More emerges on Microsoft's dance with newspapers

Next Story

Little World Gifts to bring virtual gifts to the iPhone just in time for Christmas

We’ve been doing some more digging on the definitive moves by Microsoft to woo newspapers over to Bing and away from Google, a story we broke two weeks ago.

Since then there have been some follow-up by various media outlets, notably the Financial Times this week which confirmed that Microsoft had had discussions with News Corp to “de-index” its news websites from Google.

Who approached who first? The FT said the impetus came from News Corp, although our information is that Microsoft is also talking to a range of newspaper publishers in Europe as well, such as German publishers like Axel Springer.

So here is what our sources are coming up with.

• There’s also been a lot of speculation about how Microsoft will lure newspapers into Bing. Money talks, obviously, and we understand that the payments could be a) part in revenue share from advertising on Bing b) the inclusion of news partners in adverts for Bing. In other words, you’d start to see ads with “You’ll only find The Wall Street Journal on” etc.

• We understand that Rupert Murdoch and Steve Ballmer spoke directly to eachother in the days before Murdoch released the bombshell that he was considering blocking Google from the and his other news sites, even though Google accounts for about 25 percent of the traffic to the

• Despite their delight that there is finally a search engine in the market willing to take on Google’s preeminence, Newspaper publishers still have issues with the whole Bing idea. Our sources argue that Bing could jeopardise any standing it has as an agnostic or neutral search engine if it gets into the game of picking and choosing which newspapers should have premium positions on its News service, and paying some but not others for their content. That could backfire both on Bing, but more importantly on the newspapers that would rather sit above that kind of association, especially where they are concerned that readers will wonder about their editorial independence.

• Our original story revealed the previously unkown information that Microsoft had made noises about funding research and engineering into ACAP, the more granular version of the robots.txt protocol proposed by publishers to enable them to have a more sophisticated response to search engine crawlers, to the tune of about will put £100,000. It appears that there have been “no formal communications” back to the European Publishers Council as yet.

Lastly, aside from all this, research emerged this week which gave a glimpse of what impact withdrawing newspapers from Google would have on Google’s bottom line. The answer was very little.

A German survey attempted to find out what the effect on Google would be if almost 1,000 domains from German publishers left Google, after 148 publishers signed a declaration in Hamburg to protest against Google’s “financial exploitation.”

The result was that a search on Google Germany – based on a survey using more than a million keywords – showed that only five percent of the top 10 results came from the German news organisations, and these were even publishers co-operating with Google.

In other words, the economic effect on Google of these publishers withdrawing would be negligible.

A bigger effect would come if Wikipedia – built by volunteers – would disappear, with 13 percent of the number-one results vanishing, said TRG, the research company that ran the survey.

  • Stephen Akins

    If Microsoft and Murdock do this deal, I’m going to stop tweeting/etc. articles from the WSJ.

    I realise that I’m just a drop in the bucket compared to actual drops in the bucket; but maybe others will do the same. And maybe even the threat of public backlash will be enough to make people like Murdock think twice about pursuing this course of action.

    • coldbrew

      If MS is really advocating walled-off content to anyone, I will be removing everything MS-based from all of my machines. It would prove they have no interest in user experience at all. F that.

      • Alicia Navarro

        Although its very easy to have a reflex response to this news thinking that these news sites are wrong and Google will win, never underestimate change or commercial interests. Remember that the first reason content went free was because it was thought you could make more money by going down that route (wider distribution, greater loyalty, opportunity for up-selling). That is largely no longer the case, especially for many pure news sites that can’t rely on commercial partnerships as much as other editorial sites can.
        These organisations are not charitable organisations there just to give you free news. We have been trained for so long to expect free, that we think its a right, but it isn’t, and if we want good independent intelligent journalism to survive, we have to be willing to explore different options.
        This path may not be the right one, but I would advocate not being dismissive of it, and think about it from a business perspective. Bing’s offer to share revenues with the results of its search is a clever one, and understandably tempting for content sites who have been treated like a free resource for too long.

