Can Microsoft Beat Google? 603
An anonymous reader writes "With all the hype surrounding the recent release of MSN Search, are the search engine wars heating up? There's an interesting article that states, "As the veteran Microsoft enters the already flooded search engine industry, and Google still being fresh and refreshing to most people, it begs the question: can the old supplant the new?""
Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
And just like Microsoft beat Sony in the game box market.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has only released one console. Sony has released the original PSX, the PS2, the PSone and soon the PSP.
Therefore I would say Microsoft released one console that did fairy well, but you have to wait until you see the XBox 2 and other developments before you judge success. The fact that Nintendo are weakened shows that success is determined by longevity not the success of any one given product.
Ugh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, no, it really doesn't lose any impact at allwhen you have to explain the sarcasm.
[OK, you see, I actually mean "it does lose impact" but, instead I say "it doesn't lose impact" and the contradiction between what I actually say and what I mean is sarcasm. Oh, never mind...]
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends. If you crush the life out of your competition such that in the future you'll be able to get their market and prevent them from moving into yours, then it was a good investment. Giving away IE to suck the life out of Netscape, for instance.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends entirely on how you define "success". The Hubble telescope cost billions of dollars to build and maintain. It has given us back a big fat zero dollars in return. So is it a failure? Financially, yes, you could say it's a failure. However, you cannot put a figure on the data the Hubble has sent back to scientists. The know
And (Score:5, Funny)
WMP r00lz, AAC teh suck!
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
What's going on at google?
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Marketing is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Untrue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. Marketing is everything these days. Why is Britney Spears popular? Quality product? hehe...
Marketing will get them their users, but users that don't know any better. For the tech crowd, yes, Microsoft will have to come up with a better product, though I find that just as amusing as Britney Spears selling records.
Re:Untrue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Untrue. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for tech crowd dictating what's good and what isn't, lets think about this, shall we?
1. Beta vs VHS?
2. Original Mac vis IBM PC/XT/AT?
3. Wagons/Hatchbacks vs SUVs? (same storage capacity, better fuel economy)
4.
5. Extended warranties from Best Buy?!?!
Marketing is for the suckers...and that's where the money is.
Re:Untrue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Btw, this is not all about marketing, it's also a bit about manageability. Say foobar@gmail.com turns into a spam address? Better check the one that send him an invite, and also those who he got into GMail. An invite is basicly saying "I think this person will use this service correctly".
Invite = Vote; sounds like Google, doesn't it?
Re:Untrue. (Score:5, Informative)
2. Mac vs IBM. Cost as soon as clones came in. Still the same issue BTW by and large. IBMs had IBM behind it, and that's why it became a success with business, thanks to Lotus as well). Who cares about the OS, it's all about the applications, even today.
3. Cars are status symbols and a lot of irrational issue surround them. Few people buy cars on technical terms, otherwise no one would have ever bought an Alfa Romeo for instance.
4. Ogg originally required a floating point unit, and so wouldn't run on low-end players. MP3 was first to market. Few people can actually hear the difference between MP3 and Ogg and most don't care. The quality of either is much much better than either FM radio or tapes.
5. Extended warranties are popular with many products such as Apple computers for instance, where it does make sense because after 3 years the computer is still worth something.
Marketing works to some extent but are not the be-all and end-all of everything. Perhaps you've heard of the term "hype" ?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on what you think of Britney Spears... (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the product? The music? Of course not. One argument is that the product is herself. Britney's body. Britney's voice. Britney's sugary production. Britney's image. It's a total package.
Then we have the "Britney as medium" argument that I quite like. Britney has become a medium for content delivery unto her own. She delivers a musical production. She delivers the lyrics of others. She is the box that the product comes in, the item inside the box and the marketing splash on the front of the box (Yes, I do enjoy talking about Britney's box, thanks for asking).
Then we get to Windows as portal. Let us assume that the non-intuitive nature of Windows is ingrained so much into us that it has become intuitive. It is transparent and no longer about using windows, it is about what it brings to us. Movies. Music. Word Processors. The Internet. Now MSN Search is a way to frame the Internet by Microsoft, which is quite ingenius. Google has already begun doing this, GMail, blogger, froogle, answers. The search page has become a way to deliver their product (Much like Windows delivers Microsoft product).
