NY Times: Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook

benfrog writes "According to a blog posting on the New York Times site, Microsoft tried to sell the perpetual money-losing Bing to Facebook 'over a year ago' (the article cites 'several people with knowledge of the discussions who didn't want to be identified talking about internal deliberations'). Steve Ballmer, apparently, was not involved or consulted. Facebook politely declined. Neither Microsoft or Facebook would comment on the rumors."

Comments

Companies do this all the time

[TechNY]

It's called testing the waters. Like you do with women. The sole fact that this wasn't even ordered to be done by Mr. Ballmer is very telling, and in fact is based on some rumors from unknown people. The idea is sound, because it would allow Facebook to leverage their social network to gather data and organize it easily, just like Google is desperately trying to do with Google+ and failing. All three companies understand the power of social networks used for search data.

However, being one of the largest companies on planet and always thinking about long term strategy instead of quick gains, Microsoft doesn't really need to sell Bing. Their online division might be losing money on paper, but it's more of a supportive division anyway. Don't forget that they also work on services like MSN Messenger, their news sites, and very wide array of other services and software like Azure. They support Microsoft's and Windows' strong brand name and are also a division of innovation that will enable Microsoft's success in the future as more and more services move online. People on slashdot always complain that companies aren't thinking long term but instead just try to get quick profits. Well, Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term. In fact, most of what Google does is to gain quick profit and ditch the projects that fail with that. Just see how many projects Google quickly and silently cancels compared to Microsoft.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, the Microsoft Shill again...

Re:Companies do this all the time

[busyqth]

I don't get the part about testing the waters with women. I didn't know they were any good for that.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[caywen]

It's called, "Please take us seriously as a search company! Oh BTW, we're shopping our search engine around. Any takers? Anyone? We're gonna beat Google! Seriously, though, guys, how about $1.5B? I'll go as low as $1.2. Cmon. Hello?"

Re:Companies do this all the time

[simoncpu was here]

This is Slashdot. Analogies involving women are invalid. Please use cars instead.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[hawguy]

Not sure if that is correct to say of Google. They seem to ditch most of their products before they even launch so they have no real idea how profitable they would be.

Isn't that the right time to ditch a product? If you don't think it's going to work out, it seems much better to ditch it before you launch it.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this thing women you speak of?

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Black Parrot]

I don't get the part about testing the waters with women. I didn't know they were any good for that.

You just throw them in and see what happens. They squeal if it's too cold, scream if there are too many sharks, etc.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[slack_justyb]

If they melt too acidic...

What? Doesn't everyone have this problem?!

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

lol what a shill, i hope you own a lot of MSFT stock otherwise you're a real tard towing their corporate line for nothing...haha, sigh.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[antdude]

Testing women? Where can I apply for that job? ;)

Re:Companies do this all the time

[davester666]

Or she could be a witch!

If she melts, you have to throw a puppy in as the tiebreaker.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[VortexCortex]

It's like saying you love your car and remarking how no other car can even come close, but you go on several test drives periodically, and you're not fooling anyone.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this TechNY was much better when he was TechLA. That is until that shill account got modded to death. How long will this one last?

Re:Companies do this all the time

[MightyMartian]

I'm sure Microsoft would be most grateful if you repeated this line of horseshit at the next shareholders meeting.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[pseudofrog]

Hrm...

1) Long comment with same timestamp as story
2) New user id
3) "Tech" in username
4) Dig at Google ("Google is desperately trying to do with Google+ and failing")
5) Dubious, at best, praise for Microsoft ("always thinking about long term strategy instead of quick gains", "Microsoft's and Windows' strong brand name")

Ugh...shilling is laaaaame.

Well, Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term. In fact, most of what Google does is to gain quick profit and ditch the projects that fail with that. Just see how many projects Google quickly and silently cancels compared to Microsoft.

Maybe Google is "thinking long-term" with Google+? Shouldn't you be praising that instead of divining it a failure so quickly? It is, after all, much younger than Bing. Perhaps all of Google's non-profit-generating divisions are "supportive" divisions? Google has had many services that didn't pan out, but Microsoft has many, many more. Your thesis that "Microsoft thinks long-term and Google doesn't" is a real stretch.

And for all their efforts, what has Microsoft's supposed steadfast commitment to the long-term given them? The XBox has turned out to be profitable (I believe), but most of their revenue still comes from Windows and Office, just as it has been since long before Google was born.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[hcs_$reboot]

Google launchs so many products, they prefer to clean the list early on, before it gets too messy.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No. But "Overrated" seems to be

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment was brought to you courtesy Waggener Edstrom, a Microsoft marketing partner.

We help clients understand who their audiences are and where they can be reached. Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.

http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach

http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients

If your business could use professional reputation management services, please contact us at http://waggeneredstrom.com/, the digital PR firm of the year.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[jovius]

Everything is all right. He talked about testing the waters of women. He must be some sort of a scientist who keeps our mothers safe.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Your thesis that "Microsoft thinks long-term and Google doesn't" is a real stretch.

No, because Google kills unprofitable products faster than MS. Google is certainly a more short-term focused company.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no -- it applies this time. The protagonist wasn't directly involved, instead relying on third-party experience.

The downside is you get to visualize Steve Ballmer saying, "Is she a goer?"

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment was brought to you courtesy Waggener Edstrom, a Microsoft marketing partner.

By that logic, any forum on the internet that contains a comment that doesn't bash microsoft must be a "paid posting". Jesus you trolls are ridiculous.

Besides which HTC is also their client. I guess now we know why there are so many android "fans" here on Slashdot. They are all paid posters. Right?

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot. Analogies involving women are invalid. Please use cars instead.

It's not that they're invalid - just that they can't be tested.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[ifiwereasculptor]

Outside of middle schools. Bring a black van, some candy and chloroform.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

And the typical apologist post. Right on cue.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been a steady stream of new user accounts, usually with "Tech" in the name, posting lengthy pro-Microsoft/anti-Google posts with the same timestamp as the story itself. None of the accounts are subscribers, so the comments are clearly pre-written. The writing style is similar. The comment is promptly upmodded to +5 before slowling falling to something else. The user's karma eventually gets borked, and a new account appears shortly thereafter. Some think it's "bonch", but I'm not so sure.

I'm sure shilling goes on in many places, but this particular person is so obvious and persistent that it gets really obnoxious.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[gutnor]

Well the whole article + comment smell like buz making.

Microsoft is trying to sell its "perpetual money-losing" product to potential client. Unbelievable, Microsoft has a sales team !

Re:Companies do this all the time

[smittyoneeach]

Have it both ways: She loves my automobile

Re:Companies do this all the time

[ehiris]

Maybe the women you are testing. My wife and I quite enjoy diving with sharks.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Hognoxious]

She turned me into a newt!

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

i think google has lost its way, Electric cars and other stuff. You often see this pattern, where a company gets into anything and everthing, then when profits go down they anounce they are selling off sections to concentrate on their core business.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[WiiVault]

Can we use Game of Thrones? My parents won't buy me a car yet, and the comic book shop isn't hiring the bearded right now.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the recent shill accounts, crazyjj, is a subscriber.

I wasn't sure about the bonch connection at first, but the flood of ACs complaining about GreatBunzini, et al in every topic where bonch made a post convinced me. Once he was called out, he started taking risks and being sloppy.

Can't help but notice bonch hasn't been posting anymore, either. :)

Re:Companies do this all the time

[DarkSabreLord]

Well, they're more buoyant...

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

TechNY = TechLA = Bonch = Sharklaser = Burson Marsteller = Microsoft = Facebook.

They're still trying to earn their dirt money.

This discussion is contaminated. Treat all commenters here with contempt for being involved with such sleazy sly tactics.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/facebook-enlists-pr-firm-burson-marsteller-to-pitch-google-privacy-story.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-12/tech/30002042_1_burson-marsteller-burson-marsteller-facebook

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Savage-Rabbit]

Isn't that the right time to ditch a product? If you don't think it's going to work out, it seems much better to ditch it before you launch it.

I would say it's better to test the product if you can by putting it on the market. I can't remember more than a few of 'industry analysts" who thought the iPad would succeed the ay it has. At best they thought it would play a distant second fiddle to the the iPod/iPhone. Now the iPad has overtaken the iPod as the item chosen by first time customers and Apple sold 15 million units just in 2010. Sometimes products will succeed despite the opinions of long time observers and industry experts including you own.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[rtb61]

Bing is positively ancient, a Ballmer driven marketing name change to boost his ego is meaningless. A One stage MSN search (Live search) was number 2 to Alta Vista and then both M$ and Alta Vista choked the chicken by flooding the first pages with utterly pointless paid for placements. They were so bad at it, you started a search and the immediately click on page 5 or so of results. All of this before google and of course this created google's market.

