| 7:49 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you want to predict whether MS will be successful at developing a Google killer, I suggest you sit down and work out all the reasons why MS is where it is today and see which will apply to search engine technology.
For instance, many people use Windows because, there is not much choice and a Windows PC is cheaper than an Apple Mac. Neither of these reasons apply to search engines.
Now keep going and see which ingredients to the success of MS apply to search engines and I think you will find that the list is pretty short.
| 8:02 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google herself could fail |
Google is a ship, isn't she? Nice thought : )
|Now keep going and see which ingredients to the success of MS apply to search engines and I think you will find that the list is pretty short. |
...but then I saw the same thing about Microsoft and GUI's in 1984. Microsoft was developing spreadsheet and CAD software at the time, and Gates 'didn't see the interest' in making OS's because they were only worth 'maybe?% of the computer they were in'. I forget the # but you get the idea : )
Yes, I'm old enough to have good reasons to dislike Microsoft. Ask them exactly what they do better than others in the markets they try so hard to digest and you'll never get a straight answer.
| 8:10 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
MS could clean Google's clock and create a better search engine. Easy way to do so is to simply pay a lot more than Google can afford for all the best employees of Google, and the other search engines. MS essentially has unlimited money available to do this. The open question is whether MS sees it as important to the company future that they dominate the Internet search market? If MS were to hire me as a consultant on this matter, I'd recommend they not bother trying to beat Google. The advantages to MS of being the #1 SE just wouldn't justify what it would cost to achieve that.
| 8:39 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Keep in mind, M$ does not depend on search for revenue, Google does. Therefore, M$ does not have to totally clean Googles clock - all they have to do it take away just enough traffic to make Google unprofitable.
| 8:54 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Luckily it takes more than just money to take traffic away :) You have to satisfy users. I think search technology is finally a mass product where quality really matters, something that MS is not quite accustomed to.
| 9:06 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The advantages to MS of being the #1 SE just wouldn't justify what it would cost to achieve that. |
I partly disagree.
I dunno whether M$ sees an advantage in being the #1 SE but as they've said - or someone said anyway - search is gonna be the "next big" thing.
Hard drives are now huge and there's no sign they're gonna stop growing... it's difficult to find stuff on them now!
What may instead happen with the advent of .NET, XML and the growing numbers of Application Service Providers (ASP) is that the hard drive may just become the clunky floppy drive of yesteryear - It makes sense to be rid of a large mechanically based storage device now we're seeing alternative viewports coming onto the market afterall.
There defo seems to be a race going on with the big software houses ATM to develop the killer search technology and that's simply because there's a lot of commercial time to be saved with accurate and relevant filters... and as we know, time = money!
At the end of the day, Google, as good as it is - and long may it continue being so - isn't really helping me if it serves up a million-odd pages for my search query.
...and don't forget, with sommat like over a billion pages of info themselves, M$ has a vested interest to help it's own employees save time as well as the rest of us.
[edited by: TheWhippinpost at 9:11 pm (utc) on Sep. 21, 2003]
| 9:10 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>You have to satisfy users.
That is just it, Google is not that far ahead of their competitors in quality. The difference used to be night and day, but that is no longer true and Google can no longer rely on the startling contrast in search quality like they used to.
None of this means that MSN is a sure thing to unseat Google, but it does mean that Google is going to have to devote ever more and more resources in the fight. If they rest on their laurels they will lose.
| 9:23 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Couple of issue here.
1) "Google is only a little better than its competitors."
That's because all the competitors that didn't see Google coming, or didn't dive for better algorithms when they did, are either roadkill or ... Google licensees. Remember AltaVista? Excite? Hotbot?
2) "M$ could afford to buy for the best search engine."
Agreed, but ... the BEST would be used in a Pickwickian sense. The only "best" they understand is "maximizing of revenue." So their way of creating a good search would be something like: (1) charge for spidering, (2) charge for position, (3) charge for clickthroughs, (4) charge for mopery and dopery, (5) backfill with paid results from other sources, (6) cheat, lie, and steal on charges, etc.
I'm sure I left something out: their geeks are as dumb as dumber-than-ordinary marketers, and their marketers are as dumb as unusually dumb radishes, but their lawyers are the best money can buy...and THAT'S the source of their income. And don't think they're too dumb to know THAT.
| 10:26 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Kind of like how they
charge for service packs
charge for a knowledge base
charge for security updates
| 10:31 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Agreed, but ... the BEST would be used in a Pickwickian sense. The only "best" they understand is "maximizing of revenue." So their way of creating a good search would be something like: (1) charge for spidering, (2) charge for position, (3) charge for clickthroughs, (4) charge for mopery and dopery, (5) backfill with paid results from other sources, (6) cheat, lie, and steal on charges, etc.
