| 1:12 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I recently noticed something that shows MS is already moving to downplay Google. I just tweaked the set-up of IE6 on a Dell laptop shipped in late July. When I went in to change the "Search" defaults Google wasn't listed as an option, it was available on IE6 when I set up another machine back in January.
| 1:14 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nah, MS wouldn't do anything like that. You must be mistaken!
| 1:16 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
All joking aside, if MS wants to compete with Google, then they need to drop L$ and become a free listing like Google, and contract out only the PPC to Overture. While they're at it they should drop INK as well since it is more or less meaningless any more.
We're still trying to recover from the L$/INK catastrophe in the spring. What a pain!
| 1:21 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Yeah, the Yahoo/SBC deal -- I think that is -- I think that is a notable offering. You know, they I think -- I mean, the Yahoo service -- the Yahoo site and service is a good service, you know a very good service. |
Very uncomfortable talking about Yahoo!
| 1:23 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I really believe Google's size, dominance and potential for moving in new directions has stoked the paranoia... and pragmatism, in M$. Yes, I would say that st least part of the title of this thread is correct: I believe M$ is in competition with Google.
| 1:23 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Google may want to add "a little something" to THIS PAGE [google.com]
| 1:24 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|The success that we have had with them (Overture) and with Inktomi in terms of the overall web experience is working out quite well. |
The "web experience" he is referring to must be their revenue rather than SERP relevancy.
| 1:26 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|...the vision of what we are trying to do at MSN is trying to build a service, a consumer service that is basically a deep and integral part of people's lives. And we want it to be indispensable and relevant to every person every day... |
I wonder if we should change the title of this thread from "Microsoft and Google in competition?" to "Microsoft would like to be in competition with Google."?
Very interesting reading.
| 1:26 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|The success that we have had with them (overture) and with Inktomi in terms of the overall web experience is working out quite well |
He does not talk about "search" a lot, or search quality once (unless web experience is the same), only that the business thus far has been fantastic.
Added: Drastically - mind-readingly - quick..
| 1:35 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Why do they see Google as a competitor? Google tries to allow people to do what they want to do, without massive big ads everywhere... Microsoft do the opposite...
| 2:02 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That's the first time I've experienced that page, I used one my standard search terms and WOW did it return "NON-RELEVANT" sites. I couldn't believe what I saw, amazing. I didn't realize their listings were that bad! I mean really bad!
| 2:06 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
M$FT supplies a lot of the infrastructure and the desktop stuff which of course is a very lucrative market for them. M$N would love to control access to information on the web which in the end may be even more valuable - not in terms of monetary value of the searches themselves, but in terms of shoving things down people's throats and being able to dictate what information they find when the search the web.
Google is designed to be a search engine that generates revenue.
M$N is designed to be a revenue generator that lets you "find" information that M$FT has an interest in.
They are competing to shape the market but if the market was already defined they would not be competitors at all IMHO.
| 2:26 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would think that most Microsoft execs and employees would be using Google when they need to find something quick on the web. Just like all of us.
Everybody knows that the best search results are coming from Google, including those folks at M$.
No matter what they say publicly.
| 2:50 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The way I understand Mehdi, he's strictly coming from an MSN POV. It's about reach and branding in the www, in which regard Google definitly is a competitor.
Unlike Overture. And unlike FAST btw.
Mehdi suggests Google is trying to become more of a portal, and he may very well be right here.
If it weren't for that suspicion and for the connection between Google and AOL, and Google and Yahoo, MSN would probably have partnered with them.
| 3:08 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"And we want it to be indispensable and relevant to every person every day."
These guys are scary. I don't want MS to be an "indispensable" part of my life.
| 3:22 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>"And we want it to be indispensable and relevant to every person every day."
Is that really so far from what Google aims at?
| 3:23 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think google poses a massive threat to Microsoft in terms of the way they have democratised the Web for small and niche businesses.
Google is not perfect but comparing listings, google continually throws up the excellent non-mainstream non-elite owned web sites. If it was not for Google, people could be quote comfortable with MSN results which favour partners and people who can pay. It would have been seen as the "standard" of websearch along with Yahoo - but unfortuately Google showed customers that they should expect a far more varied and non-money-based results.
Clearly Google has raised the quality bar, and is putting MS in an uncomfortable position. It has raised expectations of a real "Search experience" rather than MS's dumbed down mass consumer Deadening experience.
MS in all cases I have seen never mention relevance. To do so would draw attention to their weakness to the masses. They continually say they "offer an effective search experience". That of course is spin marketing crap. It means nothing apart from sounding trendy. What it means underneath is that the advantages are all for MS not the customer - paid listings, partner relationships, and guiding browsers unconciously to a skinned down MS Web world where the major options work in with MS's need to control and retain the power of the information world in their own controllable patch.
| 3:27 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> Is that really so far from what Google aims at? <<
Yes. The difference is that they are earning it.
| 3:49 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
They really shouldn't have put this guy's picture on the article. He just looks SO typically Microsoft Corporate Weasel. Seriously these people are SCARY.
| 3:59 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
We have seen the nature of M$ far too often in the past, and it's ugly, REALLY ugly.
