These days Google is everywhere. It started with search engines but now it provides email, social networking, home pages, payment system and what not? It is not surprising that Google has surpassed Microsoft in search volume popularity (according to Google trends). What is surprising is that they were already ahead since the beginning of 2005. Also their popularity have surged dramatically since the early months of 2005 and continues to increase.
Microsoft's popularity appears to be in a steady decline. The impact of Microsoft search cannot be determined from this graph. However as far as Google world is concerned, MSN search had no impact.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Microsoft dethrones Google as UK’s best brand
Microsoft has left Google behind to grab the top spot in the list of UK's best brand.
The software company, co-founded by Bill Gates, moved from second to first place in a list of the 500 brands that the public thought were reliable, distinguished, and the best quality.
In the second place was Rolex, the watch manufacturer, followed by Google, which was late year's winner.
At the fourth and fifth place were British Airways and the BBC, respectively.
A company called Superbrands compiled the list by using the votes of 2,100 consumers.
An expert panel drew up the shortlist of 500 brands, which even included Apple into the top ten.
The list showed that technology companies have dominated people's lives to such an extent they are more highly rated than most food, drink, car manufacturers as well as retailers and leisure giants.
"You may drink a Coca-Cola or Starbucks drink once or twice a day, but most of us interact with Microsoft and Google every hour of our lives. These technology companies have entered into our homes, our offices - even our friendships," the Telegraph quoted Shar VanBoskirk, an analyst at Forester, as saying.
She added that many consumers had "learnt to love" Microsoft, while some even think of it as an underdog as it is now challenging online media companies.
Other than technology companies, fast food restaurants also did well in the brand list.
While McDonald's rose 227 places to 143 on the list, Burger King climbed up 189 places.
Krispy Kreme, the doghnut company, also made its debut in the list of brands at 68.
The software company, co-founded by Bill Gates, moved from second to first place in a list of the 500 brands that the public thought were reliable, distinguished, and the best quality.
In the second place was Rolex, the watch manufacturer, followed by Google, which was late year's winner.
At the fourth and fifth place were British Airways and the BBC, respectively.
A company called Superbrands compiled the list by using the votes of 2,100 consumers.
An expert panel drew up the shortlist of 500 brands, which even included Apple into the top ten.
The list showed that technology companies have dominated people's lives to such an extent they are more highly rated than most food, drink, car manufacturers as well as retailers and leisure giants.
"You may drink a Coca-Cola or Starbucks drink once or twice a day, but most of us interact with Microsoft and Google every hour of our lives. These technology companies have entered into our homes, our offices - even our friendships," the Telegraph quoted Shar VanBoskirk, an analyst at Forester, as saying.
She added that many consumers had "learnt to love" Microsoft, while some even think of it as an underdog as it is now challenging online media companies.
Other than technology companies, fast food restaurants also did well in the brand list.
While McDonald's rose 227 places to 143 on the list, Burger King climbed up 189 places.
Krispy Kreme, the doghnut company, also made its debut in the list of brands at 68.
1 month after launching Bing, Microsoft still a distant third to Google, Yahoo in Web search
Microsoft Corp.'s redesigned search site remains a distant third to Google and Yahoo despite getting a slight boost in its first month.
ComScore Inc. estimates that Bing, the new site, snagged 8.4 percent of U.S. Web searches in June, up from 8 percent in May.
It appears Microsoft's slight gain was Yahoo's loss. Google's share stayed steady at 65 percent. But Yahoo's dipped to 19.6 percent in June, losing about as much as Bing gained.
Google's dominance means a bigger slice of revenue from search advertising, the small text ads that appear next to search results.
Microsoft has been trying to catch up for years, both with Live Search, its previous Web search incarnation, and by trying to buy Yahoo. The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker is trying again with Bing, which it says does a better job than competitors for searches related to travel, shopping and health.
Analysts were underwhelmed by the June results. Barclays Capital analyst Douglas Anmuth wrote that he expected Bing's share to come in between 10 percent and 11 percent. Anmuth reported the comScore figures in a research note Wednesday.
