| 12:44 am on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The mighty execs @ G are probably thinking what their counterparts at Altavista were thinking back then: Mindshare prevails over all.
Mindshare can be changed; Netscape (NOONE used IE at this point) should be the prime example of that.
This will be M$'s toughest challenge yet considering how much/how good the Google results are at this point.
| 1:41 am on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Last time, those that were on the front lines literally slept in their offices until their browser rolled out. |
It takes a special kind of person to work at M$ :)
| 4:30 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You really can not compare Google with anything in the past. There has never been anything like this. The Internet is pretty close to being as important as the phone or TV. It was not like that back when alta vista was big. There was not a critacal mass for anybody to have a mindshare. Google was in USA today yesterdsay. I saw a reference to Google on a sitcom the other day. You here it all the time now. I see guys in bars mention googling and google. These guys barely know how to turn a computer on. Some people know what google is and they have never used it. The real battle will be for second place. MSN and Yahoo will fight that out.
| 5:12 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
he is not aiming very high, I would have said, "We will leave them in search engine dust!"
| 11:17 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
if gates trumps google say goodbye to unbiased rankings and honest dealings.... anyone who puts out a bug-filled package (windoze etc.) and then charges customers for barely almost "fixing" those bugs publishing (and selling) revision after revision as "new" editions, buying out superior packages (foxpro etc.) and totally lunching them, is both a billionaire and a thief. compared to him jay gould would rank close to mother theresa.
| 1:09 am on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I don't think they can get away with integrating search |
They got away from monopoly case just by betting 2.2M USD on the right presidential candidate.
They can do it again.
| 1:13 am on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I don't think they can get away with integrating search |
It's already been integrated for years. Push search in IE -- you get MSN Search. Type words into the IE address bar -- you get MSN Search. Operating system integration? Click Start, then choose Search, then one of the options is "Search the Internet" With what? MSN Search.
It has been integrated for years and despite this, Google and Yahoo have grown and survived. Integration alone won't do it. This isn't software, where it's hard to switch from one app to another, losing money and learning time in the process. MSN Search needs to be BETTER than its competitors if it wants to draw people back in.
| 4:42 pm on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|People will not switch unless you really can not find anything. |
Yep - thats absolutely true.
When Yahoo switches to Inktomi, people won't leave Yahoo unless they can't find what they want.
When Microsoft has search built into Windows, people won't leave MSN unless they can't find what they want.
The reason Google is on top is because it was better than the others - once it is no longer giving the best results it WILL lose market share rapidly.
Right now there quite a few areas where Google is not finding things that it should, your experience is just one individual - not representative of "The World". If it were allowed, I could list a stack of popular searches where Google is currently being outperformed by other search engines. If they roll this current algo out across ALL phrases, then they will heading for trouble.
Prior to Florida and Austin, Google was pretty much untouchable for quality - not so anymore.
Of course, if you are one of the people who think that Google is better now than it was pre-Florida, then you will no doubt disagree.
Thats fine, I am not particularly interested in changing your mind, merely presenting an opposing view for those who do not yet have fixed opinions on the subject.
| 7:02 pm on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the ie "integrated" address line search is not only arrogantly intrusive it is a giant pain in the ........ all M$ software is designed (it seems to me) to rub the industries nose in M$ plantation overseer mentality.
| 8:34 pm on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
After all, MS is well-known for Vaporware. Very aggressively stating what they would like to have/be but miles away from reality.
| 12:31 am on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
God's blessing is His business... but i sure can see no-talent industry bureaucrats blessing bg for furthering their cause at the expense of logic and elegance in programing. the bidi factories of india are replaced by the M$ mills.
| 1:13 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If Microsoft could bring out another "Algorithm" based AdWords type system, which i am
sure many of us Marketing Companies are dying for, I could tell you personally if Microsoft
had this and started the bids @ a penny or 5 cents, with wicked stats and user demographics.
I would switch over 400 clients overnight.
It's all about money, and if large marketing companies switched their clients budgets from
Google to Microsoft, Google would fold like a leaf.
Ps, this announcement from Microsoft could also be quite the hit on a google IPO.
if investors see Microsoft entering the market, you will see the future google stock tumble
The Bill Gates statment could be a ploy to make sure any future IPO peters out or an
atempt at hurting the Initial Public Offering at the least.
| 2:49 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
bet you drive a humv or an suv or at least chat away on your cell phone at 60 mph on city streets. did you resent all those union carbide lawsuits from the ingrates of Bopal? marketing used to have some marginal entertainment value (cute jingles even decent products) now its driven by greedy infantile mentalities grasping for every cent they can scam and/or steal from a totally uncritical public. Enron...Enron uber alles... o well a certain book i shouldn't mention here, says something about a froward people being led by infantile mentalities. email me for chapter and verse.
| 4:31 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
a collection of some disjointed stuff scribbled over the last day or so...