If they had control of the search market can you imagine how much of a look-in the little guy would get? Look at MSN: L$ layered on Overture, PPC on PPC. Look at their dabblings with Scumware.
I am old enough to remember the disdain they had for the net in the early days. It was only when they finally realised that it was potentially a money making machine that they got interested. They then used their monopoly and every trick in the book to make ground (ask Netscape and all the others who have got in their way). Watch out Google... looks like their guns are pointing at you (and simultaneously at the interests of the consumer, not for the first time).
Hmmm... I've probably said enough there. It's not me who hates M$ Mr Gates, it's all those other guys!
Just my opinion!
| 4:02 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If MS has a product that is head and shoulders above the competition, I'm only hurting myself by not buying it. And, MS is only hurting itself by not using Google, but maybe that's good.
| 4:21 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Is that really so far from what Google aims at?
Thank you, Heini. Obviously, someone who appreciates google but is not blinded by the proselytizing so prevalent everywhere.
The equivalent of a monopoly is bad, always. No matter who owns it. No one, not even the plex is immune to that kind of power.
I'm definitely not an M$ lover (been around that long, too, Napoleon) but the consumer actually does need some other engine to step up to the base. Unfortunately, M$ may be the only one now that has the resources $$$.
| 4:24 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
YEs Napolean. I must be as old as you! I remember very well as you say Ms's first initial reponses to the internet and the WWW.
Basically they first hoped it would just go away. Then they went head to head with compuserve to create the MSN network which at that time was meant to compete with the public WWW and create a private network like compuserve. It never came close to competing with compuserve, and of course a couple of years later compuserve as we once knew it, was history as well.
I must be old as you. I remember paying 15 to 20 Australian dollars an hour to access compuserve to get rudimentary mail, cs newsgroups, the right to pay lexis nexis 15 dollars an article and premium charges for certain discussion groups and only later access to the "real web" as part of the service. Thank god for the public internet/web.
| 4:45 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The equivalent of a monopoly is bad, always.
How true. However, I fail to see how google is a monopoly, the last time I checked you could still search using other engines (directly from google). Google is winning the search war by being good at search, M$ is not even in the game, they buy serps from 3rd parties.
Does M$ put icons or access to competitive products on their UI?..
| 5:05 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You misunderstand, I am not suggesting that M$ is a good alternative, but if you don't think google is actually turning into a monopoly for searching the web, then lets talk next year when all the others will probably be gone for lack of use.
Yes, you can use other engines now, but who does and why would they (except maybe for alltheweb and Teoma if they were aware of them). My point is not that google is bad, it is that we need other alternatives to prevent a monopoly. M$ may be the only one able to support that kind of effort now.
I'd much rather see that kind of input to alltheweb or teoma, but .....
 BTW, where are all those other icons? I can't seem to find them in user friendly places on google.
| 5:17 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>BTW, where are all those other icons? I can't seem to find them in user friendly places on google. <<
Sorry NancyB...they are gone..they used to have links to all the pfi providers on the bottom of their serps, but they have disappeared. My apologies.
| 11:02 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I don't agree at all that we should fault or branded Google as a search monopoly. We seem to keep forgetting the law of supply and demand. IMHO Google is just good at supplying what the majority needs and that is...highly relevant search result.
The way I understand a 'monopoly', simply means, someone or a an organization, in a particular market or industry, is in a competition free environment and enjoys an overwhelming domination to exclude competition.
I don't see Google stopping competition, I don't see Google buying-out other search companies in fear that those companies would cut into Google market share. Unlike the big guys such as M$ and AOL, whose way of doing business is buying-out the competition.
We, are the ones that is responsible for Google success. We have chosen Google as the King of searches both as webmasters and searchers. We were not forced into using Google, we've looked into its search philosophy and we like what we saw. Because of that, we supported Google, we promoted it and most of all we use Google.
Somebody mentioned Teoma and Wisenut, possibly yes and Google certainly is not stopping them for trying. But, WE saw what T & W could provide and we DON'T like it. Result - we continued to use Google.
Only when...another truly for the people search engine would show up then surely it would attract a significant number of users.
Google monopoly? Come on :)...
| 11:18 pm on Jul 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, I expect this will make for some interesting (fiction) reading at about this point in the discussion; August 2009: How Google beat Amazon and Ebay to the Semantic Web [ftrain.com]
luma beat me by a few DAYS on that article. Man, I'm getting slow.
[edited by: rcjordan at 3:16 am (utc) on Aug. 1, 2002]
| 1:25 am on Aug 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Good thing you added "fiction", somone just might have thought this was real ;)
| This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: 57 (  2 ) > > |