Ballmer was stupid enough to say at one stage he regretted ever starting MSN just because he was screwing it up all the time. Reality is MSN should be worth more than Google, and it is the true measure of Ballmer's incompetence.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Rockoon]

Isn't that the right time to ditch a product? If you don't think it's going to work out, it seems much better to ditch it before you launch it.

A team that works for 6 months or even several years will not at the end say "We give up. You blew all that money. Very sorry about that." Someone much higher up than the team, clear of all blame, has made the decision to cancel the project. Good or bad, Google has THAT guy,

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I see that you drank the Kool-aid LONG AGO.

MS has a long history of NOT thinking long term. They created Office and then used that with Windows to hold a monopoly. yhey built up MSN to compete against the internet. Then they realized how truely big the internet was and destroyed what they had built in MSN. Since netscape had such a commanding lead over MS, MS created MSIE by screwing over a company. In using it though, they sought a short cut to gut netscape. Of course, that drew the feds notice of MS's actions and got them into anti-monoply where they were stymied until recently.
Then you have MS with WINCE that was a total joke. The only thing it had going for it was easier interface back to windows. That's it. It was a pure POS. So, apple developed IOS and Google bought Android and continued its development. Now, Wince is gone and MS has what, 5% of the market, with a so-so OS?
Google's search engine obviously blows bing away. Even to this day, it still does. I have tried bing just yesterday(something was up with Google's DNS) and I will say that it HAS gotten faster. No doubt about it. HOWEVER, its results remain a joke. Google's results are so much more on.

About the only thing that you have correct is that Google makes a serious mistake with their constant start and stop of projects. That is killing them. Right now, I am hoping that they will allow g+ to gel, but it is currently lacking. Likewise, for a company that wants consumers to move off windows, they always come out with apps for windows and then slight apple and esp. Linux. Their marketers and strategists are REALLY slow. They need to hire new ones.
MS has always had lousy tech (which is why they have to continue to buy up companies). BUT, the three places that MS excelled at for decades was strategy (gates), legal (from gate's rich upbringing by daddy warbucks), and marketing. MS GETS marketing. With gates gone, they HAVE lost strategy. Balmer is a fucking idiot. But from where I sit, marketing is still pretty good. And MS's lawyer remain to this day, the most highly paid individuals within MS

Google should note that all of the innovative ppl will join what is HOT. Then after time, they will move on. They tend to move on more when they see their personal projects being killed. This latest killing of projects to get the company to focus on search and G+ will cost them. In fact, that single action may have sent numerous techies over to the dark side.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[WindBourne]

Well, I hear that you are no longer running for president. Now, please turn your supporters towards paul.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[WindBourne]

Oh, I think that they would be happier if he would repeat to the press and google. If he says it often enough, it will be believed.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this still on insightful, mod this guy down already. He is a shill or a troll.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[WindBourne]

Actually, up until page took over as CEO, google had many of their projects around with loads of support for longer than bing. They were truly long-term focused. However, none of the projects got the money that bing got.

Schmidt's approach was to have numerous projects and see what stuck to the wall. IOW, he was trying to allow projects to happen in the same way that Google search was done. Page is now cleaning house. It remains to be seen what will happen. I think that he is trying to focus all on search and android. So, many of those with web projects that are being gutted, may actually re-deploy on droid. But it is hard to say that is the case.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[antdude]

That's jail bait. No thanks!

Re:Companies do this all the time

[radio4fan]

Well, Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term. In fact, most of what Google does is to gain quick profit and ditch the projects that fail with that.

I give you.... ...the Microsoft Kin!

Launched May 13, 2010.

Discontinued June 30, 2010.

Now that's what I call long-term thinking!

Re:Companies do this all the time

[hairyfeet]

Dang shill, ya ALMOST had me but then ya had to go and completely blow it with marketing speak. BTW someone needs to save this guy's post and when someone screams "Shill!" because they disagree with a position? Then you can just trot out this guy's post to show them what an ACTUAL shill is.

Anyway i'm sure that someone will point at the dig at Google as a giveaway? Nope, maybe he just don't like the company, maybe his account got burned, that can be explained away. No what can NOT be explained away is these two lines " wide array of other services and software like Azure" and " strong brand name and are also a division of innovation".

Seriously who the fuck talks like THAT, anyone? it reads like something you'd be forced to sit through in some middle management PPT, usually followed by a few buzzwords like synergy and six sigma.

So I'm sorry but all those guys upmodding this guy's post might want to read the language in it a liiiitle more carefully, as the language is just a little too buzzworthy, unless of course this guy wants to admit he works in a marketing firm in which case carry on.

Oh and for the record i'm actually using Bing Search this month just to check it out and to see if that whole "Bing Rewards" thing is worth messing with, since yahoo royally fucked up their search design with the last update. Its alright, can't really tell any change in search quality either way, and I'll be the first to admit their wallpapers are pretty and I actually like their image search a little better but all in all not really a huge change and I guess more of a taste thing really. as for TFA most likely any deal would have given them access to all that yummy FB data, which is of course why Google tried to get into social with Google+ as FB is getting insanely huge amounts of data on folks, and they give it for free because they don't think and all their friends are there! I bet Google and MSFT both slapped their foreheads and said 'Why didn't I think of that?"

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Lisias]

As a matter o fact, I did some regular test-driving in the past - it ruined my marriage, by the way.

What? A car? I never owned one...

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Lisias]

Had you ever considered moving to Guam?

Re:Companies do this all the time

[antdude]

Why a tiny island? Their Internet must suck too. ;)

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Key term: sometimes

No business can afford to ignore the experts most of the time. Providing the rare examples that fly contrary doesn't change that fact. If you can tell when the experts are wrong... that makes you an expert, hopefully adding your voice to the pool.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try MS shill...Your very blatant act of trying to mildly discredit microsoft shills does not erase your history of anti- MS competitors comments.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Pope]

Teachers, dude. Teachers!

Re:Companies do this all the time

[lipanitech]

Microsoft lost the email market to Yahoo. They lost search engine market to Google. They lost the instant Messaging market to AOL. They lost gadget market to Apple. They lost the Music market to Apple, Pandora and Spotify. They lost the cloud storage to Amazon, Google and Dropbox. There Hyper V is loosing to VMWare. There Terminal Services is loosing to Citrix. They lost there Accounting Software to Quickbooks. There Office Suit is getting a run for its money with Oracle Open Office. Microsoft time to Adapt or die.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[antdude]

Meh teachers. I don't want more school/home works! :P

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

... If they float then they are a witch and should be burned at the stake. If they sink and drown then they are innocent...

Re:Companies do this all the time

[emaname]

@pseudofrog: I agree. That post read like a desperate attempt at PR damage control. The ONLY thing MS thinks about "long term" is how to continue to crush any competition in the market by their subtle predatory practices without getting caught.

Sorry. I know that sounds really trollish, but I've been watching their business strategies since the 80's. I worked in a manufacturing engineering group for a electronic medical device manufacturer in the 80's. We had developed our own in-house CP/M desktop computer based on the Z80 so we were interested in what was happening in this area. We'd learn of a company that just introduced something that had potential to compete with MS in some area and make bets how long it would take for MS to buy them out and make them and their product disappear. It was actually a running joke in our company.

Not to be totally negative about MS, they have done some very good things. They did get rid of BOB, Clippy, and Zune.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[oakgrove]

Hairyfeet is a lot of things but "shill" isn't one of them. Save it for the real thing.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, they lost money on the xbox division last quarter (something about a 48% drop in sales..)

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

P&G, tampon manufacturers.

I met a guy from there with the job of collecting statistics on women's privates.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the boobs, although I'd venture a guess that most males on slashdot have no issues with buoyancy there, either.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[AngryDeuce]

I'd guess that has more to do with the fact that the Xbox 360 is approaching 7 years old and the market is saturated. Didn't all the major players post a reduction in sales last quarter, even Nintendo?

Once the new Xbox comes out, provided they don't fuck it up with some anti-used game bullshit (among other things), I'm sure they'll be raking in the dough again. In all honesty, I thought that Xbox Live, with it's (imho) high fees, was going to be annihilated by Playstation Network, but Sony completely shit the bed in so many ways there (What good is a free service if it fucking sucks?), and Nintendo really doesn't seem to give a shit about building a real online community, so I'm sure that XBL will be making them a pretty penny and will for a long time.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[stridebird]

pfffft. shill.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[IwantToKeepAnon]

Of if it breaks, you're about to be a daddy.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes he is, and so are you.

Anyone who doubts this should check their posting history.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Save it for the real thing.

