| 1:09 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The other statements still make sense.
I read an article a few months back where the MS people were talking about Search... and improving the users experience by serving them better advertising.
| 2:00 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> ... and improving the users experience by serving them better advertising. <<
I personally believe that M$ are too incapable of seeing past the short term $ to produce a high quality search experience.
The risk from them is the integration of search into the browser in some mandatory way.... an unethical method of forcing out Google/etc by leveraging their relative control of the browser market (which in itself of course was obtained via unethical means).
It's in the DNA of these guys. They can't win by producing a better product and competing fair and square. They'll go for the backdoor underhand approach. Just watch them.
| 3:03 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>integration of search into the browser in some mandatory >way....
How about integration in to the OS like they are talking about with the next Windows release.
I don't understand why everybody are so happy of MSN dropping Looksmart. Looksmart was a pretty cheap why to advertise with pretty dissent traffic (from MSN).
If you are professional webmaster you would like a steady traffic and Looksmart was pretty good source of traffic. You can't count on Google free unless you like to dance every month with your position up and down or you are not doing it for a living
Dropping Looksmart is not good for Google or Yahoo...Microsoft is taking over...and they will...they will allow everybody to receive free traffic in the beginning and then they will start to charge. This is a predicted 7 billion dollars market by 2007...so if you think Microsoft is here to provide us with a better search experience....then I have a bridge for sale
Did you ever try to advertise with MSN? 40K a month minimum they will not even talk to you for less
can you effort it?
| 6:28 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>They'll go for the backdoor underhand approach.
Winning is in the DNA of M$ without any doubt. Winning any game is not about any one single element. Having the best golf swing doesn't make you the US Open champion. Having the best car doesn't make you the number one car manufacturer. Having the best software product certainly doesn't give you a God given right to be numero uno in the software industry.
There are many elements to success, M$ knows how to play better than the competition, and with it brings a certain level of stability.
A bad golfer will blame his clubs....those who knock M$ for outplaying the competition should join the country club frequented by the golfers who claim they would be great if only they had a decent set of clubs ;)
| 6:44 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<those who knock M$ for outplaying the competition>>
M$ doesn't outplay it's competition, it cheats - if M$ integrates search into the OS and uses it's monopoly to hi jack search from other SE's it deserves to be broken up and I'm sure it will be.
| 7:36 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> I don't understand why everybody are so happy of MSN dropping Looksmart <<
Incredible. Go read some history... about two years ago....
>> Winning is in the DNA of M$... <<
No. It's winning by using every filthy, scumbag, dirty trick in the book. Winning by exploitation. Winning by having no ethics or morals whatsoever.
That's not winning, it's cheating, and it's not good for anyone. And yes, hopefully Dodger is right and ultimately M$ will be broken up. It should have happened long ago, as this lot are simply not capable of decent human behaviour.
| 8:05 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>ultimately M$ will be broken up. It should have happened long ago, as this lot are simply not capable of decent human behaviour.
Have you read the article that explains that if MS were broken up it would actually benefit, both financially and from a competitive standpoint?
I hate the guy (my best buddy) that beats me regularly on the golf course every weekend, well at least until we get to the 19th hole. Then I appreciate (usually after a few beers) why it keeps happening to me. He is a better player! MS are the better players, complaining about them won't win.....learning from them will help much more ;)
They don't cheat...they just play every advantage available, sometimes cutting it very close to the line. They are very competitive, and in a capitalist society you have to respect that, don't you?
Those that lose will always complain, whine, claim cheating, call it underhand tactics, and make every excuse in the book for their own failure.