Re:Untrue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Marketing is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't become the world's biggest software company by simply having the best quality product.
Re:Marketing is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't tar the entire MS line with the same brush. If MS Office is such shit, why is Open Office practically a feature by feature clone of it? (I'm sure I'll get roasted for that one but from what I've seen of it...)
Face it, MS Office for all the times it makes you want to jump out a window because Excel chart font sizes are determined by a random number generator when you shift the window size, is a very solid suite. The ability to double click on a chart in a power point presentation, open up the underlying excel spreadsheet and fix problems, or just create a new chart, is absolutely fantastic.
Even some academic journals are now allowing
Although really, of the big trio: Excel, Word and Powerpoint, Word is clearly the worst of them, and by a big margin.
Again I'm not saying they don't have their quirks, but the office suite has certainly revolutionized (to a minor extent) the way many people do publishing and presentations.
Irony: As I type this message praising MS software, the delete key has stopped working in this IE window.
Re:Marketing is the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
the implementation is SHIT.
that is why.
if MS did a good job at implementing half the crap they added, it wouldbe a good product.
since they do a horrible job at most implementations, their product sucks.
concept and implementation are two very different things.
According to Googlefight ..... (Score:3, Funny)
(156 000 000 results)
versus
microsoft
(188 000 000 results)
The winner is: microsoft
Damn! I guess they can...
Re:According to Googlefight ..... (Score:3, Informative)
Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
People will never say, "don't ask me, Microsoft it."
Re:Too Late (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey buddy, shut your heretical mouth and pass me a kleenex.
Re:Too Late (Score:2)
Re:Too Late (Score:4, Funny)
You may be right. Since most geeks are guys, they'll never use the terms "micro" and "soft" and "it" in the same sentence. Too much ego.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too Late (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a great article about how worried Google is about their brand becoming a generic term. [internet.com]
"Microsoft" is already a verb (Score:5, Funny)
Second Guy: "Oh, that. It Microsofted last night."
First Guy: "Hey, I thought you said your files were secure!"
Second Guy: "Well, somebody Microsofted me over the internet."
First Guy: "You look awful! What the hell happened?"
Second Guy: "I was walking down this dark alley and a couple of punks Microsofted me."
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Informative)
It might if you keep advertizing it ever y day (Score:5, Insightful)
As for overtaking, I don't think it will. They just aren't adding enough new value to make it worth breaking a 5 year long habit of typing google.com
Re:It might if you keep advertizing it ever y day (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsofts engine will have to be phenominally good in order to get people to switch. Google (and Altavista in an earlier stage) could beat the competition by having a really simple and quick-loading interface, along with a good, attractive format to display results in. They could have beaten the competition even if their search results were on par with competing systems (they were better). It will be quite hard to beat Google on either the user experience or search engine.
Here's one of those nice little features of Google: try searching for "5 cc to cubic inches". Google gives you the answer right away... and it also works for converting, say, furlongs to lightyears.
Re:It might if you keep advertizing it ever y day (Score:3, Insightful)
Drawing Parallels (Score:5, Insightful)
IE didn't win the browser war as much as Netscape lost the browser war.
Simply put, Netscape sat on their laurels and watched as Microsoft yanked the rug out from under them. Yes, there was underhandedness involved, but at root, Netscape shoulders most of the blame for having lost the browser war.
Thus far, I don't see any indication that Google is going to repeat Netscape's mistakes. Google continues to run a service that is fast, reliable, and modern. They're aggressively broadening their service base, they've attained the pinnacle of name recognition, and they're not showing any signs of letting up.
Whatever comes, this will not be a simple rehash of Netscape vs. IE.
Re:Drawing Parallels (Score:3, Interesting)
People forget that back in the mid to late 90s that Altavista was the google of the time.
If ms can do something in the search arena then google people will drift over.
Alternative viewpoint. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be that Google is trying to do too much, too fast. What in the world does trying to be a domain registrar have to do with increasing their search capabilities? Plus, Google's research into search AI is not at the level of Microsoft's. (Never, ever underestimate the power of Microsoft Research.) There are some indications that Google may indeed "sit on their laurels" and let Microsoft pass them by.
