Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google The Almighty Buck Technology

Mark Cuban's Plan To Kill Google 773

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-that's-outside-the-box dept.
rsmiller510 writes "Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has a plan to kill Google by paying the top 1,000 sites a cool million each to leave the Google index and move to Microsoft. But could such a plan ever work, and would it be worth the risk to abandon Google?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Cuban's Plan To Kill Google

Comments Filter:
  • Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:22PM (#30117350) Homepage

    I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon.

    • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mordors9 (665662) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:26PM (#30117432)
      I would be willing to happily accept $1M in cash to never use Google again. It may be a bribe but I would be willing to suffer your scorn.
      • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Patch86 (1465427) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:48PM (#30117922)

        Ask Intel how that attitude worked out for them in Europe. They could give you about 1.06 billion reasons as to why this is not a smart plan.

        • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

          by binarylarry (1338699) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:50PM (#30117956)

          Or 9.39 billion reasons why it is:

          http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091013/intel-profit-sales-beat-street/ [allthingsd.com]

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by FatdogHaiku (978357)
            Right. The fine is just a legal way to give the EU a butt load of money because Intel made nine butt loads of money... So the EU can say "See, we didn't take the evil profit mongers bribe, we punished them by accepting a check for a butt load of money!"

            The only thing that has me guessing is whether we are talking about metric butt loads or imperial butt loads.
        • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tuxgeek (872962) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:28PM (#30118690)

          There is a gotcha in this plan
          Remove the top 1000 sites from Google, and another top 1000 will replace them.

          Personally, I will never use anything affiliated with M$. My bias does them no harm, but I just feel better for it.

          Bing is just another crazy idea to compete in a marker place they will never devote themselves to 100%. M$ has a long history of making gutted applications and giving away for free merely to steal market share from producers of quality products.

          Although I have not, and will never use bing, it might be okay for some, but not in my world. Sites taking the bait, dumping Google and switching to M$ will just remove themselves from 50%+ of internet searches. Another stupid idea takes shape ...

      • Re:Bribery (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bhagwad (1426855) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:05PM (#30118254) Homepage
        If you're one of the top 1000 sites, you don't need the 1 Mill that bad in return for a poor rep.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          If you're one of the top 1000 sites, you probably don't need Google. Most people will find your site via bookmarks, remembering the URL, or links from elsewhere. And if Google doesn't list them it will hurt Google's credibility. I'm a bit confused about how you would do this though. Can a site go to Google and say 'please don't index me?' They can add a robots.txt thing, but they'll still be in the index, they just won't get new entries added.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by xandroid (680978)

            Can a site go to Google and say 'please don't index me?' They can add a robots.txt thing, but they'll still be in the index, they just won't get new entries added.

            Yep -- a meta tag with name="robots" and content="noindex" will (supposedly) cause Google to drop the page from its index. Once all the pages are gone from the index, robots.txt-blocking the crawlers will stop Google from keeping the URLs around as well.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          I'm imagining Dr Evil's pinky going to the corner of his mouth... How about one gajillion jillion dollars?
      • I wonder if they will give themselves $1 million to take their own team off Google.

        Wow! Look who the first result is for!?!? Mark Cuban's teams website! Shame Shame!!

        http://tinyurl.com/yefvopu [tinyurl.com]

        Maybe it's not a bad idea after all, if he can get every website off google except his own, then then no matter what you search for, Google will only return the Mavs website as a result!!

        /me SLAPS Mark Cuban with a giant trout!
    • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pieroxy (222434) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:28PM (#30117488) Homepage

      What the heck is that all about? Google generates much much more than a million dollars to the top 1000 e-commerce websites, and in a few days. This has to be a joke.

      Seriously, the USERS decide which search engine is best, not the website owners. And why in the world would the top 1000 sites listen to an anonymous rich fool instead of Google which has provided a decent flow of clicks to their websites for ages....

      Are we the 1st of April or anything?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dolohov (114209)

        I wouldn't focus too much on the number involved -- the principle is that everyone has their price.
        Also, in theory those top websites stand to gain that much money from whichever search engine dominates. If Bing dominated the market as a result of this move, they would not lose much money, and the bribe could well make up the difference.

        • Re:Bribery (Score:4, Insightful)

          by poetmatt (793785) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:06PM (#30118284) Journal

          Mark Cuban has a love affair with microsoft [google.com] and so this is just another part of his love affair. Basically, that's all it is. Bing won't dominate because it's quality is crap, and buying out a lot of customers won't make up for the fact that there will be a: less profitability and b: less quality.

          • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Informative)

            by h4rm0ny (722443) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:22PM (#30118596) Journal

            If this Mark Cuban person has a love affair with Microsoft, then it's the sort of love affair where Microsoft is deeply embarrassed about their drunken one night stand and desperately wishes the other party would shut up about it. Honestly, this is terrible publicity for Microsoft: "Come to us - we're so bad that people have to be paid not to use our competitors". As if any of these big sites would accept such a bribe anyway. I'm fairly sure this wouldn't be legal in the EU either so unless these great big companies have no presence in the EU (yeah right), then the deal would be complicated anyway.

            Bing is actually fine. Its problem is that Google is already there and is so successful that their name has become a verb. Displacing that is going to take either very long term and sustained effort or some sort of PR disaster for Google (maybe their search engine is powered by Puppy juice). Bing needs a boost of some sort for certain. Pairing up with Wolfram Alpha is a good thing. Stunts like this (I sincerely hope MS had the sense not to okay this) are sooooooo not a good thing.

            Muppet!
            • Re:Bribery (Score:4, Funny)

              by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:54PM (#30119224) Journal

              maybe their search engine is powered by Puppy juice

              Nope, by pigeons [google.com].

        • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

          by interploy (1387145) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:27PM (#30118674)

          Doesn't matter. Google's name has already achieved the marketer's dream: a generic name/verb. Which means it's in the same league as Coke, Kleenex and Xerox. Their name has become so big and so common it's replaced the real term. No one get's a soda, they get a coke, even when that 'coke' is a Pepsi. When was the last time anyone asked for a tissue instead of a Kleenex? And when you want something copied, you 'xerox' it. No one I know under the age of 40 searches for anything one the web, they 'google' it.

          So it doesn't matter what this guy pays, Google is simply too big to be replaced at this stage in the game. If Microsoft is smart, they'll work to make Bing number 2. If not, instead of becoming the search engine equivalent of Pepsi, they'll become the next Royal Crown Cola.

          • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Informative)

            by Sparks23 (412116) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:55PM (#30119256)

            Actually, that's not necessarily the marketer's dream. Kleenex and Xerox have also had headaches because when the name becomes that ubiquitous, you have some issues keeping the rights to it. If the courts decide that your name has become a generic word, then you're in trouble in terms of legal enforcement of your trademark. Xerox in particular has discouraged people from using 'xerox' as a verb, because they're concerned about losing the trademark. From their own website's company factbook [xerox.com], italic emphasis mine:

            The Xerox Trademark
            Xerox is a famous trademark and trade name. Xerox as a trademark is properly used only as a brand name to identify the company's products and services. The Xerox trademark should always be used as a proper adjective followed by the generic name of the product: e.g., Xerox printer. The Xerox trademark should never be used as a verb. The trade name Xerox is an abbreviation for the company's full legal name: Xerox Corporation.
            XEROX is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation.

            Wikipedia has a little information on this, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox#Trademark [wikipedia.org]

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by nametaken (610866)

              Such problems, to be the victim of ones own success. :)

              But I guess it would suck if your competitor could name their product after your company and actually get away with it on grounds of ubiquity.

            • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Imrik (148191) on Monday November 16, 2009 @02:54PM (#30120394) Homepage

              The difference in my opinion is that people often use kleenex and xerox to refer to using items of another brand, I have yet to hear anyone use google to mean searching for something without using Google.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Oh, really? You think the /. corporate overlords (for example) wouldn't take a good, hard look at this offer and try to play Google against msft? Hell, I would. Especially given the /. techie user base which 1) knows how to block ads and 2) knows how to find a site w/o first typing it into Google.

        Though the two criteria above certainly don't fit many websites out there, I still believe websites as businesses wouldn't mind at all playing Google against msft. In fact, one could make a very good argume
      • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:20PM (#30118550) Homepage Journal

        This is just Mark Cuban's way of getting his name in the papers. I can't imagine that any big company would be willing to try to remove their name from Google's search results. I just don't see how Cuban's plan is going to work. If it could hurt Google, Microsoft would have removed their sites from Google's index long ago.

        Apparently, money is not an indication of sense.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeian (409916)

      I know it's cool to bash the US on Slashdot, but that's unbelievably far from true.

      Contrast that to the Middle East, where it IS accepted practice and few people see anything wrong with it.

    • Re:Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quickOnTheUptake (1450889) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:08PM (#30118316)
      Is anyone going to point out that this isn't bribery [wordswarm.net] in any meaningful sense of the word?
      Paying someone to act a particular way is not a bribe, unless the guy being bribed has some moral or legal obligation to act contrary to the briber's interest.
      So do these websites have a moral or legal obligation to support or cooperate with Google?
      Oh yeah, and you're trolling.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:23PM (#30117354)

    Is it worth $1 million to leave Google? I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.

