Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bing Loses More Money As Microsoft Chases Google

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the cannibalizing-the-partner dept.

Microsoft 317

angry tapir writes "Microsoft posted strong results for the third quarter of its 2010 fiscal year, largely thanks to sales of Windows 7. But the company continues to suffer heavy losses in its Online Services Division [warning: obnoxious interstitial] as it tries to match Google in the online search and advertising market. ... The division's quarterly loss grew by 73 percent to $713 million, compared to a loss of $411 million during the same period last year."

cancel ×

317 comments

sure we lose money on every deal... (5, Funny)

haus (129916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993302)

... but we make it up in volume!

Re:sure we lose money on every deal... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993340)

How much of those losses involved the large volume of advertising they've put into Bing?

Re:sure we lose money on every deal... (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993654)

Or the deal with Verizon that forced Bing on Blackberry users...

Competing Isn't Cheap (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993330)

Competing on the world stage isn't cheap. I do find it surprising that MS lost $713 on its "Online Services Division", but keep in mind not all of that is search/anti-Google. They are rolling out their "Office LIve" stuff as well as pushing their version of the "cloud".

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (2, Insightful)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993432)

True. I know of people who actually enjoy using Microsoft's online services. They're not the crappiest out there any more.

I could see Microsoft carving themselves a slice of the online market - perhaps not large enough to make an impact though. Having Google spread its self over so many fronts helps their cause.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (1)

linumax (910946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993748)

I use Skydrive [live.com] . It's 25 GB of free space, simple UI and pretty fast upload/download speeds.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31994294)

Skydrive is useful if you have a lot of small-medium size files, but I personally find the free version of Google Docs better, even with the 1GB limitation, as there is no size limit on files uploaded.

Google Sites (for free Apps Standard Edition) is more similar to Skydrive: 10GB space/10MB files.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (2, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993950)

The problem with claims about the quality of M$'s online stuff, is the double speak inherent in those losses. Most of those losses are driven by advertising costs, M$ paying other online and old world media companies to advertise the quality of M$'s advertising but if M$'s advertsing is so good why are they spending all that money advertising else where.

The reality is that the aggressive M$, dog eat dog, prove your profit basis, employment conditions, marketing, where accountants and lawyers take total precedence and creative people are driven away to their competitors, means the company operates in a creativity vacuum and filling that vacuum with PR=B$ claims of the opposite does not make it true. Anybody that challenges the Steve Ballmer ideology is driven from the company.

So can MSN expand, certainly, all it has to do is drop M$ and the Ballmer crowd and head off in it's own direction. Forget all the B$ make the executives look good name changes, forget about being a marketing arm for the rest of M$, embrace the coolness of FOSS and leave behind the dead weights of windows, zune, bing and especially Steve Ballmer.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (2, Funny)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994094)

Anybody that challenges the Steve Ballmer ideology is driven from the company.

No shit, he said, forgetting to post anonymously.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (3, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993460)

Isn't Office Live a response to Google Docs?

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993502)

Unfortunately for them, Microsoft's "Online Services Division" has a deeper fundamental problem than merely losing money.

That is, much of the money that they do manage to make, they make by cannibalizing MS server products sales. Now, I'm sure that they'd rather cannibalize their own server product sales than have Google/Amazon/assorted 3rd party penguin swarm datacenters eat them, cannibalism beats starvation after all; but that is still sort of a depressing mandate.

Their only "greenfield", so to speak, revenue opportunities are search(at which they are fairly tepid) or in providing "the-first-hit-is-really-cheap, also granular" access to various MS services(Exchange, Sharepoint, MS SQL, etc.) to tiny outfits that can't afford to do them in house(and, given SKUs like Small Business Server, we are talking pretty small outfits).

not just online services (4, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993990)

MS may have bigger problems than just the online services division. For example, statcounter is currently showing four straight weeks [statcounter.com] of flat usage share for windows 7 in north america. If this is really a trend or if statcounter is flubbing their surveys remains to be seen. But if it's true, it means that win7 doesn't even seem to be able to cannibalize old OSes very well. I would say it's depressing for MS, but they're raking in bajillions of dollars every quarter still, which is more than me.

