Login:
Password:

Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

September 9, 2005, 1:15 PM

For the past decade, Microsoft has largely ignored the Web as an emerging platform for application development with fears that it could render Windows obsolete. But that will all change next week, as Microsoft unveils a new strategy for transforming its Web properties into an open platform for developers.

The shift is a direct attack on Google, which has dominated the online space using that very same technique. Most of Google's offering, from its Search to Maps service to Desktop Sidebar all provide methods for third parties to extend -- and improve on -- the technologies.

This new development model, frequently referred to as Web 2.0, relies on modern Web standards and the wide adoption of broadband to facilitate almost instantaneous communication between a client and server. AJAX, or Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, has taken center stage as the programming language of choice for Web 2.0 applications.

As part of its new "Web platform" strategy, Microsoft will expose application programming interfaces, or APIs, for MSN Search using SOAP. Third party applications will be able to access up to 10,000 search results per day. Microsoft's Desktop Search API will also be opened up to outside developers.

Google and Yahoo have long offered access to their search APIs and both companies recently opened up their mapping services, which can be extended by developers for specific uses such as finding cheap gasoline or embedding directions into a Web site.

Microsoft is responding by giving developers free access to its MSN Virtual Earth service using JavaScript. MSN Messenger will also be opened up for companies to extend the communications service. For example, a company could create an add-on that automatically translates instant messages as they are sent.

Adam Sohn, a director in the marketing group at MSN, said on Thursday that Microsoft recognizes its platforms will have more value if more applications are built upon them. And the only way to encourage the development of such applications is to open up the technology to outsiders through APIs and other tools.

One of those tools, code-named "Atlas," will debut next week at Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles. Microsoft will also discuss at the PDC ways developers can extend its new Start.com RSS aggregator.

At the core of Atlas lies the MSN Framework for building applications atop Microsoft's Web properties such as the next version of Hotmail and MSN Spaces. The object-oriented JavaScript framework will enable Microsoft developers to more quickly build features into MSN sites. Atlas will also closely be tied to ASP.NET 2.0 and Avalon, the presentation framework in Windows Vista.

But because many Web 2.0 applications reside in the Web browser, the underlying operating system essentially becomes irrelevant. That shift could pose a significant risk for Microsoft, analysts say, as the world becomes more connected and less reliant on desktop-only services.

Sohn, however, downplayed the risk to Microsoft's core Windows and Office businesses. He explained that Windows-based clients would be able to take advantage of the MSN platforms just as easily as those on the Web. Windows Vista, for example, will include native support for RSS and encourage the development of "connected" applications.

Add a Comment (76 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By indoguys

edited Sep 12, 2005 - 4:57 AM

MS never ever pushed or forced me to use their service. It is ME MYSELF who can say YES or NO. That means, i have no influnece on my phone company using MS. So indirectly I'm a MS user of course if I pick up the phone handset. But is that bad? Do they force me? No I even don't think about it as it works just fine and that's all about it. Relative again, one doesn;t go without the other. I'm 43 so I know MS did change the consumer and later pro market, I was there right from the beginning.

Did you know IBM was the one who came up with DOS, and helped MS to establish Windows? Till today DOS is a part of Windows. Now you see how close companies interests are? I guess your using CD's, DVD's whatever. Call it in this case LASERDISK. Did you know the (CD) LASERDISK is invented by Philips? And till the current date all companies world wide have to pay Philips for using this invention? Do we talk about monopoly? Mmm... See one washes the hands of the others and the big players know to well that they need each other. And also Philips doesn't throw out the bucks by saying ah well use it for free, we don't need our share.
Back to Google. Do some personal research, if you ever went over one of the Google pages your catched by BIG BROTHER GOOGLE as no other in the market right now Google is collecting all data. If your not using anything like Hide IP or so your forced by Google to see the Google pages in your language or at least related to your language. Data at Google, your private behaviour in surfing or what ever you do in Google, is stored in the Google database, no way to get out again, your stored till the end of Google times. Read the Google terms & conditions carefully please they came up with quite some nifty stuff. Have a look of how Google is penetrating the market right now you would be amazed! You would feel forced!

