Forum Moderators: mack
Google is a method for reaching other websites. MSN is a destination and next year will be the method for reaching itself, a position Yahoo will enjoy for the coming year.
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer [seattlepi.nwsource.com]:
Microsoft... hopes to have some of its own search technology development done in the next 12 months, Ballmer said. It will take longer to develop search technology focused on advertising, he told the advertising executives.
MSN will join Yahoo as both a destination and the method for arriving there (search).
Is it enough to be just a search engine?
Will the destination componenent make or break the search engine wars?
Sizzle and gunna. Balmer & Gates.
Google was 3 people in a garage in September 1998
Whos winning? How much has Microsoft 'caught up' in teh last 5 years?
Show us the steak Microsoft.... don't tell us how much its 'gunna' cost....
It should also be noted that in 2004, M$ will spend $6.8B on R&D across all their products, not just search.
I like google but I have more faith in economics. If one company has the ability to indefinetly outspend their competition then they will eventually win.
If one company has the ability to indefinetly outspend their competition then they will eventually win.
Yep - maybe. But Microsoft has yet to deliver a single search result using their own technology - 5.5 years into the game.
Don't get me wrong - if Microsoft does actually develop a product - then I'll be keen to look at it.
But after 5 years of 'gunna' and 'sizzle' - my patience with "Microsoft search - powered by press releases" is growing thin.
Its also interesting that the guy who was brought in to spearhead this Microsoft world Search domination strategy 'bailed out' after only 4 months...
Maybe he was more interested in the steak than the sizzle too?
Microsoft search - powered by press releases
Microsoft launched its Inktomi-powered "MSN Internet Search" product back in September 1998 - and has been 'gunna' launch its 'own' search engine ever since.
Sizzle and gunna. Balmer & Gates.Google was 3 people in a garage in September 1998
If I recall correctly, Microsoft also started off in a garage by the same number of people - and if Google wanted to overtake them how much do you think Google would have to spend?
Catch up to a thriving company will always be a bit hard no?
I wouldn't write off my friend Mr Gates quite so smugly - he has a lot of resources to throw at this fight.
Interesting:
"European regulators ruled on Wednesday that Microsoft remove its Windows Media Player from the Windows operating system within 90 days. If that ruling survives appeal, analysts said it could be difficult for Microsoft to bundle new software -- such as search features -- into Windows."
EquityMind
well, Wasn't the Pepsi the number one for the past few years?
Anyway, based on quite a few comments on the current Google's search qulaity and Yahoo's new search engine(to me, it looks like Googletomi), it may be possible for us not to use the Google AT ALL just in a few years.
Google is not going to be always number one. Internet searvice business is quite different from "water business" with physical delivered products.
European regulators ruled on Wednesday that Microsoft remove its Windows Media Player from the Windows operating system within 90 days. If that ruling survives appeal, analysts said it could be difficult for Microsoft to bundle new software -- such as search features -- into Windows.
EM: It's good you brought this up. I'm starting to see a lot of parallels of the Europe/MS thing as the US/AT&T thing back when they were a monopoly.
The United States telecommunications network is still suffering becuase of what the government regulators did to AT&T and the baby bells with respect to cellular telephony almost 20 years ago. We're still 2-3 years behind the rest of the world.
Yes, Interesting to see how this will play out.
Also Martini - the way I read that article is a $7BB spend on re-search, not search. The first time I read that article I read search as well. Funny how being in this industry makes you read things a certain way :)
I thought that number sounded too large at first...
EquityMind
...hopes to have some of its own search technology development done in the next 12 months...
The two important words here is *hopes* and *some*. He should do politic ;-)
Distribution is not a big deal in communications. It's not even a big deal to lease a printing press and sells ads in a flyer that's mailed. The economics are straightforward. Printing + mail + sales + profit = price. And people do it, successfully, often competing with the local newspaper.
But, the paper gets a lot more for its space. The marketer assumes that the readers are compelled to look at newspaper, where they can toss the junk mail without opening it.