Re:not just online services (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994034)

Windows development was completed with XP. Since then Microsoft have been looking for reasons for people to upgrade. Before XP the next release was always better than the last.

Re:not just online services (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994088)

thats about quite right. people dont need to upgrade anymore.

Re:not just online services (3, Insightful)

Gerald (9696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994102)

...until Office drops support for XP, that is.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (5, Interesting)

meinhut (533063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993546)

This is the easiest question around. We all know search engines save info on us when we use them. Who do you trust? Micro$oft or Google. Every time I ask this question everybody says "Google." Bing will never get past this question.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (1, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993766)

Perhaps you are a bit more biased than most, and your friends by nature are also biased? I'm mainly stating this in reference to your "Micro$oft" spelling. I generally find using such slurs akin to political mudslinging.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (1)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994152)

Neither

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (4, Interesting)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994170)

If you were to ask me, I would say Microsoft(no $ in there, by the way). I do not trust Google at all. It is not that I trust Microsoft so much as I do not trust Google at all. The fact that Google is just an advertising company that does search compared to Microsoft actually having products to support itself is a major factor in my decision.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (1)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993600)

This is exactly right. This simply reflects an increase in investment in OSD, an investment executives assume will pay off down the road. And even looking at Bing over the last year, they've made some pretty major improvements.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993612)

Which is pretty much directly in competition with Google. Google has had their Docs platform out for years, and personally, despite thinking at first that it was neat, but useless, I've basically converted to Google Docs for all my personal use (naturally it's still "real" MS Office at work).

Very little of what I do in such documents is private/sensitive information - heck often it's stuff I'd like to share. It's also often stuff that I want a backup of. Google Docs provides me with access to those documents from anywhere with an internet connection, and my documents are always backuped up and safe.

I'm not going to pull out the old cliche "the desktop is dead", because it isn't, and that won't likely be the case for many years (decades - if ever), but it's importance IS becoming greatly diminished, and Google seems to be much more tuned into that than Microsoft.

In the end, Microsoft isn't being beaten by the Linux desktop, or OpenOffice.org, or any of the directly competing programs the OSS community has tried to create. Instead, it's just loosing relevance and being beaten by other companies in new markets.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (1)

Keybase (156846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994322)

Ya losing relevance. There. Fixed that for you. :P

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (3, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993838)

What surprises me most is this.

Time and again MS is trying to enter a market, only to sustain huge losses in the beginning. Now Bing, before the Zune (ended in failure), the Xbox (lost a lot of money, still alive though, can't imagine it has made them any money overall even if it would be profitable by now), and before I'm sure they lost heaps of money entering the office suite market with OpenOffice, the webmail market with Hotmail, and so on. Only their OS business has made a constant profit it seems. And Office is doing well as well. But that's it.

On the other hand I have never heard about serious losses on Apple's side around the introduction of the iPod. Sure they lost money on some products, but not this kind of numbers.

Google came out of nothing: they started up in a dorm room, came with a good product, and won the hearts and minds of the world and grew from there to become the behemoth they are now.

Sun has likely lost money on development of StarOffice, now OpenOffice.org, but their product is steadily making inroads and I don't think they are still pumping much money in it. If only because they're not such a rich company any more.

Netscape burnt and died, and from its ashes Firefox has risen. Making heaps of money, going strong, doing well.

Now for the examples above you may give counter examples of failures but it seems MS is the king. They have so much money, they can buy their way into any market they like (and they do), but they can not come up with anything innovative, anything desirable.

"Competing on the world stage" may not be cheap, but I think it may help if Microsoft starts to develop their own products and their own ideas, instead of an "iPod killer", a "Google competitor", etc. That seems to me a failure from the start. You have to have your own product that stands on its own, and is not targeting a specific existing product. "Netscape killer" Internet Explorer won due to lock-in and abuse of monopoly, not for being better than Netscape. Microsoft for some reason doesn't manage to compete on quality and on merit, they just try to solve those issues by throwing a lot of money at it. And that's a waste in more ways than one. We need innovation - no matter where it comes from, but MS is not exactly a company that is innovative these days.

