Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
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.
AOL + Google is "silly", MS + Amazon = "trying to dominate".
Your words, your problem.
Sorry, YOUR words, I said nothing about MS + Amazon, that was you, don't confuse who said what.
If MSN + AOL had happened I think the justice dept. might've stepped in as there wouldn't be much competition left in that area, and Google was probably suckered into spending way too much for a deal they probably could've gotten a lot cheaper IMO, but that's just business and AOL has been hurting for a while so good for them.
Besides, all this twisting and contorting of what I said still doesn't change my original premise in that MS controls the OS on the commodity box everyone buys, and the more they link in their own brand, the less fair that is to everyone.
Don't get me wrong, when MS was just an OS and computer languages provider I was a HUGE supporter of MS vs Borland and their second rate compilers, just because they hands down had the better product.
However, my views of MS changed drastically when I watched them devour Stac Electronics, makers of Stacker, back in 1993 when they openly defied Stac's patents and included DoubleSpace in DOS 6.0. MS lost the lawsuit, paid Stac some crappy settlement, but by then it was too late, Stac's market was damaged [ie DESTROYED] and the company was never able to recover.
I've been watching them do this type of thing over and over ever since.
You can't compare Google, which is outside the box, to MS which is inside the box as Stacker vs DoubleSpace is prime example of how much damage being INSIDE the box can cause a company.
Yup, no harm, no foul, nice company.
Not that I'm saying Google's a saint, but Google isn't in your box when you get it, not by default anyway. MS is hell bent on making MSN a commodity, therefore making Google irrelevant, and a possible acquisition of Yahoo to consolidate Yahoo/MSN is one of the best possible scenarios to make that happen.
If I have to choose, I'll pick what I consider the lesser of 2 evils at this moment, which is Google.
Ask me next year if I still think they're lesser.
I get that you go way back with MS and what they did at that time to secure their market position - and I totally agree they did some pretty amazing stunts to get that foothold in the market (and I can't stand that as well).
But, 1993, Novell, Sybase, Netscape - it's a long time ago and Microsoft is a different company now. Different people do the work day to day, different people manage it and they do different things in the way they do business.
And in that sense so do Google - 9 years ago it was 2 guys touting a concept to Altavista, now it is doing what Microsoft did when it was a young business. That is just the business lifecycle.
At the end of the day it is a company building and buying to create the market or gain market share.
But thats it - which company did Microsoft destroy to create MSN Search, or MSN Adcenter, or Windows Vista, or SQL Server 2005. This is a different company.
9 years ago it was 2 guys touting a concept to Altavista, now it is doing what Microsoft did when it was a young business.
And it will continue to do so. All the "Do no Evil" stuff is a thing of the past. It's just unavoidable as corporations develop. The 2 guys you mention used to be interested in search. After the IPO they were obliged to change their priorities. That's life.
I often hear people saying that "Google will get theirs" and that some other newbie will come along with all guns blazing and something innovative that no one else has thought of. This probably will happen but sooner or later profit will also drive them and they will go the way of G$ and M$, and so the cycle continues.
A not for profit solution is the only answer. Internet search is extremely important. Future generations will be "educated" by what they find on the Web. Search should be placed above all this capitalist cr@p.
Actually DMOZ is a directory, not a good comparison, and people are more street wise nowadays. Mark my words, sooner or later Internet search will have to be taken out of the private sector, which has proven that it cannot be trusted with it.
After all it's tantamount to putting Hugh Hefner in charge of all public libraries. ;)
Forgive me for jumping in right at the end of the thread, I dont know if this has been mentioned, but I have just installed IE7 beta, when I went to Google a box appeared saying change your IE7 Search box to google. I guess they have it in hand!
You miss the point. Google is a web company. Microsoft is a software company who stick it nose in fields that they are not good at just for making money.
Instead of spending money to improve their search and reinvent the wheel that prfectly Google do I think is better to improve their buggy software.
I do not see why Microsoft must be in these It fields.
Just think of that:
Who will have use msn search if they are not behind the windows?
I read that Microsoft want to launched a ad service competing with google. Are we serious now or what?
What microsoft has to do with that?
I will not be surprized if they start selling cars tommorow. Thats how I see actions like this one.