Search: What Microsoft Should Do Next
|
There has been much buzz about Microsoft's Wednesday Searchification event. Several Microsoft bloggers have cooed over a revamped Windows Live Search service, contributing to the anticipation. We can't say what's coming, but we can say what Microsoft should and shouldn't do with Live Search. |
Live Search may seem like a consumer product, but I expect the plumbing and future emphasis will be all-enterprise class. The effort's heritage derives from Microsoft enterprise software. Soon after the company put more emphasis on search, Microsoft.com switched over to SharePoint-driven search, in June 2003. Microsoft.com and Live Search have evolved since, but the enterprise focus remains an undercurrent for the consumer search service.
But Live Search also continues to trail Google and Yahoo, with Microsoft stuck at No. 3. But three isn't a bad place to be, considering Google and Yahoo really are smaller problems. All three companies face the same larger competitor—offline advertising, particularly the broadcast medium. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have raced against each other to make bigger buckets to catch the cash as it moves online.
Microsoft has worked on improving search for more than four years. Along the way, the company has used an "early days" argument to dismiss Google's success. Get a life. Search is not a new or nascent technology. Internet search predates the World Wide Web, when tools like Gopher let users search remote computers connected to the loosely but widely connected network. What is new is the successful monetization of search—and even that's not so recent a development. That said, considering how little money is spent online compared to offline and how much more will be spent online, the "early days" argument isn't meritless.
So what does Microsoft need to show for the next version of Windows Live Search, which I'll refer to as Live Search 2.0. (Four-oh is probably more appropriate, but who really is counting?)
Do it for real. Microsoft launched the first, major overall of its search service in November 2004—as a beta. The company made big noise—with two separate conference call announcements—about a launch that turned out to be quite rocky. The hype fell far short of the promises; the beta bombed. Live Search 2.0 needs to be the real deal and no beta. Whether Microsoft flips on the switch or uses a dimmer to light up slowly, the service has got to work. No beta, please.
The importance cannot be understated. Microsoft is in a race to win confidence in a service that competes against a verb (Google this). Microsoft runs an ad network now, too. Live Search 2.0 has to deliver, so that the MSN adCenter sales staff can get out there and sell banner ads, contextual search ads and search keywords. Confidence is key.
Keep it simple. For awhile there, Microsoft trotted down a dangerous path towards increased search complexity. We don't want to hear about any more freakin' macros or other tools that require users to manually tweak their searches. What Google gets right is simplicity. Google's algorithms and servers do the heavy work, so that users don't have to. Keyword search is easy and should be easier. Microsoft must improve search relevancy while pulling complexity back to the server.
Make it WinFS@live.com. In Dec. 2004, after Microsoft put the "rest in peace" sign over WinFS, I dubbed the new search strategy as MSNFS. Microsoft's WinFS promise of new data stores and seamless search across the desktop, local network and Internet disappeared in a puff of vaporware. Suddenly, MSN—and later Live—took center stage of Microsoft's consumer and enterprise search strategies.
Nearly three years later, it's time for Microsoft to deliver through Live Search some of the search capabilities promised for WinFS. In March, Microsoft started search trials of about 30 corporations with 5,000 or more PCs to see how they use search. How will Microsoft embody some of the results in its search products?
Keep it relevant. Live Search already has greatly improved results relevancy, which Microsoft could always make better. I refer to the search service's relevance to advertisers. Live Search 2.0 has to be more than about relevant results. There must be better relevance of search capabilities to existing and potential MSN adCenter customers.
Live Search 2.0 could be branded a failure if technology improved without delivering obvious new benefits through MSN adCenter. The objective shouldn't be making Microsoft No. 1 in search market share, but making the most money from banner ads, contextual search ads and search keywords. It's time to see Microsoft hold out a big bucket to catch those ad dollars flowing from the offline to the online ad market.
Sell it. Microsoft is tightfisted with its marketing dollars, but search has been an exception. The company advertises Live Search, as it did the MSN predecessor, even on television. At the least, Microsoft should put even more emphasis on Live Search marketing, particularly television.
From where does Microsoft need to catch those new online ad dollars? TV. Where do most consumers spend most of their free time? TV and the Web. The television ads are like beachheads on enemy turf—yet they court an audience that also spends lots of time online.
Ask's "Instant Getification" ads are some of the best technology commercials on television. Ask shows the search engine's benefits in an aspirational manner. Microsoft should take a cue from its rival when promoting Live Search 2.0
Related Posts:
- Microsoft Clubs Its Way to Search Gains, Microsoft Watch, July 16, 2007
- Google Complaint Targets Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 9, 2007
- The Google Quandary, Microsoft Watch, April 24, 2007
- Microsoft Reorganizes Search, Microsoft Watch, March 21, 2007
- Live Search to Begin 'Incentive' Enterprise Search Trial, Microsoft Watch, March 16, 2007
- Wanted: Dead or Live, Microsoft Watch, March 2, 2007
- Why Google Matters to Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
- Microsoft Seeks More Mobile Relevance, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 12, 2007
Comments (19)
One more money-losing initiative from the Ballmer brain trust in Redmond. Will someone please take the matches away from these kids before they hurt themselves?