Yeah, like bonch

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh...shilling is laaaaame.

Well, Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term. In fact, most of what Google does is to gain quick profit and ditch the projects that fail with that. Just see how many projects Google quickly and silently cancels compared to Microsoft.

It's not shilling. " Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term." Get it, get it? They're thinking long term by posting to slashdot and slowly convincing users here that they're awesome and relevant...

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Balmer is better than Gates ever was.
I was a bit surprised, but his leadership has been phenomenal.

He isnt the monkey boy anymore (and hasnt been for a decade)

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Grishnakh]

I'm as anti-MS as anyone here, but I think this is a little much. Just because one service is less popular than another doesn't mean it's "dead", it just means it's less popular and (probably) less profitable, but it can still be a money-maker. Let's look at cars: Toyota, Honda, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, etc. are all still out there competing with each other. Honda, for instance, is smaller than Toyota and Mercedes, but you don't see them saying "we've lost the car market" and throwing in the towel. They're still competing and making money just fine. Same goes for Suburu, and the really small makers like Lotus, Ferrari, etc. There's room in any market for multiple competitors, even if one of them is leading the market.

Last I checked, Hotmail was still doing just fine. I still see tons of people using hotmail email addresses. Heck, I still see lots of people using aol.com email addresses, even though I have no clue why they do.

Bing is still a viable search engine. Yes, it's much smaller than Google, and I wouldn't trust its results on anything Linux-related, but a fair number of people actually do use it.

The phone market, however, they really should throw in the towel on IMO. At least Hotmail and Bing seem to have more than 10% marketshare each, maybe, but WinPhone7 consumes vast resources and is bombing out in the marketplace with maybe 1%.

You're probably right about the music market.

I can't speak to the cloud storage and virtualization markets. Terminal services should be an easy thing however for them since they control the OS and that's rather intimately tied to the OS.

Their office suite (as much as I hate it) is still far and away the winner in the office suite market; I haven't heard of anyone using Oracle OO, though I did notice a while ago that H&R Block uses OO (the Sun version, this was before Orace took it over).

Re:Companies do this all the time

[evilRhino]

There[sic] Office Suit is getting a run for its money with Oracle Open Office.

You had me going, but you lost me, bro.

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, how else will you know if they're a witch?

Re:Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

HAh aha haaha aaaYEAH Bay-Bee! Fuuuckin troll em', TroallGrove, troll em' hard in the ass! God damn, you troll so good, makes me right horny!

Re:Companies do this all the time

[madhi19]

You might think Microsoft can afford to lose more than 2 billions a year on Bing but that can change in a heartbeat. Another "Vista" disaster on the OS side followed by business moving away from Office and the lost will pile on faster than they can write them off.

Who wouldn't want Bing?

[symbolset]

Bing's only a Two billion dollar a year money pit. But at least that investment's making a dent on Google, right? Um, no. Wow. That is an amazing. What qualifications do you have to have to run a business like that? I think I could do that.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[TechNY]

Bing isn't two billion dollar a year money pit, that's Microsoft's whole online services division. Microsoft also doesn't need to take the quick grab, they have the money to be thinking long term strategies. It worked really well for XBOX too.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[whoever57]

It could be worse, you could be the product manager for a product that has gone from almost 40% market share to 13% in about 4 years and looks like it will be the no. 3 player soon.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It worked really well for XBOX too.

There's nothing wrong with taking the view that one day the XBox may get to the position of having a positive return across its lifespan. And it is genuinely a positive about Microsoft that they're willing to engage in longterm plans. But the idea that it has already worked out well is just crap. The XBox project hasn't made back anything like what it's cost.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft launched MSN in 1995. Kids who were born after Microsoft created their online services division will be college freshmen next year. How long of a view do you suppose Microsoft taking, exactly?

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[symbolset]

You think that's bad? Try being the boss of Windows HPC. That guy fell of the Top500 entirely. No joke, the last Windows cluster in the Top500, ShanghaiSupercomputing Center's Dawning 5000A went SLES10 and now there is not even one. He must be so lonely.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[LandDolphin]

What about the less direct effects of people playing on a Microsoft XBOX and having a more favorable view of Microsoft as a brand?

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Osgeld]

see this is what I dont understand about business at that level, EVEN IF bing is a 2 billion dollar a year money pit (which I seriously doubt) why not cut it? Its not like companies have cut products before, it happens all the time ..

But in the computer industry there is this HUGE factor of pride of being 100% right 100% of the time no matter the cost. Shit happens, cost go over, nothing is perfect, but for fuck sake at some point its time to kill the white elephant that consumes too much and only produces shit.

So what Microsoft, you renamed MSN to BING and bundled a bunch of crap into LIVE, no one used it, no one uses it, when do you actually look at whats happening ... its only been 20 fucking years of the same bleh

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[bmo]

But in the computer industry there is this HUGE factor of pride of being 100% right 100% of the time no matter the cost. Shit happens, cost go over, nothing is perfect, but for fuck sake at some point its time to kill the white elephant that consumes too much and only produces shit.

This is why Microsoft should have been broken up by the DOJ instead of overturning Jackson's ruling.

Microsoft, back then, had stump ponds full of management deadwood. They use their profitable departments to shore up their epic money losing departments. If the company had been broken up by major departments (OS from User Software, for example), we probably wouldn't see what we see today, that is OS and Office holding up every stupid money losing project ever in Microsoft. Stupid money losing projects should be spun off to sink or swim on their own or closed down.

But what we have today is not only just a few stump ponds, but entire swamps full of deadwood where investor money and profits go to rot, increasing the amount of gaseous emissions coming from Redmond to compete with the amount of hot air emanating from Ballmer's mouth.

--
BMO

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Eskarel]

They don't cut it because it's more complicated than the Microsoft bashers let on.

Microsoft builds search for enterprise, a space where it is very successful, more popular, and a darned site cheaper than Google's offerings. Bing is Sharepoint search for the public, sure it isn't really taking any market share, but that doesn't really matter, because they're getting the kind of test volume which you can't do for in internal product. MSN messenger is the same deal. Microsoft makes no money off of it, but they make a crap tonne off Exchange and Lync which use the same technologies.

The whole purpose of Microsoft's on-line services division is to get people used to the Microsoft interface and get additional testing data for their enterprise products. Hell, Google search doesn't actually make Google any money either, it's a portal for their advertising business.

Folks on sharepoint will tell you that Bing sucks(it doesn't, though it's not as good as Google), and that since it's not taking market share from Google it must be a failure. They'll tell you that Microsoft jumped into the Search business because they feel they must because of Google, none of which is entirely accurate. No one makes any money on internet search, they make money on advertising associated with search and right now, Google has online advertising totally locked up. Making money on internet search is however, not the only reason for having a search product, or a messaging client, or anything else.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[MightyMartian]

Microsoft has been trying to be the predominant web portal for 17 years. This isn't strategy, it's abject failure. Microsoft has thrown billions at various iterations of MSN, much of it sighs dominant browser, and has only got a distant second, in no small part by making Yahoo a customer.

There is no master plan. The only thing MS can do is keep flinging shit at the wall with little hope of being any more than a bit player.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

No joke, the last Windows cluster in the Top500, ShanghaiSupercomputing Center's Dawning 5000A went SLES10 and now there is not even one.

I wonder if they were able to get their Windows refund.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[symbolset]

nonono. They have a totally cool website plan to get that ten billion dollars back. They're just keeping it a secret.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[sunspot42]

Exactly! MS has spent north of $30 *BILLION* developing the Xbox and Xbox 360. They haven't come anywhere close to breakeven on that investment. They'd have made more money if they'd invested $1 in Apple stock in 2000.

I doubt they'll ever turn a profit off their videogame business. A next-gen Xbox to replace the 360 will need to be developed and produced sometime in the next 3 years or so if they want to remain in the industry, and that'll cost billions. In other words, they'll need to dig a deeper hole in an attempt to get out of the hole they're already standing in.

I wish them luck...

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[c0lo]

nonono. They have a totally cool website plan to get that ten billion dollars back.

Where did you get it from? On a Bing search or something?

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[c0lo]

Microsoft has been trying to be the predominant web portal for 17 years. This isn't strategy, it's abject failure.

Show me a web portal that isn't a failure.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[WindBourne]

I'll say that they take the long term view. They continue to try and buy market share for IIS and it still continues to slide downwards into oblivion. No doubt they will shortly throw 10's of billions at it shortly again and get their %s up to 20%, where it will continue its slow slide. Again.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[WindBourne]

Well, yes, however, it keeps gamers attached to Windows. Actually, I think that Xbox is pretty smart on MS's part. The other possibility would have been for the other games to port API's to Linux (and apple) and then have new games created on non-windows. From MS's POV, they are almost certainly thankful that this has NOT happened yet.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[WindBourne]

Ouch. touche.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[megalomaniacs4u]

So the DOJ did the right thing by accident then?