I'm really having a hard time seeing how dominating Internet search is the way for MS to maximize revenue. MS would do better to invest elsewhere. I can't imagine MS doing this unless it is more something the top bosses want for image reasons or such, and not really for profit.
| 10:41 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Microsoft was going to control the video game industry to with the X-box a few years back. A couple years latter, and they are still far behind Sony.
| 10:44 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
yes, they were going to control the office application market too, and just look what happened there.
| 11:25 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
1. Microsoft tries to hard code the searchbox address and does crc checks to make sure its not tampered with...
2. Despite the protection, it's hacked/patched by outsiders to allow Google searches while its in beta, before its even released
3. The patch becomes extremely popular
| 11:38 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
1. Microsoft creates a superior search engine and virtually eliminates all competition, through superiority of the product, and awesome marketing sense.
2. Because it is so extremely popular, and to an extent, at least, because some people hate all successes and successful people, the product is victim to a huge number of attacks
3. MS designates huge resources and gives, FOR FREE, patches to counter this senseless vandalism.
| 11:38 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
MS has the money if they made Internet search a high priority, they could blow Google away. The thing is I can't conceive that going that route would be a profitable endeavor. Only way this would happen is if Bill Gates woke up one morning, decided that the world didn't consider msn.com the definitive place to search the Net, and decided that he wouldn't be satisfied until he accomplished this. Could possibly happen, but unlikely.
| 11:45 pm on Sep 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well think about this. Knowing the way Microsoft doesn't care about bloat, they are going to integrate a great deal of the user interface into the OS itself. We aren't going to have simple textboxes, they are going to be multimedia boxes and heavy graphics.
Can you even imagine Microsoft having a lite version of ANYTHING?
Does/can Google have a patent on the adwords boxes and they way they work?
(not that would slow Microsoft down, they would just pay the fine later)
| 12:26 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|There is no reason for Google to panic. Microsoft dominate the desktop OS war but have failed in almost everything else they have ever attempted. |
This is exactly what Microsoft's problem is and has been. They have produced software for just about every imaginable application over the past 28 years. Other than Mbasic,MS-DOS,Windows,Flight Simulator,Office,the Microsoft mouse they have produced few other successful products. They've produced a LOT of flops. No one remembers them though.
Microsoft has managed to succeed because of two things. One,they throw lots of marketing money around. Two,their strategy always involves using as much leverage as possible. They're in a little deeper than they think this time. They are trying to fight on too many fronts. They engaged Sony & Sega with the XBox,which won't break even for years. WebTV hasn't done well. Their .net strategy is nonW3C standard and mostly vaporware and cute diagrams. Their much vaunted OS is constantly barraged with viruses and worms as if the bugs in Windows weren't bad enough as it is. They've also got a huge campaign going against AOL. The online service on the way out. In the end isps will dominate. Microsoft is looking for a way to leverage their influence on the internet. Good luck. Won't happen.
All of this has and will continue to cost Microsoft LOTS of money. Clients are taking a serious look at Linux because it is secure. Now Microsoft wants to challenge Google for search engine market share. Have you ever used Microsoft's own site search? Not MSN. Microsloth.com They have a LONG way to go to match Google's search results quality. People are very picky about which search engine they use. If Microsoft puts search into Windows and people decide that it sucks then they'll be digging themselves yet another hole that they'll have to buy themselves out of.
It's going to be a long war. Microsoft will win some and lose some. I,personally,can't stand them but as a web marketer I'll have to consider their service and market share in my plans.
| 12:33 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Linux's greater security is not because it is any better.
It seems secure because it just isn't popular enough for bad guys to spend their time writing viruses targeted against it.
| 12:42 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It seems secure because it just isn't popular enough for bad guys to spend their time writing viruses targeted against it. |
BS. Windows isn't popular. It's success is leveraged by exclusive distribution deals which prevent vendors from selling anything else with their computers. Try buying a computer with Linux from a major vendor. Microsoft made it almost impossible to get OS2 or DR/Novell DOS with a machine and they do the same to Linux.
Why do virus and worm people spend so much time on Windows? Because they HATE Microsoft. They don't have any reason to hate Linux,OS@,BEOS or OSX.
| 12:50 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Baloney Arnett. I, and most of the rest of the world, consider Linux a steaming pile of garbage because if it ain't GUI, we wouldn't use it. Linux is a joke. The Apple OS X has potential. But Apples are just too expensive to go very far.
| 12:51 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Linux's greater security is not because it is any better. |
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about Linux being better or worse. I said that it's more secure. If I had billions of dollars of computer systems,software and data to protect I sure wouldn't use the world's most targeted OS.
| 12:54 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Arnett. I, and most of the rest of the world, consider Linux a steaming pile of garbage... |
You have a right to your opinion. I tolerate Windows. Linux is stable,reliable and secure. Windows isn't. 99% uptime on web servers using Linux convinced me. IBM is convinced too.
| 1:08 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>99% uptime on web servers using Linux convinced me. IBM is convinced too.
