Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 20:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 371622
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They always did that with Live search and MSN and whatever and it has never worked.
Indeed, you are correct. And when you think about it, with that much of an unfair advantage, its pretty amazing that they have managed to do so poorly for so long. These are the kinds of things I think about when certain blinkered "free enterprise!" people try to tell me that MS has gotten where they are by making better products than their competition. Sometimes their overwhelming desktop monopoly leverage is strong enough to push inferior products into their own monopoly positions. But sometimes the product is *so* inferior that not even overwhelming monopoly leverage is enough to force people to use it.
Edited 2009-07-03 22:16 UTC
kragil and others: Yes, Microsoft to date has had quite crappy search products. The problem is that they dont have to be better than everyone else. They only have to be good enough to not be shunned. Look at IE. Even when it was at its worst, it was still the dominant browser simply because it was the default and most people were unable/too lazy to change. I dont want to see that happen to Google because they actually earned their position.
Edited 2009-07-04 02:09 UTC






Member since:
2006-01-04
???
They always did that with Live search and MSN and whatever and it has never worked.
So what are you talking about?