| 7:57 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
ok, well I have IE7 beta 2 and it set the search box default to Yahoo without at any point even asking suggesting or nudging me in the direction of MSN. The reason for this is that I have the Yahoo Tool Bar on my computer. I have google as my homepage and I search mostly on Google with Yahoo a close second and so the IE7 browser came up with a box when I was searching google to ask me if I wanted to make google my default search box setting, instead. Can't see for the life of me anything that resembles the days when Windows 95 first came out and you had to track down an obscure setting and untick a box to opt out of IE and get netscape to work... this is not the same sort of thing at all. Just my 5 cents.
Oh and whoever said they hope MSN sends Google the way of Netscape - be careful what you wish for... anyone who really thinks we would never have any problems with MSN...your optimism is endearing but a little off the charts methinks.
| 8:00 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Wow, forget about the browser stuff for a minute and absorb the anti-google sentiment, its clear google has already lost this war. A few years ago cheering on MSN would have been a VERY foreign concept. |
History repeating itself? Remember Infoseek? Alta Vista? Google?
I don't think we're even close to seeing a new King but the current King could be overthrown if the anti sentiment continues. I see more and more of it on a daily basis and it's like deja vu.
| 8:01 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not that I am an advocate of Microsoft. I do feel it is about time that someone comes in and turns up the heat in the search space. If you compare engines, my feeling is that the quality that is being produced by both Google and Yahoo is getting worse.
I know of some great sites that should be ranked and are not. The content is not garbage, but they are small sites that need a chance.
| 8:03 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I suppose there is always the argument saying that people will use the search engine which returns the most relevant results?
But really in a few years I think google will be stuffed :)
| 8:07 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MSN is up to something, they are out-spidering google by at least 10 to 1 in my sites.
| 8:30 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|EFV- this is hardly the same thing. They are NOT restricting use of other search engines. |
Microsoft wasn't restricting the use of AOL, Prodigy, etc. either.
|Just providing their own service for who wants to use it. Why does it bother you? |
I didn't say I was bothered by it. I simply gave a common-sense answer to Texasville's question.
I don't feel strongly about the issue of IE's search box defaulting to MSN search, but I can see why some people (including antitrust enforcers) might.
| 8:30 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Walkman, how long have you been seeing this type of activity?
I get over 1M visits a day by Googlebot, but I havent seen any more than 200k a day from MSN. On average 100k.
What type of files are they hitting? And do you have RSS feeds of your content?
Sorry for all the questions but I am curious about RSS and its impact with SE's.
| 8:40 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|But one doesn't have to be "whining for Google" to be aware of history, or to consider history in the context of Microsoft's latest efforts to leverage its monopoly or near-monopoly in PC operating systems. |
And Google is not striving for monopoly in search?
| 9:48 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black... what comes around goes around.
| 9:48 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|And Google is not striving for monopoly in search? |
We can only guess what Google is striving for, but the fact is that Google does not have a monopoly in search, while U.S. courts have ruled that Microsoft does have a monopoly in PC operating systems.
| 10:21 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Marissa must win the award for quote of the centry, she cant genuinely believe that?.
I say, in view of their utter contempt for webmasters they deserve all they have comming to them. Their greed and cavalier attitude to the webmasters and business users that helped to get them to where they are today is simply just amazing.
Also, i think webmasters have had enough of them, this thread proves they are losing support, anyway, its not good for search users or webmasters to be stuck with one player dominating the market as google do.
Im no fan of microsoft but if they can take a good chunk of Googles market share and level the plain field out more between the three search engines then search in the future will improve and they will all have to compete on quality to get support.
I say bring it on microsoft and Google stop whinging, just like google have stopped listening to us we should return the favour and cock google a deaf one over their whinging!
Oh and marissa wants to wake up and smell the coffee!
| 11:28 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think this thread is a natural extension of the last 3 months of threads on the Google Search forum.
The reason why there are thousands of posts about data centre watching and supplemental problems is because this is clearly a significant problem facing webmasters who in some part rely on Google.
The result of these issues is that when offered an opportunity to demote the importance of Google to end users then we will take it.
I don't think the history of either Microsoft or Google is relevant anymore (Microsoft bad - monopoly etc) and (Google good - webmasters search engine) - these stereotypes just do not wash at all. Microsoft is a (very) newcomer to this industry, Google is now a huge commercial company far removed from the technology basis and hype that gained so many users years ago - it too is totally in the MS mould. So basically these guys are now head to head.
