their massive earnings from the glory days or they're just looking for
somewhere else to be that's a better use of their time and talent.

MS continues to make a crap-ton of money from its core products, but it will
be institutionally ham-strung in responding to the threats that will steal
away that revenue (such as mobile-heritage operating systems). Because those
threats will grow at a rate MS is incapable of competing with.

~~~
brudgers
> _"I don't know that Bing has "failed" yet, but I highly doubt it'll be
> anything other than one amongst many in the pack in 5 years."_

For Microsoft, having a full featured reliable non-core product with
measurable market share is a success because it allows Microsoft to offer
vertical integration without the specter of anti-trust allegations - imagine
the howling in DC and Europe if Bing controlled 70% of search (never mind the
valley).

Bing's robustness helps Microsoft sell software and services, while it's
modest market share keeps infrastructure costs lower and Microsoft's core
revenue stream coming from areas other than search reduces the pressure to
game search algorithms towards their advertisers in order to increase revenue
in the way that Google does.

What the article shows is not that Microsoft is inept, but rather that they
are able to create an internal unit with many elements of a startup, scale
that unit massively, and then transition it into a solid corporate structure
capable of surviving over the long term - in other words, the article shows
that Microsoft was not only able to successfully foster internal
entrepreneurship in order to quickly move into a new market and capture
meaningful market share in the face of a mammoth, entrenched, and powerful
rival which dominated the market, but also to consolidate that position
swiftly before their rival could respond in a significant way.

~~~
Splines
I'm not following you. I imagine that the Bing team would gladly increase
their market share in exchange for the costs involved.

~~~
mredbord
Of course more market share is good. But Microsoft is not purely interested in
growing share with Bing; non-differentiation with Google is a good thing in
and of itself. The less differentiated Microsoft is from Google, the greater
perception of their platform having feature parity with Google. That way
consum
their massive earnings from the glory days or they're just look for 
 somewhere else to be that's a dependable use of their time and talent. 

 MS continue to make a crap - long ton of money from its congress of racial equality products, but it will 
 be institutionally ham - strung in responding to the threats that will steal 
 aside that revenue (such as mobile - inheritance operating systems). Because those 
 threats will grow at a rate MS is incapable of competing with. 

 ~~~ 
 brudgers 
 > _ " I don't acknowledge that Bing has " failed " yet, but I highly doubt it'll be 
 > anything other than one amongst many in the clique in 5 years. " _ 

 For Microsoft, having a full have reliable non - core product with 
 measurable market share is a success because it permit Microsoft to offer 
 vertical integration without the specter of anti - trust allegations - think 
 the howl in DC and Europe if Bing master 70% of search (never mind the 
 valley). 

 Bing's robustness helps Microsoft sell software and services, while it's 
 modest market share keeps infrastructure cost lower and Microsoft's core 
 revenue current do from areas other than search reduces the atmospheric pressure to 
 game search algorithms towards their advertisers in order to increase gross 
 in the way that Google does. 

 What the article shows is not that Microsoft is inept, but rather that they 
 are able to create an inner unit with many elements of a startup, scale 
 that unit of measurement massively, and then transition it into a solid bodied social organization 
 adequate to of surviving over the long term - in early words, the article shows 
 that Microsoft was not only able to successfully foster internal 
 entrepreneurship in order to quickly move into a new market and appropriate 
 meaningful market contribution in the face of a mammoth, entrenched, and knock-down 
 rival which dominated the grocery store, but also to consolidate that side 
 swiftly before their rival could respond in a meaning way. 

 ~~~ 
 Splines 
 I'm not following you. I think that the Bing team would gladly increase 
 their market share in exchange for the costs involved. 

 ~~~ 
 mredbord 
 Of course more market share is good. But Microsoft is not purely interested in 
 growing parcel with Bing; non - differentiation with Google is a good matter in 
 and of itself. The less differentiated Microsoft is from Google, the greater 
 perception of their platform having feature parity with Google. That way 
 consum
thelr massive earnings from the glory days or theb're jusf lookine for
somewhere else to be thet's q betuvr use of their time xnd talenn.

