They did it to Netscape, and they are trying it again on Google.

Microsoft is stealing what works and refining it to suit their needs with just enough modifications to make it marginally unique. This time their effort is called Bing.

If you missed the announcement earlier this month, Microsoft Live Search is now Bing.

Search Engine Watch remarked about the first week trend data which showed Bing stealing a 6% market share from Google. My guess is much of this traffic was related to the search engine freaks like myself who tested the system during the first week rather then use our the default favorite, Google. However, I’m fairly confident that this 6% reduction in Google’s market share is a sign of times to come.

Earlier today I spoke to Greg Davoll, VP of Marketing at Worksoft and fellow tech junkie. We’re both in agreement that something is different about Bing that makes us both feel that this new attack on Google might actually have traction.

Let’s break down a few reasons why:

1. Bing is visually refreshing
   The homepage image rotates out daily. By contrast Google’s white background gets old fast. It’s a minor difference but it’s enough to add life to the engine without adding complexity.
2. Is this AdWords?
   The is almost no difference in the placement of the paid-ad results. As a lifetime hater of Microsoft AdCenter this new development has caused me to rethink using AdCenter as a viable alternative to AdWords.
3. It’s about the Width
   Bing has a wider default layout then Google. When measuring the “related searches” on the left, space given to natural results and the ads on the right, Bing is 955 pixels wide. By comparison Google measures a measly 1990’s standard minimum width of 630 pixels. This added real-estate allows Bing to offer user-friendly related searches, along with the user’s recent search history. As the user mouses over the natural results a light gray vertical line appears with a centered circle. Mousing over the gray line previews text from the destination homepage to the right of the results. This gives the user a quick way to evaluate a site, without actually clicking through.
4. Results are just different enough
   I use search engines multiple times during the day, it’s the nature of our industry. During my 1 week switch to Bing I found I only needed to use Google twice. In both occasions it was for local search or mapping related queries. Otherwise, I found Bing’s results to be as good as Google’s. Many times the Top 20 results were similar in content but sorted / prioritized differently by each engine.

I’m about as big of a Google fanboy as they come. Yet, despite my love for all things Google I’ve got to say Bing is certainly a viable challenger. I’ll be making the switch over to Bing for a few more weeks to see if I can live & work without Google. I’m sure I’m not the only one looking for something different.

Over the past few years the landscape of home entertainment has been changing. As broadband internet access has found its way into households across the country the utilization of on-demand content is becoming commonplace.

Netflix, who we’ve criticized before and been pleasantly surprised by their response, has been really on top of capturing this next generation of home entertainment. In fact, it seems like they’ve secretly been waiting for this moment since the incarnation of their brand “Internet Flicks”.

When I first heard of Netflix I was in early high school, my friend’s parents had just signed up for this new service that delivered movies via mail. I was confused, how in the world did the name Netflix really correspond to mail delivery movies? Further, was it really worth waiting two days to get a movie when you could go to a local store and get it in 30 minutes? Well, as they say, the proof was in the pudding. As the internet boomed in the early 2000’s Netflix became a real time rival to those other rental services such as broke-ass-buster Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

However, it wasn’t until this past year that I really started to respect Netflix as a company with vision. In fact, I find it almost creepy how well they’ve positioned themselves in today’s current home entertainment market.

I imagine the idea of on-demand content has to be terrifying to most rental services. With pay-per-view, Hulu, torrenting, and iTunes the idea of brick and mortar rental is on the way out. And while DVD mail delivery isn’t quite as dead as store rental it definitely has a limited lifespan.

Here’s where Netflix is different from a lot of companies. They recognized their business model was dying and instead of whining about it they acted. They didn’t whine about liscensing costs, they didn’t worry about not having a media center product. Instead they took their vision and started working. Giving their customers an opportunity to watch movies instantly on their PC’s for free. Hear that? I said FREE. By not expecting immediate returns on their investment they captured a substantial portion of the online steaming market share and the buzz around it.

It comes down to this. How many people would have been willing to pay an extra $10 a month to try online movie streaming? Maybe a few. How many were willing to try it for free? Everybody.

Netflix, whose name now seems surprisingly perfect for their service, is suddenly a leader in the online delivery world. Since they started delivering online content they’ve cut deals with a number of home media center device manufactures. Including Roku, a few Blu-ray players, and Microsoft’s Xbox. Further, they’ve bundled their online delivery with their plans at no additional cost (I imagine they make up some money by not having to use as much postage) and they’ve started adding HD quality (720p) content.