With that in mind - as webmasters we need traffic. As users we don't, and that is not what this forum is about - if we want to talk about the merits of the results of each engine from a users perspective then why do users continually use Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask Jeeves if Google has the best results. Answer, users won't be aware about result quality - if the top x meet the needs of the searcher then they will be used. However, if x sites are missing from those top results then it tends to be webmasters who notice - and now for the first time Google is missing too many sites. And now what happens is a friend says "I couldn't find something on the Internet the other day, you - as an expert - what do you use to find what you are looking for?". And I say.....
Basically it is all about timing - Google has been in meltdown for months (some would argue years) - so now it is all about pleasing webmasters just like it was when Google came from nowhere (on the basis that you could get your sites in really quickly as it indexed the web like no other). And Google is not pleasing webmasters.
Could not agree more that it is really easy to become the next Infoseek, AltaVista, Excite, Lycos - now it is about real distribution, eyeballs, and PR.
Who is on the up, who is on the way down?
| 11:50 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
OK, this is off the deep end.
I have no problem with MSN ultimately winning the search race, as long as they do it fairly and seeding their browser that's forced into every computer sold with MSN as the default is not fair.
Who cares how much MS spends developing Vista, WE PAID FOR IT with every MS product we ever bought and WE'LL pay for it when WE upgrade so those arguments about how much MS is spending is idiotic.
MS was deemed a monopoly after destroying all competition except the little percentage points held by Apple and freebie Linux. They literally wiped out almost every other large product that used to dominate the computer industry such Novel Netorks, Lotus 123, Word Perfect, Navigator and all the rest. They even put a dent in Oracle, Informix and the others with SQL Server, and so on and so forth.
They tried to whack AOL with one click to MSN on the desktop, and now are going to take a stab at wounding Google with another monopolistic play of defaulting to THEIR services.
You people obviously don't remember the early days before MS put a strangehold on the entire computer industry and now they're trying to repeat that with the internet.
Google only has the power people give them via typing GOOGLE.COM into the browser, so if you think Google has you under their thumb, stop typing in GOOGLE and it will stop.
However, MS has everything else, Windows, Office, Explorer, Money, you name it, they have a lock on it and when MSN Search wins, you will have no place else to turn as Yahoo will probably cave and just use MSN results and shave a ton of money off their budget.
I've done battle with MS before, know a lot of people that have worked there, been in aquisiton discussions with them a couple of times on a couple of products, and they will get what they want one way or the other, so if you think what they are doing is a good thing or "fair" because they built it you're simply naive.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 12:06 am (utc) on May 2, 2006]
| 11:59 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>I've done battle with MS before, now a lot of people that have worked there, been in aquisiton discussions with them a couple of times on a couple of products, and they will get what they want one way or the other, so if you think what they are doing is a good thing or "fair" because they built it you're simply naive. <<<<<<
And this is unlike any other company?
>>>>I have no problem with MSN ultimately winning the search race, as long as they do it fairly and seeding their browser that's forced into every computer sold with MSN as the default is not fair. <<<<
Wait a minute. It's their product. That's like saying toyota should have to use ford transmissions. They can't use their own. Give me a break.
And so far as the problems between apple and ms, it seems to me that history says Apple told everyone to go fly a kite, they wouldn't license anything to anyone else. Thus microsoft and the pc was born. (I know that is over simplified but it's correct)
| 11:59 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok then by that definition, STOP BUYING Microsoft products - then they won't have such a hold.
...but people do - they go to stores and buy them. The reason they buy them is the fill the need the people have - and the key issue is that they are more user friendly to the core market (new internet and pc users).
At the end of the day people don't just type in google.com or buy microsoft office because they can - they do it because they want to. The money spent on developing these 2 products is now the issue - in my opinion Google does not spend enough on developing their core product as it is not good enough.
Microsoft needs to go after new markets, so does Google (and they are clearly doing this) - but at the end of the day at this level it is aggressive, intrusive and unacceptable to certain people. But that is what every single market leader and their wannabees in every single industry - that you need to get over.
| 12:00 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just to clarify ,my post was intended for incredibill.
| 12:04 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
IMHO ,the biggest benefactors in this war would be the OEM's...With Vista/IE 7 I think Dell or HP has more power to tilt the search market share than any other web players.
| 12:05 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually, couldn't have said it any better than texasville.
Microsoft didn't force these products on us - people bought them because the competition wasn't smart enough, wasn't dynamic enough and wasn't focussed on what the customer was asking for. This is not a monopoly situation like British Gas or British telecom. People bought these Microsoft products and still do!