"Bing doesn't exactly set the world on fire," Benjamin Schachter, an analyst for Broadpoint AmTech, wrote in a note to investors. "We continue to believe much of Bing's early interest is being driven by curiosity and early adopters, and not from fundamentally better search experiences or outcomes."
Microsoft executives have said that they don't expect an immediate change in Bing's search share, but the comScore estimates were lower than early June reports showing Microsoft's share topping 10 percent.
ComScore Inc. estimates that Bing, the new site, snagged 8.4 percent of U.S. Web searches in June, up from 8 percent in May.
It appears Microsoft's slight gain was Yahoo's loss. Google's share stayed steady at 65 percent. But Yahoo's dipped to 19.6 percent in June, losing about as much as Bing gained.
Google's dominance means a bigger slice of revenue from search advertising, the small text ads that appear next to search results.
Microsoft has been trying to catch up for years, both with Live Search, its previous Web search incarnation, and by trying to buy Yahoo. The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker is trying again with Bing, which it says does a better job than competitors for searches related to travel, shopping and health.
Analysts were underwhelmed by the June results. Barclays Capital analyst Douglas Anmuth wrote that he expected Bing's share to come in between 10 percent and 11 percent. Anmuth reported the comScore figures in a research note Wednesday.
"Bing doesn't exactly set the world on fire," Benjamin Schachter, an analyst for Broadpoint AmTech, wrote in a note to investors. "We continue to believe much of Bing's early interest is being driven by curiosity and early adopters, and not from fundamentally better search experiences or outcomes."
Microsoft executives have said that they don't expect an immediate change in Bing's search share, but the comScore estimates were lower than early June reports showing Microsoft's share topping 10 percent.
Microsoft executive says retail stores ‘right next door to Apple’ planned for fall
SEATTLE — Microsoft Corp.'s chief operating officer says the software maker is planning to open retail stores "right next door to Apple" in the fall.
The executive, Kevin Turner, also says Microsoft is "in the game for the long-term" and has hired a retail team.
Microsoft brought on a 25-year Wal-Mart veteran in February to lead the effort, but has said little since. Turner was speaking to a gathering of technology partner companies in New Orleans.
Microsoft and Apple have been sparring for years. Microsoft's Windows runs on most of the world's PCs. Apple, which operates 250 stores worldwide, is venerated for its design sense.
Apple's popular Mac vs. PC ads depict Windows as a self-righteous nerd; Microsoft has struck back with ads that push PCs' lower prices.
The executive, Kevin Turner, also says Microsoft is "in the game for the long-term" and has hired a retail team.
Microsoft brought on a 25-year Wal-Mart veteran in February to lead the effort, but has said little since. Turner was speaking to a gathering of technology partner companies in New Orleans.
Microsoft and Apple have been sparring for years. Microsoft's Windows runs on most of the world's PCs. Apple, which operates 250 stores worldwide, is venerated for its design sense.
Apple's popular Mac vs. PC ads depict Windows as a self-righteous nerd; Microsoft has struck back with ads that push PCs' lower prices.
Yahoo shares rise on report of renewed talks with Microsoft about search advertising deal
Yahoo Inc. shares rose 4 percent Friday amid speculation it will team up with Microsoft Corp. in an online search advertising partnership aimed at mounting a more serious challenge to Google Inc.
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company also got a slight boost after Google released its second-quarter earnings late Thursday. Google executives say larger advertisers have returned to the Internet after being absent earlier in the year, raising hopes that Yahoo's second-quarter results, due out Tuesday, might not be quite as dreary as some investors feared.
Yahoo and Microsoft have been meeting in the Silicon Valley this week and could sign a deal as early as next week, according to AllThingsD, a technology blog that cited unnamed people at both companies.
Yahoo and Microsoft declined to comment.
But Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz has publicly said she will join forces with Microsoft if the price is right and she is convinced her company will still have adequate access to search data.
That information about Web surfers is important to Yahoo because it still wants to track user preferences so it can figure out what kind of advertising is likely to generate revenue-generating clicks in its own marketing network.
The rivals have been discussing an alliance since 2006, but Yahoo's previous two CEOs — Terry Semel and Jerry Yang — couldn't come to terms with the world's largest software maker.