The winner is the winner....if you lose, be honorable in defeat (I'm trying), and go out to play to win another day. "Rubbishing" the competition never wins ;)
If enough people actually thought MS were "scumbags" I'm sure they would ditch their stock. In reality the major shareholder keeps ditching his stock and the general public keep buying it.......says to me that most people think "If you can't beat 'em join 'em".
| 8:36 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|ultimately M$ will be broken up. |
I really hope so because it would unlock some value for the share holders. I put a hundred shares in my pension fund just after the IPO and they have appreciated by over 30,000% but a nice little bonus just before retiring would be the cream on the cake :)
| 8:41 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> They don't cheat...they just play every advantage available, sometimes cutting it very close to the line. <<
You just don't get it.... at all. It ISN'T because they win. Definitely not. It's a question of HOW they approach business.
No, they don't cut it "very close to the line", they blow the line away. They destroy competitors by cheating and deploying the most despicable tactics possible.
>> Those that lose will always complain, whine, claim cheating <<
When have I lost to them? Eh? Patently I haven't.... so what nonsense you are speaking here.
I am simply observing that M$ have no ethics and hopefully one day will be broken up. Many, many people, who also have never 'lost' to them, believe exactly the same. Many people hate them for it.
I guess it's a question of your own ethics. Some people have them (decent ethics). Some don't, and will defend an organization like M$ who don't have any either. That's life.
| 9:04 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>When have I lost to them? Eh? Patently I haven't.... so what nonsense you are speaking here.
You seem to have interpreted that comment as personally targeted at you....I never post anything based at an individual. But I'm sure you don't dispute that some organizations have lost to MS? (e.g. Netscape).
>Many people hate them for it.
Many people hate lots of successful corporations and other individuals....the successful folks usually assume this as par for the course.
>defend an organization like M$ who don't have any [ethics] either.
I don't defend them (they don't need defending).....I just admire them. They employ over 50,000 people, are very successful, maintain corporate responsibility and by all measures of decency in today's world behave extremely ethically. Ask an MS employee if he/she is worried about their future!
Do they hit competition hard...yes, of course they do. They want to take care of their own interests and their employee's interests. If anyone thinks this is a bad thing....so be it. Personally I can relate to a company that wants to win, for its shareholders, directors and employees.
| 9:05 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Napoleon is right - you need to understand the difference between competition and using a monopoly to gain advanatage.
M$ have a virtual monopoly and if they use their OS to promote their products to the disadvantage of other businesses and the public they will be caught and punished.
They have been warned but they will try anyway - they will lose more respect and ultimately share value as people turn from them when they come under the scrutiny of the regulators.
Your golf analogy demonstrates that you simply don't understand the problem.
| 9:46 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Napoleon is right - you need to understand the difference between competition and using a monopoly to gain advantage.
Microsoft didn't receive a "granted" almost monopoly on anything.....they gained what they have through business skills.
>M$ have a virtual monopoly and if they use their OS to promote their products to the disadvantage of other businesses and the public they will be caught and punished.
Okay...whatever....please state the law in any country that backs up this ridiculous statement. The Berlin wall fell over a decade ago.....we now live in a capitalist society!
>They have been warned but they will try anyway - they will lose more respect and ultimately share value as people turn from them when they come under the scrutiny of the regulators.
Hmmm....so you don't think the DOJ has already put them under the microscope? MS has had several dark days and still came out smelling of roses for its shareholders.
>Your golf analogy demonstrates that you simply don't understand the problem.
Maybe...or maybe you don't? Time will tell....meanwhile I'll continue to buy MS stock and take the risk if you have no objections to my freedom of action?
| 10:01 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<Okay...whatever....please state the law in any country that backs up this ridiculous statement.>>
USA , Australia for starters - it's called anti competitive behaviour and it's illegal. They aren't competing they're eliminating competition.
Wake up to yourself - buy as much stock as you like but don't try to defend the indefensible just to justify your investment in a monpopoly that's running close to the wire.
| 10:29 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>USA , Australia for starters - it's called anti competitive behaviour and it's illegal.
There is no law that says a company that has the majority holding in the marketplace must give it up because a few lily livered competitors don't like it!