MS will get so large and lethargic it will slowly rot to death from the inside?

Sounds like someone played the long game...

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[bmo]

>So the DOJ did the right thing by accident then?

No. Read.

Judge Jackson wrote a ruling that Microsoft should be broken up. Microsoft appealed, won, and Microsoft was not broken up.

--
BMO

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this is an oxymoron.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[MightyMartian]

How does it attach gamers to Windows? Do you have to state your PC operating system of choice. And if you don't say "Windows7" they don't sell you an XBox?

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt many users think of it as a "Microsoft Xbox" since that's not how it's marketed. It's just marketed as "Xbox". The box it's sold in doesn't even say the world Microsoft on it. Neither does the console except in some tiny fine print by the serial number on the back.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[mcrbids]

... except that Microsoft lost money for YEARS on Xbox, and now (finally!) it's rather profitable...

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[bef]

I totally agree with this. Breaking Microsoft up would have been great for the company, its shareholders and the industry as a whole.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[crispin_bollocks]

Proof positive that they should have kept Ms. Dewey

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>So the DOJ did the right thing by accident then?

>No. Read.

hello irony

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[shutdown -p now]

How does it attach gamers to Windows?

It's all the "social" stuff like Game for Windows Live.

... yeah, yeah, I know, right. But at least it tries.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[UnknownSoldier]

LOL. If there is ever a more funny

simpsons.nelson = HA HA !

that it is. How many years did it take Microsoft to switch Hotmail off BSD ? =)

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[WindBourne]

Same API. Many games on Xbox are sold for Windows as well.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[foniksonik]

TaoBao.cn

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing?

[randyleepublic]

http://www.google.com/

Works for me...

Intragam

[wisnoskij]

And instead they bought Intragam, possibly the only product/site in existence that is actually stupider then Bing.

Re:Intragam

[Eponymous Coward]

Bing is on Facebook's acquisition list though. Bing is just below Zombo.com.

Re:Intragam

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between Bing and Instagram is that Instagram is popular. As much as it's fun to say "LOL ONLY DUMB HIPSTERS USE INSTAGRAM UGH," it's still valuable.

Re:Intragam

[advocate_one]

and it stops them from being bought up by Google or else growing into a competitor to Facebook...

Re:Intragam

[rgbrenner]

instagram has 27 million users: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/tech/mobile/instagram-sxsw/
who don't pay anything; has no real business model; and will probably never earn a penny. That anyone could think that it's valuable boggles the mind. Just because you're happy to use something for free, doesn't mean it has value... in fact, it says the opposite, since you're unwilling to pay for it.

bing has 26.2% of the search engine market: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2158888/Yahoo-Search-Share-Sinks-Google-Bing-Rise-in-February-2012
and served 5.1 billion searches last month, and makes 1.22 cents per search (compared with 1.47 cents per search for google)
http://www.trefis.com/stock/msft/articles/75824/can-miscrosoft-improve-its-search-revenues-with-facebook/2011-10-03
http://www.trefis.com/stock/goog/articles/34615/can-google-better-target-ads-to-sustain-rps/2011-01-27

Re:Intragam

[bmo]

Zombo.com is entirely more useful than Bing.

At Bing, you can't do anything.

At Zombo, you can do anything, anything at all, the only limit is yourself!

--
BMO - Welcome!

Re:Intragam

[LordLucless]

Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company. Same for YouTube before Google bought them. Facebook itself has millions of users who don't pay anything, and is heading towards a rather large IPO.

Just because a company gives it's major product away for free doesn't mean it doesn't have other valuable assets, and just because it's not bringing in any money now, doesn't mean it couldn't, especially if it was taken over by a company that could leverage it properly.

Re:Intragam

[rgbrenner]

Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company.

Wow, that's revisionist. Schmidt was at Novell when Adwords was launched.. nearly a year before scmidt became CEO (and 6 months before he even worked at google).

Google does not give away its product for free. Its product is advertising space.

Re:Intragam

[WiiVault]

The difference is that the work Google and Bing done and spent on algorithms, hardware streamlining for their facilities, somewhat locked-in userbases (work to transition over docs, email, presents, "train" the personlized servies) and all of the web of other products in their arsenals that funnel to the search. That ecosystem is simply out of reach without a drastic move on facebook's part, like only allowing editing of uploaded images in Instagram. But that carries it's own risk of exposing them to competitors who won't do similar.

As for the app Instagram. It works just fine, but does nothing new, or provide any really essential features or protected innovations. A medium competency company could clone using prior art from PC software apps in a couple of months and if they were really devious they could scoop the probable patents involved from Kodak and turn around and demand royalties from the profitless Instagram. All one would need is the will and the pocketbook. Expect Google to do it if they suspect any traction. Especially with Kodak trying to sell, and having just bought Motorola not for their junk phones, but for their patent warchest. Also unlike Bing and Google there is not lock-in for Instagram of any real significance, especially since there is no cost in trying free competing apps and they can live side by side. Just install it and go, no need for intensive migration either.

For all the smart people in this industry, they sure seem hell bent on creating another bust through billion dollar acquisitions and inflated market value for what amounts to at best well integrated existing designs, and at worst patently obvious products with just move something from the PC to the tablet of smartphone.

Re:Intragam

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not heard of that company. Is it more stupid than Instagram?

Re:Intragam

[pamri]

No limit at all. Unless, you get a seizure first.

Re:Intragam

[crispin_bollocks]

I always feel welcome there

Re:Intragam

[n7ytd]

Wow, that's revisionist. Schmidt was at Novell when Adwords was launched.. nearly a year before scmidt became CEO (and 6 months before he even worked at google).

Google does not give away its product for free. Its product is advertising space.

Indeed. The important things to get right are Google's definition of "product" and "customer". Here's an easy way to tell which is which: if you are using a Google product for free, you aren't a "customer".

Facebing!

[busyqth]

FaceBing: It should have happened :-(

Re:Facebing!

[bonch]

Facebook doesn't want Bing. They don't want people to search the web and click away from Facebook. They want to replace the web and keep people on Facebook. This is why Google views them as such a danger.

Stupid to Sell

[Boronx]

Bing is better in some ways than Google and folks are starting to notice. Microsoft would be stupid to abandon it.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[busyqth]

Good job.
Now you'll be sure to get the raise.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing is better in some ways than Google and folks are starting to notice.

Please identify three such ways. Or if I'm taking "some" too literally then at least identify one.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone App Photo search is much easier to use. Android sucks but iPhone/iPod Touch version works great.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[artor3]

Bing was better for a while, though the "M$"-hating manchildren would never admit it. But by now? No. All of Bing's best features have been copied by Google. Improved image search, preview panes, flight statuses at the top of results, bird's eye view in the maps (not to be confused with satellite view), the list goes on. And that's a good thing. That's how competition is supposed to work. But Bing hasn't continued to innovate. And their other big advantage -- a relative lack of link farms -- has faded. So now they're no more innovative than Google, their results aren't any better, and their market share is stuck around 15% (30% if you include Yahoo). Meanwhile Google's Android platform will ensure they continue to grow. If MS is counting on windows phones to drive traffic to Bing, they're going to be disappointed.

I'm glad Bing existed and forced Google to add new, useful features. But unless they make some big improvements, they're never going to come even remotely close to pushing out Google.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing is the only MS product I use. I don't like it, but is is better than Google:

  - No crazy synonyms. When searching for a product name, I want that product, not some synonym of that word. This is even worse with open-source projects (those that use some obscure animal name), google will search for the common animal name, and I have no idea how to turn this off. The same goes with abbreviations that are actually not. This is the reason I stopped using Google Search, I can live with the other points if I get usable results.

  - The feel of privacy. MS does not show creepy ads reminding me that they know everything about me (and are totally useless). No dog shelter ads when I just searched for ways to find a lost cat, no ads for my bank when I just made an online payment (I have no idea how google knows this, but they do), no airline ads when I am reading about jet technology. I have no idea how much MS knows about me, but at least the don't tell me every chance they get.

  - No doodles. I like the doodles, when they are an exception. There is no need to destroy the usability of the site with nice HTML5 stuff because its the birthday of someone who is slightly famous for something trivial.

I can't beleive I'm writing a pro-MS post, but you asked.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[WindBourne]

Except that Boronx is not one of the astroturfers. Yes, /. is being astroturfed by MS. That is a fact. However, your claiming that everybody who supports MS must either work for them or is one of the astroturfers is a losing proposition.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Tacvek]

You can avoid your first issue with Google by using verbatim search mode.

