Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
joined:May 21, 2002
The New York Times reports that Microsoft's new Internet browser includes a search box in the upper-right corner that is typically set up to send users to Microsoft's MSN search service. Google contends that this puts Microsoft in a position to unfairly grab Web traffic and advertising dollars from its competitors.
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.
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!
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]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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).
joined:Dec 28, 2005
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.