Kumo Wrestling: Microsoft Search Too Little, Too Late

Comments
Posted in News
Print

Microsoft Corp. is searching for success, as it were, when it comes to indexing the Web, and its latest effort is Kumo, set to be publicly revealed next week. However, analysts say that despite Kumo’s efforts to make search more personalized and relevant, Microsoft is destined to be an also-ran, languishing in a distant third place.

"The battle for general Web search is all but over – or at least the formation of the landscape for that," Ned May, the lead analyst for Outsell, told CNET. "It's Google, Yahoo, Microsoft – in that order."

Microsoft commanded just 9.9 percent of the U.S. search market in April, according to Nielsen Online. Yahoo came in at 16.3 percent and Google at 64 percent. Reportedly, Microsoft is gearing up for a $100 million ad campaign to promote Kumo and take on Google, something May said speaks volumes.

"That speaks to what it's about today," May said in CNET’s report. "They need to spend $100 million to move the needle in their direction.”

Kumo offers a category-based search that offers more than simply keyword-relevant results, evident from leaked screenshots back in April. Further details are likely to come next week.

The idea of more intuitive search functionality is one percolating through the industry despite Google’s clear dominance. "It's time to kill the 10 blue links," said Prabhakar Raghavan, head of Yahoo's search strategy on Tuesday at an event. He was referring to the top 10 search results listed by Google et al. "We want to move away from document retrieval as center of search to divining the user's intent."

Imagine, for instance, that a search for “Prince” brought up the Purple One’s home page, discography, links to where to buy tracks and a link to Target, exclusive carrier of his new album.

Will the company with the most useful and clever engine win? Or is Google’s dominance a Goliath no David can topple? It remains to be seen, but one thing’s for sure: Microsoft isn’t giving up yet.

Sources:

Comments