Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Has Lost $5.5 Billion On Bing Since 2009

Landing on slashdot for the first time, MightyMartian writes "According to CNN Money, Microsoft has lost $5.5 billion on Bing since its launch in 2009. But it gets even better. If you include Microsoft's other online offerings, all the way back to 2007, the losses are somewhere in the neighborhood of $9 billion. But not to worry, analysts expect Bing to become profitable in 'three to four years.'"

217 comments

  1. It's an investment. by ge7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is in the same situation elsewhere - they're spending LOTS of money to try to gain market share in Russia and China, but so far they're being crushed by the local giants Yandex and Baidu. These companies see it as a long-term campaing and have the means and money to do it. After all, it's still a lot easier to try to gain market share now than it will be in 20-30 years. Even if things are quite laid down now, they will be even more so all the time when time passes.

    It's also just corporate finances. Even if Microsoft's online division loses money, it gains them recognizition and sales elsewhere. The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started. It's not like Google who might just cancel the product you're using the next day.

    So if they don't keep investing to it now, they're basically letting Google have 99% of western search engine market. I really don't want that happen either - competition is good.

    1. Re:It's an investment. by mhh91 · · Score: 0

      The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started. It's not like Google who might just cancel the product you're using the next day.

      Yeah, they really stuck to VB6 and silverlight.

    2. Re:It's an investment. by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Or Bob. Good luck calling Microsoft and asking for support after you accidentally moved the fire out of the fireplace and on to the sofa.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:It's an investment. by ynp7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft "stick" to what they started? Seems to me that they throw out shit all the time. Bing is a perfect example of where they also throw out customer-facing services. Just a few years ago it was "Live Search," which failed terribly as a brand, so they threw it out and started paying people to use Bing to pump up their search rankings.

      You may also remember Microsoft Zune and Kin. Perhaps you blinked and missed those?

      Or maybe you just notice the Google ones more because, like me, you find them more useful and thus actually feel the impact when they shutdown a project.

    4. Re:It's an investment. by riley · · Score: 1

      Hailstorm, Silverlight, Passport, MSN, Bob...

      MS is the same as any other large company. Outside of their proven revenue generators, they throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Not that I mind competition in any space, but still...

    5. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Zune, and PlaysForSure, and Vista...

    6. Re:It's an investment. by gcnaddict · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started.

      ...unless you're a developer.

      How many platforms has Microsoft killed in a short timeframe in the name of the future?

      --
      Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      VB6 is still in extended support after 13 years and Silverlight is still going.

    8. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started. It's not like Google who might just cancel the product you're using the next day.

      Yeah, they really stuck to VB6 and silverlight.

      In case you don't know how this works, you were supposed to pick something useful. You don't complain about the loss of inferior products that no one used anyway.

    9. Re:It's an investment. by HerculesMO · · Score: 2

      Silverlight is actually great for line of business apps, but you'd never know it because they are only going to be found in corporate intranets.

      It's hugely popular though, and a great platform for what we use it for. We tried going down the Java road and saw the costs and timelines... said "fuck it" and got the Silverlight project done underbudget and ahead of time. Now I'm just waiting for my bonus that will never come :p

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    10. Re:It's an investment. by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      VB6 is still in extended support after 13 years and Silverlight is still going.

      VB6 I'll grant you, and I wouldn't have used that as an example myself. However, while it hasn't been killed off, Silverlight has been blatantly sidelined from its original marketed intent of being a Flash-killer.

      One may argue that MS made the right decision there, but it doesn't alter the fact that they changed their minds!

      While Silverlight still remains in some form as one of the development platforms for Windows Phone 7, I don't know how similar that version is to the Flash-killer, how much overlap there is between the two uses and how meaningfully one may transfer their skills to that use.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    11. Re:It's an investment. by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has been removing Silverlight from their own websites and replacing it with HTML5. And Metro Tiles and Windows App Store apps won't support Silverlight. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest your project probably could have been accomplished with Ruby. JS, Python or a number of other technologies just as fast.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    12. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Almost zero. Seriously, what do you even have in mind?

    13. Re:It's an investment. by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      It also gains them a tax write-off.

      --
      C|N>K
    14. Re:It's an investment. by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Isn't this also the same strategy they used for the Xbox?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    15. Re:It's an investment. by HerculesMO · · Score: 2

      Sure it could, but then we have no baseline for performance either. Silverlight sandboxes everything so we know exactly what result we are going to get. Plus, we have no ruby/python developers in house, only Java/.NET, and Silverlight was the lesser of two evils for us.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    16. Re:It's an investment. by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Workflow Foundation 3.5

    17. Re:It's an investment. by ge7 · · Score: 1

      Completely forget about Netflix and Hulu? And the countless amount of TV channels that use Silverlight on their websites, even in my country. Silverlight offers DRM while Flash doesn't, and that's why it will stay relevant even with Flash and HTML5 video.

    18. Re:It's an investment. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Clearly at least one too few, they still haven't managed to chase off all them pesky developers.

    19. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how Netflix & Hulu work on iOS?

    20. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no Silverlight on Netflix for the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo 3DS, Apple TV, Boxee, Roku, televisions, BluRay Players, etc.

      There's also no Netflix available for my Mac as far as I'm concerned. Install Microsoft crap on my Mac? Why the hell would I do that?

    21. Re:It's an investment. by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Silverlight never really got off the ground except for Netflix. However, VB6 was an extremely widely used product, and its discontinuance caused a great deal of trouble for many real-world organizations.

    22. Re:It's an investment. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Competition is good, but Bing is hardly worthy competition.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    23. Re:It's an investment. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well I know /. had a article just a month or two ago about closing down .net or one of there other developer things.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    24. Re:It's an investment. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Huh? Hulu uses Flash here in the states, which does, in fact, offer DRM.

      Netflix does use silverlight for PC streaming though (which blows). I suspect that has more to do with Reed Hastings being on the board at MSFT.

    25. Re:It's an investment. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      From a utility perspective, Bing doesn't have to be competitive. If Microsoft can force market share through other manipulations, it all amounts to the same thing in the end. Except, of course, for the users, but they don't count.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    26. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a pretty poor one if so.. There is a known issue in Bing Webmaster tools where Sitemaps are in a permanent pending mode. Apparently its a known issue, but rather than fixing it (we've had it for a few months now), they've been working on adding Yahoo support and such.

      I would have thought that surely the ability to scrape sitemaps properly would be an important feature

    27. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well I know /. had a article just a month or two ago about closing down .net or one of there other developer things.

      Which was posted by someone who had no clue what they were talking about.

      What was happening was that Microsoft was originally pushing Silverlight as the "Next Big Thing", but then realized that HTML5 was the REAL "Next Big Thing", so they stopped pushing Silverlight so hard.

      This does not mean Silverlight is dead. And, of course, many Slashtards confused "Silverlight" with ".NET" and started spouting off about Microsoft killing .NET, which is an absolutely preposterous claim.

    28. Re:It's an investment. by StripedCow · · Score: 0

      Google is in the same situation elsewhere - they're spending LOTS of money to try to gain market share in Russia and China

      Isn't that illegal? I mean their product is free and they're forcing other players out of the market, by using money obtained from completely unrelated activities.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    29. Re:It's an investment. by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      Why does it blow? It works as advertised...

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    30. Re:It's an investment. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Kin...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    31. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course; because those devices use their own custom protocols to handle the communication and eventual DRM. I'm going to guess you never knew YouTube was watchable on cellphones years before the iPhone and HTML5?

    32. Re:It's an investment. by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      That was false.

    33. Re:It's an investment. by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Completely forget about Netflix and Hulu?

