeens · · Score: 1

      Which name are they going with?

      Microsoft. Don't say you expected anything else.

      (Not sure where I first saw it. Either UserFriendly or Groklaw.)

      --
      WWTTD?
    13. Re:Yahcrosoft or Microhoo!? by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      Bing My Yahoo!

  13. How does one Bing a Google? Yahoo! by Noodly+Appendage · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now how to explain this to Grandma with out her looking at me more stranger than usual. Hmm.

    1. Re:How does one Bing a Google? Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful bending over in that garden, Granny, ya know them 'taters got eyes.

  14. Re:I just asked Google if it had any reason to wor by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

    If that's true, it missed the antitrust investigation against them.

  15. this deal may... by grrrl · · Score: 1

    ... or, more likely, will not give Google anything to worry about. at all.

  16. What ddoes Yahoo! actually do? by seifried · · Score: 1

    Seriously, they used to be a search company, but don't do search technology anymore, so what are they, just a portal/email provider now?

    1. Re:What ddoes Yahoo! actually do? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      Seriously, they used to be a search company, but don't do search technology anymore, so what are they, just a portal/email provider now?

      You clearly lack memory or the understanding of the term 'now'.

  17. Not a buyout by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft isn't buying Yahoo...they're just merging their bank accounts and Yahoo is adopting Microsoft's competing technology.
    Makes perfect sense to me.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  18. Great by Kamineko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people here are saying that the quality of Bing results is comparable to Google's results in many cases. If we assume that's true, then Yahoo will become exactly like it was several years ago when it was using Google. As a Yahoo service, it'll still be covered in crap, and all that'll do is make people go to Bing, like Yahoo's use of Google lead to folks to use Google ("it's like Yahoo's search, but not crap!"). That'll work wonders for Yahoo. Again.

  19. Re:I just asked Google if it had any reason to wor by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I searched "Google antitrust investigation" and it returned this image

  20. I don't get it... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bing isn't really better than Yahoo's search it is? What's more, what about foreign-language searching? Yahoo is the only search engine that has spent significant resources improving their Japanese search results, for example. (Google is beginning to do this, but their search results still suck badly.) I imagine Bing would be a big step backward for most people outside the U.S.

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    1. Re:I don't get it... by KamuZ · · Score: 1

      Well i think the improvement on Japanese search results is because Yahoo is HUGE in Japan, number #1 search engine and offers a lot of useful services for PC and mobile users. I think Google is pushing harder to be #1 in Japan so we should see improvements in the near future.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by rampant+mac · · Score: 0

      "...improving their Japanese search results, for example. (Google is beginning to do this, but their search results still suck badly.)"

      Because googling "I want to stick my tentacles in $1" isn't easy, even for Google?

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    3. Re:I don't get it... by JanneM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agree on this. Yahoo is much better than Google for Japanese language search (and Google translate is a sad joke for Japanese; even when I take the time to read through the Japanese original I can often still not make sense of the English "translation"). There's going to be a lot of unhappy people here if they manage to bork that up.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:I don't get it... by Jeeeb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yahoo Japan is somewhat separate from the main company. I doubt this deal will affect them.

      On a side note Yahoo's Japanese search isn't as great as people make it out to be. Here's an amusing exercise (For those who know Japanese):

      Go to Yahoo Japan and type in 'Kousoku Basu' (Obviously in Kanji+Kana). Look through the results and note carefully that Yahoo's own (very comprehensive) domestic bus search + booking service doesn't come up. At least not in the first 4 pages of results I looked at. Also for amusement note that Rakutens does. If you want the yahoo page you have to type 'Kokunai Kousoku Basu' (Again Kanji+Kana). In which case it's the first result after the advertising.

      Seriously you'd think Yahoo would be able to get their own house in order and promote their own services.

    5. Re:I don't get it... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know Yahoo's Japanese search isn't perfect -- they probably haven't manually seeded the results to make sure their own services come up, like in the example you gave -- but all Google gives you for most searches is several pages of irrelevant blog postings. Yahoo's normalization of Japanese search queries (searching for the kanji version of a kana query or vice versa, for example) used to be a lot better than Google's, although Google has improved on that score. But has Bing done any normalization in Japanese at all? As you say, Yahoo Japan is sort of a separate company; hopefully they'll keep the same search engine around until Bing exceeds it capability-wise.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    6. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you mean www.yahoo.co.jp, it is a seperate Japanese company from the entire Yahoo! empire. Nevertheless to say that a Japan company running a Japanese site better then a US company running a site in seperate different machine-translated languages.

  21. Well, it was nice while it lasted by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 0, Troll
    I like yahoo because it returns relevant results, and isn't censored like google. MS's search has been a joke, ever since it started trying (though, they did try hard, for them...even searching their own KB database is easier/more relevant using google or yahoo). Yahoo's web search results, images, video I find are precisely what I am looking for without obtrusive advertising. I don't really like google, because its policy of Do No Evil (TM) has gone by the wayside in recent years. MS is more about showing obnoxious ads, archaic results, and letting companies pay them than actually providing accurate search results.

    I guess like everything else these days, I have to go with the lesser of the standing evils. Google, I hate you, but, I must hate you less than Microsoft + Yahoo if I'm willing to switch.

    1. Re:Well, it was nice while it lasted by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you mean "has gone by the wayside"? Could you specify what in the world you're talking about?

    2. Re:Well, it was nice while it lasted by StoneCrusher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could you please elaborate where Google has "Done More Evil". People questioned the privacy of their searches and they have since stated their privacy terms clearly (years ago). Google has advocated more open format and open source solutions backed with real money and development. They lobby for net neutrality and open access. I really don't see how they are doing evil.

      People have to get used to the idea that if you type information into a website, that website has that information. It's pretty straight forward and there is no way around it. Even if they state they they will delete it, you can't verify that they have and should treat it as such. If you want to remain untrackable from any service, you have to use a proxy; end of story. PS. There isn't a shred of evidence that Google doesn't abide by their terms of service.

      Without a specific grievance, it sounds like you are just rebelling against the popular and successful to make yourself feel special.

