Comments on: The countdown to Microsoft's Kumo

A clock on Microsoft's campus reportedly shows that the software maker plans to launch its Kumo search engine in 40 days.

[Pete Saman]

Kumo - Come on. Microsoft and search is like Microsoft and security, it just doesn't really go together.

[rcrusoe]

I agree that Kumo has a very slim chance of success but Microsoft has to keep trying new things. Right now, about the only thing that makes money for them is Windows and Office, both of which have no place to go but down.

[JasonCe]

I have been using Live Search for a while together with Google now and I can confidently say that their results are very close. I don't think I would be able to tell which one is which in a blind test.

Also, about the "only Windows and Office make money" argument. This is sooo 90s. If you check their quarterly results announced just last week, you'll see they have tens of products that are highly profitable. Just their server and tools divison alone makes more than $10B+.

[i_am_still_wade]

@JasonCe,

You may not be able to tell a difference, but I can. Live search couldn't find the ocean if it was standing knee deep in water. I tried, I really did. But I found that I was able to get what I needed from Google on pages 1 to 3 whereas page 1 from Live I didn't find anything relevant. And I was being specific, usually one two words (i.e. STOP 0x0000000A). And then when I am more generic, Live is even worse. Sometimes, Live search couldn't find something Google found lots of. Live search is good only for searching Microsoft KB articles. I find Yahoo to be a far better way of searching than Live.

Those that do everything do nothing well. Microsoft needs to stop being envious of every successful software company.

[goodspeed8701]

@ i-am you make me laugh when you say all that cos you dont like ms. i use live search and its perfect taking me to the right place. google will always take me to youtube or en.wiki. in terms of image search live is more powerful for me. google is better though but live search is as good as google.

[skrubol]

i_am_still_wade:
I have better luck finding MS info on Google...
Live search very rarely finds results I like. I guess it's possible I've learned how to search effectively with Google, and MS is just different, but there seems to be no comparison to me.

[devi00]

Rcrusoe said "Only thing that makes money for them is Windows and Office."

Umm... XBOX 360? Windows Server? Windows Mobile 6.1? (still most popular mobile OS in world).
Beside saying the ONLY thing they have is WIndows and Office? Its not bad having only two main products when those products are being used by over 75% of the industrialized world.

Microsoft will be fine.

[nuna_yerbiz]

A lot of sites are reporting that the meaning (in Japanese) of Kumo is cloud or spider. Actually, it can mean more. In chinese, the character colloquially means cigarette. In Japanese, it can also mean fog or vapor, and can imply insubstantial. I had an Akita I named Kumo, because he failed the puppy intelligence test. You put a towel over their head. The more intelligent a puppy is, the quicker he will shake it off. Kumo walked around for 45 minutes with the towel over his eyes!

[walletless]

You realise that KUMO is probably a code name, correct? The actual name may be completely different. A few names that are thrown around include "Bing", but no one knows the real name (except a few people within MSFT)

[4score20]

You let a puppy walk around with a towel on his head for 45 minutes and he's the unintelligent one? lol

On topic: I look forward to this"Kumo" from Microsoft but in the end I always return to google.

[rapier1]

I love these sort of linguistic forays into pointlessness.

[servermaker]

@walletless - I hadn't heard the bing.com possibility - that's a very cool URL and owned by Microsoft, as you obviously know. That could be a seriously cool brand for search.

[AllenKids]

@servermaker

Does that mean we'll see a new series of TV ads featuring BillG & Matthew Perry?

Apparently Matt played XO360 a lot, also he fit in Jerry Seinfeld's league perfectly!

[nuna_yerbiz]

4score20: Adopting your own rules of engagement frees me to wonder aloud how long it would take you to drop the towel. Although, if you've been around as long as your nick implies, perhaps that's a factor. Keep up the brilliant work!

walletless: Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just touching on the different connotations a word can have in other cultures. Remember how well the Nova went over in Spanish speaking countries?

[4score20]

@nuna_yerbis: Pleonastic, huh? Remember, the bard cautioned brevity. ;)

[scdecade]

If it's not as good as Goodle they'll just be further shooting themselves in the foot. Watching MS try to get search right is like watching a retarded kid try to play basketball. If the ball goes in the net even once everyone is supposed to jump up and cheer. Google=NBA, MS=Special Olympics.

[eadeguzman]

Mental retardation is a disability. Keep them out of this discussion. Don't poke fun at Microsoft at the expense of people with disabilities.

In some ways, it's more enjoyable watching special olympics because the players there are genuinely happy as opposed to how the game is played in the NBA.

[goodspeed8701]

NBA SUX WATCH SOCCER...

[dream_fly]

I suggest people start using the same search terms on all 3 (google, live search, and yahoo) and see the results for yourself. Google ain't that ahead, if any nowadays.

[myles taylor]

What do you think "ahead" means? They are ahead in the fact that they get more traffic than Yahoo and Microsoft. What does using the same search terms in each one have anything to do with?

