Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Microsoft Team Up Against Google
Pickens writes "In a move that could be the biggest threat to Google's search standing yet, Microsoft and Facebook announced that they're teaming up for social search. When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked. While industry watchers say this is an interesting move for search, what's most notable is that Facebook turned to Microsoft for this deal and not to the market leader, Google. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says there is a specific reason he wants to go with Bing: 'They really are the underdog here. They're incentivized to go out and innovate. They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things.' The real importance of this week's announcement is that it highlights the growing strategic conflict between Facebook and Google, says analyst Ray Valdes. 'There is a battle for the future of the Web, and it is not about search engines, but about the social Web.'"
Plus they gave me a bonus.
So is this a deliberate attempt for Facebook to allocate resources towards Diaspora? Are they deliberately fueling the two headed monster that will replace them?
There is a battle for the future of the Web, and it is not about search engines, but about the social Web
There is a battle for the future of people's *privacy*. On one side, ordinary people. On the other side, spooks and profiteers who tell us that "privacy doesn't matter".
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
When we install IE7* at work and are prompted on first use, we change the default search to Google.
Bing is utter crap.
Ok, maybe mom and dad who were told they had to upgrade to continue using the web don't know any better, but surely people with the smallest amount of common sense change to Google (or something other than Bing).
*We have to use IE7 because many of our apps, including our multi-million dollar black hole ERP project using Oracle, won't run on IE8
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
...the "Push" of this decade.
This seems like one of those things that sounds like a cool idea but never takes off. Most people probably aren't hugely interested in seeing which cars their friends recommend. I think most people are still in the mindset that if they want someone's opinion on something they'll ask them directly. Maybe there are some interesting uses for this, but the cars example in the summary seems pretty bland.
I've always wondered why they don't have a dislike option as well.
I can see it now.... I'll be shopping at Walgreens.com and there will be popups on that say what kind of Hemorrhoid cream my boss uses, and that my Aunt Grace just bought a some warming KY-Jelly.
Some things need to stay private.
incentivized to go out and innovate??? Someone forgot this Bing technology which microsoft has innovated so greatly is mostly just yahoo under the hood. based on the core technology alone, one could surmise they dont have many intelligent folks working long hours on this. I suspect the real reason was a nice, greasy palm full of cash from microsoft.
as for the social web i could take it or leave it, mark. People forget the original "social web" was IRC and usenet. All you've offered arguably is a clever sand box for market research and a communications system that doesn't challenge anyone to engage in a real conversation.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"Their search engine sucks."
"They gave us a lot of money"
"They're rich and desperate. Ka-ching!"
Log in or piss off.
The idea of Facebook and Microsoft teaming up together is very scary. Two companies riddled with security flaws... Those running the botnets are smiling from ear to ear because they see more victims.
When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked.
And with a map interface, we can all see which cliff all the other rodents are leaping off today.
Have gnu, will travel.
If I care about my friends' opinions on a particular topic, I ask them about it.
This is just so silly - doubly so, given the typical Facebook user's definition of "friend". Tell me, if you're doing a search - do you honestly care what random "Facebook Friend" Joe Schmoe, who you last met 20 years ago in daycare, liked or didn't like?
#DeleteChrome
Google's working on cars that drive by themselves.
What the fuck is Microsoft innovating?
Facebook is just a fad...
Most folks/corporations/ip-rights-holders don't mind being "liked". But if you publicise loudly enough that you "dislike" them, they might sue to stop you.
As a consumer, you are only allowed two votes: Consent or Abstain. There is no Dissent.
Eventually there'll be no Abstain.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
Honestly , now to do a _bing_ search I have to log into a facebook account or how is this suppose to work? Also what about privacy issues ? XSS attacks ? How is this anonymously allowing me to search and bettering my privacy at the same time ?
The real reason is because both Microsoft and Facebook see eye-to-eye when it comes to user security. ;)
Both eyes are blind.
Microsoft's business strategy "be evil" seems a much better fit for Facebook.
I really am regretting ever creating a Facebook account. If things carry on in this direction, I shall delete the thing soon.
Those of us who found serious problems (mainly privacy-related) with Facebook from the very beginning, decided not to participate at all, and said so, tended to catch some flak for it. As in, something other than a well-reasoned rebuttal to the position. Usually this was in the form of someone's personal offense that I would point out a flaw in their favorite new service, or that I would steadfastly value the privacy they seem to have given up on.
"If things carry on in this direction" indeed. I think this is like many political proposals. People tend to look at short-term effects without considering that these represent movement in a particular direction. The path that the momentum is taking can be identified early on and the destination can be known long before the end of that path is reached. It is something of a law of nature that events tend to unfold, to evolve, to become more so, to continue along their current direction in a straight line unless some counter-force alters that path. The longer something goes on the more inertia it accumulates; the more inertia it has the greater that counter-force (or backlash) must be to have any effect.