Re:Competing Isn't Cheap (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993988)

It's not about competing. They're trying to buy marketshare. If they spent $713M into making a good product (and they know how to do it) by being honest for once, they'd be in the black.

cmdrtaco loses more sperm as hemos blows him (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993338)

lol

Re:cmdrtaco loses more sperm as hemos blows him (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993438)

But that's offset by the pint of bull semen CmdrTaco drinks every day with his vitamins.

Because... (4, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993344)

the Bing results page feel like one of those typosquatter's "featured" results.

Re:Because... (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993610)

I often thought that Yahoo and Microsoft just violated the KISS rule. Yahoo.com comes from the "web portal" days of AOL and seems determined to die with it. Bing.com, to their credit, seems to have learned the lesson finally that people like Google's minimalism and just slaps a background image on it to differentiate their service somehow, but I don't like their results that much and what they do well isn't that different from what Google delivers. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

Re:Because... (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993798)

Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

iFind: Apple tells you what you want instead of what you think you want to find.
   

Re:Because... (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993936)

Oddly, one feature Bing beats Google on is that its API [bing.com] has a much more generous license, allowing you to use results in non-user-facing apps like scripts; to reorder or filter results or mix them with results from other sources; etc. Google's API only allows you to [google.com] republish its results, unchanged, within a user-facing app, basically nothing much more complicated than including a "Google results for this term" sidebar.

WTF?? (0, Troll)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994044)

>> Unless Bing starts behaving like Apple and delivering what I don't even know I want yet, I don't see it heading much anywhere.

WTF? No wonder apple users are called "sheeple".

Re:Because... (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994100)

Ha, this is great, I never noticed this before, but it is so true. You have a header, usually a grahpic that stands out from the rest of the page, and a page of results.

They should stick to what they're best at (5, Funny)

DumbparameciuM (772788) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993356)

Which is....ummmm.......

Can I get back to you?

Re:They should stick to what they're best at (1, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993488)

dirty tricks?

Re:They should stick to what they're best at (0, Troll)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994212)

Operating systems, office suites, music players, and gaming consoles?

How much has the Ubuntu foundation lost? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993376)

*sadf

Bing was a stupid idea (0, Flamebait)

ydoc04 (1406027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993388)

Why would you even bother to try and compete with a real world power like Google? Go ahead... try to name a better search engine. Bing is a sick joke! BURN, Bing, BURN!!! ah hah, ah hah hah hah, mwa hah, mwa hah hah hah hah hah hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993534)

Please go find the nearest toilet and drown yourself in it.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (1, Interesting)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993538)

Bing actually is a great search engine and I've been using it over Google since they rolled it out.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31994050)

For buying computers or handbags, maybe.

For serious day-to-day use? No, it's not remotely close to a "great search engine".

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (2, Informative)

Spewns (1599743) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994116)

It took me five minutes on http://www.bing-vs-google.com/ [bing-vs-google.com] one day to realize how bad Bing is compared to Google.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994118)

Why have you been using it from the beginning, because it returns better results (which was simply not true in the beginning, but it has gotten better over the months), or because you are a MS fanboy? I can't think of any reason that you would jump on it so quickly.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31994206)

YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!

PS: Fuck you slashdot my comment is not ascii art.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (4, Interesting)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993584)

Actually Bing has some features that outclass Google Search. Image search is so much better on Bing because it's dynamically loaded so you don't have to page through 20 times to get a full view of what's out there.

