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!

NY Times: Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the here-you-take-it dept.

Facebook 230

benfrog writes "According to a blog posting on the New York Times site, Microsoft tried to sell the perpetual money-losing Bing to Facebook 'over a year ago' (the article cites 'several people with knowledge of the discussions who didn't want to be identified talking about internal deliberations'). Steve Ballmer, apparently, was not involved or consulted. Facebook politely declined. Neither Microsoft or Facebook would comment on the rumors."

cancel ×

230 comments

Companies do this all the time (0, Troll)

TechNY (2625421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817001)

It's called testing the waters. Like you do with women. The sole fact that this wasn't even ordered to be done by Mr. Ballmer is very telling, and in fact is based on some rumors from unknown people. The idea is sound, because it would allow Facebook to leverage their social network to gather data and organize it easily, just like Google is desperately trying to do with Google+ and failing. All three companies understand the power of social networks used for search data.

However, being one of the largest companies on planet and always thinking about long term strategy instead of quick gains, Microsoft doesn't really need to sell Bing. Their online division might be losing money on paper, but it's more of a supportive division anyway. Don't forget that they also work on services like MSN Messenger, their news sites, and very wide array of other services and software like Azure. They support Microsoft's and Windows' strong brand name and are also a division of innovation that will enable Microsoft's success in the future as more and more services move online. People on slashdot always complain that companies aren't thinking long term but instead just try to get quick profits. Well, Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term. In fact, most of what Google does is to gain quick profit and ditch the projects that fail with that. Just see how many projects Google quickly and silently cancels compared to Microsoft.

Re:Companies do this all the time (-1, Troll)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817067)

Not sure if that is correct to say of Google. They seem to ditch most of their products before they even launch so they have no real idea how profitable they would be.

Re:Companies do this all the time (5, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817255)

Not sure if that is correct to say of Google. They seem to ditch most of their products before they even launch so they have no real idea how profitable they would be.

Isn't that the right time to ditch a product? If you don't think it's going to work out, it seems much better to ditch it before you launch it.

Re:Companies do this all the time (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817531)

Google launchs so many products, they prefer to clean the list early on, before it gets too messy.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No. But "Overrated" seems to be

Re:Companies do this all the time (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817095)

Ahhh, the Microsoft Shill again...

Re:Companies do this all the time (5, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817135)

I don't get the part about testing the waters with women. I didn't know they were any good for that.

Re:Companies do this all the time (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817267)

What is this thing women you speak of?

Re:Companies do this all the time (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817275)

I don't get the part about testing the waters with women. I didn't know they were any good for that.

You just throw them in and see what happens. They squeal if it's too cold, scream if there are too many sharks, etc.

Re:Companies do this all the time (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817293)

If they melt too acidic...

What? Doesn't everyone have this problem?!

Re:Companies do this all the time (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817369)

Or she could be a witch!

If she melts, you have to throw a puppy in as the tiebreaker.

Re:Companies do this all the time (1)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817873)

Maybe the women you are testing. My wife and I quite enjoy diving with sharks.

Re:Companies do this all the time (4, Insightful)

caywen (942955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817189)

It's called, "Please take us seriously as a search company! Oh BTW, we're shopping our search engine around. Any takers? Anyone? We're gonna beat Google! Seriously, though, guys, how about $1.5B? I'll go as low as $1.2. Cmon. Hello?"

Re:Companies do this all the time (5, Funny)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817217)

This is Slashdot. Analogies involving women are invalid. Please use cars instead.

Re:Companies do this all the time (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817419)

It's like saying you love your car and remarking how no other car can even come close, but you go on several test drives periodically, and you're not fooling anyone.

Re:Companies do this all the time (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817571)

Everything is all right. He talked about testing the waters of women. He must be some sort of a scientist who keeps our mothers safe.

Re:Companies do this all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817629)

No, no -- it applies this time. The protagonist wasn't directly involved, instead relying on third-party experience.

The downside is you get to visualize Steve Ballmer saying, "Is she a goer?"

Re:Companies do this all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817667)

This is Slashdot. Analogies involving women are invalid. Please use cars instead.

It's not that they're invalid - just that they can't be tested.

Re:Companies do this all the time (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817321)

lol what a shill, i hope you own a lot of MSFT stock otherwise you're a real tard towing their corporate line for nothing...haha, sigh.