To activate it, add '&tbs=li:1' (without the quotes, of course) to the url. In the alternative, it can be manually activated by clicking the link on the left side of the results page labeled "more search tools", which will cause a list of search modes to appear. You can then choose verbatim.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[dskzero]

Yup. Bing still feels too cumbersome to use, but it's a product that can be improved. Not that I think Facebook would try to buy it, but sure as hell I don't think Microsoft would randomly sell it.

Over a year ago, Microsoft executives sent out feelers to Facebook to see if the company would be interested in acquiring Bing, though the overture was not officially sanctioned by Steven A. Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, one of these people said. Mr. Zuckerberg declined, saying Facebook had too much else to concentrate on. Dawn Beauparlant, a spokeswoman for Microsoft, declined to comment, as did Ashley Zandy, a spokeswoman for Facebook.

That said, this is the only part of TFA that actually talks about the headline. Apparently, the submitter did not even read much, because the rest of the article is actually interesting instead of this random speculation that has absolutely no proof, names, evidence, or even quotes, and isn't even that intriguing to start with. But this is /. AKA "must bash Microsoft", instead of the positively boring "Microsoft and Facebook Align Further With Patent Deal" real haedline.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Twinbee]

See, I think it would've been the done thing for Google to give Microsoft some money for 'copying' their Bing features. Even if it's like, a gentleman's agreement. I know it's hopefully idealistic, optimistic and naive in this somewhat cruel world, where every company is at least somewhat greedy, and worried about lawsuits.

I just think it would have been fair - that's all.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[fermion]

Google used to be really good at giving very fast very good results. Now it has a lot of bell and whistles, while the basic functionality is gone.

Take for example the preview pane. This exists because the results are no longer very good, and it is useful to preview a result before going there. This minimizes all the ad farms and spam sites that occupy the top results now from getting traffic.

But what is gone? The cache link. This was the greatest thing for a number of reasons. It let the user look at a site that is non responsive. It let users look at an original site that has been sanitized in response to some controversy. It was a useful tool. Much more useful than preview.

So MS does what it always does. Takes a useful and responsive product and bloats it with minimally useful features that causes over value to decrease. I am not as a dogma opposed to MS. They have created many useful products. MS WIndows 3.11w/workgroups,. WIndows NT, Wiindows XP SP3, and even Windows 7 are very good operating systems. OTOH, WIndows Excel was an innovative spreadsheet, that has been bloated to the point where it is not so useful.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Roxton]

A disproportionate response to astroturfing is actually a fairly pragmatic solution to the problem.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Isaac Remuant]

What about IE9 mimicking Chrome?

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Twinbee]

Yes, I'm sure it goes both ways. Though I'm guessing the search engine market is larger, maybe by a lot.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[Anonymous Coward]

I think deterioration of results quality is due to growing number of sites. There's more stuff on the internet now which means more trash as well. Currently none of search engines handles that well, so we have to wait for next revolution in search (maybe crowdsourcing, lol?)

Oh, and the cache link shows up just fine for me in the preview pane when using Javascript or right where it was before with JS turned off - and yeah, I recommend browsing with JS turned on on white-list basis for sites that really need it. Google doesn't.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[aaarrrgggh]

I have a few searches that Bing is far more effective than Google. I've switched my iPad to Bing.

It is unfortunate that it is so hideous looking and that they don't just focus on giving top-notch results rather than trying to plug Bing Shopping to be more like Google.

For whatever reason though, my results searching with Google on the iPad are very bad. It usually takes three pages to get the sites I need. I don't have that same sensation on the desktop, although it could just be me and some random typos or lack of a fully developed thought.

Re:Stupid to Sell

[aaarrrgggh]

Google seems to be giving up on phrase searches though... dashes and quotes are largely ignored now. The trick doesn't do much when you are searching from the address bar (assuming you can't edit your default search string).

Another deceptive headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The 95% of that article is about the MS and Facebook patent deal and ./ focuses on the repeat of what is little more of rumor of a couple of unnamed execs who floated an idea a year ago.

 

Facebook didn't buy it?

[Jayfield]

How could Facebook not buy Bing? Just look at the Instagram acquisition - Facebook isn't interested in such trivialities as "profitability," right?

Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service?

[DERoss]

Six months ago, I logged from where visitors to some of my Web pages came. I was particularly interested in which search services were crawling my Web site. I am now completing a similar logging.

Six months ago, Bing had completely replaced MSN as a crawler; MSN did not crawl my selected Web pages even once. This time, I am again seeing MSN crawling my Web site.

Does this mean that Micro$oft is reverting back to its prior search service and abandoning Bing?

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't read too much into the hostnames.

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it was in the User-Agent header.

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service?

[coinreturn]

Yes, the Microsoft shilling is getting pretty prevalent here. It's obvious when the person cries about the $ every time someone uses it. Get over it!

Curious the amount?

[Grayhand]

How much did they offer Facebook to take it off their hands?

Re:Curious the amount?

[Osgeld]

three fiddy

Re: You may like to read

[neonsignal]

You may like to read:
http://slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/186252/ask-slashdot-my-company-wants-me-to-astroturf-should-i

Bing??

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that's right its the thing I change that to Google when something I use is defaulted to it.

Re:Bing??

[Osgeld]

what you actually use that? its kind of ironic that you change the default on a default ... I was honestly surprised when a co-worker fired up IE 9 on my computer while I was away, I sat there for a brief moment and thought someone installed firefox 3!

The fundamental differnence between companies

[Grayhand]

What's killing Microsoft is the lack of viable products. Take away Windows and Office and Microsoft would cease to exist. Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company. Microsoft has a string of failed products while Apple's track record for the last decade has been excellent. Sure there have been a few failures but most have simply failed to perform like Apple TV and not outright disasters. The Zune may not have been a total failure but it hardly set the world afire. Xbox has done well but it wouldn't keep the company afloat if it lost Windows and Office. Windows and Office have largely hit market saturation which has lead to ten years of stock stagnation. Until Microsoft comes up with a break out product the company will continue to stagnate. I'm not an Apple fanboy it's just Microsoft has retreated to the safety of two successful product lines and rarely does anything to shake things up. The biggest shake up will be a new Xbox model but to put it into perspective what are the sales numbers on Xbox consoles? 66 million to date so maybe 1.5 billion in console sales. At best we're talking a few billion in sales not profits. Apple has 110 billion in cash on hand. Microsoft needs another Windows or Office level product to get competitive again and nothing is on the horizon.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a Microsoft hater--like so many others on slashdot--but after reading your post I think you are quite right about them. I am not an Apple fan boy, the only Apple products I have ever owned is iPods and now my iPhone. I think every tech company could take a few pointers from Apple. The main point being only releasing products that some market segment are likely to use and enjoy. Also, taking the time required to release a quality product. I see Microsoft and other companies doing to much of that (rushing products to market) just to make a few quick bucks but it seems like it just hurts them in the long run.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[LordLucless]

Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company.

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable, but an Apple that only sold those would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. The massive upswing in Apple's profile was the iPod, and the iPhone built on that. Without those, Apple would just be a slightly-more-expensive Dell.

I agree that Apple is putting out more successful products than Microsoft, but it's focus is still very, very narrow. Cutting out Windows and Office would take out most of Microsoft's profit, but only a tiny slice of their product offerings. Taking out iPhones and iPods not only takes out the majority of Apple's profit, but also a decent chunk of their product lineup.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[dragonquest]

"Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company"

Take away the iPhone product line and you cut Apple's revenue in roughly half. Source: Reuters. For the bonus, take away the iPad product line also and you get a company with a loyal but small customer base. Viable? Sure, but its not going to remain a behemoth like today only on the basis of the Mac line and iPod's.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Eskarel]

That's true, but those product lines are bigger than you'd think, and Apple has fewer product lines than you think. Office is a gigantic ecosystem including cloud services, it's technically one product but it contains a huge number of sub products. Windows is again a whole bunch of different stuff, though it's probably a shrinking not growing portion of their product set. SQL server is also quite a money spinner these days. The days when Microsoft made all their money on sales of Office for the Desktop and Windows are long gone, even if those two centers are still most of their profit.

Contrasting with apple, if you look more closely, apple have, OSX which makes them no money and Macs which haven't had a significant market share increase in decades. Then you've essentially got the iPhone, the iPhone without the phone, and a bigger iPhone without a phone plus iTunes which feeds the previous three products. The vast majority of Apple's income comes from iTunes and three different variations of exactly the same device.