Why shouldn't Google or MS defend that what they made or invented, till what point in your opinion is a company starting to get a monopoly? Because they came up with the best, the most? If I start a business in making shoes should I stay in that and only making shoes? Not having any ideas to build out my shoe store to a supermarket? I see many Japanese companies making cars but also the radio's in it. Now you would say, yes but I have the freedom to replace the radio... Sure you do, however there are parts on the car you can't replace as also the car company want's to protect their interest.

Did you know MS is delivering Windows for free or very low rates at 3rd World countries? Knowing they otherwise never would have a change to use it? Read... not getting the opportunity to educate their children? Education a part of getting out of poverty? MS (Bill Gates)is the biggest donator world wide! Knowing that he never ever could use 4 billion dollars just for himself. Now Google me up with this one ;-)

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Sep 12, 2005 - 3:11 AM

No one forces you to use MS products or google products. Be an individual. As a linux user and a windows user and a mac user, I can honestly say you get the best overall experience with windows, with mac a very close second and linux trailing way behind. Google is NOT going to out-do MS, so get over it. Microsoft has a lot of money and a lot of pull. Bill Gates is a genius businessman and that CANNOT be denied (I am not saying HE is a genius). Sure, Bill gates may have profited off of the creations of others...but so has every great innovator throughout history...and so did macintosh actually...can you say xerox? Gmail is great, google talk is promising (jabber=excellent), But dont count on a Google OS being on every PC for a very long time. Once (if) MS finally begins opening the source for their programs...there will be a whole new world of possibility. Google may be the lesser of two evils, but I dont see bill shaking in his 80 billion dollar boots.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 3:59 AM

I agree with the majority of your post, except the reference to "evils". Neither of these companies are evil, either in lesser or greater status.

Score: 0

By Jacen

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 11:50 PM

Microsoft is evil because it abuses it's market share.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 6:58 AM

Neither of these companies are evil.

Score: 0

By indoguys

edited Sep 11, 2005 - 4:57 AM

Dear Yokozuna... All is relative is this world maybe it would help you, and many others, a bit further. What is good for you maybe wouldn't be good for me. I like it how MS worked them self up to what they are right now, they brought a lot of jobs for the Americans in the first place and later for so many more people in the rest of the world. Good or wrong it is all relative. You can be a criminal stealing money from people and your mother maybe would justify that, because you’re her son. Someone else however would cut your hand right away, in some countries quite normal you see. I live in Bali Indonesia and if you get caught from stealing something in a store, big change you get killed on the spot, nobody will cry, not the police, not the government not the Balinese. So relative all so relative it is just how you see things for yourself. What was normal 1000 years ago is condemned right now, what was condemned 1000 years ago is normal right now. All what brings joy now those days is right away damned by lots of people, no comment just like that. All what should be joy able however should be received with open arms. See it is just easy as that. Microsoft did open up the home computer market and far beyond that, without MS the world look just much different, be happy American power plants run on MS, so as many other big companies where every American somehow direct or indirect uses MS services from. Some people screaming "Get all American products out of my country" they don't know what they say as their country wouldn't have much left without these American products. (I'm not American by the way). I get yellow and green of people here writing just comments without any logical thinking they just write because they probably have nothing else to do as putting their own country or brains to a lower level. Tough also this one, it is al relative of course and a personal matter.
MS has some bad parts, sure. Google has the good thing in being still a leader in the search engine market, tough privacy and Google is a big word now those days as they collect more information from people as any other company right now on the Internet. Good or bad? Relative as everybody should know that the Internet doesn’t allow anybody to be private, your personal information is like a open door as soon if you start to browse the WWW. Surf around and test it all out for yourself, if you’re good in searching on Google big change your personal info is found within 5 minutes! EASY!
Parties like Google and MS fighting for the bone, sure they do as they run multi milliard businesses and want to keep it that way. It is all about the $$$ and everybody who doesn't want to see this should have a better look at how business in 2005 works. Competition is good and both Google and MS know that. It is a old fact in sales that you can’t do well without having competition. It is the motor for companies to produce more, better etc.
The consumer should feel lucky to have companies like Google and MS. Suppose you still had one phone company in the States, wow you would pay sky high rates at the end of the month believe me. VOIP is a good example, a very good one as the phone companies do get another kick in the a** right now and are forced to lower their rates. Who wins? Sure the consumer! YOU!

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Sep 11, 2005 - 7:46 AM

Honestly speaking, I do not care if any company is American, German, Japanese or whatever else.
It is not important, at least from my point of view. There are some American IT companies which I respect much like Google or IBM, and there are some which I do not like e.g. Microsoft. BTW, it applies to every country and every industry.
What I dislike is the policy of some companies. I know, I know, companies in general are not for profit of the public, but they are for the profit of their stockholders. The problem is that some companies and their policy remind me drug dealers. The thing is that drug dealers do not try to defend their deeds "we do not kill anyone, drugs do. But we do not produce them!"
Google does not force anyone to use any their products to use their services and vice versa. Microsoft does.
I strongly believe that competition stimulates progress. I oppose the belief of some people that Microsoft opened the PC market. If so planned economy, de facto monopoly would be the best way of production. Imagine that all SUV cars are made by Jeep. Would it stimulate the quality of the product or not? Imagine that all graphic cardswould be made by NV, Martox or ATI. Would it make the market better? Some people would enjoy that they do not have problems from where to download drivers, but look a bit broader.
Google starts to monopolise the market of search engines. It is not good, definately not. Most probably it will be a problem in the future (what is visible in China where Yahoo and Google adheres the line of the party and submits the names of disidents. I know not every country is a totalitarian regime, but it shows that concentrating some pieces of information in one hand is bad). But, at least, Google plays fair in that sense, that does not force to use a bunch of their products. Ms does.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 11, 2005 - 9:34 PM

I've never been "forced" by MS to do anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "opened the PC market", but MS played a large role (and Apple a lesser one) in bringing the use of computers to a great many people who were otherwise daunted by the technical knowledge necessary to use one. That has NOTHING to do with whether monopolies are better than competition, it has to do with a relative few companies identify a market and providing a product for it. That's not a debateable issue of "belief", that's fact.

Second, you appear to be blaming MS for the lack of ingenuity and innovation of others. There are other OS's out there, other browsers, etc., that people can choose to use, and if people recognized them to be better for their uses, they would use them. But other companies have yet to provide certain products that represent a better value to them on a large scale. Mozilla is certainly making a small impact with Firefox, which is what I use for a browser.

There are other office suites out there, but as yet, MS makes the suite that most folks prefer to use. And MS came up from behind WordPerfect, who was at the time a juggernaut in that budding type of application.

Personally, I don't care who "likes" or "dislikes" any given company, in this case MS. Their preferences don't change certain facts about how much MS has done for the PC world.

Without going through the whole analogy, I heard a comparison between atheletes and businessmen. If your an athelete, and you work hard, and you endeavor to beat your opponents, you get cheered on. If you are a businessman who pursues your occupation with the same committment and vigor, you are viewed as evil and greedy.

Like I said before, some folks just hate success.

Score: 0

By eviljolly

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 10:25 PM

I miss the days when I had 20 different search engines to try. Google makes things too easy :(

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:36 PM

Hurray for competition!!! We all win. If either one "crushes" the other, we all lose in the end.

Score: 0

By etrjbr

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 8:10 AM

Well, Google does NOT respect some important "recommendations" and "standards".

With the amount of PhDs in Computer Science and top-level "brain power" in the company they can not even produce their main page with correctly written HTML. Validate it by
http://validator.w3.org/...pe=Inline&verbose=1

(M$ is much worse but this is no excuse)

Score: 0

By netwiz562

posted Sep 11, 2005 - 12:07 AM

People often reference W3C validation as making a site compatible and standards compliant, but that should not be your goal in web development.

First priority: make sure it looks good in as many browsers as possible, in order of popularity of course; standards compliancy comes second.

I have never seen Google's site look bad/different in one of the major used browsers (IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari etc). Therefore is is being "compliant", compliant with the real world. Sure it is nice to follow standards to help push others to, but that is not the most important thing.

I my self am a web developer, and most of my sites are XHTML 1.0 compliant, but after making many sites I see really no benefit in this. I am hoping someday it will help, but today this really makes no difference. It just increases development time as I have to make my site compliant with Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari AND the XHTML Standard. Its like having a super sensative browser to be compliant with in addition to everything else as none of the browsers truely follow standards.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Sep 11, 2005 - 7:15 PM

I would go as far as to say that Standards are second to functionality.