    3. Re:Well, it was nice while it lasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work for Google?

    4. Re:Well, it was nice while it lasted by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      The two guys that started google said that they'd run the company in the most benevolent way. Now, it's positioned to take over the world.

  22. Google Is A Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully Google will be brought down a notch or two by this deal that they're reaching. Google is definitely a monopoly and Yahoo and MSN should at least be competing with them. I'm in Internet Marketing and everybody talks about Google, and panics when Google makes changes to their advertising platform or raises bid prices. They're just too big right now and some competition would be great.

    1. Re:Google Is A Monopoly by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      Except looking at the larger picture, Microsoft is still a monopoly in the desktop world, browser world ...... helping them obtain more market monopolies isn't a good idea. I understand why people in the advertising community don't like the current situation considering they have to use Google to reach a significant part of the internet population but at the same time, this isn't because of actual barriers on user choice. If I want to use bing I can, nothing on Google (search that is) is really retaining me other than it's familiar and has proven itself for years. They are selling me to you and frankly they aren't preventing anyone in advertising from user competitors but they do have a larger audience to offer. You still have a choice albeit equivalent to the current choice of developing software for the mac or windows platform and Linux too. I'm not sure I understand how it's on the same level as other major monopolies of the past. Also wtf would Microsoft be allowed to do the exact same thing Google tried to do a year or so ago. Microsoft hasn't proven itself to be any less of a monopolistic company and they are using the internet to add power to their already large clout.

    2. Re:Google Is A Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what the word monopoly actually means? You use the word 4 times in your comment, and in 3 of them you seem to not understand the basic definition.

  23. Good news for Flickr by iamapizza · · Score: 1

    This could be good news for Flickr - hopefully they'll get rid of that godawful Yahoo Maps implementation on flickr for geotagging and searching, and use Virtual Earth Maps instead. That's right, I said Virtual Earth Maps, not what it's called currently.

    --
    Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
  24. If you can't beat them.... by kernel+panic+attack · · Score: 1

    then bully them into a buyout... RIP Yahoo! Nice knowing you. Jerry Yang may have pissed off his share holders, but he was doing the right thing I my view. Guess his legacy will be ....Bing? Please..... Now who's looking for a chair to throw....

  25. What happened to Cuil by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    I remember back when they had 20 million in start up money, and were poised to bring Google to their knees (or so ppl said). Whatever happened with that?

    1. Re:What happened to Cuil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was an epic fail

    2. Re:What happened to Cuil by iamapizza · · Score: 3, Funny

      They got slashdotted.

      --
      Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    3. Re:What happened to Cuil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever see the results page?

    4. Re:What happened to Cuil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck are you supposed to pronounce that name?

  26. Wow! Now THAT's desperation! by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    They need SOMEONE to hit bling every time the browser comes up; that crowd will likely give them plenty of hits.

    I don't know why they just don't force it as the IE start page...oh, wait: that's MSN.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  27. Will Bing get better? by MikeFM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have you used Bing? It kind of sucks. I can only hope it gets better but I don't know - lots of people complain it won't index their websites although I've had no trouble in that area.

    Or maybe I just search for things it isn't good at - things I want to buy and documentation mostly. The most amusing was the other day when I tried looking up information about Bing's spiders (that behave oddly - not always following robots.txt and changing their user agent to look like IE). Couldn't find a thing on Bing but Google found it right away. Conspiracy to hide the information or suckage?

    That's another interesting point. Why is Bing hitting my site again and again and making it look like real users using simple one word searches but all from the Bing IP block? When I try to use the same searches to find the same pages I don't see my site come up. Hmmm. Either way it's easier for webmasters if everyone just licenses one or two major search engines (Google and Bing) so that you only have to optimize your content to be listed high on them. It's hard when they all work different and sometimes in conflicting ways.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Will Bing get better? by jonadab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Conspiracy to hide the information or suckage?

      The latter, probably caused by the well-known fact that Microsoft is strongly focused on non-technical users. Obviously technical information about search-engine indexing practices isn't the sort of thing most end users would search for, so Microsoft doesn't care whether it works well or not.

      If they wanted to *hide* the information, they'd try to keep it out of the search engines that people who *would* look for such information are most likely to use, chiefly Google. In the absence of any evidence that they've attempted that, I would tend to discount the notion that the poor results in Bing are a deliberate obfuscation, in favor of the more likely explanation that they just don't care whether it's any good at turning up technical information.

      If you search on Bing for DateTime module, the docs for the Perl and Python DateTime modules do show up, but at #4 and #2, respectively. The same search on Google, predictably, turns them up at #2 and #1. Of course, anyone who actually uses Perl would go straight to search.cpan.org (personally, I have a bookmark keyword for it), and I suspect the Python community has something similar (at least, I would hope so). Nonetheless, Bing's relevancy ranking isn't putting the canonical information first, and Google's is.

      I tried searching for Encyclopedia, and the top four results are encyclopedia.com (never heard of it, but it does appear to be relevant, albeit not great; I looked up mitosis in it and got eight paragraphs from Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, which is a pretty meager article for such a major topic, but it would be enough for most gradeschool reports), the Wikipedia article on Encyclopedia, the Britannica main page, and the English Wikipedia main page, in that order. So again, the two that obviously ought to be in the top four results are there. Actually, I tried the same thing on Google, and its ranking is just about the same (with, again, encyclopedia.com in the top slot; I have no idea why, unless having the search term in the domain name is a major boost).

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    2. Re:Will Bing get better? by xtracto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you used Bing? It kind of sucks. I can only hope it gets better but I don't know - lots of people complain it won't index their websites although I've had no trouble in that area.

      Yep, I have used it. I like the maps.bing.com feature of "bird's eye view" which makes it easier to recognize a place I am going to before being there.

      Also, I have lately been using it in place of Google search to avoid the miriads of spam sites (say, if you want to find *that* video in Rapidshare, or *that* hardware driver for win xp). One of the advantages of Bing (for now at least) is that it has not been invaded with "search optimized" crap sites.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Will Bing get better? by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree about Bing sucking...personally I really like it.