Sure there are anti-trust laws, but MS has been though that cycle, been found playing too close to the line in a couple of instances, and been reprimanded accordingly. That day is history....now we move on. Blame 'em for trying to win? I don't!
MS wins because it is prepared to call its hand against the full house. When that happens it loses.....but that doesn't happen often.
Who is right and who is wrong, is not going to be decided in this thread....it is going to be decided several years from now. I'm betting on MS, some others are definitely not.......let's see!
| 10:34 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<There is no law that says a company that has the majority holding in the marketplace must give it up because a few lily livered competitors don't like it!>>
There are laws that prevent companies moving to monopolise any market against the interests of the public as I said.
Nothing to do with competitors not liking it.
If you were effected by the potential of this you would sing another tune. Time will tell, I agree with you on that at least.
| 10:39 am on Oct 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> MS has had several dark days and still came out smelling of roses for its shareholders <<
Now I wonder how they did that.... how they got off that nice big legal hook. Work it out. The usual M$ route.
>> Many people hate lots of successful corporations and other individuals... <<
Google are successful, but they are rather more admired than Microsoft. You seem to have a blind spot for the reasons for that.
>> .....I just admire them <<
You are partly what you admire, so that says rather a lot about you and your character.
>> buy as much stock as you like but don't try to defend the indefensible <<
Dodger is correct. If you can twist reality to justify it to yourself, go ahead, but don't try to convince me that M$ is anything other than a grubby zero-ethic cheating enterprise that one day WILL be brought to justice.
| 1:38 am on Oct 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>Google are successful, but they are rather more admired >>>than Microsoft. You seem to have a blind spot for the >>>reasons for that.
Yeah why? because they are sending you free traffic. I wonder if they charge for the traffic you still going to like them so much.
I like Google, I like their traffic but I pay for my Google traffic I like Looksmart (MSN) much better because the traffic is not as expensive as Google. Too bad it's over but I am sure next I am going to like Inktomi and Yahoo.
I like Microsotf because over the years I made a lot of money using their products. I use Windows, I use Windows server, FrontPage and Visual studio. The new .NET product is great bytheway
| 12:36 pm on Oct 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
... coming back to the topic, I see several possbilities regarding LookSmart and M$. M$ drops them publicly to buy them on the cheap.
M$ has finished development of the MSNBot and is now happily spidering the web. If it takes Google a month, why wouldn't three months be enough time for MSN to build its cache? The company has 46 billion dollars to spend, fast connections, vast server farms with petabytes of storage waiting to be filled.
M$ could supplement/merge its results with the most popular results returned by Looksmart in the past (i.e. the 80/20 rule where most of the folks are looking for the same thing).
As mentioned over on the MSNBot thread, the question is not whether MSN is creating their own search service but rather when that service will go into operation. M$ has (I'm sure) taken a close look at how LS does its business, seen how much money Google is swimming in, and decided that they could make lots of money too if they did things somewhat differently than they have to date.
The question with search engines in the past is how much paid advertising denigrated the validity/relevance of returns. In the past, Altavista fell from grace for that very reason. What worries me about MS getting into the SE game is that it would be trivial to integrate a MSN-search-centric function into Longhorn, etc. that shuts out other SE's unless the user is willing to open a browser and then go surf at Google.
Thus, the user is betrayed by the convenience rather than the relevance of the search function built into the OS. Nevermind the possibilities regarding the redirection of folks away from other SE's that MS could integrate into its IE browser ("Think these results are good enough? Come see what we can offer you!"). Etc.
I hope the folks at Google are already running like crazy. Netscape and the long list of other burned-out MS competiors should be enough warning. As the courts have determined, MS broke many laws in terminating their competitors, but the big bucks MS spent on capitol hill have finally paid off - the government in its current incarnation won't touch the company.
| 2:19 pm on Oct 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
M$ already 'integrates' search capabilities in atleast W2K and above. Start -> Search -> On the Internet ...
| 2:45 pm on Oct 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Start -> Search -> On the Internet ... |
Yeah, yeah, that's well known.