[eadeguzman]

myles taylor -- dream_fly is talking about ahead in terms of search results... not market share.

But I tend to disagree with dream_fly anyway, as I believe Google's results are still way better. It's going to be difficult testing it out with a few search terms... the challenge is to use Live Search it on your day-to-day work or other search activities and see if you fall to google and see if you do, you find it there.

I tried it a few times... But it was nearly a year ago... Not sure how much has changed since then. The big advantage of Google vs Live is that google has more data... More data (derived from searches themselves), better sampling, better relevance.

[Rolker]

I agree, although I'm used to Google.
The problem with MS is concept: they are regarded as unsuccessful in the search arena. They need to try and find a new method to make people understand that they search software isn't that bad as people think.
This is an indication on people's behavior: They hear something, a rumor, and they make up their minds without actually testing if this rumor is true.
You can see this phenomena in the case of Vista, viruses on Windows, etc. People "know" that Vista is bad, and that Windows has tons of viruses, while reality shows otherwise.

[DrtyDogg]

@eadeguzman: I've been trying it for a week now. I must admit it has gotten a lot better than the last time I tried it( > 1year ago). But I am so used to google that I still use it unless I use the search bar.

[dream_fly]

I just made 2 searches and in both cases, live search gave me better results.

1. Seaching the weight of Dell's Inspiron 15's weight...'cause Dell sent me a special deal email and I am thinking about getting either a netbook or a laptop. Search text = "dell inspiron 15 weight"

2. I needed to built a custom dolly for my porta bote...very unusual item. Search text = "diy porta dolly" and live search gave me the answer "walker dolly" and google has no answer.

We all know a year in software is a long time. A year ago I was telling microsoft in a focus group how bad their searches were. I have to say they have improved a lot.

I actually just started doing comparison a few weeks ago when google couldn't give me the result in solving our browser and Sharepoint problems but Live Search did.

"Next Generation" is a modern code-word for "not based on our older, crappy version - really"

[myles taylor]

It doesn't really matter if it's better. Google has become synonymous with online search and that isn't going to be easily shaken. I don't even know why Microsoft is in the search business. It's not their thing and they aren't good at it. Microsoft's problem is that it tries to be the best at too many things and ends up being the best at nothing. Well not nothing, but same idea....

[monkeyfun14]

Its there money? So who does it really affect competition is good.

[monkeyfun14]

Live has the best image search Google can't even compete in that area.

[t8]

Live Image Search is trying to be flash.
Most people want good results. Not flash stuff.
If I want something flash, I can watch a TV ad.

[ncalishome]

Agreed on Live image search, it's really good. I still use Google 99% of the time though, old habits die hard.

@t8 "trying to be Flash" are you serious? Is that what every site that uses DHTML is trying to be like?

[agriffith96]

If Live search had a "I'm feeling lucky" button I would be a heavy Live.com user. Hope Kumo has a knockoff of it. Maybe one that works a little better.

I'm looking forward to anything MS wants to release that I don't pay for or am not forced to use.

[lonestarState]

Being a user of BuildaSearch.com I can switch my search results between Yahoo! and Microsoft Live results instantly. People talk crap about both these serch providers all the time and honestly as a professional developer, I can say 99% of the time I can find what I am searching for using Yahoo! or Live. The problem with most people, it they do not know to perform proper queries hence blaming it on the search and using Google as their "life-line"

[RompStar_420]

I know what they should call their new search engine!!

TURD.COM - "You get more crap from using our engine, Guaranteed or your money back"

[jtjt145]

Micro$oft should stick to making keyboards and mice - the only part where they are good at.

[Angmarr]

Wow Extremely insightful!

[dbrohamTV]

"Kumo" is Microsoft's attempt to get a search term that can be used as a verb. They will try to get people to "Kumo it" The strategy might work. No matter what anyone says, most of Google's success has to do with it's name. Google is in for the fight of their lives.

[RompStar_420]

What about Google's first cell phone ? that right there beat anything Microsoft got to offer. It is shaky, unstable, freezes, crashes, and other funny stuff happens, I owned one, and have a crazy friend who deals in cell phones.

Seen it, felt it with my own, hands, used it, Google soon will have their own notebook too, don't that drive you crazy ?

LOL

I am also sure that Google continues on improving their engine and everything.

HaHAahaaaaaaa.

[t8]

I also use Google Docs. I threw away MS Office even though I have a licensed copy.

[t8]

Using a Google API, I created my own search engine in 10 minutes called
http://www.stunningsearch.com/

And I bet the results are better than Kumo coz my results are Google's.

So a better than Kumo can be made in 10 minutes thanks to Google.

[slecalvez]

@t8: Are you serious? Stunning Search? jajajaj please, get a life. And using Google Docs over Office when you have a Licenced copy? How can you even compare these two... If you didn't have a license and the money, I would understand, but technically speaking, Office 2007 is SO much better then the Google app toys...

