Comment by blhack | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blhack | Hacker News Reader

I tried really hard, but I just can't take this type of writing seriously.

Summary: Microsoft wants to expand their search market. They plan on spending a lot of money advertising this. This is a bad idea.

Guy who wrote this, listen up:

People do not giving a flying shit about the underlying architechture of any product they use. They do not care about the quality of results. They do not care about the logo on the top.

They care about how they feel when they're using things.

Lets look at apple's ipod. Yes, they are absolutely successful. Why is this? Is it because they have a massively superior product to anybody else? Or is it because they have advertised the living hell out of it to the point of an ipod being a fashion accessory/status symbol?

Haha, ipods are so hip, what, are you behind the times with that other mp3 player? Haha, look at how happy I am with this terrific, iPod, I'm with it! I'm hip!

The ipod isn't better, the feeling is better.

Look at the bing homepage compared to google. They have a nice big graphic on there with lots of colors. Its kindof beautiful. Oh, and the graphic changes all the time! Isn't that great? It's like you'd have to go to the page a few times a day to see all the pictures.

(now I'm adopting that annoying, sarcastic writing style. Sorry)

In search, getting results is the easy part. The part that keeps people coming back isn't content, its the feeling that they get when they're using the product.

You're wrong. The iPod was significantly better. People bought it. then it became 'hip' and 'cool', and some people only bought it because it was hip+cool.

I had several mp3 players before an ipod and the difference in usability was massive.

For a search engine, results are pretty much the only thing that matters. That's why google won.

Maybe for the first 3 months, by that time other companies got the message. So Apple started to advertise, advertise and advertise until everyone had a white on pink burned into their eyes.

I apologize, I should have been more specific. What I should have said was that results were important when web search was in its infancy.

It has been refined to the point of irrelevance.

I still have trouble finding what I'm looking for, so I don't really know what you're talking about.

You can't put a dress on an also ran and take on Google. It has to kick Google's ass.

What sorts of things do you look for that you aren't able to find with google?

Or with Bing, for that matter :)

Why does it have to 'kick Google's ass'? As long as the search result quality is comparable, there is no consumer lock-in keeping users from changing their habits and typing 'bing' rather than 'google' in their browser-bar.

Remember: Power-users who fiddle with Google Apps aren't the ones paying the bills -- it's the casual users who click those ads that bring in the cash.

It may sound foolish, but many of those casual users would prefer to see a serene image during their work-day rather than Google's stark whiteness. I'm already seeing many more converting paid clicks coming from Bing than Live.com ever delivered, so it seems to be working.

Go Bing! I'm thrilled to have another quality location I can advertise with!

People associate google with search. To get them to change, you have to offer them something better/more than google. And if you're microsoft, it's an uphill battle, because most users hate you, so you'll have to be even better than that.

The Bing interface is prettier and is as-fast-or-faster than Google. That's 'better/more' enough for the typical computer user.

Remember: If you're reading Hacker News, you're not a "typical computer user". You're not the type of person that's lining Google's pockets -- you're probably a cost.

Most "typical computer users" don't hate Microsoft. They're happily using Word and IE, love FreeCell, and couldn't tell you what Emacs or The Gimp were to save their lives. People stopped reflexively typing 'yahoo' and 'altavista' pretty easily when their friends recommended 'google' and could do the same for 'bing'.

Keystrokes aren't a switching cost and Google isn't nearly as invincible as you might think.

When people are searching google, they don't want pretty. They want bare bones functional, it works. Bing looks cluttered, busy, and reminds me of why everyone switched to google in the first place - to get away from all the idiotic 'portals' that were trying to have as much stuff on the search page as possible.

Let me quantify a little more... People associate microsoft with bad things, and the past - their operating system crashing and dying. It's a necessary evil for them (Until they discover linux/osx if they ever do). Google on the other hand is associated with providing good search results, and allowing them to find what they want to, quickly.

I agree, google isn't invincible, but I believe if it is to be replaced, it'll be by a startup. Not a rebranding of a god-awful search engine by microsoft.

>> "That's 'better/more' enough for the typical computer user."

It's really not. You're talking about changing everyones behavior. Why would they do that? Because it looks prettier? You're delusional.

>>"the past - their operating system crashing and dying. It's a necessary evil for them (Until they discover linux/osx if they ever do)."

Don't intend to start a flame war but this is ridiculous. How do you explain ~95% of desktops in the world running windows? As far as discovering linux/osx is concerned, it isn't for the common computer buyer yet. It is the computer scientists/hackers who discover them. Most of the common people probably haven't even heard of linux.