This is something different as it is integrated into the way files are stored on and fetched from the hard drive. It involves personalizing search based upon who your hard drive says you are.
| 6:26 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"I hope the folks at Google are already running like crazy. Netscape and the long list of other burned-out MS competiors should be enough warning."
My Reply -
I would never use MSN's search over Google's search.
MSN brings queries 'targeted advertising'
Google brings nothing more than what it finds on pages througout the world. It returns pure results
If you have ever used skip tracing databases you would agree that nothing holds a candle to Google.
You can find dirt on just about everybody or any company on Google.
I open my browser with about:blank and immediately start using my Google toolbar to find what I need. I laugh at poor computer users who open internet explorer and are by default sent to msns home page.
I received some good traffic through Looksmart(via MSN)the last year or so,(actually probably the best $300 spent)
but I would never try to optimize for MSN over Google...
There is no way my computer is ever going to know what I want to search for unless I type it into my google toolbar -until the day comes when we speak to our computers and they understand what we want and return the information we need!
| 7:01 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
this whole microsoft future coming up could use a thread or two of its own
it's off topic here, but I wonder, how will the desktop look as a marketing venue when microsoft has the architecture the way it wants it in longhorn?
half the people will use the then-3rd party services like google, the other half are like the pilgrims of today, marks and victims that we want to sell to also.
So there will be two (or three) primary ways to sell to them, for prices that will have to allow ROI even for modest sellers.
How's all that going to look?
maybe it can come back on topic a little - for MS search, I don't think they need a very good one Brett, the kind of people they'll trap inside their experience won't know the difference .. and MS will move according to marketing tides and timetables, not technological
remember, Microsoft are not a technology provider, they're a merchandiser, and always have been. It's the only way to think about them.
| 8:46 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
jcistheman: "Google brings nothing more than what it finds on pages througout the world. It returns pure results "
Is that apart from the ten adverts per page for some searches?
If you ignore the Looksmart backfill being advertising, then MSN only shows ten ads per search. If they stick with the same format when they switch to pure Inktomi then MSN won't be showing any more ads than Google.
Personally, I find that Google's quality has wained somewhat over the past few months and if MSN produce a good quality crawler, I will be happy to give it a fair trial.
| 8:59 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>if MSN produce a good quality crawler, I will be happy to give it a fair trial.
That is a voice of reason. MS have already done the right thing by dropping LookSmart. If they replace it with 50 Overture listings then I will be the first to condemn them.
But as of right now, and Danny's comments, we have to assume it will be primarily INK based.....and sometime after their own search technology.
MS are way behind the field in this arena, but they can afford to catch up quickly.
| 9:10 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You've have completely avoided the main issue.
I have no complaints with M$ search as long as they don't build it in to their OS to lock out other search engines.
I don't care how many ads they have as long as they don't use the default OS of the planet to exclude other SE's. That's illegal, no one will stand for it.
Google is still the best by far, M$ will not be able to compete with it on any level playing field because they will go for the dollar first at the expence of relevant search results.
Google ads are easily distinguished from the general search results, I bet M$ will not do that.
| 9:29 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
dodger, please let's not go back here again.
What is and isn't legal is determined by courts of law....not by me, not by you and not by anyone else, other than those who sit on Juries and wear robes.
If MS decide to do something that the general public don't like....then you need not worry...the general public will vote with their mice.
Condemning MS for what they may or may not do in the future is pure conjecture.....let's wait and see first :)
| 9:34 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
percentages - I only hope they do the right thing, it's so important to a lot of people. M$ are after a share of the search dollar and that's fair enough as long as they don't want all of it. As you say let's wait and see.
LS are foolish in many respects to be reying on one company for so much of their revenue.
| 9:45 am on Oct 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>LS are foolish in many respects to be reying on one company for so much of their revenue.
Now we can agree 101% on that!
| This 88 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 88 ( 1 2  ) |