      I like the short 'preview' of the page in the right column. I like the photo search. I like the maps (and the aerial view is MUCH newer where I live than Google.)

      Overall, I think it is a great search engine, and it is a relief to be using something other than Google. It's not like Microsoft is any worse than other companies that have achieved a near monopoly.

      The fact that Bing is my default search engine on Chrome tells the story of how things are changing for the better.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    4. Re:Will Bing get better? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Have you used Bing? It kind of sucks. I can only hope it gets better but I don't know - lots of people complain it won't index their websites although I've had no trouble in that area.

      Ya, but its better than Live was. Yahoo I have given up on using for search years ago, it seemed on par with Live.

    5. Re:Will Bing get better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I was thinking about selling out, too.

      How much money did you get paid for your post? Was it a reasonble trade off for the value of your soul?

    6. Re:Will Bing get better? by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      if (enjoyProduct && site == "Slashdot")
      {
      if (productCompany == "Microsoft")
      astroTurfer[poster] == true;
      else
      astroTurfer[poster] == false;
      }
      I did (tried to do) that in C# so I'm astroturfing as well.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    7. Re:Will Bing get better? by JShadow · · Score: 1

      ROFL... You must be kidding.

      I'll give Bing some credit, it does try to "decide" what I'm actually searching for. However, I hate to break it to M$, my brain is a much better decision engine. Part of the beauty of what Google gives you is that you know very quickly if you need to refine your search terms, which helps you actually use your brain and learn to think about what you are trying to find. So using Google I can quickly see that I need to refine my search question to give me better results, which almost always results in very relevant results. Bing tries to think for you, but in doing so doesn't actually help you find the best results. So instead of helping me figure out how to express my search better, Bing actually gave me fewer helpful results by limiting what it returned and returning things it thought I was trying to search for.

      So no thank you Bing, I'd rather use the most powerful decision engine in existence, my brain.

    8. Re:Will Bing get better? by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1


      astroTurfer[poster] =
      (
      0=="Slashdot".CompareTo(site) ?
      ((enjoyProduct) ? ((0=="Microsoft".CompareTo(productCompany) ) ? true : false) : false) : false
      )

      This is /. afterall...

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    9. Re:Will Bing get better? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      That's cool, it doesn't work for you. But trial and error on Google does.

      Personally I like Bing. It has been my only search engine (except for the default on my Windows Mobile phone strangely) for over a month, and I miss Bing when I use my wife's computer which defaults to Google.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    10. Re:Will Bing get better? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      I wish I would get paid- because I have a lot of positive things to say about Bing and other Microsoft products.

      I don't look at them thinking, "Oh God, Microsoft is crap...." I actually use them and do comparisons with other products, then choose the one I like best.

      As I mentioned, I use Chrome on all of my computers. I hate IE. But I do use Bing. And I *like* Windows Server/IIS and SQL Server.

      MySQL, Apache, and Ubuntu are alternatives that I have tried, and disliked.

      I've also tried some of Microsoft's other tools which I hated- things like Expression Studio...not even close to Dreamweaver. I'm not a fan of Office, but I think Xbox and even Zune are fantastic.

      So if there is a program you know of, where I can get paid for spouting my opinion on Microsoft products, please let me know how to be involved.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    11. Re:Will Bing get better? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I have tried Bing, and found its results to be far inferior to google.

      Search for "v8 supercar drivers", bings results are useless and misleading. The adverts are right at the top, before the results, and both are crap and have very little to do with what I am looking for.

      Google, the first results is the main v8 supercars site about the drivers, the other results wikipedia site about the drivers, and sites about v8 supercars. Exactly what I wanted.

      Maybe search is really hard to do well. Sure, microsoft are like wolfram, they have a lot of special screens for special searches, if you are after an actor, or info on a date. Anything beyond that and they are useless.

      I think people like you who don't see a difference are either not looking hard enough, continuously searching for the most basic stuff, or a shill.

      Feel free to give an example of where bing results are better than googles. I am yet to see one.

    12. Re:Will Bing get better? by porl · · Score: 1

      that block of code actually taught me a lot, thanks! :)

    13. Re:Will Bing get better? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Having the keyword in the domain is a major boost. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    14. Re:Will Bing get better? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I think it's mostly a matter of time I think before Bing gets full of spam. From what I've seen it's more a factor of how small it's index still is.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    15. Re:Will Bing get better? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I think there is room for a better search engine still but I don't think Bing is it. At least not for me. There is room for a better engine in niche areas too and maybe they are trying for the niche of web illiterate users.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  28. A better choice... by iCantSpell · · Score: 1

    Well Yahoo just lost it's biggest user base, Japan. Yahoo in Japan is bigger than both Microsoft and Google, yahoo even provides internet, and cellphone services in Japan. It's going to be interesting to see what happens to Yahoo Japan. Yahoo search is not better than Google but in some ways out performs google when it comes to non-english results. I don't know why they would trash their so much better than bing search engine for well... bing. It's like trading in a convertable for a prius. I have used bing a few times, and I don't see why anyone would use it over Yahoo or Google. The results aren't exactly relative to the search term, and they seem to be similar to a default sql %QUERY% but that's just my opinion.

    1. Re:A better choice... by Renraku · · Score: 1

      I pretty much know what's going to happen to Yahoo in Japan.

      If Microsoft ever fully takes Yahoo over, they're going to change everything around, and it's going to end up unpopular in Japan, or just die out. This is because Microsoft will no doubt enforce their own policies and code onto Yahoo, so that we'll be forced to use the shitty hotmail engine, the shitty MSN engine, and the shitty Bing search engine who's very name sounds like something a parent would use to describe what excrement is to a toddler.

      Generally when Microsoft takes over a company, the company pretty much disappears, and MS incorporates whatever technology they had into their latest bloatware release or patch.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  29. Flickr ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " What about Flickr ?
    Will they make it as buggy as Windows too."

    ~epSos.de

  30. This deal may give Google something to worry about by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    Why would it?

    It diverts attention of competition authorities from a self-proclaimed "do no evil" search giant earning its money through rather unobtrusive advertising (and which has now even been given a reinvigorated major competitor), to a company that is no stranger to antitrust crosshairs and with a body of Findings of Fact from earlier proceedings against it.