If the latest round of talks are fruitful, analysts believe Yahoo will be get a lump sum of cash and billions of dollars more in guaranteed payments spread over several years while reaping annual savings of at least $500 million from not having to run its own search engine.
The potential for a deal helped drive Yahoo shares up 65 cents to close at $16.84.
Shares in Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft fell 15 cents, or 0.6 percent, to close at $24.29, while Mountain View, Calif.-based Google lost $12.35, or $2.8 percent, to $430.25.
Yahoo's search engine currently holds a nearly 20 percent share of the U.S. search market, leaving it a distant second to Google's 65 percent, according to comScore Inc. Microsoft's search engine ranks third with an 8 percent share.
On Friday, Oppenheimer analyst Jason Helfstein said he's heartened by improved ad trends at Google. Although it's not clear the same would be true for Yahoo, Google's experience does give him greater confidence that Yahoo can exceed his revenue and profit estimates.
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company also got a slight boost after Google released its second-quarter earnings late Thursday. Google executives say larger advertisers have returned to the Internet after being absent earlier in the year, raising hopes that Yahoo's second-quarter results, due out Tuesday, might not be quite as dreary as some investors feared.
Yahoo and Microsoft have been meeting in the Silicon Valley this week and could sign a deal as early as next week, according to AllThingsD, a technology blog that cited unnamed people at both companies.
Yahoo and Microsoft declined to comment.
But Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz has publicly said she will join forces with Microsoft if the price is right and she is convinced her company will still have adequate access to search data.
That information about Web surfers is important to Yahoo because it still wants to track user preferences so it can figure out what kind of advertising is likely to generate revenue-generating clicks in its own marketing network.
The rivals have been discussing an alliance since 2006, but Yahoo's previous two CEOs — Terry Semel and Jerry Yang — couldn't come to terms with the world's largest software maker.
If the latest round of talks are fruitful, analysts believe Yahoo will be get a lump sum of cash and billions of dollars more in guaranteed payments spread over several years while reaping annual savings of at least $500 million from not having to run its own search engine.
The potential for a deal helped drive Yahoo shares up 65 cents to close at $16.84.
Shares in Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft fell 15 cents, or 0.6 percent, to close at $24.29, while Mountain View, Calif.-based Google lost $12.35, or $2.8 percent, to $430.25.
Yahoo's search engine currently holds a nearly 20 percent share of the U.S. search market, leaving it a distant second to Google's 65 percent, according to comScore Inc. Microsoft's search engine ranks third with an 8 percent share.
On Friday, Oppenheimer analyst Jason Helfstein said he's heartened by improved ad trends at Google. Although it's not clear the same would be true for Yahoo, Google's experience does give him greater confidence that Yahoo can exceed his revenue and profit estimates.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Google OS Means Actual Netbooks, Not Apple Trouble
In the week or so since Google announced it's going to release its own operating system, the Web has been littered with commentary and analysis about "what this means" for one company or another...even though we know almost nothing about that product, Chrome OS. We know it will have a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel, and that "the Web" will be the development platform. But that's about it. So, as Rob Griffiths pointed out last week, it's a bit early to be making predictions about the impact of Chrome OS.
Aw, who am I kidding? Making predictions about things we know nothing about is what the Internet was made for, amiright? So in the spirit of talking through my hat, here are the two Chrome OS-related thoughts that kept my brain busy over the past week.
The risk to Apple is netbook-sized
For some reason, more than a few pundits have speculated that the (as of right now) vaporware that is Chrome OS is a threat to Apple. As an analyst interviewed by Computerworld put it, "This exposes the consequences of letting a gigantic gap open between [Apple's] lowest-priced notebook and cheap netbooks."
Now, I don't pretend to argue that there's not a considerable gap, at least in terms of price, between Apple's least expensive laptop ($999) and the typical cheapbook netbook ($200 to $300). Indeed, netbooks have been selling well, even though consumers are realizing they aren't a substitute for "real" laptops. But so far, the consequences of this price gap to Apple have been reflected in, well, increased laptop sales.