Of course both are better than Google which has an advertising business and products which operate at a loss to feed people into their advertising business. If a competitor managed to take a significant chunk of the advertising business Google would probably go under.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[wanzeo]

Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company.

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Without those, Apple would just be a slightly-more-expensive Dell

I would extend that to Google, Facebook, and really any tech company. The reality is that many of these companies are one-trick ponies, and despite their best efforts, they are unable to expand. Google really went all out to clone Facebook for G+, and a year later it's a ghost town. Similarly; I can remember when Dell and Sony were the epitome of consumer hardware, and now they've been almost completely eclipsed. There is just no room for second place, and no one stays on top for long.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[BeShaMo]

The answer to that is that both those product lines are relatively new. Apple keeps reinventing themselves by creating new markets, while MS relies on the same two that they have relied on for most of their existence, both of which are under heavy pressure from the competition and shifts in user patterns.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft would be significantly bigger than Apple if you took away ipad and iphone while you took windows and office from MS. MS used to be massively loaded between those 2 products but that has significantly changed over the last decade, yes they are still the biggest portion but Apple is far more unbalanced towards 2 single lines than MS EVER was. Microsoft would be reduce to about 25-30%, Apple would be reduced to around 10%.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't an answer, that is a lame excuse. Without those 2 product lines apple would be back to struggling to survive. Those 2 products are also the only reason that much of the rest of their business hasn't completed fallen into the shitter.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Chuck Chunder]

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable

It was and probably is. And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads where there's more excitement today.
If you actually wanted to 'hurt' Apple you'd take away iTunes. Not because it's a massive profit center in itself but because it's what makes the iPod user buy an iPhone, iPad, Apple TV etc etc.
MS has no gateway drug, they thought they did with Windows (and for a long time that was true) but somehow the world changed and a more frequent refresh of the iPhone line is far more exciting that the tick/tock (bad/good) release of Microsofts OS line.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[dragonquest]

I'd disagree to either Windows or Office facing significant competition. The market shares of Mac or OpenOffice are nothing but blips on the radar. But MS is gaining market share in other fields - C#/VS is increasingly relevant, SQL Server is stiff competition to Oracle/DB2. Apple did create new markets, but their old ones are not money churners like before. In contrast Office has been pulling in billions for 2 decades.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[LordLucless]

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable

It was and probably is

Which is exactly what I said, before you snipped half my sentence to make it look like I didn't.

And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads

There's a difference between an iPhone and an iPad? They're the same thing in a different form factor. Hell, the iPod isn't that much different itself. If you count them as different product lines, you might as well count Microsoft's Home/Pro (or whatever they are this time round) versions as different product lines - there's about as much distinction.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[BeardedChimp]

There's a difference between an iPhone and an iPad? They're the same thing in a different form factor. Hell, the iPod isn't that much different itself. If you count them as different product lines, you might as well count Microsoft's Home/Pro (or whatever they are this time round) versions as different product lines - there's about as much distinction.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, if they are the same product why do people buy one of each rather than just make do with one or the other?

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[ceoyoyo]

Take away the iPod and iPhone and Apple would be one of the bigger PC manufacturers and sell a whole mess of iPads. Both product lines are the most profitable in the business.

Take away Office and Windows and Microsoft would be bankrupt.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

So . . . take away the products that make a company a behemoth and they will no longer be a behemoth?

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[LordLucless]

Same reason people buy a desktop and a laptop? They're fundamentally the same device, but different form factors are useful in different situations.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[WindBourne]

Actually, Google has search, map, and android. However, the 3 support each other. It will be interesting to see what is going to come from openmap's impact on google map.

G+ is just getting started. I do not think that it is a ghost town, but it really is lacking what is needed to make it compete against FB. The fact that you can not write scripts is just amazing. I am shocked that they did not and still have not, done that.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[coinreturn]

No, iPod and iPad are most certainly not the same thing. Do iPods have GPS receivers? No. Do iPods have wireless data plans? No. Do iPods even pretend to have applications that aren't games? No.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

What's killing Microsoft is the lack of viable products. Take away Windows and Office and Microsoft would cease to exist.

MS SQL server has a large following, and it actually is a quality product.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable, but an Apple that only sold those would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.

That's kind of the point. It may be Apple's smallest business, but it makes enough money to sustain itself. Bing is a huge white elephant.

I agree that Apple is putting out more successful products than Microsoft, but it's focus is still very, very narrow. Cutting out Windows and Office would take out most of Microsoft's profit, but only a tiny slice of their product offerings. Taking out iPhones and iPods not only takes out the majority of Apple's profit, but also a decent chunk of their product lineup.

Which, in the business world, is an ideal situation. You don't get extra points just because you have your fingers in a lot of extra pies. It only counts if you're good at it.

Take iPhones, iPads, and even iPods out of Apple, and you'd still have a small, but profitable PC vendor. You could call it Macintosh Corporation and people would immediately know what it was about.

Take Windows and Office out of Microsoft, and you'd have a large, disorganized mess of marginal products and services. What would you call that? Xbox, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Bing, We Make Pretty Good Keyboards, Oh And We Still Make Zunes For Some Reason Incorporated? Try coming up with a business plan for that train wreck.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[quacking duck]

That's true, but those product lines are bigger than you'd think, and Apple has fewer product lines than you think. Office is a gigantic ecosystem including cloud services, it's technically one product but it contains a huge number of sub products. Windows is again a whole bunch of different stuff, though it's probably a shrinking not growing portion of their product set. [...]

You can't on one hand call the iPod, iPhone and iPad a single product line ("three different variations of exactly the same device") and then argue that MS has more product lines than we think because Office is split into "sub-products", and Windows into "a whole bunch of different stuff". Other than the Touch, iPods don't overlap with the iPhone or iPad except management through iTunes (I'll get to that later).

Contrasting with apple, if you look more closely, apple have, OSX which makes them no money and Macs which haven't had a significant market share increase in decades. Then you've essentially got the iPhone, the iPhone without the phone, and a bigger iPhone without a phone plus iTunes which feeds the previous three products. The vast majority of Apple's income comes from iTunes and three different variations of exactly the same device.

You mean Macs still don't have significant market share, period. Macs have gone from about 3% US / iTunes is a tiny fraction by comparison and has been for years.

And although iTunes (the computer program, not the media or app store) used to be the management backbone for all three, this is now only needed for iPods (except the touch). With iOS5 and iCloud they have cut that dependency to almost nothing. Updates can be done on-device, iDevice computer sync of photos, music, video, contacts, calendars, and backups can be done through iCloud. You only need the iTunes program to restore iOS (or a backup) to the device.

Even before iOS5, you didn't have to tie it to an iTunes installation. I know people who haven't connected their iPhone to their computer or iTunes in over a year, and manage new music and apps just fine. These people have no backups of their data, of course, but that's hardly a habit unique to iPhone users.

You can only get apps from the App Store, of course, but on the iDevice it's not through the iTunes app. And if you're willing to forgo the default music and video player apps, you can side-load music and video from anywhere (even AVIs, MKVs, and WMVs) into 3rd party apps, from a computer over wifi.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[LordLucless]

Take iPhones, iPads, and even iPods out of Apple, and you'd still have a small, but profitable PC vendor. You could call it Macintosh Corporation and people would immediately know what it was about.

Take Windows and Office out of Microsoft, and you'd have a large, disorganized mess of marginal products and services. What would you call that? Xbox, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Bing, We Make Pretty Good Keyboards, Oh And We Still Make Zunes For Some Reason Incorporated? Try coming up with a business plan for that train wreck.

According to Tim Cook, " it took us 22 years to sell 55 million Macs". Since 2006, Microsoft sold 67 million X-Box 360s. Even just a fraction of Microsoft's remaining product lines would out-sell Apple's remaining one. Not to mention all the big business software that you failed to mention - stuff like Exchange, and ActiveDirectory.

As for a business plan, a company doesn't have to have one unified business plan of everything, integrating all their products into one inter-woven masterplan. That's why companies, especially large ones, divide themselves up into divisions. Microsoft's not planning to leverage their Exchange install-base to get an X-Box in every server closet. They're both successful (well, successfully-selling) products, and they're marketed and sold entirely independently. And as long as each division, and each product line has a valid business plan, why bother unnecessarily trying to mash them all together?

It'd only take a brief flip through my posting history to show I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft - nor of Apple. I'm typing this from my Linux Mint machine - I don't have a horse in this particular race. But saying that Apple is the more successful company because it's got a diversified set of product lines is ludicrous. Microsoft has a diversified set of products. Apple is intensely focussed on the end-user electronics market.