There is no assuming on the web. We know what people look at and don't. So, as MS and Yahoo have concluded, the game is being where people want to go, offering what people want to see. And, if they can do that, they can scale their offerings to the entire nation or the world.
It's not about search. It's about offering whatever works best for the largest possible audience so as to create a network for marketers. So, search alone will not do it. Creating a network means doing a lot of little things well, not just doing one great thing. (Thus, for one, the interest in Local Search.)
G and Y and all of the leg biters around them starting to focus on do a good job in finance, health, technology, entertainment, etc. That's creating a network.
I get annoyed with the focus on demographics as a way to build a network. It's bogus. There are 40-somethings into pop music and 18 year olds concerned about Medicare.
I like google but I have more faith in economics. If one company has the ability to indefinetly outspend their competition then they will eventually win.
That might happen, but I don't think so. Why? You need dedication, you need focus and you need brains. And you have to find somebody to give you some seed capital.
It's not primarily about money.
I would much prefer a search market that offers several options (hmmm coke or pepsi) rather than a market dominated by one player (as it currently is).
I know MS don't have a great record when it comes to competition but that was always in markets where the players have not been hugely established. We're already seeing in the games console wars that already being No. 1. is important.
And off topic- I too look forward to Microsoft being forced to ship Quicktime with Windows in Europe, maybe they could package iTunes too.
and you have to be sure no other company buys away your technological brain (AFAIK Microsoft had lost years in the early nineties, when the Windows-Wizard left). How can you be sure? Simple: be the brain yourself or have him/her as your partner. Not as high-paid employees who jump ship with a smile for 30 % more.
Google will always be number one just like Coke will always be number one.
Not so sure! I've heard people saying the same thing about... Netscape, ICQ, Alta Vista, Word Perfect... we cannot imagine how we can stop using those. Look now.
Nothing lasts forever.
Maybe in 10 years, nobody will still use a Microsoft OS... we don't know.
I agree anything can happen but MS has an uphill battle. Shoot Yahoo has an uphill battle.
How can google compete with a search box that is locked onto the desktop?
This is what has happened in the OS market and the browser market. The people who choose to use Mac or Linux or Mozilla are crippled because of the 60% of computer users that don't know anything and just blindly use what's on their box. Makes me sad.
Q:Why don't people use OpenOffice.org instead of MS Office?
I'll use your answer A: it's not in their minds.
Q: Why isn't it in their minds?
A: Sun doesn't have the money to put it there.
I agree with you that Google is a good brand and has some life to live but it is documented that only one company has ever beaten MS in a market that MS tried to muscle them out of and that's Quicken. The financial market tends to stick with what works. This was also head to head competition. MS wasn't giving their stuff away free so Quicken had a chance.
If MS is the default search on Windows then Google doesnt have a chance.
The only thing that can help Google is if MS is regulated to offer multiple "engines" as the default web search on Windows.
Google has been warned to promote Mozilla in order to stop MS from being able to muscle them out of search.
Lets hope they figure out how they can compete.
If I recall correctly, Microsoft also started off in a garage by the same number of people
.... who basically bought a product called 86-DOS (or QDOS - Quick & Dirty Operating System) from the company that developed it 24 years ago - and then basically renamed it MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System) and licenced it to IBM. Broke the CP/M stranglehold.
Interesting analogy - especially as MS has just licenced other people's search technology for the last 5.5 years - rather than develop any Search Engine stuff inhouse.
My point was that Google was 3 people in a Garage in Sept 1998 when Microsoft launched Inktomi powered MS Internet Search (and Microsoft turned over near $20 Billion that fiscal). So why isn't Microsoft already winning?
When (if?) the 'sizzle' dies down - and MS Search isn't powered by press releases - and its a 'real' product - then we can decide whether its any good. And that might be next year - or the year after - or never.
Meantime - I won't change my default Search Engine just yet.....
hehe.
ICQ?