      I don't live in the United States, so I don't use Netflix. Hulu- that officially isn't available here either, though I'm well aware I could use a proxy except that I'm not enough into TV to have considered bothering. :-)

      Which is beside the point....

      And the countless amount of TV channels that use Silverlight on their websites, even in my country. Silverlight offers DRM while Flash doesn't, and that's why it will stay relevant even with Flash and HTML5 video.

      ...well, not really. It depends what you mean by "relevant". Those are existing uses that were created beforehand. Sure, it's quite possible- if not probable- that they'll continue using Silverlight for that reason, but that's a still niche.

      It says nothing about Silverlight as a replacement for Flash outside those niche uses. Given that MS have effectively declared that as a dead end and stopped pushing it in that direction, no-one (except the poor mugs who took MS at their word and wasted their time learning it for that purpose before MS abruptly changed their mind and declared HTML5 to be the future) is going to bother moving to Silverlight for Flash-like use, nor invest in that side of the ecosystem.

      MS killed it off *before* it became truly relevant by supplanting Flash- or at least one thinks that was the intended plan.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    34. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developers! Developers! Developers!

    35. Re:It's an investment. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Silverlight never got off the ground as a Flash killer, but it was definitely being used quite a lot for intranet "rich web" apps.

      As for VB6, as GP notes, it's still supported - heck, Win7 ships with msvbvm60.dll. VB6 IDE will not run directly on Win7, but it will happily run in XP Mode. So you can develop in VB6 today on Win7 Pro or higher (don't ask me how I know... ugh).

    36. Re:It's an investment. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has been removing Silverlight from their own websites and replacing it with HTML5. And Metro Tiles and Windows App Store apps won't support Silverlight.

      Neither of which are relevant for GP's use case, which is internal app deployed on a corporate intranet.

    37. Re:It's an investment. by kirkb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WPF. It was supposed to be an all-new programming paradigm, but was too little, too late. Performance was abysmal, and this never got fixed. Now it gets replaced with WinRT.

      http://fixwpf.org/

      --
      Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
    38. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started."

      Tell that to the silverlight and .net kids.

    39. Re:It's an investment. by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The original point is that Microsoft doesn't always support their technologies. They can abandon them at any time.

      If you kept your accounting records in Microsoft Money, then you were screwed the moment they dropped support. If you bought all your music in the PlaysForSure (ironically named) format, then you were screwed.

      Someone countered with "Silverlight is neat and I used it" which doesn't really refuse the notion that big companies can leave you hanging at any time.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    40. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Bob, Encarta, NetBEUI (and the gecko icon included with it), microsoft TV, doublespace, and dozens of others (Foxpro anyone?). Some (like Foxpro) they intentionally bought and broke to kill off competition. Others (like NetBEUI) were just really bad. Encarta died because instead of getting proprietary stuff for a price from M$, you could go to a million web sites with a million times as much information. I know I'm forgetting lots of other stuff that M$ has killed over the years, (apparently C# and .net are on the current chopping block), but with Bing! they are blowing billions. All I can say to that is "keep up the good work!" I wouldn't mind seeing them spend at least 10 or 20 times as much trying to float Bing! Put out an online ad campaign! Put 15 or 20 billion into Silverblight and run it exclusively on Bing! Spend more billions on advertising! Even advertise on Google! Spend billions advertising Bing! on Google! It might just work!

    41. Re:It's an investment. by Sc4Freak · · Score: 1

      WPF is still supported, though, and will continue to be for years to come (if not decades). Microsoft never drops support for a widely used technology until it's well and truly obsolete. Heck, VB6's support date doesn't end until 2020. By that point, it'll be old enough to drink, vote, and serve in the army.

    42. Re:It's an investment. by malacandrian · · Score: 1

      Exactly, Xbox didn't turn a profit until 2009. It was never supposed to turn a profit until 2009. It's the same deal here. By investing now while market share is relatively cheap they can secure a good portion (15/30% depending on how you count is nothing to be sniffed at) and exploit it for years to come.

    43. Re:It's an investment. by cyborch · · Score: 1

      The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started.

      Unless you're using Virtual Earth.

    44. Re:It's an investment. by gutnor · · Score: 1

      No that's called investing. When a company get money from the bank or investor, they also compete with money from unrelated activities.

      Also the product is not free - they are not a charity - they expect people to pay for their service: ads placement. Giving away the search engine is a mean to capture eyeballs and therefore sell the ads placement for more money.

    45. Re:It's an investment. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      It's hard to do when you have a complete monopoly on the desktop. The MSDN forums is full of pissed off developers but they don't feel that they have anywhere to go so they simply move along with the new technology that MS tells them is the next big thing.

    46. Re:It's an investment. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Ummmm for those who haven't noticed, Zune is alive and well and expanding. It's no longer getting a hardware upgrade but it's in every Windows Phone 7 device.

      I replaced my Zune with WP7 and it's even better since I can stream my Zunepass content over 3G/4G.

      Zune is also in Xbox now and looks to be integrated into Windows 8 as well through the Xbox brand.

      Also if you used WP7 you would realize that Bing might be losing money on the web but it's a pretty big part of Microsoft's plans for the future. Bing is pretty integral to WP7, it's being integrated into Xbox and it'll soon I imagine be integrated into WP7 as well. They *could* potentially rely on Google but they would have no say then in how it works.

      My smart phone is largely a little mobile search engine. I search for maps, directions, business locations, movie times, phone numbers etc etc etc.. It's such a significant portion of a modern smart-phone that you really need a search engine provider.

      Yes they lost $9B on search and it's a failure as www.bing.com but alternately you could say they've spent $9B on R&D for a critical backbone to many of your future products.

    47. Re:It's an investment. by plopez · · Score: 1

      I'm sure OP meant the hardware. Which was a complete failure. BTW, can you still "squirt" stuff to other Zune users?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    48. Re:It's an investment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true MS shill.

    49. Re:It's an investment. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      I should have been more specific. I'm sure it works great for most people, just not for me and my linux machines and htpc. That blows because I like Netflix.

      And while I understand not wasting additional time and resources on a fringe OS, why go out of your way to exclude them when you could just use a high-adoption tech like flash and have it work everywhere? I know it's a bit conspiratorial, but like I said, I'd guess it's the MSFT kool-aid.

      Anyway, not that they'd ever miss my business, but I just use Amazon's streaming service, Hulu, etc. instead. They all just work.

    50. Re:It's an investment. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why 4.0 is available. I know it's a ballache to port because they completely revamped it, but that's not a discontinuation, it's just a major change.

    51. Re:It's an investment. by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      I'd also add playsforsure and windows mobile to the list

    52. Re:It's an investment. by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Visual basic 6

    53. Re:It's an investment. by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Supported to me at least means continually updated and developed, not just available for download

    54. Re:It's an investment. by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Now it gets replaced with WinRT."

      This just isn't true, WPF is still supported for what it was always supported for - classic desktop apps. WinRT is more focussed on Metro apps, but even there that's a boon for WPF developers because WinRT still embraces XAML.

    55. Re:It's an investment. by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about clippy! *ducks*

    56. Re:It's an investment. by Xest · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that's not going to be the case?

      Microsoft are still updating MFC for crying out loud.