Now, you can make an argument over whether an intense focus or diversification is better, and you can certainly make an argument that Apple is more successful than Microsoft, but I cannot see any logic behind claiming, as the OP did, that Apple is more successful than Microsoft because it is more diversified. That's just...wrong.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Eskarel]

I meant iTunes as the store, not the app, the app doesn't really matter at the moment.

In terms of Office being multiple things I meant, Office itself, Sharepoint, Exchange, Office 365, etc, not Excel, Word, etc.

Nor did I say Microsoft had a huge product range, merely that it wasn't the same as the old days when they had installed office and a couple versions of Windows.

A large percentage of Apple's success is due to the premium they can charge for the iPod/Phone/Pad and related equipment. The profit margins they make are ridiculous, and they get a lot of that profit off the back of poorly paid Chinese labor. Of course they deserve a lot of that credit, they saw what people wanted in mp3 players, and phones, and while I don't think the iPad is technically a tablet, they created the market for whatever it is. My point was that most of their innovation spawns from one or two great ideas the same as Microsoft, and for that matter most companies. There are also some major question marks hanging over the companies future now that Steve Jobs is dead, but we'll see how that turns out.

Folks are constantly seeing Microsoft as it was 10 years ago with the Office Suite and Windows as the only remotely successful things in their catalog propping up everything else. That's not been true for a while now anymore than Apple is just computers anymore.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[tomthegeek]

I have been using G+ a little recently and I like it, I call it the new Facebook. I call it that because right now it's kind of in the same position Facebook was interface-wise when MySpace was a big thing. G+ is slicker and works better plus less annoying messages about games and apps that want to mine my personal information. Facebook lets you control some stuff but they always have a little wedge for getting advertising and spam in front of me. What I think would really help G+ adoption would be to integrate Facebook as a sharing destination. G+ has a really nice share UI but only within G+. You need to be able to share to Twitter and Facebook at the same time. Facebook might be blocking a feature like that, I don't know.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I never made the claim that Apple was "more diversified" than Microsoft, and I wouldn't agree with it if anyone did. Fortunately, nobody did. Not me and not the OP. Diversified is your word, not his. That's your straw man, and you can beat the shit out of him if you like.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[Missing.Matter]

Microsoft has at least 12 different billion dollar businesses. Take away Windows and Office, and sure, it would kill their revenue. They would probably have to fire a lot of people, but after some restructuring they would still be in a position to make a ton of money.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies

[LordLucless]

He didn't use that word, but it's what he said:

Take away Windows and Office and Microsoft would cease to exist

Microsoft has retreated to the safety of two successful product lines

Craigslist...

[Alsee]

For sale:
Hole in the ground. Sucks massive amounts of your money into oblivion every month.
Price 2 billion dollars, or best offer.

-

Re:Craigslist...

[drinkypoo]

That is a remarkable deal for a government. I'll take two.

Makes more sense than Instagram

[WiiVault]

Facebook is one of the few sites with the resources and hit count to actually have a chance against Google. Not to say it would have worked, the implementation, combined with Bing's ahem "quirks" would make it an uphill battle.

But instead the sage Zuckerberg proved himself to not be the visionary the media paints him by buying a brain-dead obvious "innovative" flavor of the week app (apparently cheap filters and basic image processing + built in camera FTW) with no patents, innovations, or profits. Let me introduce you to the (richer) Shawn Fanning of our decade 2010's.

We used to call ideas like facebook and Napster clever uses of existing technology presented in a way that finally opened the door to normal people. A noble achievement worth a paycheck. Now we call them the basis for Fortune 500 companies and the pinnacle of tech innovations. NASA and real science is just too boring and no matter how many buttons I push my microwave can't make my food come out in sepia.

No offense to the people who work for Instagram the product is fine, just that it's overvalue raises serious concerns about the state of progress. There is not a single thing that is new or better about the product than PC software for decades other than it runs on a pocket computer. imagine telling the people at Bell Labs, Xerox, Honeywell, IBM, or one of the dozens of other real innovators in the 70's that shit like this was what drove our current technology economy. They would laugh, then cry, then ask about the flying cars

Oh but I forgot it runs on a smartphone! Meaning that according to the patent office these are whole new uncharted realms of innovation worthy of the legal protection akin to the lightbulp or the the CRT. Prior art? Now a days whats considred inventive is just shifting and existing idea wholesale from one screen or interface to another. To me in a sane marketplace Instagram is worth about a $1 plus whatever assets and minus whatever debts they have incurred.

Oh well then, off to design my new protected innovation the "Hello Welcome" door-mat based browser. And don't you dare libel it me by suggesting it is in any way similar to PC browsers since Mosaic in the 90's. Can you control your computer browser with your fucking foot? Yeah that's what I thought- invent something as revolutionary and lifechanging as browsing in the the elements from your doorstep 20 feet from your PC and maybe we will talk BTW.

You won't believe what I've got up my sleeve next (assuming you have been in a coma since the death of real R&D focus in the West).

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you control your computer browser with your fucking foot?

Yes, but it is getting expensive and the 3rd world is complaining about an excess of monitors with a boot hole through them.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[snookums]

The thing is, these valuations are based on users, not technology. If I had an app that all it did was show you a random picture of poop every day, and 27 million people turned on that app and looked at the poop each day, I could probably sell that for $1B too.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[WiiVault]

Fuck... I didn't just read that according to my lawyer. The SEC says I have to disclaim any potential liabilities to my new bosses over at Yahoo who saw fit to buy my 1 man company and product sketches for a 25% share of their stock and board position. For their in touch management a shipping product demonstrated product means more overhead. And no employees or prototypes means they only have to spend a few billion to grab this puppy before Amazon, eBay or the ghost of MySpace swoops in.

So just for the record if something goes wrong lets just pretend I don't understand what this "3rd world" (Mars>) thing is, and who knows maybe I'm more of a moccassin kinda guy unfamiliar with these "boots" you speak of.

Basic sense and any concept of the market strategy haven't been considered assets to the friendly folks at Yahoo! in years.They are just glad they got out ahead on this one and didn't miss out like in they heyday of the 99c fart app. Never will a silly fad go past without a massive wasted investment that leads people to wonder "How the hell is Yahoo still around?"

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[jovius]

Instagram's 30 million users cost Facebook about 30$/head. I'm sure they are worth more than that.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[WiiVault]

Sorry for the self reply, but disclaimer for the grammar. No I'm not drunk, but I haven't slept in about 48 hours, and despite previewing it I only just now realized how grammatically "different" and it reads. Sometimes you just have to think outside of the box, trail-blaze and fight conformity even in basic communication mediums defined over hundreds of years forming a basis for modern culture YKWIM? Kewl. That is if you want to lead us into web 10.0. Yup you read that right.

After learning that you can just randomly attach large numbers to vague incremental updates (thanks Chrome team!) I decided to embrace the system for my my internal brain synergies as a means of expanding the reach of my platforms of knowledge and enhancing the lives of my customers and clients. Basically every-time a new thought enters my mind I get to tack on another whole number. I plan to be at web 15.0 by tomorrow morning at this rate hopefully before those bastards at Mozilla. I know my though process is sound, because Adobe has been doing it for years. everybody knows bigger numbers suggest improvement and new features all within the shareholder friendly budget of a fresh splashscreen and drastically rearranged interface.Not sure but I think EA Sports may have been the first

Or.... maybe, just maybe I've just invented a new form of speech; and it's not my grammar that is broken but instead your narrow ability to comprehend this advanced shit. Yeah just like most of my ideas it was miraculously birthed from the fission powered synapses within my massive social media, web 10. (11.0 by now) , cloud based quantum computing design workshop powered brain.

Hmm... something to consider I never been wrong yet.

Too much progress all at once confuses the small minds and throws my chi levels dangerously off of their perfectly calibrated astrologically sound and total level-headed view of myself and instinctual leadership, intellegence, and physical aptitude qualities that form the basis of my aura.

But for now I might as well stick with my "Hello Welcome" mats before I branch out into defining linguistics and the rest of my many other (future ) contributions to society, culture, and the human condition. Don't worry- your welcome. I'm just not happy unless I'm inventing, creating, and changing the world for future generations

.