Sure, there's an argument to be made that dirt-cheap laptops take some amount of sales away from Apple on the low end. But that's the case whether such laptops are running Google OS, Ubuntu, or any other "free" OS--or even Windows. Netbooks are exercises in compromise: Buyers trade performance and features to get an inexpensive, lightweight laptop with a tiny footprint. So a (theoretical) better OS isn't going to suddenly make these computers more of a threat to Apple, because their limitations go far beyond the OS.
The people who should be worried here are the Ubuntu folks. Ubuntu has come a long way; the current version is vastly better than what you got just a few years ago. Thought it's still not, in my opinion, a serious challenger to Mac OS X or Windows for consumers, it's a perfectly usable OS for netbook-level tasks. I used it on my own netbook before I installed OS X, and it handled Web browsing, e-mail, and word processing just fine. But these appear to be exactly the kinds of tasks Google will be focusing on with Chrome OS (see below), and it's the low-end PC market where Chrome OS will surely gain the most traction. Considering Google has already announced several hardware partnerships, Ubuntu's recent growth could well be the first casualty of Google's encroachment into the OS market.
Why Google has a chance
At the same time some pundits are touting Chrome OS as a threat to Apple, others are already writing it off as a "serious" operating system. But I'm not convinced Google's odd little monkey of an OS won't see some success in the budget-computer market. According to NPD, more than 40 percent of netbook buyers are unhappy with their computers, and the main reasons appear to be that netbooks don't have all the features of regular computers; in the case of netbooks running Ubuntu or another free Linux variant, the user interface is considerably different from what most people are intimately familiar with; and most netbooks don't perform as well as "regular" laptops.
Vendors can't do much about the first issue, limited features, without dramatically changing what a netbook is--something that's already starting to happen, as we see netbooks with larger screens and keyboards at higher price tags. But the second issue, an unfamiliar software interface, has a couple solutions. The first is to install Mac OS X or Windows; some people are installing the former, illicitly, and many netbook vendors will pre-load the latter for a premium.
The second is to make the free OS's interface more familiar--something the designers of many Unix windowing-system developers have been trying to do for years with varying degrees of success. Google's advantage here is that by creating an OS based on Web apps, the company has a huge head start: It's already the world's premier developer of online apps. Millions of people use Google's versions of core productivity tools: Gmail, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Calendar, Google Maps, Picasa, Google Reader, Google Finance, Google Sites, Google Health...the list goes on and on. Google's stable of software even includes the Task-Bar-like Google Toolbar. And, of course, the company also offers several desktop apps: Google Desktop, Google Chrome, and Picasa.
As a result, millions of users are intimately familiar with the interfaces of Google's tools. And not just any users--precisely the users most likely to purchase a netbook in the true "netbook-y" sense of the word: an inexpensive computer for getting online and using online-focused tools. In this context--an OS with limited compatibility and a non-standard interface that's free to put on any cheap computer--a Google OS has clear advantages over something like Ubuntu, and thus could be a compelling alternative.
The beauty of this approach is that if Google does things right, Chrome OS could also address the third issue I mentioned above, performance. I'm oversimplifying here, but if Chrome OS is essentially a Web browser running on top of a Linux kernel, it seems reasonable to assume that an inexpensive, underpowered computer running Chrome OS will outperform the same computer running a Web browser on top of a full-blown "traditional" OS running on top of a Linux kernel. In other words, for netbook-level tasks, performance might be much less of an issue.
The key question here is Google's goals. If the company isn't aiming to be the developer of a full-featured computer operating system, but rather to provide a free and familiar interface for inexpensive Internet appliances (hello, late 1990s!), Google has a legitimate shot. For millions of people, "using the computer" doesn't involve much more than browsing the Web and performing tasks adequately addressed by Google's existing tools. If the company--and hardware vendors--can convince these people they don't need anything beyond such capabilities, they just might go for a "Google computer": a $200 laptop that really is a netbook.
Aw, who am I kidding? Making predictions about things we know nothing about is what the Internet was made for, amiright? So in the spirit of talking through my hat, here are the two Chrome OS-related thoughts that kept my brain busy over the past week.