    • by shawn(at)fsu (447153) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:25PM (#30117396) Homepage

      Yeah if you're one of the top sites on Google a million probably doesn't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does.

    • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gm a i l . c om> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:39PM (#30117724)

      The real question is, who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name "Broadcast.com" and convincing Yahoo! that it was work ~$6 billion dollars to buy out.

      • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gm a i l . c om> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:41PM (#30117780)

        P.S. In case anyone thinks that his $6 billion jackpot somehow displayed hidden skill or insight, I also point out that he's currently worth a little over $2 billion. That's right, he's lost $4 billion in networth since being bought out by Yahoo!

        • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:12PM (#30118404)

          First, It was $6B of Yahoo Stock, not $6B cash. I'm sure there are laws on how much you can sell and when.

          From Broadcast.com's Wiki.

          The record IPO made instant financial successes out of the company's employees through stock options, making 100 employees millionaires on paper (although most of them were unable to exercise their options and sell their shares before the stock price dropped) and founders Cuban and Wagner billionaires.

          Second, it may have been 'pure luck' it doesn't look like this was his only venture into entrepreneurial endeavors.

          Finally, that's still $2B dollars. From what I've read and the brief interaction in the time I met him (IU vs Purdue Alumni Rugby Match. Flew up in his personal Jet.) He has to be hands down one of the coolest Billionaires I've heard of.

          He supported Grokster in the MGM vs Grokster case. He buys random companies and starts random websites. Like bailoutsleuth "a grassroots, online portal for oversight over the US government's $700 billion dollar "bailout" of financial institutions."

          Not to mention he spouts off to NBA refs and other players. And shrugs his shoulder when they fine him. "Cuban has been fined by the NBA, mostly for critical statements about the league and referees, at least $1,665,000 for 13 incidents". (Matching each fine with a donation to a Charity). When he said something against Dairy Queen, he voluntarily worked at a DQ for a day.

          You can't honestly tell me if you came up with some idea (no matter how stupid) and convinced someone to buy it at the height of a bubble. You wouldn't take your billions and have a ball. Spending the rest of your life drinking, flying around in your jet, yelling at professional sports officials, supporting any cause you thought was cool.

          Hell. You could have a "Chyeld Day" on slashdot. Pay off Taco to change banner at the top for a few million.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by natehoy (1608657)

      The reason he makes an offer like this is that he can rest secure in the knowledge that NO ONE will ever take him up on it. It's a publicity stunt.

      He thinks he's thrown down a gauntlet to Google and presented them with a threat which they must now look at Very Seriously. Meanwhile, Google board members are suffering from minor asphyxiation because they are laughing so hard.

      I would not be at all surprised to learn that Google just finished a mock castle wall on their campus, with a cardboard cutout of Cuba

  • by digitalsushi (137809) <slashdot@digitalsushi.com> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:23PM (#30117358) Journal

    I'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again.

    • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:28PM (#30117486)
      Exactly. What's $1M to Facebook compared to the benefits of Google's hits?
    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:37PM (#30117688)
      Yeah these numbers just don't add up. First off, I'm going to assume that this is a million dollars a year (or somesuch), otherwise it's ridiculous on the face of it. No high-profile web company is going to sign a perpetual contract like that. Now, the top 1,000 sites depend on internet traffic. No doubt their advertising budgets are more than a million dollars. Telling them that they can get one million dollars if they give up a huge chunk of their internet visibility is ridiculous. It's worth much more than that to them.

      Conversely, this whole plan would cost 1 billion dollars to pull off. Sure, Microsoft could afford that, and would pay that much to destroy Google. But this is a poor plan. If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites (which is a big if, since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft...), then would Google crash and burn? Or would the sites currently ranked 1,0001-2000 suddenly see a huge upsurge in their traffic and profitability?

      Lastly, how would this work on a technical level? Sure, you can configure your server to reject all requests from googlebot, preventing them from indexing sub-pages, but you can't technically (or legally) prevent Google from returning a link to "wsj.com" when someone searches for "Wall Street Journal". So any "de-indexing" wouldn't be complete.

      This "plan" fails on so many levels. I'm sure Google is not too concerned about this. Any companies that participated would be signing their own death sentence: their web visibility would drop, public opinion of the company would drop, they might open themselves to legal attacks... and all for a "cool million".
  • What about Google? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MMC Monster (602931) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:24PM (#30117386)

    They are surely a top-1000 site. Will they get the cash to de-list themselves?