It would be nice if Bing, Yahoo, or whoever grabbed 30-50% of the search market. Microsoft scares me, but so does Google.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (3, Informative)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993848)

There's a plug-in for that! [customizegoogle.com]

This CustomizeGoogle [customizegoogle.com] feature saves you from the hassle of paging through Google web search results. Whenever you navigate to the end of the page, you dont have to hit the next button. CustomizeGoogle automatically fetches next set of results and appends them to the bottom of the page.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993608)

Lemme join the crowd in agreeing Bing is better than Google. But beyond that remember people used to say the same thing about Sony when Microsoft entered the console market. If they keep at it long enough Microsoft will eventually find a winning formula for the search engine market.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993904)

Microsoft never 'won' the console market, the other competitors simply lost. Sony thought that -everyone- who had a PS2 would be thrilled to have a console that cost $500, had no PS2 support, and had a lot of expensive features... that were mostly useless. Nintendo found a recipe to make lots of money: make crap 'innovative' games to appeal to untapped markets. While the move worked really well for Nintendo, it alienated most real gamers. The 360 was the only real option for most people. On the other hand, Google is not failing at the moment and does not look to fail anytime soon and Bing just doesn't cut it.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (1, Insightful)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994306)

Sony thought that -everyone- who had a PS2 would be thrilled to have a console that cost $500, had no PS2 support, and had a lot of expensive features... that were mostly useless.

Not only that, but also features that disappeared.

Re:Bing was a stupid idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993750)

They are competing because they can't afford to let another company get a stronghold. WIndows and Office are pretty much their only money makers, but Google represents a threat. MS didn't want to get involved into browsers until Netscape became a threat to them.

It costs money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993422)

to make money.

Just ask the Bureau of Printing and Engraving.

Luckily... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993426)

Bing is a decision engine, so they should be able to decide when to pull the plug...

Re:Luckily... (2, Informative)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993480)

Yup, same company that thinks that you still need a window when you don't have a wall.
Their marketing people are BRILLIANT!

How do I get to Bing? (0)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993444)

There are two ways to get to Bing, but neither of them is workable.

The first is to type Bing into the URL bar or Open URL dialog. There is no shortcut key to go to the URL bar, and the Open URL dialog history logic is a complete mess.
The second is to click on the search box, but again, there is no shortcut. The requirement to navigate to a separate box using a mouse is really too much for me (so much so that I never do it).

Google has the best solution here. Use the URL bar as the search box. The search-ahead feature is also really handy.
Firefox has a good solution too, given that accessing the URL bar is a quick keystroke and then a tab over to enter the search box.

If Microsoft wants Bing to succeed, they need people to use it intuitively as an invisible part of their surfing habits. IE hasn't done a very good job of making this easy, so naturally people migrate towards what they know (Google).

Bing could be the best search engine in the world, but unless people use it, it's all for nothing.

Re:How do I get to Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993512)

F8 in Opera, F6 in (most) others. Also, Ctrl + Enter.

Re:How do I get to Bing? (3, Informative)

Curate (783077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993552)

There is no shortcut key to go to the URL bar

In IE, Alt-D takes you to the address bar (what you call the URL bar).

click on the search box, but again, there is no shortcut

In IE, Ctrl-E takes you to the search box.

Re:How do I get to Bing? (4, Informative)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993694)

Firefox has a good solution too, given that accessing the URL bar is a quick keystroke and then a tab over to enter the search box.

If you think that is convenient, then CTRL+K will change your life.

Re:How do I get to Bing? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31994240)

And if you think that's convenient, you really need to check out the Vimperator [vimperator.org] firefox plugin.

Clash of titans, watch the fallout (4, Interesting)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993456)

I think it's important to consider the unbelievable forces involved -- nearly limitless funds on both sides. How many companies would like to take in the amount Microsoft casually loses? How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning? When the rich guys go at it and it feels good that the rest of us pick a winner, what about the other companies that should have been contenders but couldn't buy admission? What Microsoft decides it wants, it tends to get. One of the government attorneys involved in the antitrust suit commented that they had legal resources that rivaled the Department of Justice.

The Google/Facebook conflict is another one to watch. I don't think Google has abandoned Buzz by any means, and Facebook is really pissing off a lot of people these days.

In all cases, don't linger on the losses they're having. They can afford it.

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993648)

Yes, but they are losing money in a bad place.