Does the site accomplish the task and provide the functionality you expect it to? If so, then your site design is right on the money.

Does it look and act the way you expect it to regardless of browser being used? If so, then you're good to go. If not, then you have some tweaking and bug-fixing to do. If not, check your visitor logs... if 98% of your users are using IE, and 1.5% using Firefox, and .5% using Safari... then that's your target audience. Who cares about a browser that never sees the page you're developing? I mean, if it's an Intranet site for your business, and your company forces the use of Firefox only... then so be it... the site only needs to support Firefox. If you're a company that only sells products for Windows... do you really need Safari to display your pages right? IE and Mozilla-- and you're good to go.

Bottom Line-- If your site provides the function it was intended to have, and if it looks and acts the way you expect it to, then all else is irrelevant. Standards are great... but if everything we did was "standard" then nothing would be exceptional.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Sep 12, 2005 - 3:14 AM

I do not think it is functional, at least for one third of the users: http://www.w3schools.com...sers/browsers_stats.asp (imagine that something, which is claimed "available for everyone", is not available for the inhabitants of California, Texas, Illinois, Mass. and NY, which means that around one third of the States. If you are from Europe imagine that not available for Germans, the British, and the French. Already imagined?) Moreover, alternative solutions gain popularity, so it means that the way of thinking strongly enforces the current strongest player in the market.

BTW, I am pasting an article describing what I already wrote. I know many such websites. Ironically, most of them are governmental or state sites.

FEMA Aid Site Blocks Access To Firefox, Macs, Linux Users
Sept. 7, 2005
By Gregg Keizer
Information Week


The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), already the subject of sharp criticism in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, may find itself chastised further for restricting access to its online assistance site to Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer users.

To file a claim online at FEMA's Individual Assistance Center, where citizens can apply for government help, the browser must be IE 6.0 or later with JavaScript enabled.

That cuts out everyone running Linux or the Mac operating systems, as well as Windows users running alternate browsers such as Firefox or Opera.

When TechWeb tested the site using Windows XP and Firefox 1.0.6, the message "In order to use this site, you must have JavaScript Enabled and Internet Explorer version 6. Download it from Microsoft or call 1-800-621-FEMA (3362) to register" popped up on the screen.

Attempts to contact a FEMA representative were unsuccessful.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Copyright Office came under fire for a similar limitation when it said that its soon-to-be-launched revamped site will allow only Internet Explorer and a version of Netscape Navigator to access a copyright preregistration system.

In late August, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Daniel J. Weitzner of the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) sent a letter to the U.S. Copyright Office, accusing the agency for locking out large numbers of users and for violating federal information policies.

"The proposed system would be contrary to at least the spirit of federal information policy adopted by the E-Government Act of 2002," wrote Berners-Lee and Weitzner.

Users looking to file claims online for government help must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later with JavaScript enabled. That blocks everyone running Linux, Apple Macintosh computers, and Windows users running alternate browsers such as Firefox or Opera.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Sep 12, 2005 - 7:18 AM

Hey, FEMA's developers had to have known what they were doing... they made a choice. There was no gun against their head here, so don't kid yourself.

The site worked perfectly... if you used what they expected you to use. If you made the choice to use something else, you live with the consequences... plain and simple.

Is that a poor choice for FEMA? Yeah, but then governments the world over make bad choices all the time... just look at everyone from Caesar to Napoleon to King Henry and King George to Bill Clinton to George Bush.

And btw... bit your quitchin about FEMA... the site very clearly states their requirements and offers an alternative (by means of a TOLL FREE NUMBER!) method of making your donation if you don't use IE. It's not at all like they say it's IE or bust.

*Edit*: Let me just pose another thought-- Why on earth would anyone want to donate through FEMA anyway? Seems to me like there are plenty of other agencies out there doing the same thing... just pick one!

Score: 0

By Hexatomb

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 4:06 PM

Most Content managment systems will not properly validate due to usability functionality. I would rather have a sweet running CMS than half the options and a perfect validation.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 5:26 AM

Well, I have to write that I love Google because of one plain thing; the company, contrary to Ms, respects international standards, so I do not have any problems with working with them. It is very important if you work in multilingual environment. Ms recognises only their own standards. Some people do not realise that Ms washes their brain intensively. I will give you an example. Yesterday, I wanted to go there: http://www.fema.gov and donate some money for the victims. It is impossible if you do not use IE 6.0.