It is up to Google to maintain it's search customers by providing a quality search service! If it doesn't then people will use another one - and putting a search box on your browser will only tempt users if that service works for the user will it not if we use the logic about product quality?
| 12:17 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Microsoft didn't force these products on us - people bought them because the competition wasn't smart enough, wasn't dynamic enough and wasn't focussed on what the customer was asking for. This is not a monopoly situation like British Gas or British telecom. People bought these Microsoft products and still do! |
You have no clue, I lived it, I was there since the beginning of MS, I've watched their every move and I could fill pages about what they do.
Here's some examples:
What became MS Outlook used to be the #2 email product with LOTS of competition. MS talked to the #1 email product about selling out they went with Lotus instead. MS simply bought the second rate runner up and GAVE it away FREE.
How about Netscape?
MS wanted control of the browser so built a FREE one to destroy Netscape.
They simply built it into the OS and gave it away FREE
You call that competition?
How can working smart compete with the big bully on the block putting you out of business giving it away free?
That's not even competition, that's the actions of a monopoly trying to control an industry.
Be smart enough to compete?
When you can tell me you spent 2 days hacking Windows to find APIs that Microsoft refuses to divulge but used in Word, Excel and other products, then tell me they're playing fair.
There was a reason MS was deemed a monopoly and their company should be chopped up into little pieces and scattered across the country.
| 12:42 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|There was a reason MS was deemed a monopoly and their company should be chopped up into little pieces and scattered across the country. |
Power corrupts, no matter what company it is.
Give Joe's Pizza that amount of power and a couple of employees that have never made a pizza and we would have the same.
What we would really need is better IT anti trust laws, globally, that cuts these monopolies off.
| 12:44 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|They simply built it into the OS and gave it away FREE |
You call that competition?
Search market share isn't something one controls, anyone can type in or navigate to a wide array of search services, I'm surprised that MS hasn't taken more shots at the ad market (competitive/predatory pricing model), then google would have something to whine about.
| 12:47 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Free? I don't think so. It came bundled with the windows package. If it doesn't come on your new pc and you have to buy it....that's big money. And you can go down to your pc supercenter and buy all the parts and build your own pc and then buy your os and come out about the same as calling up dell and ordering one with ms already on it. It's convenience.
And isn't google already doing the same thing. I have seen products that they have bought and give away free now. Stats pkg comes to mind.
And you talk about a giant that doesn't care and squeezes the little fellow. I have gotten the worst response from google that I have ever gotten from a major corporation. And my website. They have chewed it up and spit it out. For NO reason. I want to see the playing field of search leveled. I hope ms or y or someone I have never heard of do it. Talk about a giant that needs it's comeuppance.
| 12:59 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why do you think Microsoft is so 'upset' about Google? Because they know Google is the new threat to their unfair monopoly. And what will they do about it? Kill Google business completely by using unfair tactics such as IE + MSN integration and absorb the "Search business" into their monopoly.
Who is actually paying for IE + MSN development? Do they develop IE + MSN and offer it for free because they are such a nice company?
When you make billions from selling your software products, while you spend just a small fraction to create them, because
- you are a monopoly
- there is no viable alternative
- you copy ideas and features from other companies
you can easily afford to develop products and offer them for free!
This will only reinforce your monopoly, which in turn generates more money, etc. It is a deadly spiral for consumers and business.
I agree we need more competition in the Search business, but not from Microsoft, who are not in this just to compete: they are in this to actually replace Google!
| 1:03 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok incredibill, I get the idea that you have a problem in the way Microsft conducts itself - here's my take on your points:
I too have been here since Microsft bought the old product they renamed MS Dos - I have developed software for Windows since the old days and have created million dollar applications based on .NET and Linux. But, I earn money based on business. If this is a discussion on the business merits then so be it:
To release products you need an audience, the larger the audience the more you can release products to undercut the competition to promote the revenue generating products you offer. The argument you offer is no different to the current issue about supermarkets in the Uk destroying local business - it is all about scale.
But here's the deal - humans work for supermarkets (millions) - and humans work for Microsft (thousands) - and they earn money and contribute to the economy. Microsoft does not exist - it is made up of individuals that earn money and spend it and that is the way it works. For large companies to maintain scale they do exactly the things you mention (erm, Google Page Creator - this puts small web designers out of business does it not?) There is always a knock on effect when a company achieves scale as they start to offer low cost or "free" services.