You're right, they probably haven't even heard of linux, and that's likely the way it'll stay, even as they start buying netbooks preloaded with linux.

You can't put a dress on an also ran and take on Google. It has to kick Google's ass.

Wrong. Microsoft only has to show it can compete, and it has won. They get to keep: the significant portion of the populace that's only dimly aware that they can switch search engines and also the portion that doesn't care. Certain types of results have a slicker presentation -- right there, many of the habitual users of those subsets are going to go to Bing, and these habitual searchers are probably many of the people most valuable to advertisers.

Remember, to win against the Germans at Stalingrad, the Russians first had to fight them to a standstill and keep them grinding their gears there for awhile. Sometimes the key to victory is to sap your opponent's momentum by just holding them at bay. (That said, I hope Google pulls off some fantastic stuff in response!)

I just wish Microsoft would learn from its past and be a leader again.

Actually, I think they just took the lead in search results presentation.

>> "Actually, I think they just took the lead in search results presentation."

Is that a serious comment? They took the lead by copying googles layout and colors? Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic here.

The other UI crap I don't care for personally. I don't think it makes up for the significantly worse search results.

I'm not so sure. Perhaps the iPod feels better, in part, because it is easier to use, faster, holds more music, or integrates better with your computer?

These can be objectively measured, whereas "feeling" cannot.

Microsoft would love it if this were true. They may even convince themselves that it is-- that their stuff is just as good as Apple's or Google's, just not as fashionable. But it isn't true.

As companies, Apple and Google are both obsessed with making great things. Not with fashion, with engineering. Ask the people who work there. Microsoft isn't. Their history as a company has convinced them that there always has to be a shortcut to dominance-- that they don't have to obsess over craftsmanship, because they can use money or power to buy market share. Their plan to spend $100m marketing Bing shows their priorities haven't changed.

With all due respect, this is where I do not agree.

Microsoft is a company with a very diverse product spectrum and $60B in revenue. One has to give them some credit for sustaining high level of revenues and profit growth. It would be only fair to consider that they do have a lot of very smart people who can perhaps tell when is a short cut (FAST, Powerset ?) a better way to success and when the sheer commitment to high level of craftsmanship is the primary way.

With the search business being so dominated by Google (and for very good reason), introducing an entirely new brand name like Bing is a LOT of work, just to get people's ears and eyeballs. To overcome such a huge startup latency because of a new brand, a $100m investment in marketing sounds perfectly reasonable. Overall, I think they are investing a total of ~$500m in the online business operating expenses for the year.

Apple on the other hand, often seems to actively prefer to compete at a disadvantage. It's hard to get an Apple for work, it usually employees voicing (loudly) a preference. They rarely use price to break into or maintain markets. They want people to overcome those barriers to get the product. So if someone buys an Apple or an iphone it's because they really wanted it. When they win, it's usually because they made something someone really wanted. Wanted enough to pay for it themselves; nag their boss; learn something new or some other obstacle. It would be a break from this strategy if iphones started to be mass issued by employers putting them in to the hands of people who are apathetic.

MSFT take the opposite approach. Their usually involve the path of least resistance. That often using high high/dominant market share; pricing strategies; barriers to switching; barriers to being the odd one out, etc.

Both are IMO good business strategies & both are good businesses. But there is a qualitative difference in the approach. If sheer commitment to high level of craftsmanship is the primary way to winning, they probably won't win.

The iPod could store a person's entire music library, which other players at the time could not do. That was a major selling point. While advertising wouldn't hurt, you can't say that a few commercials were the only reasons anybody wanted one.

What? The Archos Jukebox had the same capacity as the first iPod and was released a year earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod

True. Unfortunately, the Archos was quite large, and had a clunky interface. The iPod was certainly the first hard disk mp3 player to have a good interface, reasonable size, and not be hideous looking, all of which were important for mass market takeup. It didn't have truly massive innovations, but it was a wonderful, weel thought out product. Which is what Apple are genuinely good at.

Yep i remember quite clearly seeing the iPod for the first time and thinking "cool! An Archos that fits in my pocket!"

I want the feeling of getting what I'm searching for and the ability to skim and find it instantly on the results page without distraction. This isn't as subjective as feelings.. You can easily come up with a set of queries you used in the last year to find what you were looking for and ask: did the search engine return it as top N results?

edit: in general, as far as marketing is concerned, I agree that you should be in the business of selling feelings around your product, but I think you over-generalized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com