In essence, Netflix lined up their challenges, picked up a bat, and started knocking them out of the park one by one.

Now granted the battle for next generation content delivery isn’t over, but it seems clear that Netflix isn’t holding the losing hand. They’ve played their cards perfectly up to here and I can happily say that I’m a user of their service and it rocks.

On a daily basis I spend anywhere from five minutes to three hours cursing and wishing ill will upon Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. Sometimes I do this silently under my breath and sometimes, to the dismay of my coworkers, I do it quite vocally. The reason? Internet Explorer 6 is an: insecure, slow, outdated, and non-standards compliant browser.

Let me illustrate this a bit further. If browsers were cars — IE6 would be an El Camino truck that’s been sitting outside in the rain for 20 years. Underpowered, ugly, basically useless in every scenario, and ready to explode and kill you at any moment.

Development of a website that supports IE6 adds about 15 to 20% of additional time to a project. And further, IE6 doesn’t support the everyday commonplace technologies of all other modern browsers. Meaning websites simply don’t function or look as good as they do in today’s browsers.

So here’s the question.

If today’s modern browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, IE7) are easy to get, run faster and safer than IE6, and are free. Why are some company IT departments still forcing users to browse on IE6? In general it seems to boil down to three big reasons.

1. The company has internal software that was built specifically to run on Internet Explorer.
2. The company manages a ton of machines and the workload/headache of upgrading them all to a newer version is too much.
3. The company and users feel comfortable on IE6 because they “know it”.

Here’s the problem. When we as an industry don’t embrace new enhancements in development it’s the client’s viewers and the client’s brand that suffers. We’re still building phenomenal web sites. But the straight truth of the matter is they’re not as good as they should be. The web has soooo much potential but it’s not being utilized. Why? Because we’re still supporting a legacy browser* that was released in 2001.

As I’ve said before. In order for things to get better sometimes you just have to make the jump. Other companies are already doing this. Apple, 37Signals, and Comedy Central just to name a few. Notice anything about those first two? They dramatically care about their user’s experience. So much so that they’re willing to sacrifice incompatibility for some users to benefit the rest of them**. Cheers to that, I hope we see it more.

^{* As long as companies ask us to support IE6 we will. We’re not afraid to share our thoughts on the browser landscape but we also recognize the need to compromise.
** I understand that some users don’t have control over what browser they use. For these poor souls I cry (really, I’m tearing up as write this).}

Today I tried Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express as a change to Visual Studio, hoping that it had less bloat and would be a good alternative or upgrade from previous Visual Studio IDEs, even as an Express version.

This was the popup it presented to me when I opened my first site.

What the f*ck!

I respect that Microsoft wants to promote version 3.5 of the framework but this is f*cking stupid, and arguably irresponsible, too.

We’ve had a bit of discussion in the office recently regarding Steve Balmer’s threatening letter to Yahoo! and MS’s potential acquisition of it.

Balmer makes several strong points in his letter. One, that the current state of the economy today makes the offer even better than it was several months ago. And two, that the board of directors may be potentially ignoring their share holder base and the best monetary outcome for it. After clarifying MS’s position, Balmer said that MS would be forced to go directly to the share holders if Yahoo! didn’t re-consider their offer and start a path of negotiations.

This can be looked at from a couple different points of view. On the one hand, this is a very Microsoft “strong arm” type of move — trying to take what MS thinks is theirs, regardless of the potential obstacles that might lie in the way. On the other hand, MS makes a few good points. A large majority of expert analysis suggested in January that Microsoft’s 62% premium offer over Yahoo!’s stock price was a good deal for share holders. And while many holders may believe in getting the best deal they can, they also don’t want to potentially throw a deal away all together.

Still, what is most interesting about this battle is the publicity of it. Both sides are using the press to their full advantage. Making hostile bids and equally hostile rebuttals. In my opinion it seems that the PR battle occurring on both sides could potentially harm both the perceived outcome of a deal by the public as well as the employees of both companies. Yahoo! and MS have very different cultures and the last thing a sustained group of Yahoo! employees will want is the feeling of being overtaken forcefully by a hostile company.

It seems unlikely that MS won’t get their way at some point. However, the question remains that even if MS is capable of forcing Yahoo! into a buyout, will governments both here in the U.S. and abroad allow it to happen? This process is definitely still in the early stages, but man what firefight it’s been so far.