  31. Bing vs Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bing advertises to the general masses via normal mediums. I guarantee it will gain in popularity soon. They need to improve the personalization of the Bing interface and how it integrates with MSN, then google will have something to worry about. I like some of the features I saw right away and some of the results it brought up for simple searches that I made. Google has overextended themselves recently and released a bunch of beta quality crapware that isn't worth shit. They completely ruined the iGoogle interface and there are so many quirks that piss me off and I wish I had an alternative.

    Also, having to use gmail at my job after switching from exchange has been a complete JOKE. You don't realize how good exchange and outlook are until you don't have them. Seriously, any savings from subscription fees for the year are COMPLETELY lost and then some when we factor into the man hours wasted with gmails crap software. Don't believe me? Fuck those sysadmins at our work that wanted to change so that it would work on their macs. Now, I have trouble with the calendar, random imap disconnections, and my PC freezes trying to sync my mailbox and it makes working with clients reallllly difficult. I am a software engineer for credibility's sake (although I am sure the mac loving, slashdotting syadmins here will bitch about that).

    1. Re:Bing vs Google by kamatsu · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a problem with your sysadmins. My business runs google apps software locally and it's an absolute dream.

    2. Re:Bing vs Google by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding. I use Outlook/Exchange, and have for about 9 years now, and it sucks. It sucks the most at my current employer, where clicking on a message frequently means Outlook freezes up for about 30 seconds to open the message. My Google Mail account by comparison is extremely fast and quick to work with. The only place where Outlook ever worked well for me was when I worked at Intel, and that was probably because they spent a shitload of money on fast Exchange servers. If you need to have the highest-end hardware just to get your local email client to work decently, then something's wrong.

  32. How do you measure search engine accuracy? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Does anybody have any ability to measure how good a particular search engine is? I'm not going to compare total hits, as searching for "linux" on both could result in 100m pages. Taking the reputations of the companies out of the question how do you determine which search engine is better? Do you have to know the inner workings of the algorithm to make an intelligent conclusion?

    1. Re:How do you measure search engine accuracy? by Uksi · · Score: 1

      You use the search engine to search for stuff you want to find.

      Then you measure accuracy by looking at your face:

      1) smiling face
      2) frowny face
      3) monitor been punched because you're on the 10th page and there is still nothing relevant

  33. End of Yahoo BOSS? by Memroid · · Score: 1

    What will this mean for Yahoo!'s BOSS (Build your Own Search Service)? On a related note, if Bing will become Yahoo!'s DEFAULT search engine, will they be continuing to develop their own?

    1. Re:End of Yahoo BOSS? by wdavies · · Score: 1

      Yeah this could be a big loss. I was just experimenting with some search similarity stuff, and Yahoo BOSS was orders of magnitude better than Bing and and Google in terms of result retrieval! Mod Up above please.

  34. 'This may give Google something to worry about' by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    I think google are having a party. I havent used bing yet, but the microsofties like it just as much as they liked Vista.

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
  35. Re:I just asked Google if it had any reason to wor by Hailth · · Score: 0

    Well, that's because it's revenue sharing... not innovation. All they've done is added their % of the market together, which is still the same % of the market that isn't google dominated. And somehow, agreeing to share ad revenue doesn't seem like an effective way to grow your customer base...

  36. Re:Swing by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Search-engine pr0n! Rule 34.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  37. Re:SuperInferior! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Actually, you StumbledUpon something... (sorry - bad pun.)

    Microsoft never mastered the art of naming. When they go short they get things like Zunes that squirt and Bing.

    So then they retreat by putting their properties menu into the name.
    InferiorTech with the SuperiorityComplex.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  38. Re:I just asked Google if it had any reason to wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is currently looking like it has a lot less bite now that it has a major competitor.

  39. Re:Siding with... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Right, somehow people side with both Google and Apple because they combine legitimate gestures of OSS software but then make F Cordon Bleu to grind the back end. However, I distrust the Fall From Grace of both those companies. Having declined:

    1. Hotmail&IE&MS Search&Palm (90's darling package)
    2. Gmail&Safari&MacOS&Google Search&iPhone(2000's package)

    I ran out of energy for ParadigmShifts and settled for a sludge of:
    Windows&Yahoo Mail&Yahoo Advanced& WinMobile 6.1. Really clever searches can overcome the weakness of the engine if you force enough words to be on the page.

    But I think the 2010 package might be something like ubuntu-Chrome hybrid Linux&Firefox or Opera&Wolfram-Ask Search&Android Mobile. ..

    (Note - Slashdot is eating my line breaks. Sorry I can't find the fix at the same time as sending this post live.)

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  40. Re:Siding with... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    (Offtopic ramble: Gee. Ate them in Preview, then put them back. But why a 30 second delay posting even when logged in?)

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  41. Love the Yahoo by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Informative

    You gotta love the Yahoo, if for no other reason than Zimbra. More than any other piece of software, it's the "Exchange Killer" that we've all wondered about. It matches, feature-for-feature, Exchange. It's (mostly) open-source. It runs fine on Linux. It works with Windows, Mac, Linux, KDE, Google Calendars/Email, and just about everything else, including my WinMo phone.

    It's a god-send, it works nicely with basically no fuss or hassle, and it's owned by Yahoo.

    Hey, if Yahoo goes belly up, I just hope they sell Zimbra to somebody who can take the good thing handed to them and DO SOMETHING with it!?!?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Love the Yahoo by nazsco · · Score: 2, Informative

      You gotta love the Yahoo, if for no other reason than Zimbra. More than any other piece of software, it's the "Exchange Killer" that we've all wondered about. It matches, feature-for-feature, Exchange. It's (mostly) open-source. It runs fine on Linux. It works with Windows, Mac, Linux, KDE, Google Calendars/Email, and just about everything else, ...

      They say that the internal project to make zimbra the internal email plataform at yahoo (like gmail is at google, under the Mona name) was handed over to a bunch of people that actually had Exchange Engineer as their work title. So, the Sr. exchange Engineer veredict was that exchange was better. What a surprise. Zimbra will probably get sacked.

    2. Re:Love the Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like gmail is at google, under the Mona name

      Do not talk about things you know nothing about. You sound like an idiot.

    3. Re:Love the Yahoo by AlXtreme · · Score: 1

      What a surprise. Zimbra will probably get sacked.

      Zimbra being open source and having quite a large community, it will survive regardless.

      On a related note: Funambol works nicely with Zimbra, giving the ability to sync with Outlook and mobile phones without requiring the Zimbra Network (non-free) edition.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Love the Yahoo by deadkennedy · · Score: 1

      We used to use Zimbra until about three years ago when we migrated to Gmail. I haven't used it since but I always loved the UI. It sounds like it is worth playing with again.

    5. Re:Love the Yahoo by lscotte · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't worry about that! Microsoft will be sure that Yahoo kills Zimbra and anything else that stomps on their territory!

      --
      This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    6. Re:Love the Yahoo by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      It matches, feature-for-feature, Exchange.

      How in the world exactly, is this a good thing?

      I guess most open-source projects imitate Microsoft no strictly, that they even imitate their motto "Don't innovate. Imitate!".

      Everything, to not repel any customers, right?

      Just as it is the best strategy, to agree to everything that your dream girl says, and to fake-imitate the guy that she really wants... right?

      while (true) { head -> table }

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Love the Yahoo by Lorens · · Score: 1

      It matches, feature-for-feature, Exchange.

      How in the world exactly, is this a good thing?

      I guess most open-source projects imitate Microsoft no strictly, that they even imitate their motto "Don't innovate. Imitate!".

      It is a good thing because Zimbra does not only match Exchange feaures but also adds their own. We are not talking about copying a UI but implementing features.

      Just to start, having exactly (OK, almost exactly) the same interface on your webmail as on your disconnected laptop is very nice. How they managed that is a hack sure to bring a smile to the lips of any geek: the installable client is "simply" a stripped-down web browser front-end and a backend dedicated web server that when appropriate (when connected) acts as a proxy cache to the real server. Bingo: same UI, it's the same code...

      Hacking the code and implementing extensions in Java are also possibilities that I doubt were copied from Exchange.

    8. Re:Love the Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the GNU and Linux projects were bad ideas because they were designed as straight replacements for Unix and its utilities with no real innovation.

      Seriously, feature parity is a good first step, and drop-in replacements are useful.

  42. Re:Yahooing Google by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Actually, yes.

    I stuck with Yahoo because for a brief moment they had a couple nice tips to the privacy side. Now with the MeSs I will finally switch. Haven't decided whether Ask or someone else. (Who's Fifth & Sixth in search?)

    But occasionally when I absolutely had to Google something, ... I typed "Google" into my Yahoo Search default homepage. It says this:

    "You could go to Google. Or you could stay here and get straight to your answers."

    Kinda cute, like the old DEC Make Love - Not War joke.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  43. Re:Boo! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    He's brilliant Mods, not redundant!

    "What do you get if you cross Bing and Yahoo!?"
    "Boo!"

    Besides creating amazing Pun potential, it's a quadratic play on the old Zen koan. When MS Embraces Yahoo, scary things result.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  44. Re:I just asked Google if it had any reason to wor by palegray.net · · Score: 1

    I just search for "chances of Google being trust-busted" and got 0 results.

    Now that we've got that issue resolved, I think I'll go check my ad earnings in Google AdSense, followed by checking my site traffic in Google Analytics, followed by checking a few keyword rankings in Google Search, followed by tweaking a couple of settings in Google Webmaster Tools, followed by checking for new posts on the Inside AdSense blog, followed by %@$#! [NO CARRIER]

  45. subSUPREME technology by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one.

    But it gives a subSUPREME technology! It worked for subPRIME, didn't it?

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  46. As well as 250M mail users by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    I got a Yahoo mail since 1998, I don't use it as my main account of course, my mail provider is fastmail.fm and it will stay that way.

    I will cancel Yahoo account only if MS acquired Yahoo. I know what will happen since I am one of the people who used Hotmail before it was acquired by MS. MS wouldn't run a poster child of FreeBSD, PHP etc. with their own billions.

  47. It is good for Google by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    There is a conspiracy theory that MS kept supporting Apple even in its darkest days just to prevent a possible monopoly lawsuit. Of course, the IE lunacy (which still goes on) and Apple's horrible management before SJobs broke the entire plan.

    If Google had a credible rival in advertising business, it would prevent trust allegations. Not a real rival, a rival having 20-30% of market would be enough.

    1. Re:It is good for Google by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      There is a conspiracy theory that MS kept supporting Apple even in its darkest days just to prevent a possible monopoly lawsuit.

      It wasn't a rumour - it was a fact. Microsoft bought $150 million of Apple shares to help prop up Apple back in 1997, when Apple looked like it was circling the drain. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

  48. 2 suggestions to new management team by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Open Firefox in your 30 inch presentation monitors. Let it open 2 windows and put them next to each other on desktop both showing same time.

    Now, open these addresses.
    http://adwords.google.com/
    http://advertising.yahoo.com/ (I don't even KNOW live.com advertising url)

    Act like you are a little company wanting to advertise your product and compare them, especially international language support.

    I don't like Google, its policies etc. but there is a fact that they don't have competitor at all. Not because they send a secret signal to advertiser brains, their advertising system is way better that is all.

    Want to compete? My nr1 suggestion would be "quality control" of ads. Give users chance to click "spam" in advertising or some sort of "thumbs down" scheme, use the already included MCafee siteadvisor for ads etc. E.g. there is no way to prevent Scientology advertising attack on Slashdot. If there was a tiny button like "spam" or "off topic", I would click it and have the really mattering ads show. It is not something can be done by Google or Slashdot.

    For a long time, I don't click to software "want to download ...., click here?" ads too. I don't trust them, I go to site itself or a trusted, edited download site. That is where my "mcafee siteadvisor" idea comes from.