"MS talked to the #1 email product about selling out they went with Lotus instead. MS simply bought the second rate runner up and GAVE it away FREE."
So who's fault is that then! If you want to get into the email business which long term is not going to be a revenue producer, then you want to buy an existing provider and then offer it free! Business failure on the part of the company that didn't sell!
Of course MS wanted control of the browser - so does any major company (BT Yahoo, AOL, Yahoo - and they can only afford to do it now with partnerships, MS got in early). Offering it free has changed the way people access the Internet because MS realised that was not where the revenue was, it was what people did when they got there - they helped create Google did they not?
Again, small time thinking - could not take there product to the mass market because they limited it to techies.
What - having enough cash to buy your competitors and when they don't sell buying another product or creating your own. Crikey, are you really suggesting that when you create a business you should stop "when you get a bit big" so you don't tread on anyones toes - lets get back to the email company that didn't sell to Microsoft (they weren't bullied, they took a business decision and lost) or maybe IBM (Microsoft certainly didn't bully them but Microsoft outsold them even when being so much smaller).
All I can say is fair enough have a chip on your shoulder about big companies using all the tactics in chapter one of the big business model but don't apply it just to Microsoft as I do believe Google have bought several companies now to do the exact same thing on the Internet (have they been bullied or just been offered a nice bunch of cash like all the guys Microsoft tried to buy?)
| 1:15 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
texasville, I agree. The comments about "simply offer x for free by integrating it into the operating system" is absolute rubbish.
You have to (a) create the operating system (b) sell it.
For Microsft to hold a monopoly they have to create the product and get resellers to sell it. Golly that sounds really easy - we could all do that. The people that distribute Windows distribute it for a good reason - their users like it and it enhances their product. HP and friends have tried distributing alternatives, but no-one buys it - demand is the key. Microsoft create products that customers demand.
mimmo, about your comments on Microsofts' monopoly:
Do you really believe that Microsoft make billions from selling software products and spend a fraction on developing them! You have clearly not worked in any software development company or read anything about what Microsft or Google spent on development!
"When you make billions from selling your software products, while you spend just a small fraction to create them, because
- you are a monopoly
- there is no viable alternative
- you copy ideas and features from other companies "
Eh? why do the first 2 make it cheap for Microsoft to develop products and the third is exactly what Google has done - when Google created the search engine there were several market leaders in 1996 already like Altavista. So did Google just copy their whole product? Yes they did. But they used what's called "second mover advantage" where they can eye up what everyone else is doing and create a better alternative. Is that also not what Microsoft does?
| 1:17 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If everything is bundled in the Operative System for free (E-Mail, Browser, Media Player, Utilities, SEARCH), consumers will only have to pay for the Operative System and the only companies making money are the companies that sell Operative Systems.
If Vista sells for $200 (just an example) why I cannot purchase Vista without E-Mail, Browser, Media Player, Utilities, SEARCH for $50 and use $150 to buy other products I really WANT?
Are the charges for these "FREE" tools hidden into the Vista price?
| 1:22 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Swanson, MS and G are among the companies with the highest Return On Investement in the World. I am not defending G over MS, but just saying that MS is not an lternative to G, it actually could get worse! :-)
| 1:25 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do you really believe that those tools you mention are worth what you are talking about.
The hard bit is the operating system - that is where the magic happens. The rest is built on that - I have written simple email and browser systems, and I don't think they are worth 10 cents!
The operating systems manages the interface between your ipod, your disk, memory, motherboard, UI, plug and play at the low level. Now that is worth the cash - in the old days people used to talk about the "blue screen of death" when something went wrong - but now it doesn't, it just happens. It is a common misconception to think the more seamless something happens that the less value it has.
| 1:26 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't have anything against Microsoft (or Google, for that matter), but I would point out that the U.S. court system has declared Microsoft a monopolist in PC operating systems. Microsoft is also having its share of antitrust problems with the EU. You're welcome to disagree with the courts, but the courts' opinions are the ones with the force of law.
| 1:28 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The Operative System has no value for the consumer. The consumer wants to send e-mails, search the web, write documents and listen to music.
| 1:28 am on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
By the way, mimmo - just want to point out that I agree about MS may not be the alternative and that the "grass is not always greener".
Just want to point out that the sort of tactics that go on are now just going to be a part of all the big players in the internet now - thats just the way it happens because the rewards are so big.
| This 159 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 159 ( 1  3 4 5 6 ) > > |