    57. Re:It's an investment. by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      I have a Zune, it's a POS. I will never, ever buy one again.You can't delete items from the device without it being connected to the computer. You can't create or modify playlists on the device. You can't shuffle playlists. The stupid wheel is too sensitive for my fat hands, it often changes the selection when I press down. The output is barely loud enough for use on my motorcycle (I use speakers in my helmet, it's legal and I can hear traffic around me.) Battery goes completely dead if you don't use it for awhile, even if you turn it 'off'. There is no way to load it except through the software, which wouldn't run for months, it would just startup and fail. Worked fine on another computer in the house. I tried all the online solutions, and the only fix was when I loaded Windows 7 and wiped the OS.

      That's all I can think of in 30 seconds, I'm sure there are more.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  2. A good thing... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a good thing because the search business is really cut throat and the cost of entry is too high for anyone else. Atleast Google is kept on toes by Bing, and people looking to get away from the increasingly all-encompassing Google have a second choice.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd say Google are misusing a dominant position in the search engine business to crush competition in all their other business areas (online advertising for example).

    2. Re:A good thing... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm a little confused. How do you do that on something like the web, where you can't actually force anybody to go to your website?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what would drive people away from their search engine and fairly quickly.

    4. Re:A good thing... by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      and people looking to get away from the increasingly all-encompassing Google have a second choice.

      And that choice is a plucky underdog by the name of... Microsoft.

      Woot?

    5. Re:A good thing... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      In a sense you can with defaults in software. If your OS and/or browser default to a certain page, then many users either won't make the effort to change it, or don't know how to. Where I work, msn.com is the home page on every company computer by default. So even when people want to hit internal sites, they end up generating a page view for msn.com first.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did "to lazy to do it" became "forced to do it"?

    7. Re:A good thing... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The cost of entry is very low. Getting 0.1% of marketshare is cheap, and would get you enough money to climb to 1% and so on.

      It is expensive to get the capacity of Google from day 1 but the budget to start a decent moderate-traffic search engine is not null but is within the reach of thousands of companies.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    8. Re:A good thing... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Considering that the vast bulk of PCs purchased in the last fifteen years default to one iteration or another of Microsoft's web portal, can you explain to me how that means Google can abuse its market position?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:A good thing... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      That's the weird thing. The EU saw this as Microsoft abusing OS and browser market share to force people into their web offerings, forcing them to offer choice of default search engines. But every Fortune 500 company I've worked for still forces all their employees to use IE and defaults to Microsoft offerings through group policy. All those enterprise desktops add up.

      In the US, the DoJ has accused Google of abusing market share by having their web sites linking to their own web sites. Yahoo and Microsoft however have done nothing wrong, though they do the exact same things. Different people look at the same situation through different biases to come to the conclusions they want.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    10. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around the same time people became to lazy to go to netscape.com and download a browser.

    11. Re:A good thing... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      and people looking to get away from the increasingly all-encompassing Google have a second choice.

      When did they get rid of Yahoo, Alta Vista and Lycos?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:A good thing... by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      Altavista = Yahoo nowadays. Lycos still appears to be around in some form. Who knew?

    13. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and people looking to get away from the increasingly all-encompassing Google have a second choice.

      When did they get rid of Yahoo, Alta Vista and Lycos?

      ..and Dogpile's search aggregator is still around! http://www.dogpile.com/

    14. Re:A good thing... by bedouin · · Score: 1

      Or DuckDuckGo, who is going back to the roots of what made Google good in the first place: clean interface and decent, mostly spam free results.

    15. Re:A good thing... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The problem with all the monopoly regulation is that it only triggers when you already have a monopoly, it doesn't nothing to prevent one from forming. Thus Google might get into trouble for things that all their competition are doing as well, because they (almost) have a monopoly in search.

    16. Re:A good thing... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      It isn't illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to block competition. Either the tactics themselves are wrong, or they aren't.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    17. Re:A good thing... by mscamara · · Score: 1

      The same is true for operationg systems, where nobody can force you to buy Apple or linux or windows.

    18. Re:A good thing... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Why is getting 0.1% of marketshare cheap?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    19. Re:A good thing... by Plombo · · Score: 1

      At least in the US, when buying a new computer from a store, you're pretty much forced to buy either Windows or OS X. Even if you want to run Linux on your computer, you'll have to buy a license for one of those operating systems (probably Windows) with the computer.

    20. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just as importantly, searching for exactly what the user typed, instead of something similar that their algorithms predict you probably must have wanted.

    21. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DuckDuckGo is basically a wrapper for the Bing API. It's got a good ToS, but it's really not any different from using Scroogle.

    22. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Yahoo search is a wrapper for Bing.

    23. Re:A good thing... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Less transactions per second means less servers and less bandwidth. 0.1% is also a target you can reach within a local geographical zone, needing only one site.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    24. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but created and run by a dodgy bastard who's previous projects have been an exercise in collecting personal details.....

      No thanks.

    25. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even think it does this. I know nobody who voluntarily utilizes Bing (or as I refer to it, Bung). The only people I ever see use it are those who don't know any better and don't know how to switch their browser to google. Even those people know to go to google.com when then really need to find something. Also, why is it that their search engine does the exact thing that the commercials make fun of. EVEN ON THEIR OWN SITE! If you are a stockholder of this company you should be pissed they are throwing money into the BUNG HOLE.

    26. Re:A good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't give a shit about Bing or other search engines. As long as it stays ahead in the advertising business that's all that matters, because that's where the money is.
      Just like Microsoft they have lots of money, but actually know how to use it. Look at how many markets they've gained access to and even tried to make new ones out of thin air. That's the difference between Microsoft and Google.

      In the article, when they said start making profit, did they mean, recovering all those costs AND making money? Or simply stop losing it?

  3. Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure that you have it right when you say "Even if Microsoft's online division loses money, it games them recognition and sales elsewhere."

    Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the operating system and office productivity. Isn't that how they make nearly all their money? How does Bing help with that?

    1. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's Microsoft's big problem. There's nowhere to go but down...

      Frankly, I think dumping 9 billion bucks into your online offerings and still not being able to shake an any substantial way the market leader, no matter how you measure it, cannot be referred to as a successful strategy. I suspect that, if you include all of Microsoft's expenditures all the way back to its original MSN portal back in the Win95/Win98 days, the amount of money it has spent is far more than nine billion dollars.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by fronti · · Score: 1

      they also have as online service azure and office356. for these bing might help as it is also an online service. Also not sure if hotmail isn't profitable.. here bing can help also to search messages and display ads like google do.

    3. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Do you really think they're going to get more exposure for, say Office365 on Bing then they would if they just bought ads off of Google, or hell, just put ads in major newspapers?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      They seem to have run out of ideas, like Dell in the hardware space. Waiting for someone to spot/create a market and then validate by growing it before making any move means you're always simply too late. It's not fatal in hardware, or even in software, but in online where network effects are even stronger, 2 years late = very uphill battle. See Windows Phone, bing, Azure, ...

      MS need to be first... somewhere... and then milk that relentlessly, like Google is doing with search and online profiling.

      Buying Skype is a way to buy "first" at something.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    5. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      First to ruin Skype???

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they've put Bing in Windows Phone and soon in Xbox. More features = more consumer interest = more sales. I know that when I saw my friend's WP mango phone with Bing integrated, I went out and bought one. So, they've made $49 off me :)

    7. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Have they actually ruined skype? I haven't noticed any differences so far.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    8. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by gutnor · · Score: 1

      I think dumping 9 billion bucks into your online offerings and still not being able to shake an any substantial way the market leader

      That is a bit scary as well. There is only Microsoft actively going against Google (at least in the markets that affect me the most - the western world). Google is sitting on a pile of personal information, a real goldmine that their advertiser client would dream to tap. You need some serious competition on the market to help them continue to make the right decision (i.e. leave our data alone)

    9. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by Dracos · · Score: 2

      Skype already ruined Skype.