    1. Re:2 suggestions to new management team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I don't even KNOW live.com advertising url)

      http://advertising.microsoft.com/search-advertising/bing-property?s_int=us_20090601_hp_bing_001

    2. Re:2 suggestions to new management team by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I don't like Google, its policies etc. but there is a fact that they don't have competitor at all. Not because they send a secret signal to advertiser brains, their advertising system is way better that is all.

      It's way better for small sites and blogs.

      For larger sites, they had nothing until they bought DoubleClick and DoubleClick is far inferior (IMO at least) to its competitor Atlas. (Which Microsoft now owns.)

      The simple fact is that Microsoft isn't doing ad serving for small sites and blogs simply because they haven't wanted to, that's never been part of their target market. It's not like they're lacking in the technology or will.

      Oh, and consider this factor: Google's "last action" attribution model combined with their near-monopoly on search enables them to lie about how much search ads are worth. Your typical non-technical user will use a Google search field as a URL bar, thus giving Google Search credit for the "last action", even though it had no part in the customer's purchase decision. I personally think that's just misleading and wrong on Google's part.

    3. Re:2 suggestions to new management team by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      If there was a tiny button like "spam" or "off topic", I would click it and have the really mattering ads show. It is not something can be done by Google or Slashdot.

      There are not ads that matter to me, ever. I never follow unsolicited advertisements and make a purchase (or I didn't before I got browser software that blocked them from appearing in the first place).

      There are specific sites and types of sites where people may be inclined to click on ads -- but these are not ads dropped in by a third party. As far as I am concerned, the type of ads sold by Google are for suckers, by suckers. Its an underworld of commerce that doesn't interest or concern me.

      Suffice it to say, I don't see much future in the "quality control" of ads. Advertisers are customers to Google, et al., not partners in improving the user experience.

      For a long time, I don't click to software "want to download ...., click here?" ads too. I don't trust them, I go to site itself or a trusted, edited download site. That is where my "mcafee siteadvisor" idea comes from..

      Good grief, why would ever have trusted them!?

  49. Anyone tried Bing? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone tried Bing around here? Could you tell us what it's like?

    The easy answer is I should try it myself. But I can't. I can't bring myself trying an MS application that potentially might cause me to dislike them even more.

    As for you, who are risking your soul by visiting the demon, you will have my blessing and I will say prayers for you -well, I hope that following this article will do, 'cause that's what you get. And your soul will embark on a journey to eternity, armed with the words "I used to be cool on /. before being so foolish as to trust an idiot and to surf to Bing".

    <...Insert some Tolkien drivel here...>

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Anyone tried Bing? by MrSands · · Score: 0

      I use bing to search for movie clips. When you put your mouse over the icons it gives you a preview of the clip along with the sound. Really useful as the previews load fast, it means you don't have to click on the thumbnails to see if it is what you are looking for. With text searches, I find its the same with google, sometimes google results aren't that good for me and I use bing, sometimes bing results arent good for me and I use google. But generally if im searching for text I'll use google as I am more familiar with it, but if im looking up videos I use bing.

    2. Re:Anyone tried Bing? by Shados · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bing is actually decent, as a first "serious" attempt at taking on Google. The search results are not as good as Google's (then again, Google's have been going gradually down, too), but it has a lot of nice features to allow you to filter and narrow down common types of searches, like restaurant searches by price, or finding good stores to buy something.

      The drawback? If you're anywhere except the US, then it sucks. Hard. Search results are awfully bad, and all the nifty features that makes it different from Google are gone. I almost suspect that for non-US countries, Bing is just a skin over Windows Live Search, because its really night and day compared to US Bing.

      End result: if you're in the US, give it a shot...regular search won't be as good, but many types of searches will have tools to assist you, bringing it up a notch. If you're not in the US, don't even try.

    3. Re:Anyone tried Bing? by psm321 · · Score: 1

      I was able to find several copies of a clip that was actively being served takedowns (so it would appear for a while on a site and then go away) on Bing, but none on Google Video. I'm no Microsoft fan but for this particular purpose I was impressed. Google's still my default though :) Bing is just another option to keep handy.

  50. Those who will not learn from the past by Whuffo · · Score: 1

    Are doomed. The tech roadways are littered with the corpses of companies that got involved in a deal with Microsoft.

    Prediction: Yahoo! will suffer the same fate. Negotiations will continue until Microsoft has all the details on what Yahoo! does and how they do it - then the negotiations will fail and Microsoft will "innovate" the technology and claim it as their own. They've gotten away with this so many times already - and I'm sure someone will show up in this thread to list off the companies that made this mistake.

  51. Re:Swing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check your url before posting. This is not 4chan, and you are not funny just because you shout out random memes.

  52. Yahoo get more out of this by QX-Mat · · Score: 1

    If like me you read the business section of your broadsheet, then you'll probably be a little happier about this.

    For those that didn't, Karl Icahn has been a one man activist investor of late. While admittedly Yahoo has had no compelling game plan, Icahn has quite simply been shit-stiring the whole Microsoft approach in order to get Yahoo to cave in. Originally MS wanted to buy out Yahoo's search business - but what would that leave the rest of Yahoo with? Icahn has been vocal about Yahoo not accepting several MS offers, so much so he's now got two seats on the Yahoo board in order to shut him up. The MS position was a simple win-win: gut one competitor, become stronger against google. Yahoo would get nothing but capital.

    The Telegraph's business section insinuates Yahoo as missed out on the MS deal, but imho Icahn is a destructive force and a publicly vocal MS fanboy who's ignorant of the last 5 failured for MS search relaunches. Yahoo.com needs search (regardless of who provides it) to remain a serious internet business. It cannot move to advertising and mail alone - just look at Doubleclick's poor growth (wtf did the SEC approve the doubleclick/google merger?!). People notice when search engines become irrelevent - just look at the death of hotbot/altavista/lycos.

    With this deal Yahoo remains Yahoo when MS lose interest.

  53. Ignorance is bliss for the uber geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its amazing how a niche group of geeks and power users can really underestimate their size in terms of users. Google will be dominant in search for quite some time but Yahoo has always had richer content and they attract far more female users and general non power users for their finance sections, shopping etc. Tie those users into a search engine that is using Bing behind the scenes and a shared Yahoo / MS ad machine and sure this can spell some trouble for Google. Bing is very much like google now in regards to un-cluttered results. The difference is that it will begin to appeal more "visually" compared to the almost retro looking minimilist look and feel of Google web apps.