Re:Companies do this all the time (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817509)

Yeah, this TechNY was much better when he was TechLA [slashdot.org] . That is until that shill account got modded to death. How long will this one last?

Re:Companies do this all the time (3, Funny)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817353)

Testing women? Where can I apply for that job? ;)

Re:Companies do this all the time (0)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817677)

Outside of middle schools. Bring a black van, some candy and chloroform.

Re:Companies do this all the time (1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817517)

I'm sure Microsoft would be most grateful if you repeated this line of horseshit at the next shareholders meeting.

Re:Companies do this all the time (5, Insightful)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817523)

Hrm...

1) Long comment with same timestamp as story
2) New user id
3) "Tech" in username
4) Dig at Google ("Google is desperately trying to do with Google+ and failing")
5) Dubious, at best, praise for Microsoft ("always thinking about long term strategy instead of quick gains", "Microsoft's and Windows' strong brand name")

Ugh...shilling is laaaaame.

Well, Microsoft is one of those companies that only think long term. In fact, most of what Google does is to gain quick profit and ditch the projects that fail with that. Just see how many projects Google quickly and silently cancels compared to Microsoft.

Maybe Google is "thinking long-term" with Google+? Shouldn't you be praising that instead of divining it a failure so quickly? It is, after all, much younger than Bing. Perhaps all of Google's non-profit-generating divisions are "supportive" divisions? Google has had many services that didn't pan out, but Microsoft has many, many more. Your thesis that "Microsoft thinks long-term and Google doesn't" is a real stretch.

And for all their efforts, what has Microsoft's supposed steadfast commitment to the long-term given them? The XBox has turned out to be profitable (I believe), but most of their revenue still comes from Windows and Office, just as it has been since long before Google was born.

Re:Companies do this all the time (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817625)

Your thesis that "Microsoft thinks long-term and Google doesn't" is a real stretch.

No, because Google kills unprofitable products faster than MS. Google is certainly a more short-term focused company.

Re:Companies do this all the time (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817791)

Well the whole article + comment smell like buz making.

Microsoft is trying to sell its "perpetual money-losing" product to potential client. Unbelievable, Microsoft has a sales team !

Re:Companies do this all the time (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817545)

This comment was brought to you courtesy Waggener Edstrom, a Microsoft marketing partner.

We help clients understand who their audiences are and where they can be reached. Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.

http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach [waggeneredstrom.com]

http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients [waggeneredstrom.com]

If your business could use professional reputation management services, please contact us at http://waggeneredstrom.com/ [waggeneredstrom.com] , the digital PR firm of the year.

Re:Companies do this all the time (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817647)

This comment was brought to you courtesy Waggener Edstrom, a Microsoft marketing partner.

By that logic, any forum on the internet that contains a comment that doesn't bash microsoft must be a "paid posting". Jesus you trolls are ridiculous.

Besides which HTC is also their client. I guess now we know why there are so many android "fans" here on Slashdot. They are all paid posters. Right?

Re:Companies do this all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817741)

And the typical apologist post. Right on cue.

Re:Companies do this all the time (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817743)

There's been a steady stream of new user accounts, usually with "Tech" in the name, posting lengthy pro-Microsoft/anti-Google posts with the same timestamp as the story itself. None of the accounts are subscribers, so the comments are clearly pre-written. The writing style is similar. The comment is promptly upmodded to +5 before slowling falling to something else. The user's karma eventually gets borked, and a new account appears shortly thereafter. Some think it's "bonch", but I'm not so sure.

I'm sure shilling goes on in many places, but this particular person is so obvious and persistent that it gets really obnoxious.

Who wouldn't want Bing? (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817009)

Bing's only a Two billion dollar a year money pit [businessinsider.com] . But at least that investment's making a dent on Google, right? Um, no. [hitslink.com] Wow. That is an amazing. What qualifications do you have to have to run a business like that? I think I could do that.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (0, Troll)

TechNY (2625421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817025)

Bing isn't two billion dollar a year money pit, that's Microsoft's whole online services division. Microsoft also doesn't need to take the quick grab, they have the money to be thinking long term strategies. It worked really well for XBOX too.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817081)

It worked really well for XBOX too.