      • Tom Tailor


      • coldbrew

        Navarro: I don’t think you addressed my concern at all. I have no issue paying for content as my subscriptions/ membership to NPR, The Economist, and The Nation would demonstrate. I do have issues with allowing one search engine to index, but not another.

        I have never been trained to expect content for free no matter what blanket claims you care to make.

      • Jens


        I agree with you. However, I think that this won’t solve any of the problems that the newspapers have. Selecting a small number of partners (e.g. just Bing) to be able to index their sites just pushes the burden of figuring out how to make money in this space further along the value chain.

        Ultimately, the ability of Bing to monetize the news will limit their ability and willingness to pay the publishers. And if the publishers can’t figure it out, I am unsure Bing will be able to.

        Yes, maybe this will help Bing win overall market share and they can make enough money this way. But I doubt that this will happen. I think the newspapers are hugely overestimating their importance. Just look ay Google News. Each important story has 100s of copies, frequently over 1,000. What do I care if the WSJ is on the list anymore. This is irrelevant to my ability to actually read the news.

        The problem for the publishers is that digital publishing has commoditized all news. The daily hour news cycle has become a minute news cycle. Doing a deal with Bing doesn’t fix that.

      • win win

        It is mostly about making a win win deal to make the deal last long, than to bing doing some charity. Best option would be bing to pay per every click to

      • khan

        i agree. i don’t understand people on here who thinks that news paper industry or content provider don’t have a right to protect their content or make money off of it. if new media is upon us and old media has to adopt or die, then why critize how they think they can survie? let them experiment. its better then the path that they are on right this moment

      • Alex Linhares

        “if we want good independent intelligent journalism to survive, we have to be willing to explore different options.”


      • mantrik

        The answer to the problems of newspapers in the US may be in seeking subsidy from the government. For example, newsprint in India is heavily subsidized.
        Times of India, a national daily, costs Rs 2.5 or 5 cents (approximately). With that kind of cost we subscribe to multiple newspapers even though we use the internet also for news.

        One may ask, Why subsidize Newsprint?
        Because a helping hand from public money enables Newspapers to be objective and independent. After all journalism is a vocation.

      • Ashok

        @Alicia, it is too late in the day to go back to the paid contents model. Having tasted free contents, and with so many free sources of news being available, people are not going to pay for getting some news which is no more “news” since many others are providing the same story almost at the same time. True, there are opinions on WSJ and the like, and those opinions will be important too. But, not everybody will pay to read those opinions online when many other opinions on the same story are available free on the web.

      • Kamal

        Thrown out everything MS from my life. Not worth trusting.

        This proves that media is becoming a puppet for the rich. Somehow I feel, it always was. Worthless WSJ. All their integrity, all their values bent to their knees in front of the $. Repercussions of this aren’t too far away for all of us to see.

    • Zara

      they might not care if you don’t tweet it, as they will get people to bing it maybe ?

      • sellingdirect

        Murdoch’s efforts look almost heroic. I wonder if given his age he sees that the West has lost its fourth estate, that old divide between editorial and commerce and before he leaves, he wants to give it backsomehow by finding a business model that will fund the expensive business of news at the same time as protecting its independence from vested interests. He’s like Bill Gates perhaps, made a lot of money, older, wants one last chance to change the way the world will remember him.

        The big mistake newspapers made was allowing other businesses to come between them and their customer. First rule of selling. Never, ever allow another business to come between you and your customer.

        Navarro is spot on. Free media is funded not by socialist governments but by venture capital. By not naming their price before you buy, venture capitalist see the opportunity to make more money from a confused consumer who entered into a contract not knowing what it was going to cost. The most recent example, scamville and the business models built into Facebook.

        Murdoch believes people will pay for news. Sergey Brin agrees, he’s quoted as saying we need instituitions like the NYTimes, they’re important.

    • common sense

      If Microsoft does this, I will fully support BING. I am tired of watching newspapers dying.

      I want news provided by skilled professionals, not bloggers. Someone has got to find a working model that gives adequate financial success to our former ‘newsPAPERS’. Why not Microsoft?

