Microsoft Takes Aim At Google

TiredOfCrap writes "People are underestimating what Microsoft is doing with search technology, says Bill Gates. The head of the software giant told the BBC that its ambition is to be bigger than Google in search. "

Basically...

[sandman935]

Google is an enemy by choice. I get the impression that Google is a competitor simply because Gates thinks they are.

Is there a GoogleOS in our future?

a vision through cataracts (well, he IS aging)

[yagu]

The article is expectedly mostly spin, but I'm surprised at how much rehash it is. Specifically:

• Mr Gates said that the PC of today is still not the PC he dreamed about 30 years ago however, and that was a challenge he would continue to pursue.

  I think that says a lot. Computers today are astronomically more powerful than ever before which is a natural consequence of the development and maturation of electronics and transistors, etc. But, Mr. Gates and Microsoft has promised year after year the power (delivered, but not because of Microsoft) but not the ease of use.

  I do think (and of course this is just opinion) the software could have evolved much further than we see today if Microsoft hadn't been so dominant. There are/were hints of advances but often these were stunted early either by Microsoft essentially buying out companies and putting their own stamp on the technology (and sometimes actually advancing it), or by cooking up something similar and squashing the competition with price undercuts.

• "They can do lots of things, but still you can't talk to them, and that is one of the things we will get this decade," he predicted.

  (Actually, technically, Mr. Gates is wrong here: you can talk to them. They won't do much, but you can still talk to them.)

  I saw Mr. Gates say this same thing at a Expo Keynote speech in the '90s. I said it then, I'll say it now, we'll get real speech recognition in computers sort of, but it's not clear people really want to talk to them anyway. It's mostly amazing and a little disgusting Mr. Gates gets to get away with these promises year after year. I suppose it's partially the consuming public's fault for having a collective short memory and never calling Microsoft on this.

As for Mr. Gates' prediction MS is going to be bigger than Google, uh, hello, it already is. I think this is mostly code language for what they intend (hope) to do to Google. I'm not sure MS is positioned quite as nicely this time to accomplish this.

And, finally, from the article:

"We are stronger than ever because we have a research lab in Cambridge, we have one now in China, one in India and that is where the top problems in computer science are going to be solved."

I'm not sure what Mr. Gates is implying here. But if I were on one of the U.S. campuses, I'd be pissed, and a little nervous.

It's hard to beat a name

[jav1231]

Google has the name right now. Microsoft would have to completely abandon MSN because no one wants to search from MSN. One problem they have is that they don't appear to want to go head to head. Their move for AOL shows that they appear to have the idea if they can force AOL users to MSN unawares then their numbers will go up and they will appear to be competing. Just my observation. This whole battle seems to be more of Microsoft's idiology that if it's a technology, they should be the main player. Some might say this is business but business should be, "We can do it better" not "We should have what they have." Google is out there growing and coming up with new ideas. Microsoft is following. This isn't new. They did it with the browser market and the server market. They will build on the technology with new ideas (or bought ones?) once they conquer.

Re:Bland ambition?

[Eberlin]

Granted that unrealistic ambition goes nowhere, and yes we're all detractors of the borg here, but there are enough decision makers out there that will buy into the hype. "Oooh, microsoft is down right now but that just means they're going to come back in a big way. They always do."

If Bill Gates says that HIS ambition would be to be an "astronaut-playboy-robot-vampire that fights crime and plays lead guitar in his own thrash metal band on the weekends" I think he just might have the resources to do it.

As for going with something bigger than Google search, it might be unlikely because of their corporate culture and how they just don't "get it" -- but that doesn't mean Google shouldn't rest on their laurels lest we forget the follies of Netscape. GOOG: defend the lead, extend the lead...and do no evil. :)

Re:Bland ambition?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

>>I think he just might have the resources to do it.

He may have the resources, but he'll never have the talent.

Re:WOOWHOO!

[utnow]

for the less computer adept... having the company that "made their computer" say that their search engine is better than that college-startup named "Gafoogle" or whatever is pretty convincing. Not to mention it'll prolly be the default engine in the next version of IE and will probably search straight from the location bar. Google may be better, but MSN search is nothing to scoff at. I think they'll have their work cut out for them if they want to stay on top of the popularity curve.

Re:Bland ambition?

[EnderWiggnz]

which is kindof sad, as ms used to be the place where all the talent went.

they dont gots it anymore.

Have you tried Microsoft's experimental start.com

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.start.com/ [start.com]

Awesome site. Microsoft is doing great work, and start is what's public right now.

Re:Leave it to Microsoft to miss the point...

[zoomba]

Technically minded folks may flock to google over MS for the ethical reasons, but that's not the reason Google rules the roost right now. Google wins through better tech and ease of use. Technologies like search engines and anything else that depends on volume of use depend on public acceptance to be truely successful.