> Integration alone won't do it.
Agreed DS. I also think there are much higher levels of extension and integration than we have seen thus far.
I wonder if ms will eliminate the "browser" as we know it. I don't think IE will survive as a product. Everything will just become core functions. There will no longer be a collection of routines that make a browser. It will just be various components of the OS. This seems to be the direction that everything is headed. No longer will a "homepage" even be an option. Nor will using 'netscape'.
I really wonder if we will see ms attempt to "take over the net". It will be subtle and a natural extension of things. To that end, the internet becomes just a desktop function. You no longer "surf" the web - instead you surf with "MSN".
The EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) mode that Microsoft has been accused of using, whereby MS drives competition out of the the market by relegating them to inferior technology, while MS sets cart blanche with the dominant and more powerful technology. This was never more evident than Internet Explorer where it was accused of using undocumented operating system calls to enhance (speed up) displays while netscape was seen as slow and sluggish by using standard OS calls).
How can MS use EEE to control search?
First, I think we need to free ourselves of such "in the box" small thinking. MS is not after search. MS is after something much bigger: Control of the internet.
Search? Google is a gnat that will be swatted. You know how you know that Microsoft knows they are going to swat Google? Just look at what Gates is saying:
"We Will Catch Them?"
"They Kicked our Butts?"
Nice "Tee Up"! Gates and Co. do not make boisterous statements like that without reason. They are looking under every rock on the planet for some "competition". The mistake they made with Netscape (yes, they made mistakes), was a public relations mistake. They didn't impress upon the public what a threat Netscape was to the Microsoft empire and that they were justified in stomping them out of existence by browser dumping. eg: They didn't "define" the enemy so that the public knew there was a contest under way. That of course was the cornerstone of the US Govts antitrust case against Microsoft (eg: big bully stomps loveable little company). Gates is now talking about "they kicked our butts" to define Google - define the enemy - Gates is a patient man if nothing else.
Embrace: they make a "thing" their own. They embraced all the net protocols from http to email in the 90's. They they made those products extensions of the operating system to make them dominate (IE/Outlook)
Extend: I don't think this phase is over, or has gone as fast as MS hopes. First, they started with email - extending email into the realm of HTML and forcing everyone else to adapt. They made subtle little extensions in html (we all know the horrors of building sites with FrontPage), they extended HTTP - we all know the problems many sites had with various versions of the MS IIS server. However, all those extensions miraculously worked flawlessly with MS based products.
They even built ground up new protocols. We have been calling it the "protocol storm". Go look at the w3c site and look at the number of standards recommendations that were put out from 1998-2002 and notice that everyone of them have "microsoft" stamped on it. No one can keep up with Microsoft when it comes to adapting to technological changes. It is even better when you are the one proposing the changes.
Currently, the protocol extension mania is heading into the "services" area. Even Google is trying to get into the act with its "soap" based delivery.
Lastly, you don't think Microsoft can get away with "annexing" the internet as just another function of the operating system? Look at how little people objected when Google did it by displaying the entire internet with their own branding ad at top.
| 5:05 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The only way MS will beat Google is if they take over the ISP market. If they offer broadband Internet for free or $5 a month and then force people to use their way of doing things. That is how they beat NS and the fact that it was easy to just use the installed program. There is no amount of integration they can use that will make people use it. As long as there is a place for people to type in www.google.com they will. MS would have to get rid of that. That is ingrained in the national psyche. Even Clinton sat down one day to see if he was on the Internet. Where did he go first? Google.com. Like I said before this is not the same as NS. MS can not just take over anything because they want to. Ms will always be in the top 3 maybe even 2 but not one.
| 5:43 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Re: There is no amount of integration they can use that will make people use it
I use to use HotBot about 5 years ago,, loved it,, swore by it, told my buds about it.
dont use it anymore,, now i like google, swear by it,, tell my buds about it,, BUT,,,,
might like msn (or who have you) in the future if they start rocking too.
| 5:46 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>As long as there is a place for people to type in www.google.com they will.
That is a very powerful statement and if only folks at M$ understand that.
| 5:49 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> There is no amount of integration they can use that will make people use it
Sure there is.
1) deskbar - the only one
2) a "browser" (boot up program) that uses ms search and ms search only).
3) actual "browsers" are history. What would you call a program that would be (media player + acdsee + ms word + expedia + msn + http + outlook + power point) all rolled into one? That is where we are headed, and all the links point to Microsoft.