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Sep 12, 2005 - 3:13 AM

Thats not microsofts fault.

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 1:13 PM

awesome point

Score: 0

By mlevit

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 5:37 AM

That is not Microsofts fault. That is the fault of the website developer.

Please dont blame Microsoft for someone elses stupidity (or yours)

Score: 0

By yokozuna

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 10:58 AM

You are right, it is not the problem of Ms only. The problem is that some people (and the aggresive marketing of Microsoft) believe that Microsoft is the only player in IT industry. No wonder if Ms Windows is used in 90% of desktop computers, so I can understand Ms somehow. The problem arises whem somebody starts to believe that the state of monoculture is something inherited. It is not, moreoer, it is abnormal.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:35 PM

The "fault" can only be attributed to MS competitors NOT returning equally aggressive marketing, products and support. Providing only one of the three is not enough to woo people off of what they already feel comfortable with. Everyone bashes MS for marketing too heavily, but that's what a BUSINESS is supposed to do. They are not stewards or "committees", even if they portray themselves as such. They are a BUSINESS. Businesses SELL by using AGRESSIVE MARKETING. If you open a magazine and it's 90% filled with ads by MS (I'm being generous of course), you can only ask why the competition didn't pay for equal (or more) ad space. You can't possibly blame MS for doing that, it's what they're supposed to do.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Sep 11, 2005 - 2:20 AM

Do not you think that state agencies should resist aggresive marketing and choose different solutions according the real value of the product, not marketing mumbo-jumbo? I do not blame Microsoft actually, I blame the way of thinking "oh, it is the most popular, so it must be the best". IE is the most popular (around 80% market share). Is it the best? I do not think so.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 7:51 PM

My opinion is that the state should stay entirely out of the marketplace. Their only function should be to mediate contract disputes, breaches, etc.

How do you determine the "real" value of something, when values are not universal? Value is individual, it's personal, and NOT the same from one person to the next. YOU don't think based on your values that IE is the best, but others do. Terms like "best" used in this context are relative, and as such are largely opinions, not facts.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:59 PM

Thank you. I'm glad someone else around here understands business and Capitalism.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 4:23 AM

Kushan, you couldn't have said it better. There are people in this world that are so bitter and jaded with everything that all they can do is complain, even when there's nothing to complain about.
It's so very simple....if you hate MS so much....use a Mac. If you hate Google so much....use Yahoo. But don't come into a place like this to comment on the article at hand and go off on how evil Google is and how greedy MS is. It's ridiculous....and it makes it difficult for people who want to talk about the article to do so.

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 1:21 PM

"talk about this article" like you just did by complaining about my post, How friggin ironic.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 3:43 AM

It's amazing how people hate success.

Long live MS and Google!!

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 12:42 PM

Do you consider it success when the Gas stations are charging you $6.00+ per gallon for gas because your reliant on it... Hmmm.

No that's not success, it's price gauging.

That's just my humble opinion though.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:39 PM

Oh, and to answer your question, yes I do consider it a success (generally) to be the CEO of a major fuel organization.

Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. - Ayn Rand

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:35 PM

It's capitalism, deal with it. You can always go to a more socialist-oriented country where you're less likely to be able to afford a car, and gas already was that high to begin with.

Do I like it? No, but understand it and accept it.

Score: 0

By Matrix3000k

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 2:29 AM

just another way for microsuck taking over. i agree with you there robertguda. I wonder whats next??? an MSN Model Car in the Automotive Industry. I wouldn't be surprised!!!!! or Maybe an Airplane by MSN airways!!!!!

Score: 0

By robertguda

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:31 AM

why should microsoft have to outgoogle google ? dont they have a strategy of their own ? true creative competition between those three, msn, google, yahoo can result in us users being winners in the end. (supposedly)

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:17 AM

hmm, i've blocked MSN from indexing my site :-P

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Sep 12, 2005 - 3:13 AM

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Score: 0

By netwiz562

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 11:57 PM

thats just stupid, doesn't hurt them just prevents them from providing you with free marketing

Score: 0

By indoguys

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 9:45 PM

Yeah Google is great: http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:32 PM

You sure keep it all interesting with your conspiracy theories dude.