There's nothing wrong with taking the view that one day the XBox may get to the position of having a positive return across its lifespan. And it is genuinely a positive about Microsoft that they're willing to engage in longterm plans. But the idea that it has already worked out well is just crap. The XBox project hasn't made back anything like what it's cost.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (4, Interesting)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817219)

What about the less direct effects of people playing on a Microsoft XBOX and having a more favorable view of Microsoft as a brand?

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817607)

nonono. They have a totally cool website plan to get that ten billion dollars back. They're just keeping it a secret.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817091)

Microsoft launched MSN in 1995. Kids who were born after Microsoft created their online services division will be college freshmen next year. How long of a view do you suppose Microsoft taking, exactly?

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817549)

Microsoft has been trying to be the predominant web portal for 17 years. This isn't strategy, it's abject failure. Microsoft has thrown billions at various iterations of MSN, much of it sighs dominant browser, and has only got a distant second, in no small part by making Yahoo a customer.

There is no master plan. The only thing MS can do is keep flinging shit at the wall with little hope of being any more than a bit player.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (4, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817059)

It could be worse, you could be the product manager for a product that has gone from almost 40% market share to 13% in about 4 years [netcraft.com] and looks like it will be the no. 3 player soon.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817163)

You think that's bad? Try being the boss of Windows HPC [microsoft.com] . That guy fell of the Top500 entirely. No joke, the last Windows cluster in the Top500, ShanghaiSupercomputing Center's Dawning 5000A [top500.org] went SLES10 [ssc.net.cn] and now there is not even one. He must be so lonely.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817555)

No joke, the last Windows cluster in the Top500, ShanghaiSupercomputing Center's Dawning 5000A [top500.org] went SLES10 [ssc.net.cn] and now there is not even one.

I wonder if they were able to get their Windows refund.

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (3, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817239)

see this is what I dont understand about business at that level, EVEN IF bing is a 2 billion dollar a year money pit (which I seriously doubt) why not cut it? Its not like companies have cut products before, it happens all the time ..

But in the computer industry there is this HUGE factor of pride of being 100% right 100% of the time no matter the cost. Shit happens, cost go over, nothing is perfect, but for fuck sake at some point its time to kill the white elephant that consumes too much and only produces shit.

So what Microsoft, you renamed MSN to BING and bundled a bunch of crap into LIVE, no one used it, no one uses it, when do you actually look at whats happening ... its only been 20 fucking years of the same bleh

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817393)

But in the computer industry there is this HUGE factor of pride of being 100% right 100% of the time no matter the cost. Shit happens, cost go over, nothing is perfect, but for fuck sake at some point its time to kill the white elephant that consumes too much and only produces shit.

This is why Microsoft should have been broken up by the DOJ instead of overturning Jackson's ruling.

Microsoft, back then, had stump ponds full of management deadwood. They use their profitable departments to shore up their epic money losing departments. If the company had been broken up by major departments (OS from User Software, for example), we probably wouldn't see what we see today, that is OS and Office holding up every stupid money losing project ever in Microsoft. Stupid money losing projects should be spun off to sink or swim on their own or closed down.

But what we have today is not only just a few stump ponds, but entire swamps full of deadwood where investor money and profits go to rot, increasing the amount of gaseous emissions coming from Redmond to compete with the amount of hot air emanating from Ballmer's mouth.

--
BMO

Re:Who wouldn't want Bing? (1, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817451)

They don't cut it because it's more complicated than the Microsoft bashers let on.

Microsoft builds search for enterprise, a space where it is very successful, more popular, and a darned site cheaper than Google's offerings. Bing is Sharepoint search for the public, sure it isn't really taking any market share, but that doesn't really matter, because they're getting the kind of test volume which you can't do for in internal product. MSN messenger is the same deal. Microsoft makes no money off of it, but they make a crap tonne off Exchange and Lync which use the same technologies.

The whole purpose of Microsoft's on-line services division is to get people used to the Microsoft interface and get additional testing data for their enterprise products. Hell, Google search doesn't actually make Google any money either, it's a portal for their advertising business.

Folks on sharepoint will tell you that Bing sucks(it doesn't, though it's not as good as Google), and that since it's not taking market share from Google it must be a failure. They'll tell you that Microsoft jumped into the Search business because they feel they must because of Google, none of which is entirely accurate. No one makes any money on internet search, they make money on advertising associated with search and right now, Google has online advertising totally locked up. Making money on internet search is however, not the only reason for having a search product, or a messaging client, or anything else.