Posted by Ed T | September 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Microsft must be taking lessons from the White House on how to dig themselves in deeper and deeper. The "keep doing the same things but give it a new name" strategy isn't working, Redmond!
Ultimate extras aren't the only "features" offered in the various Vista versions that have that distinctive odor of "truth in advertising" rot about them.
Many of their other "ideas" seem to just fall apart when put out into the real world.
This firm does some things really well...and yet...they seem unable to do so many other things with even a shred of competency. Maybe Microsoft's only WoW goal is to become like Quest or ATT and -really- feel the love!
Posted by mgo | September 24, 2007 7:15 PM
Microsoft is extremely incompetent at marketing.Do they really think people are going to stop using Google for a search engine named "Live Search"?With no real point of differentiation I might add?
Posted by mike | September 24, 2007 7:34 PM
Joe,
For the last week , your entries centered abround :
1) WGA
2) Windows Update
3) Windows Live Messenger
4) The Girl Scout
That's all an ex-Jupiter analyst can do ?
Posted by Ron | September 24, 2007 9:12 PM
Joe, sorry about this and I am sure I am breaking protocol by posting this here, but I cannot obtain your email address. But... if a movie is ever made of your life, I think I have found the actor
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0166061/
He just needs the glasses like he wears in Boston Legal (one of my favorite shows by the way).
Again, I apologize for posting this here.
Posted by Rich Gowran | September 24, 2007 9:47 PM
microsoft will lose what they took from VCSY
United States Patent 7,076,521
"Web-based collaborative data collection system "
"I claim:
1. A web-based client system for acquiring data from a web-enabled data server, comprising: a web-based data collector, the data collector for collecting data from the web-enabled data server, the data collector for collecting data periodically, the data collector for determining the web-enabled data server to collect data from by referencing data source identifying information, the data collector for converting the data from a markup language format to a structured data storage format, the data collector for storing the data in a storage system.
2. The web-based client system of claim 1, wherein the data collector is a first data collector and the web-enabled data server is a first web-enabled data server, further comprising a second web-enabled data server, the second web-enabled data server for providing data from the storage system to a second data collector.
3. The web-based client system of claim 1, wherein the markup language format comprises Extensible Markup Language (XML).
4. The web-based client system of claim 1, wherein the markup language format comprises Hypertext Markup Language (HTML).
5. The web-based client system of claim 1, wherein the structured data format comprises Structured Query Language (SQL)."
You've written claims against programming a computer to use a standard protocol to receive data in standard formats and parse the streams received to extract the tagged or formatted data. Optionally, you can run your lame-assed perl script as a cron job and have it retag or reformat the extracted data. Exactly what the people who actually developed the protocols, formats, libraries, languages and utilities intended to allow you or anyone else to do when they devised them.
That's just amazing "technology" you've got there.
The even more amazing thing is that the USPTO actually issued you a take-a-number to go off and sue people over this drivel.
It's hard to decide whether we need patent reform or an exorcist.
Posted by I-Man | September 24, 2007 10:18 PM
Ron wrote: "For the last week , your entries centered abround...That's all an ex-Jupiter analyst can do ?"
Oh, did you miss:
1) Office suite competition
2) Microsoft and Cisco cooperation/competition (podcast)
3) Windows Vista and Server 2008
4) Live Search
5) Windows bundling
6) EU appeals ruling, impact on Microsoft and industry
Fourteen posts since last Monday, two of which covered the four topics you mentioned. What topic would you like covered next, Ron?
Joe
Posted by Joe | September 24, 2007 10:19 PM
Joe, how about we cover the VCSY/Microsoft lawsuit as a topic? This is actually the biggest thing Microsoft has on the burner, which will have the most significant effect on the future of Microsoft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) Vertical Computer Systems Inc. said late Friday it has sued Microsoft Corp. for allegedly infringing a patent related to computer application generation. Vertical Computer (8:13pm 09/24/2007 Sponsored by:
VCSY0.02, +0.00, +5.6%)
said in a prepared release that the suit was filed April 18 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Vertical Computer said in the release that Microsoft's .NET system violates a patent Vertical Systems filed in 1999, and awarded in 2004, covering "a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework."
Posted by I-Man | September 24, 2007 11:03 PM
HP to expand Linux PC offerings to other countries; US a "real possibility"
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070924-hp-to-expand-linux-pc-offerings.html
Posted by chips | September 24, 2007 11:06 PM
Why Public Schools Should Adopt Linux.
http://adamzwakk.com/?p=71
Quote from the link;
"1. Its free (schools could save thousands)"
----------------------------------------------------
More like mega millions alone just in the USA. Russia has started to do it already, convert to Linux. This would save the over burdened taxpayers so much in the short run. Not only would the software be free, be maintance time on any computer connected to the internet would be greatly reduced because of the viral problems of running an insecure Microsoft Windows Operating System.
