Microsoft Rebrands Live Search As "Bing" 443
JacobSteelsmith writes "Microsoft is attempting to re-brand its Live Search, also known as Kumo. Bing, as it's known, is another attempt by Microsoft to lure consumers away from Internet search leaders such as Google. Microsoft has posted a quarterly loss in its online advertising business, compared to Google's sales, $4.7 billion in the first quarter. According to the Live Search blog, Bing goes 'beyond the traditional search engines to help you make faster, more informed decisions' by combining a 'great search engine' with organized results. It also adds unique tools to help the user make important decisions. It is being touted as a 'decision engine.'"
organized results (Score:5, Insightful)
Bing goes 'beyond the traditional search engines to help you make faster, more informed decisions' by combining a 'great search engine' with organized results.
Organized Results as in "higher rating the more you pay us"?
Give up (Score:5, Insightful)
I can already tell it's going to suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
...because the video shows a big image/background at the top. That's great, but part of the other reason Google is the leader (other than the results it produces) is the fact the page is a no-nonsense zone - sure, you've got the Google logo, but other than that, the page consists nearly entirely of blank space, or text/links. No stupid pointless pictures, no needless button images. It's fast, and it works. Once 'Bing' gets up to capacity though, I reckon it'll be dog slow, because it has useless decor. The search engine isn't the destination: So why the pointless crap?
Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft may have posted a quarterly loss, but comparing that with 4.7 billion dollars of gross revenue doesn't even make sense. Did Google make a profit on that 4.7 billion and how much? That's the important question, and none of the press releases linked here have an answer.
Re:organized results (Score:5, Insightful)
Organised as in for example, you type in a particular model of a camera, and the results are organised between - where to buy, reviews, how to use the thing, etc.
It sounds quite good, if it works as described.
Re:Give up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My first thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Another example of that brilliant Microsoft marketing machine we've all heard about.
I mean, when I think of cool and trendy, I think of Ned Ryerson. Wouldn't everyone want to buy insurance from that guy? Wouldn't everyone want him to do their searches?
The truth is that Microsoft has never had much marketing ability. They just have tons of cash to throw at it, and they've always been good at leveraging monopoly power in one market to win the next. They leveraged their PC DOS monopoly to win the PC GUI environment market with Windows. They leveraged that to win the office suite market. They used their office suite dominance to wipe out Novell by giving big corporations huge Office discounts if they replaced their Novell servers with NT Server. They then leveraged NT Server's dominance to gain dominance in Back Office products like Exchange and IIS. Marketing has had little to do with their success. They of course also tied IE to Windows to thwart Netscape. And every time you installed a new copy of IE it defaulted to msn.com as the home page, otherwise MSN never would have had any market share. The list goes on and on.
We finally come to search engines. Other than making Windows and/or IE default to using Live Search, or whatever it gets rebranded to, they really just don't have much power to tie it to any of the markets they currently dominate.
Guess only time will tell, but I'll be amazed if they gain more than a percent or two from Google in the search market, because I can't see any compelling reason to switch from what I've read so far.
Re:I can already tell it's going to suck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, sorry, forgot it's slashdot... you probably haven't actually tried anything but the crowd-recommended solution.
Yeah, it's totally lame and not nonconformist to use a search engine that doesn't suck.
Re:Give up (Score:2, Insightful)
They're trying to improve their profit, not their search engine. More users = more eyeballs = more advertising income.
Synergy! (Score:1, Insightful)
Right or wrong, I always suspect that MS search is designed with the purpose of pointing me preferentially towards MS owned content while Google is more neutral. It is just too easy to imagine the meeting where some aspiring young MBA presents their power-point slides showing how a search portal that secretly directs people towards other company assets will leverage the synergistic potential, or some other BS like that. I just don't trust MS to create a product that puts my interests (neutral indexing of internet content) ahead of their own (market share and stock price).
