Slashdot Mirror


Bing Loses More Money As Microsoft Chases Google

angry tapir writes "Microsoft posted strong results for the third quarter of its 2010 fiscal year, largely thanks to sales of Windows 7. But the company continues to suffer heavy losses in its Online Services Division [warning: obnoxious interstitial] as it tries to match Google in the online search and advertising market. ... The division's quarterly loss grew by 73 percent to $713 million, compared to a loss of $411 million during the same period last year."

317 comments

  1. sure we lose money on every deal... by haus · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... but we make it up in volume!

    1. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      How much of those losses involved the large volume of advertising they've put into Bing?

    2. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Or the deal with Verizon that forced Bing on Blackberry users...

    3. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To compete with a market leader, you can expect to lose some money to start with. How much you need to factor in to "lose" at the start will be defined by three things:

      1) Your flat operating costs - in this case, how much bandwidth you need to crawl the web to index things. The cost of employing staff to maintain, write and keep your search engine alive.

      2) Your variable operating costs - in this case, how much extra bandwidth you need to supply your results to users, how many servers you need to keep that sort of thing.

      3) Your marketing investment - which is also a variable and how much you spend will depend on how quickly you want to catch the market leader with your own product. How much do you need to advertise and market your product for people to say, "Well, I might try to bing this search rather than google it." The more users you want quickly, the larger the campaign you need to invest in to get these users quickly.

      The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it. That means that while the money is being sunk into point 3 above, it's not retaining those users, so much more needs to be spent to get them to try it again.

      To really compete with a market leader on a world stage such as this, you really do need a great product - so many people wouldn't be using google if any kid with a garage could write a better search engine - and you need to invest a LOT of money into an advertising campaign - unless you aren't worried about the length of time it takes to reach the market leader in terms of share. You can grow slowly, through word of mouth, through organic growth - or you can grow through buying other search engines, redirecting searches, striking deals to have users sent to your platform over competitor products. The more customers you want, and the quicker, the more pricey it gets. Just be sure that you aren't throwing money hand over fist into GETTING those customers if you aren't going to keep them.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      The problem however is that Microsoft is approaching the point where they have lost almost as much as Google is worth ($1.5 Bil?).

    5. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      If by approaching you mean 200 years at the current rate, then yes, you are correct. From a certain point of view.

    6. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

      There is one thing you forgot to perhaps mention in service based business. That's depth of competitor. Not so valid in retailing because a new product can win instant market depth. If your competitor is entrenched in 10 years of successful business with a loyal deep market, then you cannot possibly win in a day/year. Unless you have a revolutionary idea stuck in your pocket. MSN doesn't count as experience, it's more like anti-experience. Bing isn't a revolution in search last time I checked. So why Microsoft thought they could win over market from Google in anything other than blood sweat and tears is beyond me!
      Blood = Money
      Sweat = Site Crawling
      Tears = Tears

    7. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it. That means that while the money is being sunk into point 3 above, it's not retaining those users, so much more needs to be spent to get them to try it again.

      Worse than that, you have people who use Google for their searches but then once they decide to buy something online they "search" for it using Bing to get the cash-back.

    8. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      To start with? You act like Bing is new. Ever hear of MSN?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    9. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it.

      To be fair, there have been a certain number of people who have tried Bing just to say they've tried it and and wouldn't have been happy regardless of the results because (a)it's not Google and (b)it is Microsoft.

      I like Bing. I like opening up Firefox to find a new beautiful piece of photography. I like how it strikes a great balance between the clean, almost sterile, look of Google and the cluttered mess of Yahoo in its presentation. I like their image and video browsing better than Google. I like how it will solve many math problems that you put into it. Overall, I feel that it has much better functionality and is presented far better than Google.

      The problem that Bing is having right now is that, from time to time, it can't understand my search queries. On occasion, I have to turn to Google because the results that I'm getting from Bing just aren't satisfactory. Now, this is not to say that Google always gives me what I want, however 9 times out of 10, it does. This may have several reasons - I basically grew up with Google; I was a relatively early adopter, and so my search terms have a long history of being tweaked to work with Google. Also, I'm getting a larger sample size - the odds of an obscure search term or phrase working on at least one of the two are a fair bit better than working on only one. Finally, Bing is still quite young. Although I'm sure it has pulled some data from the Windows Live Search, it probably has next to nothing compared to what Google has accumulated. This would allow Google to have tightened up their algorithm quite a bit.

      I still use Bing, though, because I feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

      http://xkcd.com/720/

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    10. Re:sure we lose money on every deal... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this, but a huge part of the reason why Bing is bleeding money is the Bing CashBack program. I know, because I used it to full advantage during last year's Christmas shopping season. I got over $100 cash back, up to 15% per merchant, just by clicking through from bing.com first before shopping online. The funny thing is, I don't even use Bing as a search engine. I use Google most of the time, but if you're going to give me 15% cashback on a $500 laptop, sure, I'll click through your search engine first.

      I think the best deal I got was a 17" Acer Laptop, Core2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 320GB hard drive, Windows 7, etc, for $498 from Walmart.com with 15% cashback and free shipping (pick it up in the store).

      Microsoft is basically doing what they always do to capture a new monopoly: Buy the market. They probably spent $200 million alone on Bing CashBack last holiday season, and they'll keep doing it until they have another monopoly, then can jack up the rates and eliminate competition.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  2. Competing Isn't Cheap by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Competing on the world stage isn't cheap. I do find it surprising that MS lost $713 on its "Online Services Division", but keep in mind not all of that is search/anti-Google. They are rolling out their "Office LIve" stuff as well as pushing their version of the "cloud".

    1. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by socceroos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. I know of people who actually enjoy using Microsoft's online services. They're not the crappiest out there any more.

      I could see Microsoft carving themselves a slice of the online market - perhaps not large enough to make an impact though. Having Google spread its self over so many fronts helps their cause.

    2. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't Office Live a response to Google Docs?

    3. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately for them, Microsoft's "Online Services Division" has a deeper fundamental problem than merely losing money.

      That is, much of the money that they do manage to make, they make by cannibalizing MS server products sales. Now, I'm sure that they'd rather cannibalize their own server product sales than have Google/Amazon/assorted 3rd party penguin swarm datacenters eat them, cannibalism beats starvation after all; but that is still sort of a depressing mandate.

      Their only "greenfield", so to speak, revenue opportunities are search(at which they are fairly tepid) or in providing "the-first-hit-is-really-cheap, also granular" access to various MS services(Exchange, Sharepoint, MS SQL, etc.) to tiny outfits that can't afford to do them in house(and, given SKUs like Small Business Server, we are talking pretty small outfits).

    4. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by meinhut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the easiest question around. We all know search engines save info on us when we use them. Who do you trust? Micro$oft or Google. Every time I ask this question everybody says "Google." Bing will never get past this question.

    5. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Radhruin · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right. This simply reflects an increase in investment in OSD, an investment executives assume will pay off down the road. And even looking at Bing over the last year, they've made some pretty major improvements.

    6. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is pretty much directly in competition with Google. Google has had their Docs platform out for years, and personally, despite thinking at first that it was neat, but useless, I've basically converted to Google Docs for all my personal use (naturally it's still "real" MS Office at work).

      Very little of what I do in such documents is private/sensitive information - heck often it's stuff I'd like to share. It's also often stuff that I want a backup of. Google Docs provides me with access to those documents from anywhere with an internet connection, and my documents are always backuped up and safe.

      I'm not going to pull out the old cliche "the desktop is dead", because it isn't, and that won't likely be the case for many years (decades - if ever), but it's importance IS becoming greatly diminished, and Google seems to be much more tuned into that than Microsoft.

      In the end, Microsoft isn't being beaten by the Linux desktop, or OpenOffice.org, or any of the directly competing programs the OSS community has tried to create. Instead, it's just loosing relevance and being beaten by other companies in new markets.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by linumax · · Score: 1

      I use Skydrive. It's 25 GB of free space, simple UI and pretty fast upload/download speeds.

    8. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by aztracker1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps you are a bit more biased than most, and your friends by nature are also biased? I'm mainly stating this in reference to your "Micro$oft" spelling. I generally find using such slurs akin to political mudslinging.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    9. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What surprises me most is this.

      Time and again MS is trying to enter a market, only to sustain huge losses in the beginning. Now Bing, before the Zune (ended in failure), the Xbox (lost a lot of money, still alive though, can't imagine it has made them any money overall even if it would be profitable by now), and before I'm sure they lost heaps of money entering the office suite market with OpenOffice, the webmail market with Hotmail, and so on. Only their OS business has made a constant profit it seems. And Office is doing well as well. But that's it.

      On the other hand I have never heard about serious losses on Apple's side around the introduction of the iPod. Sure they lost money on some products, but not this kind of numbers.

      Google came out of nothing: they started up in a dorm room, came with a good product, and won the hearts and minds of the world and grew from there to become the behemoth they are now.

      Sun has likely lost money on development of StarOffice, now OpenOffice.org, but their product is steadily making inroads and I don't think they are still pumping much money in it. If only because they're not such a rich company any more.

      Netscape burnt and died, and from its ashes Firefox has risen. Making heaps of money, going strong, doing well.

      Now for the examples above you may give counter examples of failures but it seems MS is the king. They have so much money, they can buy their way into any market they like (and they do), but they can not come up with anything innovative, anything desirable.

      "Competing on the world stage" may not be cheap, but I think it may help if Microsoft starts to develop their own products and their own ideas, instead of an "iPod killer", a "Google competitor", etc. That seems to me a failure from the start. You have to have your own product that stands on its own, and is not targeting a specific existing product. "Netscape killer" Internet Explorer won due to lock-in and abuse of monopoly, not for being better than Netscape. Microsoft for some reason doesn't manage to compete on quality and on merit, they just try to solve those issues by throwing a lot of money at it. And that's a waste in more ways than one. We need innovation - no matter where it comes from, but MS is not exactly a company that is innovative these days.

    10. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with claims about the quality of M$'s online stuff, is the double speak inherent in those losses. Most of those losses are driven by advertising costs, M$ paying other online and old world media companies to advertise the quality of M$'s advertising but if M$'s advertsing is so good why are they spending all that money advertising else where.

      The reality is that the aggressive M$, dog eat dog, prove your profit basis, employment conditions, marketing, where accountants and lawyers take total precedence and creative people are driven away to their competitors, means the company operates in a creativity vacuum and filling that vacuum with PR=B$ claims of the opposite does not make it true. Anybody that challenges the Steve Ballmer ideology is driven from the company.

      So can MSN expand, certainly, all it has to do is drop M$ and the Ballmer crowd and head off in it's own direction. Forget all the B$ make the executives look good name changes, forget about being a marketing arm for the rest of M$, embrace the coolness of FOSS and leave behind the dead weights of windows, zune, bing and especially Steve Ballmer.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not about competing. They're trying to buy marketshare. If they spent $713M into making a good product (and they know how to do it) by being honest for once, they'd be in the black.

    12. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anybody that challenges the Steve Ballmer ideology is driven from the company.

      No shit, he said, forgetting to post anonymously.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    13. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      Neither

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    14. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by AnotherUsername · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you were to ask me, I would say Microsoft(no $ in there, by the way). I do not trust Google at all. It is not that I trust Microsoft so much as I do not trust Google at all. The fact that Google is just an advertising company that does search compared to Microsoft actually having products to support itself is a major factor in my decision.

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    15. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Skydrive is useful if you have a lot of small-medium size files, but I personally find the free version of Google Docs better, even with the 1GB limitation, as there is no size limit on files uploaded.

      Google Sites (for free Apps Standard Edition) is more similar to Skydrive: 10GB space/10MB files.

    16. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Keybase · · Score: 1

      Ya losing relevance. There. Fixed that for you. :P

      --
      Do what is right. You will please some and astonish the rest. --Mark Twain
    17. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah except Google (mostly?) only makes money through it's Search, so Microsoft spending money in this case is only seen as stupid because they aren't raking it in where another competitor is. Chrome OS?

    18. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1, Informative

      What, seriously?

      Think about it. Who would have more to gain by selling your information? Google, because they don't have an actual sellable product other than advertising, and selling personal information ties in really nicely there.

      Of the two, who would have the most to lose from such a scheme? Microsoft, by leaps and bounds. People - the common man, even - hasn't trusted Microsoft since the 1990s. Microsoft (a large corporation as opposed to a startup, in most minds) selling personal data is sleazy and immoral; Google doing it is a breach of ethics, but that's business today, isn't it?

      *sigh*

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    19. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lycos 4 life, bitchezzzzz!!!!11!!!!