      I also would like to mention to everyone: please let’s stop the ads that MOVE and gyrate and glimmer. They are annoying, and I leave the website immediately. I also despise videos — if you must provide videos for your dummies who cannot read well, please also provide a transcript for your diehard fans who read, read, read.

      • Joe Ward

        Couldn’t agree more.

    • common sense

      pil = agree

  • Etrigan

    Google is set to learn the painful lesson learned by the likes of Netscape, Sun, Corel, etc.

    Don’t mess with Microsoft.

    Microsoft are like the Terminator: they move very slowly, but they just keep on coming. They take the long view. They will not stop until you are dead. You may outrun them in the short run, but by sheer doggedness and invulnerability, they will catch up with you, trap you and kill you.

    Google has one profitable product, and MS is going after it. RIP, Google. We barely knew ya.

    • Christopher

      Yeah, but in the end the Terminator got completely fucked up and broken into lots of little pieces. Didn’t you watch the film?

    • anon

      RIP Micro$oft, you don’t stand a chance agains’t big G.

      • D


      • Pierre

        What a load of bollocks.

        You all underestimate Murdoch and Microsoft (ooo sounds like Eminem or M&Ms).

    • Sandra G

      You suck at analogies. “they will catch up with you, trap you and kill you.” I will be laughing at that all day. Take a few hours, watch the movies and come back and tell us what happened at the end of them. If anything, for all their technical superiority, the Terminators and SkyNet look stupid for not being able to accomplish what would be a simple task with some forethought and basic planning. Actually, that does sound like Microsoft.


        We will see the real end for this giants war

      • Pierre

        Erm … you dingus. The war is not over yet. T4 shows that Connor might have destroyed part of the US SkyNet but there is still a global threat.

        Let us wait and see what happens when John Connor brings his can of whoop ass to the global stage … SkyNet might win.

  • Anthony

    Why would anyone want to use a search engine that offers preferential treatment to those that are aligned in the movement to close the open web as we know it?
    This spells bad for Bing and Newscorpse and anyone else that joins them.

    • coldbrew

      I obviously agree with you and this just blows my mind. I can’t relate at all to people that think this is remotely respectable.

      • khan

        i think preferal treatment of content is already here. why do you think that there’s is an algorthym in place? why do links to wikipedia shows up mostly first? why did google’s own wiki-knock off shows up higher than most links?

      • mantrik

        @khan, to the contrary the algorithm is for web neutrality.
        As for Wikipedia coming up high on the links. Its because the Wikipedia links are clicked most often by the users.
        Regarding google’s wiki nock off getting preferential treatment… its a fallacious claim you make…

    • Zara

      you can’t become a dictator with an open web, rightwingers/conservative types that love greed, status and power, big ivory towers, looking down on the poor scrabbling for free bits of information, while the elite one’s nibble on Murdoch’s nuts in the VIP lounge you see ?

    • Open_Web

      Give love to all search engines because that is good for the world, and good for searchers.

      • Open_Web

        On a funny note, Google will publish all the sites Rupert Murdoch has been visiting..

  • Christopher

    This does seem to spell fail for all parties concerned. If Microsoft is accepting payment from companies for what essentially amounts to better placement in their organic search (or no placement at all in their competitors’ search engines), then people will quite rightly question the quality of results they see when they go to Bing. People want relevance when they search, not a list of sites that MS can be bothered to shit money all over.

    I wonder if Murdoch knows what RSS is, because his own feeds are basically enabling the same aggregation of content that he wants to deny Google. I also wonder if he knows why those kids are all over his lawn, or if he can remember where he put his teeth the previous night.

  • Todd

    Aim gun. Shoot foot.

    I sincerely hope all the dinosaurs huddle up and “de-index” themselves from the internet. PLEASE do it. Good riddance.

    While you’re at it Murdoch, please “de-index” Fox News from television too.

  • ELQ

    Fact is, it will make no difference whatever. Most people get their news from blogs and RSS feeds anyway. If a WSJ article is relevant to the search, it’s going to wind up in Google’s results anyway from being featured off blogsites’ RSS feeds, and since it came from an aggregate, there’s not a damn thing MS or Murdoch can do about it.