Re:Bing? Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
Scribblings on the wall? (Score:2, Insightful)
And there lies the rub. Sure, there are plenty of us who still harbour deep suspicicions about Google and its motives, but those reservations pale by comparison to those surrounding Microsoft.
Once all the hype about MSN search and Windows 7 has died down, I wonder if Microsoft might be forced into a position where its most secure bastion is MSOffice. Whatever we might think of MS, the latter is still probably the only one of their products that really qualifies as a "killer".
Disclaimer: my personal preference is for OpenOffice or NeoOffice, dependent on platform.
Re:Give up (Score:3, Insightful)
MS should seriously just stop trying to "improve" search engines. Its not profitable, labels you as a "Google clone", and unless you have some pretty neat features that can beat Google and iGoogle, you won't end up capturing any marketshare.
This same attitude showed up in the Zune HD story. I find it an idiotic viewpoint. Because one company has done something really well, nobody else should try? Do you seriously want people to stop trying to compete and trying to one-up other companies, just because the existing product or service seems to be all you could ever want?
You want things to stagnate?
Granted, we know MS will fail. But suggesting that they shouldn't try seems positively idiotic.
Re:B.I.N.G.? (Score:5, Insightful)
All that money into marketing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
How many millions (billions?!) do they spend on marketing and branding. If I paid that much, and all they came up with was Zune, Squirt and Bing .. I'd be pissed and would want a refund.
Re:Give up (Score:3, Insightful)
how many OEMs you bribe to set as the default homepage.
I bet the most searched word on Bing will be "Google", since clueless users search for their search engine, rather than configure correctly their IE browser.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
CROSBY (Score:4, Insightful)
not the town in North Dakota.
For my generation Bing is followed by Crosby.
I am sure the people at MSFT are to young to have that association,
Re:organized results (Score:3, Insightful)
3 searches instead of one. Hm...
Re:Here's the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh. No, that language has been around since Windows 95, when they promised us that it was the "fastest, most secure version of Windows yet" and that everything we do "will be more fun!"
Re:Bing? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actualy it's:
They're still in step 3.
-dZ.
Bing? Bing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy mother of marketing. They'd do better calling it "Microsoft Bling", at least it'd sound like something someone might actually want to use. This may be the worst product name since Bob.
Re:They're asking to be sued over that moniker (Score:1, Insightful)
It's an utterly stupid and non-descriptive name for a search engine, anyway.
Is Google any more descriptive?
He said *what*? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Paul:
Google's UI innovation is that people want the fucking UI to get out of the fucking way. People don't want the user interface innovated in new, exciting, and distracting ways. They want you to stick to what works, and make the back end work better. If they notice the user interface, you've failed.
Love, Peter.
Still more buzzsh*t (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your search - ZigZagZoodilyDoo - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Personally, I think ZigZagZoodilyDoo is a heckuva lot better than "Bing!" Better hurry up and register it before Microsoft does!
Re:But What If ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Thanks for the citation.
I'd never heard of "Friends".
And "TV", what's that all about? Sounds cultish.
Re:Bing vs. Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Google doesn't sound like a euphemism for sexual intercourse when used as a verb.
Also, Google is a reference to the massive number of webpages available through their service.
Bing! is a mindless word MS expects to 'sound cool.'
I'd call it an epic fail. Compare:
I just Google'd Jessica Alba.
I just Bing'd Jessica Alba.
?
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"Informed decisions" and "organized results" are somehow corporatespeak?
Perhaps. But 'beyond the traditional search engines' is some BS if I ever heard it. Hint: it's the internet, not a box of cereal. Google won because it was fast and lightweight. Google will continue to win because it is fastest and lightest-weight. No amount of BS is going to change the formula. Even if MS were to create a fast and lightweight search interface, they would weigh it down in no time flat because they couldn't help themselves.
Since my guess is that you work for MS, I'll give you some advice: fast, light weight, and clean. Ring a bell?
Re:But What If ... (Score:3, Insightful)