    20. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know of people who actually enjoy using Microsoft's online services.

      Some people enjoy Colonoscopies too.
      I'm just sayin'...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    21. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, Microsoft's online services probably serve as a pretty good dogfood, if not marketing, program for their servers and tools business, which does make money. I don't think as many people out there would have Silverlight or other MS technologies installed on their machines if it was not for MS's own services pushing them.

    22. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by klui · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hardly create Office documents and Google Docs allows me to not have to install the Office readers for the slim occasion when I need to read an MS Office document. I originally thought the readers are lightweight but they also require updating during patch Tuesdays.

    23. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One large problem is the bright folks at Microsoft can't innovate on anything that could possibly lead to a loss of revenue of Windows products. That is, anything out on the interweb that doesn't run on Windows. From this standpoint they are hamstrung a bit competing with others that have a complete clean slate to start with. Do you think anything that reduced sales of Office or Windows would make it past the product managers? Unlikely. Windows and Office are just too profitable at the moment to risk doing anything really innovative. For example, .NET and all the applications made with it will never run in all the places Java can so no matter what cleverness they come up with their underlying technology is almost always restricted to Windows and all its legacy assumptions about the underlying platform.

    24. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by socceroos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      To be fair, it has been suggested that the male g-spot is located en-route to that particular cavity, so I can see how that would make sense. ;)

    25. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ugh. Uninformed post rated highly by fanbois...

      Time and again MS is trying to enter a market, only to sustain huge losses in the beginning

      Yeah, I'm with you. MS Word was a big loser at first against Word Perfect...

      ow Bing, before the Zune (ended in failure), the Xbox (lost a lot of money, still alive though, can't imagine it has made them any money overall even if it would be profitable by now), and before I'm sure they lost heaps of money entering the office suite market with OpenOffice, the webmail market with Hotmail, and so on. Only their OS business has made a constant profit it seems. And Office is doing well as well. But that's it.

      WTF? Microsoft's model has *always* been:

      1) Be the platform everybody else uses.
      2) Watch new companies prove business models,
      3) Spend the money made in #1 like water to build in the (now proven) business model,
      4) Advertise like crazy.
      5) Profit!

      On the other hand I have never heard about serious losses on Apple's side around the introduction of the iPod. Sure they lost money on some products, but not this kind of numbers.

      I guess you never heard of the 1990s?

      Sun has likely lost money on development of StarOffice, now OpenOffice.org, but their product is steadily making inroads and I don't think they are still pumping much money in it. If only because they're not such a rich company any more.

      Didn't you hear that there is no "Sun" anymore. It's now called "Oracle"... how's life under that rock?

      Netscape burnt and died, and from its ashes Firefox has risen. Making heaps of money, going strong, doing well.

      Mozilla (the "for-profit" arm of the Mozilla foundation) made about 72 million. While not bad, it's hardly "heaps of money" for a product used by too many millions to count. For a comparison, Mozilla's annual profits are roughly equivalent to what Microsoft profits in a single day. I'm not saying this to knock Mozilla particularly, since I type this in Firefox 3.6. But this "heaps of money" thing is just.... you know.

      "Competing on the world stage" may not be cheap, but I think it may help if Microsoft starts to develop their own products and their own ideas, instead of an "iPod killer", a "Google competitor", etc. That seems to me a failure from the start.

      When has Microsoft done any different? See their business model above. MS's big deal with IBM was a resell of a hackish copy of a the dominant operating system - CPM.

      ...MS is not exactly a company that is innovative these days.

      ... or at any other point in its highly profitable history.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    26. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One large problem is the bright folks at Microsoft can't innovate on anything that could possibly lead to a loss of revenue of Windows products.

      Of course. That is an issue. Though it seems they do invest a lot now in on-line services, including real improvements to IE's standards compliance.

      On the user interface field they are being taken over on all sides by Apple and even Linux. There is so much innovation done there - MS doesn't have a proper touch interface to compete with the iPhone/iPad OS, for example. Of course MS has their legacy - there is no reason not to keep the old interface and allow the option of a new experimental one. Maybe even a few experimental interfaces. Let the power users find them and try them out - and listen to what the market thinks about it.

      I strongly believe that it is not the underlying hardware that counts any more (yesteryear's is more than good enough for 99% of us - save hardcore gamers and hardcore CAD developers and so). It is not much the OS that counts any more (it just has to work, stable and secure - who cares what's under the hood), it is just the user interface. And there is no reason why MS can not do anything good there.

      Computing is moving on-line: the browser is getting important. MS seems to understand this.

      Computing is also moving more towards hand held devices. Like the iPad. MS is missing out on this.

      Desktop computing as we had it will remain - the basic office work and gaming and web browsing on the "big" screen. MS is strong there now, but with the experiments going on in their competitor's products it is only a matter of time before someone finds the holy grail of desktop user interfaces and the competition really takes off. The Windows technical lock-in (mainly MS Word) is slowly dissolving already.

    27. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      On the other hand I have never heard about serious losses on Apple's side around the introduction of the iPod. Sure they lost money on some products, but not this kind of numbers.

      I guess you never heard of the 1990s?

      Of course I have. In 1996 and 1997 (and 2001) Apple posted losses, all other years profits (source: Wikipedia).

      Mozilla (the "for-profit" arm of the Mozilla foundation) made about 72 million. While not bad, it's hardly "heaps of money" for a product used by too many millions to count. For a comparison, Mozilla's annual profits are roughly equivalent to what Microsoft profits in a single day.

      MS employs around 93000 people (MS's own figure for mid 2009).

      The headcount of the Mozilla foundation I can not found but it seems to be a dozen or two at most from what I find here and there.

      So when MS is making some 500 times more money than Mozilla means that they are doing worse per employee.

    28. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nah, no problem, already had the telephoto camera guy out in the carpark taking photos of the place where I worked and everyone coming or going, that was many years ago along with the invite to one of those "how can we be not so evil" private conferences. I got involved with a local politician and their drive for legislation for the use of free open source software and wrote up some spiel for them to use, now that put me under the M$ enemy of the state microscope, all the rest since then has just been fun and games, well, at least from my perspective safely ensconced in Adelaide, Australia. As for Steve "Uncle Fester" Ballmer, he is far more M$'s investors and, staff problem than he is mine ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    29. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The headcount of the Mozilla foundation I can not found but it seems to be a dozen or two at most from what I find here and there.

      You are defending an off the cuff remark, why not just admit it?

      Mozilla Foundation employs just a few people, as it should. Mozilla Corporation on the other hand employs hundreds of people at the moment.

      See e.g. http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2009/05/d7_firefox_defines_modern_brow.php

    30. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft quality:

      Windows ME
      Windows Vista
      Zune
      Microsoft Bob
      Steve Ballmer
      "accountants and lawyers take total precedence and creative people are driven away to their competitors"

    31. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The fact that Google is just an advertising company that does search compared to Microsoft actually having products to support itself is a major factor in my decision.

      But the goal of Bing (other than to destroy Google)is to make money from advertising on Bing not to give you a private search engine. So I don't really see the difference here.

      Pretty much, you trust Bing more because it is losing.

    32. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they have products to support, but if you bring that up as a reason to trust them, I suspect you don't have to use them much..

    33. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Is Zune really considered a failure? Seems to do pretty well these days from what I have read. Xbox is surely moving into (if not already) a money making venture. Things like netflix integration are going to make them a boatload of cash.

      The biggest mistake people seem to make is that they think there can only be room in a market for one competitor. I dont think a lot of these digital markets pan out like that.

      You are correct in that the OS and Office divisions have always been their bread and butter though.

      --
      meep
    34. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Who do you trust? Micro$oft or Google. Every time I ask this question everybody says "Google."

      None of above. Especially not google

    35. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they lost heaps of money entering the office suite market with OpenOffice, the webmail market with Hotmail, and so on.

      Is this some kind of joke? Are you really that much out of touch with computing history to make such a flawed statement?

      the Zune (ended in failure)

      The Zune is very much alive and does draw a profit.

      Sure they lost money on some products, but not this kind of numbers.

      Care to explain why they were nearly down for the count when they were finally rescued at the 11th hour... by Microsoft?

      Google came out of nothing: they started up in a dorm room, came with a good product, and won the hearts and minds of the world and grew from there to become the behemoth they are now.

      Google was also unprofitable even at the time they went public. For being some supposed giant that has won the hearts and minds bullshit they really took a long time in a much less ripe market.

      but they can not come up with anything innovative

      Funny how none of your examples are the original trailblazers in their markets either. Being original or even innovative doesn't seem to means shit in the real world when it comes down to who ends up being the king of the hill. I've been dealing with computers for over 30 years now and I have seen originality and innovation be the death of more companies than you can imagine.

      You have to have your own product that stands on its own... blah blah blah.

      Dude, make a tenth the money MS has and come back and give advice about what they should or should not do. Until then you're all talk. Most of the products you've slagged MS over are actually profitable. Sorry if that doesn't work in your model of the world so you just assume otherwise. What should I expect from someone who thought that MS "lost heaps of money entering the office suite market with OpenOffice, the webmail market with Hotmail, and so on."

      BTW: If you don't get the office joke? MS Office predates Open Office, Hot mail and the web itself. Get a fucking clue.

    36. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This is the easiest question around. We all know search engines save info on us when we use them. Who do you trust? Micro$oft or Google. Every time I ask this question everybody says "Google." Bing will never get past this question.

      That is mainly a matter of geek perception, surely? I would have thought that most ordinary users would be more likely to think of Microsoft as a "trusted" name, as they use their software all the time.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      The Zune is a roaring success if its goal was to grab a tiny, insignificant fraction of the portable mp3 player market.

    38. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Desktop computing as we had it will remain - the basic office work and gaming and web browsing on the "big" screen

      and I'm sure web browsing will migrate to the handheld device too, only one with a larger screen (eg iPad) or with a HDMI cable stretching out of it to the big screen in the living room (or bedroom)

      Even then, gaming is looking towards moving to the more profitable consoles, or ... your handhelds. If flash-type games are your thing (and they are for the majority of people) then a phone is good enough a gaming platform, especially if plugged into the TV.

    39. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus their ad campaign is basically "Bing - when you want fewer results!"

    40. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Google docs is fine for very basic work like a two page letter, but then so is any text editor.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 1

      ... Why do people take the worst examples instead of remembering that, despite your senseless hate, MS made Windows XP, Seven, the Office suite, and other stuff that's actually good?

      ... ohhh, i forgot, this is the internet. LOLOL. *rolls eyes*

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    42. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably? Isn't Google Docs google's version of Office?

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    43. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've said it before, you geeks aren't Microsoft money.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    44. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 1

      Unless the larger screen handheld device finds a way to be honestly comfortable, I doubt it will ever catch on and the chance to replace desktop for web browsing is slim. Consumism might prove me wrong, but I doubt desktop will be phased out in th enext 3 decades.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    45. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 1

      That's totally right, because Google was the first web search service! Nothing came before that! I used to go online and type random words and add .com to find what i was looking for.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    46. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      probably, there's always a place for the old desktop... but look at the rise of the internet on mobiles, iPhone wasn't sold on its voice+text capabilities, iPad similarly (and yes, I agree it looks awkward to use), but also think of netbooks which were also sold primarily as mobile internet devices.

      I think the future is rapidly moving away from PCs, currently people have a desktop and a mobile, the future will see them using one far more than the other, and then stop using the desktop altogether. That also means the things they use computing devices for will change too, it'll be all communication and networking. That's the reason Facebook is so popular with investors (God help us) and Microsoft desperately trying to get into revenue from advertising.

    47. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 1

      I don't think it *looks* awkward, I think it *is* awkward to use. But, your point is valid.

      The market is moving away from desktops, but there will always be a market for that. they are generally cheaper and easier to use, and they are entertainment centers. I do think that Desktops will stop being simply PCs and become central computers that will control TV, music, and everything else multimedia related, also being gaming and browsing platforms. That's probably the next logical step in the evolution, but time will tell.

      Finally, while internet on mobiles is rising very fast, it's still more complicated than on a PC. The power is there, but it needs a lot of more work yet. Networking is indeed an important part of why mobile browsing is gaining ground, but there is a lot to consider about it, starting with streamlining their services and more compatibility.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    48. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      It's a little better than your average text editor. It has spell check, formatting, etc. It's also web based which is it's prime advantage (if I were going to use a text editor I might as well use OpenOffice Writer at home, since I loose the advantage of the web app).

      My point though, is that for my personal activities, that's all I need. I'm very good with MS Word in general. Back in the Office 2003 days I was an instructor for MS Office applications and know about many features that 99% of people don't care about. I don't need macros or to do a mail merge on my personal documents.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    49. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computing is also moving more towards hand held devices. Like the iPad. MS is missing out on this.

