Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
That seems like a very interesting way of looking at it. Seriously. I see it in a different way that isn't incompatible with yours, but stresses the issue differently. I'd say something like:
Microsoft has shown a consistent pattern of behavior over the years, that it isn't satisfied to produce any of their products for the revenue generated by that product. Instead they look to have every one of their products reenforce all of their other products.
Pretty much every one of their products interlock with MS-only standards, formats, protocols, etc. They have a put a tremendous investment in over the years into vendor lock-in and incompatibility. With every product they introduce, if you want to know why they're introducing that product, you should ask yourself, "How can Microsoft possibly use this product to promote all of their other products?"
For search engines, there is an unfortunate obvious answer: skewing results towards their own products. I don't think it's too paranoid to expect Microsoft to do this to the extent that they believe they can get away with it.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprised, why?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Surprised it took them this long, perhaps.
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
And then the
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
That seems like a very interesting way of looking at it. Seriously. I see it in a different way that isn't incompatible with yours, but stresses the issue differently. I'd say something like:
Microsoft has shown a consistent pattern of behavior over the years, that it isn't satisfied to produce any of their products for the revenue generated by that product. Instead they look to have every one of their products reenforce all of their other products.
Pretty much every one of their products interlock with MS-only standards, formats, protocols, etc. They have a put a tremendous investment in over the years into vendor lock-in and incompatibility. With every product they introduce, if you want to know why they're introducing that product, you should ask yourself, "How can Microsoft possibly use this product to promote all of their other products?"
For search engines, there is an unfortunate obvious answer: skewing results towards their own products. I don't think it's too paranoid to expect Microsoft to do this to the extent that they believe they can get away with it.