Intragam (5, Funny)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817047)

And instead they bought Intragam, possibly the only product/site in existence that is actually stupider then Bing.

Re:Intragam (4, Funny)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817125)

Bing is on Facebook's acquisition list though. Bing is just below Zombo.com [zombo.com] .

Re:Intragam (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817313)

Zombo.com is entirely more useful than Bing.

At Bing, you can't do anything.

At Zombo, you can do anything, anything at all, the only limit is yourself!

--
BMO - Welcome!

Re:Intragam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817193)

The difference between Bing and Instagram is that Instagram is popular. As much as it's fun to say "LOL ONLY DUMB HIPSTERS USE INSTAGRAM UGH," it's still valuable.

Re:Intragam (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817235)

and it stops them from being bought up by Google or else growing into a competitor to Facebook...

Re:Intragam (2)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817285)

instagram has 27 million users: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/tech/mobile/instagram-sxsw/ [cnn.com]
who don't pay anything; has no real business model; and will probably never earn a penny. That anyone could think that it's valuable boggles the mind. Just because you're happy to use something for free, doesn't mean it has value... in fact, it says the opposite, since you're unwilling to pay for it.

bing has 26.2% of the search engine market: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2158888/Yahoo-Search-Share-Sinks-Google-Bing-Rise-in-February-2012 [searchenginewatch.com]
and served 5.1 billion searches last month, and makes 1.22 cents per search (compared with 1.47 cents per search for google)
http://www.trefis.com/stock/msft/articles/75824/can-miscrosoft-improve-its-search-revenues-with-facebook/2011-10-03 [trefis.com]
http://www.trefis.com/stock/goog/articles/34615/can-google-better-target-ads-to-sustain-rps/2011-01-27 [trefis.com]

Re:Intragam (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817319)

Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company. Same for YouTube before Google bought them. Facebook itself has millions of users who don't pay anything, and is heading towards a rather large IPO.

Just because a company gives it's major product away for free doesn't mean it doesn't have other valuable assets, and just because it's not bringing in any money now, doesn't mean it couldn't, especially if it was taken over by a company that could leverage it properly.

Re:Intragam (3, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817383)

Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company.

Wow, that's revisionist. Schmidt was at Novell when Adwords was launched.. nearly a year before scmidt became CEO (and 6 months before he even worked at google).

Google does not give away its product for free. Its product is advertising space.

Re:Intragam (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817507)

The difference is that the work Google and Bing done and spent on algorithms, hardware streamlining for their facilities, somewhat locked-in userbases (work to transition over docs, email, presents, "train" the personlized servies) and all of the web of other products in their arsenals that funnel to the search. That ecosystem is simply out of reach without a drastic move on facebook's part, like only allowing editing of uploaded images in Instagram. But that carries it's own risk of exposing them to competitors who won't do similar.

As for the app Instagram. It works just fine, but does nothing new, or provide any really essential features or protected innovations. A medium competency company could clone using prior art from PC software apps in a couple of months and if they were really devious they could scoop the probable patents involved from Kodak and turn around and demand royalties from the profitless Instagram. All one would need is the will and the pocketbook. Expect Google to do it if they suspect any traction. Especially with Kodak trying to sell, and having just bought Motorola not for their junk phones, but for their patent warchest. Also unlike Bing and Google there is not lock-in for Instagram of any real significance, especially since there is no cost in trying free competing apps and they can live side by side. Just install it and go, no need for intensive migration either.

For all the smart people in this industry, they sure seem hell bent on creating another bust through billion dollar acquisitions and inflated market value for what amounts to at best well integrated existing designs, and at worst patently obvious products with just move something from the PC to the tablet of smartphone.

Re:Intragam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817747)

I have not heard of that company. Is it more stupid than Instagram?

Facebing! (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817057)

FaceBing: It should have happened :-(

Re:Facebing! (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817111)

Facebook doesn't want Bing. They don't want people to search the web and click away from Facebook. They want to replace the web and keep people on Facebook. This is why Google views them as such a danger.