      What about Windows Phone 7? It combines .NET, Silverlight, Zune, online services and Microsoft's horrific interface design philosophy in a way that seems pretty nice if you like that sort of thing.

    50. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by TexVex · · Score: 1

      Plus their ad campaign is basically "Bing - when you want fewer results!"

      Fewer results is a good thing if it has a better signal-to-noise ratio. Right now they both suck at it, but Google sucks at it slightly less. I understand people are getting better at poisoning the indexes, but the search engines are getting fuzzier too. For example, they all now seem to search using information from my prior searches, and to correct my "typos" and search for words that have similar letters to the actual terms I entered but which are in fact entirely different from what I am actually looking for.

      The result is searching is becoming an increasingly frustrating experience, where the search engines in their eagerness to give me some results will give me loads of useless results instead of telling me the Interwebs just don't have exactly what I'm after.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    51. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has a patent to sell your personal information to the highest bidder. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo censored results in China with no objections. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo all handed over your personal data to George W. Bush. Microsoft and Yahoo have handed over details to the Chinese government on users.

      Google has never handed over private data on its users, except for one case in Brazil when they were ordered by a judge repeatedly to hand over data on a child porn ring. Google has fought the US government to protect your privacy, and fought China to protect user rights.

      Which one do you trust again, and why?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    52. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your post, but you're comparing all of Microsoft (with tons of divisions and profits) to Mozilla, which has one primary product. Mozilla also happens to give their only product away for free, and still turns a decent profit.

      A better comparison would be to put it head-to-head with IE, not Microsoft on the whole. Compare development and support costs internally at Microsoft for the IE team, to revenue that IE generates directly. I wager IE loses money for Microsoft.

      Microsoft is happy to lose that money because they want you to buy their OS, avoid being introduced to OSS, and push some of their other platforms that tie heavily into IE (ASP and .NET web development).

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    53. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously.

      MS has multiple internal divisions that create a lot of left hand vs. right hand problems. When they dropped their prices on some of their cloud offerings, a lot of channel providers went to MS and basically told them they'd need to renegotiate their license fees. They were selling their products for not significantly more than they were charging to license them. In fact, based on our calculations, they were selling their cloud products at a cost that was below (cost of per seat licensing + hardware and bandwidth) without even taking support into account. Of course, they can license their own products for free, and they don't provide any significant level of support without a per-incident fee, but customers don't always see that, they just see the advertised price.

      The division that deals with channel partner licensing is frankly pissed at the cloud division.

      They're moving into the cloud market at a huge loss (at face value) and it's killing their licensing division's revenue at the same time.

      No one really knows how this is going to shake out, but Microsoft is screwing themselves AND all of their partners by moving into the cloud.

    54. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Who do you trust? Microsoft or Google. Every time I ask this question everybody says "Google." Bing will never get past this question.

      Microsoft. Microsoft wants my money. Google wants my personal history on file. Neither is free.

      I'm fine writing a check instead of abdicating my privacy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    55. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God I love the rantings of lunatics. Thank you so much.

    56. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, as soon as you plug your handheld device on a big TV and a keyboard, it is not handheld anymore, and should really be called "Desktop device".

    57. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "That also means the things they use computing devices for will change too, it'll be all communication and networking."

      The things people use computer for will not change. People may add more things, they even may find other means to do what they do now, but current uses simply won't go away. If handhelds aren't a good fit for the current uses, people will use something else (and a handheld, since we've already seen that they are good for some stuff). Unless something can completely replace the desktop, people won't stop using at all.

      As a sidenote, you do know that the mainframe business was never as big as it is today, don't you?

    58. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Competing on the world stage isn't cheap. I do find it surprising that MS lost $713 on its "Online Services Division", but keep in mind not all of that is search/anti-Google. They are rolling out their "Office LIve" stuff as well as pushing their version of the "cloud".

      How is that Microsoft's alternatives to Google Docs and Google AppEngine aren't "anti-Google"?

    59. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Netscape killer" Internet Explorer won due to lock-in and abuse of monopoly, not for being better than Netscape.

      For me IE won because it was better than the Netscape I had. IE was gratis for windows users, Netscape came free with every computer, but you had to pay (about $50 if I remember correctly) to upgrade. By the time IE4 came out it gave me a better browsing experience, and I stuck with IE until Firebird (Firefox) 0.8 came out; I found it crashed less often than IE6. I've honestly never got the whole argument against MS giving away freebies (bundling).

    60. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue no. Google Docs is an office suite, but doesn't try to replicate everything that MS Office does; it's an office suite in a generic sense, and other than format compatibility, it could just as easily be Google's version of Lotus123. However, Office Live certainly is aiming to replicate Google Doc cloud features.

      Although to me the draw to Google is that it's free, whereas Office Live still requires an MS Office license.

    61. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      Your facts are wrong. Microsoft makes lots and lots of money from other things. Is server products are a cash cow by any measure, most notably SQL Server, SharePoint, and Exchange. In fact, these products made about $1.25 billion in the last 3 months. This "small" piece of Microsoft's business is far larger than 99.9% of the technology companies out there, and is even 50% of the size of the entirety of Google.

    62. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      This "small" piece of Microsoft's business is far larger than 99.9% of the technology companies out there

      Which makes total sense as MS themselves is larger than some 99.9% of tech companies out there.

  3. Because... by cosm · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Bing results page feel like one of those typosquatter's "featured" results.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Because... by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I often thought that Yahoo and Microsoft just violated the KISS rule. Yahoo.com comes from the "web portal" days of AOL and seems determined to die with it. Bing.com, to their credit, seems to have learned the lesson finally that people like Google's minimalism and just slaps a background image on it to differentiate their service somehow, but I don't like their results that much and what they do well isn't that different from what Google delivers. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

      Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

    2. Re:Because... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

      iFind: Apple tells you what you want instead of what you think you want to find.
         

    3. Re:Because... by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oddly, one feature Bing beats Google on is that its API has a much more generous license, allowing you to use results in non-user-facing apps like scripts; to reorder or filter results or mix them with results from other sources; etc. Google's API only allows you to republish its results, unchanged, within a user-facing app, basically nothing much more complicated than including a "Google results for this term" sidebar.

    4. Re:Because... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Ha, this is great, I never noticed this before, but it is so true. You have a header, usually a grahpic that stands out from the rest of the page, and a page of results.

    5. Re:Because... by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

      Interestingly, Google does tailor your results based on previous searches (if you're logged in). At this point, I think it's the reason Google works so much better for me than Bing. If I type the name of an open source project, the first result is always the project, even if it's a common English word.

    6. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they're trying to be popular by having more lax rules? Wish I knew more girls like that...

    7. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried fatties? You will find this exact phenomenon.

    8. Re:Because... by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      That's a very simple thing to do, of course. But what I'd like to know is does Google (or anyone, really) do something else?

      Say you're you. You're into OSS. So naturally many of your search terms are going to be for OSS projects. And a disproportionally high number of your click throughs on those searches will be to OSS related pages.

      Now say that you now search for a new OSS project. One that the search engine has not seen you search for before. Let's also assume that this project is a common English word. Will it present the OSS project page(s) higher in it's results because it's made the logical leaps of:
      1) This guy likes OSS!
      2) This term is an OSS project!
      3) Ergo, he may be looking for this OSS project, even though he hasn't before. Let me present those results higher.

      Can anyone confirm (or debunk) that this behavior exists in the wild?

    9. Re:Because... by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      iFind: Apple tells you what you want instead of what you think you want to find.

      Then apparently I want some sort of magic tapping screen instead of a robustly functional tablet.
      I'm as surprised as anyone.

    10. Re:Because... by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      I often thought that Yahoo and Microsoft just violated the KISS rule. Yahoo.com comes from the "web portal" days of AOL and seems determined to die with it. Bing.com, to their credit, seems to have learned the lesson finally that people like Google's minimalism and just slaps a background image on it to differentiate their service somehow, but I don't like their results that much and what they do well isn't that different from what Google delivers. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

      Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

      That background image is a huge part of why I set all my customers' search engines to Google by default. I do a lot of remote technical support. Pretty bitmaps make my job harder to do. Google makes a great homepage and search engine for its simplicity. Even better: my customers like it too!

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  4. They should stick to what they're best at by DumbparameciuM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which is....ummmm.......

    Can I get back to you?

    --
    "We are Samurai, the Keyboard...Cowboys"
    1. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      dirty tricks?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by AnotherUsername · · Score: 0, Troll

      Operating systems, office suites, music players, and gaming consoles?

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    3. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      hey! I've heard their gaming consoles are good. (I don't own one, but....)

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Eh? Music Players like the Zune? They're not even selling that outside the US, to show how much confidence they have in it.

      And the Xbox is competing only with the PS3; the Wii has blown both away for "this generation" of consoles, despite being hardware essentially from the previous "generation", and the Red Ring o' Death issues go without saying. Hardly something I'd hold up as something they're best at.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    5. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not even selling that outside the US, to show how much confidence they have in it.

      Ah, argument though market share. Hmm... allow me to say Linux is the worst desktop operating system with a 0.9% market share. And thats when its free.

      "lol"

    6. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enterprise operating systems.
      they pown the competition on that
      (osx and linux at this point are much more difficult to admin at the 200 client level, it requires some brains, windows is easy)

      though there is a very good chance they will get leapfrogged in the consumer space with all the arm computing devices entering the market this year. make with the next gen a9s going up to 2 gigahertz and users only wanting the web and multimedia, why bother with wintel?

    7. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      They make pretty good hardware, too. The ergonomic keyboards occupy a nice optimum on the price/quality curve: much better than the cheapo stuff, but not the absurd $200 boutique stuff either.

    8. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ones with massive failure rates that cost Microsoft boatloads of money?

      They are quite popular, but they still aren't making money for Microsoft. If you're still losing money two generations into the console business, you're doing something wrong.

      I think the company that will eventually kick Microsoft's butt in this arena is neither Nintendo (different niche really) nor Sony. Apple tried a gaming console once and failed miserably, but it was basically a computer platform with no developers.

      The iPhone/iPad Touch/iPad is already quickly threatening Nintendo in the handheld department with casual games. But imagine if Apple used the same App Store for a gaming console?

      The controller would be a touch surface with accelerometers. Existing games in the App Store would all immediately work. They already have the massive library of games, but the "console" would provide more gaming power and a constant internet connection to enable Halo-killers and the like alongside casual games.

      Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft would all quake in their boots.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    9. Re:They should stick to what they're best at by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      I love that someone modded you troll for being honest and realistic.

  5. Bing was a stupid idea by ydoc04 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why would you even bother to try and compete with a real world power like Google? Go ahead... try to name a better search engine. Bing is a sick joke! BURN, Bing, BURN!!! ah hah, ah hah hah hah, mwa hah, mwa hah hah hah hah hah hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Bing actually is a great search engine and I've been using it over Google since they rolled it out.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    2. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually Bing has some features that outclass Google Search. Image search is so much better on Bing because it's dynamically loaded so you don't have to page through 20 times to get a full view of what's out there.

      It would be nice if Bing, Yahoo, or whoever grabbed 30-50% of the search market. Microsoft scares me, but so does Google.

    3. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Lemme join the crowd in agreeing Bing is better than Google. But beyond that remember people used to say the same thing about Sony when Microsoft entered the console market. If they keep at it long enough Microsoft will eventually find a winning formula for the search engine market.

    4. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are competing because they can't afford to let another company get a stronghold. WIndows and Office are pretty much their only money makers, but Google represents a threat. MS didn't want to get involved into browsers until Netscape became a threat to them.

    5. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by CrashandDie · · Score: 3, Informative
      There's a plug-in for that!

      This CustomizeGoogle feature saves you from the hassle of paging through Google web search results. Whenever you navigate to the end of the page, you dont have to hit the next button. CustomizeGoogle automatically fetches next set of results and appends them to the bottom of the page.

    6. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft never 'won' the console market, the other competitors simply lost. Sony thought that -everyone- who had a PS2 would be thrilled to have a console that cost $500, had no PS2 support, and had a lot of expensive features... that were mostly useless. Nintendo found a recipe to make lots of money: make crap 'innovative' games to appeal to untapped markets. While the move worked really well for Nintendo, it alienated most real gamers. The 360 was the only real option for most people. On the other hand, Google is not failing at the moment and does not look to fail anytime soon and Bing just doesn't cut it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For buying computers or handbags, maybe.

      For serious day-to-day use? No, it's not remotely close to a "great search engine".