You have to realize that Microsoft is a very big, very powerful company with an enormous R&D department and a gigantic marketing machine. Google has won both market share and mind share, but both can be taken. Microsoft is in a position to do it. One underestimates at one's own risk.
Re:Alternative viewpoint. (Score:3, Interesting)
A good bit actually. Google isn't planning to sell domain names, supposedly, but instead use the information that is afforded to registrars. For instance, when someone lets a domain expire, Google can look at that and perhaps take that domain out of the search rankings.
Re:Alternative viewpoint. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have access to information of who registered what domain name, they can weed out link farmers much more easily.
Re:Drawing Parallels (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Let us not forget that a very large number of geeks actually moved from Netscape to IE not because it came bundled but because IE 3 (or 4, I can't remember) was actually better than Netscape 4.
I moved from IE to Firefox for the same reason.
Microsoft's big problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a web search added to the regular Windows search. Yes, I know they have a beta of desktop search too. I just don't think they'll be able to effectively pull it off.
They already are using it... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are using their own search with their own advertising system to monetize that advantage. They don't have to be better than Google for that to work, just not completely suck donkeys.
But IE7 might (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll probably still use google. (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google has a head-start, and are presently unencumbered by the bonehead marketers that have ensured that Microsoft produces such sloppy software.
In order to out-take Google, Microsoft would have to adopt it's strictly logical, scientific modus operandi.
uh .. (Score:3, Insightful)
MSN frontpage: umbteen kilobytes of clutter, flash, and totally irrelevant BS.
guess which one im gonna pull up for a simple web search.
Re:uh .. (Score:3, Informative)
MSN frontpage: umbteen kilobytes of clutter, flash, and totally irrelevant BS.
The Microsoft Search engine is not actually pretty clean - it's not the same as the MSN home page: http://search.msn.com/
Re:uh .. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, doh, their web search engine page maybe?
google.com (in my locale)
Size of main page: 1237 bytes
Size of inline elements: 12748 bytes
search.msn.com
Size of main page: 1368 bytes
Size of inline elements: 29201 bytes
A lot of people forget (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple was essentially the Google of the early 80's to late 80's.
Google overcame many GREAT & Powerful names - the main being Yahoo and Lycos to come out on top.
Apple overcame Compaq/HP/IBM (for a while) and was at the 50% of all computers sold for a certain period of time and far greater % in education.
Microsoft has the muscle now and has always had the brute force or dominating power to overcome anyone they set their minds on.
That said, I think Google has the name - MSN Search just doesn't roll off the tongue.
it begs the question (Score:4, Funny)
Who Will Win. (Score:3)
Google is now a verb meaning "to search" (Score:2, Insightful)
Put that in your pipe and Swiff(tm) it.
Hardly (Score:5, Interesting)
nice try, but no cigar.
Re:Hardly (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft wouldn't take 'no' for an a
Re:Hardly (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's usual product pattern is (IMHO):
1.0: Pretty useless and not in the same class as the market leader.
2.0: Not as good as the market leader but you could use it in a pinch.
3.0: About as good as the market leader.
4.0: Market leader fell down stairs or something and mysteriously MS is ahead now.
I would say that MSN search is up to about 2.
Why I dislike MSN search already... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they feel the need to crawl web pages roughly 5 times as much as Google does. I swear their spider has nothing better to do with it's like than to visit my web page for some reason. I only have a few pages, and I get better than 50 hits a day just from the MS spider. Google seems to only hit each page once a day at most. I could see how that could get out of hand if you had a large site, with tons of pages.
Don't get me wrong, I am not worried about bandwidth because of the spider or anything, I just think they could tone down a little. Obviously if I were worried I could do something about it (maybe, depending on how nice it is).
Re:Why I dislike MSN search already... (Score:2)
Because they feel the need to crawl web pages roughly 5 times as much as Google does.
Perhaps the OS their spiders are running on bluescreens every now and then, so they need to rescan freqently between reboots?
Begs the question (Score:5, Informative)
This has been asked before. (Score:2)
Something will beat our currently beloved Google eventually. Whether or not it's a good thing remains to be seen.