I actually worked for MSFT from 2004 to 2007. One of the reasons I accepted employment with them was because it was in their online services division: I saw the days of proprietary software as numbered, and believed the only way MSFT could survive in the long-term was to become a service provider and derive advertising revenue from the brokering of information and monetizing of relationships: basically beat Google and Facebook at their own game because of their enormous financial resources. The reader will recall that MSFT's online division went from a 500 million loss to a 500 million profit in the course of one year.

And, then, they stalled.

You can play the "catch up" game when the first comer has sacrificed stability to be the first comer, and you have enough resources to effectively swamp them while they try to regroup for round two. But Google and Facebook are too far ahead and have too many resources of their own for MSFT to ever catch up.

Further, even while Facebook has privacy issues galore, does anyone think that MSFT would be any better in that regard?

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993732)

I don't think they'll succeed, either; but I also underestimated them in the Xbox thing. Maybe even Zune will succeed someday.

What I guess I was hinting at is my desire for SOMEONE ELSE to enter the fray. Of these characters I like Google the best, but I don't trust them either. Facebook I think it going to do themselves in, they're getting too hard to use. The "privacy settings" thing is ridiculous. But I also think they have a few years left before power changes hands.

I know Google is approaching FB page admins with offers to help them jump ship to Buzz and am intrigued by this poaching.

MSFT on privacy? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Thing is, FB is deliberately trying to screw its users, MSFT does it mostly by accident. Neither is OK but....

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993708)

How many companies would like to take in the amount Microsoft casually loses? How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning?

Interesting you bring that up. There is not a single quality console out there because those unbelievable forces can afford to lose so much money in the process, and it provides a huge barrier to entry in that market.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Microsoft lost so much money on the XBOX360 in warranty repairs that could have been prevented by a minimum of QA it could have funded a whole other console company from the ground up, or TWO Stealth Bombers.

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993818)

Xbox is a stealth bomber

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993824)

TWO Stealth Bombers.

Thats classified you insensitive clod. Microsoft would never let the Government Bing enough to make a Stealth Bomber.

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (2, Interesting)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993730)

In fact, you could argue Microsoft can't, long-term afford NOT to pump massive amounts of money into it's online services because if (and this may or may not be probable but I think anyone will admit it's possible), internet services usurp the vast majority of computing tasks from the desktop computing model, then Windows, Microsoft's core product, become much less relevant than it is today. If Microsoft makes headway in the cloud, at worst they have something to fall back on if the Desktop OS market tanks, and at best they can continue to prop up Windows by offering better integration with their Web-services on Windows then alternate platforms.

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994138)

One of the government attorneys involved in the antitrust suit commented that they had legal resources that rivaled the Department of Justice.

Which I find rather strange. The judge (or an expert) should clearly have seen that the video was doctored -- lying in a courtroom is a jailable offense! Why did nothing happen?

Of course, using that reasoning I still don't understand why nobody is in jail over the Sony rootkit; if one of us had done it, the outcome would be clear (PMITA).

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994276)

Most judges and many attorneys aren't very technically sophisticated. I don't know what happened but my impression was that the whole thing was mishandled - and then Bush was "elected" so it all went away.

As for lying in court, that happens every day. They all had their eyes on the prize, not the sanctity of the process.

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994214)

How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning?

Are they making money on the XBox now? I thought that had been pushed off by all the defective units.

Re:Clash of titans, watch the fallout (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994314)

It's important to note that other companies are taking in Microsoft's losses. Sure, those companies are law firms, manufacturing, grocery stores, and myriad others, but every dollar that Microsoft loses ends up back in the pocket of someone else. A big loss for a company that can afford it is just the thing to help bring up the economy!

The way I see it (5, Funny)

DumbparameciuM (772788) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993490)

The main problem with Bing is that you can't really use the world as a verb like you can with Google. Think about it - you can't say you're going to "bing" something, it just sounds gross.

Re:The way I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993602)

Hey, it'd be fun to use the world as a verb! "I'm going to world this subject", as in "search the whole world (of tubes)" for it.