The risk to Apple is netbook-sized
For some reason, more than a few pundits have speculated that the (as of right now) vaporware that is Chrome OS is a threat to Apple. As an analyst interviewed by Computerworld put it, "This exposes the consequences of letting a gigantic gap open between [Apple's] lowest-priced notebook and cheap netbooks."
Now, I don't pretend to argue that there's not a considerable gap, at least in terms of price, between Apple's least expensive laptop ($999) and the typical cheapbook netbook ($200 to $300). Indeed, netbooks have been selling well, even though consumers are realizing they aren't a substitute for "real" laptops. But so far, the consequences of this price gap to Apple have been reflected in, well, increased laptop sales.
Sure, there's an argument to be made that dirt-cheap laptops take some amount of sales away from Apple on the low end. But that's the case whether such laptops are running Google OS, Ubuntu, or any other "free" OS--or even Windows. Netbooks are exercises in compromise: Buyers trade performance and features to get an inexpensive, lightweight laptop with a tiny footprint. So a (theoretical) better OS isn't going to suddenly make these computers more of a threat to Apple, because their limitations go far beyond the OS.
The people who should be worried here are the Ubuntu folks. Ubuntu has come a long way; the current version is vastly better than what you got just a few years ago. Thought it's still not, in my opinion, a serious challenger to Mac OS X or Windows for consumers, it's a perfectly usable OS for netbook-level tasks. I used it on my own netbook before I installed OS X, and it handled Web browsing, e-mail, and word processing just fine. But these appear to be exactly the kinds of tasks Google will be focusing on with Chrome OS (see below), and it's the low-end PC market where Chrome OS will surely gain the most traction. Considering Google has already announced several hardware partnerships, Ubuntu's recent growth could well be the first casualty of Google's encroachment into the OS market.
Why Google has a chance
At the same time some pundits are touting Chrome OS as a threat to Apple, others are already writing it off as a "serious" operating system. But I'm not convinced Google's odd little monkey of an OS won't see some success in the budget-computer market. According to NPD, more than 40 percent of netbook buyers are unhappy with their computers, and the main reasons appear to be that netbooks don't have all the features of regular computers; in the case of netbooks running Ubuntu or another free Linux variant, the user interface is considerably different from what most people are intimately familiar with; and most netbooks don't perform as well as "regular" laptops.
Vendors can't do much about the first issue, limited features, without dramatically changing what a netbook is--something that's already starting to happen, as we see netbooks with larger screens and keyboards at higher price tags. But the second issue, an unfamiliar software interface, has a couple solutions. The first is to install Mac OS X or Windows; some people are installing the former, illicitly, and many netbook vendors will pre-load the latter for a premium.
The second is to make the free OS's interface more familiar--something the designers of many Unix windowing-system developers have been trying to do for years with varying degrees of success. Google's advantage here is that by creating an OS based on Web apps, the company has a huge head start: It's already the world's premier developer of online apps. Millions of people use Google's versions of core productivity tools: Gmail, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Calendar, Google Maps, Picasa, Google Reader, Google Finance, Google Sites, Google Health...the list goes on and on. Google's stable of software even includes the Task-Bar-like Google Toolbar. And, of course, the company also offers several desktop apps: Google Desktop, Google Chrome, and Picasa.
As a result, millions of users are intimately familiar with the interfaces of Google's tools. And not just any users--precisely the users most likely to purchase a netbook in the true "netbook-y" sense of the word: an inexpensive computer for getting online and using online-focused tools. In this context--an OS with limited compatibility and a non-standard interface that's free to put on any cheap computer--a Google OS has clear advantages over something like Ubuntu, and thus could be a compelling alternative.
The beauty of this approach is that if Google does things right, Chrome OS could also address the third issue I mentioned above, performance. I'm oversimplifying here, but if Chrome OS is essentially a Web browser running on top of a Linux kernel, it seems reasonable to assume that an inexpensive, underpowered computer running Chrome OS will outperform the same computer running a Web browser on top of a full-blown "traditional" OS running on top of a Linux kernel. In other words, for netbook-level tasks, performance might be much less of an issue.
