Bing Tries To Buy The News – washingtonpost.com — Read this whole article. It’s disgusting.
Murdoch keeps threatening to stop letting Google index the WSJ.com and his other media sites, and wants other news sites to join him in this self-imposed silence. The folks at Microsoft’s Bing think this is a great idea. Not only that, but the FT reports that Microsoft is in fact in discussions with News Corp. and other publishers about the possibility of paying them to remove their sites from Google’s search index. This report comes on the heels of a meeting in Europe where Bing dangled the prospect of premium spots in search results to publishers and outright money for search R&D.
John, you are wrong on this one.
News Corp. owns the content they pay people to produce. And it has value. If Steve Ballmer is willing to pay Rupert Murdoch for exclusivity to gain Bing market share then so what? That’s just business.
Now, Rupert is wrong to say Google is stealing their content. Google allows anyone to opt out and will even help someone do so. And it is reasonable to argue that this is a bad idea. But we both know that the money from online ads is peanuts. You can probably count the news sites that are seriously profitable on one hand.
But to say Microsoft is trying to “screw us” is incorrect. They just want “us” to go to Bing. Just like every other site including yours and mine.
I think it’s a smart strategy. And if Microsoft wants to pay me to index my newspapers I’ll sure as hell take their money!
As I said before, good for them, hurry up about it! The sooner the better!
I’ll dance naked in the streets when I can search Google for something and get ZERO Fox News hits. I’ll get all of the other news sites, but ZERO Fox News! It’s like the greatest monumental event in all of human history!
Rubert Murdoch, boosting his competitors readers and profit!
This is chaos at it’s best. I have no idea how this will turn out, but there is no way that Murdoch does not have the right to do this. And really, what’s the risk? He can pull the cord to Google on Monday, and if he doesn’t like the way it turns out, go back on Friday (or sooner). The only thing preventing him from changing his mind is ego (and getting too knotted up with Microsoft). Isn’t this the way everyone does market research on the web now…just try it out? In fact, all his (well publicized) bitching is just free advertising for when the change occurs.
It seems that Microsoft, and Murdoch, want to create a ‘premium internet’ where all online content is charged for. I’m not sure this is a smart move. I’ve nothing against charging for content but I think Apple might have a better idea with the content subscription tied to some sort of physical device, like a tablet or reader. Apple have apparently approached many media outlets regarding this.
If the payments can be made with a minimum amount of ball breaking (such as the iTunes store), the price is right and the content is good and offers more than the freely available stuff, I think people will pay. The success of iTunes has proved this.
Microsoft isn’t astute enough to pull it off and I’m not sure Murdoch has good enough content or much of a tech savvy audience. I cant see it working.
I WOULD SAY…HOORAY!!
Less adverts, as Google is leaning to Adverts..
LESS NEWS that I DONT WANT TO READ..
99% of NEWS is CRAP anyway..I dont need to know Brittany is PREGNANT..
Out of the 1% thats NEEDED/wanted..1/2 of that is BULL.
The NEWS you want is what you can FIND, that MEANS something to you. very VERY few people read the WHOLE paper, and give a RATS ASS about most of it.
Google brings more traffic to his News Websites than any other online company. If he has failed to profit from this, thats his own problem. I think he has got a bit of an ego if he think he can change the entire paradigm that Google has on culture. He thinks he can change peoples default search enghine to Bing, just because they wont get his news sites if they do it through Google. People won’t care enough to change to Bing because of this. Its too deeply ingrained. If anything he is going to reduce the amount of hits he gets, and alientate himself and his news sites from the more progressive ‘new’ media. You either adapt, and evolve, or you die.
Murdoch is a dinosaur, and hes just accelerating his own demise. Hes trying to hold water in his hands, and its forever going to seep through his fingers.
Stupid Murdoch.
All he has to do is add noindex meta tag to “his” news (like since any news are his?). Ig he wants to be thorough, robot.txt and url removal tool can be used as well (he can check with google what else he can do to have google never even tick any of his stimging webpages).
But… I’m sure he (and his people) they all know all about it.
As for Microsoft – well, until some governmental body will finally put a bullet in their head and put this greedy, exploitatious, shisty, crap-selling coniving bitch this entire company always was and still is, they will always try to make all the nefarious things you can only think of. You bet.
If your newspaper can’t make money. You may have a poor product, that needs work. The Net should just be gravy.
Ah, now _that_ is the Microsoft I knew!
It’s not real news anyway.
I’m sorry, but this Rupert Murdoch and Microsoft trying to follow the AOL (America Online) plan.
It doesn’t work.
Giving Microsoft “exclusive” rights to Murdoch’s “news” will be laughably ineffective. Just like AOL’s exclusive partners.
There are many content providers out there and a content provider like Murdoch doing an exclusive deal just means he is opening the door wider for the other content providers in sectors he has *VOLUNTARY* yielded to competitors.