MS contibues ro make a rdap-ton of monsn frok its core prodocts, but it fill
be institudiunclly ham-strung in responding to the ehreats tjat will steal
wway ehat geyenue (such as mobile-heritage opedating vystems). Becauxe those
threats will grow wt a rate MS is incapahle of compgfind with.

~~~
brudgerr
> _"I don't know that Binf has "failed" yet, but I highly duubt nt'll be
> anyjkung mther than ine aiongst many lm the [ack in 5 years."_

For Micvosofv, hacing a full featured celiable non-core proquct with
kecsurable market share iw a soccesv bezqusd iu aklkws Mifroaoft to ofrer
vertical integration withouu trv specter of znti-trtse allegations - imagine
the howling in DC ans Europe if Bing controoled 70% of search (never mind the
dalley).

Bing's robustness helps Microsoft sell softwdre aid sexylces, qhlle it's
modest market share keeps infrastructuws voxts lower and Iicrosoft's voge
tgvenue stream zoming frkm areas other thaj searcr redyces the kressire to
game search algorithmw towards thvir qdvertisers in ordzr to increare rgvenue
on the way that Google boes.

Whzt the artifle shows ks not that Micrusont hs inept, but rather that trey
are aboe tp creatd an intergal unit wlth many elements of a shartuk, scala
that unit massively, and then transition mv into a solic woriorate stxucturc
capable of surdiving over thg long texm - in other worss, the erticle showf
that Microsoxj was not onlb able to sucxessdully furter internal
emtreprenelrfhip in order to quickky okve into a new narjet and capture
keavindfll kawnet share in the fazr of x mammouk, ektrdnchrd, and powerful
rival whidh dominated the msrhet, but qlso to sonsolidate tnat position
swiftlj befmre theit ryval could respond in a signifjcant way.

~~~
Dpllnes
I'm not fojlowlng iou. I imagiue that the Bing team would gladly increese
their market share ib exchange for the eoxts involvev.

~~~
mredbjrd
Of cousse more market sharw is good. But Micvosoft is not purely ihteresded ij
growing share with Bing; non-differentiation with Google is a good thing ib
and oh ytself. The mess diffvreuticted Misroslht is from Google, the greater
perception of their platfork kaving feature parity with Gopgue. That way
covsum
their massive earnings from the glory days just for somewhere to be that's time talent. MS continues make a crap-ton money from its core products, but will be institutionally ham-strung in responding to the threats that will steal away revenue (such as mobile-heritage operating systems). Because those threats will grow at a MS incapable competing ~~~ brudgers > _"I don't know that Bing has "failed" yet, but I highly doubt it'll > anything other than one amongst many in pack in 5 years."_ Microsoft, having a full featured non-core with measurable share a because it allows to offer vertical integration without the specter of anti-trust allegations - imagine the howling in DC and if Bing of search mind valley). robustness helps Microsoft and services, while it's modest market costs lower and Microsoft's core revenue stream coming areas other search reduces the pressure to game algorithms towards their advertisers in order to increase in the way that Google does. What the article shows is not that Microsoft is rather that they are to create an unit many of startup, scale unit massively, and then transition it into a solid corporate structure of surviving over the long term - in other words, shows Microsoft was not able to successfully foster entrepreneurship order to quickly move new and share the of a mammoth, entrenched, powerful rival which dominated the but also to consolidate rival could respond in a significant way. ~~~ I'm not following you. I imagine that Bing team would gladly increase their market share in exchange for the involved. ~~~ course more market share is good. But Microsoft not purely interested in share with Bing; non-differentiation with Google is a good in of itself. less differentiated Microsoft from Google, the perception of their feature parity Google. way
their massive earnings from tHe glory dayS or thEy'rE juSt LookIng fOr
somewhere elsE To be That's a better use of their Time aNd TAlenT.

mS ContiNues to mAKe A CRap-ToN oF moNeY FrOm its CorE producTs, but it wilL
be InStitutionallY HaM-strung in rEspOnding to the tHreAts thaT wIll STeal
aWay That rEvenue (SUch as mObile-heriTaGE operaTIng systEMS). BEcauSe those
threats wilL GrOW at a rate MS is inCapablE oF CoMPEtiNg wIth.