    10. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Wait till they re-write it in .Net ...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by EdIII · · Score: 1

      They are going down and will continue to do so. They will be lucky to find a balance and just stay alive.

      People are buying laptops and desktops, and for the vast percentage, it is a MS operating system. Apple gained market share and MS went down. That might not last forever, especially if Google actually does something with an OS that takes off. Windows 8 really really needs to be good here.

      Now the whole new thing is tablets. MS is not exactly very strong here. They are just starting out with their new standardized platform strategy with Windows 8. It will be awhile before they can start gaining market share with tablets. That is not nearly as much a lock in like laptops and PCs were for them either. I think large tablets will start replacing desktops and laptops. Connect a tablet to a dock, have an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse and you have something. Even better if the tablet itself turns into a user interface for multiple standard screens. We might see the demise of the laptop and desktop within the next 10 years. Is MS prepared for that? Really prepared or even thinking about it?

      Their real big claim to fame here is the business and server offerings. That has nowhere to go but down too. I know of at least one stock exchange that had enough and switched out. MS is not primarily used for web hosting either. That is dominated by Apache/Linux. They are still going down on that. Most of the internal corporate websites may be run on MS, because you already have the server and infrastructure, but for businesses that just need to create and manage web portals MS has been losing ground to Linux for quite some time now. I have not even touched IIS to run a public website in a decade. It does not help that every site I see is complete utter shit too. SQL injection attacks, proprietary crap that makes you run the whole site in IE, because it cannot do it any other web browser. Not impressed. I think there is one MS site that actually works really well in multiple browsers that I visited and used, but other than that.....

      Their conversion rate on XP to Vista/7 has been a train wreck in corporations. I don't even know of a single corporation that deliberately upgraded past XP. Not a single one. They eventually did, but that was through the purchase of all new hardware. Thin clients are making a come back too, which really eats MS lunch. Unless you actually get one with embedded Windows 7. You need a reason for that. Dell just came out with a new thin client that already has clients for Citrix and VMWare, as well standard RDP for Remote Desktop. Standard OS on that is not Windows embedded. Windows does not get a license fee for each one sold. When most of the work an employee needs to do can be done through a web portal, or controlled in a virtual environment like virtual desktops and terminal servers, the days of big fat desktops with big fat OS license fees are coming to an end.

      Then you have all the open source alternatives to the expensive platforms that MS has. Exchange/Sharepoint/SQL is not cheap. Server licensing is not cheap. The ridiculous costs of the CALS don't help.

      Basically, they are creating an environment where corporations are looking for an alternative. Progressively, those alternatives are being made.

      SAAS is springing up all over the place to replace costly in house systems. For the most part, those are being run on platforms with Linux.

      Microsoft does not have the luxury of just sitting back here with their captive audience and IT heads that love MS and deploy it preferentially everywhere. Regardless of the debates, money speaks at the end of the day.

      There is no up for Microsoft anymore. Not in their current markets with the exception of Bing. That can only go up.

      More and more competition to Microsoft is being created each and every day in the business sectors that MS depends on. I honestly have a hard time seeing somebody stick with the huge expense of running server clusters, in house developm

    12. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by symbolset · · Score: 1

      The thing is if you read the article, Microsoft isn't having any impact on Google at all. They're just killing everybody else. When they stop dumping money on this bonfire, where are all those people going to go? Google.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    13. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      M$'s big problem with MSN is 'Ballmer' and MSN being run by bean counters and marketdroids rather that creative people and programmers.

      MSN was out there long before Google, there was no uphill battle, MSN had the lead by years, in fact it was a Google up hill battle. Except it wasn't all that uphill, thanks to the likes of Ballmer choking the chicken. Squeezing down to hard and stop any chance of the money coming by driving off the end users with over the top add placement.

      The screwed up there search enginer by filling so full of crap pay to place, that if you were smart you didn't bother with page 1 of search results but clicked straight to page 3 or more. The portal became a dead space of full page adds that wouldn't leave and it was easy to go to another portal that put up with getting passed that full page add. All interactivity was forced to be their add choked annoying way or you went else where, which is of course what everyone did.

      So MSN is being choked to death, MSN search is a joke being named changed again and again. They have completed abandoned any kind of MSN branding recognition for feeding Ballmer's ego and' getting those executive bonuses.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Now the whole new thing is tablets. MS is not exactly very strong here. They are just starting out with their new standardized platform strategy with Windows 8. It will be awhile before they can start gaining market share with tablets. That is not nearly as much a lock in like laptops and PCs were for them either. I think large tablets will start replacing desktops and laptops. Connect a tablet to a dock, have an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse and you have something. Even better if the tablet itself turns into a user interface for multiple standard screens. We might see the demise of the laptop and desktop within the next 10 years. Is MS prepared for that? Really prepared or even thinking about it?

      Um, it's not new, particularly for Microsoft. They've been doing tablet OS's for more than 10 years.

      The only new thing that has happened is that somebody else produced a tablet that millions of people want to use instead of only small vertical markets. Microsoft is now busy trying to copy what that other company has done, as closely as possible.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And that's been Microsoft's story for years now. At one time it could use its platform domination to shove through its technology copies, but now suddenly there are platforms it does not dominate, and at least as far as the Web goes, it has absolutely no hope of ever dominating (that dream was pretty much extinguished by repeated failures of its web portal to gain serious traction). I really do think it's going to hit the ceiling of growth. It will still have the business and corporate world, will still dominate with PC gamers, but the PC as a consumer product is going to take a second seat to limited use computers like tablets, smart TVs and the like.

      Let's face it, the bulk of PC users over the last fifteen years have really not needed anything more than a decent web browser, media player and mail app, with some sort of basic word processor (I've known people who were quite happy to use Write for years) for those who do any kind of letter writing beyond email. Those can all be delivered through the browser now, and now that standards compliance has finally become the holy grail, the operating system has become a meaningless variable.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Not so sure that Bing makes M$ money elsehwere by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      so that's why they're gonna try and sell bing and the (more or less failed for serious gaming) kinect to the mainstream-public (couch-potato's sounds so lazy hm) ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  4. Just a little while by tsa · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Analysts expect Bing to become profitable in 'three to four years."

    That's about as long as it takes for Linux to reach the desktop.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Just a little while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Analysts expect Bing to become profitable in 'three to four years."

      That's about as long as it takes for Linux to reach the desktop.

      Bollox. Linux desktop will never happen, it's been happening for about 8 years now. It simply isn't going to happen, ever. But then when you dominate just about every other platform and architecture, does it really matter whether people are using it to watch porn on their PC, and do the odd bit of browsing? The desktop is slowly, very slowing, dying in the home. We have HDTV and umpteen media boxen that'll do what most people want. Failing that, smartphones and tablets/pads are picking up the slack. (PC gamers excluded).

    2. Re:Just a little while by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think you've pretty much hit in on the head. In five or ten years, will anyone give a shit that Linux didn't take a big chunk of the desktop market? It simply won't matter. Most home users, save for specific kinds of hobbyists (ie. gamers) will either be using discrete devices like smartphones and tablets or being using their entertainment systems (smart TVs, or hell, some punched up variant of the bloody Raspberry).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Just a little while by ZPWeeks · · Score: 1

      Someone's sarcasm detector broke...

    4. Re:Just a little while by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      >Linux desktop will never happen

      I actually disagree. I have been following linux for ages (since about 95). And yes each and every year we say it will be the year of Linux. Well I think the year of Linux for me was 2011, three days ago for me. I have used Linux on and off throughout the years, and I always crawl back to Windows.