    8. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Spewns · · Score: 2, Informative

      It took me five minutes on http://www.bing-vs-google.com/ one day to realize how bad Bing is compared to Google.

    9. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Why have you been using it from the beginning, because it returns better results (which was simply not true in the beginning, but it has gotten better over the months), or because you are a MS fanboy? I can't think of any reason that you would jump on it so quickly.

    10. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!

      PS: Fuck you slashdot my comment is not ascii art.

    11. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Thing+1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sony thought that -everyone- who had a PS2 would be thrilled to have a console that cost $500, had no PS2 support, and had a lot of expensive features... that were mostly useless.

      Not only that, but also features that disappeared.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I like how Google has 10 times more hits for "Bing" than Bing does.

    13. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And the nice thing is that Microsoft can fund their money losing search engine the same way they funded their money losing game console: through their desktop OS monopoly. Ain't "competition" grand!

    14. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by ydoc04 · · Score: 0

      What crowd? I have NEVER run into ANY ONE who even remotely likes Bing

    15. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Off topic? Sony removed the Other OS feature. This is considered a big deal around these parts. Microsoft removes features in successive versions of their operating systems (DRM). This is an article about Bing, another product of Microsoft's, which they are losing money to for a reason. It's not off topic. It's a compressed way to say "they are in control." They don't care if they lose customers; they choose to control their platform. That should inform us, as customers, that their interests are not in our best; their interests are emptying our wallets, with no recourse on our part. That's what I meant by my short sentence.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    16. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the planet hopes you're very happy, but otherwise we don't care.

    17. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by ydoc04 · · Score: 0

      I would, but I couldn't find space for all your relatives were just floating around, stinking up the place

    18. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Locutus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes, it's better to go with the devil you know will eat you up and spit out your skeletal remains than go with a company which won the hearts and minds of customers to get their marketshare and has not proven to be even close to the evil which lurks inside One Microsoft Way. That makes so much sense.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    19. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and microsoft still screwed the pooch by cutting costs on qa that resulted in the biggest quality control debacle of the last 10 years.
      i guess the old adage comes into play

      affordable--------won't cost a huge amount of money for the base model
      reliable------------your machine is more likely to not explode
      good content----there is a large library of quality titles

      pick 2.
      nintendo ignored #3
      sony ignored #1
      microsoft ignored #2

      alas, what people care about is done in that order as well, cheap is better than reliable

    20. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's _always_ one...

    21. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by mjwx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      New sig 2010-04-25 SUN: The period at the end of this sentence represents Mohammed ==> .

      Which one?

      Mohammed al Fayed?
      Mohammed Atta?
      Mohammed Ali?

      For Christ's sake man, it's the most popular first name in the world, you need to be more specific.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Blind studies comparing the two consistently show that users rate Google's results better, even when they don't know what search engine is producing the results.

      Your opinion flies in the face of statistical research. Why do you think Bing is better?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    23. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Google owns 67% of the search Market. Microsoft and Yahoo compromised the other 33% for the most part. Now that Microsoft is powering the search for both Microsoft and Yahoo, they do basically have 33% by themselves now.

      So there you go.

      And while I understand the massive distrust of any big company, Google has a great track record. Microsoft has a terrible one. Why root for Microsoft in this fight?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    24. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      The XBox division loses money hand over first. Playstation sales aren't bad. But Wii sales are through the roof, and they turn a massive profit.

      Who won again?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    25. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by SeaCrazy · · Score: 1

      Yay for bing, it's better to find pr0n with!

      --
      .sig? Get your own damn .sig!
    26. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Says the man who hasn't tried it.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    27. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      And yet only the first two or three pages of the hits are anywhere near relevant to what you're looking for.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    28. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Mainly because I'm not a Google fanboy who can't fathom using anything else.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    29. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Do you happen to have a link to these "studies"? I'm betting that you do not.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    30. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      If you read Slashdot daily you'd have seen them yourself.

      Amazingly enough, a quick Google search shows me a blind study of Google, Bing and Yahoo search results.

      http://mashable.com/2009/06/07/blindsearch/

      Guess who won in convincing fashion?

      Don't try and call me a liar. I don't appreciate it.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    31. Re:Bing was a stupid idea by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      "Don't try and call me a liar. I don't appreciate it."

      Everyone's a liar on the internet until they show they're not. If you don't like it, go cry to mommy about it.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  6. It costs money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to make money.

    Just ask the Bureau of Printing and Engraving.

  7. Luckily... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bing is a decision engine, so they should be able to decide when to pull the plug...

    1. Re:Luckily... by jhoegl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup, same company that thinks that you still need a window when you don't have a wall.
      Their marketing people are BRILLIANT!

  8. Re:cmdrtaco loses more sperm as hemos blows him by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Troll

    But that's offset by the pint of bull semen CmdrTaco drinks every day with his vitamins.

  9. Clash of titans, watch the fallout by MacAndrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's important to consider the unbelievable forces involved -- nearly limitless funds on both sides. How many companies would like to take in the amount Microsoft casually loses? How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning? When the rich guys go at it and it feels good that the rest of us pick a winner, what about the other companies that should have been contenders but couldn't buy admission? What Microsoft decides it wants, it tends to get. One of the government attorneys involved in the antitrust suit commented that they had legal resources that rivaled the Department of Justice.

    The Google/Facebook conflict is another one to watch. I don't think Google has abandoned Buzz by any means, and Facebook is really pissing off a lot of people these days.

    In all cases, don't linger on the losses they're having. They can afford it.

    1. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but they are losing money in a bad place.

      I actually worked for MSFT from 2004 to 2007. One of the reasons I accepted employment with them was because it was in their online services division: I saw the days of proprietary software as numbered, and believed the only way MSFT could survive in the long-term was to become a service provider and derive advertising revenue from the brokering of information and monetizing of relationships: basically beat Google and Facebook at their own game because of their enormous financial resources. The reader will recall that MSFT's online division went from a 500 million loss to a 500 million profit in the course of one year.

      And, then, they stalled.

      You can play the "catch up" game when the first comer has sacrificed stability to be the first comer, and you have enough resources to effectively swamp them while they try to regroup for round two. But Google and Facebook are too far ahead and have too many resources of their own for MSFT to ever catch up.

      Further, even while Facebook has privacy issues galore, does anyone think that MSFT would be any better in that regard?

    2. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by EdIII · · Score: 1

      How many companies would like to take in the amount Microsoft casually loses? How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning?

      Interesting you bring that up. There is not a single quality console out there because those unbelievable forces can afford to lose so much money in the process, and it provides a huge barrier to entry in that market.

      It's also worth keeping in mind that Microsoft lost so much money on the XBOX360 in warranty repairs that could have been prevented by a minimum of QA it could have funded a whole other console company from the ground up, or TWO Stealth Bombers.

    3. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by pseudonomous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, you could argue Microsoft can't, long-term afford NOT to pump massive amounts of money into it's online services because if (and this may or may not be probable but I think anyone will admit it's possible), internet services usurp the vast majority of computing tasks from the desktop computing model, then Windows, Microsoft's core product, become much less relevant than it is today. If Microsoft makes headway in the cloud, at worst they have something to fall back on if the Desktop OS market tanks, and at best they can continue to prop up Windows by offering better integration with their Web-services on Windows then alternate platforms.

    4. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'll succeed, either; but I also underestimated them in the Xbox thing. Maybe even Zune will succeed someday.

      What I guess I was hinting at is my desire for SOMEONE ELSE to enter the fray. Of these characters I like Google the best, but I don't trust them either. Facebook I think it going to do themselves in, they're getting too hard to use. The "privacy settings" thing is ridiculous. But I also think they have a few years left before power changes hands.

      I know Google is approaching FB page admins with offers to help them jump ship to Buzz and am intrigued by this poaching.

      MSFT on privacy? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Thing is, FB is deliberately trying to screw its users, MSFT does it mostly by accident. Neither is OK but....

    5. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Xbox is a stealth bomber

    6. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      TWO Stealth Bombers.

      Thats classified you insensitive clod. Microsoft would never let the Government Bing enough to make a Stealth Bomber.

    7. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      One of the government attorneys involved in the antitrust suit commented that they had legal resources that rivaled the Department of Justice.

      Which I find rather strange. The judge (or an expert) should clearly have seen that the video was doctored -- lying in a courtroom is a jailable offense! Why did nothing happen?

      Of course, using that reasoning I still don't understand why nobody is in jail over the Sony rootkit; if one of us had done it, the outcome would be clear (PMITA).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    8. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by nine-times · · Score: 1

      How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning?

      Are they making money on the XBox now? I thought that had been pushed off by all the defective units.

    9. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      Most judges and many attorneys aren't very technically sophisticated. I don't know what happened but my impression was that the whole thing was mishandled - and then Bush was "elected" so it all went away.

      As for lying in court, that happens every day. They all had their eyes on the prize, not the sanctity of the process.

    10. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It's important to note that other companies are taking in Microsoft's losses. Sure, those companies are law firms, manufacturing, grocery stores, and myriad others, but every dollar that Microsoft loses ends up back in the pocket of someone else. A big loss for a company that can afford it is just the thing to help bring up the economy!

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Locutus · · Score: 1

      "What Microsoft decides it wants, it tends to get." only works when they can leverage the monopoly position of Windows. Outside of that game/control they almost always lose. Xbox is not a winner, it's hanging on and it will probably take another 10 years for them to break even if they are lucky. They don't own the market let alone control it.

      Even Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile/what-ever is a $10+ billion loser and they just got shut down by Android and the iPhone. There are a few other areas where they tried to go outside their familiar playground but where they can't be the bully on the block, they do not win.

      BING is going to bleed $$$ for a good decade and now that they are playing against a company with a big wallet, it's gonna hurt far more than any other market penetration _investment_ they've ever had. Windows still makes them plenty to lose but if you look at the investment market, they're pretty bland there and once it dips even further, the Microsoft brand becomes dull and the public finally gets it. IMO.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    12. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      I agree they've been inept and they tend to "extinguish" things they get their hands on. I think they'll lose this largely on the merits - google does a good job. Also google has committed surprisingly few of the dick moves like happen with Facebook and msft; but can we count on that ?

      What I want is a little(r) guy to have a shot at the title. Normal companies can't compete with cash firehoses and I think it stifles new stuff. Also I think at some point google will go evil or incompetent.

    13. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Locutus · · Score: 1

      but the problem is that the little guys had their chance in the beginning of the search engines race and people voted for google. Now you have a pretty mature segment and yes, it is now going to be very tough for a little(r) guy to enter that market. But the market is somewhat baked.

      Where the problems arise is when companies like Microsoft come in and use their market power to prevent new little(r) guys grow a new business. Some thing called the Innovators Dilemma is what drives companies like Microsoft to crush every startup with any tie to the desktop. Google just wants everything to have search, their search. What I don't see yet is google forcing companies and customers away from some other product. They tend to let the market pick what they like and when they do, google puts more effort behind it. Microsoft on the otherhand lets the small guys build a segment just a little bit and then they do all the backroom deals to kill it. Look at the netbooks. They kicked butt running Linux but in comes Microsoft to pay the vendors to install WinXP( yes charging $15 for WinXP and a deal paying $25 for putting a Windows sticker on the box would be paying them ) harmed the sector and it's on its way down. Very few purchase $450 netbooks and that's how Microsoft likes it. Protect the money maker, Windows desktops.

      Google has not shown it is bad but Microsoft has over and over and over.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    14. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, they got it all wrong then: they should have gone for the two stealth bombers. Send one over Google and the other over Apple. Then rinse and repeat with Sony and Facebook, etc.

      So stupid.

    15. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to defend Microsoft. Aside from things they did that were incompetence, the malevolence summed up in Ballmer and arrogance in Gates -- well, enough.... I know MSFT is very popular around here. (Kidding.) The good news is they seem to be losing control.

      I think people will get unhappy quick if/when Google starts pulling crap like Facebook has been trying to -- like dictating to us what the "new" privacy means for greedy data-mining reasons. Their sucking up to China (until China backstabbed?) is worrisome. Getting mad at having their email attacked and suddenly not liking censorship (in retaliation? or evolution?) is principled enough but could change. Heck, people change, companies are even less predictable as control shifts hands -- and wow, Google is getting its fingers into everything. Great monopoly opportunities if they start buying enemies like MSFT always has.

      Google has been surprisingly benign and I tend to like them, and love their really competent tech work. The search engine alone has been an enormous contribution, and their pages still *aren't* littered with ads. But I think people should be more worried, and prevent MSFT II.

    16. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Are they making money on the XBox now? I thought that had been pushed off by all the defective units.