  • jon

    the strange this is that NewsCorp is complaining about traffic, they don’t like people visiting their pages while others would kill for that sort of traffic Google is sending them, they should try to figure out a way to capitalize on th traffic rather than threatening to delisting themselves.

    • Tom Tailor

      Uh, I think they tried, probably very very hard, and failed. It’s simply a bad model for newspapers.

  • Shakir Razak


    People don’t get history:

    Part of the reason why Google got to where it’s at is because of the mind-share gained from constant name-checking by the rest of the media.

    At the same time, even when the media forgot of the existence of Myspace and blogging, both of those services, even if not considered “cool” have substantial user-bases.

    Third example is that in the UK, Rupert Murdoch tightly cross-promoted his new television interests on those traditional paper interests.

    It wouldn’t happen instantly, and google would still have remnant memory/user/data-bases, but how many people of influence are employed by News Corp. versus Google?

    If News Corp. assets simply have a bing logo/touch-point all the time, and all that employed talent constantly mentioning Bing, where once Google would have been the verb, eventually that space in a users mind expands to encompass an alternative search-engine.

    And that’s where change happens………

    Also, Microsoft has actual multiple revenue-streams, whereas google gets 95% from a single source, who has more to risk and lose?

    Yours kindly,

    Shakir Razak

    • Tom Tailor

      “Also, Microsoft has actual multiple revenue-streams, whereas google gets 95% from a single source, who has more to risk and lose?”

      Finally, someone who gets the MSFT/GOOG battle. The Borg is competing like hell with the Goog and, although it has massive market share in search, the Goog is re-positioning and spending to respond. If Google loses market share in search to anyone, its star will have dimmed, its stock will be toast, eveneryone on TC will be giving it the hadbeen, thumbs down. Meanwhile, back in Redmond, Microsoft can exit the search market altogether and might even strengthen its bottom line.

      Putting all your eggs in one basket — or rather having one egg and one basket — not really The Way to Go.

      • coldbrew

        Razak and Tailor: You both are so clueless it is baffling. I can’t understand why anyone would consider GOOG’s business a “one hit wonder” when search and display advertising are very different businesses. Beyond that, I am finding an increasing number of SMBs/ people paying $50/user/yr for GOOG Apps. GOOG’s ability to leave money on the table (like craigslist) and seemingly sincere attempt at objectivity (which MSFT seems opposed to, as demonstrated here) will continue to win people’s mind-share.

        I also find it humorous when people treat blog comments like emails with salutations and signatures. I have no other words to describe this behavior other than “clueless.”

      • Andrew

        95+% of GOOG’s revenues are from Google Adwords and Google Adsense.

      • Shakir Razak


        “coldbrew” I’ll try answering you when you have the maturity to not hide behind a pseudonym and take responsibility for your words, where nothing controversial is being discussed – unless you’re a really high-level NewsCorp. employee who’s telling Murdoch something different to what you’re saying here.

        As for the rest: it ultimately comes down to competition and plurality, but I just hope you aren’t so naive to believe Android, Chrome et al are given without an expected return, whether personal data or inclusive search by default within other apps/os’s.

        Lexis-Nexis does pretty well as a pay-walled service which was around before the current Interweb. Any indexing deal with Bing would also not necessarily be tied to access – If you go to NewsCorp.’s titles, which is what it wants, you would still have access (where that content remains free-to-access/open).

        In your black-and-white way, You aren’t entirely wrong, many Internet users who are grown-up enough to have seen the Internets growth, also want “free”/open access to as much as possible, but it’s about different things for different people and different business-models to help support them.

        Despite the worldview of most people who read Techcrunch, most might also be unaware that their are more newspaper readers (1.6bn v. 1.2bn) than internet users!


        In case you think I’m dogmatically against Google, let me tell you I’m not, it’s a great company able to think strategically and fool a lot of idealistic users and developers; I especially admire Eric Schmidt using everything he learnt in the virtual death-throes with Sun Microsystems and Novell, against Microsoft (where it succeeded then) to run rings round it upto now with a 70-90% market-share and placing foundations to extend that to the rest of our digital interfaces, but it’s not good for the rest of society, eventually even itself.