      But now the processors are fast and powerful enough where apps like VMWare just work. There is also enough Linux software out there that you can get things done on Linux. And for the things that don't work on Linux I have VMWare with its Unity, or VirtualBox with its Seamless.

      Others have shifted to OSX, which I really don't care for. I shifted to Linux and have to say that Linux on the desktop is finally possible...

      BTW desktops will not die! I always love to hear how people say that desktops will die. Yet they still produce the darn things. Sure they are not a high margin fast market. They are a mature market. I see it with myself I have two smart phones, two tablets, a kindle and a bunch of notebooks and desktops. What is happening is that I keep hardware longer...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    5. Re:Just a little while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, keep telling yourself that.

    6. Re:Just a little while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Year of the Linux Desktop was 2008. That was the year Ubuntu became significantly easier to use than the current Windows of the time (Vista) for people unfamiliar with both. Everything prior to 2008 for desktop Linux looks horribly amateurish and hacked-together, or just too darn nerdy for most people; since then there have at least been sane defaults and nice configuration options.

    7. Re:Just a little while by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about that, as MS heats up its timetable for new releases, you're likely to see an increased number of people needing to choose between buying a new computer, leaving it as is with the security holes or moving on to Linux. Considering how ridiculously easy some of the Linux Distros have gotten and how much better the driver support is, it's not that hard to get people using it.

      I switched my mother over to Linux because Vista wasn't acting very stable on her hardware, much quicker and fewer complaints about performance.

    8. Re:Just a little while by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Same here, the main things I do on my computer I can now do with either virtualization or a quick reboot. The last few things I was doing with Windows are either things which I don't need to do on a daily basis or which can be run in Wine. And if that fails, I can always boot up a surplused copy of Windows and virtualize it.

    9. Re:Just a little while by spauldo · · Score: 1

      I never understood what the whole "year of the Linux desktop" thing was, anyway.

      I've used Linux pretty much exclusively on the desktop since around '97. I usually keep a Windows install around to play games, but that's about it.

      For the type of stuff I do on a computer, Linux is what I prefer. The only reason I care about "marketshare" is driver support - the higher the marketshare, the more companies will release drivers and/or documentation for their hardware. There's a small amount of software that has no good replacement on Linux, but I don't need any of it for what I do (except the aforementioned games). I've used Linux in a small office environment, and it works well, as long as you don't have any suits who absolutely have to have Exchange (there really is no good replacement on a UNIX box).

      For you, Linux has just now become viable. For many people, it will never be viable. It's all down to your particular requirements. I think it's just fine, but then again I do 90% of my work in xterms and Firefox.

      (Ironically, I'm posting in Windows now - I booted it up for the first time in six months and I'm loading updates. Another reason I dislike Windows: Windows Update is slower than molasses in February.)

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    10. Re:Just a little while by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Or sustained fusion to happen.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Just a little while by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...Wind power to become profitable...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:Just a little while by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...duke nukem forever to come out... Oh, wait. Scratch that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:Just a little while by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Funny that's what they said about linux when Windows ME came out

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    14. Re:Just a little while by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, his sarcasm detector runs on Windows and it does tend to break often. If only there was a more stable OS on which his sarcasm detector could run.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    15. Re:Just a little while by mscamara · · Score: 1

      If it isn't the year of desktop linux yet, it's definitly the year of pocket linux, I mean look at the market share of google android. It's linux powering smart phones in most pockets

    16. Re:Just a little while by symbolset · · Score: 1

      It's not most pockets yet. It's just drawing even with iOS on iPhone for installed base now. But new users? When somebody opens their pocket and drops in a smartphone for the first time? Yes, in that case more than half of of them are now Android sporting a Linux kernel. Samsung's Bada can also use a Linux kernel too, or one derived from BSD.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    17. Re:Just a little while by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is great!!!

      And since they are free I decided to buy their cloud service Ubuntu One. Nice piece of work, and works just as well as DropBox. Since I have an android phone and tablet it is a piece of cake there as well.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    18. Re:Just a little while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly, the year of the Linux on the desktop is $((current year + 1). So you see, we'll have Linux on the desktop before Bing is profitable.

  5. 5.5 Billion? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    Microsoft...you would have gotten a better ROI building a moon base.

    (Now waits for Apple to build a Moon Base)

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    1. Re:5.5 Billion? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Called iMoon, and then Apple promptly sues the Japs and Americans for sending probes there and violating its IP because "they clearly ripped us off by booting thrusters on the ass end..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:5.5 Billion? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Microsoft...you would have gotten a better ROI building a moon base.

      Yeah, and then at least they'd have had world domination... oh, wait...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:5.5 Billion? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      You know that IS interesting to note. We could have won the space race with the USSR just by patenting spaceship boosters...

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    4. Re:5.5 Billion? by rbgaynor · · Score: 1

      Microsoft...you would have gotten a better ROI building a moon base.

      Too late, Google already beat them to it: http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
  6. Don't forget Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that for YEARS Amazon was running at a massive loss. The current strategy for market domination seems to be: spend like a crazy fucker for years on end, bleed money at every turn, but keep building your audience and refining your product until your own the market.

    1. Re:Don't forget Amazon by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microsoft has been trying to build a web portal for what now? Fifteen years or so? If throwing money at this problem were all it took, they'd own the web by now. And as the article notes, at least some of its increased market share has come from Yahoo, which is using the Bing engine, which means they're basically cannibalizing their largest web infrastructure customer.

      If I start eating my own body parts, does that mean a net increase in protein?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Don't forget Amazon by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seem to be underestimating the time bing has been around, it was launched on June 3, 2009, it's already been bleeding money for 2 years straight (and that's of course pretending it didn't exist as livesearch for years before that), and profitability is still not in visible reach yet.

    3. Re:Don't forget Amazon by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Amazon was operating during a period of stupidly low standards for businesses. A more sane approach would have been to build up the business more slowly. They didn't need to take that approach because the market was flooded with investment capital, to the point where many firms would get money without any idea as to how to turn their idea profitable.

      In MS' case, they've got few places they can spend the money they make from their primary businesses. It's either invest in something like search or concede that further growth isn't possible and just start issuing most of the money back in the form of dividends.

    4. Re:Don't forget Amazon by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      That's easy to do when interest rates are low and you can borrow lots of money easily. In fact that's the whole point of having said low interest rates in the first place. Governments see this as "stimulating the economy". Whether it's actual growth or just reckless behavior however remains to be seen.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Don't forget Amazon by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But how long can MS expect its shareholders to put up with it just pissing money down every hole in the hopes that somehow it will stumble on another magic money printing machine? Their attempts to gain web dominance have surely seen them throw away a lot more than nine billion dollars, that's for Bing and its Live Search antecedent. They've been trying to muscle in to this market for years. If I were an investor, I'd seriously start asking what I was getting out of these vast bold money hemorrhaging products.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Don't forget Amazon by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Companies that don't strike out for new markets inevitably end up becoming irrelevant and out of business. Which is the main reason why you see Google and Apple going after so many markets that aren't considered they're core business. Well, technically, Apple already did that, but that's why they did it. Focusing on one area of business amplifies the risk from something going wrong.

  7. Profitable - only if they support developers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm... maybe profitable in the future. It's not a bad engine, and the API is great. However, their support (see their developers' forum) is abysmal, and slow. Microsoft, if you want people to develop on the Bing API, improve your support!

  8. The marketing isn't helping by blair1q · · Score: 1

    The first few commercials were creepy in lieu of quirky and I chalked it up to a fluke.

