Is Microsoft about to dump Bing?

A piece out of Business Insider today, by Matt Rosoff argues that maybe Microsoft is giving up on Bing. It’s a quirky question, businesses of this size don’t usually give up on products that are growing like Bing is. But nontheless Matt has some decent points, as below.

Earlier today, Google and Mozilla renewed their deal to make Google the default search engine in the Firefoxbrowser for another three years.

This seems like Microsoft passed up a great opportunity to get more traffic to Bing. Right now, Firefox has about 25% market share and is used by more than 400 million people. According to Comscore, about 75% of the searches conducted from Firefox go to Google. (Users can manually select Bing or another search engine, but most don’t.)

Last year, Google paid Mozilla about $103 million for the right to be the default search engine. (That’s 84% of the Mozilla Foundation’s total $123 million, as per its 2010 financial statement, which were released in October — PDF here.)

That’s chump change for Microsoft. Even if the deal was much more expensive this time around as both companies bid up the price, Microsoft blinked first. Why?

Microsoft had no comment, but here’s one possibility: Microsoft has already reached its market share goal with Bing and is tightening the wallet to bring expenses under control.

The evidence:

  • Microsoft decreased Bing’s marketing spend last quarter. The Online group’s operating loss decreased for the first time in ages last quarter. That’s partly because sales and marketing expenses for the Online group dropped 25% last quarter (compared with the year-ago quarter). That’s a big shift from the previous four quarters, where sales and marketing expenses for Online rose 5% from the previous year.
  • It’s letting Bing talent migrate. Back in April, a former Bing engineer wrote that Microsoft was no longer spending big bucks to retain the best talent — instead, it was paying “far below market rates.” This year, two top Bing leaders — Satya Nadella and Yusuf Mehdi — took jobs elsewhere at Microsoft, suggesting that they saw more opportunity elsewhere (or that Steve Ballmer wanted to shift top talent away from Bing).

While Matt’s points are well argued he fails to address the fundamentals about why destop oriented browser based search may not be as appealing now, for Bing’s future. Businesses don’t make decisions like the size and scale of this one based on today’s conditions, they make them based on at least a 5 to 10 year window.

I’m not entirely convinced Microsoft is giving up on Bing at all. It could be that they’re recognising that desktop based browsers aren’t going as important in the future as it’s going to be – with the rise of mobile and tablet devices and growing search volumes, and it is because of Firefox that more people are willing to check out other browsers like Chrome, Opera etc.

It’s also worth considering that Google gave up it’s Twitter access a few years ago now, but no one seriously suggested that Google wasn’t taking search seriously. I wonder if they’re regetting that decision now?

Finally, it’s worth considering which search engine picked up exclusive access to Twitter, and also has exclusive access to Facebook – yep, that’d be Bing. Social Search – the seamless integration of arguably the world’s two largest Social media platforms and search data will be invaluable for both customer experience and algorithmic learning.

Perhaps it’s not that Microsoft didn’t want Firefox, perhaps it’s that they just think they don’t need it as much – because in the next few years social media sites are going to become even more important desinations than they are today and less people will use Search to get there.

Google – spellcheck guys

Hey Google,

Don’t know if you’re listening, assuming you are – you might want to spellcheck your Adwords homepage.

Small but very noticeable spelling error on it, see below: – Language, not langauge.

Got there by clicking on the CPC after Googling ‘Google adwords’ FYI. Link.

Cheers Google Team.

India announces $35 tablet and the iPhone 4S

$35 tablet

Manufacturers in India have announced a $35 tablet, designed to get computing power to the masses.

The developer of the world’s cheapest tablet, Datawind, is reportedly selling the tablets to the government for roughly $45 per unit, and $35 for students and teachers. Regular readers will know from my previous post, that I thought India would be the obvious growth path of the future for tablet growth. I also  mentioned that I believed that  Apple may not be successful with it’s higher price points, but cheaper rivals like Android may be more successful as they have cheaper price points.

By comparison the cheapest iPad is $499, or  14 times more expensive than Datawind’s tablet, and the cheapest Android tablet the KindleFire at $199 is nearly six times more expensive.

Will Datawind’s tablet have all of the features of the iPad? No, not by a long shot, but the question has to be asked “Will the majority of the (impoverished) Indian public really care?” Will they lament the fact they can’t play Angry Birds, or Fruit Ninja? Almost definitely not, although that doesn’t mean that developers like Rovio (the makers of Angry Birds) may develop for the tablet anyway.

From the Washington Post:

Datawind says it can make about 100,000 units a month at the moment, not nearly enough to meet India’s hope of getting its 220 million children online.

Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal called the announcement a message to all children of the world.