BTW off topic, but I'm sick as hell of hearing about this Tesla guy... kinda overrated when you really think about how many iPhone apps he released, and did he even coin any 1337 memes? Probably died waiting for pron to load on dial-up. Bet he never even Rick Rolled anybody either...sad- nasty brutish and short must his allotted life and monthy AOL hours way back then. And named after a car? Must have been rough as a kid

.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[WiiVault]

True, but what kind of loyalty does a fairly shallow, easily clone-able app have especially if people might only be interested at the price of free. Not sure, but I bet if Google or even MS (assuming Android and iOS support) decided to they could steal all those users away quickly. It doesn't help that facebook isn't really known for their programming prowess.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[WiiVault]

At that price considering duplicate accounts, one off use account/got sick of it after a week, I'd venture that it will end up with 500 also free competitors (possibly big company supplied ones from companies who have smartphone experience) and will be about as well off as spending a billion to buy into the flashlight or fart app market a few years back. But I'll admit it's hard to say one way or another. I can't imagine anybody on Slashdot couldn't off the top of their head list about 10 better companies or apps to spend a billion on.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe FB makes $5 per user at the moment , thats with all the zygna crap and adverts. So $30 per head from probably most duplicate users, not gonna make that back

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[ceoyoyo]

Don't forget, most of those users already have Facebook accounts.

And what exactly are those $30 users going to pay for?

This "buying users" thing is stupid, except in very limited circumstances. Users are earned, not purchased. Just like customers.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a point otherwise, except for "easily copyable" -- one of the reasons for instagrams success is quality: Look at itunes and google play and try to find apps with better ratings than Instagram... Say what you want about the shallowness of the app but their execution is flawless. That was a pre-requisite for getting those millions of users and copycats have a hard time reaching the same level of polish.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[LeDopore]

Agreed. It's not like many of those Instagram users had never heard of Facebook. If they didn't want to use the revenue-generating aspects of Facebook before the merger, they likely won't after either.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram

[randyleepublic]

You said a mouthful. The company I work for is probably going to go under for lack of a $40M angel investment. What would we provide for that. Oh, nothing much, just a drug that reverses aging in humans, dogs, cats, and horses. But, we can't 100% guarantee that we can make the drug, plus it may not actually reverse aging, plus the approval process is treacherous, so why take a chance on being the world's trillionaire, not to mention being able to live long enough to spend it all? Nope, better to spend the money on Instagram.

The Internet as we knew it is going away

[Cheech Wizard]

I can see that. More and more people I know are spending more and more time on Facebook - Mostly just idling watching the status updates and stuff scroll by. I can even see it with people who are long time visitors to some of my forum web sites. These are people I know and have known for years. Lots of times I see them "idling" on both one of my sites and Facebook. The face of computing to the world is changing significantly which, in my opinion, is why so many people are now buying "appliances" such as iPads. I don't have any numbers, but my bet is while more and more people are "going online" every year, people are searching for things less and less in search engines such as Google and Bing. This isn't so much true of people here, but rather the population of the world in general want Twitter and Facebook (both to me are pretty useless). I'm not saying I think search is dying a fast death, but I do think their relevance to most people is slowly fading.

Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook?

[Black Parrot]

Silly execs. They should have unloaded it on eBay.

Re:Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't they just set their default search engine back to Google, and forget that Bing exists?
Like everyone else did?

Re:Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook?

[WiiVault]

I think you mean HP. Meg Whitman will try to buy anything no matter how poorly matched it is. Heck she's so hardcore she doesn't just try and buy lobbyists she tries to buy herself into the governorship's mansion itself. She's a card carrying member of Carly Fiorina club of how maintain the stereotype that women can't be good leaders or corporate decision-makers. That's pretty damn hard to look worse than the men they replaced. I guess no matter the gender shit will rise -assuming a proper diet of narcissism and backed by fake degrees from colleges looking to book a major female CEO and having no other unemployed blowhard choices on hand.

Re:Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. +5 Funny
Craigslist curbside pickup might be more appropriate tho...

Re:Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook?

[Megane]

And if it didn't sell in 30 days, they could get a free re-listing!

Re:Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly execs. They should have unloaded it on eBay.

...and after 5 years, bought it back at a discount!

And I've been using Bing to escape Google

[Anonymous Coward]

and its hungry hungry privacy invading data maw. Not that Microsoft is exactly better, but it's at least a bit different. Facebook is WORSE. Shit.

Re:And I've been using Bing to escape Google

[binarylarry]

So, you voted for Kodos eh?

Yawn.. more anti-ms drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have sworn this comment is posted every single week. And yet MS revenues continue to go up and up. "Stagnated" LOL. You are so wrong that you are either retarded or an anti-ms troll.

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues&zoom=10&startDate=&endDate=&format=real&recessions=false

Re:Yawn.. more anti-ms drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have sworn this comment is posted every single week. And yet MS revenues continue to go up and up. "Stagnated" LOL. You are so wrong that you are either retarded or an anti-ms troll.

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues&zoom=10&startDate=&endDate=&format=real&recessions=false

On Slashdot Microsoft has been dying for about as long as we've been waiting for the year of Linux on the desktop.

Re:Yawn.. more anti-ms drivel

[WindBourne]

Yeah, MS is doing just great.
Why just 4 years ago, apple was 1/2 of MS's revenue and Google was 1/4. Now, Apple is double MS's and Google is 1/2 of MSs.
And you really think that MS is doing great? Seriously? You have not taken notice of the fact that much of MS's revenue is from price increases on western sold, while decreasing prices on all other locations? Even with that, their unit sales are dropping, not increasing.

Re:Yawn.. more anti-ms drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded? Seriously. Are you retarded? I think you are. I really do. You have some kind of brain defect for sure.

MS *is* doing great. They are in fact the most successful software company on the planet. Google is a successful advertising company. Apple is a successful consumer products company. Only in some bizzaro troll world that you live in, is a company that generates 17.41 *BILLION* dollars of revenue not doing great.

Re:Yawn.. more anti-ms drivel

[WindBourne]

I take it that you are either a wall street banker or an Ex-ceo of GM or Chrysler just before they bankrupted?
Just because MS has 17B in sales does NOT make them doing great. Far from it. They are losing market share. They are losing desktop # AND office #. As that drops, they will lose their monopoly. Once they do, they will collapse quickly.

Unload what

[Anonymousslashdot]

and on who's face ? Gotta catch on with the latest slang...

Wrong product

[ewrong]

They should have just slapped together a quick photo posting app, maybe given it the option of applying a few filters to said photo and then tried to sell them that.

Web Development Company

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to call ideas like facebook and Napster clever uses of existing technology presented in a way that finally opened the door to normal people. A noble achievement worth a paycheck. Now we call them the basis for Fortune 500 companies and the pinnacle of tech innovations. NASA and real science is just too boring and no matter how many buttons I push my microwave can't make my food come out in sepia. http://ideatechnosolutions.com/

You goot to admire their restraint

[Chrisq]

Facebook politely declined

I would have expected "Fuck, I wouldn't take that money-losing shit if you paid me".

Makes me wonder

[HangingChad]

Why Facebook would want to buy the Zune of search engines?

If only Bing was its own company....

[Yew2]

I coulda made millions betting against it the second it came out. Anyone ever try to use a search on a MS site before like say support.microsoft.com? lol...they never could do search

Re:If only Bing was its own company....

[Anonymous Coward]

on Windows its called "Search" on OSX the function is called "Find".
-just saying.

That was right move, too bad it failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is purely software development company. Search engine on the other hand is pure data mining company with main assets being algorithms.
Microsoft was right to sell this part of their business, so they could focus on software development and not building huge social networks, like Google and Facebook.
Facebook could simply buy a proper software and then they could make a proper use of it and build a serious competition to Google in matter of years.
This is very sad news that Facebook refused the deal. It seems that they are very bad for the internet this way.
Also Facebook is not nice - it's obvious that this website is just for idiots and keeps this niche at any cost.
At least there are some good things about it - Facebook users are not spending time polluting other websites with their crap.

Re:shill

[Anonymous Coward]

are you paid to shill? get a life

'Bing Bing' - Helloo? Helloo?

[GerryHattrick]

I used to find 'Microsoft Maps' quite useful, and easier than some to post on websites. But since they called them Ping, or something equally stupid, I haven't been back.

Uhhhhh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at Microsoft, fairly high up. I can guarantee you this story is bullshit.

Re:Uhhhhh, no.

[Frankie70]

I work at Microsoft, fairly high up. I can guarantee you this story is bullshit.

May be you were kept out of the loop, Steve.

Steve Ballmer, apparently, was not involved

[Anonymous Coward]

I am guessing the guys that were involved with this are no longer with microsoft.

Re:Søgemaskineoptimering

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but we can't take someone seriously when they say they're "experts in organic search engine optimization (SEO)."

Fail Often, Fail Fast, Fail Cheap

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Straight from venture capitalists mouths to Google's ears... http://www.canrockventures.com/fail-often-fail-fast-fail-cheap/

What a burn

[thetoadwarrior]

Facebook will pay a billion for something as useless as Instagram and yet won't even touch Bing. That says it all really.

Re: You may like to read

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeeze, I guess I need a disclaimer everytime I post to slashdot without getting paid.