      Shit no: the division became profitable in 2009, but:

      However, it remains to be seen whether the Entertainment and Devices segment ever recoups the more than US$7 billion invested in it over the last six years.

      Microsoft's entertainment division made US$426 million in 2009, so at that rate it'll only take 'em about sixteen years to pay off the investment... and that assumes they don't fuck up another console in the interim (hahaha)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Google needs to either completely revamp Orkut, or launch a better social network. Buzz isn't it. Buzz is just status updates, akin to Twitter.

      Google could release a Facebook killer with a revamped Orkut that brings Youtube, Picasa, Google Docs, Gmail, Wave, Buzz, etc. all together. Give them time.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    18. Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout by mugnyte · · Score: 1

        I'd mod up but today I'm out of dots. Anyway, your point is key, I believe: MSFT cannot ignore online services at any cost - even a loss. They will continue to throw things at the wall, hoping for it to stick in a large-market way. Until then, they fund their smaller players as a set that adds up to a moderate player overall.

       

  10. The way I see it by DumbparameciuM · · Score: 5, Funny

    The main problem with Bing is that you can't really use the world as a verb like you can with Google. Think about it - you can't say you're going to "bing" something, it just sounds gross.

    --
    "We are Samurai, the Keyboard...Cowboys"
    1. Re:The way I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it'd be fun to use the world as a verb! "I'm going to world this subject", as in "search the whole world (of tubes)" for it.

    2. Re:The way I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can. "Hemos binged CmrdTaco pretty hard last week; Malda was shitting blood and sperm for days".

    3. Re:The way I see it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "Boy, did I crosby that sandwich last night"

    4. Re:The way I see it by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      "Ya, but you were chandlering all night afterwards..."

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    5. Re:The way I see it by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      "did you Bing my wife?" Yeah, that's a word I want to use.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    6. Re:The way I see it by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Bing'er? I hardly know'er!

    7. Re:The way I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have given you an insightful - you are spot on here. Much like nobody 'squirts' music to each other.

    8. Re:The way I see it by jjk3 · · Score: 1

      Bing knows exactly what you want to Google ...
      http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1915736

    9. Re:The way I see it by eharvill · · Score: 1

      The main problem with Bing is that you can't really use the world as a verb like you can with Google. Think about it - you can't say you're going to "bing" something, it just sounds gross.

      And when Google started gaining popularity people said the same thing. Same with the Wii and probably will be the same with the iPad....

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    10. Re:The way I see it by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      They're trying. Have you seen the Verizon commercials for the Windows Mobile phone? "What network do you trust to Bing blah blah blah?"

      Yeah, it's pathetic and completely contrived, but they're trying. I think they came up with the word because they thought they could turn it into a verb, which only makes your post even more funny. :)

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  11. I'm not surprised Bing are losing by Chelmet · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Google is just better at this game. I find Bing a hinderance to smooth workflow.

    Oft-times I'll know exactly what I'm looking for, or even the exact site I want to go to, and going via google is often faster than remembering/typing a URL. I know my search result will be top, as I know what to search for. This is far more hit and miss with Bing.

    This does change over time, however. It used to be the case that if I wanted a review on a new pair of speakers or a motherboard or whatnot, I could google the product with the word review in the search, such as "b&w 683 review". Whilst for that particular search you'll find some good reviews do pop up first, for a lot of products its an ordeal trying to find decent reviews. Often it'll be a sales page where you can drop your own review, and more often that not they're blank. Its becoming more and more difficult to search for professional reviews, so for many products I go direct to specialist review sites, such as tomshardware for computer stuff.

    I seem to have run a little off topic, but my point is that all of this is far more difficult to accomplish with Bing than it is with google, so I'm not surprised they're losing money - they've entered a marketplace with an inferior product (at least for the casual home user), and that's rarely a profitable move.

  12. A modest experiment by EsJay · · Score: 1

    I just Googled 'Bing'. And search Bing for 'Google'. The one time in history Bing had better results. Nobody on the intertubes cares about Bing, there's very little to find.

  13. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F8 in Opera, F6 in (most) others. Also, Ctrl + Enter.

  14. google "experience curve" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That old management consulting chestnut quantifies (in a rough manner similar to Moore's law) how the industry leader maintains a substantial cost advantage over the competition, because they've "been there, done that" while the laggards are still encountering situations for the first time.

    BTW have you ever heard someone say something like "bing experience curve"? That doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, so in addition to be being behind on the e-curve, someone in Redmond fscked up in the applied linguistics department.

  15. BING + O by ipquickly · · Score: 1

    No, seriously.

    MS should change the name to Bingo.

    It would properly represent the gamble of relevant search results provided by bing.
    If you get pissed off you could use it as a cuss-word really loudly and nobody would get offended (and they would know your pain).
    Old grannies playing BINGO in a Bingo hall, is about as exiting as bing.

    I mean it fits on so many levels.

  16. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Curate · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is no shortcut key to go to the URL bar

    In IE, Alt-D takes you to the address bar (what you call the URL bar).

    click on the search box, but again, there is no shortcut

    In IE, Ctrl-E takes you to the search box.

  17. Problems... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Microsoft wants to get ahead, stop trying to imitate and start innovating. The only time imitation works is when the current product becomes crappy. Take for instance the Xbox 360, it didn't get ahead because it was great, but rather got ahead because the competition was crappy. The Wii had (has) a shortage of good games and the PS3 was (and still almost is) far too expensive.

    Google isn't getting any worse and Bing just isn't innovating in any meaningful way. Trying to promote Bing is like promoting alternate keyboard layouts, even if it -is- better, any benefits will be lost in the fact that people have to re-learn something. Google isn't just a search engine, its a bookmarking engine. Its a lot easier to remember "nexus one review" than http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/04/nexus-one-review/

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Problems... by timmarhy · · Score: 0

      there's lots of innovative stuff in bing that shits on google. the slashdot crowd are just ignorant of it, they prefer their blinders.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Problems... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Such as? I hardly consider myself ignorant of other search engines, I simply prefer Google. There was a site (I can't find at the moment) that let you see 3 search engines without knowing which one and to pick your favorite, then it would reveal the one you preferred. I almost always picked Google.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Problems... by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      such as...?

      If you're going to call someone out - at least provide a modicum of supporting evidence.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Problems... by jcr · · Score: 1

      >If Microsoft wants to get ahead, stop trying to imitate and start innovating.

      You realize you're talking about a total shift in their corporate culture, right?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google isn't getting any worse

      Google is getting worse every day. For the last 5 years or so, Google's quality has declined heavily.

      Many - all for some searches - of Google's results are basically spam. Sites that appear on the first 1 or 2 pages of search results only got there via SEO. The time Google presented results based on relevant content is long gone. These days you get to see mostly the stuff that spammers and SEO cheaters want you to.

      Google failed to innovate on their search algorithms to keep up with that; or they simply get too much money from those frauds to bother.

      Granted, I still use Google because I'm too lazy to switch, but more often than not I find it to return only useless results.

    6. Re:Problems... by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1

      If only there was a way to find it....

    7. Re:Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not forget they went ahead because they had a 1yr head start on the PS3 and Wii.

    8. Re:Problems... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the fact that the Wii has outsold the 360 by tons and dominates it in every territory and despite the year lead Sony caught up and isn't that far from MS. I think it's around 34 million to 39 million. In fact if Sony were to play its cards right it could over take MS within a year.

  18. Microsoft's quarter was not really all that great. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... this article provides a nice comparison of Apple's recent quarter to Microsoft's recent quarter.

  19. I love Bing by Kagato · · Score: 1

    ... when I want to use the cash-back feature. But I've usually used Google to narrow down my purchase first.

  20. MS may not care all that much by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft does have a bit of history of sinking large amounts of money on totally losing projects, and there have been suggestions that it may be partially intentional.

    The poster child for this is Internet Explorer, which was developed and handed out free, for a 100% monetary loss. Various people have suggested that the intent was never to charge for it. The motive wasn't profit; it was control. The idea is that they wanted to control the "browser market", which included killing any startup that wanted to make money on a browser. They succeeded at that, and even the most critical reviewers agree that MS still controls at least 2/3 of the browser "market". From a power viewpoint, IE has been a real success, even if it has been a money sinkhole. It gives MS control of a large part of how the Web works in reality. It has especially been an effective tool at scrambling all attempts to develop rational standards and interoperability.

    The only people who consider this a "loss" are those who believe that money is the only corporate motivator. Those who understand a desire for power and control find it easy to understand why corporations like Microsoft would sink so much of their profits into such losing projects.

    It's entirely possible that MS's ongoing attempts to get into the search "market" is something along the same line. It may not matter to them how much money they lose, as long as they end up in control, with the insignificant startups all bankrupt and standards irrelevant because Bing is the de facto standard and doesn't interoperate with anything they don't control.

    In particular, their main motivator may be all the information on our searches that google is collecting. Imagine what Microsoft could do to the world if they had control of all that information.

    (Of course, some of us are starting to worry about the effect of nice guys like google having all that information. And maybe it'd be prudent to not worry about it quite so publicly. After all, google does know what you've been googling ... ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:MS may not care all that much by mgblst · · Score: 1

      You seem to be a little confused. Power, Information all means more money. Microsoft gave away IE so they could control the internet, which means more money. They can control the homepage, search engine, create the most popular brower, create the dev environment which server pages (ActiveX, .Net)... and more, to make more money.

    2. Re:MS may not care all that much by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Just because IE was free doesn't mean they didn't make *any* money from it. Even the earliest versions of IE came with pre-installed bookmarks to companies who paid for placement.

    3. Re:MS may not care all that much by fermion · · Score: 1
      Money is the only motivator. Huge losses in one department offset huge profits in another division, limiting taxes. Or, huge gains in a mature business is used to develop a new business. These losses are only on paper, as the company itself shows a 35% gain in profit.

      MS is like the US a few years back. More money than sense, more money than opportunities. MS knows that it can spend until it's kills off the competition, and when a conservative administration in white house, can buy the executive branch since conservatives a pro-free market and can get away with it.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:MS may not care all that much by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The poster child for this is Internet Explorer, which was developed and handed out free, for a 100% monetary loss. Various people have suggested that the intent was never to charge for it. The motive wasn't profit; it was control.

      The motive almost certainly was money. It's called network effect.
      IE by itself may not have made money, but through network effects it improved sales of other MS products.

      • Market dominance of IE with proprietary Microsoft technologies helps sales for Microsoft web servers providing those technologies.
      • Improved MS web server sales also means more Windows server sales, because it only runs on Windows.
      • Many IE-only sites mean greater demand for IE, which only runs on Windows, thus also securing the Windows platform client-side (one more hurdle for moving away).
      • MS Office can create HTML, which almost certainly looks good on IE. Supporting IE otherwise is reportedly a pain for web developers. That may well be intended: Office is one of the cash-cows of MS, and Office being the easiest was to create IE compatible web pages may increase Office sales when IE is the dominant browser.
      • Having the dominant platform allows to easily introduce new proprietary technologies (.NET, Silverlight, etc.) which in turn allows to sell corresponding developer tools (Visual Studio.NET).
      • Controlling the browser also has you in control of the browser's default home page, initial bookmarks, etc., which you can use to further direct customers to your products.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:MS may not care all that much by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Actually the poster child for this is the Xbox. While it has made some money some quarters, the Xbox/Xbox 360 has cost MS $7-8 billion dollars of the lifetime of the project. And it appears unlikely that MS will ever recover this money.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  21. bing is a silly name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they should have started by not naming there search engine something stupid like Bing! Just bing it.. doesn't sound as good.

    1. Re:bing is a silly name by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      maybe they should have started by not naming there search engine something stupid like Bing!

      They should have named it "Poly". Then we could access it with Mono API's: Mono + Poly = ....
         

  22. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Rennt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firefox has a good solution too, given that accessing the URL bar is a quick keystroke and then a tab over to enter the search box.

    If you think that is convenient, then CTRL+K will change your life.

  23. Hey Microsoft, make a TV by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Compete with Sony and Samsung, make a TV. I'll buy it.

  24. Self-destructive behavior of corporations by Whuffo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For some reason, corporations seem to feel the need to compete in areas where they're clearly outmatched no matter what. So we'll see Google, Microsoft, Apple and whoever else steps up to the plate slug it out for a chance to lose millions chasing a train that left the station years ago.

    Bing is a prime example of this kind of dysfunctional behavior. Microsoft has even gone to the extreme of paying people to use Bing and they're still not going to make it. In the world of web search, Google has years of experience doing it and they're getting better every day. Microsoft can't catch up no matter how much money they throw at it - in the final analysis, the general public reaches for Google when they want to search. I suppose Bing can slug it out with Alta Vista and Yahoo! for the "also ran" prize. If Microsoft would put all this money and effort into improving the things they're strong in - but no, we'll suffer along with bug-ridden Windows and Office while Microsoft chases the Google butterfly.