4) "bookmarks" that only live on ms servers.
5) an entire array of your daily life that lives only on the ms server. (think my.yahoo.com as your boot up Operating System parked on Microsoft.com).
6) good bye search as we know it - hello, "super surfers" (or something that will look remarkably like smart tags revisited).
The taking down of Google is not a technological question, this is a marketing question. It is not if they can do it - for that is a certainty as they are holding all the cards and it is their deck to deal. This question is of marketing - can they do it, and can they get away with it.
| 5:57 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Re: As long as there is a place for people to type in www.google.com they will.
Is that not what Yahoo thought also?
nothing is forever,
take this scenario for instance,, what if the latest
Microsoft browser version 8.9.0? disallowed any favorites from searchengines,, google or other.
and could not integrate the google toolbar,
but take a look at the new implimented latest Microsoft built in flashy search feature,,
i could see Bill Gates doing something like that.
| 6:06 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
marketingmaniac, you missed the point made. It's not about google or yahoo. It's about people choosing to go where they want to go.
Any amount of squashing techniques wont work in the web. It's a whole different ball-game, since the cost of switching to other SE or website is just a click.
| 6:19 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i realize that, but as we all probably have been on the net since 1996, you too have seen about a million changes.
i understand if somebody is 100 dedicated to using google
search. but i also definitely understand how a person can
change to another better search tool.
but think about 3 years ahead with this scenario,,
as a dedicated google user myself--when and if Microsoft implements 24/7 tv and radio advertising and
its latest browser along with all my friends switching and telling me to take a look at the new latest MSN.or the new called " MSN Media Package" which has all the stuff Bret mentioned,
Then all the advertisers switching from google to MSN
because it is more cost affective advertising, and
along with the media saying the Google stock is tanking and google might be history,,
i just might try the new latest MSN, if Bill gets his
way which he seems to always do,,, it will happen.
he has a billion dollar marketing team behind whatever
he wants to implement.
you cant surf google if google is no longer there.
| 6:41 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> It's not about google or yahoo. It's about people choosing to go where they want to go.
Chndru, you missed the point made. That the choice is an illusion - Microsoft controls that choice at this time.
...this is not a technological question - this is a marketing question. It is not if they can do it - for that is for certain as they are holding all the cards and it is their deck to deal. This is a question of marketing. Can they do it, and can they get away with it.
| 6:42 pm on Feb 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If MS buys Yahoo or smashes them into the ground they could win and Google would keep the same market share they have now. Google does not have 50.1% or greater. (google.com that is)
It is not impossible that the #1 organic search provider status could change. That is moot because there really is no money in that. The money is in the paid advertisements and there will always be Yahoo, MSN, and Google. Regardless of where the organic results come from and whoever gets the most searches there will always be those 3 bank accounts and whoever has the most money from its site wins. Because Google only has the search area they could and may already be losing that battle. They could make the most with PPC but still lose because the others have a ton of other revenue streams.
I have said it before and I will say it again. There is no precedent to the current situation. There has never been a critical mass until now. If you went back to 1940 you might be able to squash coke and win the cola wars but you could not do it now no matter what you tried.
Yahoo and MSN will fight out the Portal wars and fight it out for 2nd place in the search wars.
| 1:14 am on Feb 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
All this integration talk is based on one assumption - new M$ OS will be great and many people will switch to it.
I dont think it is the case.
First - longhorn release is seriously delayed - probably until 2007.
Probably M$ will launch some "intermediate" OS (XP me) soon but I doubt they will have time to implement serious integration.
Then there is a Digital Rights Management issue.
How many bugs will attack M$ OS by 2007?
Many people were dissatisfied with XP and they will not happily, jump at another M$ OS.
Especially Linux is maturing and may become a real alternative.
| 3:49 pm on Feb 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One of the tenets of marketing is that people choose the path of least resistance.
If M makes it easier that writing www.google.com and provide credible serps, most searcher wont even question the fact that their choices are being limited. They will feel it IS their choice (if they even remember that other SEs are out there by then)
| 1:31 am on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|SEs shouldn't only focus on searchers but also care about Webmasters/SEOs. |
You mean the ones who trash the search results with spammy sites?
| 1:37 am on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|if gates trumps google say goodbye to unbiased rankings and honest dealings.... anyone who puts out a bug-filled package (windoze etc.) and then charges customers for barely almost "fixing" those bugs publishing (and selling) revision after revision as "new" editions, buying out superior packages (foxpro etc.) and totally lunching them, is both a billionaire and a thief. compared to him jay gould would rank close to mother theresa. |
Windows works great for me. Maybe it's you.
| This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 57 ( 1  ) |