Have you ever stopped to think how much revenue Microsoft makes for the GOV.

Score: 0

By engucator

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 2:39 PM

I don't mind people arguing about Google's privacy policies, but at least be aware of rhetorical fallacies in sites you quote from. It ends up making you look a little silly.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 7:21 PM

I think someone is saying that Microsoft has now Jumped The Shark...

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 7:20 PM

I'm sick and tired off Microsoft, with their over inflated price on everything. I feel Microsoft is taking advantage of all of us who have become reliant on computers, and all of its competitors that they feel are a threat. It seems like they use others ideas and have way too much money to try and litigate with.

Google is awesome, and if they develop an OS of their own, I'd be the first one to jump on the band wagon and give Microsoft the finger.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:48 PM

So you're blaming MS because YOU have failed to diversify YOUR talents/skills/abilities enough to make YOURSELF marketable to other occupations?

I understand now. Here's a life lesson for you, the ability to adapt is a key component of success and survival.

Score: 0

By Matrix3000k

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:31 AM

lol thats a great comment there bro. have you given linux a thought? if not you should. I have Microsuck office 2003 running flawlessly in an emulator and linux dose everything that winblows dose today. check it out go to http://www.distrowatch.com and check out the differnt distros that fit you the best!!!

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:47 PM

Why not use OpenOffice instead? It's free and still offers compatibility with Office....

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:26 PM

thanks for the link, I'll give it a try.

Score: 0

By Kushan

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 11:55 PM

Do you know how stupid that comment really is?

I mean this ENTIRE article is about Microsoft opening up thier stuff so that people can freely modify them for their own use and stuff (EXACTLY like what google does) and you post saying how Microsoft overprices stuff, it makes no sense and was just a cheap stab at Microsoft.

If you really dislike them, go install Linux or buy a Mac. There is nothing FORCING you to use Windows or any Microsoft software for that matter.

And FYI, I'm not a fan of microsoft in the slightest.

Score: 0

By JonDavisX

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 1:03 PM

Cheap stab in the dark or however you may have taken my comment, is up to you.
I'm merely pointing out the Business ethics of Microsoft. Did you hear about the guy Mike Roe, and how Microsoft was suing him for his web site MikeRoeSoft. Well only until it became a P.R. issue did Microsoft back down.

I know I'm not representing everyone on this issue. Its just my opinion, and I feel M.S. will either snuff out or buy out Google.

You Said.

"I mean this ENTIRE article is about Microsoft opening up thier stuff so that people can freely modify them for their own use and stuff (EXACTLY like what google does)"

It just seems as if M.S. Is always making bread off of others ideas.

Score: 0

By Kushan

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 3:37 PM

And if you ran a business and a rival firm came up with a really good idea, would you let your pride get in your way or would you copy them? Microsoft does it, yes. So does Google, Apple, Pepsi cola, practically every company out there - it's business.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:33 AM

IMO....
google and others offer api's for their stuff to run on industry standard web standards. if MS enters the race, their past history will show to us that they will offer proprietary technologies that differ from industry standards just enough to make anything non-ms incompatible. I think it's a mistake if ms is allowed to extend their dominating position in the computer software industry to the web where there are other operating systems accessing a known standard.
Using an arguement that "well the others can just recode for the new technologies" is not a valid arguement as why should the world revolve around what microsoft says. the whole purpose of the established stanrds is to allow for diversity.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:57 PM

Mistake for who... or perhaps, towards whom?

Certainly not for Microsoft--- it's an excellent business strategy that makes them billions of dollars resulting from their products being used by millions of users the world over.

Certainly not a mistake for companies who make business decisions to use one product over another for productivity.

Certainly not for the consumers who have many opportunities and choices resulting in a vast plethora of benefits and functionality.

So again I ask... for whom is this a mistake?

Score: 0

By Matrix3000k

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 2:32 AM

you rock bro

Score: 0

By Kushan

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 3:38 PM

Thank you ^_^

Score: 0

By ne0alch3mist

edited Sep 9, 2005 - 4:26 PM

i think google should make an OS

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Sep 9, 2005 - 5:20 PM

http://www.gizmodo.com/g...e/google-os--123473.php

'Nuff said.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:34 PM

I think you should read the update on that... it was determined to be a fake.