I missed the hype (Score:2)
Google only stands one chance (Score:3, Insightful)
limited to a year or two at best. They have to get
as much stuff on the desktop as they can because MS will integrate their search into the OS. They have got to push firefox now, they need to find a way to own a spot on everbodies desktop and right now firefox is the way to do that.
Re:Google only stands one chance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google only stands one chance (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has had an Internet search engine for some time now, and IE has used it as its default and only search engine that whole time, yet Google is the world's #1 search engine.
Sometimes the Right Thing wins: Compare the success of .NET with the success of Java. Compare the success of IIS with the success of Apache.
Google didn't get to be a verb by sucking, and a search engine b
The old does not have to supplant the new (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Softee can't get it up... (Score:2, Insightful)
#1) Google has been branded into people's consciousness as THE way to search the net. While the landscape of search engines is littered with now fallen former champs ala altavista, Google has a ton of momentum behind it as a brand.
As long as they continue to innovate and return the most relevant results, it is very unlikely MSN search will achieve much penetration of this
Can Microsoft Beat Google? (Score:2)
Because Google is really, really good. Netscape lost because it sucked more than IE for a time. Google is better.
That said, I see this being used by people who's lives revolve around MSN instant messenger, to find flash games and ecards (which it will probably be good for). In other words, the people who use the old MSN search already.
Differences (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I have to say that google has a better URL to remember for people on a kiosk etc and need to just pull up a search engine.
Most people think of a web site as 'word' dot com. ie, to remmeber google all you need to remember is the word google.
But for ms
Re:Differences (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot more people are going to trust and use the ms search because it looks like it is part of the OS and "official" in terms of looking like the OS portal to the rest of the Internet. Pretty wise move.
But again, the url is crap. You can "google" a search term. "just google it" etc. But you can't do the same with msn.search.
Microsoft Doesn't Understand (Score:2, Interesting)
I use Google because it gives me accurate search results without all the added crap. I am emphatically uninterested in having an ad for the latest version of Office display when it's totally unrelated to my search material.
Unless Microsoft can think about something other than money for a change, it's not going to happen for them. You and I both know this will never
duh (Score:5, Interesting)
The question, of course, is can MS supplant Google? I doubt it. The reasons:
* Microsoft can't pull a MS Works or similar trick - namely they can't undersell on a poorer product until it hits market saturation
* They can't use proprietary API's or file formats for lock in
* They can't bundle it with their OS
* They can bundle it with their other web services, but when Google trashed Yahoo! many moons ago, it was made clear that superior search engine beats stack of web services.
* MS has no skill making a successful web service. Hotmail and MSNBC are strategic grabs of other services or content (anyone have a counterexample?).
* MS does not seem to have a corporate philosophy that would easily lend itself to Google type ads, which are the only search engine ads I have ever been lulled by. How will MS make a profit?
Of course one has to wonder why they entered the search engine market anyway. I suspect it is simply because it's cool, and much though you may loath them you've got to get MS that. They go where it's cool, even if it's not profitable all the time - they can afford it. Of course, once they are king of a market, they are ruthless about squeezing the rock for all it's water . . .
"They can't bundle it with their OS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I personally think that they don't really want to be in the search engine market - they just don't want to risk Google's brand becoming predominant over theirs...
Re:duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Concerntrate on what's next. (Score:2)
Precedents... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did MS's IE beat Netscape? By integrating IE it into Windows. Don't you think that the MS plans to make this search technology 'hard wired' into future (or even current) Windows releases to circumvent users's access or choice in using Google?
Netscape also had some serious quality control issues which was the final nail into its coffin. I suspect, however, that Google is in a much better position to compete than Netscape ever was. But, they're going to have a serious fight on their hands--it's not about quality, it's all about quantity to Microsoft. The more drones out there who start using MS's search engines because the next Windows iteration pushes Google aside will start to erode at Google's profitability and they will play a long hard war of attrition.
One thing going for MSN (Score:2)
Google being purely a "being in written" doesn't have an identity (yet?) that "speaks" to TV and radio audiences. I for one couldn't imagine what kind of TV ad would Google set up...