        We wouldn’t have accepted it from Microsoft, and nor should we accept it from anyone else now.

        It is a company.

        Yours kindly,

        Shakir Razak

      • Klaus

        Why should microsoft be quiet and go back to software only? Who started?

        Google is to blame, they are NOT only a search engine companie they have strategic EVIL agenda. the big difference is that they fund the extermination with “free” products. They did with mobile, browser, apps, etc…

        And WORST, they want to be THE hub of all information. ChromeOSucker, what it is? is it google being a good christian companie providing free service? who believes this stupidity?

        they are actually trying to destroy microsoft, and I hope they fail! Google is much worst treat for all of us!

      • Karl

        Man, what’s that all about? How is ‘evil’ part of this all here? We’ll see who ‘wins’, however Google simply is the more futuristic company, not bothered with some legacy crap the shareholders want to make money with.

  • spyder_43

    I always think it is interesting how these comments come down to the defense of Google, or the bashing of Microsoft. I get it, people love Google, but we are missing the point that print and media companies are losing gobs of money. The now traditional web advertising model is not working for them, and they are suffering. Google is nothing without content, and these publishers spend a lot of time and effort publishing worthwhile editorials and news about everything affecting our world. You can get your news from Google or Bing, but neither of them research and publish the news, thats still done by people with years of experience and effort. Microsoft and the news companies are not trying to wall off the news, but are exploring ways to help an industry teetering on the edge of disaster, and nobody is coming to their defense because it’s alright for the “Big G” to index their content because it drives traffic to their site, where they can charge 2 cents per click. That is not a business model. Google can charge rediculously low PPC because of volume, that same model clearly is killing independent media. If Google was in talks with these companies to share more of the revenue they make off search relating to the news with news organizations, in return for exclusive access, these same posts would be touting Google as the news saver and Bing killer. Be more objective people.

    • Richard

      I’d suggest that most of the news out there is rehashed from the same sources, hundreds or thousands of times for each story. So that part of the news is a commodity and nobody will be able to charge for it.

      The news you *can* charge for will be something you can’t get anywhere else, or quickly enough elsewhere, or presented in a way that is worth it. I’ll happily buy my Economist because I see it as ‘better’ somehow – analysis, quality of writing, etc.

    • Stephen Akins

      Let me get this straight….

      the death of news papers = death of news?

      And Google… which indexes content like every search engine since the beginning of time, is evil… while MS who is doing back room deals to try to artificially give itself a leg up on it’s competitor is actually trying to help newspapers?

      I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that news is just changing. For instance, look at what happened with the elections in Iran. There was a total media blackout; but the world got a very detailed look at exactly what was happening. Tweeples stayed up 20 hours out of 24 for days on end, sifting through tweets, FB statuses and YouTube cell phone videos, following leads, verifying stories, posting updates and generally reporting the news. They did an awesome job and it didn’t take a career at NewsCorp to make it happen.

      I would like to suggest to you that news is doing better than it ever has before; even while the news papers crumble. Some of the news agencies are figuring out how to adapt and still make money, and some are failing miserably. The good reporters from failed news agencies will find new work or innovate all by themselves, and the bad ones won’t.

      And it’s all good.

      • spyder_43

        The death of newspapers is the death of reliable sources of information. Without news organizations and reliable sources, what is to stop anyone from publishing, or tweeting, or facebooking dribble. You need verifiable sources, citizen journalism is great, but a great way to get the news on a continuous basis it is not.

        The fact that Microsoft is doing “back room deals” is as a result of a need that the news companies have. It takes two to tango, and if there was a solution in there with the way Google does business this would not even be an issue. Search is the web according to Google, the web can and should be open however Google should not be allowed to dictate how another company generates revenue and income, their one size fits all method, clearly does not work. It may work for citizen journalism sites but not for major news and magazine organizations. I would be happy with $300 a month from Google traffic as a blogger, but that cannot help me run a company.