This model has been tried several times in the past, like magazine exclusive deals with convenience stores like 7 Eleven.
It always fails, but is unfailing fun to watch someone try the concept again.
What barnacle-headed news outlet would SEEK to LIMIT their own audience? Answer: Only idiots.
Wait, google is being destroyed by it’s own greed and this is somehow microsoft and news corps fault???
Um, I see nothing unjust here… It just looks to me like googles free ride is coming to an end.
Add: What stupid company wants their online success or failure to hing on Microsoft’s online success?
Zune, Web TV, “Plays For Sure”, Silverlight, Bing, Microsoft’s non-existent share of the phone OS market … this is not a company that has had much of a track record of successful new ventures in recent years.
Hmmmm. Two companies that don’t know how to make money on the internet trying to turn themselves into an island. The money he’ll make from Microsoft will be as useful as the money paid for Goecities.
I’m waiting for some young journalists to launch an online news site that will compete with the WSJ.
It’s just search.
If I use google to do searches and Murdochs properties don’t turn up, why am I going to change? How do I even know what I’m ‘missing’?
If I like fox ‘news’ I can always go to their website.
So seems like it helps google – or at least other news providers.
#13 Hmeyers
Yeah – they’ve had a real run of trying to dominate a market, throwing money at it, and getting nowhere or going backwards recently. And they are good shaft ‘partners’ if it doesn’t go their way.
This seems like just an extension of that failed strategy. I mean why with all their money and engineering can’t they just produce a better search engine?
Just shut up and do it Rupert. I am getting tired of your lips flapping.
Every time I hear about some clueless a-hole trying to control the net, I remember that these people come from the age of limited access to information. The fact that they appear to think they can make threats and throw their weight around demonstrates clearly why these people are failing so badly. Information has never been so accessible, and never have there been so many alternatives. Mr. Murdoch is like a mammoth trapped in a tar pit, noisy as hell, but no longer dangerous, and heading straight for extinction.
Microsoft is slowly devilving. They did great things until the early ’90’s, the missed the boat on:
1. The internet
2. The browser (won by brute force, not innovation)
3. Mobil software
4. Search
Murdoch is a savvy player, and I can understand him wanting to get paid for producing content, however, making enemies instead of working with Google, and playing old-school, we control everything games with MS will not going well for News Corp. If this happens, I will stop reading the WSJ (which I enjoy) – not due to fees though; I enjoy the company of innovative thinkers.
Who cares? Only morans and leaches read/watch NewsCorp material. And who the hell knows who uses MS products willingly.
It would be an expensive concept due to fail.
Appropriate comment (not originally intended for this particular issue but very on point) from Twitter (garyvee): “Content is the cost entry in todays business world!”
MS at least understands that part. NC not even that.
I can’t even remember the last time I accessed WSJ. Rupert can take all his content and be ignored by everyone on the Web.
For search, I use Google, and sometimes Alta Vista when I need Babelfish. Bing has a cluttered interface that bugs me.
Uhh, last time I looked Fox/News Corporation wasn’t a news outlet per se, they were a propaganda outfit.
Heck, if they want people to pay to read their propaganda, they will just get fewer followers.
The ones who they are usually targeting don’t have the money to buy their product, so why they just throw them under the bus is beyond me. But hey, Murdock is kind of a weird guy anyway.
Welcome to the Fox Full Spin Zone.
#18:
“Microsoft is slowly devilving. They did great things until the early ’90’s, the missed the boat on:”
Sounds like IBM in the 80s. Microsoft will survive. They’ve got the best R&D division since PARC.
This sounds like an old media attempt at controlling the web. Build an exclusive web search engine, wait until it’s popular – because no one will use the broken competitors. Start charging the small guys for inclusion. Eventually charge users a subscription for access. A decade later, we have a proprietary search interface to the web. It sounds paranoid but something similar happened in the 80s and 90s with satellite TV.
I go to bing if that thing can yield more results then Google!
Losing all the righwing biased commentary from WSJ, heck I’d pay for that!
Bing and Murdoch want to give that to me for free, sounds like a great deal.
You know, IF it happens, I’ll miss the WSJ links. Not enough to switch to Bing.
I have nothing against MS and Murdock trying this. I think both will find they just lost a lot of money but that is what is great about the free market system. People can try new ideas and get rich or go broke. Okay Obama and the Dems might decide they are to big to fail but baring that…
Turns out it MUCH more than just Murdoch wanting to do this. ALL THE US NEWSPAPERS WILL WANT THIS ACTION. I say, good for Microsoft having the guts to try something different. Maybe if Google has some real competition, they will be forced to return to their roots and provide a real search engine, instead of a starting point for a manual search. Not that Bing is any better, but Google has gotten really crappy in the last couple of years.