    Google is the one thats going to need to up the ante pretty soon especially considering the shareholder pressure for them to perform. They are extensively over valued in price/per share and they have been seeing loses in their Ad revenue.

  54. Yet Another Name Suggestion... by bagsta · · Score: 1

    The name Yahoo, which comes from Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle, now will be Yamse, Yet Another Microsoft Search Engine.

    --
    Until the skies turn blue...
    Until the air of freedom strikes us...
  55. I wonder how will they screw yahoo by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and you ms boys, dont give me any shit - just days ago microsoft pulled another stunt with the open source release move and it turned out they did it to save their ass.

  56. You mean, worse than Bing? by argent · · Score: 1

    Isn't making them use Bing bad enough already?

  57. Outlook? Exchange? You poor sod. by argent · · Score: 1

    You don't realize how good exchange and outlook are until you don't have them.

    I didn't realize how BAD outlook was until I had to use it. I would far rather use Gmail's webmail interface... and I hate the quirky "conversation-oriented" interface I get from Gmail... than Outlook. If I never had to play find-the-option in Outlook, or wait for Outlook to s-l-o-w-l-y search my tiny mailbox (haven't they heard of indexes?), I would be so happy... but they're totally Microsoft-centric at work.

    If your IMAP client is freezing, get a better IMAP client. You're not trying to use Outlook for IMAP mail are you, you poor sod?

  58. You actually like that junk? by argent · · Score: 1

    When you put your mouse over the icons it gives you a preview of the clip along with the sound.

    I would rather search for movies by slamming my hand in a door. I hate that kind of laggy UI spam, and turn it off whenever it shows its geeky face. My browser thanks me for it, and rewards me with faster response times wherever I go.

    1. Re:You actually like that junk? by MrSands · · Score: 0

      To each his own I guess. To me i'd rather get a short preview of the movie before I click on the actual thing rather than actually go to another page, stream the movie and find out its the wrong one. In any case even when using my Eeeepc the pages load right away and the previews start the moment i hover my mouse over the thumbnails. If those kind of things lag your computer so much maybe you should think about an upgrade.

  59. Re:Swing by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    Search-engine pr0n! Rule 34.

    Exception thrown by target of invocation: Reference not found.

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  60. Re:Swing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in Soviet Russia, meme posts you!

  61. MS must be using Sharepoint search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS must be using Sharepoint search for their KB searching.
    Last time I used Sharepoint to search, it couldn't locate an exact word match in a 24-hour old file, alone in a collection.

    Worthless.

  62. Re:Mod me down you faggot liberals!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jo khud shishe ke ghar mein rahate hai Woh dusaron pe pathar nahi phekaa karte!

    We don't take kindly to frenchies round these here parts,

  63. Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=google&word2=bing

    google: 2,130,000,000 results
    bing: 10,800,000 results
    winner: google

    http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=google&word2=yahoo

    google: 2,130,000,000 results
    yahoo: 2,310,000,000 results
    winner: yahoo

  64. Embrace, extend and extinguish. by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

    So...is this the extend step? If so, then let's just assume that it's dead now.

    1. Re:Embrace, extend and extinguish. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like Yahoo is doing the extending.

  65. And the new name is: by lazyforker · · Score: 1
  66. New pick-up line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see my Bing in your Yahoo.

  67. Re:I just asked Google if it had any reason to wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it: "..236.000 for dou you have any reasons to worry?"

  68. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by dc29A · · Score: 1

    Don't need to do a Google fight. For everyday programming/IT/troubleshooting searches, Google just flat out owns the competition.

    Do a search on 'bugcheck' (Microsoft term for blue screen of death).

    Google top results:
    - Bugcheck Wikipedia definition.
    - List of bugcheck codes.
    - Interpreting bugcheck codes.

    This is pretty much what I would expect the top 3 to be. Definition, list and how to interpret them.

    Yahoo:
    - Bugcheck Wikipedia definition.
    - Bacteria test kits
    - Some douchebag's bugcheck.org website that has nothing more than an email address.

    Bing:
    - Bugcheck list.
    - Same bacteria test kit as Yahoo.
    - Some random bugcheck for USB drives.
    - Interpreting bugcheck codes.
    - Wikipedia bugcheck article.
    - Some more bacteria crap.

    Hello? I am doing a search on 'bugcheck', aka BSOD, not some random bacterial removal chemical crap. Why can Google filter out the relevant information but not the rest of the competition? Don't even get me started about Java code searches. Bing has far less results for Java code related searches than Google.

    Yahoo is making a mistake by taking Bing, their results will suck even more.

  69. New Reality Shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm... I wander if there'd be any new TV reality shows coming soon with this merger

    Mega loser mergers
    1 + 1 less than 1
    Near death experiences
    Search for a non-ideal mate
    Search for a loser
    Match made in Hell

  70. Have you actually used Google Video Search? by argent · · Score: 1

    To me i'd rather get a short preview of the movie before I click on the actual thing rather than actually go to another page, stream the movie and find out its the wrong one.

    Have you ever actually used Google Video Search?

    1. Re:Have you actually used Google Video Search? by MrSands · · Score: 0

      Yes I do (like I said earlier I use Google as my primary search) you click the link it opens a page in another frame (or what seems like one) and embeds the video on that frame,and it doesn't always work with all types of videos; much more heavy weight than the thumbnail previews.

    2. Re:Have you actually used Google Video Search? by argent · · Score: 1

      The only functional difference between Bing and Google is that Bing loads a new flash applet every time you move your mouse over a video, and Google waits until you actually click on the video. MUCH friendlier.

  71. Microsoft and Yahoo! finally tie the knot by David+Gerard · · Score: 0

    As Microsoft's search engine share sunk to its lowest level yet, with approximately 8 to 9 queries total worldwide, Steve Ballmer has hooked up with Yahoo! and its 21 queries worldwide.