The Internet as we knew it is going away (1)

Cheech Wizard (698728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817433)

I can see that. More and more people I know are spending more and more time on Facebook - Mostly just idling watching the status updates and stuff scroll by. I can even see it with people who are long time visitors to some of my forum web sites. These are people I know and have known for years. Lots of times I see them "idling" on both one of my sites and Facebook. The face of computing to the world is changing significantly which, in my opinion, is why so many people are now buying "appliances" such as iPads. I don't have any numbers, but my bet is while more and more people are "going online" every year, people are searching for things less and less in search engines such as Google and Bing. This isn't so much true of people here, but rather the population of the world in general want Twitter and Facebook (both to me are pretty useless). I'm not saying I think search is dying a fast death, but I do think their relevance to most people is slowly fading.

Stupid to Sell (3, Funny)

Boronx (228853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817065)

Bing is better in some ways than Google and folks are starting to notice. Microsoft would be stupid to abandon it.

Re:Stupid to Sell (5, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817101)

Good job.
Now you'll be sure to get the raise.

Re:Stupid to Sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817131)

Bing is better in some ways than Google and folks are starting to notice.

Please identify three such ways. Or if I'm taking "some" too literally then at least identify one.

Re:Stupid to Sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817169)

The iPhone App Photo search is much easier to use. Android sucks but iPhone/iPod Touch version works great.

Re:Stupid to Sell (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817187)

Bing was better for a while, though the "M$"-hating manchildren would never admit it. But by now? No. All of Bing's best features have been copied by Google. Improved image search, preview panes, flight statuses at the top of results, bird's eye view in the maps (not to be confused with satellite view), the list goes on. And that's a good thing. That's how competition is supposed to work. But Bing hasn't continued to innovate. And their other big advantage -- a relative lack of link farms -- has faded. So now they're no more innovative than Google, their results aren't any better, and their market share is stuck around 15% (30% if you include Yahoo). Meanwhile Google's Android platform will ensure they continue to grow. If MS is counting on windows phones to drive traffic to Bing, they're going to be disappointed.

I'm glad Bing existed and forced Google to add new, useful features. But unless they make some big improvements, they're never going to come even remotely close to pushing out Google.

Why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817085)

Why are you doing this to me slashdot? I don't even have a dog.
Don't Do This To Me [cloudfront.net]

The logo (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817097)

I would sell it just to never see that stupid logo. It drives me nuts how its stretched so that the horizontal lines are thinner than the vertical lines. Seriously, if you're trying to create a brand name, you would pick a better name and make a better logo that doesn't look like some high school kid's pirated Illustrator output.

Another deceptive headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817117)

The 95% of that article is about the MS and Facebook patent deal and ./ focuses on the repeat of what is little more of rumor of a couple of unnamed execs who floated an idea a year ago.

 

Facebook didn't buy it? (1)

Jayfield (2317990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817121)

How could Facebook not buy Bing? Just look at the Instagram acquisition - Facebook isn't interested in such trivialities as "profitability," right?

Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service? (3, Interesting)

DERoss (1919496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817143)

Six months ago, I logged from where visitors to some of my Web pages came. I was particularly interested in which search services were crawling my Web site. I am now completing a similar logging.

Six months ago, Bing had completely replaced MSN as a crawler; MSN did not crawl my selected Web pages even once. This time, I am again seeing MSN crawling my Web site.

Does this mean that Micro$oft is reverting back to its prior search service and abandoning Bing?

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817153)

I wouldn't read too much into the hostnames.

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817879)

Perhaps it was in the User-Agent header.

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817265)

your pissant shared webhost posting a simpleton blog is no sign of overall health one way or another, and using Micro$oft is so fucking last century its turned around to show how how much of an out of date,pointless, troll, dumbfuck you really are.

please continue, make a windows ME joke based on your mommies compaq when you were hitting puberty

(brought to you from someone who used a S100 system as a daily beater, and not some pud thinking a $ sign in a name is funny a decade late)

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817573)

Fuck off, grampa. You old piece of shit.

Re:Is MS Reverting Back to Its MSN Search Service? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817575)

Maybe calling it Micro$oft was just a fad for you, but for some of us it was a way of life, a lasting passion that doesn't fade after a decade. You're obviously cooler than us though; i'm impressed with what computer systems you've used, you fascinating hipster.

Curious the amount? (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817147)

How much did they offer Facebook to take it off their hands?

Re:Curious the amount? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817273)

three fiddy

Bing?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817211)

Oh that's right its the thing I change that to Google when something I use is defaulted to it.