    But they haven't gotten any less creepy. I actually feel like I'm getting germs whenever I use anything with the Bing logo on it.

    1. Re:The marketing isn't helping by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      If you think those are creepy, you should see the rejected ad for the Zune. Colored paint shooting out of a guys ass onto a wall. Yeah, it got rejected... but it kinda makes you wonder where the threshold is. MS has terrible marketing. The downside to their lock-in on Windows, I suppose: they aren't used to having to market their product any more.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:The marketing isn't helping by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They don't have lock-in.

      Linux is gaining on them, especially in nontraditional spaces, and Apple could rear up and eat their lunch at any moment.

      Windows 8 is a very cagey reaction to that, as it's no longer Windows at all.

    3. Re:The marketing isn't helping by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      In the business market, yes they still have lock-in. Hell, the small business I work at sells Linux appliances, and we still absolutely need Windows for many applications. Linux just doesn't have equivalent business applications, pure and simple.

      And Windows 8, for all it's many changes, is still almost identical functionally to 7 (which might mean it won't sell well... but we'll see) they have just integrated a tablet-friendly interface with it. Again, how well that actually works and sells, we'll see, but saying "it isn't Windows" is like saying Vista wasn't Windows because it has a transparent taskbar. People have really blown the whole Metro thing way way out of proportion. And no, I'm not a Windows fan: I'm just a realist. I would love it if Linux could replace Windows, but it cannot (yet), no matter how much people on /. wish it could. For web browsing and email, sure. Business and video game? Hell no. Not there, and won't be for a while, if ever. Unfortunate but the truth.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:The marketing isn't helping by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Video games are a driver issue. Windows gives the computer over entirely to the game. Linux does too, but has more niggles with card interfaces because it has no consistent relationship with card vendors.

      That could change if the card vendors realize they can package games for something other than Windows. Like, say, Android. Then the card vendor has total control of the interface.

      There's no Angry Birds desktop for Windows.

    5. Re:The marketing isn't helping by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      There's no Angry Birds desktop for Windows.

      I know nothing about Angry Birds. As a matter of fact, I haven't ever played it nor do I ever have seen it being played by someone else. I know, I live under a rock. However, I sincerely doubt that they would leave out such a market. Now, it might be recent, but their download page says: Now available on PC.

      I might have misunderstood your statement though... Perhaps, you meant "You don't need a Windows desktop to play Angry Birds", which is obviously true...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  9. 3 to 4 years? by Ossifer · · Score: 1

    That's like 3-4 generations, in technology...

  10. At the current burn rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the current burn rate of $1B/quarter, that's only $12-16B more before they break even. What a deal!

  11. Wow by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    That's a lot of Bing bling.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  12. Don't worry by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

    They'll make up for it in volume.

  13. Re:No, you mean... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Would you like CNN's phone number so you can bitch to them directly?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. New name by andy1307 · · Score: 1

    Bling-Bling? Money wasted on shiny object...

  15. My experience with Bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only times I've tried Bing and Bing Maps, it would give no results to searches Google would have no problem with. Never bingin' again.

    1. Re:My experience with Bing by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Damn, forgot to log in.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  16. You are correct sir. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct sir.

  17. Bing Cashback by ProppaT · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Bing Cashback payouts are included in the losses? If you frequent any deal sites, they gave away a metric crapton of cash trying to push Bing as a shopping search engine. I'm sure they just considered this marketing. In all fairness, it worked to some degree. While Google is still my most used search engine, if I'm on a computer that's set up to default to Bing...I'll actually use Bing. It's a good search engine and I wouldn't have known that had I not participated in so many Bing Cashback deals. I still prefer Google, but if I'm just looking for quick results, why even bother to switch over if Bing's already loaded?

    --
    Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    1. Re:Bing Cashback by geoskd · · Score: 2

      why even bother to switch over if Bing's already loaded?

      One word: Principle

      The biggest difference between MS and Google: Microsoft's business model is ruthless domination of any market they can get a foothold in. Google's business model is try to put out good products without being "evil".

      Microsoft is ruthless and evil and they are good at it.
      Google is "don't be evil" and they are bad at it.

      The end result is very similar but for very different reasons. One will probably get better, the other is irredeemably bad.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    2. Re:Bing Cashback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't trust a company making 99% of its revenue from selling advertising, no matter how many times they say "Don't be Evil"

    3. Re:Bing Cashback by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there some hoopla about websites giving different prices based on the Bing Cashback program? You know, being more expensive?

    4. Re:Bing Cashback by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      If there was, I never heard about it. And if there was, those were probably unscrupulous sites you shouldn't have been doing business with anyway.

      I do know that I saved 25% on multiple purchases, though. I got some really killer deals.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    5. Re:Bing Cashback by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      Microsoft really isn't that evil, guys. Their issue was (and they're getting better at it) that they take a grapeshot approach to growing the business. Throw out 100 products, see which ones people use, then push those hard. It's not like the old days when MS was trying to lock you into everything and was playing dirty pool. If you want to give anyone that title, hand it over to Apple. The only difference between Apple and MS of old is that Apple doesn't use the grapeshot approach, they just pick one thing and force it down the industries throat.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
  18. Monty python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The billion dollar machine that goes "BING".

  19. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when microsoft bid on yahoo. Stolen from here on slashdot i think.

    --
    Earth to Microsoft: Yahoo! is not worth $44 billion.
    You could buy General Motors lock, stock, and barrel for $14 billion, name all the cars "Google Sucks,"
    and get more bang for the buck. Heck, you'd have enough left over to buy Ford for around $16 billion,
    and you could name all those cars "Google Sucks More" and still have $14 billion left over for a big party
    --

    Seems to apply to bing as well. lol

  20. Interesting Twist by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

    Never really thought about it before, but this really shows how hard it is for an upstart to get a new idea into the tech world. The Google's & Microsoft's can afford to lose $9,000,000,000 before the product begins to turn a profit. A new company with a great web service idea, can't. The new kids on the block either need to have great marketing (for cheap) or an idea that hits the sweet spot long before any big company realizes the value of that idea.

    1. Re:Interesting Twist by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't think the situation was that different a decade ago when Google began its rise to the top. It was battling a nest of pretty embedded and dominant market players; Yahoo being at the top of that list. Google didn't have vast amounts of cash reserves or huge amounts of capital, but it did have a unique design paradigm and, most importantly, a product that actually delivered far better than anyone else. It built things up as it went along, rather than starting with huge fistfuls of money to throw at the problem. I'm sure at some point they'll become the next Microsoft, and maybe, to some extent, it's already happening. But this idea that building a successful web site requires huge sums of money is pure bunk. I look at sites like Google and Facebook, and its not like their creators had billions in the bank to fund their success, both of them started very modestly indeed.

      The reality is that the cost of entry into the web market is pretty damned cheap. Some decent hardware, a tolerably fast connection with a minimum of downtime. If you've got a proper revenue model, or at least a good steady supply of money coming in somehow, you can build capacity as you go along.

