Ballmer Regrets Ceding Search to Googl

[wendellanderson]

The title of this DaniWeb article is misleading and the author needs to be careful of how "quoting" someone needs to be kept in context.

Just because Steve Ballmer "says" Microsoft "ceded" Search to Google does not automatically or explicitly imply that Microsoft had a choice in whether they lost the search advantage to Google.

In past occurrences, Microsoft has lost out to many competitors - even when they fought tooth-and-nail to get on top or to even be remotely competitive.

Therefore please indicate what is a quote as opposed to a potential or possible reality.

W. Anderson
[e-mail]

[MktgRob]

The title of this DaniWeb article is misleading and the author needs to be careful of how "quoting" someone needs to be kept in context.

Just because Steve Ballmer "says" Microsoft "ceded" Search to Google does not automatically or explicitly imply that Microsoft had a choice in whether they lost the search advantage to Google.

In past occurrences, Microsoft has lost out to many competitors - even when they fought tooth-and-nail to get on top or to even be remotely competitive.

Therefore please indicate what is a quote as opposed to a potential or possible reality.

W. Anderson
[e-mail]

First of all, the blog you are referencing is an opinion piece and when the author uses the title he did he is simple stating how he heard what Ballmer said. He is not implying that Ballmer implied that they had no choice in the outcome of the SE wars.

Second, I agree with the blog from the point of view that after my 19 years in the tech industry on the marketing side I can honestly say that Microsoft, in a vain attempt to be all things to all people, made a half-hearted effort in regards to competing with Google as compared to the Google effort. But, in Microsoft's defense, Google was just a search engine while Microsoft was and still is a full blown software development company that has proved successful in a multitude of areas where Google does not. So Google was perhaps more focused and put more of an effort in the Microsoft in regards to the SEs but Microsoft is still a more multi-faceted entity that does not rely solely on its search engine for success.

[wendellanderson]

19 or thirty years in Marketing and the "multi-faceted" entity of Microsoft has nothing to do with the point I made.

There is no evidence that the responder can point to that verifies any "half-hearted" attempt by Microsoft in competing with Google for search dominance.

As indicated at end of my post, there are many instances when Microsoft has tried to compete quite unsuccessfully - with a "tooth and nail" effort, despite all it's [so-called] "multi-faceted" capabilities.

This is based on "factual" history of events that I witnessed in more than twenty five years as a international technology professional and consultant - with high levels of affiliations to IBM, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, several Technology Universities and indirectly with NASA - not "fluff" marketing.

W. Anderson
[e-mail]
========================================

First of all, the blog you are referencing is an opinion piece and when the author uses the title he did he is simple stating how he heard what Ballmer said. He is not implying that Ballmer implied that they had no choice in the outcome of the SE wars.

Second, I agree with the blog from the point of view that after my 19 years in the tech industry on the marketing side I can honestly say that Microsoft, in a vain attempt to be all things to all people, made a half-hearted effort in regards to competing with Google as compared to the Google effort. But, in Microsoft's defense, Google was just a search engine while Microsoft was and still is a full blown software development company that has proved successful in a multitude of areas where Google does not. So Google was perhaps more focused and put more of an effort in the Microsoft in regards to the SEs but Microsoft is still a more multi-faceted entity that does not rely solely on its search engine for success.

[MktgRob]

19 or thirty years in Marketing and the "multi-faceted" entity of Microsoft has nothing to do with the point I made.

There is no evidence that the responder can point to that verifies any "half-hearted" attempt by Microsoft in competing with Google for search dominance.

As indicated at end of my post, there are many instances when Microsoft has tried to compete quite unsuccessfully - with a "tooth and nail" effort, despite all it's [so-called] "multi-faceted" capabilities.

This is based on "factual" history of events that I witnessed in more than twenty five years as a international technology professional and consultant - with high levels of affiliations to IBM, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, several Technology Universities and indirectly with NASA - not "fluff" marketing.

W. Anderson
[e-mail]
========================================

As a person with an obvious intellect, the fact that you cannot accept that the blogger was offering an opinion is quite stunning. But then when I read your reference to 'fluff marketing', which shows an obvious inability to offer even basic respect for people who do a job that you view as beneath you tells me that maybe your intellect is doing double duty as a front for your own obvious insecurities.

As for what you indicated at the end of your post, one does not need to be an international technology professional and consultant to make that realization. It was something else I learned in my many years of 'fluff marketing'.

I hope the marketing department of your current employer does not read your reference to 'fluff marketing' and understand your obvious disregard for their efforts.