Re:Bing?? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817281)

what you actually use that? its kind of ironic that you change the default on a default ... I was honestly surprised when a co-worker fired up IE 9 on my computer while I was away, I sat there for a brief moment and thought someone installed firefox 3!

The fundamental differnence between companies (5, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817227)

What's killing Microsoft is the lack of viable products. Take away Windows and Office and Microsoft would cease to exist. Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company. Microsoft has a string of failed products while Apple's track record for the last decade has been excellent. Sure there have been a few failures but most have simply failed to perform like Apple TV and not outright disasters. The Zune may not have been a total failure but it hardly set the world afire. Xbox has done well but it wouldn't keep the company afloat if it lost Windows and Office. Windows and Office have largely hit market saturation which has lead to ten years of stock stagnation. Until Microsoft comes up with a break out product the company will continue to stagnate. I'm not an Apple fanboy it's just Microsoft has retreated to the safety of two successful product lines and rarely does anything to shake things up. The biggest shake up will be a new Xbox model but to put it into perspective what are the sales numbers on Xbox consoles? 66 million to date so maybe 1.5 billion in console sales. At best we're talking a few billion in sales not profits. Apple has 110 billion in cash on hand. Microsoft needs another Windows or Office level product to get competitive again and nothing is on the horizon.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817335)

I'm not a Microsoft hater--like so many others on slashdot--but after reading your post I think you are quite right about them. I am not an Apple fan boy, the only Apple products I have ever owned is iPods and now my iPhone. I think every tech company could take a few pointers from Apple. The main point being only releasing products that some market segment are likely to use and enjoy. Also, taking the time required to release a quality product. I see Microsoft and other companies doing to much of that (rushing products to market) just to make a few quick bucks but it seems like it just hurts them in the long run.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817401)

Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company.

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable, but an Apple that only sold those would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. The massive upswing in Apple's profile was the iPod, and the iPhone built on that. Without those, Apple would just be a slightly-more-expensive Dell.

I agree that Apple is putting out more successful products than Microsoft, but it's focus is still very, very narrow. Cutting out Windows and Office would take out most of Microsoft's profit, but only a tiny slice of their product offerings. Taking out iPhones and iPods not only takes out the majority of Apple's profit, but also a decent chunk of their product lineup.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817611)

Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company.

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Without those, Apple would just be a slightly-more-expensive Dell

I would extend that to Google, Facebook, and really any tech company. The reality is that many of these companies are one-trick ponies, and despite their best efforts, they are unable to expand. Google really went all out to clone Facebook for G+, and a year later it's a ghost town. Similarly; I can remember when Dell and Sony were the epitome of consumer hardware, and now they've been almost completely eclipsed. There is just no room for second place, and no one stays on top for long.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (4, Interesting)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817851)

Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable

It was and probably is. And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads where there's more excitement today.
If you actually wanted to 'hurt' Apple you'd take away iTunes. Not because it's a massive profit center in itself but because it's what makes the iPod user buy an iPhone, iPad, Apple TV etc etc.
MS has no gateway drug, they thought they did with Windows (and for a long time that was true) but somehow the world changed and a more frequent refresh of the iPhone line is far more exciting that the tick/tock (bad/good) release of Microsofts OS line.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (1)

dragonquest (1003473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817425)

"Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company"

Take away the iPhone product line and you cut Apple's revenue in roughly half. Source: Reuters [reuters.com] . For the bonus, take away the iPad product line also and you get a company with a loyal but small customer base. Viable? Sure, but its not going to remain a behemoth like today only on the basis of the Mac line and iPod's.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (0)

BeShaMo (996745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817651)

The answer to that is that both those product lines are relatively new. Apple keeps reinventing themselves by creating new markets, while MS relies on the same two that they have relied on for most of their existence, both of which are under heavy pressure from the competition and shifts in user patterns.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817729)

That isn't an answer, that is a lame excuse. Without those 2 product lines apple would be back to struggling to survive. Those 2 products are also the only reason that much of the rest of their business hasn't completed fallen into the shitter.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (1)

dragonquest (1003473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817899)

I'd disagree to either Windows or Office facing significant competition. The market shares of Mac or OpenOffice are nothing but blips on the radar. But MS is gaining market share in other fields - C#/VS is increasingly relevant, SQL Server is stiff competition to Oracle/DB2. Apple did create new markets, but their old ones are not money churners like before. In contrast Office has been pulling in billions for 2 decades.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817471)

That's true, but those product lines are bigger than you'd think, and Apple has fewer product lines than you think. Office is a gigantic ecosystem including cloud services, it's technically one product but it contains a huge number of sub products. Windows is again a whole bunch of different stuff, though it's probably a shrinking not growing portion of their product set. SQL server is also quite a money spinner these days. The days when Microsoft made all their money on sales of Office for the Desktop and Windows are long gone, even if those two centers are still most of their profit.

