Technology – Page 87

The Google Bias

It’s no secret that I like Yahoo!’s offerings more than Google; and I’m also aware of the fact that there are a lot more Google fanboys out there than Yahoo!. Obviously, that isn’t a way to settle the answer on which one is better – after all, more people use Windows, but that doesn’t mean it’s good.

The Trigger
Anyway, the reason why I sat down to write this post is because of two reasons. I just wrote a review of the new Foo Fighters’ latest album, and was searching up some basic info (like their site, et al). Of course, I used Yahoo! Search, and was quite delighted to find the search result with an info box giving their site, links to information on their albums, songs, video; inline videos; a photo of the band; links to play song samples. Have a look below.

It was curious what would be shown if I searched the same on Google. After all, the writers blogs like Google Operating System seem to have an orgasm every time Google makes some update to its PlusBox results. I really am SICK and FED UP of reading posts bordering on “Oooh! Aaaah! Have you seen the NEW and IMPROVED update to Google PlusBox results? Ooh!”. Really, it’s irritating to read that every few weeks. Anyway, I did search it on Google, and here’s what I got.

As you can see, Google gave the link all right, but not in a direct form. You’d have to go the Foo Fighters site, and figure out yourself from there. Google and its orgasmic fanboys derive a lot of pleasure in trying to brag that ‘Google presents the results directly to what the user wants, so that they don’t need to look around more’.

There ya go fanboys, as far as I see it, if I was someone looking for info on Foo Fighters for the first time in my life, then it’s a no-brainer that Yahoo! Search’s result is better – for someone searching for the first time, he immediately gets to check out their latest songs / videos, and direct links to pertinent info like albums, etc.

The Other Reason
Recently, I went to the watch the Tata Crucible Campus Edition Quiz 2008. Jimi was there too, and we (mainly, he was compiling this time) decided that we should compile the questions. After coming back, he had to resort to Google to figure out stuff from the notes we’d taken (because my handwriting is pathetic). I really commend his work, for he’s created it with amazing detail to authenticity (recreating the feel of the visuals, etc). He called me up to tell that apparently he’d searched for some stuff, and “neither found the result on Google Image Search or Yahoo! Image Search”. Mystified, I looked it up myself. With the same search terms, and got the result on Yahoo! Image Search. Turns out, he searched Google, but never bothered to check Yahoo! Assuming that Yahoo! won’t have it either if Google doesn’t, he simply decided that nobody had it.

I’m not pointing fingers (especially the middle one) at anybody here, but I wanted to illustrate a point. And it’s this. People, and especially Google’s fanboys, are too blind about Google’s shortcomings. Even when time again Yahoo! Image Search at least has been proved better because of it’s better index and tight integration with Flickr, people don’t bother to check it and just brush it away. It’s disturbing, and it’s scary.

The Future Lies In Marketing Yahoo! Search
These two incidents really showed to me what Yahoo! Search really needs to succeed – better and vocal marketing of its search engines. Things like their Panama advertising system, etc are good steps – but less effective than a very visible marketing campaign. An all-out media blitz – Internet, TV, radio – is what they need. Yahoo! home page is already among the most trafficked site on the Web – it needs to get people to start entering search terms in that box if it wants to win. Over time, people WILL realize on their own that Yahoo! Search is better.

Another thing which makes Yahoo! Search better is its inbuilt search suggest feature – something only available via toolbars for Google. And the fact that Yahoo! Search is better and more consistent than Google in pointing out alternate search terms.

PS – One funny thing. If you type the letter ‘L’ (just that one letter) into Google Search Suggest using their toolbar, the first suggestion is ‘Lindsay Lohan’! Whoa, I knew she was popular, but THIS popular!?

What If…Microsoft Gets Into The Linux Business?

I just read about Microsucks deciding to go ‘more open than ever’, and releasing APIs for their various different products. Quite coincidentally, I had a sort of brainwave few days ago. Read on…

I happened to be in this evil mood recently, quite the right time for it, considering that my school exams are only a week away; came up with this crazy idea, and just had to share it – what would the tech scene be like if Microsoft, er yes, Microsoft, got into the Linux business? Now I know this might give regular readers a heart-attack, hearing someone who’s never called Microsoft ‘Microsoft’ before on this blog talk about Microsucks and Linux in the same breath, but hear me out.

From Uluen on Flickr

It’s inevitable that there will always be alternative operating systems, no matter how much Microsucks’ marketing department tries to tom-tom Windows’ superiority – it’s simply NOT in human nature not to have renegades. Given the fact that Windows Vista’s reception hasn’t exactly been…stellar either doesn’t make things any better; and on top of that, Linux has been rising steadily in the public consciousness – slowly but surely it IS trickling down to people that there are choices beyond Windows. What I think Microsoft can benefit from immensely is if it just stops trying to beat Linux, and join the race itself – market it own version of ‘Microsoft Linux‘…or something like that.

Seems like a weird idea – M$ and support something open source? A union of complete opposites? It’s one thing to make tie-ups with Novell, a wholly different ball-game to actively develop Linux itself. And yet, if it does that, I’m sure there will be many takers. For one, this ‘Microsoft Linux’ could tap into its immense storehouse of licensing contracts – have out-of-the-box support for devices like wireless adapters, licensed Windows Media / other media codecs – all the stuff which has been Linux’ Achilles’ heel for widespread adoption.

More importantly, it will help Microsoft strengthen its grip in the business segment – there will never be a dearth of companies which might want to try out Linux for their organizations IT needs; but if a ‘Microsoft Linux’ comes around, then any inherent doubts, like those on intercompatibility will be lessened. Since it’s Linux, it’s free software and can be modified (if needed) for the organization’s needs, but at the same time the fact that it has Microsoft’s backing could mean it might ship with, say, better emulation software to run popular packages like Microsoft Office – if not a Linux version of Office outright. And once again, since it’s Linux, any fears of vendor lock-in will be dispelled too, for they could, theoretically, shift to any other provider that want any time.

From gatepc on Flickr

Things could be brighter for the consumer segment too. No mucking about with stuff like ‘Gstreamer’ and ‘codecs’ – words which strike fear into the hearts of non-geeks. I know, because that’s been the reaction I’ve encountered a lot of times when I try to pitch Linux to my friends. Wider support for more devices could mean a ‘Microsoft Linux’ see major adoption from the Linux user base. Maybe not the fanatical open source enthusiasts like Richard Stallman, but the average user? Definitely.

Also, it could potentially mean more progress too – on the Linux front. Doing coding as a hobby and for the sheer unadulterated fun of it is OK, but at the end of the day, nothing draws talented people more than a fat wallet. Of course, this is not true for everyone. But given the deep pockets that Microsoft has, it can unleash its drones of Microserfs to carry out more R&D work on the Linux kernel / accompanying stuff which goes into distros. Since it’s free software, the code WILL eventually percolate down to other distros. Which on the whole, can mean a good thing – loads of motivated, and paid programmers working on Linux.

On a lighter note, what on earth could it be called? ‘Microsoft Linux’ sounds a mouthful, and…odd. Maybe something short ‘n sweet like ‘Micrux‘ will do. One thing is for sure though – IF it does, and WHEN it does get into the Linux business, Microsoft can pretty much assure itself of a bigger piece of the user-market pie.

Of course, everything might go horribly wrong, and things like Ctrl+Alt+Del might become a standard procedure on Linux distros too… 😉