      Like I said, if money was all it took, then Microsoft should rule the web. I can tell you it's spent a helluva lot more than $9 billion since the MSN portal was first put together in the mid-1990s. Microsoft has battled every dominant search engine/portal since its inception, and has yet to ever come out on top. Bing has been as successful as it has because Microsoft is basically raping Yahoo front ways and back ways to get it. That's sort of like a car manufacturer buying a failing competitor, just so it can stick the competitor's decal on their chassis. Yes, it's a kind of growth, but not a kind of growth that answers the fundamental problem "How do I take on the market leader?"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Interesting Twist by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Google was the tiny upstart company that slew the giants. But this was back before search was a multibillion dollar industry. Do we forget how they made the first true search engine obsolete in a matter of months. Before Altavista search engines were fairly primitive. Altavista had the backing of Digital which was once a computing giant, and for its time an insane amount of bandwidth and computing power. Yahoo started using Altavista at some point, and eventually bought it up. Now altavista.com points at Yahoo and digital.com points at HP. The venerable altavista.digital.com doesn't even return anymore.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Interesting Twist by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

      That's just it... Google was once an upstart with a great idea of how to improve web searching, that even Altavista couldn't quite grasp yet. By the time they got the point, Google had stolen their thunder and Altavista couldn't compete. That's what an upstart NEEDS to do to survive. They can't afford to lose billions and then turn a profit.

    4. Re:Interesting Twist by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

      Naw, I didn't mean "that building a successful web site requires huge sums of money". I meant that startups can't afford to run that way at all, but that the big guys can. Therefore, startups need to have a great idea & market it before the big whigs figure out the same great idea really is a great idea.

    5. Re:Interesting Twist by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, Microsoft's got lots of money, to be sure, but it has no big ideas. It has reached a point in its evolution where it just rakes in licensing fees from OEM and volume licensing sales for its flagship products and then looks at what everybody else is doing and starts up a division to copy it and throws unbelievable amounts of cash at the division. I hear XBox is actually making a profit now, but is a long ways from giving any kind of return on investment, and analysts don't think Bing can plan on making money for three or four years, and how long before the 12 or more billion dollars that it has flung at it ever get a payback?

      I'm sure Google will ultimately head in the same direction. It does seem to be the natural evolution of large successful companies. IBM was stuck in that model for decades before it went through massive shakeups in the mid and late 90s.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  21. Microsoft & its Shareholders by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've never seen a company waste so much money just to become a growth stock again. They should have taken the massive amounts of money they spent on XBox and Bing and just given it to the stockholders.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, obviously you don't know shit about business and until you do you'd be better off listening instead of showing us how much of a total fucking idiot you are.

    2. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      Companies don't really pay dividends anymore, unless they want to make a token gesture. There are a number of reasons for it: The tax law isn't set up to favor it, because dividends get taxed immediately whereas if the stock value is higher because the company is holding more assets then stockholders can defer paying taxes until they sell the stock. On top of that, corporate executives would generally rather buy other companies than issue dividends because it gives them control over more stuff -- why issue a dividend when you can ruin Skype instead? And related to that, executives don't like to issue big dividends because it's a signal to stockholders that the company has nothing good internally to invest the money in, which is a strong indicator of a company on the decline.

      So they issue token dividends, hoard the remaining assets and make a bunch of ill-conceived "investments" to make it seem like they're doing something productive.

    3. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a company waste so much money just to become a growth stock again. They should have taken the massive amounts of money they spent on XBox and Bing and just given it to the stockholders.

      XBOX is actually a huge money maker now so bad example on that one. Granted it still hasn't recovered the entire startup cost but is on track to be a net win.

    4. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the xbox a smashing success for them?

    5. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      MSFT hasn't kept up with inflation or bank rates. I don't know why they have stockholders.

    6. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by DSwitz · · Score: 1

      Actually, Microsoft has given ~$2.00 per shareholder since 2007 (The same time period as bing). With 8.38B shares, that's $16.76B dollars... So yeah, they actually gave about 86% more to the shareholders than they invested in Bing.

    7. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Not really (compared with PS3, which is advancing in total sales despite the lead the XBox had), the Kinect is though.

    8. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      And this is all from Windows users' monies. From crappy wireless media keyboards, badly handled support calls, the mandatory Windows tax and even calculators running Linux.

      Somebody, please... stop the madness!

    9. Re:Microsoft & its Shareholders by Sc4Freak · · Score: 1

      Microsoft pays a regular dividend to its shareholders, unlike most other tech companies. It's not exactly rocket science that a regular dividend suppresses a company's stock price.

  22. It worked with the XBOX by avandesande · · Score: 1

    MS took a lot of arrows when the XBOX came out and they lost a ton of money... I think they are profitable now.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:It worked with the XBOX by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      MS took a lot of arrows when the XBOX came out and they lost a ton of money... I think they are profitable now.

      Last I saw they were making a small operating profit but were still a long way from paying back the development costs. And they'll have to build a new Xbox soon unless they want games to continue looking like a PC from 2005.

    2. Re:It worked with the XBOX by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      They are no longer losing money year over year, but they are nowhere near making back the initial investment. And there is no guarantee at all that they ever will -- it will take them many more years and it seems extremely likely that before then games will no longer be played on consoles, in favor of e.g. mobile devices connected to TVs and controllers by wifi.

    3. Re:It worked with the XBOX by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I think the idea of bringing PC games to a console looks like a no-brainer now. PC stuff is so much cheaper now than six years ago I think they can do a new one without taking such a large loss on the hardware.

        I guess we will see.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:It worked with the XBOX by mscamara · · Score: 1

      But it's not always about direct sales or revenues as well. It's also about the network effect that the xbox can have on customers. Someone satisfied by the xbox is a bit more likely to trust windows phones. It's also about creating an ecosystem with devices and services being integrated. With the install base of the xbox, they can easily upgrade them in iptv set top boxes, and gain more mindshare as a company

    5. Re:It worked with the XBOX by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Except that it doesn't really work that way, and they certainly aren't acting as though that was ever their intention. If their goal was an integrated ecosystem then you would be able to plug an XBOX controller into a Windows PC, insert an XBOX game and play it. Or plug a USB keyboard and mouse into an XBOX and run Windows programs. But you can't.

      And it doesn't make any sense to say that XBOX customers will be more likely to buy Windows phones, because they have no real relation to one another -- they're not even branded the same. It isn't as though customers like "Windows Console" and that leads them to want "Windows Phone", most of these people have utterly no clue that XBOX and WP7 are made by the same company.

      All they're doing is wasting their money buying market share in a market where they never get a positive ROI.

  23. What's Bing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's Bing? I better Google it...

  24. That was, in part, what anti-trust was about by Mojo66 · · Score: 2

    ...using the billions made from the Windows monopoly to drive competitors out of other markets, another example would be the Xbox which sold for less than the production cost in order to get a foothold in the console market.

    1. Re:That was, in part, what anti-trust was about by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But the only major company Microsoft is driving out of the market is Yahoo, which is their bloody customer. They certainly are not doing any substantial damage to Google.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  25. Second choice? by 6031769 · · Score: 1

    I hate to break it to you, but Bing has a very long way to go to make it that far up the list.

    --
    Burns: We're building a casino!
    McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
  26. Selling Chickens... by jacobsm · · Score: 1

    Sammy: Sol, You’re selling chickens for less than you’re paying for them. How do you make a profit?
    Sol: One word, volume!

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. YaCy! YaCy! YaCy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just want to mention this kickass project: YaCy! Website is yacy.net - it's distributed p2p-style search!

    I wish there were more nodes running..so I guess that is why I'm posting this now. Join the fun!

  29. Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by kirkb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I fear that the Win8 metro shell will do a very good job of locking people in to IE and Bing. They'll both work "good enough" to prevent people from seeking superior alternatives. Will you even be able to swap out the browser in the metro shell? How much effort will it take to modify Chome, Firefox, etc to be metro-compiant?

    --
    Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
    1. Re:Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually happen to like Bing, I just wish it had more random tags like inurl like google. It's image search is way better than Google Images as well; and I don't just use it out of the perverse delight that I get when people notice that their Linux admin uses Bing/XBoX...

