Microsoft Releases Book Search 108
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is releasing its Live Search Books, a rival to Google's Book Search, in test, or beta, version in the US.
The digital archive will include books from the collections of the British Library, the University of California and the University of Toronto.
Books from three other institutions will be added in January 2007.
All the books currently included in the project will be non-copyrighted but later it will also add copyrighted work that publishers have given permission to include in the project."
Publisher info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Publisher info (Score:5, Informative)
i've never used the live search before - so maybe this is obvious to people who do, but it is pretty cool. just by searching on some generic words i'm getting back some very interesting books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google did it a long time ago (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm waiting for google to buy a huge book publisher next, put the whole catalog up, and sell ads..
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, but it didn't count then. It's MICROSOFT doing it now. So that's in-nuv-a-shun, see?
Re: (Score:2)
Playing tag with google ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I see some sort of strategy here - something very similar to what MSFT adopted against Apple, very succesfully - Building something that is cheaper, virtually the same - almost.
But the same rules may not apply in the world of online tools. Where GOOG is actually borrowing content to attract their actual product (i.e the users) whom them can then sell to customers (i,e advertisers) - Microsoft doesn't seem to have such a clear cut monetization plan from the looks of it. Seems to be more a case of dump enough money to smother the competitor approach, which I doubt will work with Google today.
I for one, would be more scared of Amazon and other publishers rather than such a half-hearted (peanut butter) effort by MSFT.
Re:Playing tag with google ... Free as Beer (Score:2)
Isn't Google already free? Hard to be cheaper than that -- unless MS is going to pay me to use their service.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, lots of people pay Google for a privilege: that of their ads being shown on the service. It's how Google makes money. So Live could make advertisers pay less (or more efficiently, which amounts to pretty much the same, but is much more interesting and difficult to do) for ads.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is where my other phrase, "more efficiently" comes into play. I acknowledge a "normal" IT startup would have problems running against Google. It's not that Microsoft doesn't have them, it's the sheer amount of money it has to face them. They also have name recognition, which -surprisingly- they don't use this time: going to live.com shows they don't attach a "Microsoft" to the service, as they usually do. OK, they put a Windows this time, but it's not exactly the same (it actually should be "Microsoft
MS do have a plan (Score:2)
They've done this WindowsCE, to some degree of success. SinCE WinCE started, approx 7 years ago, they've been making a huge loss -- spending far more than the revenue form WInCE licenses. Other players actually have to live off their revenues, so they tend to pass out from hunger.
They've done this with IE. Now they're trying to do this to Google.
More than so (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And all of it in Swedish, no doubt.
Or to put it another way: [twinpines.nl] Und ell ooff it in Svedeesh, nu duoobt. Bork Bork Bork!
The thinnest of books (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway, back on topic...
Duplication of Effort (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Ideally, all the companies interested in doing this should get together, pool their efforts and resources, and share the underlying dataset. Let the competition be for who can build the best product(s) around that data, not for the data itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause otherwise, the effort are just wasted. Period.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Give away something for free that everyone wants, so you can install a piece of software on machines for other ventures.
(I'll never buy another Microsoft product if they ever install DRM that can't be removed via System Restore the next day)
Re: (Score:1)
In test, or beta??? (Score:1)
I seriously think that people reading Slashdot know what "beta" means. Especially considering the "tagging beta" phrase that appears below every article summary. You can just say "beta" next time. Thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Copy Cat (Score:1, Redundant)
Oh, for Pete's Sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's all now go look at Google Labs and predict the next 12 Microsoft products....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference, however, is that Apple's OS actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
Reportedly. Well, it'll be linux-based; it's a matter of taste whether linux or Windows has more features.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd count both PageRank and WIMP as major inventions.
You can argue that do better versions of what came before, but as far as basic inventions, no. If Microsoft (or Amazon, or AOL, or...) can do book scanning better, then let them.
OK, if Microsoft did better versions of the things they were copying there would be less complaining. Google is scanning books because it is trying to make all the world's information searchable. Amazon is scanning books because it is t
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't invent the WIMP interface, the people at Xerox's PARC did.
Re: (Score:2)
The PARC folks did WIP, the Mac group added the M after they licensed the tech from Xerox. See here [digibarn.com], here [digibarn.com], and here [digibarn.com]. They did have something like a right-click context menu in the videos I've seen, but that's not the M the M in WIMP means.
Re: (Score:2)
So the important fact isn't that they got three-and-a-half out of four, but that they didn't get the other half "right"? I'd say it's more important that they invented menus, along with the rest of WIMP, than the fact that they put it at the top of the screen or available through a right click.
