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.
mimmo, thats why they don't sell the OS direct to the consumer!
They create a MS brand and expect VARs to sell PCs bundled with the OS. MS products then sit on that, it is these that everyone goes to the PC shop to buy.
The VARs control what the users get (e.g. Dell, HP) - and it is Microsoft that they work with. If you want to compete you got to put cash into their hands!
Swanson, I think we agree: we need much more competition in the search business to avoid monopolistic positions and unfair practices ...
... but I think Microsoft may not be the right answer to these problems! LOL
Ah a good old fashion search/browser war.
Just try to find Google in this old thread from 2001 and the threads linked off of it.
Google has gone from obscurity, to the latest hype, to a even field playing with the big boys in a flash.
[edited by: minnapple at 1:51 am (utc) on May 2, 2006]
Exactly my point - Google now needs to be judged by where it is now, not where it was then.
The sheer audacity of Microsoft setting a default to their own product in the absense of an existing selection, or worse, using a default that I had previously selected, truly represents a new low in the history of mankind.
In a free & democratic world, everything would be hard-coded to use Google...
"...Microsoft gave it away for free..." (Paraphrasing a general statement)
"You" mean that Microsoft bundled it into the OS that I paid & have the receipt for?
"Apple vs. Microsoft"
Ah yes, silly Apple. With the end of the Apple ][+ clone era, Apple's decision not to license and limited personal funds (if only the ][GS was more affordable!), I joined the IBM PC clone revolution. That was, what?, two decades ago?
A rhetorical question I suppose, but isn't it the dream of any company to become a monopoly? Then sheer momentum will carry you through your mediocre product releases (which aren't recognized as such, due to absense of genuine competition). A problem with Google is that they're moving to mediocrity before attaining a monopoly.
Good god I hope Google wins the search war. Microsoft is bringing out this stupid search bar and who cares? Do they honestly think it will make much of a difference? Sure it seems many people here want to see Microsoft beat the holy snot out of Google and while that may be the surface sentiment, that would be a complete disaster not just for Google but for everyone. An arrogant Microsoft would just release more buggy programs that aren't worth the manuals they are shipped with. I would much rather live in a world where Google can crawl my very soul than one where Microsoft has more than a 50% market share in search. Does anyone want the old Microsoft back? I'm rooting for a Microsoft where Internet Explorer accounts for less than 10% of a market share and Windows is legally banned from stores.
>>> A problem with Google is that they're moving to mediocrity before attaining a monopoly. <<<
That is putting it mildly.
>>>I would much rather live in a world where Google can crawl my very soul than one where Microsoft has more than a 50% market share in search.<<<
So you think it's okay for Google to have a 55% - 60% share of search and have the power to crush small businesses web sites as far as search traffic goes. And i am talking white hat sites.
I'm sorry but that "do no evil" slogan is horseapples. I just want to see surfers wake up and face reality that google is not all that great. And the top position in my niche is held by a black hat site that google keeps letting exist there even tho google guy himself said that they were total black hat.
Myself, hats off to ask....they aren't laying down and have gone into full viral mode.
Go Microsoft. Google has been making me sick the past couple years.
Google has its work cut out for it. I was talking to a guy from Microsoft at SES Toronto and the things Microsoft has coming through the pipe in the next few years is mind blowing. And Vista is going to be a major part of making it all happen.
Microsoft is like Russia. Slow to get going, but when it does it crushes everything in its path.
Google is a monster we should stop feeding. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The issue is not Google Vs MSFT. It is about Google becoming too powerful. What if Google starts giving preferences to its own blog in search engine. What if it starts its own web hosting service? And index sites only on there host. Will the user of the future tell the difference between Google and Search?
There has been no real challenge to Google in almost 8 years. Is that healthy for the Internet, business and users?
As some others have mentioned here, I too have been in this "from the start" ... my first official "PC" was an IBM XT, and my first modem was an Anderson-Jacobsen 300 baud acoustic coupler. I've been in it for a while ...
Just to clear up a few points made so far, from my point of view --
#1) "Novell networks? They simply built it into the OS and gave it away FREE."
What -- Windows for Workgroups 3.11, or NT Advanced Server? Because I can tell you as someone that was responsible for very LARGE corporate networks during those years ... there's no way we were simply ditching our Netware servers for Windows for Workgroups or NTAS.
For us, it was a slow and gradual switch. Want to know what the first Netware server we replaced was? Netware Connect. It cost me hundreds of dollars in Netware licensing to add each and every additional dial-in line to our corporate network. NTAS had this handy little application called "Remote Access Services" which supported 64 connections at no additional charge. You can bet I stopped paying Netware for thier ridiculous per-port licensing for Netware connect.