Score: 0

By mehvii

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 3:10 PM

Poor Microsoft, I almost pitty them, but I don't. This is just giving Google more credibility, with MS getting so desperate all of a sudden and such. To that I say Kudos to Google.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Sep 9, 2005 - 3:25 PM

> Third party applications will be able to access up to 10,000 search results per day.

That's really quite pathetic, actually. Our group of 5 people get well 10,000 results in a matter of hours(or less). I really hope they are referring to searches, and not results. 10,000 results is rather limiting.

And here I though they were just going to throw chairs at them... ;)

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 3:37 PM

I'd guess 10,000 results per IP/program, or something.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Sep 9, 2005 - 5:19 PM

That's still damn low. Run a search for a hot topic (Headline) on google. It'll cut you off at 1000 results. Do 10 of those, and you're done.

And that's only if it is not counting the results it's not showing you. In which case, on a headline, you're looking at 1 total search, bud.

Not cool.

Score: 0

By blazo

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:00 AM

I agree with PhoenixPath that 10,000 searches or results is inadequate.

The 10,000 search restriction won't hold water. If MS wants to compete with Google they will do what they have to. MS is concerned, IMHO, with scalability and is placing the restriction for fear of over-running their capacities.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:30 PM

Just out of curiosity... when was the last time you looked at more than 100 results on Google? 500? 1000?

When was the last time you cited 10,000 sources (we won't even distinguish between legitimate, valid sources and counter-arguments and irrelevant nonsense) for an argument you were trying to make or research you were conducting?

Score: 0

By netwiz562

posted Sep 11, 2005 - 12:00 AM

I believe it is 10,000 search queries not results (article is badly worded) and have you looked at what Google API limits you to: 1,000.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 11, 2005 - 11:08 AM

Yes, I understand that... but please read what I asked... When was the last time you (or anyone else) actually took advantage of that many?

In my experience, I do a search, and it returns 10-20 pages of results, and if it doesn't appear on the first 3-4 pages, I say to hell with it and try a different search parameter because the results are supposed to get less and less relevant. I know for a fact that on those first 2 pages, only a handful of results are relevant, and there are some that are simply a complete waste.

Furthermore, I may perform up to 4-5 searches before I say screw it and create my own solution, but no way do I sit there for anywhere close to 100 searches (let alone 1,000+)... so results or searches it makes no difference... I simply don't know anyone who would reasonably hit such a limit.

The irony here is that both Google and Microsoft likely realize this too. Afterall, they perform a lot of tracking from their server logs and records to determine these kinds of things. Google did calculations to determine a limit that they felt would rarely be reached... Microsoft is trying to one-up Google by going a power of 10 higher.

Don't take that statement as a criticism of Microsoft or Google... it's not... the competition between these two giants is wonderful, and we're going to get a lot of benefits out of this. There's no reason to sit here and bash Microsoft or Google for increasing and expanding the options they're giving us.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 12, 2005 - 11:06 AM

I think we're hitting the wall here based on a badly worded article.

My original impression was that you were limited in the number of returned results...wether you licked through them or not. In which case, a single search could ruin your day.

It appears as though they are talking in terms of actual quesries here, and not returned results. The article could definately have been worded better.

Score: 0

By Jacen

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 2:00 PM

Can Microsoft outgoogle Google? I doubt it.

Web services such as Yahoo, MSN, and Google are free, so I don't see how Microsoft would survive. I know I'm not paying for a webservice.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Sep 12, 2005 - 11:41 AM

MSN is Microsoft...

Score: 0

By mrmagik

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 4:08 PM

Eventually you will have to. Much like now you pay for an Operating System.

Score: 0

By Jacen

edited Sep 10, 2005 - 9:07 AM

I don't pay for an operating system ^_^ Linux is free

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 10, 2005 - 12:31 PM

How capitalistic of you! :) But seriously, good job for taking advantage of your choices and options.

Score: 0

By brinkeguthrie

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 7:16 PM

Ah, what about a Y!Browser? or a GBrowser? Tho I have to say, I use the SBC Yahoo DSL service, and the SBC Yahoo version of IE is GREAT. A real improvement.

Score: 0

By jazar

edited Sep 11, 2005 - 2:58 PM

the GBrowser already exists: Firefox.

Manu
http://www.jazar.co.uk

Score: 0