“This is not just for us. This is for all of you who are disempowered,” he said. “This is for all those who live on the fringes of society.”

Despite a burgeoning tech industry and decades of robust economic growth, there are still hundreds of thousands of Indians with no electricity, let alone access to computers and information that could help farmers improve yields, business startups reach clients, or students qualify for university.

The launch — attended by hundreds of students, some selected to help train others across the country in the tablet’s use — followed five years of efforts to design a $10 computer that could bridge the country’s vast digital divide.

“People laughed, people called us lunatics,” ministry official N.K. Sinha said. “They said we are taking the nation for a ride.”

Although the $10 goal wasn’t achieved, the Aakash has a color screen and provides word processing, Web browsing and video conferencing. The Android 2.2-based device has two USB ports and 256 megabytes of RAM. Despite hopes for a solar-powered version — important for India’s energy-starved hinterlands — no such option is currently available.

iPhone 4S

Most of what needs to be said about the iPhone 4S has been said by technology bloggers and writers around the world already. The only thing I’d like to add is that Apple no longer looks like it’s leading the innovation it kick started. With more agile competitors, and more competitors in general, Apple’s once a year, or longer, release cycle doesn’t seem like innovation and leadership so much as it looks like it’s playing catch-up.  Of course, this isn’t writing Apple off – not by a long shot – but it’s interesting to note that there wasn’t nearly as much fan-fare and media attention in general about Apple’s latest release once the details had actually been released. There was more hype and build up, than reality. Interesting times for Apple.

Tablets in 2016.

 

Juniper Research has released an interesting report predicting the sales and shipments of tablets – including iPad and newcomers like XOOM, KindleFire, and the seemingly stalled Samsung tablet offering – by 2016.

Western Europe and North America are the biggest predicted ‘one stop markets’ – but the really interesting take away is the size of predicted demand coming out of India. Small, as an overall market participant by 2016, it’ll be interesting to see how it grows by, say, 2020, or 2025 as demand grows and, presumably, for non-Apple products, prices fall.

 


Why Google+ is working and the power of scarcity

Scarcity – or the successful creation of the illusion of scarcity, is going to become one of the greatest, and most powerful ways brands can build excitement in the digital environment over the coming few years.

Scarcity is a brilliant motivator. The threat of missing out. The joy and pride of being one of the privileged few. The extra value it builds. The tension. The drama. The onlookers. The watchers. The almost guaranteed positive media coverage which only serves to increase the hunger, desire and value of an access pass.

Everything about scarcity, or the illusion of it, is simply undeniably powerful.

Who does scarcity the best for ‘hard’ products? Undeniably, it’s Apple. Every September Steve Jobs, and other high-ranking members of Apple’s elite development and marketing teams roll out new products. The promises are always lofty, and words like ‘magical’, ‘amazing’, ‘gorgeous’ and ‘wonderful’ are used liberally.

But the products generally don’t come out until at least a month later – and even then there’s always a shortage of supply. Why? Because Apple knows that there is no extra value in having equal amounts of immediate supply and immediate demand. There would be virtually no reporting of people camping outside stores, because if everyone knew that they could get a new iPhone or iPad whenever they felt like it there would be far less incentive to camp out overnight, and the value of being one of the cherished few dedicated enough to hold the latest and greatest Apple product, would be decimated.

Translating the value of scarcity online is far harder than a ‘hard’ product however – I’d argue that there’s only a few companies globally that could get away with it on a massive scale.

Google+ is not only a fantastic service, but also an excellent example of building value by not opening up the social network to everyone immediately. Forget Google Buzz and Wave, they’re not even in the same league as what Google+ is. Much of the ‘value’ and free, and incredibly positive reporting and online interaction has come from the inability to freely get access and try it for yourself.

Now, lets look at this objectively – no one anywhere seriously thinks that Google+’s  systems aren’t built to deal with multi-millions of users. Of course they are. But when one page costs virtually the same to produce as 100,000 where and how do you build desire? Well, you build it by not making it automatically available to everyone. Similar to the Apple product scenario, there would be far less hype if it was freely and widely available to everyone. Additional incentive, value and pride is built by being able to invite select friends and colleagues to join, thereby giving the user power, and exclusivity – if only for a short while. The invitation system also, almost guarantees usage and positive experiences, as users initially are probably going to be interacting mainly with close friends and colleagues – why would anyone waste a precious invite on that person you barely know?

Facebook knows this all too well too. Facebook started in the dorms of Harvard, and then spread to Ivy League schools, and then other Universities, and then the US and then the World. It now reigns supreme as the planet’s largest social networking website. And one could argue that Facebook learned the value of limiting usage from the launch of Gmail, which also, for a long time followed the scarcity and access by invitation model of organic growth.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.