The right-click context menu has been in many window environments/managers (windowmaker, afterstep, blackbox, quite possibly NeXTStep but I've never used it...), and one reason it was used is it's the nearest point
Re: (Score:2)
But it wasn't a right-click menu, it was a series of buttons that could be exposed by an additional button. I'm assuming here you've seen an Alto or Star in action - have you?
Apple made a real menu and allowed the wh
Re: (Score:2)
I'd count both PageRank and WIMP as major inventions.
Google didn't invent page ranking (though, came up with better algorithms), and Apple didn't invent WIMP (though, they refined certain things about it).
Google is scanning books because it is trying to make all the world's information searchable. Amazon is scanning books because it is trying to make all the worlds' books portable (electronic). Microsoft is scanning all of the worlds books because _____ (fill in the blank).
Google is scanning books
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And they call it PageRank [wikipedia.org], go figure.
Re: (Score:1)
From RTFW
Although citation analysis is nothing new (the Science Citation Index began publication in 1961), greater computing power is making it more useful and widespread. Google's PageRank is based on the principle of citation analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we get finicky, it's an algorithm, so we don't talk much about "inventing it" and more of "coming up with it". After all, we wouldn't want those ugly software patents, would we?
Most things are "based" on something else. The important thing is: are they an innovation in their fields? Citation analysis might be the real original idea, but how used was it before in Computer Science? Lastly, I wouldn't call PageRank a "simple tweak" of anything.
Genesis (and originality) of PageRank (Score:1)
HITS ("hubs and authorities") is another eigenvector-based method of ranking nodes in a network, also published in 1998 (in this case by Jon Kleinberg).
Eigenvector centrality itself was proposed as early as 1949 (Seeley, "The net of reciprocal influence") as a means of ranking nodes in a network. There were plenty of papers on this topic in the intervening 49 years. (The concept of eigenvectors, of course, is considerably older than
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, so they're all the same because they have profit as a motive. Google folks would be just as happy refining petrochemicals if they could get a big IPO off of it... sure, whatever.
Yes, I did, and you're holding Microsoft to a standard that you don't hold other companies to.
Tell me then, who was the company that first engaged
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me then, who was the company that first engaged libraries around the world about scanning their contents' for online searching?
Google, but I never said they weren't first.
Which company was it that decided to bring a GUI OS to the masses?
Interesting phrasing there... the answer to THAT question is Microsoft. Apple was the first to bring an extremely expensive, proprietary GUI to those that could afford it. Microsoft was the one (ironically) that fulfilled the promise of a GUI "for the rest of
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying all Google cares about is profit. Leading the way isn't the best way to profit - it's risky and idealistic. Microsoft doesn't play risky and idealistic.
Apple was the first to bring an extremely expensive, proprietary GUI to those that could afford it.
They sold millions of early Macs. Just how many millions of users do you need to have taken something from a lab to the masses? The Mac was $2500 when the IBM PC was $1500. Neither were cheap or aff
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying all Google cares about is profit. Leading the way isn't the best way to profit - it's risky and idealistic. Microsoft doesn't play risky and idealistic.
I didn't say all that Google cares about is profit. But they wouldn't be scanning books if they didn't think there was a way to make a profit. And one could argue whether leading the way is the "best way" to profit, but it's silly to argue that it's a bad way to profit.
they could afford to engage in their business model because they didn
Re: (Score:2)
You said that's why they were scanning books.
But they wouldn't be scanning books if they didn't think there was a way to make a profit.
Right, that's what businesses do. Some businesses go into new ventures to make a profit. Some businesses try to do things to improve society and try to find a way to make some money at it. Other business mimic existing successes and try to crush their competitors.
Are you kidding? Windows was MUCH MUCH harder to develop th
Re: (Score:2)
I could correct other things that are wrong in your post, but I grow weary. I'll just correct this last thing:
It was a fine aerial photography viewer website
No, it was an Earth image viewer ("Terra"-server) that dynamically created satellite views of the earth based on longitude, latitude and altitude. You seem to be under the odd notion that it was a slide show, which is just absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
Google has done plenty of "me too" and buying out of competitors. They bought Deja News and turned it into Google Groups. They bought YouTube when their video search wasn't competitive. They got into email, chat, and god knows what else, when they originally said they were going to stick to search. I'll credit you that Google
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman, but no, I've used it before. You had left-right-up-down, as I mentioned in an earlier post, and zoom. Each time you clicked it redrew the webpage.