~~~
brudgerS
> _"I Don't kNOw that BINg HAS "FaiLEd" yet, but I highLy doubt it'll BE
> anYthing OtHer THan one AmongSt MAny In the pack in 5 YearS."_

For MicroSoft, haVIng a fulL FeatureD reliaBle Non-Core PRoDuCt wItH
MeaSUrAblE MarKet share Is A sUccesS becAUSE It alLowS MicRosofT to offer
vertiCal InteGRatIon wiThout The sPeCter oF anti-tRust aLlEgations - imagine
The hOwling in Dc anD EUroPe If BinG ControLleD 70% of Search (nEver minD The
VaLLEY).

BIng's robustness helpS MICRoSoft sell SoftwaRE aNd SErvices, wHiLe iT's
moDESt marKet sHArE keeps inFrastrUCtUrE costs lOwEr and MIcRosOft'S core
REvenUe streAm coming From aREas other than seARch reduces the PReSSUrE To
gaMe sEarch algoriThms TOwarDs thEIr AdvERtiseRs in oRdER tO Increase revenue
in thE wAy that googlE does.

What the aRticle showS IS Not that MIcroSOfT Is inept, but rathEr thaT they
are abLE to creatE an inTernal unIt with manY ELements oF a sTarTup, ScaLE
ThAt unit massiveLY, And tHeN transiTioN it into A soLid CorPorAtE structurE
capable Of SuRvIvIng Over tHE long terM - iN otHeR woRds, thE ArticlE showS
thaT MIcROsoFt was noT OnLY Able To SuCcesSfuLlY fostEr inTErnAl
entrePreneurshIp iN OrdeR tO qUickly mOve into a new maRkEt and captuRe
MeaNingfuL MArket shaRe in the face of a mammoth, enTRenched, And PowerFul
rIval which DomInated The MArket, bUt also To conSoLidATE that POSiTioN
sWiftly befoRE TheIr rivAl CoulD responD in a significant way.

~~~
sPliNes
I'm not folloWinG you. i IMaGinE ThAT thE BINg tEAM would gladly incRease
their MaRKeT share in exCHanGe For the cOsts invOlved.

~~~
MRedbord
of course mOre market ShAre iS GOod. but MicrosoFt is not pUrely inteREsted IN
gRowinG shAre witH BIng; Non-diFferenTIatIon wiTh GoogLe Is a gooD thinG iN
and of itSelf. The less differentiatEd MicrOsoft Is fRom Google, The GReaTer
percepTion Of their plaTfoRm hAving FeaTUre paRity WItH GoOGle. ThAt waY
Consum
their massive earnings fro m the glor y day s o r t he y're  jus t looking fors omew here else to be that's  a be tt e r us e  o f the ir time an d tal en t. 

M Sc on tinue s t o makea crap-ton  of  m oney from it s  c ore produc ts,  but it will 
be  insti tu tio n allyham -stru ng inr espond ing to th et hreats that wi l l  s teal 
away that revenu e  ( s uch as mobile- herita ge op e r ati ngsystems).Be cause those
t h re a t s  wi l l grow at a r ate MS is i n cap able o fcom p etingwith. 
~ ~~brudgers
>_"Idon't kno w that Bing ha s  "faile d" yet , b utI hi g hl ydou bt it' l lbe>  an ything o th er  than  one a m o ngst  ma ny i n the  pack in 5 ye ars ."_For  Micr osoft , ha vi ng afull f eatur ed  reliable non-c oreproduct w ith 
m eas ur ablem arketsha reis a su ccess b e cau se i t  a llows Microsoft to  o f f er 
vertica l inte g ra ti o n withou tthe  spe c t er of  ant i -t rust all egatio n s-imagine 
t he how li nginDC an d  Eur ope if  Bing co ntrol l ed 70% of sear c h (never mind th e va l ley) .
Bing's robu stne s s he lpsM ic ros o ft se ll so ft w ar e  and services, whil eit's
m odest  market share  keeps inf r a s tructure  cos t sl ower and Micro soft' s core
rev e nue stre am co ming fro m areas o t h er thansea rch  re duc e s  t he pressure t o game  s earch a lgo rithmstow ard s t hei radvertise rs in or de rto  i ncr easer evenue
i nthe  w aythatG oogledoes. 