    2. Re:Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by high_rolla · · Score: 1

      This is actually quite an interesting observation. The Metro UI, if pulled off well, could destroy all competing browsers, severely hit Google's market share and effectively cripple any other web service that MS decides to incorporate into the UI (with their own version of course). A brilliant strategy but how long until Governments start coming after them over it. I can't see Google sitting idly by and letting this happen either.

      --
      Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
    3. Re:Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by Riskable · · Score: 1

      No, you will not be able to swap out the browser in the Metro shell... Metro apps can only be installed via Microsoft's app store and their app store license explicitly forbids apps with GPL or GPL- like licenses.

      Also, you can forget about getting around such limitations by implementing something like Chrome Frame... IE 10 won't support plugins!

      --
      -Riskable
      "Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
    4. Re:Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by symbolset · · Score: 1

      There are things to worry about. And then there are irrational fears. If you take a stroll past auto accidents down the lane past flu pandemic then terrorist attack then nuclear meltdown and zombie apocalypse then 4km asteroid strike, you'll arrive at the valley where this little terror of yours scampers in verdant fields frolicking with such mythical wonders as sexy slashdot nymphomaniacs, honest politicians, and Steve Ballmer's sense of humor.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by CrystalX · · Score: 1

      Will you even be able to swap out the browser in the metro shell?

      Only if it is approved in the Windows Store apparently. I wonder if browsers will be allowed by the Store submission terms.

    6. Re:Win8 IE+Bing lock-in will succeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Metro will suck so miserably that most people won't use it.

  30. Anti-competitive? by kirkb · · Score: 2

    If Microsoft created Bing in order to deprive Google of ad revenues, how is this not "dumping" or "bundling" or some other illegal practice?

    --
    Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
    1. Re:Anti-competitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Google dominates the market.

    2. Re:Anti-competitive? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Precisely.

      And with this "selling of personal information" strategy, they are basically selling their product below the production cost, thereby forcing other, more honest and legitimate players out of the market. I am really surprised the FTC has not stepped in yet.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    3. Re:Anti-competitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm... perhaps you should familiarize yourself with "competition" in a business sense. If you know what this is, perhaps you should take a deep breath and hate MS a bit less because you are sounding pretty damned insane.

      Any business started is an attempt to deprive another of revenue. Even if that business is the FIRST EVER, it is designed to deprive revenue elsewhere.

      Are you saying Google's business model should be patentable/copyrightable as to not be used by anyone else (or just MS?)? You can't really "dump" search engines. I don't pay (directly) to use Google, so I'm not sure how you think MS can "dump". Bundling OTOH, could be used to gain the upper hand but would be shot down VERY quickly.

    4. Re:Anti-competitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

      "Google created(buyed) Android to deprive apple of platform revenues, how is this not "dumping" or "bundling" or some other illegal practice?"

      "Google created Google+ to deprive Facebook of social networking revenues, how is this not "dumping" or "bundling" or some other illegal practice?"

      "Google created Gmail to deprive Microsoft of ads in email revenues, how is this not "dumping" or "bundling" or some other illegal practice?"

  31. This is hardly news if you're in the know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try using the

    'results_delivered_to_my_house_etched_on_a_gold_brick:' search flag, you can append it to anything. It's almost as useful as the 'ip:' flag.

  32. Patience by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    its one of the things you can afford to have when you are sitting on that much of a stock pile of money.

    its all about the long-term.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  33. Bing will never be an option for me by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    I pretty much cover my tracks online. Nothing as drastic
    as using a proxie, but the normal stuff; delete ALL cookies
    run a HOSTS file, Peerblock, use Spamhaus and change my
    identity occasionally http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/
    as a start.

    http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/searchspy/results.htm?fci=1?filter=0&qcat=web
    is an old link that doesn't work anymore but would show what searches were
    being processed at that time, it was an eye opener.

    But with Google (the only search engine I use) I'm an open
    book with my search terms. Which if used out of context could
    come across badly.

    I post to the Newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk, any subject is
    valid and I search each to offer help, some of my searches are down
    right abnormal.

    I use Google as my dictionary "define:xxxxx" as well as spell checker.
    Site specific as the results are far beyond the search ability of the site itself:
    top 100 stories +directv site:slashdot.org

    Using Google goes against everything I practice, but there is no way
    I would allow Microsoft this search information. They have long
    ago proved themselves unworthy of my trust.

    Is Google any better? I'm putting a lot of faith in "Do no harm".

    BTW: my slashdot.org account is the real me.

  34. Where to start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If micro$oft has sunk 5.5 billiion dollars into Bing to get it off the ground how is ANY startup supposed to get off the ground?

  35. Losing gobs of cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hasn't that been Microsoft's business plan since 1999?

  36. Bing? by RLU486983 · · Score: 1

    Never used Bing.

  37. Bing by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Liked his voice, and he worked well with Bob. And as for Dorothy Lamour ...

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  38. Their tools work well for Windows by symbolset · · Score: 1

    For some reason their competitors' toolkits just aren't as flexible, as capable, as compatible. Maybe it's because other toolkit developers are idiots. Or maybe there's another reason why others find it difficult to compete with the OS developer in creating development tools.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  39. Re:but they're about to announce major profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Microsoft's big problem. There's nowhere to go but down...

    Frankly, I think dumping 9 billion bucks into your online offerings and still not being able to shake an any substantial way the market leader, no matter how you measure it, cannot be referred to as a successful strategy. I suspect that, if you include all of Microsoft's expenditures all the way back to its original MSN portal back in the Win95/Win98 days, the amount of money it has spent is far more than nine billion dollars.

    I'm pretty sure the reason MS has delayed their annual financial statement to shareholder - is because the profits are up for the third year running (not counting the sales of assets).

    And if you disagree I'm gonna throw a chair at you!

  40. Re:Don't pick on Bob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hailstorm, Silverlight, Passport, MSN, Bob...

    MS is the same as any other large company. Outside of their proven revenue generators, they throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Not that I mind competition in any space, but still...

    No fair - Bob was never going to be a real product - it was just something to keep Melinda busy until she and Bill worked out how to make a baby.

  41. in bong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's how I read "on bing" at first glance. Then again, maybe they did that too.

  42. M$ Looses 5Billion ... Think Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama has his Secret Service and FBI comb southeast DC for 2 to 3 year old babies to confiscate for his sexual urgings in the Whitehouse basement.

    The man has no sense of hygene I'd say, leaving the babies bodies to rott in the basement after he has had h'ez sexual things with'em.

    Sorry for the babies. Obama is a lout plain and simple I'd say. Never deserved to live. Better off dead. Such a twit.

  43. The fanboy is strong in this one by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    "many of your future products."

    Unless your English sucks as bad as your critical thinking, I would be interested to know how MS research will make it into my Linux desktop and Android phone?

    Or are you so smitten with Ballmer that the concept of someone NOT buying Microsoft just doesn't occur to you?

    Seriously, claiming Zune is still going strong because it is bundled free with phones that aren't selling. I also got a rm codec in mplayer, must mean realmedia is doing stellar trading.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  44. Well duh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    You expect a bonus for doing an ActiveX the next generation?

    If that is how you do IT, get used to not getting any bonuses.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  45. Reminds me of something by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

    Initially a money sink, expected to be profitable five years down the road... Wasn't that the same thing that happened to the original XBox?

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  46. Re:but they're about to announce major profits by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Too many divisions that just got endless streams of cash piped into them with no foreseeable ROI and I think Ballmer's the one who is going to have be ducking flying chairs.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.