Forum Moderators: mack
Google I think of really more as a competitor than I would as a partner. And so in some respects the way things have shaken out between AOL and Google and ourselves and Overture -- it's probably for the best, because the Google is trying to be more of a portal...
[microsoft.com...]
;)
We're still trying to recover from the L$/INK catastrophe in the spring. What a pain!
Yeah, the Yahoo/SBC deal -- I think that is -- I think that is a notable offering. You know, they I think -- I mean, the Yahoo service -- the Yahoo site and service is a good service, you know a very good service.
Very uncomfortable talking about Yahoo!
The success that we have had with them (Overture) and with Inktomi in terms of the overall web experience is working out quite well.
The "web experience" he is referring to must be their revenue rather than SERP relevancy.
...the vision of what we are trying to do at MSN is trying to build a service, a consumer service that is basically a deep and integral part of people's lives. And we want it to be indispensable and relevant to every person every day...
I wonder if we should change the title of this thread from "Microsoft and Google in competition?" to "Microsoft would like to be in competition with Google."?
Very interesting reading.
The success that we have had with them (overture) and with Inktomi in terms of the overall web experience is working out quite well
He does not talk about "search" a lot, or search quality once (unless web experience is the same), only that the business thus far has been fantastic.
Added: Drastically - mind-readingly - quick..
That's the first time I've experienced that page, I used one my standard search terms and WOW did it return "NON-RELEVANT" sites. I couldn't believe what I saw, amazing. I didn't realize their listings were that bad! I mean really bad!
Google is designed to be a search engine that generates revenue.
M$N is designed to be a revenue generator that lets you "find" information that M$FT has an interest in.
They are competing to shape the market but if the market was already defined they would not be competitors at all IMHO.
Unlike Overture. And unlike FAST btw.
Mehdi suggests Google is trying to become more of a portal, and he may very well be right here.
If it weren't for that suspicion and for the connection between Google and AOL, and Google and Yahoo, MSN would probably have partnered with them.
These guys are scary. I don't want MS to be an "indispensable" part of my life.
Is that really so far from what Google aims at?
Google is not perfect but comparing listings, google continually throws up the excellent non-mainstream non-elite owned web sites. If it was not for Google, people could be quote comfortable with MSN results which favour partners and people who can pay. It would have been seen as the "standard" of websearch along with Yahoo - but unfortuately Google showed customers that they should expect a far more varied and non-money-based results.
Clearly Google has raised the quality bar, and is putting MS in an uncomfortable position. It has raised expectations of a real "Search experience" rather than MS's dumbed down mass consumer Deadening experience.
MS in all cases I have seen never mention relevance. To do so would draw attention to their weakness to the masses. They continually say they "offer an effective search experience". That of course is spin marketing crap. It means nothing apart from sounding trendy. What it means underneath is that the advantages are all for MS not the customer - paid listings, partner relationships, and guiding browsers unconciously to a skinned down MS Web world where the major options work in with MS's need to control and retain the power of the information world in their own controllable patch.
Yes. The difference is that they are earning it.
If they had control of the search market can you imagine how much of a look-in the little guy would get? Look at MSN: L$ 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!
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 $$$.
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.
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?..
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 .....
[edit] 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.
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 :)...
<added>
luma beat me by a few DAYS on that article. Man, I'm getting slow.
[webmasterworld.com...]
[edited by: rcjordan at 3:16 am (utc) on Aug. 1, 2002]