    P.S. The guy is an idiot. People go to Google not to get stuff from a top-1000 site, but to find stuff that is not found in the search bars of the top-1000 sites.

  • Motivation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oldspewey (1303305) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:24PM (#30117390)
    What TFA is short on is any sense of motivation on Mark Cuban's part. Why does he want to do this? Did Google frighten him when he was a baby?
  • Geez (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moogied (1175879) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:26PM (#30117404)
    The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.
  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cronco (1435465) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:26PM (#30117406)
    Does the dude have stock at Microsoft? Or what's it to him?
  • by guyfawkes-11-5 (1583613) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:26PM (#30117410) Homepage
    1 million is peanuts. Amazon, one of the top 100 sites, makes that during a coffee break.
    Why opt out of free product placement (Amazon usually ranks high in google) worldwide, for a pittance?
    Cuban's mojo has left the room.
    • by dlgeek (1065796) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:01PM (#30118178)
      1 million in a coffee break? At first I thought this was an exaggeration, but then I ran the numbers. Amazon had 5,449 million USD in revenue last quarter, so that's about $60mil/day, or 1 million every 24 minutes (obviously this assumes a flat time distribution which is clearly not true, but lets keep going). A 24 minute coffee break is a bit excessive, but not completely out of the question. Once you take the non-averaged distribution into account, you can probably make a million in a 5-8 minute coffee break.
  • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:27PM (#30117436)

    Even if the "top 1000" sites accepted the bribe, that wouldn't make much of a dent. How small does this pilgrim think the internet is?

    And what's to stop Google from re-indexing them?

  • by arkham6 (24514) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:27PM (#30117440)
    For the top 1000, a million bucks is not a lot of money. Why risk alienating the population for what is to them a drop in the bucket?
  • illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:28PM (#30117466)

    The phrase tortious interference comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)

    • Re:illegal? (Score:5, Funny)

      by BabyDave (575083) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:36PM (#30117662)
      Not to be confused with "Tortoise interference", which severely disrupted the 2009 hare-racing world championship.
  • Won't Affect Me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by camperdave (969942) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:28PM (#30117494) Journal
    This won't affect me. I don't search for advertisers. In fact, getting rid of the paid cruft will make searching for true results even better. Besides, a billion dollars is starting to fade into the noise of google's net worth. It may hurt Google, but it won't kill Google.
  • Do the math... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pollux (102520) <speter.tedata@net@eg> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:29PM (#30117508) Journal

    ...and I think the top 1,000 sites would easily calculate that their losses in ad revenue and web traffic would be worth more than $1,000,000.

  • Go Google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DiademBedfordshire (1662223) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:30PM (#30117546)
    Wow what a testament to Google. Mark Cuban is basically saying that nobody has a product that could even hope of competing with Google and the only way to conceivably take them down is to bribe their clients with gobs of money.
  • by Tisha_AH (600987) <Tisha.Hayes@gmail.com> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:30PM (#30117548) Journal

    So, is he offering this out of his own pocket? (a billion dollars).

    Or is this just a hare-brained idea that he is tossing out there to get some spin on his own name.

    Let's see the Dallas Mavericks remove themselves from anything Google first. Oh, that's right, he must have already, never heard of the team before...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shagg (99693)

      Or is this just a hare-brained idea that he is tossing out there to get some spin on his own name.

      Yes.

  • 1000x1000000=10^9 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrjb (547783) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:31PM (#30117560)
    Really? Spending one BILLION/MILLIARD dollars for what is essentially an advertising campaign? Sounds pretty risky to me. If you have that kind of money to gamble with, why not spend that money on actually building a better search engine?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guruevi (827432)

      It's Microsoft, they can have $58 Billion + $15 Billion and they still won't be able to make any good products. Microsoft management still believes that 9 women can make a baby in a month, all you have to do is spend a few millions in advertising afterwards to make everybody believe the fetus is a full-grown baby.

  • Who would notice? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TornCityVenz (1123185) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:35PM (#30117636) Homepage Journal
    If the top 1000 sites left google...would anyone notice? the answer is yes..the next 1000 that would replace them..and my guess is there are a couple that would stay in the top 1000 after getting the exposure even if the others came back.
  • Mark's Resume (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:35PM (#30117638) Journal

    From wikipedia: "In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender,[13][14] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas. He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.

