If only MS would invest more into improving their products and less on advertising, then they might not even have to advertise. Google's search wasn't really advertised, it was just the best -- so naturally, users flocked to it.
I really think at this point that MS is just trying to outright buy market share with these elaborate campaigns.
I think this is not correct. Microsoft spends a lot in R&D. According to this [1] (as of d 3/21/2012):
The top 10 companies and the amount they spend on R&D
(in billions) in the past 12 months were, according to
S&P Capital IQ:
• Microsoft (MSFT): $9.4
• Pfizer (PFE): $8.4
• Intel (INTC): $8.4
• Merck (MRK): $8.3
• Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): $7.5
• International Business Machines (IBM): $6.3
• Cisco Systems (CSCO): $5.6
• Google (GOOG): $5.2
• Eli Lilly (LLY): $5.0
• Oracle (ORCL): $4.4
Apple is 18th on the list, spending $2.6 billion, behind other
technology giants such as Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Cisco, Oracle,
Qualcomm, Hewlett-Packard and Amazon.com. Apple's R&D spending
as a percentage of its revenue of $127.8 billion was 2%.
It's interesting that you throw the Apple comment in out of context and blow your argument as a result. Apple's amazing success with low R&D expenditure shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is.
It also says a lot about accounting, as how time is booked in an accounting system for tax purposes will drastically alter those numbers, even if the same work gets done.
>(Ford)'s amazing success with low R&D expenditure (they had one engine design that ran from the 70's to the 90's with no modification or improvement despite the industry ballooning with different technologies during that time) shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is.
And no-one ever accused Ford of making shoddy cars that fall apart the second they leave the floor... for many decades solid...
I included Apple's comment, which seemed to be out of context to you, because it was not on the top-10 list, but it was the next paragraph in the linked article, and seemed to be interesting so you could have a view of the mayor tech players.
"Apple's amazing success with low R&D expenditure shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is."
Also, it's not my intention to make a comparison between Apple and MS here, but I think it's clear that MS spends a lot more because it has a broader set of products and services.
Furthermore, you need to define "great product". Because what would seem to be great to consumers, may be totally useless to enterprises. And that is reflected today in the market.
I'm not sure this is correct. You're assuming there are algorithmic changes to search that will substantially improve results to the point where the average user will notice - like there was when google made its rise.
At this point-barring some revolutionary new way to search-Microsoft might have to heavily invest in advertisements to gain any ground.
Indeed. 12 years ago, back when I juggled 4 or 5 different engines — I'd have welcomed something like Bing with open arms.
The thing is, in those 12 years, I've invested lots of data and time in Google. But be that as it may, I feel like I'm noticing a decline in the quality of Google search results. And there are rare occasions where I do give ol' Bing a few cranks to cover more bases.
I really think at this point that MS is just trying to outright buy market share with these elaborate campaigns.