Re:The way I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993834)

Sure you can. "Hemos binged CmrdTaco pretty hard last week; Malda was shitting blood and sperm for days".

Re:The way I see it (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993854)

"Boy, did I crosby that sandwich last night"

Re:The way I see it (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994188)

"Ya, but you were chandlering all night afterwards..."

I'm not surprised Bing are losing (5, Interesting)

Chelmet (1273754) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993498)

Google is just better at this game. I find Bing a hinderance to smooth workflow.

Oft-times I'll know exactly what I'm looking for, or even the exact site I want to go to, and going via google is often faster than remembering/typing a URL. I know my search result will be top, as I know what to search for. This is far more hit and miss with Bing.

This does change over time, however. It used to be the case that if I wanted a review on a new pair of speakers or a motherboard or whatnot, I could google the product with the word review in the search, such as "b&w 683 review". Whilst for that particular search you'll find some good reviews do pop up first, for a lot of products its an ordeal trying to find decent reviews. Often it'll be a sales page where you can drop your own review, and more often that not they're blank. Its becoming more and more difficult to search for professional reviews, so for many products I go direct to specialist review sites, such as tomshardware for computer stuff.

I seem to have run a little off topic, but my point is that all of this is far more difficult to accomplish with Bing than it is with google, so I'm not surprised they're losing money - they've entered a marketplace with an inferior product (at least for the casual home user), and that's rarely a profitable move.

A modest experiment (1)

EsJay (879629) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993508)

I just Googled 'Bing'. And search Bing for 'Google'. The one time in history Bing had better results. Nobody on the intertubes cares about Bing, there's very little to find.

google "experience curve" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993524)

That old management consulting chestnut quantifies (in a rough manner similar to Moore's law) how the industry leader maintains a substantial cost advantage over the competition, because they've "been there, done that" while the laggards are still encountering situations for the first time.

BTW have you ever heard someone say something like "bing experience curve"? That doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, so in addition to be being behind on the e-curve, someone in Redmond fscked up in the applied linguistics department.

BING + O (1)

ipquickly (1562169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993528)

No, seriously.

MS should change the name to Bingo.

It would properly represent the gamble of relevant search results provided by bing.
If you get pissed off you could use it as a cuss-word really loudly and nobody would get offended (and they would know your pain).
Old grannies playing BINGO in a Bingo hall, is about as exiting as bing.

I mean it fits on so many levels.

Re:BING + O (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994110)

Old grannies playing BINGO in a Bingo hall

Rule 34.
No exceptions.
One Bing to rule them all.

Problems... (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993592)

If Microsoft wants to get ahead, stop trying to imitate and start innovating. The only time imitation works is when the current product becomes crappy. Take for instance the Xbox 360, it didn't get ahead because it was great, but rather got ahead because the competition was crappy. The Wii had (has) a shortage of good games and the PS3 was (and still almost is) far too expensive.

Google isn't getting any worse and Bing just isn't innovating in any meaningful way. Trying to promote Bing is like promoting alternate keyboard layouts, even if it -is- better, any benefits will be lost in the fact that people have to re-learn something. Google isn't just a search engine, its a bookmarking engine. Its a lot easier to remember "nexus one review" than http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/04/nexus-one-review/ [engadget.com]

Re:Problems... (0)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993682)

there's lots of innovative stuff in bing that shits on google. the slashdot crowd are just ignorant of it, they prefer their blinders.

Re:Problems... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993826)

Such as? I hardly consider myself ignorant of other search engines, I simply prefer Google. There was a site (I can't find at the moment) that let you see 3 search engines without knowing which one and to pick your favorite, then it would reveal the one you preferred. I almost always picked Google.

Re:Problems... (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993968)

such as...?

If you're going to call someone out - at least provide a modicum of supporting evidence.

Xbox In Last Place In 2/3 Of The World (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31994228)

How totally delusional can you possibly be?