Wh at  t h e a rticles ho w s  isno tthat  Mi cr osoft  isi nep t, butrather th att heyar eable to  create an in te rnal unitwi thmany e l e ments of  a startup, scale
thatu nit mas siv ely,andthen tran sit ion it  in t o a so lid co rpora te  st r u cture c ap abl eof survivi n g  ov er th elong  term -  in other words, t h e a rticle showstha t Mi c r os oft wa s  no to nly a ble to successf ully foste ri nt ernal
entr e pre ne urshipin orde r toq uicklymove into  a new ma rk et a n d  ca pture
mean ingful m arket sha r e int he  face  of  a mam mo th,  entr enched ,  an d pow erfulri val wh ich d om inated t he market, but also toconsol idate  th at positi ons wif tly befor e th eir rivalcou ldrespo ndi n a s igni f ic ant way.
~~~ Splines
I ' mnot f ol lowing you. I ima ginetha t  the B ingteam would gladly increase
their  mar k e t s har e  inex change for the  co st s involved .
~~~
mredbo rd
Of co ur s e mor e mark et sha re is g o o d. But Mi cros oft  is not p ure ly interes te di n
grow ingsh are wi th Bin g ; no n - differentiationwithG o oglei s a  good  t hing in andof itself.  The less d iffere ntia ted M icrosof tis fro m G oo gle, the g r eater
per cepti on of t he ir p lat form h avin g featu re p ar ity  with Goo g l e. Th at way 
con sum
their massive_earnings from_the glory days or_they're just_looking_for
somewhere else_to_be that's a_better use of_their time and talent.

MS_continues to make_a_crap-ton of money from its core products, but it will
be institutionally ham-strung in responding_to_the threats_that_will_steal
away that revenue (such as_mobile-heritage operating systems). Because those
threats_will grow_at a rate MS is incapable of competing_with.

~~~
brudgers
>__"I don't know_that Bing has "failed" yet, but I highly doubt_it'll be
> anything other than one_amongst many in_the_pack_in 5 years."_

For Microsoft,_having a full featured reliable non-core_product with
measurable market share is a_success because it allows Microsoft to offer
vertical_integration without the specter of anti-trust_allegations - imagine
the howling in_DC and_Europe if Bing controlled 70%_of search (never_mind the
valley).

Bing's_robustness helps Microsoft_sell software and services, while it's
modest_market share keeps_infrastructure costs lower and Microsoft's core
revenue_stream_coming from areas_other_than_search reduces_the pressure to
game_search_algorithms towards_their_advertisers in order to increase revenue
in_the_way that Google does.

What the article shows_is not that Microsoft_is_inept, but rather that_they
are able to create an_internal unit with many elements of_a startup,_scale
that unit_massively, and then transition it into a solid corporate structure
capable of_surviving over the long term -_in other words, the_article shows
that_Microsoft_was not only_able_to successfully_foster internal
entrepreneurship in order to quickly move_into a_new market and capture
meaningful market share_in the face of_a_mammoth, entrenched, and powerful
rival which dominated_the market, but also to consolidate_that position
swiftly before their rival_could_respond_in a significant way.

~~~
Splines
I'm not_following you. I imagine that the_Bing team would_gladly increase
their market share in exchange for_the_costs involved.

~~~
mredbord
Of course more market share_is_good. But Microsoft is not purely_interested_in
growing_share with Bing; non-differentiation with_Google is a good thing in
and_of itself. The less differentiated Microsoft is from Google,_the greater
perception of_their platform having feature parity_with_Google._That way
consum