 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Microsoft Offers To Pay News Corp To "De-List" Itself From Google | |
|
||
| Time: 12:35 EST/17:35 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft wants to pay News Corp and other large publishers to de-list their Web sites from Google's search index, the Financial Times reports. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 12 of 12 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at Monday, November 23, 2009 09:26:00 PM |
| Time for a Google parry? |
| #2 By 12071 (124.171.4.239) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 07:28:06 AM |
| When you can't compete... buy them out! Capitalism in it's finest hour! |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 09:05:27 AM |
| I see it as win-win. MS has to pay Murdoch a lot of money, and I don't have to waste my time parsing News Corp nonsense when searching with Google. |
| #4 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:00:47 AM |
| I do not think it will happen; even for MS the flow of income is not as it was. |
| #5 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 07:31:03 PM |
|
#3 It's a dangerous and idiotic precedent though... (and just based on that alone it's likely to succeed... nothing like applying corruption to the problem, I mean lobbying).
If this does occur then what will happen is new interfaces will come out that will under the cover execute the search against the individual search engines, group and sort those results and then present the final version. Which is all well and good but a pointless waste. |
| #6 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:42:09 PM |
| If you want the news, and a laugh, stick with FARK. Who needs to google news anyway? |
| #7 By 9589 (75.183.116.232) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:06:07 PM |
| Somebody at Microsoft forgot the basic concept behind the Internet. Think of it as a planetary whac-a-mole. Except where search providers are "going along" with the limiting or extinguishing of news flowing into and out of a couple of the communist and Islamic countries, this is non starter. Any attempt to implement it is foolish and ridiculously costly. That's a polite was to say who is the dumbass that thought this one up? |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:00:08 AM |
|
This is an interesting and inevitable evolution of the web.
I've always maintained that it would be far easier for the media and content owners to move to the web as the means of distributing content than it would be for the web to sustain quality content. Note I said sustain. As tradition means of content distribution fade away and all content is distributed via the network (including the web), what content we access will change - where the how is to be the same for all - namely the public and private networks. Ultimately what will happen is that access to content will be paid and not any differently than one accesses sat, or cable or sat radio. Content owners and media houses will have their lineups and while there will always be free content, just as there has been free content available for decades through the air, one will pay for access to premium content. The web will change dramatically and everything will become augmented - most especially vision. Everything we look at, and touch will be augmented first by "about" information and later in several simultaneous contexts. A building for example, will be viewed in its context as a property, price per sq foot, volume, history, etc... Media content and news, while syndicated over the web, will be paid content as only one of many channels in a particular lineup. While the web so far has augmented traditional forms of delivery, the direction and therefore augmentation will change. What this signals is the first significant step in that direction and it cannot happen soon enough. If the supposition persists that all things should be "free" then nothing has any exchangeable value. Without that value and exchange, there is little incentive, or struggle - both of which are desperately needed by man if he is to remain healthy. I like this and welcome it and hope it evolves quickly. People pay for things because they are worth something and to have one tiny, loud segment continue to demand all things for nothing, is going to come to an end. |
| #9 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 07:09:51 AM |
|
I am sure you remember Compuserve and the way it was setup:
a fee to get connected a supplementary fee to access "Premium" content Compuserve eneded as it ended.... While I agree that you could succesfull in requesting a fee to access very specialized articles like the WSJ, the same would not work for more generic news. Besides the article is about search engines and what they index not Mr. Murdoch dreams..... |
| #10 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:05:00 PM |
|
#9, Yeah, but I am speaking to an entirely different shift.
as the content owners reverse their own distribution models, paid content will become the norm. There will still be a lot of "free" content, but like most things that are free, they come at a different and larger price. Content, like premium content we have access to now, will be among channels that are paid for in packages and all content, will be augmented. Our entire world will be observed through an augmentation lens with different contexts being available. |
| #11 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at Friday, November 27, 2009 12:27:57 PM |
| #10: Pornography already uses this model. There is plenty of free stuff out there, but pay sites must offer more. |
| #12 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Sunday, November 29, 2009 03:35:40 PM |
| Let us say that pay sites make you search less...... so to speak. LOL |