Last gen Microsoft wasted billions only to end up:

Last place in Japan
Last place in Europe
And the console only viable in the US and a few other minor markets

This gen Microsoft has wasted billions only to end up:

Last place in Japan
Last place in Europe
And once again only viable in the US and a few other minor markets

The only thing Microsoft has going for it this gen is a 50 percent failure rate to pad out their worldwide sales total from suckers buying 3,4,5 or more Xbox 360 replacement units.

Microsoft's quarter was not really all that great. (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993620)

... this article [theregister.co.uk] provides a nice comparison of Apple's recent quarter to Microsoft's recent quarter.

I love Bing (1)

Kagato (116051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993638)

... when I want to use the cash-back feature. But I've usually used Google to narrow down my purchase first.

MS may not care all that much (4, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993650)

Microsoft does have a bit of history of sinking large amounts of money on totally losing projects, and there have been suggestions that it may be partially intentional.

The poster child for this is Internet Explorer, which was developed and handed out free, for a 100% monetary loss. Various people have suggested that the intent was never to charge for it. The motive wasn't profit; it was control. The idea is that they wanted to control the "browser market", which included killing any startup that wanted to make money on a browser. They succeeded at that, and even the most critical reviewers agree that MS still controls at least 2/3 of the browser "market". From a power viewpoint, IE has been a real success, even if it has been a money sinkhole. It gives MS control of a large part of how the Web works in reality. It has especially been an effective tool at scrambling all attempts to develop rational standards and interoperability.

The only people who consider this a "loss" are those who believe that money is the only corporate motivator. Those who understand a desire for power and control find it easy to understand why corporations like Microsoft would sink so much of their profits into such losing projects.

It's entirely possible that MS's ongoing attempts to get into the search "market" is something along the same line. It may not matter to them how much money they lose, as long as they end up in control, with the insignificant startups all bankrupt and standards irrelevant because Bing is the de facto standard and doesn't interoperate with anything they don't control.

In particular, their main motivator may be all the information on our searches that google is collecting. Imagine what Microsoft could do to the world if they had control of all that information.

(Of course, some of us are starting to worry about the effect of nice guys like google having all that information. And maybe it'd be prudent to not worry about it quite so publicly. After all, google does know what you've been googling ... ;-)

Re:MS may not care all that much (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994196)

You seem to be a little confused. Power, Information all means more money. Microsoft gave away IE so they could control the internet, which means more money. They can control the homepage, search engine, create the most popular brower, create the dev environment which server pages (ActiveX, .Net)... and more, to make more money.

Re:MS may not care all that much (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994234)

Just because IE was free doesn't mean they didn't make *any* money from it. Even the earliest versions of IE came with pre-installed bookmarks to companies who paid for placement.

bing is a silly name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993660)

maybe they should have started by not naming there search engine something stupid like Bing! Just bing it.. doesn't sound as good.

Re:bing is a silly name (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994106)

maybe they should have started by not naming there search engine something stupid like Bing!

They should have named it "Poly". Then we could access it with Mono API's: Mono + Poly = ....
   

Hey Microsoft, make a TV (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993722)

Compete with Sony and Samsung, make a TV. I'll buy it.

Self-destructive behavior of corporations (4, Interesting)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993782)

For some reason, corporations seem to feel the need to compete in areas where they're clearly outmatched no matter what. So we'll see Google, Microsoft, Apple and whoever else steps up to the plate slug it out for a chance to lose millions chasing a train that left the station years ago.

Bing is a prime example of this kind of dysfunctional behavior. Microsoft has even gone to the extreme of paying people to use Bing and they're still not going to make it. In the world of web search, Google has years of experience doing it and they're getting better every day. Microsoft can't catch up no matter how much money they throw at it - in the final analysis, the general public reaches for Google when they want to search. I suppose Bing can slug it out with Alta Vista and Yahoo! for the "also ran" prize. If Microsoft would put all this money and effort into improving the things they're strong in - but no, we'll suffer along with bug-ridden Windows and Office while Microsoft chases the Google butterfly.