    Google is doing it too - diverting resources from their core competency to compete in operating systems. Android looks like it has a chance because the competition phoned in their submission (Windows CE, WTF?), but the Chrome OS will be fighting an uphill battle all the way. It's good, but not as good as Sugar and that's a non-starter. They can park the wreck of Chrome OS next to the burned out husks of BeOS, Next, AmigaOS, and others in the scrapheap of history. That doesn't mean they won't "sell" a bunch of copies - but taking Microsoft on in the OS space is every bit as insane as Microsoft taking Google on in the search space and in the end it'll all count for nothing.

    Right now, Apple has arguably the best cell phone OS in existence. It's much more polished than Android and - Windows CE doesn't count. Windows Mobile 7 is vaporware and while the demos look great the reality when they finally ship copies is almost certain to follow their past performances and be a giant disappointment. Apple doesn't have a free ride in this mess either - they're caught up in that "We sold a lot of units so we must be something special" nonsense. They're going to have to stop thinking they're superior and get busy; iPhone was very nice, but the competition is working on their game and despite their constant attempts to fail one of them is going to get it right one of these days.

    The next few years should be very interesting. From here, it looks like Google will continue to own web search (and advertising) and Microsoft will continue to own operating systems and "office" applications. Apple, despite their desperately dysfunctional leadership will be worth more than either one (if not both) of them - only because they avoided throwing money away trying to bury Google or Microsoft. But they're not immune from the need to destroy themselves - watch the news and see what kind of lunacy they take part in as their superiority complex becomes blatantly obvious.

    1. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by mister_playboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For some reason, corporations seem to feel the need to compete in areas where they're clearly outmatched no matter what.

      That's the way the global economy works. If you aren't growing, then you are dying. However much you have today, it's not enough... you must have more.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by mgblst · · Score: 1

      For some reason,
      \
      Not for some reason, for the most obvious reason. These companies make large amounts of money. They can either invest it in the bank, but flowers for everyone on the planet, or TRY TO MAKE MORE MONEY BY INVESTING IN OTHER AREAS. I am confused why so many people seem not to understand this. Microsoft did it with Xbox, PocketPC, Bing. Apple did it with iPod, iPhone, iPad. IBM did it with the IBM PC, consultancy. Amazon did it with selling to other markets. EVERYBODY DOES IT, BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

    3. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by Whuffo · · Score: 1

      I'd submit that there's a significant difference between growing and suicidal behavior. There's a lot of things Microsoft could do with those hundreds of millions that would be more productive and create real growth for their company.

    4. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Google is doing its side projects to help its core business while MS is doing search just to hurt Google and itself. Of course there are more creative ways to compete with Google, but MS, being the copycat it has always been, enjoys copying whatever Google is doing hoping it's better than doing nothing.

    5. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by gusmao · · Score: 1

      For some reason, corporations seem to feel the need to compete in areas where they're clearly outmatched no matter what

      Just because you can't see it, it doesn't mean that there is no strong rationale for that.

      The reason why google keeps investing in projects different than search is simply to increase usage and accessibility of the internet. By increasing the value of the internet (gmail, orkut, latitude), the ways you can access it (android) and by improving the overall user experience (gwt, chrome), they are basically increasing their market and the appeal of the advertisement in their core search product.

      Microsoft, on its turn, knows the value of a good monopoly and the leverage it gives in all your other products. They played this game very successfully in the desktop market, and they know that if they let google run free in the search market, it may eventually be powerful enough to crush any future source of revenue for microsoft in the web.

      Don't fool yourself into thinking that any of these guys are doing anything simply out of stupidity, hubris or whatever other reason. They are doing it because there is money involved.

    6. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by Eevee · · Score: 1

      Google has years of experience doing it and they're getting better every day. Microsoft can't catch up no matter how much money they throw at it - in the final analysis, the general public reaches for Google when they want to search.

      How is that statement different from this one: "Alta Vista has years of experience doing it and they're getting better every day. Google can't catch up no matter how much money they throw at it - in the final analysis, the general public reaches for Alta Vista when they want to search."

    7. Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      If there were no Xbox 360, what would be your alternative to a PS3?

      It's not "Self destructive behavior", it's competition.

      Maybe Bing will never get good. Maybe Google will turn Dilbertesque and all their best engineers will run to MS. Or maybe they'll start a 3rd company.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  25. BTW, I feel curious... by friguron · · Score: 1

    How many of us have SINCERELY used "MS bing" for searching purposes? Not me.

    Other tan forced usage through some silly toolbar/MS program, I would even say it's virtually unknown in Spain (for example)...

    --

    Get 250 extra MB Dropbox space using this invitation http://bit.ly/agkF3r

    1. Re:BTW, I feel curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use it all the time, not everything on bing is better, but their video and image search shits all over googles efforts.

  26. not just online services by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MS may have bigger problems than just the online services division. For example, statcounter is currently showing four straight weeks of flat usage share for windows 7 in north america. If this is really a trend or if statcounter is flubbing their surveys remains to be seen. But if it's true, it means that win7 doesn't even seem to be able to cannibalize old OSes very well. I would say it's depressing for MS, but they're raking in bajillions of dollars every quarter still, which is more than me.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    1. Re:not just online services by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows development was completed with XP. Since then Microsoft have been looking for reasons for people to upgrade. Before XP the next release was always better than the last.

    2. Re:not just online services by unity100 · · Score: 1

      thats about quite right. people dont need to upgrade anymore.

    3. Re:not just online services by Gerald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...until Office drops support for XP, that is.

    4. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows development was completed with VMS. With DEC gone, and the GPL in place on Linux, they don't have anyone big to rip off for core kernel features. Oh, they could try to steal from the BSD kernels, but the lack of drivers is deadly, as is the way they actually follow the specifications carefully.

    5. Re:not just online services by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Most small offices I know of are still using office 97-2000. MS would have to cut legacy support for office 97-2000 from their own products to really cripple small offices.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:not just online services by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Openoffice could (will?) pick up the slack when that happens.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    7. Re:not just online services by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eh? Since when has Microsoft supported their products in more of a token manner?

      What will ultimately kill XP, and the older applications which run on it, is new hardware (or rather, old hardware that dies necessitating its replacement).

      But honestly, MS doesn't want to outright kill these products. They'd rather have people using them than something non-MS. They want them around filling a segment of the market - and they're not going to die for decades, anyway - for one reason or another. What Microsoft is really concerned about is corporations and large companies upgrading to the latest, greatest: those companies and licensing is Microsoft's bread and butter.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    8. Re:not just online services by Miseph · · Score: 0

      Sorry to pop your bubble, but 7 is legitimately faster than XP. I had XP installed on my current machine... without a single hardware upgrade, I saw performance increase under 7. It IS legitimately better than not only Vista, but XP.

      Now pardon me while I reboot back into Linux...

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    9. Re:not just online services by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      Heavy Office user since the early 90s here (see my first posts in Slashdot defending it)

      You have a point and I've felt the heat as well.

      That's why I switched to OpenOffice. They won't get me by surprise here.

    10. Re:not just online services by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      What will ultimately kill XP, and the older applications which run on it, is new hardware

      Such as ? Who would make a hardware product without XP support and instantly lose all that market ?

    11. Re:not just online services by jerkmark · · Score: 3, Funny

      Such as ? Who would make a hardware product without XP support and instantly lose all that market ?

      Apple.

      --
      Pain is God trying to be funny. That's how out of touch It is. -- Jeff Lint
    12. Re:not just online services by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I would say that was caused by MSFT taking a shotgun and aiming it straight at their own foot. I knew lots of folks that was all set to upgrade away from XP after the holidays, but when MSFT killed the $50 HP upgrade along with the $150 family packs they said "Ehhh...it ain't worth the difference" and stayed with XP.

      IMHO killing the family packs and the $50 HP upgrade had to be one of the biggest bonehead moves they could have done. Either they never should have offered it at that price post release, or they should have kept it. By offering it to the public at that price and taking it away it left a lot of folks that thought HP was worth $50 that simply won't bite at $100. And they missed out on a LOT of money, because A-They would have gotten a lot of XP users switched over, thus cutting down on the "XP Exploit o' the week" which is serious bad press, B-They could have then enticed more money from a percentage of those folks by getting them to upgrade to Pro with Anytime Upgrade, and C-The better integration with Online Services could have pushed adoption of many of MSFT's online offering like Windows Live Essentials.

      So if Windows 7 adoption has flatlined I'd say MSFT has nobody to blame but themselves. Hell even I was gonna pick up an extra family pack just to convert my laptop and spare PC, but to me it simply isn't worth the extra cash when XP still works fine on those two machines. Stupid move MSFT, stupid move.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:not just online services by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That's actually why I switched to Linux. It was when we first started hearing about Vista that I decided I did not want to have to buy another computer just to upgrade (and I know myself well enough to know that if I was still using Windows when Vista rolled out, I would not be able to resist.)

    14. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never really liked XP. I found it more than annoying having always been Linux on the server front with Windows 95/NT/98/ME 2000 etc on the workstation.... then with XP I made the move to Linux on the desktop and never looked back... Although I really do like Windows 7 despite them moving stuff around again...

    15. Re:not just online services by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      You've lost the context of the parent postings.

    16. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? Since when has Microsoft supported their products in more of a token manner?

      Microsoft has supported XP since 2001. Even 2000, in it's twilight years, still has limited support up until July. Name one open source OS which has had nine years of support. Hell, name one other than ubuntu LTS versions, which manage nine months of support. Oh, and I use Linux every day, and have done for most of the last nine years. Only touch Windows when I have to fix friend's and neighbor's machines after they've busted them, just in case you think I'm trolling.

    17. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What reason was there to "upgrade" from Windows 2000 to Windows XP?

    18. Re:not just online services by PancakeMan · · Score: 1

      Before XP the next release was always better than the last.

      I can tell you never bought a computer with Windows ME on it.

    19. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before XP the next release was always better than the last.

      Except ME.

    20. Re:not just online services by c · · Score: 1

      > For example, statcounter is currently showing four straight weeks of
      > flat usage share for windows 7 in north america. If this is really a
      > trend or if statcounter is flubbing their surveys remains to be seen.

      Okay... that's a bit scary. What happened four weeks ago? iPad release.

      Naw, must be a coincidence...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    21. Re:not just online services by dskzero · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty narrow way of looking at it. There are more user types than just hardcore coders who would most likely migrate to linux anyway. You're -probably- simply not MS target.

      Also, I fail to see how ME and 95 was better than anything else.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    22. Re:not just online services by dskzero · · Score: 1

      Everyone making stuff that's remotely related to entertainment.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    23. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of Windows 2000? Windows ME?

    24. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows development was completed with XP. Since then Microsoft have been looking for reasons for people to upgrade. Before XP the next release was always better than the last.

      There were always changes for the worse as well as for the better in every version. XP was however the first consumer version that was based on NT and thus not utter crap.

    25. Re:not just online services by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      7 boots faster, but requires more CPU and memory than XP. It is not faster on the same hardware.

      It is significantly better than Vista largely because they fixed the broken video driver API in Vista. Aero, gaming and anything that needed accelerated video in Vista performed horribly.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    26. Re:not just online services by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Microsoft handed out $10 Windows 7 licenses to all Best Buy employees. They gave them out for free with the House Party promotions. They sold $50 upgrades. I'm sure they gave more out to select partners.

      Vista adoption was slow, and it had a bunch of early negative buzz. I think Microsoft didn't care about price or profits so much as appearance. If they can show lots of early adoption and try to generate early positive buzz, they feel it will carry the product for years to come.

      I originally planned to keep a Windows XP x64 partition alongside Linux and 7, but I haven't. The future lies with 7, and I'm all aboard for better or worse.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    27. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows ME

    28. Re:not just online services by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      That's true but if MS' only way to get people to ,ove forward is by dropping support for their existing products sooner then that means they're in a bad position.

      By forcing upgrades sooner (which I agree with) they piss off people who either go elsewhere or possibly kick up a fuss about MS abusing their dominant position to make people buy new software sooner than they would like especially as MS' products continue to improve and give people less reason to move on.

    29. Re:not just online services by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      Such as ATI, perhaps, or nVidia ?

    30. Re:not just online services by zaanan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ME was WAY better than 98!

    31. Re:not just online services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "requires more CPU and memory than XP. It is not faster on the same hardware."

