Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Microsoft

Microsoft and Yahoo Discussing Search Partnership 115

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports that Microsoft and Yahoo are talking about a search engine partnership as they desperately try to come up with something, anything, to take on Google. 'Although there is no suggestion that Microsoft's failed bid will be resurrected, the two companies are believed to be discussing ways they can link up to combat the growing power of their chief rival, Google. Quoting sources close to the discussions, the authoritative Dow Jones All Things Digital blog said that "the talks between the pair are preliminary and wide-ranging."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft and Yahoo Discussing Search Partnership

Comments Filter:
  • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) on Friday April 10, 2009 @07:35PM (#27537623) Homepage

    I bought a new drive namely WD WD1001FALS, as all new drives, I fired up Safari and entered exactly these search terms: WD1001FALS specs

    All I had was bunch of clever search optimization geniuses trying to sell me drive and some really annoying google search spammers. I gave up after 5th page and went to Western Digital directly.

    Yahoo search gives some market results too but they seem to be legit search results with known reviewers like PC World. Perhaps Google has become so big that it started to hurt them seriously? I guess everyone out there tries to hack their results and become somewhat successful. There is no mechanism to easily tell Google that they are spammers too. Don't even bother telling me about feedback form.

    I had another experience where searching for Avast Antivirus (which is extremely popular freeware) on Windows ended up with actual virus/trojan results while Yahoo search gives better results, at least no malware (they got some scanner in search). It really bugged me because it was a completely unprotected Windows fresh installation. Imagine some newbie actually trusting those results.

  • by Choozy ( 1260872 ) on Friday April 10, 2009 @07:38PM (#27537649)

    Just a quick test: you google something, and nothing comes up. Is your first thought "I need to try another search site" or "I need to check my search terms"?

    I'm not really sure what you are trying to imply. Just the term itself, "you google something" kinda prooves my point. When someone asks a question that you have no idea about, you don't say "I'll yahoo it" or "I'll MS Search it". Google (rightly or wrongly I'm not trying to defend them or say they are the best) are a household name. You know how much some companies pay to be household names?

  • Twitter.

    Twitter provides realtime search. It shows intent [twitter.com] realtime. It shows trends [tinyurl.com]. It's faster than the news media and blogs [mashable.com], and, with a 140 character limit, it cuts to the chase. And it's growing like crazy [comscore.com].

    MS and / or Yahoo should be looking at Twitter seriously. It's the real deal.

  • by AnalPerfume ( 1356177 ) on Friday April 10, 2009 @07:59PM (#27537863)
    When Google were sniffing around Yahoo, Microsoft complained that a monopoly (in online advertising) was "a bad deal for the consumer". They then release the lobbying hounds to Washington and ensure that any deal is blocked as "anti-competitive". Like most sane people, I agree with them that monopolies are bad for the consumer. Considering their own monopolies on desktop OS's people can buy in stores, and office suites I'd love the same tools to be turned back on Microsoft now. I'd love Google to lobby Washington with the exact same argument Microsoft used. Having said that, politicians decisions are more to do with who is bought than any rightness of a cause.

    I'd love to see Microsoft waste money on yet another falling star, try to get market share by acquisition rather than providing a product / service people actually want. Business as usual really. This time round they may not want all of Yahoo, but only cherry pick parts of it. The part that I'd draw attention to is Zimbra. We all know how Microsoft love competition to their flagship earners, so any Yahoo deal will involve the destruction of Zimbra as we know it. Does anyone know offhand how well placed Zimbra is license wise to fork if / when the hammer of Redmond strikes?
  • by maxume ( 22995 ) on Friday April 10, 2009 @08:14PM (#27537965)

    Search quality isn't the only issue; Google is bringing in more advertising money (and at a higher rate). Yahoo! and Microsoft combined could well do better than either alone (all they have to do is convince advertising customers that they are providing better value).

    I don't use Yahoo! or Microsoft for searching much so I don't really have any idea, but I have heard at least rumblings that they aren't too far from what Google offers.

  • by tukang ( 1209392 ) on Friday April 10, 2009 @08:24PM (#27538023)

    I wonder what a Yahoo user might say if you asked them the same question. Maybe people are more likely to use only 1 search engine - it's certainly easier to change your terms than to go to a new website.

  • by submain ( 856941 ) on Friday April 10, 2009 @08:47PM (#27538147)
    IMHO, the mistake of both Microsoft and Yahoo is to think that this is merely a war for market share, and that they can win by simply duplicating whatever google does.

    In fact, this is more of an innovation war: users won't switch to whatever microsoft/yahoo partnership offers unless it does something that people find useful AND that google has not implemented yet.
  • Clever idea. But it's not Twitter.

    While there are many mimickers on the scene (Plurk and Yapp come immediately to mind), Twitter seems to have reached critical mass - the Bandwagon effect so to speak. Everyone is on it, and if you're not, you're a crusty, cantankerous old person (no matter what age you really are). Big brands and small businesses are leveraging Twitter as a cost effective social media tool. News media like CNN are amassing huge followings. Pre-teens are on it. It has a more dynamic interface than instant messengers as well (heck, Facebook copied it).

    And of course, the Twitter API is open source, so you're seeing funky new apps, hacks and features appear every day.

    Google is king of search, but Twitter owns realtime search, and that's where the future is headed. It's what people want.

  • by gentlemen_loser ( 817960 ) on Saturday April 11, 2009 @12:48AM (#27539551) Homepage
    'Although there is no suggestion that Microsoft's failed bid will be resurrected, the two companies are believed to be discussing ways they can link up to combat the growing power of their chief rival, Google.

    "Their" chief rival... Really? Microsoft is primarily an OS/Office suite vendor. If you had to define the essence of their core business model - that's it. I never understood why Microsoft has singled out Google as an enemy that has to be defeated, as opposed to someone to collaborate with. Yahoo, well, that makes perfect sense - Google has been beating the pants off of them for years. However, Microsoft's shareholders would be better served if they focused on making OS and productivity software that does not suck, as opposed to spending millions of dollars indexing and storing data to make an inferior product to dump more marketing dollars on to compete with a company operating in a different market segment. Why go through all that effort to reinvent the wheel?

    It sure must be nice for Ballmer to have a stockpile of money worthy of Scrooge McDuck to piss away on pet projects...

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...