Then the same thing started happening with DHCP/BOOTP (man, can't even remember what Netware's BOOTP package was) since Microsoft's implementation was simply better.
So they didn't just "give it away for free". They sold it for less (overall) and did a better job in a few areas to get a foot in the door. That's market economics.
#2) "They even put a dent in Oracle, Informix and the others with SQL Server, and so on and so forth."
Oracle put a dent in themselves. Big time. Did you ever have a chance to enjoy their licensing model circa 2000? When I had a huge bill from Oracle because we upgraded our main DB server from 600mhz processors to 800mhz processors -- you bet your ass I dumped them out of our datacenter as fast as I could. So Microsoft took advantage of a licensing model that people truly despised, to bring in a comparable product. I'd say that's good business sense.
#3) Microsoft's "monopoly", Windows 95, bundling IE, etc.
If I recall correctly - Microsoft got in trouble not so much for bundling IE in with the operating system, but effectively making it nearly impossible to use without it. You needed a PhD in astrophysics (ok, exaggerating a little) to understand how you could maybe sorta kinda remove IE entirely from the OS and have something that still worked somewhat. So in that regard, they effectively removed choice entirely - and were judged as abusing their monopoly power. I agree with that decision entirely - I read the court documents as I was a writer at the time, and was occasionally covering that story.
Now, do I like Microsoft? Not particularly. However, as a relatively new online publisher (10+ years in the IT trade magazine industry) I must admit I find having quality content yet being sandboxed to be annoying, and Google's heavy-handed enforcement policies regarding AdSense seem to borderline on the ridiculous at times. So I'm not particularly fond of them either... Franky, either publicly-traded company - if given the chance - would *want* to dominate the entire operating system space, desktop application space, server application space, storage space, and online space. Why? Because it's simply good for the shareholders to maximize value of the stock as much as possible.
So in this instance, I'm glad to see Microsoft is going to start to give Google a little pressure. GOOG deserves it. However, I would not want to see Google collapse, and have Microsoft be left as monopoly in search. I'd also like to see Google release a "branded" version of an open-source operating system such as Linux, Solaris, or BSD as well in the market place - and hope that they do so very soon to apply more pressure on Microsoft. The more pressure the two of these organizations can exert and sustain on each other, the better things are for us all.
it is *very* positive to see some competition between MS and G, but what MS is planning to do here is unfair: a misuse of their monopolistic position.
IMO, well said toomer (and I am not big MS fan). Although I am fairly new to online publishing, I have been at this ‘computer stuff’ for a while (on and off). I might have you beat at first computer – mine was Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K ( for those who don’t know it had rubber buttons; you would load programs using a tape deck, and sometimes had to manually adjust position of the head for correct reception). Man was I envy when some of my friends bought Commodore 64. Then I got IBM AT, and flicker of orange (and green) monochrome monitors…
Tastatura – not adding anything valuable to G vs MS vs ... discussion (it seems core opinions have been expressed and now we have two camps slugging it out)
|is unfair: a misuse of their monopolistic position. |
I don't think so - you don't have to use M$ products and you don't have to use that little search box.
If there was no other OS and no other browser then maybe it is a misuse - but that is not the case here.
Webmasters and site owners can't whip google into shape, perhaps MS can.
Competition is good (or did I misread the rules of commerce?)
This whole discussion is crazy. No matter what you think of them MS are doing nothing wrong here. In actual fact with their "free" stuff G is just copying the techniques that MS used to get them where they are now. They are buying up small companies willy nilly. Recognise that? If people start using Google Earth, Google this and Google that it locks them into Google subliminally if nothing else. Make no mistake about it. This is not philanthropy. It is cold, calculating, commercialism or capitalism if you like.
If I have the world's most successful online tailor's shop and I place a link to my new shoe shop business would all the shoe shops on the high street have any cause for complaint?
Google's own tactics are driving people out of business as we speak. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they are any different from MS. You can say what you like about them but my whole business is based on MS products. On the whole these are good, innovative products that I use to do my job and I have been doing so for twenty odd years. If it had not been for MS most of the world would not even know what a spreadsheet or a database was! MS popularised conmputing for the masses and just happened to make themselves a pile while doing so.
Let's put this in perspective. If Google went down the tubes overnight it would have very little effect on me. People would still use the Internet and we would move on to the other search engines. There are alternatives to Google just as there are alternatives to MS and no one still seriously believes that we cannot do without Google search, do they?
Personally I dont care who "leads" the internet (SE) market, as long as I get the traffic.
It is the nature of the net, that we, as webmasters, must be adaptable to the "everflux" on all SE's and if your web strategy is in-line with what is happening, you will come out tops.