The key question here is Google's goals. If the company isn't aiming to be the developer of a full-featured computer operating system, but rather to provide a free and familiar interface for inexpensive Internet appliances (hello, late 1990s!), Google has a legitimate shot. For millions of people, "using the computer" doesn't involve much more than browsing the Web and performing tasks adequately addressed by Google's existing tools. If the company--and hardware vendors--can convince these people they don't need anything beyond such capabilities, they just might go for a "Google computer": a $200 laptop that really is a netbook.
With Office 2010, Microsoft Prepares For Another Round Against Google
Earlier this week, Microsoft released a "technical preview" of the next-generation Office Suite, Office 2010. While the software giant specifically pointed out that the suite's feature set will most likely grow before launch, this preview was fairly complete.
One feature that has been publicized but not available for evaluating yet is Office 2010's Web applications. In a roundabout way, this brings to mind the recent launch of Bing, Microsoft's revamped search site, which replaced Live Search. Although not its first attempt, Bing was the company's latest effort to challenge open-source advocate Google at what it does best.
Last week, Google Apps finally dropped its seemingly permanent beta status and is now an official contender to Office, offering Web versions of applications designed to give users similar functionality to the traditional office suite. Coincidentally, this week Microsoft announced that online versions of Office 2010 applications will be offered for free.
Presumed to be abridged, less-functional versions of applications within the full suite, Office 2010 Web apps is clearly another shot across Google's bow and proves that Microsoft likes a challenge. It is probably also a sign that Redmond executives are coming to the realization that the Internet is the company's only hope for survival.
Google has been considered the de facto search site for years now and, while many have tried, it has always been able to hold its own in that area. Google apps were built with the company's knowledge of the Web, its users and the nontraditional approach to making money from "the cloud." Although never a contender to the full Office suite, it was (and is) a good, free alternative with enough functionality for the typical user.
On the other hand, Microsoft clearly has the upper hand of experience when it comes to business productivity programs. With decades of Office versions behind it, the company has built a virtual empire on the suite's applications. What is unknown yet is how trimmed-down those applications will be when they make their Web-based appearance.
But this contest doesn't have the apples-to-apples playing field of Bing vs. Google. Branching out, Microsoft is taking what it knows well -- productivity applications, and dabbling in Google's area of expertise -- the online community. When Office 2010 Web apps finally make an appearance, will they have anything extra to offer Google app users above and beyond the Office 2010 name? Obviously the limit on features will level the playing field, so implementation and user interface will ultimately play a part in deciding the champion of this round in the competition.
One feature that has been publicized but not available for evaluating yet is Office 2010's Web applications. In a roundabout way, this brings to mind the recent launch of Bing, Microsoft's revamped search site, which replaced Live Search. Although not its first attempt, Bing was the company's latest effort to challenge open-source advocate Google at what it does best.
Last week, Google Apps finally dropped its seemingly permanent beta status and is now an official contender to Office, offering Web versions of applications designed to give users similar functionality to the traditional office suite. Coincidentally, this week Microsoft announced that online versions of Office 2010 applications will be offered for free.
Presumed to be abridged, less-functional versions of applications within the full suite, Office 2010 Web apps is clearly another shot across Google's bow and proves that Microsoft likes a challenge. It is probably also a sign that Redmond executives are coming to the realization that the Internet is the company's only hope for survival.
Google has been considered the de facto search site for years now and, while many have tried, it has always been able to hold its own in that area. Google apps were built with the company's knowledge of the Web, its users and the nontraditional approach to making money from "the cloud." Although never a contender to the full Office suite, it was (and is) a good, free alternative with enough functionality for the typical user.
On the other hand, Microsoft clearly has the upper hand of experience when it comes to business productivity programs. With decades of Office versions behind it, the company has built a virtual empire on the suite's applications. What is unknown yet is how trimmed-down those applications will be when they make their Web-based appearance.
But this contest doesn't have the apples-to-apples playing field of Bing vs. Google. Branching out, Microsoft is taking what it knows well -- productivity applications, and dabbling in Google's area of expertise -- the online community. When Office 2010 Web apps finally make an appearance, will they have anything extra to offer Google app users above and beyond the Office 2010 name? Obviously the limit on features will level the playing field, so implementation and user interface will ultimately play a part in deciding the champion of this round in the competition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