    The press conference was held on a street corner in San Francisco as Mr Ballmer and Jerry Yang sat with their hats on the sidewalk and playing harmonicas with a "WILL WEBSEARCH FOR FOOD" sign behind them.

    "Understandably, we expect less activity in the Great Recession," said Mr Ballmer. "Nobody knows what value assets should be ... say, you aren't finished with that cigarette, are you?"

    Press attendees included a schizophrenic local resident in a tinfoil hat ("to keep Google out"), two teenagers drunk on malt liquor and a policeman keeping an eye on things from a distance. The teenagers taunted, confused and upset Mr Ballmer by suggesting he attempt to locate his own posterior.

    "My new search technology is unstoppable! Just look at this netbook!" shouted Mr Ballmer, waving an Etch-a-Sketch in a threatening manner. "IT'S MAUVE! IT RUNS WINDOWS SEVEN! LINUX PUT A RADIO IN MY HEAD! I'LL SHOW 'EM ALL! BASTARDS!"

    "Some love stories are eternal," said Mr Yang. "Romeo and Juliet. Heloise and Abelard. Leopold and Loeb. Microsoft and Yahoo."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  72. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by SuperIceBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, but if you were searching for the bacteria testing kit Google would have failed. Where as yahoo and bing returned both.

  73. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by XcepticZP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lol, so now the search engine is magically supposed to read your mind?

    Besides... I have never heard of bugcheck ever being associated with BSOD. First I've heard of it. Probably because it isn't a WELL KNOWN link.

    Seriously, if you prefer google's results, then stick with google. But don't try to peddle some useless "proof" that google's results are better.

  74. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Hello? I am doing a search on 'bugcheck', aka BSOD, not some random bacterial removal chemical crap.

    Well, the "random bacterial removal chemical crap" happens to be called "Bug Check Bacteria Test Kits. So what did you expect Bing to do - read your mind?

    Actually it can do it (both Google and Bing), if you log in so it can track your searches. I strongly suspect that you've got more relevant (from your POV) results from Google simply because you use it more (got a GMail account, by chance?), and it knows your habits much better.

  75. Over 1 Billion Tax Dollars... by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

    Between the SEC and the FTC, over one billion US tax dollars are allocated. We've all seen so many wonderful examples of the beautiful outcome when large entities combine and partner... GM, AOL/Time Warner, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So, what are those departments for? What are they doing? I'd like some Change(tm), please.

  76. Irrelevant. by qqe0312 · · Score: 1

    I did not use the Yahoo search engine, actually I don't know why. I tried to use Bing but it is very aggressive in promoting commercial sites, annoying. Did like the video search demo though. Too bad I never search for videos. So what do I care that one engine I don't use gets replaced with an other one I don't use either? Tell me something I do care about...

  77. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by dc29A · · Score: 1

    I take you never looked in Windows Event Log. It's how Microsoft identifies BSODs.

  78. Re:This deal may give Google something to worry ab by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    It's important to remember that the Findings of Facts you link to was not the final word on the matter. The appeals court rejected some of those "facts".

  79. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by dc29A · · Score: 1

    If I were searching for that I would have put something like 'bug check' (note the space?). Yahoo and Bing both assume I can't spell and that I forgot the space between the 'bug' and 'check'.

    Doing a search for 'bug check' (space in between) on Google does return on 3d spot the anti bacterial crap. Which is what I would have searched for it. Without space, it returns the BSOD information which is what I would have wanted.

  80. This deal may give Google something to worry about by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    The appeals court rejected some of those "facts".

    Could you give some details on where it would have done so (as to the facts rather than points of law) in spite of the standard of deference?

    Hasn't it only vacated the District Court's remedies decree?

  81. Ever hear of IE6? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Apparently you've never had to use a webapp that only works in IE6. And yes, there are still far too many of them out there.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  82. Re:This deal may give Google something to worry ab by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    They rejected the finding that Microsoft attempted to extend its monopoly to the browser market.

  83. google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to Google we're winning! Google Wave FTW! If you want you can wait for Bing wave, which will try to sue Google saying they made it first.

  84. We need better search. Not worse! by u64 · · Score: 1

    I remember when google.com was lighter.

    aaah.. the memories..

    Yahoo, this is the first step towards your end. Enjoy!

    What i want instead, is a better Google. Lately Google has

    begun piling tiny crap here and there. It's beginning to show.

    The point is. Google never remove crud. It's downhill from here. Damn.

    (Kinda reminds me how slow slashdot has become)

  85. mod parent up by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This isn't a troll. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it a troll.

    On another note what is with all these stupid names Microsoft has been giving their search engines these days? I guess all you guys who talk about how stupid FOSS project names are, are going to keep mum on Bing (soon to be named Bukkake or something another).

    This is an especially good point here. First "LiveSearch" and now "Bing", and of course "Zune", what is with the people at Microsoft and naming things? The company is schizophrenic; on the Windows side, they have a bunch of products with completely boring, highly generic names like "Windows", "Office", "Internet Explorer", "Word", etc. And then they have a bunch of off-the-wall WTF names like "Bing" and "Zune". And MS fanbois have the gall to make fun of Linux apps for weird names?

  86. give Google something to worry about? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    why is that? i know they just gained one more customer as i start closing down any yahoo account i have.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  87. WolframAlpha for the win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the worlds greatest "wtf" engine being overlooked?

  88. What a sad day... by tengeta · · Score: 1

    ...For you morons. Seriously, Yahoo was worth having an account at BEFORE Microsoft did this? Clueless...

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
  89. Bye bye to Yahoo by akayani · · Score: 1

    You would think Yahoo would have a better sense of history. When MS are your friend your days are numbered.

    It's the MS 1, 2, 3

    1. Embrace
    2. Extend
    3. Delete

    Class Yahoo {
    (Chances-of-long-term-survival) === Null;
    return = -1;
    }

  90. Re:Amateurs! Just do a google fight! by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Yahoo and Bing both assume I can't spell and that I forgot the space between the 'bug' and 'check'.

    Of course they assume their users can't spell - their target market is composed of a bunch of yahoos and people who think Internet Exploder == teh Intert00bs. Spell? Heck, many of them can barely read!