Google, MSN, and Yahoo are all in it for themselves, so is it not the best idea to be in it for yourself also? If one SE fail (Or is in the process of failing), I will start turning my sights on another.
|Personally I dont care who "leads" the internet (SE) market, as long as I get the traffic. |
I think that is what most posters on this thread feel as well - but not everyone is admitting it!
Commercial webmasters are angry with Google because traffic from Google has been unpredictable lately - and of course those whose traffic have fallen post Big Daddy are the angriest.
Google is still most peoples (including mine) favourite search engine and is gaining market share. I do not care about some obscure website losing traffic (unless its one of mine of course), I care about good search results.
I have the Customise Google FF extension installed and try MSN and Yahoo whenever Google results are less than satisfactory - they almost always either give me almost the same results or worse results.
I post for the first time here though following this forum for years.
As far as I can see there are 2 kind of webmasters here ,the Google contras and the Google supporters
No one of the posters here actually is a supporter of MS.I would like to ask anybody here ,what program did you used when you first made your first .html ,.htm document? dreamweaver ,fireworks and Photoshop or you just used your MS notepad from your old MS windows OS?
MS made you all webmasters don't forget that.Google just made you webmasters with revenues.
There is no way to compare MS and Google.MS will dominate the IT world for the next centuries while Google is a search engine at the moment and focuses its revenues from marketing.
If the new XP will come with Vista before this xmas and the new kids will get there new PC for the first time ,pages that rank at MSN will get a huge traffic and if those kids will be happy with the serps they will stuck there (msn search) even though they can change the default SE at the small box of Vista.MS looks at the future (ie:if you are Joe 13 years old and dad buys you a new PC and you probably 90% got no idea what is Google or Yahoo or Ask you just see a box that says search), like Google does ,but the point is that MS have the tools and a history of 30 years just my 3 cents .
I'd just like to see an even-ing out where Y!, G! and MSN all have roughly equal market share. An algo for everyone. :-)
[edited by: Simsi at 9:44 am (utc) on May 2, 2006]
|That's exactly the point: Google and other search providers have to pay for a place on the desktop or in the default Windows browser, while Microsoft doesn't. |
Why Google, Yahoo and all the rest build their own operating system and spend years and millions on promotion instead of trying to be parasites?
It is easy to be a parasite and try to steal a part of other's hard work.
EFV, what do you think about iTunes' problems in France? The same going on here!
Great google! Build an OS and stop whining!
So every successful IT company, who does not want to be squeezed out by MS tactics, needs to build their own successful operative system.... and every telephone company or ISP, needs to build their own telephone cable network ... and every car company will build their own roads ... :-)
<edit>Posted in the wrong thread, sorry</edit>
"So every successful IT company, who does not want to be squeezed out by MS tactics.....bla.... bla"
1:what kind of PC do you have and what OS do you use?2:who invented GUI?
3:who invented the weel?
I see no problem with IE setting its search to MS's search engine as a default. It's a Microsoft Product so why not.
Besides I find it much more intrusive when I hit a search engine (say Google in IE) and get a on screen box asking me if I want to make their search default (I don't otherwise it would be).
As for market domination I suppose it would be nice to see Google face some stiff competition from Yahoo and MS. I have felt the brunt of Google choosing to drop my pages for a period of time and it's not pleasant.
I have no expectations of any of the other search engines acting in my own interest though and am well aware that as soon as another becomes more dominant they too will be plagued by spam sites and manipulation which seem to be hitting the Google index hard at the moment.
I suppose in the end it'd just be nice if the various search engines offered a different flavour of search so a user could confidentially choose to use one engine on one day and another the next (based perhaps on the fact that one offers slightly better results, which would in turn encourage the others to improve their listings).
we all know that would come, thats why MSN will get more important, but I think it has been ignored here on this board that MSN will be a big player later this year and for real next year with VISTA.
Google also have a search in firefox.
|Google also have a search in firefox. |
Surely not? Isn't that unfair? ;)
Come to think of it, not much is going to change really. MSN was the default search on IE4, IE5 & IE6 yet Google managed to gain the market share they've gained fairly quickly.
There might be a small spike in MSN market share in the first few months of vista launch but that's about it really. Users will still be able to install the G spybar over IE7, change the default on the browser's search box as well as home page, thus things should quickly return to normal from there on.
Unfortunately, not enough for a Google knock out just yet :( . The G monopolistic evil monster will not suffer much from this and it's too bad realy.
|MS notepad from your old MS windows OS? |
MS made you all webmasters don't forget that.Google just made you webmasters with revenues.
Actually, twas an editor with Wordstar like commands (joe) on a weirdo IBM Unix, as far as I can recall. :\
we all know that MS will beat google sooner or later
google has too much for too little and for a pretty long time already
Also my bet is that MS now and in the future is generaly more friendly toward webmasters.
| This 159 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 159 ( 1 2  4 5 6 ) > > |