      The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. It's easy to see how you might think it would, but performance is multifaceted and nonlinear.

      It really doesn't make sense to say, in general, that any one OS is faster than another on the same hardware. You have to give a set of specific use-case scenarios, and a specific set of hardware, and then you can say one is better than the other.

      It is possible to make some generalizations. Most hardware from 2001 runs better on XP almost every time. It also turns out that most hardware from 2010 runs measurably better on Windows 7 almost every time. This is a result of both hardware and Windows being optimized for one another at the time when they existed, and also optimized for changing use-cases, and also 9 years of dev effort, most of the devs of which are not the same as the ones that made XP (who are mostly not the same as the ones for Win95, and so on).

    32. Re:not just online services by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Except that it does. I am running 7 on the EXACT SAME hardware that I was running XP on, and 7 is faster. By which, of course, I mean other apps run faster and better... I couldn't care any less if Windows itself is actually faster, because I don't use it for anything beyond running other apps.

      I didn't even add RAM.

      It is legitimately better.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    33. Re:not just online services by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Then your XP install was probably riddled with spyware, viruses or crapware. A fresh install of 7 is not faster than a fresh install of XP on the same hardware.

      Look at the minimum requirements for each if you don't believe me. Or check most every benchmark done on the subject.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    34. Re:not just online services by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      It also turns out that most hardware from 2010 runs measurably better on Windows 7 almost every time.

      Really?

      Is that why benchmarks with modern (2010) hardware still shows better gaming performance with XP than 7?

      Please cite a source showing that 7 actually runs faster on most hardware today.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    35. Re:not just online services by SadButTrue · · Score: 1
      --
      grape - the GNU free, open source rape
    36. Re:not just online services by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Before XP the next release was always better than the last.

      I can tell you never bought a computer with Windows ME on it.

      Thats true.

  27. WTF?? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 0, Troll

    >> Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

    WTF? No wonder apple users are called "sheeple".

    1. Re:WTF?? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      WTF? No wonder apple users are called "sheeple".

      If you're already using a product that is good after all your criteria, why bother switching? Very often the game changers are ways to use technology that you never realized was possible. To take one example, take the Nintendo Wii. I've been a PC gamer and was happy with those, I never articulated a need for anything like the Wii. But once it's there and you can see it and try it you go "Wow, that's cool" and then you want it.

      I don't need another google, google is great for what it does. But is there some other search service that could do something else that I don't yet know that I want? Maybe, I guess. I don't own an Apple product but I have no problem seeing they've made many such releases. There's many, many people I see that would have been very hard to convince to switch brands to another "regular" phone and never saw need of a smart phone before, but are iPhone fans now. They never wanted an iPhone before Apple produced one and showed them what it could do.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  28. Re:BING + O by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    Old grannies playing BINGO in a Bingo hall

    Rule 34.
    No exceptions.
    One Bing to rule them all.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  29. Just imagine how different the world would be by melted · · Score: 1

    Just imagine how different the world would be if Microsoft heeded the advice of its own research arm - Microsoft research. Back in 1999-2000, MSR researchers were chomping at the bit to create a search engine (which at the time would have been FAR more advanced than anything else on the market, including Google). All they needed was budget and a "go ahead", the motivation was made abundantly clear to the executives. Ballmer said "no".

    Fast forward five years, and in about 2004-2005 Ballmer realizes that he's getting his ass brutally kicked. But by then not only was Microsoft far behind Google, it was far behind Yahoo as well. And catching up only works as well as PHBs hope if your competition is standing still, which in this case it is not.

    1. Re:Just imagine how different the world would be by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Ballmer is the classical business guy he knows numbers but does absolutely have no sense of where the technology is heading.

    2. Re:Just imagine how different the world would be by melted · · Score: 1

      I doubt he knows numbers either. He's way over his head in this, and he just doesn't want to (or can't) admit it.

  30. Xbox In Last Place In 2/3 Of The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    How totally delusional can you possibly be?

    Last gen Microsoft wasted billions only to end up:

    Last place in Japan
    Last place in Europe
    And the console only viable in the US and a few other minor markets

    This gen Microsoft has wasted billions only to end up:

    Last place in Japan
    Last place in Europe
    And once again only viable in the US and a few other minor markets

    The only thing Microsoft has going for it this gen is a 50 percent failure rate to pad out their worldwide sales total from suckers buying 3,4,5 or more Xbox 360 replacement units.

    1. Re:Xbox In Last Place In 2/3 Of The World by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Who cares whether they are first or last place, only the fanboys. What is important is if they are making money. Which, they aren't, but maybe one day.

    2. Re:Xbox In Last Place In 2/3 Of The World by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that no one keeps their lead in all territories all the time. Just look at Nintendo's past or Sony's past success. If the US ever decides MS consoles are cool they are fucked. Where as Sony has done quite well despite being 3rd in the US.

      Nintendo had huge success and went to the point of becoming almost irrelevant and yes they made a profit the whole time but that's because they don't believe in losing money on the hardware and they have their domination of the portable market to support their consoles. So they could afford to drop out of the limelight and get by. What did damage them is they aren't getting as much support from 3rd parties.

      MS has no second console to back up the 360, they still work on the same business model as everyone but Nintendo and lose money on their hardware upon launch and for as long as necessary plus Nintendo has a world class quality set of 1st party titles. So if MS were put in Nintendo's position around the N64-Gamecube area they could not duplicate Nintendo's profits.They'd bleed money on the hardware and a loss of 3rd parties would hit them hard because they have no Mario, Zelda, etc. One Halo game a year won't cut it and Banjo Kazooie is a joke.

      So yeah MS is making money now but unless they make inroads somewhere else they will eventually be screwed. That is why it does matter if they're bombing elsewhere.

  31. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And if you think that's convenient, you really need to check out the Vimperator firefox plugin.

  32. Bing in by stealth by kregg · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Bing will find its place in companies desktop SOE through the transition between Windows XP and Windows 7. Most companies will lock down the desktops pretty tight, so depending on how your IT department feels you may not get a choice of what search engine you use.
    There may even be incentives to do this... I hope not.

    1. Re:Bing in by stealth by osssmkatz · · Score: 1

      there are incentives. I heard it on buzz out loud.

  33. Bing Loses More Money by em0te · · Score: 0, Redundant

    YAY! *sticks out tongue at MS* ...am i in the club yet?

  34. Balance in the Universe by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft can't build a competitive search engine and Google can't field a competitive Office Suite -- and neither of them have taken the cell phone world by storm yet. All is still good and balanced with the universe.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  35. The Xbox Fiasco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    You can't possibly be this stupid.

    Last gen Microsoft lost some 4 billion dollars on the Xbox fiasco. This gen Microsoft has lost about the same amount. Although they are doing a somewhat better job this gen hiding the losses in Entertainment and Devices' other profitable products.

    Last gen the Xbox got destroyed by Sony and Nintendo in Japan and Europe. This gen the Xbox 360 is getting destroyed by Sony and Nintendo in Japan and Europe. Last gen the Xbox survived off US and UK sales. This gen the Xbox 360 is surviving off US and UK sales once again.

    Even more mind boggling is the 66 percent failure rate leading to millions and millions of duplicate Xbox 360s being sold still hasn't help Microsoft do any better this gen than last gen's fiasco.

    But you do have to hand it to the idiots running Microsoft's online services. They are taking the crown from the 8 billion dollar Xbox train wreck for Microsoft's biggest financial turd.

  36. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ctrl+e can easily be done with one hand on the mouse and accomplishes the same task.

  37. Good thing for Microsoft employees by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

    On the upside, for Microsoft employees, that means less money to spend on chairs. *ducks*

    --
    This space up for sale.
  38. Great! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Awesome news, IMO. Maybe they're stop chasing shit that have no real expertise in anyway. Had they paid more attention to their core business Vista would have never happened.

  39. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Rennt · · Score: 1

    Mmm, tried it, didn't like it.

    Let me say I can happily use vi all day. I also think that nethack shortcuts are intuitive (well, maybe not - but I like them).

    The thing is a document viewer has different input requirements to a document editor.

    Vimperator is cute, but I can't shake the feeling it is a joke taken too far. Something like the unixkcd thing, only the neckbeards coding it forgot to include a punchline.

    Besides, firefox implements "/" for page search so I'm happy.

  40. Bing OK, Bing deal with Yahoo not so much by Animats · · Score: 1

    If you read the entire Business Week article, it turns out that advertising revenue is up 19% at Bing. What's killing them is the Yahoo deal, which is apparently a money drain during the cutover. Microsoft's "online services" also include other MSN-related things, including their declining dial-up business.

    It's too early to tell how this will unwind. Microsoft is patient. Bear in mind that the original XBox lost money through its lifespan. Only now is the gaming operation moving into positive territory.

    1. Re:Bing OK, Bing deal with Yahoo not so much by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that the original XBox lost money through its lifespan.

      Over its entire lifespan, that's true; the Xbox probably never recouped its cost. But the console was sold at a profit before the end. Unfortunately, it's horribly hard to find any information on the Xbox because Microsoft called their new console the Xbox 360. This can not have been accidental, because Xbox 360 is such a stupid name for a console that isn't even round.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  41. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Rennt · · Score: 1

    Not here, AC, I just tried. Maybe in Windowsland (TM).

    But come now, did you really need to hide your identity for that?

  42. So you'll take a bribe by symbolset · · Score: 1

    You'll take a bribe to pretend to use their search engine to find products. This helps them persuade advertisers that people use Bing to find products - and so they should advertise on Bing and pay top rate. Now, of course they're paying out more than they're taking in, or the books would be written in black ink.

    Now what happens when they stop bribing people to pretend to use their search to find products - as eventually they must? Three guesses, no peeking at the answers.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  43. And in related news... by twoears · · Score: 1

    Microsoft president Steve Ballmer announced a name change. OSD will be known as OCD. ("I'll fucking kill Google!" (chairs flying))

  44. Re:How do I get to Bing? by markdueck · · Score: 2, Informative

    and an Alt+Enter will open the result in a new tab

  45. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't hold a candle to alt+f4

  46. Surprising by kstahmer · · Score: 1

    Bing losing money is surprising, given it's the best Internet porn search engine.

    --
    HRH The Duke of Windsor
  47. Bing by voxner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really hope Bing succeeds. I haven't used it much so far, mostly out of Inertia. But I don't like the idea of placing all my bets with Google. It's very important that an alternate good quality search engine is available. MS is best placed to achieve that for they have the man-power & the money. I hope they succeed.

    1. Re:Bing by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I really hope Bing succeeds. I haven't used it much so far, mostly out of Inertia. But I don't like the idea of placing all my bets with Google. It's very important that an alternate good quality search engine is available. MS is best placed to achieve that for they have the man-power & the money. I hope they succeed.

      Indexing the entire internet isn't a matter of money, it's a matter of skill. MS don't have that skill and they can't buy it. If MS absorb Yahoo they will do no more than wreck the only real competition Google have.

      If Yahoo stay independent, and spend all their resources improving search they might catch up, but it's not likely. Yahoo+MS will never catch up.

  48. could it be the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps its the name? Bing! I suppose it couldn't be the sound of a chair landing near the recently minted Googler, that would be Bang! And I also suppose it couldn't be the sound of a ball bouncing, or is that the sound of a jet bouncing? Anyway, that would be Boeing. So, to recap, it could be Bing, but definitely can't be Bang or Boeing. Oh, and for those crazy slashdotters out there, it can't be bong either. Water pipe maybe, but not bong!

  49. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiny orgasm

  50. Well, ya know how they're still in business! by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    They took down that expensive Microsoft Flight Simulator!

    (Nah, I'm just cranky about it; that's the ONE THING about Microsoft that always worked for me, the way it needed to, and I missed after switching to Linux in 1999.)

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  51. Microsoft are stupid by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    One day Microsoft are going to realize that stupidly plus money is no match for smart. They can't beat Google and they know it, all they can hope for is to slow Google down a little at huge expense to themselves.

    Carry on MS - it's fun to watch you burn your shareholders money.

    1. Re:Microsoft are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one day I are going to say that you is using bad grammar.

    2. Re:Microsoft are stupid by 1s44c · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And one day I are going to say that you is using bad grammar.

      One day you might post as yourself not Anonymous Coward.

      What's the matter? Scared of being modded a troll?

  52. MS Bob Hope gains "visual search" by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is improving its stratospherically successful "decision engine," Bob Hope, with a feature that allows you to "visual search" on "web" "sites."

    "This is what happens at the cutting edge of research, y'know," said marketing marketer Yusuf Mehdi at the Tech Crunch 50 conference yesterday. "You can use Microsoft Search to 'search' for any page on the Information Superhighway! And it's really quite amazing what's out there. Man. That's actually our slogan — 'Microsoft Search: It's Really Quite Amazing What's Out There. Man.'"