Techies drive tech advancement and improvement... but we don't drive wide-spread adoption, and we don't determine market success. The average Joe User does.

Most people don't care one bit over if the company they purchase from is "evil", just look to the success of Nike and WalMart to prove that point. They go with what works best, and Google works best.

That IS why Google's on top.

Mindset

[Sv-Manowar]

He may be defeated by the public in their mindset as it currently is, which for many is that Google are a great company who are always coming up with free stuff and more features for their users (which they do).

Many people see Microsoft as profiteering and would rather keep using Google, as would Firefox in the search box. As long as people see Google as a more customer friendly and open website for the user then they will continue to use it.

Re:Competition is good

[goldspider]

Google currently has the edge on web searches and several other handy apps. Given that, exactly what "sleezy" tactics do you think MS has in their bag of tricks that can overcome a losing market share?

MS has typically been able to leverage their massive power against smaller, up-and-coming competetors. This situation is very different.

Nice pep talk!

[quakeroatz]

Nice pep talk Bill! The problem is, no matter how good you make your search, or how flexible you make your software to share media, the flood of advertising in your search and restrictive DRM locks you put on the sharing, will only leave a bad taste in our mouths.

Media needs to be free, not slightly shared.
Searching needs to be relevent and unobtrusive.
MS fails on all accounts.

Re:WOOWHOO!

[LeonGeeste]

For example, Microsoft search can be adless (or charge less for ads) and hyperfast thanks a server farm 100x Google's size.

The other advantages you listed are substantial, but not this one I'm afraid. Google's searches are already on the order of 0.2 seconds. I can't imagine anyone "on the margin" switching to MS because they get their results in 0.002 seconds plus download time rather than 0.2 seconds plus download time. I could be wrong though: Are there people who do rapid searches in succession and can process the data from those searches at that speed?

Re:Bland ambition?

[ILikeRed]

You are wrong... it was AT&T Bell labs, but other than Bjarne Stroustrup, who went to Texas A&M [tamu.edu], most of the Bell guys are now at Google. These are people Microsoft could never hire away, but Google did.

Re:Basically...

[rajafarian]

"... they see them as a threat to their position.

I think what scares BillCo. is that Google makes decisions without asking MS for approval.

Linux

[panxerox]

A search for "Linux" at msn search comes up with 90,043,606 while at google comes up with 445,000,000 so yeah I think we know where microsoft is going with its search engine.

Google has smarter people

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you- marketing is very important and the Google brand is much stronger than Microsoft's is in search and arguably in every internet arena that the two compete.

Bottomline- I think MS will have a hard time catching up because Google has smarter people and they definitely aren't standing still. Even though Google has grown huge, they still seem quite nimble and they are still able to attract the best brains in the business. Microsoft is losing people in droves in the US and I think that is why that are expanding so rapidly overseas. This relatively untapped talent pool might make the difference 3 years from now, but for now they are toast.

MS does have a pool of enormously talented people. Look at who works for MS Research (or whatever their R&D division is called). But for some reason, they don't seem to be producing what they could. I've heard MS Research described as a roach motel- lots of genius' check in, but none are ever heard from again.

I would consider working for Google (not that they would want me) but I would not consider a job offer from MS. Part is because of their respective reputations, but mostly it is because Google is exciting and Microsoft is dull.

Competition?

[brain1]

Sheesh! Billy G. & Co. just CANT stand any kind of competition. It's a megalomanical desire to own the entire planet and subjugate all it's inhabitants into using Microsoft products. Just look at the crap going on in Massachusetts over their decision to adopt Open Document format. Open - as in published standards.

They are about to explode that their propreitary, patent encumbered Office XML format is not the standard and they are pulling out all the stops.

Sorry, Billy - we need competition. We dont need your dictating to us. Google does what it does quite well. If you can build a better "mousetrap", well fine. The market should choose.

Re:WOOWHOO!

[node 3]

Google must show a profit in their endeavors

So must Microsoft. Microsoft won't try to dominate the search market if there is no money in it (either directly, or indirectly). But clearly there is money in it, and Google is the leader. That's a large reason why Google's market cap is so high.

Google owns the market right now. With regards to MS's ability to funnel money from other parts of the company, that just means MS can be the "competitor that won't go away", nothing more.

For example, Microsoft search can be adless [and a few other things...]

But MS won't do any of these things, so they are non-issues. It's sort of like saying MS can use Firefox as its default browser.

Plus, they can integrate it into their ownership of the OS and browser markets.

They already do this. I'm sure Vista will integrate MSN Search even greater.

Google has neither an endless mountain of cash

Google's market cap is just barely under $100 billion. Cash is not a problem, and as long as they stay ahead of the game, it won't be.

nor a 90% of the browsers, nor 90% of the desktops.

Google's services are more compatible with more browsers and more OS's than Microsoft's are.