I for one identified early on that Facebook and similar sites appeal to a form of vanity I do not personally possess. Even if I did find that tempting, vanity is not a rational reason to participate in something. They do this while coming with disadvantages I find unacceptable, such as the loss of control over any personal information posted there (read their privacy policies, they make this quite clear) and the extensive use of personal information for tracking and marketing purposes. As another poster has pointed out in reply to you, you have no real assurance that your account is ever truly deleted even after going through a needlessly complex process to request that this be done.
The pattern here is a valuable one to recognize and simplicity itself. When many proponents of something display that kind of denigrating personal offense when you question the purpose or usefulness of that thing, and resent that you question it rationally at all, it should be a red flag. I've rarely or never seen anyone do that when the object in question is an inherently good or useful thing that can stand on its own merits. The regret you express can be described as a lesson about popularity, trend, and bandwagon appeal and the unwarranted power these can have over your decision-making. To be sure, it is a valuable one.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The expected /. reaction to any story about Facebook, already evident in this thread, is along the lines of "Donotwant", "Lame", "Privacy Fail", "When I want to talk to my friends, I pick up the phone", etc.
Two facts I think slashdotters overlook: 1) "regular people" (i.e. everyone else) *love* the epic load of crap pretend socializing that Facebook provides, and care very little about the security of their information. b) there are a lot more of them than there are of us.
Google spends all of its time trying to mine your info (as a byproduct offering some really useful services - unlike Facebook). So they care very much about the "Social Web". Facebook has a half billion people tripping over themselves to cough up their personal info and build the Social Web basically for free. Honestly, if Facebook had a good search engine & email client, a lot of people would probably never go anywhere else. Sounds like a legitimate threat to me - even if not a single one of them can fix their own computer or speak Klingon.
If anything saves us, I think it'll be the fickleness of the mob. Hopefully, someone else will come up with the next Big Dumb Thing with Extra Farmville!, and Facebook will lose its grip the way MySpace did. But I doubt it'll be because 500,000,000 people suddenly wise up and realize they're not "really" socializing.
I'm going out on a limb and saying Bing's merits have little to do with this deal. Microsoft invested $240M in Facebook in 2007 so of course Facebook is going to be drinking their Kool-Aid.
I just want to be able to send IM's.
So you're using an IM network. Good for you. There are already plenty of them. Facebook doesn't need to be another one.
Many people like social networks. They like "wall-shit that people are going to write on". They want to share photos. They want to do status updates. Facebook has been very successful catering to that. It's not obliged to become an IM network just because you don't like social networks.
Why does /. hate social networks so much? Whenever there's a thread on FB or twitter, the responses are a predictable litany of "lol, idiot lusers" comments. No-one seems to see any purpose in them at all. The idea is simple enough: you have an idea, a picture, a silly video or whatever, that you'd like some of your friends to see. You don't know quite who'll be interested in it, so you post it publicly, and anyone who's not interested can just ignore it. It's like a blog and a blog aggregator, packaged up so that it appeals to non-geeks. Yes, there are some idiots on them, but plenty of people use them quite rationally.
Nah, trust me, you can try and patiently and kindly explain it and people, sensing perhaps that they don't quite understand what's going on but you might be right, often throw an irrational fit.
I think it's really about gratification, it's easier to get invited to parties/events and feel like people want to hear the inane details of your lives that only close friends and family members will normally make time for.
Usually I hear, "I don't care about that stuff," then you read about people losing their jobs over it, because they had no caution whatsoever. Right or wrong, it's reality today and may or may not be reality for some time to come (eventually it's possible that one day no one will give a crap, but no one was supposed to care about weed by now either and it seems all those 60s hippies are mostly opposed to it these days so I can't really venture to guess which way this one will go).
And here's the main thing, when something like this is happening, it's an uneven playing field. It's hard to protect yourself even if you have a concept of data mining (most people don't), you still are not an expert and don't know what common algos will be able to do in 15 years with this stuff. You could be turning yourself into a pariah in 20 years that has a harder time finding a job than a convicted felon does today.
Google already has a social network. It's just not that great.
I'm all for supporting the underdog, but that's Microsoft we're talking about here, for Christ sakes!
Just because your drunken, abusive stepfather ends up in a puddle of his own body liquids, you're not supposed to feel pitty for him all of a sudden.. after all, he's the one who beat you up all the time over the years.
I'd rather have Google keep their monopoly, than risking to get Microsoft near yet another one ever again.