This isn't the top priority to home users. The Average Joe isn't running a server.
| 1:11 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The Apple OS X has potential.. |
I've used CPM,DOS,DR/Novell DOS,Windows,OS/2 and Linux. I like Linux and always keep it around. It's faster on and offline on identical machines than Windows. It never shows me the "blue screen of death". It doesn't bomb me with dozens of error messages all day every day. The keyboard and mouse never freeze and it never asks me to reboot. It works as a client OS,a network server OS,a printer server,a web server and a firewall. Windows is a client OS.
Microsoft has gone a long way to incorporate Linux-like features into it's latest versions of Windows. The future is Unix. Linux is a Unix variant. So is OS X. I'll bet your isp swears by Linux. Ask them.
| 1:23 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|This isn't the top priority to home users |
Home users don't spend nearly what business and government spend on computer technology. For business and government security and reliability are VERY important. That's why there are two versions of Windows. Business demands the best security and stability and the least amount of downtime and they get it. Windows still is unstable and unreliable. It always will be as long as they use FAT. The only version of Windows that I'll use is NT with HPFS. (NTFS is HPFS and it's from IBM).
Bill Gates didn't invent DOS. He bought it from a programmer for $50,000 after he hoodwinked IBM into believing that he had the operating system for their new Personal Computer. He didn't create the GUI. He stole it from Apple who got it from Xerox. IBM hired Bill Gates to build the successor to DOS. He delayed development until Windows was ready for market and introduced it in IBM's home town just for spite. He spend millions burying OS/2 so that his product would thrive. He signed virtually every PC vendor to exclusive distribution contracts that guaranteed that no other OS would go onto their machines and used threats and intimidation to keep other software off of those PCs. Bill Gates isn't God. He's just a tyrant selling yet another pipe dream.
Some people just choose to believe whatever Microsoft's marketing department says. I choose not to.
| 1:26 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I'll bet your isp swears by Linux. Ask them.
The Average Joe isn't an ISP. Typically the main concern of the Average Joe is that pretty much everything needed to operate the computer is done through the mouse, and having to actually touch the keyboard is only done when absolutely necessary. The reason Bill Gates is richer than God is he realized how unpleasant operating computers with keyboards was.
| 1:30 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Why do virus and worm people spend so much time on Windows? Because they HATE Microsoft. |
A BIG no to that! They target MS as this way they get 95% of the people out there. That's the ONLY reason.
They seems to be a lot of talk about who will come up with the 'best', 'most relevant' search engine. I don't believe it is the 'best' that will win, it will be the one who can market the best (Microsoft). They already have a HUGE edge by having Windows on nearly every PC out there. As soon as they throw in a semi-decent search facility they will take a huge chunk from Google. For some unknown reason, Google keeps their Toolbar a pretty well kept secret when they could have it installed on 95% of the worlds PC's. I would hazard a guess the Google will soon have a 'Download Toolbar' link at the top of all search results. I simply cannot understand why they don't do so now?
MS is a BIG business and 'have been there done that' They have pretty much *allowed* people to pirate Windows and Office onto every PC out there. That was a VERY smart move, now everyone out there has it on their PC and one thing that business and people don't like is 'change'. MS will, and is, slowly tighening up on piracy of Office and Windows, but not too quick.
Marketting will win the game, not search result relavence.
| 1:33 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The reason Bill Gates is richer than God is he realized how unpleasant operating computers with keyboards was. |
Bill Gates is rich because he fights dirty and is as ethical as the law requires. See my previous post if you want to know where he got the GUI.
| 1:39 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Marketting will win the game, not search result relavence. |
I don't know about that. I have a very low level of tolerance with most search engines. I want to find exactly what I'm looking for on the first search. I don't want to have to remember a bunch of boolean operators and I don't want to "refine" my search. I don't want dead links or obsolete listings either.
I know what I want and I want it right away. I generally use either Google or Altavista for search. The company that consistenly gives me the information that I want when I want it will get my search business.
For marketing purposes I target the search engines that deliver the most traffic to my sites and work to build more traffic. If MSN sends me traffic without asking me to pay for it then I'll market there as well.
| 1:52 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've been working with computers and for 20 years. I've talked to a LOT of "Average Joes". They don't tell me how much they love Microsoft. They want me to help them with their Microsoft problems. They want me to fix their computers because they don't work or they're not reliable. I remember Windos 3.1 and Windows 95 OSR1 and the first release of Windows 98 VERY clearly. I remember having to reformat my hard drive and reinstall all the software every six months. I remember some of the comments that I heard from people about those versions of Windows too. They weren't praise or compliments.
| 1:55 am on Sep 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|They don't tell me how much they love Microsoft. They want me to help them with their Microsoft problems. They want me to fix their computers because they don't work or they're not reliable |
...and there you have it! People dislike MS and Windows yet they STILL use them. Marketing.
| This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |