Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/04/09
"unequivocally YES, of course we are going to pay people to de-list from Google. But as a paid tentacle of Microsoft PR, I'm going to dance around the question as best I can so as not to express what we all know is a douchey and desperate move."
12/04/09
"It's not to necessarily pay people to de-index our competition"
Translation: Our strategy includes paying people to de-index.
"That's not our focus"
Translation: We will do it, but we will say that it is for some other purpose.
"So, I wouldn't think of it that way."
Translation: I am white-washing, because our strategy is despicable.
12/04/09
12/04/09
Personally, I don't see how any of the parties involved merit the connotation that their actions are somehow "evil".
News Corp. wants people to pay for its content. How is that evil?
Microsoft may or may not be incentivizing News Corp. to take advantage of a feature that Google offers (any site may ask to be delisted and may put code in its metadata to prevent being listed) in a manner that both assists Microsoft in the furtherance of its business and News Corp. in the furtherance of its business. How is that evil?
Am I somehow missing something or is everyone just getting pissy about the possibility of one corporation entering into a distribution deal with another corporation?
There's a disturbing amount of naivete masked as misplaced outrage here.
12/04/09
Still, with a deal like this, wouldn't cutting your reach by 60 - 70% actually hurt News Corp?
Everyone seems to use Google for everything and being taken off their search engine would just mean less clicks for their page(s)...
...which in turn would decrease overall revenue.
News Corp. doesn't - IMO - have exclusive access to anything most people care about so - would people really use Bing just to have Fox pop up as a result?
I don't see it.
12/04/09
There seems to be this notion that everyone has an inalienable right to read the newspaper for free. I'm sorry but, historically speaking, that's a load of horseshit.
As I've often said and I'll say again:
I generally avoid second-guessing the business judgment of multi-billion dollar global corporations.
12/04/09
Googe is one gateway by which many people come to his site, and in Murdoch's opinion it's a very very low profit gateway. Certainly he would lose some clicks, but not 60 - 70%, and he would probably be losing fairly low profit clicks.
Fox News' website isn't really the site he's concerned with protecting either, it's more sites like the WSJ that Murdoch feels he can do better by de-listing with.
12/04/09
Sure, newspapers make a significant amount of their money from advertising. But online traffic adds pay very little and anyone using them as a sole source of income must have an obscene amount of traffic for it to be profitable. The additional hits from visitors coming via Google news are nothing compared to half as many hits from paid subscribers.
And since when is paying someone for exclusivity evil or wrong?
A good way to read the "that's not our focus" comment is to consider what Microsoft really wants. They want more money for themselves and more hits and more popularity. That is their focus. They have no intention of paying people to make Google worse. But should Microsoft's offer make someone wonder if they want to work with Google or not, all the better for Microsoft.
12/04/09
You make a good point that their holdings can reached elsewhere so, why should MS make a move like this? I don't see this helping them at all.
@OMG! Ponies!: I am not arguing the pay-to-read model. I just question the logic to attempt to shorten ones reach to the masses and MS' decision to spend money in an area that will not bring them any more traffic than they do now. As Norwood has already said - people can reach News Corp. without MS as a middleman very easily.
12/04/09
MS may think that enough people will appreciate having more premium content available in searches that they'll get a bump in Bing usage. You obviously disagree with this, but they're welcome to try it. Also, it could be the beginning of a larger joint venture, which would help explain the whole "not our focus" part of the comment.
12/04/09
Right now, the original "eyeball" model of internet advertising is hurting badly because 5 years ago, there started to be a web browser that allowed people to read websites as if the ads didn't even exist. In fact, I'm using that technology now.
For every bit of traffic, there has to be capacity. Why spend money on capacity for traffic that doesn't generate revenue?
It's a coffee shop dilemma; a coffee shop may be full of people, but if those people are only nursing a cup of coffee while using the shop's facilities (chairs, wifi, the bathroom), then is that coffee shop really a successful business?
The Wall Street Journal is not just a newspaper; it's a brand. People have been reading it for decades and a subscription to it is a necessary business expense. I would not be surprised if wsj.com does better with less traffic, and that traffic being on a pay-basis. People will still buy subscriptions to the Journal.
12/04/09
If this does set the tone for other companies to move in that direction, it will be interesting to see what Google does to counter.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
"What I would say is, our focus is on improving the user experience and driving our differentiation of user intent and decision-making."
Clearly, Yusuf is a philosopher. Don't you see? Bing wants to make sure its site shows users how to differentiate intent from decision. To show us the gap between intending to do something, and deciding to do it. It isn't often that companies challenge my decision-making process by asking me if that's what I really wanted. It's the equivalent of asking for a movie ticket to go see the latest Sandra Bullock movie and being given a loving family that offers the structure my life so desperately needs. I mean, that's what I really wanted.
"It's not to necessarily pay people to de-index our competition."
This is obvious; Yusuf does not want to have to pay Newscorp to delist unless it is "necessary." You Googlers, you're holding Yusef hostage! Can't you see that this is a man who is backed up against a wall? This man gave me a family!
"That's not our focus."
This is of course true. Bing's focus is, as stated earlier, helping me make better life decision. My new family and I are going to throw out all of my old clothes tomorrow as that's no longer part of the man I am.
"So, I wouldn't think of it that way."
Ah, now I must dig deeper here: what is the "it" Yusef speaks of? The Newscorp proposition? Did you just verify that Microsoft did offer Newscorp cash to delist?! My new family is a sham!
"It's more about, 'How do we build a better experience for people?'"
How about you stop trying to figure out what my intentions were and just lemme have my goddamn Sandra Bullock movie. I never intended to gain and lose a family in the span of a blog comment, Yusef. You made me dream.
"If there's a way to share in the economics of search in that, then we're game to do that."
Again, Yusef, you reference "that," as in "the economics of search in that." I have no idea what "that" is. Whatever it is, you're all up for doing it. Kind of like that girl who comes over to your place and lies on your bed and says she's up for whatever. I'm not calling you a whore, Yusef, but I will say that you cost me the love of my family and left me wishing this night had never happened.
12/04/09
It would be no different from that blockquote.
12/04/09
12/04/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Never mind the fact that if this happens at all it's going to be mostly Rupert fucking Murdochs fault.
You deny it but this IS typical Microsoft bashing. You can't claim otherwise when you're calling Microsoft evil every other paragraph and in the title no less. This could have been an article on JUST the dangers of splitting searches if this does all go down. Instead it's that with a minefield of corporate bis, based on little more than rumour, thrown in.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Shocking. I believe you've just described a characteristic of capitalism's reality.
11/24/09
Hahaha, yeah, I was going to comment on that.
As if there is a CEO who would think "critical acclaim" is better than sales! As if Ballmer and Microsoft were the only ones...
Frankly, this article is a bit of overreacting. It lacks quality, but it shoots audience up. Ooops.
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Destroy search engines, that will really make your company popular with the youth.
11/23/09
11/23/09
What if it had been, Jeff Zucker, president and CEO of the *always* fair and balanced MSNBC, saying that he was pulling all NBC content off google?
Would you start using Bing? Or is it just about getting your news from people with the same opinion as you?
11/23/09
The tone of the post already pointed out the idiocy of the poster.
not having easy access to all data or all points of views just leads more towards state media control.
even the reporters at the other major network news agencies figured this out when the white house put out their denial to allow fox news into a recent news conference.
They were able to easily make the leap to "the white house blocks them out now, and then later they block us out when we disagree with them".
Thus the reason they responded with their "if they aren't allowed, we won't be there either" retort and called the bluff of the white house.
11/23/09
11/24/09
Now, if you please, cease and desist the name-calling.
11/24/09
11/24/09
This is coming from someone who personally hates biased news, but I still want the ability to see what both sides are saying. If I'm going to get bias, I at least want both (or in some cases, 3 or 4) sides of it. Otherwise, you're only getting news that panders to your preconceived notions, that fulfills your inherent beliefs. You'll never challenge your own thoughts and will never grow or have the ability to hear a new argument that might actually be better than your current ideas or thoughts. (Think people who ONLY watch FoxNews, or ONLY go to PETA meetings.)
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
You hit the nail on the head when you said that until robots produce the news, it will always be biased. Do you think that CNN's website, BBC's podcasts, and NBC are unbiased enough for you? Because I've got news for you - they're biased. They all are. It's the ability to see ALL SIDES that allows us, as humans with working, rational brains to discern where the bias is, and which parts to avoid.
My point is that we are all inherently biased, but at least I am willing to admit it. You saying that you aren't is just hypocritical. Especially because you resort to petty name calling when someone brings up a legitimate point.
On a slight tangent - have you ever considered that due to their inherent bias, left leaning media may ignore a story that right leaning media would pick up? You may actually not read or hear about news that could potentially be important. It may be riddled with bias, but being that you are able to discern where the bias is, you'd be able to glean new information from this right leaning news source that you wouldn't have been able to from your left leaning news stations. Just something to think about. This all comes from someone who thinks that Fox News is an abomination of journalism - but yet still does hold a necessary place in our society - to challenge the views of those who assume they are always right. Because guess what, sometimes they aren't.
#tips
11/25/09
"I'm sorry, I must be mistaken. Your not actually suggesting Fox News ... is news?"
Yes. You are severely mistaken. Nowhere in my post did I suggest fox news is news. Stellar reading comprehension you have there.
That was an awesome reply though. No, really. It was spectacular.
I don't watch fox news. I hate fox news. I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy, which you verified quite nicely.
As I suspected, you only prefer to get the news from outlets that give you the news you want to hear. You think NBC and CNN are any different than fox news? They aren't, but they cater to your political opinion, obviously.
But you must really enjoy living life inside an echo chamber. Don't cha?
#tips