        As for Iran, we got a glimpse of what was going on, there was unrest, but there was no in depth news. We were left to make intelligent guesses about what was going on through the information we received. I don’t know about you, but i would loathe a world where i can only get my news from twitter and facebook. Not saying that news organizations don’t make mistakes, but they can be held accountable, Joe the blooger could care less.

        It seems to me that you take qaulity news for granted, you should not. Spend some time in a country with manipilated sources of news and you may develop a better appreciation for quality news.

      • Paolo

        Do you really trust any single source of news? I don’t trust any newspaper more than I trust any tv channel or any blog. They look all the same to me so I google a lot and try to understand what’s going on.
        And please notice that big newspapers have big money to lose if they write things that people with money don’t like. Don’t expect they write anything bad on many subjects. Small blogs have much less to lose.

    • coldbrew

      If Google were to have tried to build their search business using exclusive indexing deals I would never have used their search engine. Period. If they started now, I would never use their search engine.

      Do you need someone to hold your hand to explain why this is in exact opposition to the principles upon which the internet was created?

      • Jamie Thomson

        By the same token giving away content for free is in contravention of the principles upon which media was founded.

        I’m not arguing one way or the other by the way, only making the point that those two factions are, currently, incompatible.

      • Jamie Thomson

        Sorry, I’m wrong there, I’ll rephrase. Making content free without there being a way to monetize it is in contravention of the principles of media.

    • Radman R

      Even if it looks bad, the real producers of goods and services never make the biggest bucks.

      That is just the nature of the businesses. Farmers suffer, workers make less money, developers who actually write code make less money than managers, the gold rush agents made more money than prospectors etc etc etc etc etc.

      So, there is nothing unusual that Google makes more money than the news producers make.

      Google developed a very good model (business and technology) of finding the info users really care about and making it at a very low cost.

      There were other search engines (including Microsoft) who tried before but did not get it right.

      Any business will use a monopoly in one business segment to gain advantage in another. IBM did that, Microsoft did that for 20 years.

      And yes, Google has decided that if it needs to stay and NOT go down as Sun, Netscape, it needs to weaken the Microsoft stronghold on OS. Only then it can survive.

      On the other hand, Microsoft has understood that the Google has talent, capacity and vision to eventually diminish Microsoft. It wants to choke the windpipe (search) so that it will not pose any danger to it.

      This will be battle of the titans.

      I can see the past battles- Apple, IBM, Netscape, RealNetworks, Yahoo IMs, Sun and now Google.

      None of those old folks survived (well they are still around but not as competitors).

      What will happen to Google?

      I wish I know.

  • Keith

    It’ll be interesting to see this play out, I wonder who would seriously pay to see the tripe that comes out of Newscorp, I’m even more shocked to hear that microsoft would cut a deal to peddle that rubbish in the first place.

    I don’t this is going to go away but I hope the open web wins!

    • Jamie Thomson

      “wonder who would seriously pay to see the tripe that comes out of Newscorp”

      Many people, sadly!

  • Raphael

    In case Bing decides to pay *all* news providers a share of their advertising revenues, then this is going to help the open web!

    Money would flow to those creating content, rather than to the Google search monopoly.

  • Arno

    What if google just stopped indexing News Corp before a deal with MS was made ;-)

  • tim

    This seems to be more of newspapers vs consumer than newspapers vs search engine (google). I think the newspaper industry is lacking creativity and might just shoot themselves in the foot by de-listing from google and charging for content. I wish someone will create their own version of wsj, nyt etc online, google indexed and continue the free model of the same info.

  • Jim

    I have a slightly different approach to this arguement. I was prepeared to give Bing a try ( and anyone who knows me can tell you I’m not a great fan of MS) until someone mentioned Rupert Murdoch. I would not even consider using a site associated with the ,,,, well I can’t say in polite company what i think of him. If Bing goes through with that they can color me gone.

  • Klaus

    the church of Gigoloogle is going down!

    and it is their own fault! theirs own ambition! they never fooled anyone with providing “free” stuff! What they do is to PIMP information. To chash with information of others! this is wrong! and have to be chalanged!

    search market it is THE market where it would be good for EVERYONE to have at least two strong companies out there! each one with 40% share!