The simple fact is that MS does not have to win - they can lose, and lose by a wide margin (in terms of profits) until Google is starved out of business. And then they win anyways by default.

That's not even remotely logical. If MS doesn't win "in terms of profits", but Google does, how, exactly, is that going to translate into an MS win over Google?

The only way Google loses in that scenario is if they lose their competitive edge over Microsoft. The ability for MS to funnel money from Office -> MSN Search doesn't mean MSN Search will outcompete Google, it just means MSN Search can stick around.

Imagine a poker game where the rich kid keeps buying himself in after repeatedly losing all his cash. Having more cash doesn't mean he's going to win. In order to win, he will actually have to learn the game and become good at it.

And that's exactly what MS is good at.

Google

[falconwolf]

Google currently has the edge on web searches and several other handy apps

I switched to Google a few years ago because when I used another SE like Yahoo! they wouldn't have it but Google would. But now when I google I don't always get a result but when I use Teoma [teoma.com] or Mooter [mooter.com] I do. So I may switch again, though I'm not sure if it will be to Mooter or to Teoma. As for any apps Google has, I have yet to use any.

Falcon

Re:WOOWHOO!

[darnok]

>For example, Microsoft search can be adless (or charge less for ads) and hyperfast thanks a server farm
> 100x Google's size. Hell, they can throw in prizes for prominent users, whatever.

Several problems with this suggestion:
- Google's ads are virtually invisible unless you choose to look for them, so MS being ad-less really doesn't constitute a benefit
- Google's done a load of research about how to run a big server farm. I'm yet to see evidence that MS has got anything like Google's expertise in this area; they could throw loads of servers at a problem, and still not get the throughput Google gets. To my mind, Google's server farm expertise is a major part of the value of the company, not just an expense item on a balance sheet
- prizes, schmizes; when I'm looking for something, I want the answer now! I don't want to be told "Congratulations, you've won a prize. Please enter your name, address, email, phone, ... in order to collect". "No, just give me the bloody answer, and piss off". Of course, there's a certain monetary value of these prizes that would tip me over the edge, but unless MS plans to give me a *sizeable* amount of money in return for my personal info, forget it. This *is* MS we're talking about, a company that I have *significant* concerns about sharing my personal info with...

On the other hand, I agree hat MS could tweak their browser and other OS tools to use MS Search, and that would take market share away from Google. On the other other hand, MS still has antitrust police on its back, and I don't think a move to "lock-in" users to MS Search would be treated lightly. Google has enough money to pursue MS through the courts, unlike a lot of the other small companies who've been hurt by MS' anti-competitive behaviour.

Finally, MS also now has a stock price that is basically stable, not doubling every year or so. If they decided to try to operate at a loss in order to drive Google out of business, I doubt their shareholders and the FCC would let them do so for very long.

Re:Sounds like Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

There's some debate over that. From the Wikipedia article on Ingvar Kamprad [wikipedia.org]: "According to Swedish business weekly Veckans Affärer, he is the wealthiest person in the world. However, IKEA denies this assertion, noting that since Kamprad no longer owns the company, it should not be included in calculations of his wealth. Forbes magazine continues to rank Bill Gates at #1, ranking Kamprad at #6. It was in the aftermath of the Veckans Affärer article that Kamprad advanced from #12 to his current position on the Forbes list." Basically, it depends on whether you count IKEA as one of his assets since it is actually owned by a trust which is controlled by his family.

Re:WOOWHOO!

[LeonGeeste]

Please clarify. Someone using google to search their intranet for what purpose would be able to process search results that came at 0.002 seconds apiece versus 0.2 seconds?

Re:Bland ambition?

[doodlebumm]

I wonder what kind of impact a Google branded Linux would have on the fight? I think the biggest hinderance to acceptance of a non-M$ OS is that people are afraid. If a name like Google were to brand a linux, that would make many people be more curious and likely to try it out, because people think of Google as easy and helpful, where IBM, etc. are the computer companies that no one understands. Granted there are still those who will choose Windoze, but those that see the benefits of a non-M$ OS would make Billy Gates and Stinky Balmer cry themselves to sleep at night. They'd have to call a strategy meeting to see what they could do to duplicate what Google is doing (again). Maybe that would lead to M$-Linux. Now that would make me wet my pants with laughter.

Bu they never will be...

[xwizbt]

Isn't the whole point that Microsoft wants to be bigger than anyone, doing anything at all? You can hula-hoop - Microsoft can do it better. You can produce desktop software that runs on Microsoft's own platform... er... well, Microsoft can do it better. They just didn't, to start with. They're trying harder now.

What is it with Microsoft? Even people who adore Microsoft's products hate the company. Even Steve, bless his heart, manages to make them all look like pillocks while he prances about the stage proclaiming his intense love for everything microsoft.

Anything which makes them take their head out of their arse and look around for a moment has to be good. At present, just about every aspect of the real world has this property.