Contrasting with apple, if you look more closely, apple have, OSX which makes them no money and Macs which haven't had a significant market share increase in decades. Then you've essentially got the iPhone, the iPhone without the phone, and a bigger iPhone without a phone plus iTunes which feeds the previous three products. The vast majority of Apple's income comes from iTunes and three different variations of exactly the same device.

Of course both are better than Google which has an advertising business and products which operate at a loss to feed people into their advertising business. If a competitor managed to take a significant chunk of the advertising business Google would probably go under.

Re:The fundamental differnence between companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817717)

Microsoft would be significantly bigger than Apple if you took away ipad and iphone while you took windows and office from MS. MS used to be massively loaded between those 2 products but that has significantly changed over the last decade, yes they are still the biggest portion but Apple is far more unbalanced towards 2 single lines than MS EVER was. Microsoft would be reduce to about 25-30%, Apple would be reduced to around 10%.

Yawn.. more anti-ms drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817723)

I could have sworn this comment is posted every single week. And yet MS revenues continue to go up and up. "Stagnated" LOL. You are so wrong that you are either retarded or an anti-ms troll.

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues&zoom=10&startDate=&endDate=&format=real&recessions=false [ycharts.com]

Craigslist... (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817257)

For sale:
Hole in the ground. Sucks massive amounts of your money into oblivion every month.
Price 2 billion dollars, or best offer.

-

Makes more sense than Instagram (5, Interesting)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817345)

Facebook is one of the few sites with the resources and hit count to actually have a chance against Google. Not to say it would have worked, the implementation, combined with Bing's ahem "quirks" would make it an uphill battle.

But instead the sage Zuckerberg proved himself to not be the visionary the media paints him by buying a brain-dead obvious "innovative" flavor of the week app (apparently cheap filters and basic image processing + built in camera FTW) with no patents, innovations, or profits. Let me introduce you to the (richer) Shawn Fanning of our decade 2010's.

We used to call ideas like facebook and Napster clever uses of existing technology presented in a way that finally opened the door to normal people. A noble achievement worth a paycheck. Now we call them the basis for Fortune 500 companies and the pinnacle of tech innovations. NASA and real science is just too boring and no matter how many buttons I push my microwave can't make my food come out in sepia.

No offense to the people who work for Instagram the product is fine, just that it's overvalue raises serious concerns about the state of progress. There is not a single thing that is new or better about the product than PC software for decades other than it runs on a pocket computer. imagine telling the people at Bell Labs, Xerox, Honeywell, IBM, or one of the dozens of other real innovators in the 70's that shit like this was what drove our current technology economy. They would laugh, then cry, then ask about the flying cars

Oh but I forgot it runs on a smartphone! Meaning that according to the patent office these are whole new uncharted realms of innovation worthy of the legal protection akin to the lightbulp or the the CRT. Prior art? Now a days whats considred inventive is just shifting and existing idea wholesale from one screen or interface to another. To me in a sane marketplace Instagram is worth about a $1 plus whatever assets and minus whatever debts they have incurred.

Oh well then, off to design my new protected innovation the "Hello Welcome" door-mat based browser. And don't you dare libel it me by suggesting it is in any way similar to PC browsers since Mosaic in the 90's. Can you control your computer browser with your fucking foot? Yeah that's what I thought- invent something as revolutionary and lifechanging as browsing in the the elements from your doorstep 20 feet from your PC and maybe we will talk BTW.

You won't believe what I've got up my sleeve next (assuming you have been in a coma since the death of real R&D focus in the West).

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817495)

Can you control your computer browser with your fucking foot?