  • Andy P

    If I were a newspaper exec I’d be more worried about Twitter (which is breaking news), citizen journalism (local news) and growing independent revenue streams from the search engines rather than swtiching a dependence on Google to Bing. If,and its a big if, investment in quality journalism has long term economic value then users should be prepared to pay for it. How many under 30’s read quality papers?

  • Notícias do dia | 26.11.2009

    […] Bing deve começar campanhas anunciando que só ele terá o WSJ […]

  • Kashif Shaikh

    Personally, I’m more worried about the impacts to Internet population at large.

    Could you imagine what would happen 5 years from now if we moved to walled-garden searches?

    Bing would say, “Search with us! We have the biggest and best sites on the internet like Disney, Fox News, and CNN! No one else has more sites than us indexed!”

    The Google would say, “NO, search with us! We have more popular sites indexed than Bing! We have New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc!”

    And someone like me would be miffed – now I have to use Bing for some sites and Google for other sites.

    Reality is I’m just searching for “home foreclosures” – I’m looking for the best site that can provide me that information. But now have to use multiple sites to do it on, because Google and Bing both have the sites I would like to be searched.

    Not a fun world.

    • khan

      This might be better world then having one search engine for the world.

    • ELQ

      Not really. In that world, someone would create a search engine which incorporated both sites and beat them both!

      • khan

        History will repeat itself. Those two search engine will delist them self from that serch engine.

  • Jabba The Hut

    This is evil. Part of a long line of Microsofts attempts to strangle anything it can’t buy. Murdochs Death Star Empire will surely ram into Bill Gates bunker and both explode in a horrible mess. Go Google! Blueerrgkkk!!

  • Mark Davey

    These guys are all nuts and do not see the wood for the trees they are chopping down.

    We are moving into a world where the long tail of rich content will educate the masses, where else can you find 100 years of history, knowledge, insight etc, publishers have the content.

    The Googles of this world are working out ways that will package that content in such a way as to up scale the knowledge wealth of the planet

    Linked data, the semantic web and the next iterations of the digital world. The content held in the publishers repositories could benefit mankind, plant, fish, animal and beyond.

    And, yet here we sit, watching them bitch fight out revenue models that are extinct, threatening your kids and kin with incarceration and selling us out with copyright laws that are for an old world order.

    Poor publishers cannot work out what they become now we are all publishers, and yet, if they took stock, them and the corporatocarcy and government stood still and looked at the widening world view, they would see the real value, knowledge and it’s shared accumulation.

    Deliver me the information I need, let it enhance my world view, increase my personal potential exponentially, serve it up by the millions and create a fairer payment methodology, that benefits all in the creation of knowledge content.

  • LeeH

    “That could backfire both on Bing, but more importantly on the newspapers that would rather sit above that kind of association, especially where they are concerned that readers will wonder about their editorial independence.”

    Ha ha ha. Given the bullshit published by some of Murdoch’s rags like the Sun and Faux News, there was never any question, in my mind, about editorial independence.

  • tech gossiper

    The Windows 7 Experts

    Creative and Engineering teams with
    MultiTouch and Gesture know how.

    Get Windows 7: Help for buying new PC
    Free Windows Tech Support
    News about the latest Windows OS

    Download Windows 7
    All About Download Windows 7
    Download Windows 7 and Much More

  • Khaled Tajzai

    Who cares? I hope News Corp makes a move like this. I’m sure they’re still pissed that Google decided to stop paying for the Myspace Search lol.

    Even if this happens in about 5-10 minutes or even quicker Google will have thousands of bloggers writing about more in depth stories. (Also I pick CNN over anyone else.)

  • Jason Wagner

    This is a fascinating story. Keep up the good reporting! I can’t wait to see what comes of this.

  • SELECT « TheWaterRat

    […] November 2009 All I want for Christmas is My Web More emerges on Microsoft’s dance with newspapers Moore’s law beats customer feedback iCurrent wants to personalize news for the masses Warren […]

blog comments powered by Disqus