Microsoft has realized that efforts to rig its online search traffic can only go so far. After using bribes to boost queries on its Live Search engine, the Redmond outfit has decided that it's also a good idea to beef up the engine's architecture, announcing a brand new research center dedicated entirely to search and ad …
The Real Reason Microsoft Search will follow rather than lead...
Having spent several years working in MSN I have the answer to why Microsoft can't really compete with Google in the search space. That answer is leadership. For many years now MSN has gone through churn at the top of their development teams and this turmoil has caused inconsistencies in strategy and planning. With no one steering the ship it's bound to hit an iceberg. The result has been an ever changing goalpost which has led to sporadic development efforts with no real insight into what the consumer wants, what is technically possilble, what will give a good ROI and more importantly; what is crucial for commercial success. There has been an arrogance that just because 'we are Microsoft' the battle will be won. That is simple no way to win and it's about time someone at the top sorted the mess out.
Here's my suggest for how to take on Google. Solve one really big issue like performance. Figure out how to geo-distribute MSN search and at least you'll have a chance to play in the same sandbox. Put a leader in place and set out a strategy and FOLLOW IT. Don't change the goalposts, listen to your consumers and think outside of the box.
It won't even be a challenge. And all it will take is Microsoft in their attempt to gain more users implementing some proprietry technology which only Windows Vista users or something equally as silly can use, or something which locks people into browsing with IE and then people will be likely to leave Live and go back to Google again.
Research centres don't work
Take 1000 of your IT people, call 100 of them a research centre, and what you're actually doing is saying 900 of them can't do research.
The 100 have to justify their 'research' status, and if ordinary IT people elsewhere do research, how can they justify their special centre? What is special about their centre if it's not where the research ideas come from?
If any of those 900 do research, it gets handed to the elite 100 and is dissed as a result.
Yet the more radical ideas are likely to come from the 900, not the 100.
Back of a fag packet nous.....
"Vista doesn't get done by three people in a garage in three days," said Steve Ballmer. The company is making big bets, and some of them will take time to develop. "A great misconception in the tech industry is that most successes happen overnight," he said."...Steve Ballmer ... http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/07/26/Ballmer-asks-Microsoft-investors-to-be-patient_1.html
Nice try, Steve, although true Innovators know that is exactly how IT happens..... with the QuITe Sublime Enigma of Eureka making herself known.
Gotta smoke/Wanna smoke.... or is burn out a problem, too?
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Human spaceships dodge ALIEN BODY skimming Mars
- Downrange Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know