    The "search" feature is part of technology acquired in the deal with Yahoo! "We bought this fantastic thing they were working on. It's a directory of links to web pages. People put stuff into classifications. You can 'crowd-source' it, you know! You visualise what you're looking for, type it in words and this stuff shows up. Amazing! I don't know how anyone never thought of it before. We have about fifty precomputed 'searches' in there at the moment, with more to come. Windows 7! The 'wow' starts now! You know, sometimes I wonder how people even managed to use computers before Windows 7."

    Search requires installing Microsoft Silverlight, .NET 3.5, the latest service packs and Windows Genuine Advantage. Office 2007 is also recommended. It runs best in Internet Explorer 8 on a Windows 7 computer. "We don't see how Goog— that other company can possibly compete. Theirs doesn't use anything extra. How the hell are you supposed to get people hooked like that? They just don't have a business model."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:MS Bob Hope gains "visual search" by Martz · · Score: 1

      Yeah I went to look around at what Bing offered and I tried the Bing Visual Search.. and it prompted me to download the Silver Light installer. My insta-knee-jerk reaction was to click cancel since I didn't specifically ask to download something. I'd like to think more and more casual users are getting better at not installing random crap from websites now that they've spent the past few years having their computers infected and it costing them real money and time to have it fixed.

      If I was looking for something, and the idea of a Visual Search seemed like a good idea - I wouldn't want to then start installing additional software. I want my results! I've obviously got a goal which is to find information, not to spend time installing stuff. I'm likely to go elsewhere.

      From a "I'd like to know what Microsoft are up to here!" angle, the Visual Search seems like a 2 pronged attack - 1) Google by offering a different search product and 2) to increase it's market share against Adobe Flash player.

    2. Re:MS Bob Hope gains "visual search" by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      The thing is that Google trounces all comers when it comes to text search ... but its image search is still sorta crappy. So Bing has a possible way in there: be better at something. Of course, being Microsoft, they have to try to pull in a gratuitous dependency on another company product.

      Perhaps they need a new slogan. "Bing! It's still better than Cuil!"

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  53. Re: how Microsoft gets ahead (anti-competitively) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If Microsoft wants to get ahead, stop trying to imitate and start innovating"

    This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read on slashdot*.

    Microsoft is a m o n o p o l y -- they dominate technological choke points as best they can. If anything they should lobby the US government to only allow their "safe" software to be sold and used and thus extend the life of their monopoly.

    * This is a joke about Trey, don't take it personal

  54. Re:I don't like Linux by DI4BL0S · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your signature elaborates your decision...
    Google has shown in the past that they care allot about protecting they customer information
    While Microsoft has shown in the past that all they care about is making things theirs
    where a failed attempt to make the internet Microsoft compliant rather then open to all things OS by sticking to their own standards instead of W3C.

    No thanks, I'd choose Google any time over MS

  55. Re:I don't like Linux by DI4BL0S · · Score: 1

    where a failed attempt...

    should have been <!-- IE lt 8 --> where a failed attemp...
    didnt realize /. would allow html commenting :O

  56. Way off, there by Mathinker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google has declared over $30 billion in tangible assets for 2009.

    They even paid more than your $1.5 billion estimate in income taxes in 2009.

    Frankly, I even think that Google has enough money to develop a competing OS and eventually displace Microsoft from their position of control in the OS market, but I don't think that they're at all interested.

    1. Re:Way off, there by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      My bad, I missed a couple of decimal points. woops. :)

    2. Re:Way off, there by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google has made an OS however. No one is taking is seriously because it it basically a web browser. And while Microsoft and others are busy talking about the Cloud, people forget that Google is sitting on this.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client

      What happens when users don't need to install apps or worry about security so much because apps can just run natively in the cloud in a sandboxed instance? You just access them from the web, and they just work.

      Then suddenly that simple, secure OS that Google made becomes vastly more interesting.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Way off, there by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points to rate this up. Why is it so hard for people to see the blatantly obvious stuff coming in the near future?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    4. Re:Way off, there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up

    5. Re:Way off, there by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I do have mod points, but bad /. scripts aren't working today, and I can mod. But I can comment :)

      People don't see the "browser is the OS" idea as a clear winner because, well, it isn't quite clear it is a winner idea. It was already tried, and didn't work on the past. This time, it may be different, but more often than not it isn't.

    6. Re:Way off, there by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      I wasn't supporting the "browser as an OS" idea, I was just saying that Google's inevitable move in that direction with Native Client and Chrome/Android is, well, obvious. If Google has its way, then your choice of OS will be a moot point. Only your choice of browser will be significant (if your choice does not support their architecture, that is).

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    7. Re:Way off, there by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      or worry about security so much because apps can just run natively in the cloud in a sandboxed instance?

      Ah, but obviously the security of the OS and browser still remain important in the case of NaCl (NaCl only protects the OS and browser from the application, not the other way around).

      Then suddenly that simple, secure OS that Google made becomes vastly more interesting.

      Very interesting observation. Thanks for tying those two things together, I think you deserve +5 for that, but, of course, cannot mod you up.

  57. Re:I don't like Linux by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Google has shown in the past that they care allot about protecting they customer information

    From others. Not from themselves. Which makes sense, because that data is their most valuable asset, so they are very interested to not give it away.
    While a company collecting data and not giving it away is still better than one collecting it and giving it away, the company shouldn't collect it to begin with.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  58. Re:I don't like Linux by DI4BL0S · · Score: 1

    They have thanked me for the information by giving me great tools at no real cost My cellphone provider knows more about me as they do and all they do is charge me...

  59. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for that! My life is changed. (BTW, it's CMD-K on a Mac, but you knew that.)

  60. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn. I was hoping that CTRL+K would kill the browser session. Then I'd go around telling people to press CTRL+K

  61. Re:I don't like Linux by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Well, if you think the tools are worth the information you give them, well, great. I don't think they are, and therefore I don't use the tools (apart from search and maps).

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  62. I did, just yesterday by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Binged "Opera" and "Chrome" and "Firefox". Good results too. 3 out of 3 = 100% succes rate, and highly likely to remain like that.

    I think there is also a very simple reason for Bing to "fail". Wether it is as good as google does not matter. It isn't any better. So why change? I know google and how to tune it. No, it isn't perfect. Why do I far to often get ancient results on subjects google should know recent entries might be more relevant (if I google "ubunutu ati driver" what do I want, results from 2001 or 2010?) and why can I only pick "last week" or "last year". Don't months exist in google land?

    But Bing doesn't do it any better, so why bother?

    Hey MS! INNOVATE! Do something NEW, IMPROVE searching. It is like the "dock" in Windows 7. Come on, a bad rip off of OSX, that I should pay 200 euro for? Think not.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:I did, just yesterday by ig88b · · Score: 1

      and why can I only pick "last week" or "last year". Don't months exist in google land?

      It may not be quite as convenient as the one-click options, but you can pick a specific date range for your results.

  63. Bad Search results is why bing is failing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use google and bing, but each for different things.

    When I want to know something that my mother knows, I use Bing. It is better, IME, at regular people knowledge searches.

    When I want to know something that a nerd somewhere knows, I use google. Bing doesn't seem to have a clue about anything technical. Further, I run a few web sites and almost all my referral traffic is from Google, like 99.999999%. The rest are bookmarks and direct links, but not from Bing. When I search for a technical article on my site that is in the top 3 on google, Bing doesn't show my url on the first 3 pages of results.

    Guess who ask search engines more questions? Moms or Nerds?

  64. man, you're making this complicated by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    I do it like this: select some text, hotkey to search it
    Meta+G = Google
    Meta+W = Wikipedia
    Meta+Y = YouTube
    ...

    The hotkey runs a BASH script that queries klipper via D-BUS to get the highlighted text and constructs the parameters for firefox, depending on the parameters, which are set up in the hotkeys

    I'll write a native program soon (and give it to the desktop-environment guys), that will support all search-extensions, not just some predefined ones...

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  65. Breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people who bring in the big bucks at MS is their Office Division, then their OS division, then everything else.

    ... Oh wait that is how it has been for the past 10 years.

  66. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: microsoft search simply doesn't work.

  67. And TV broadcasters .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... are advertising companies that do TV programmes.

    And magazines are advertising companies that write articles in shinny paper.

    And football teams are advertising companies that play football.

    And you are a dumbo.

  68. Re:How do I get to Bing? by lxs · · Score: 1

    Opera tells me that I need an account for that. I don't want an account.

  69. You are kind of making his point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For a comparison, Mozilla's annual profits are roughly equivalent to what Microsoft profits in a single day"

    And still the entity that innovated was Mozilla Foundation.

    That exemplifies perfectly the fact that Microsoft has not innovated, perhaps ever.

  70. Lexical suggestion: Mod Socking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were to ask me, I would say Microsoft(no $ in there, by the way). I do not trust Google at all. It is not that I trust Microsoft so much as I do not trust Google at all. The fact that Google is just an advertising company that does search compared to Microsoft actually having products to support itself is a major factor in my decision.
    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.

    Yes, the signature is a dead givaway. Not to make premature conclusions on this particular post, but I am looking for a catchy term for explaining some perplexing moderation scores... For related activities, we already have 'astroturfing' and 'sock puppets'...

    Would you think 'mod socking' appropriate? I tentatively define it as: closely or loosely concerted action between some posters and modders to artificially mod up comments.

    1. Re:Lexical suggestion: Mod Socking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just googled 'mod socking'....

      Found three instances; one on Jottler relating to "rogue mod socking".

      Not yet any on Slashdot though. The term definitely has some flavour...

      Cheers!

  71. Re:How do I get to Bing? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    And "'" for link search. I don't use it very often, but it's very handy for those few time I do.

  72. Bing Cashback by prestonmichaelh · · Score: 1

    I always wonder how much they are losing on their cashback program. It wouldn't suprise me if the vendor shares some of the cost, but MS must be paying some of it as well. Sites like fatwallet and other deal sites constantly have threads on how to game the bing cashback system with the best keywords for the highest cashback amounts. I have never used bing as a search engine, but I have received over $450 in bing cashback for things that I would have purchased anyway (I got a lot of it from helping people purchase Dell computers and having them go through a bing cashback link to kind of pay me back for configuring the computer for them).
    Anyway, I am sure there are many more people who have received more than me. I guess it helps them that they can claim greater click-through numbers, but if it wasn't for the 5%-20% back that sites offer, I wouldn't bother going to Bing in the first place. I wonder what is going to happen when they realize they can't keep paying out the large cashback amounts. I am sure their click-throughs will drop by half or more.

  73. Re:How do I get to Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think that maybe CTRL+W or ALT+F4 may be more appropriate in his case...

  74. [warning: obnoxious interstitial] by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    I think that warning is rather unwarranted...

    given that nobody reads the articles anyway.

  75. What good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows XP had very serious problems until Service Pack 2 was released. Microsoft Office is a mess, in my opinion. It is also an attempt to lock in users with an undocumented file design.

  76. I do... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    ...but thanks to that warning, I'm not reading this one.

    Fuck interstitials.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  77. Give it up Microsoft by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    Stop trying to copy people and do some innovating, y'know that thing you're always saying you should have the freedom to do (and not have the DOJ stopping you).

    Apple is making loads of money and it isn't even in the advert business (yet, iPhone OS 4 will bring them into it).

  78. Re:I don't like Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that... Too dumb to know much of anything about the tools you use. Seems to be a common issue around here.

  79. That is too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand that they can expect to lose money for a while chasing Google. However they are headed towards losing a BILLION dollars per quarter!!!!!!!

    That is way too much money being lost. They are definitely doing things wrong.

    They have been at this for quite a while despite Bing be relatively new.

  80. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a stable operating system then boot time is kinda secondary.

  81. Haaaaaaa choke on it MS, choke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bing is Bung - serves them right for trying to monopolise EVERYTHING....

  82. Thought the idea was to make money... by alfielee · · Score: 0

    Or is it merely to try to screw-up someone else & maintain a monopolist's position. Well, whatever, M$ is failing & good...

  83. Can't wait for next year... by BlindBear · · Score: 1

    for when they announce to shareholders and industry analysts that they have lost about US$1.1 billion chasing after the Google train ... just so comforting. In ten years time will M$ be flushing perhaps 5 to 10 Billion shareholder dollars down the toilet annually,still chasing that Google search train ? What kind of idiots invest in a company such as this ? What kind of liars/cheats would recommend such a destructive force ?

    --
    I prefer Classic Slashdot.