Google is doing it too - diverting resources from their core competency to compete in operating systems. Android looks like it has a chance because the competition phoned in their submission (Windows CE, WTF?), but the Chrome OS will be fighting an uphill battle all the way. It's good, but not as good as Sugar and that's a non-starter. They can park the wreck of Chrome OS next to the burned out husks of BeOS, Next, AmigaOS, and others in the scrapheap of history. That doesn't mean they won't "sell" a bunch of copies - but taking Microsoft on in the OS space is every bit as insane as Microsoft taking Google on in the search space and in the end it'll all count for nothing.

Right now, Apple has arguably the best cell phone OS in existence. It's much more polished than Android and - Windows CE doesn't count. Windows Mobile 7 is vaporware and while the demos look great the reality when they finally ship copies is almost certain to follow their past performances and be a giant disappointment. Apple doesn't have a free ride in this mess either - they're caught up in that "We sold a lot of units so we must be something special" nonsense. They're going to have to stop thinking they're superior and get busy; iPhone was very nice, but the competition is working on their game and despite their constant attempts to fail one of them is going to get it right one of these days.

The next few years should be very interesting. From here, it looks like Google will continue to own web search (and advertising) and Microsoft will continue to own operating systems and "office" applications. Apple, despite their desperately dysfunctional leadership will be worth more than either one (if not both) of them - only because they avoided throwing money away trying to bury Google or Microsoft. But they're not immune from the need to destroy themselves - watch the news and see what kind of lunacy they take part in as their superiority complex becomes blatantly obvious.

Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations (2, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994004)

For some reason, corporations seem to feel the need to compete in areas where they're clearly outmatched no matter what.

That's the way the global economy works. If you aren't growing, then you are dying. However much you have today, it's not enough... you must have more.

Re:Self-destructive behavior of corporations (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994216)

For some reason,
\
Not for some reason, for the most obvious reason. These companies make large amounts of money. They can either invest it in the bank, but flowers for everyone on the planet, or TRY TO MAKE MORE MONEY BY INVESTING IN OTHER AREAS. I am confused why so many people seem not to understand this. Microsoft did it with Xbox, PocketPC, Bing. Apple did it with iPod, iPhone, iPad. IBM did it with the IBM PC, consultancy. Amazon did it with selling to other markets. EVERYBODY DOES IT, BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

BTW, I feel curious... (1)

friguron (895759) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993894)

How many of us have SINCERELY used "MS bing" for searching purposes? Not me.

Other tan forced usage through some silly toolbar/MS program, I would even say it's virtually unknown in Spain (for example)...

--

Get 250 extra MB Dropbox space using this invitation http://bit.ly/agkF3r [bit.ly]

Re:BTW, I feel curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31994146)

I use it all the time, not everything on bing is better, but their video and image search shits all over googles efforts.

Just imagine how different the world would be (1)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994144)

Just imagine how different the world would be if Microsoft heeded the advice of its own research arm - Microsoft research. Back in 1999-2000, MSR researchers were chomping at the bit to create a search engine (which at the time would have been FAR more advanced than anything else on the market, including Google). All they needed was budget and a "go ahead", the motivation was made abundantly clear to the executives. Ballmer said "no".

Fast forward five years, and in about 2004-2005 Ballmer realizes that he's getting his ass brutally kicked. But by then not only was Microsoft far behind Google, it was far behind Yahoo as well. And catching up only works as well as PHBs hope if your competition is standing still, which in this case it is not.

Bing in by stealth (1)

kregg (1619907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994242)

I wonder if Bing will find its place in companies desktop SOE through the transition between Windows XP and Windows 7. Most companies will lock down the desktops pretty tight, so depending on how your IT department feels you may not get a choice of what search engine you use.
There may even be incentives to do this... I hope not.

Bing Loses More Money (0, Redundant)

em0te (807074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994248)

YAY! *sticks out tongue at MS* ...am i in the club yet?

Balance in the Universe (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994320)

Microsoft can't build a competitive search engine and Google can't field a competitive Office Suite -- and neither of them have taken the cell phone world by storm yet. All is still good and balanced with the universe.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...