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."

57 of 317 comments (clear)

  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 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!
  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 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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. . . .
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. Re:Competing Isn't Cheap by dskzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
  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. 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 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.
  5. 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!

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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"
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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 Gerald · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.
  17. 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 = ....
       

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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."
  21. Re:How do I get to Bing? by markdueck · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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 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.