[t8]

The search results will be better than any Kumo can do.

BTW, I am forced to use Microsoft Office at one place I work and it is so 90s and lame.
I am from the Web generation thanks.

MS Office is for people who have too much money and not enough common sense.

[naterandrews]

Not being a Live Search user, I thought I would do a few quick searches to test and compare Google (my default provider) to Microsofts' multi-billion dollar wonder, Live Search.

*Search: "Grand Coney, Grand Rapids" (A local restaurant): Google returned a map overlay with a pinpoint street view, address and phone number, complete with directions, menu items and reviews.
Live Search brought up a map that was utterly useless (shown my city and neighboring cities), and a telephone number. Round one goes to Google- simple layout, helpful map and links to reviews I found helpful. (Notably, Microsoft touted it's local information was leagues ahead of Google)

*Search: "Apple Quarterly Results" (News Search): Financial information is highly searched on the internet. Search providers are expected to give instant information pertaining to the specific search. How did Microsofts' Live Search fare? Live Search is lacking in this area. While the search did provide resent posts about Apples' stellar quarter, I did not get much hard information. The results felt as if it were standard web-search fare. In order to get a breakdown, the searcher must first skim 6 results. This is just unacceptable. Google organizes and displays news results in a much more interactive and enticing manner; Organized by news organization, we can get a breakdown of the quarterly results, not to mention comparative content about Apple's war with Microsoft and a general idea of how the industry is doing- along with visual cues, something Live News Search lacks. Chalk up another victory for Google.

*Search: "Palm Pre" (Image Search): Many comments on this article reference Microsoft's advantage with Image Searches. While searching for Palm Pre pictures, I did find that Live Search performed well. Image results can be viewed in a number of ways, and are slightly enlarged if hovered upon. While producing far fewer image results than a Google search, I had to wonder- does Live Search present these images in a better light than Google? Selecting an image, a framed window launches, allowing the user to scroll through similar images on the left. Selecting "full size image" however, opens a new window thus defeating the purpose of a single windowed interface. I did like the "show similar images" feature Live offered me, and the onboard refinement features allowed me to find an image suitable for download. Google presents it's images differently. Instead of requiring hovering to display image details (host site, dimensions), all information is shown beneath each image. However, finding a specific image becomes akin to looking for a needle in a haystack. There are more than 5x the results of Live Photo Search, but Microsoft found a way to present images in a better light. Neither solution offered a truly unique and worthwhile way of displaying and searching for images. Microsoft's "hover for details" becomes repetitive after a while, and Google is just downright frustrating. Winner for Image Search goes to Live.

These are just a couple random searches to test the service in an unbiased point of view. Being a longtime Google user, I may never switch- mainly because of the way Google integrates it's properties so well with their core search service. But for others out there that are interested in Microsoft Live Search, I can say that the service is decent but nothing groundbreaking. If you are a fan of Microsoft, or are a Hotmail or MSN user, I recommend the service. But for those that need detailed information, that is accurate and helpful, Google maintains it's lead- afterall, their goal IS to organize all of the world's information.

[naterandrews]

Microsoft is going at search all wrong, as they have been for the last few years. Instead of fighting a losing war with Google for market share, they need to stab Google in the heart. Financially, Google is a one-trick-pony, with advertising pumping the blood through their veins. Microsoft has been dumping money into Live Search for quite some time now, and while investors aren't completely happy with the latest results, they understand the threat that Google could have upon their company if left unchecked.

The solution to Microsoft's "Google problem"? Cut Google off at the knees by attracting their biggest advertisers. Offer substantial "loyalty" discounts to the advertisers to sign with Live to steal money away from Google while showing that Microsoft makes a great online partner. During a tough economy, ensuring that advertisers are greeted with financial incentives and security, Microsoft will be able to leverage it's war chest, partnerships and branding to land a hefty number of these A-list ad deals.

While I know that bleeding red isn't exactly the most attractive business tactic, Microsoft can afford to do so. Why is this? Because Google cannot bleed resources for long. Ads are their lifeblood, and once Microsoft controls their largest partners- and swoons user generated content to further twist the blade, Google will be facing serious and mortal damage to their bottom-line. Reporting just a few quarters of lost ground and ad sales, investors will be spooked, sending Google spiraling down and depressing their market cap, credit rating and livelihood.

So, as many people will continue to say Microsoft needs more market share to win search, I firmly believe their best resource is their cash, persuasiveness, and partnerships that they can utilize to control a market and utterly destroy any competitor that threatens their business. The only question is, how badly does Ballmer want this market?

[Inconnux]

who comes up with these dumb names????

[monkeyfun14]

Yup Google just shoots up there in ranks in intelligent names.

[t8]

Hey if you want to find my site, just kumo me.
Microsoft is about to kumo suicide.

[ArieJones]

pingback : http://www.programmersedge.com/?p=1049