The Next Web

Microsoft, Don’t You Dare

Microsoft, Dont You Dare

Surely you heard the news that Microsoft is contemplating a deal with News Corp to pay the news giant to pull itself from Google.

Bing, of course, would still be able to spider News Corp properties, giving Bing a major competitive advantage.

From myself, and the rest of the internet community: Microsoft, you must not do this.

Doing so would set a precedent that content should charge search engines for the right to be spidered. What you are doing is just that, attempting to buy exclusive rights to News Corp online. This is the proverbial slippery slope.

Openness is one of the most important concepts on the internet. If you create content, it is searchable. Google brought this revolution, and made the internet not just live up to its potential, but made it useable. Pre-functioning search, the internet was just an idea with potential. Search unlocked the dragon, in the best way possible.

By beginning to close search, by hitting other engines with a dollar-war, you, Microsoft, are going to destroy the open internet. If News Corp wants to not play, fine. Let them leave. They will suffer more than they are supposing. But by paying to get an exclusive, you are tearing the fabric of the free exchange of content and ideas that the internet stands on.

What is next? Once News Corp is bought and paid for, what is to stop Google from opening its wallet and buying exclusive access to half the internet, effectively killing Bing? They have the market share to bludgeon enough publishers into making that happen.

You are creating not just a rod for your own back, but for the whole internet.

Am I going to have to think, “well, I need that article. I wonder which search engine has paid for the rights to find it?” That is the future that you are painting. And, with Bing still being so new (but full of promise), you lack the clout to win this war.

Just don’t Microsoft, in the short-term it makes a splash, doesn’t cost too much, and gives Bing a shot in the arm. But look at the larger picture. I make you  a small promise, do this, and watch a boycott of Bing start the next day. Think about it.

Image via ICanHazCheezburger.


  • Correct me if i am wrong but if i remember Economics class and Gaming theory (the prisioner dilemma), when one of two players increase the bid, the other follows and both end loosing margin. This is what happens. Google will have to fight back and either Bing gets his deal cut off short (back to square one) or they (and all) will eventually loose.
  • Bingo, bad news all around.
  • Murdoch pays people to write that content. I honestly see nothing wrong with him charging people to read or "spider" it.
  • Exclusivity is one very large problem with it. Also, feel free to charge viewers if you can. But to charge to find it, is like forcing a blind man to pay to have someone walk them across the room to the bar.

    He can buy a drink if he wants, or not, but getting their should be open.
  • Vicky
    This is the key statement: "And, with Bing still being so new (but full of promise), you lack the clout to win this war."

    I don't think Microsoft realizes the kind of pandora's box they are opening up by playing into this trap. Then again this is the company behind Windows Vista.

    Microsoft seem to always be playing second fiddle to smarter, innovative and younger companies so let's see how this plays out.
  • I just read this article today. They did a survey in Germany that showed that only 5% of the top 10 search results are from news sites. Wikipedia on the other hand "owns" 13% of the top-ten results. So would removing news from search engines really hurt Google? I don't think so, but it would sure damage Google's image :) http://bit.ly/4SRnbH
  • Twinkle Toes
    Everyone just loves to hate MS.
    Would you be on the barricades defending an 'open web', when Google was the one willing to pay for sole access to News Corp?

    The reality is that the web is not open.
    Twitter was a walled site.
    And you all want ape when MS and Google started integrating tweets into their search results. You f-ing loved it.

    Rupy was pissed when he saw this happening.
    He thought: "These MS and Google idiots pay millions just to access some f-ing tweets?"

    And then a plan hatched inside his wrinkly old head.
    He said: "F them! Let's see how much they are willing to pay for 'real' news, when it is no longer available for free"!

    And now the courting of News Corp has started.
    Rupy will not sign any exclusive deals.
    He's old and wrinkly, not stupid!

    He will pimp his news organization to every search engine and they will gladly pay.

    I am off to practice my 'game theory' on my PSP :D

    Peace out!
  • Excellent write up. And I agree... Microsoft, don't you dare! What a sad excuse for trying to justify Rupert Murdoch's position and then to try to create some sort of competitive advantage with it. Let content be free!
  • John
    Does anyone honestly think this is going to do anything other than reduce the relevance of News properties online? I think there is less than zero chance Google will give News a single cent to index their site. The disingenuousness of News not setting a robots to no-follow pretty much sums it all up. If they really cared, they'd have long since opted out of indexes.

    The horse really has bolted on this one, media organizations really do need to realize there is a different landscape, and they can't just try to go back to old business models.
  • I suggest you see this video by Tim O'Reilly about how he thinks the web should look like. He's saying (and I agree) that browser wars, search engine wars (and others) should stop because nothing good will ever come out of this! Everyone is trying to get rid of their competition but instead of doing so by providing better, more useful and fascinating services they're trying to win this battle by focusing on destroying the rivals using "below the belt" punches where users are usually the one that suffer most. Users should be something Microsoft, Google and others should care about most and this doesn't necessarily mean you cannot make money with their services!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYRC8nfZ67M&...

    I believe people are angry on Microsoft because of the impact such decision would have on user's experience of the web. It would really be a step back if they did so. Many of us would feel like in 1990's where the information you were looking for was much harder to find. What's the point of having to manually search for "the right content" again? Having to use 3 (or more) search engines to find articles with different points of view?
  • Bram
    If we ne to use three or more search engines to find what we are looking for then everybody will be heading back to the meta-search engines like dogpile.com (don't even know if it still exists).
  • you must believe the internet is very fragile if you think that one company, even one as large as MS, can destroy it
  • Eric
    Personally I think Murdoch's move is genius. Google has piggy-backed off of everyone else's content for long enough.

    Why should they get to do anything with the content for free, including index it? They don't own it and they didn't pay to create it...the media companies did.

    But only a large content producer, with a lot of frickin' content (eg News Corp) could pull this off.

    If it works, who's next? Would Google care if NY Times pulled out? AP? BBC? Or any of the other big producers?

    Maybe because of Google's stinginess they will end up as an independent blog search engine only.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 


TwitterCounter