4 ms·
The Times misses Microsoft's strategy. You don't need to be better than Google, just be good enough so that when Google screws up, they can swoop in. Microsoft
by Duff 15y ago
The Times misses Microsoft's strategy. You don't need to be better than Google, just be good enough so that when Google screws up, they can swoop in.
Microsoft losing $2.6B is like me dropping $5 on a crapy sandwich.
Microsoft has successfully executed this strategy several times.
- azakai 15y agoExactly. Microsoft never expected Bing to make money, it's just a way to apply pressure on Google. Which helps Microsoft compete with Google elsewhere. Of course there is a chance Google will mess up, in which case Bing might become profitable. But not likely. In any case, the current situation is good for everyone but Google. Microsoft can afford to spend the money and it makes Google's life a little harder. Everyone else benefits since Google is not left unchallenged. We have seen what monopolies can do in computing. Let's face it, if Microsoft doesn't burn money on this, there aren't many alternatives (the alternatives that do exist are either very limited or in fact dependent on Microsoft in some way).
- simonw 15y ago"The Times misses Microsoft's strategy" - the article doesn't represent the opinion of the NY Times - it's an opinion piece. There's a disclaimer on this version of it: http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2011/07/22/microsoft-ought-to-kick-off-search-for-bing-buyer/ http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2011/07/22/microsoft-ought-... (Pointing this out because I used to work for a newspaper, and it was always frustrating seeing people mistake opinion pieces for the official editorial line of the paper)
- Duff 15y agoThanks for pointing that out. I find it more difficult to discern these things in the online format. With the regular newspaper, there are plenty of visual cues that make it clear about what is the author's opinion vs. the papers. Not so with the online edition.