    Cuban started a company, MicroSolutions, with support from his previous customers from Your Business Software. MicroSolutions was initially a system integrator and software reseller. The company was an early proponent of technologies such as Carbon Copy, Lotus Notes, and CompuServe.[15] One of the company's largest clients was Perot Systems.[16] In 1990, Cuban sold MicroSolutions to CompuServe--then a subsidiary of H&R Block--for $6 million.[17] He retained approximately $2 million after taxes on the deal.[18]

    In 1995, Cuban and fellow Indiana University alumnus Todd Wagner started Audionet, combining their mutual interest in college basketball and webcasting. With a single server and ISDN line[19], Audionet became Broadcast.com in 1998. By 1999, Broadcast.com had grown to 330 employees and $13.5 million in revenue for the second quarter.[20] In 1999, during the Dot-com boom, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock.[21]"

    This man is not a business genius. He is a good self-promoter, and has leveraged this to making a lot of money. Re-read the last couple sentences. he had a business with 13.5 million in revenue in 3 months (not profit... with 330 employees, it was much, much lower). He then sold it for likely a 500+ P/E ratio.

    The tech stock market bubble made this man. I don't disparage him for that. However, any business advice coming from this man is virtually worthless. Self-promotion... he's up there.

  • Top 1000 examples: (Score:3, Informative)

    by ErroneousBee (611028) <neil:neilhancock.c o . uk> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:38PM (#30117700) Homepage

    That top 1000 [alexa.com] would include:

    • Reddit
    • Digg
    • wordpress
    • eBay
    • amazon
    • craigslist
    • youtube
    • google

    All of whom would see an immediate drop in revenues if google stopped indexing them, and some of which are actually google owned.

  • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:39PM (#30117734) Homepage

    $1M isn't peanuts to everybody. The regular public can't see Google's site rankings, but assuming they're similar to the Alexa rankings [alexa.com], there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars. The porn sites, a lot of the bloggers, and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.

    But there's something else odd about that list. Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20, for example -- are Microsoft. Again, that's not Google's ranking page, but MS sites are still findable via Google. If MS plans to 'kill' Google, shouldn't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first?

  • by Tom (822) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:44PM (#30117830) Homepage Journal

    You know, because 10 minutes after they left the Google index, they're not top-1000 sites anymore.

  • by Arcaeris (311424) on Monday November 16, 2009 @12:59PM (#30118118)

    ... but if he's going to just throw a billion dollars away, why doesn't he do something decent with it like feed the poor or cure a disease or give computers to schools or fund music programs?

    Or start a new business to help America get its shit together and beat this recession?

  • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:07PM (#30118292) Journal

    Before Microsoft tries to take over from the most successful search engine in the world they really need to get a better name. Can you really imagine youself using "bing" as a verb in mixed company?

    The person who came up with that name must be the same one who thought it was a good idea to sell devices that allow you to "squirt" pictures of your kids.

  • Pay the users. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by w0mprat (1317953) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:25PM (#30118636)
    I always said you'd have to pay me to use Bing. How about bribing 1 million heavy users with $1000 to switch and evangalize about it? That's one epic astroturf right there.

    Nice to know our richest people fail at finding uses for their spare cash that actually benefit the human civilization.
  • by Stuntmonkey (557875) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:27PM (#30118676)

    Any business strategy that boils down to "kill off competitor X" is fundamentally unsound in this type of open market. Michael Wolff, in his recent Vanity Fair article [vanityfair.com] on Rupert Murdoch's troubles succeeding on the internet, stated the issue well:

    Murdoch is not a modern marketer. He runs his business not on the basis of giving the consumer what he wants but through more old-fashioned methods of structural market domination. His world, and training ground, is the world of the newspaper war—a zero-sum game, where you wrestle market share from the other guy.

    To view any of Google's markets as zero-sum is fundamentally myopic, and plays to Google's advantage. Any competitor is better served identifying something that Google doesn't do well for the customer, and focusing on that instead of taking market share away from Google. Of course, this requires real work and innovation.

  • You first, Mark (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jason Levine (196982) on Monday November 16, 2009 @01:29PM (#30118706)

    Looking at Mark Cuban's robots.txt file ( http://blogmaverick.com/robots.txt [blogmaverick.com] ), I see that he's not blocking Googlebot. Therefore, he is listed in Google's index. So why should someone take $1 million from him to leave the Google index when he clearly does not want to leave Google's index himself?

  • Google's Richer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday November 16, 2009 @02:16PM (#30119656) Homepage Journal

    Google can just pay them a $million each to come back. Or $1.5 million. Google's a lot richer than Mark Cuban is.

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...