Googling (Score:3)
If people are now treating google as a verb, bringing us tantalizingly close to a content-addressable web, how can Microsoft possibly usurp that kind of common recognition? Microsoft is already a verb, too; to do something expensively wrong (perhaps not in as common use as googling).
If all this 'fan-fare' isn't just Microsoft's own manufactured hype, which I believe it is, this will have a polarizing effect on the search industry. Expect AOL and Yahoo to publicly bring in (or restore) one search technology or the other, leaving people like Inktomi in the cold.
MS can win (Score:2)
Google has the market right now. They have the brains, the experience, the technology, and enough funding. They do not have a monopoly on Desktop Operating Systems. Google will lose this fight.
Someone will inevitably point out MS's failure to dominate with the X-box, or in some other venture. Let me make this clear. If the U.S. Justice system remains bought (as they are now) MS can crush anyone in any market dependent upon the desktop. In order to get to Google 90% of all people use Windows. MS can just
He who controls browser controls search (Score:2)
For example they could have a feature that displays the msn search results every time you search any search engine such as google (in a side iframe).
Alternative they could have common search results precached on the browser level so it appears faster.
Even better, Microsoft could use its clout with the media (NBC), Libraries (where Gates donated lots of PCs), and Encarta to integrate their content.
Microsoft has to, gulp, innovate to win (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The domain problem. For those few who do not have a Google bookmark (or have a built-in window a la Safari and Firefox), they can likely type "google.com" into their browser faster than...(they're already typing in their query). "search.msn.com" is just, for lack of a better word, ugly.
Innovation: Microsoft should buy a simple domain as a home for their search. Which brings us to...
3) The branding problem. For a company has huge and rich as Microsoft, they are strangely conservative about protecting the amazingly well-entrenched brand "Windows" (whether that's a valid trademark is an other issue). It's almost as if Microsoft has given up on branding and just "wings it" (Windows Movie Maker? Windows Media 9?). Face it, just adding "Windows" or "Microsoft" or "msn" (ooh, that rolls of the tongue) breaks all the rules of branding. Google is a verb because it is fanciful.
Re:Microsoft has to, gulp, innovate to win (Score:5, Interesting)
For those few who do not have a Google bookmark (or have a built-in window a la Safari and Firefox), they can likely type "google.com" into their browser faster than...(they're already typing in their query). "search.msn.com" is just, for lack of a better word, ugly.
Who says that users must type search.msn.com in their URL text entry field? Microsoft could modify the apps so that everything that doesn't look like a URL will be automatically redirected towards search.msn.com. It would be actually even easier for users to search stuff: just type in what you need and voila, MSN search spits out a page of results.
That's the "beauty" of desktop dominance.
er... (Score:3, Funny)
the way MS can beat google (Score:3, Funny)
{
if( strcmp(lpstrAddress,"www.google.com") == 0)
{
strcpy(lpstrAddress,"www.msn.com");
}
return ResolveToIPAddress(lpstrAddress);
}
A Pale Imitation (Score:2)
The problem is that MSN Search is a direct ripoff of Google. Look at this MSN search page [msn.com] compared to this Google search page [google.com]. The Google UI is simpler and cleaner, and Google has services that MSN doesn't (at least yet).
MSN Search adds nothing that makes the searching experience better (personally I find MSN Search to be less accurate than Google), and it doesn't fundamentally improve on what Google's doing. It's following, not leading.
Google has become a household name and a generic verb. That means t
Hype? (Score:2)
I've seen the usual blurbs in news when a new search engine from a large company is made but nothing exceptional. Not like Gmail-scale hype.
it's not a zero-sum game anymore... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why it's not the same as the browser wars: people do not use two browsers simultaneously. But they can
When I use Google... (Score:2)
Microsoft just can't ever give people that feeling- It's against their nature.
Microsoft need one more little change (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want to load a web portal or a news website, I just want a search box with a "go" button.
Microsoft needs to register www.microsearch.com or something and put a minimalist, google style interface up there.
Neat google trick... (Score:5, Funny)
Take a look at the bottom suggestion....
When MSN search becomes part of Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a desktop application (Score:5, Insightful)
A perfect example of this is Intuit. They've managed to keep Microsoft at bay despite fierce competition. Those flames were fanned when an acquisition of Intuit fell through therefore strengthening Microsoft's resolve.