Posted by chips | September 24, 2007 11:11 PM
Running the Numbers on Vista
Quote; "Sales of boxed copies of Windows Vista continue to significantly trail those of Windows XP during its early days, according to a soon-to-be-released report."
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18605/Running-the-Numbers-on-Vista
Posted by chips | September 25, 2007 12:20 AM
Joe, you have repeated the topic of "Live Search " few times
You seem exhausted .
I predict your entries for this week will be :
1) Microsoft Server 2008
2) Microsoft/EU ruling (again)
3) Microsoft WGA and Microsoft Update (again, coupled with some conspiracy theories )
4) Windows Vista SP1 (You happy to mention that Vista SP1 will be delayed)
5) Windows XP SP3 ( You will recommend to us to wait for XP SP3 and drop Vista )
6) Windows Live Search (Of course, you will not spare this topic and keep hammering)
Posted by Ron | September 25, 2007 4:05 AM
I-MAN wrote:
... Vertical Computer said in the release that Microsoft's .NET system violates a patent Vertical Systems filed in 1999, and awarded in 2004, covering "a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework....
Let me get this straight. You are suing microsoft over a software design pattern you have developed???? Cause that's what it sounds like.I hope you have something more to backup this up or you don't stand a chance in court....
Posted by evan | September 25, 2007 5:50 AM
Ron, you seem to have the silly idea that one or two posts on a topic is more than enough. What if there are new developments? What if there is an important point that bears separate discussion? Do you want Joe to keep quiet about it?
Ron, your complaint is silly and trite. If you can't stand to read hard-hitting analysis about Micro$oft, go back to reading Micro$oft press releases.
Posted by Maddog | September 25, 2007 6:05 AM
Chips, I don't want to burst your bubble about those figures, but have you considered the actual present day installed user base compared to the installed user base when XP was released.
Given the cost of new computers compared to in XP days and the increase in Internet usage there are far greater number of PCs now then there were back then.
To gain any sort of meaningful comparison to the uptake of Vista over XP you would need to factor in the size of the user base.
For example;
If Vista has sold 5,000,000 units in 6 months, what % of the total user base that represent. If there are 50,000,000 PC's in existence then that would be a 10% take up.
XP may have only sold 2,000,000 units in 6 months. However if the total user base at that time was only 20,000,000 PCs then the take up XP would be the same as Vista at 10%.
Vista selling more units than XP is only one measure of success. I would only consider Vista to be a success if Vista gained more % share in those 6 months than XP.
Posted by William | September 25, 2007 8:52 AM
William, maybe you should re-read the link, its about "boxed" versions of Vi$ta, not OEM versions. Boxed versions (or standalones) are what many users who build their own desktop computers buy, as the licenses are transferrable to a newer computer.
As far as the OEM pre-installed in the store, on almost every computer, version, the only figures that I have really seen is about 25% of those hard drives are being wiped and replaced with XP. But that not from that link, but previous links. You can look them up, if you are interested.
Posted by chips | September 25, 2007 12:41 PM
Wait what did this post about Live Search have to do with Windows Vista, and Linux? Oh that is correct it has nothing to do with it. For the topic at hand. I wonder if Microsoft has plans to integrate Live Search into Facebook. That could bring a huge turnaround in the search engine market. But the Facebook information is still speculitive untill papers are signed. More time to hurry up and wait.
Posted by Jake | September 25, 2007 1:48 PM
The thing about "MSN live search," or "Windows Live," or whatever MS chooses to call it this week, is this;
Where are they getting their users from?
When you anwser this question, you get to the heart of the matter, as to who are the core of the base users of their search portal.
I suggest that there are only two big groups that form the base of the MSN search portal users. The first group, is MSN internet (ISP) users. Since like AOL, MSN ISP users tend to be dialup users, this group is in steady decline, number wise. The second group of users, is probably hotmail users. Not that any hotmail user, or MSN ISP user, would necessaryly have to use the search portal as well, but would be more likely too.
The simple fact is, that Google and Yahoo are miles ahead of MSN Live search (and AOL) in features, and relavant hits per search. AOL in the past at least used to have their game portal business. Google gives away free software, my guess is that MSN live portal, would only try to sell you MS software at full price, if anything. MS just dosen't compete in this search market, and its not getting it.
Posted by chips | September 25, 2007 3:21 PM
Grrrr - just been told by my PC maker that to have XP instead of Vista on my new Shuttle is going to cost £100 more!
Double Grrrrrrrrr - Just tried to access Microsoft's list of compatible hardware to check my colour laser will work with Vista and it tells me "You are not using IE6.0 or higher (I have FireFox) so you can't have a list...."
Hmmm, Linux, VM ware, NT4.0 and all my old drivers it is then - screw M$.
Posted by Rick | October 8, 2007 6:15 AM