Yes, but it is getting expensive and the 3rd world is complaining about an excess of monitors with a boot hole through them.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817581)

Fuck... I didn't just read that according to my lawyer. The SEC says I have to disclaim any potential liabilities to my new bosses over at Yahoo who saw fit to buy my 1 man company and product sketches for a 25% share of their stock and board position. For their in touch management a shipping product demonstrated product means more overhead. And no employees or prototypes means they only have to spend a few billion to grab this puppy before Amazon, eBay or the ghost of MySpace swoops in.

So just for the record if something goes wrong lets just pretend I don't understand what this "3rd world" (Mars>) thing is, and who knows maybe I'm more of a moccassin kinda guy unfamiliar with these "boots" you speak of.

Basic sense and any concept of the market strategy haven't been considered assets to the friendly folks at Yahoo! in years.They are just glad they got out ahead on this one and didn't miss out like in they heyday of the 99c fart app. Never will a silly fad go past without a massive wasted investment that leads people to wonder "How the hell is Yahoo still around?"

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram (1)

snookums (48954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817537)

The thing is, these valuations are based on users, not technology. If I had an app that all it did was show you a random picture of poop every day, and 27 million people turned on that app and looked at the poop each day, I could probably sell that for $1B too.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram (2)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817587)

Instagram's 30 million users cost Facebook about 30$/head. I'm sure they are worth more than that.

Re:Makes more sense than Instagram (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817911)

Sorry for the self reply, but disclaimer for the grammar. No I'm not drunk, but I haven't slept in about 48 hours, and despite previewing it I only just now realized how grammatically "different" and it reads. Sometimes you just have to think outside of the box, trail-blaze and fight conformity even in basic communication mediums defined over hundreds of years forming a basis for modern culture YKWIM? Kewl. That is if you want to lead us into web 10.0. Yup you read that right.

After learning that you can just randomly attach large numbers to vague incremental updates (thanks Chrome team!) I decided to embrace the system for my my internal brain synergies as a means of expanding the reach of my platforms of knowledge and enhancing the lives of my customers and clients. Basically every-time a new thought enters my mind I get to tack on another whole number. I plan to be at web 15.0 by tomorrow morning at this rate hopefully before those bastards at Mozilla. I know my though process is sound, because Adobe has been doing it for years. everybody knows bigger numbers suggest improvement and new features all within the shareholder friendly budget of a fresh splashscreen and drastically rearranged interface.Not sure but I think EA Sports may have been the first

Or.... maybe, just maybe I've just invented a new form of speech; and it's not my grammar that is broken but instead your narrow ability to comprehend this advanced shit. Yeah just like most of my ideas it was miraculously birthed from the fission powered synapses within my massive social media, web 10. (11.0 by now) , cloud based quantum computing design workshop powered brain.

Hmm... something to consider I never been wrong yet.

Too much progress all at once confuses the small minds and throws my chi levels dangerously off of their perfectly calibrated astrologically sound and total level-headed view of myself and instinctual leadership, intellegence, and physical aptitude qualities that form the basis of my aura.

But for now I might as well stick with my "Hello Welcome" mats before I branch out into defining linguistics and the rest of my many other (future ) contributions to society, culture, and the human condition. Don't worry- your welcome. I'm just not happy unless I'm inventing, creating, and changing the world for future generations

.

BTW off topic, but I'm sick as hell of hearing about this Tesla guy... kinda overrated when you really think about how many iPhone apps he released, and did he even coin any 1337 memes? Probably died waiting for pron to load on dial-up. Bet he never even Rick Rolled anybody either...sad- nasty brutish and short must his allotted life and monthy AOL hours way back then. And named after a car? Must have been rough as a kid

.

Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817493)

Silly execs. They should have unloaded it on eBay.

Re:Microsoft Tried To Unload Bing On Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817593)

Couldn't they just set their default search engine back to Google, and forget that Bing exists?
Like everyone else did?

And I've been using Bing to escape Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39817557)

and its hungry hungry privacy invading data maw. Not that Microsoft is exactly better, but it's at least a bit different. Facebook is WORSE. Shit.

Søgemaskineoptimering (-1, Flamebait)

abigel (2625581) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817769)

we are experts in organic search engine optimization (SEO). We helps site to reach its full potential on the search engines by analyzing the web site structure and content. please contact us now. http://www.crazydesign.dk/ [crazydesign.dk]

Unload what (1)

Anonymousslashdot (2601035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39817773)

and on who's face ? Gotta catch on with the latest slang...
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...