Nevertheless Intuit is still with unlike lots of MS road kill that comes to mind.
This question to some degree seems pointless. It assumes that somehow Microsoft's desktop monopoly will mean that people will stop using a web application (search) with a brand that has become incredibly powerful.
This seems like a variation on all the claims that Apple was on its death bed eight years ago. In fact I remember seeing NBC News running a story that seemed to echo this industry consensus.
And despite Microsoft's desktop domination, it seems most Microsoft employees (much to the chagrin of MS management) are opting to patronize Apple with its latest creation, the iPod. The story in Wired was featured in Slashdot just recently.
Google is incredibly entrenched in people's minds. It has become a powerful brand. Evidence of this is the fact that people readily use its name as a verb.
Microsoft setting its search engine as the default for whatever future browser they release will *not* cause people to stop using Google.
-M
Too many people are forgetting (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of computer users know of no reason why they should hate Microsoft, when you consider how many people still don't even know what spy/mal/parasiteware is, or the amount of people who don't know what a firewall is or have an up to date virus checker etc.
People are quite happy to use whatever tool is first there (why else would they download so many spyware toolbars?), many millions of people in this world have MSN as their homepage either because they don't know how to change it or they actually use the search functions on there.
Yes Google is very very well known, as is Microsoft and MSN. While the marketing ploy wont work with us geeks, I'll quite happily bet it'll affect large numbers of 'ordinary' computer users.
I love the slick, clean and crisp design of Google but it's amazing the amount of people who prefer a site such as MSN because it's got pretty flashing lights, lots of colour and all the rest of the shit on it.
Just because we're geeks doesn't mean that everyone else thinks like us.
Ugh... MSN is too slow! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope someone does it soon (Score:3, Insightful)
How many wars can Microsoft fight at once? (Score:3, Informative)
Windows server: Sure, some folks buy it, but plenty don't. So far, Microsoft only has about one third [pcpro.co.uk] of this space, and Linux is nipping at its heels. They knifed Windows for Itanium [techspot.com], to the disappointment of both Itanium users.
Server appications: IIS has lost market share to Apache in recent years [netcraft.com], and Exchange isn't ubiquitous yet either. SQL server enjoys showing the web [dragonsurf.com] its limits.
Windows CE/Mobile/Tablet/whatever: Still no monopoly, and since sales of PDAs are shrinking [slashdot.org] and tablet PC's haven't really caught on, even if MS did take over this market...
Game Consoles: XBox did just have its first profitable quarter [theinquirer.net]. Ever. But it doesn't seem to sell so well overseas, and Nintendo and Sony haven't been persuaded to go away yet.
Media: Media Center PC's aren't selling so well [com.com], and in a world with iTuneszilla [itunes.com] stomping around [star-techcentral.com], Windows Media suddenly seems less likely to rule the universe than it did a few years ago, even with "PlaysForSure."
Internet Services: Even with its added features [pcworld.com], MSN Messenger doesn't seem to be destroying AIM or Yahoo Messenger. MSN doesn't seem to be destroying anybody in general, even if Verizon throws it in free with DSL [verizon.com], and even if MSN is the homepage for Internet Explorer. Now Microsoft wants to go after Google, too.
It's pretty interesting to consider that Windows Client and Office are so frickin' profitable that Microsoft can afford to throw gobs of money at their unprofitable products and divisions (which are pretty much everything but Windows Client and Office) and still have huge heaps of cash left over.
(Oh, and I left off Apple [apple.com], because if 95% of the world abruptly switched to Apple, Microsoft is second only to Apple itself in Mac software development, and would still be one of the most profitable companies out there, on sales of Office for Mac [microsoft.com], VirtualPC [microsoft.com], etc. Also, because as long as Apple is out there, and isn't owned by Microsoft, Microsoft can point at it and say "look, there are other choices, we're not that much of a monopoly!" :)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely whoever beats Google is likely to have more power and information (or gain it later) than Google themselves? That would really solve your problem.
Re:Well (Score:2, Funny)
Google is the next Alta Vista.
Re:All the hype? (Score:2)
Re:All the hype? (Score:2)