If you can't accept that I define Google Earth as an interactive desktop application differently than the Terraserver site, fine, we can disagree about what a desktop application is.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Microsoft licensed the imagery from Ariel Images (and the Russian Space Agency), but TerraServer was MS's alone. It was a SQL Server research project for Microsoft's "Scalability Day [microsoft.com]" dog&pony show back in 1997 (Gates discusses it about halfway down the page). The idea was to show a SQL server indexing and serving a terabyte of data (which was an insane amount of data back then). It turns out that satell
Re: (Score:2)
Let's distinguish proximate causes from ulterior motives here.
And why do they want that? Because in the end they hope to make money.
And why do they want that? Because in the end they hope to make money.
Well, I think you
Re: (Score:2)
I think any original thoughts born out of Microsoft were not corporately endorsed and happened totally at random.
Of course never underestimate the power of bureaucracy to crush insightful ideas...
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice - expertly done SNL reference.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the software application developed by Keyhole, that Google bought and released as their own product?
Then let's note that Microsoft had versions of TerraServer in 1997 (and obviously the project predates that).
Also note that Virtual Earth offers bird-eye views that Google does not.
Never mind, I forgot that this is Slashdot and I shouldn't let mere facts get in the way of good Microsoft rants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? So you can post on /. how MS is is shunning all the "standards" out there and how terrible it is that they always have to do their own things when there's already perfectly good solutions out there for all kinds of stuff?
I'm no google shill... (Score:1)
for example, i think their efforts on XNA game studio [microsoft.com] are of they type they should do more often: it leverages their core strengths (dev tools and 3d graphics), takes advantage of existing products with wide install bases (yes, duh..windows - but i really mean directx) and is INTERESTING and EXCITING and something GOOGLE CAN'T MATCH NEXT WEEK.
Re: (Score:2)
http://labs.live.com/photosynth/ [live.com]
That's just about as cool, new, and exciting as you can get
Why? (Score:2)
Is this what they call embrace and extend?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of how Wang used to ape IBM and others (Score:2)
1984, IBM acquires Rolm. Much press ink spilled about how IBM is about to become a leader in the combined computer-telecommunications industry. Shortly thereafter Wang acquires an communications company called Intecom. 1988, IBM spits out Rolm. It appears th
Re:Reminds me of how Wang used to ape IBM and othe (Score:2)
Well, they certainly don't do it to skimp on R&D [slashdot.org].
Marvellous, a book search.. (Score:1)
Google has Google Earth & SketchUp - its an amazing 3D world, Apple has iLife with movies, music & podcasts...
whoa (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
its very unlikely, mainly just a cheap-shot, anti-microsoft linux fanboyism and such. however it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Road Ahead? (Score:1)
Microsoft's Innovation at work (Score:2)
You can see Microsoft Research's Innovation [slashdot.org] hard at work here. Same thing goes for the XBox, Zune, IE, Word, DOS, Windows,
Great for casual readers (Score:2)
It doesn't even work (Score:1)
Good job Microsoft!
Why is everyone talking about Google? (Score:1)
Note also that this MS product, while I don't think it's quite as easy to navigate as Google's, is very specifically about putting books online, and giving them to
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
This blows away what Google is doing.
Zero Innovation? (Score:2)
Is it Clippy? Might it be the Strip in the new Office? It surely is not Book Search, the Zune or IE7... I'm really struggling here, yet they are one of the largest corporations on earth. Something is seriously wrong with Microsoft.
Still no lawsuit against MS by book publishers? (Score:2)
They did when Google came out with it. Why not now? Is it because Google is a higher profile target for them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You can make something POSIX-compliant without it looking like UNIX. Look Windows, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to show anger towards linux, I recommend choosing a different path than complaining about it being built to standards like Posix and SUS.
Wait ... but when MS makes something strictly to a standard then they're ... "a copycat"? And when they're making something to a standard but then improve on it then it's "embrace, extend, control"? And if they do something that's completely different from any existing standard people moan how non-standard MS products are? So what exactly are they supposed to do?
One day I'd like to hear one of you folks tell me what exactly you'd want MS to do that wouldn't make you whine about it reflexively...
Re:Wasn't this expected? (Score:5, Interesting)
They never move into a market unless someone is already there.
It's the same mentality as long distance runners not taking the lead/avoiding it until the race is almost over. let the other runners have all the problems keeping ahead, then move in at the end.
It doesn't seem to be working against google though, interesting that.
And we'll see a 'Microsoft officially aproved' Linux real soon, called SUSE SP1.
Re: (Score:2)
But everyone knows you don't actually use it until SP2
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a market normally doesn't even exist unless there's already someone there. But I acknowledge they've started very few new markets. Visual (as in Studio) tools, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
I know they ripped the guts of the development team from Borland, taking the guy who designed it in the first place, but I don't know who started the visual dev thing.
It's a shame about Delphi, I really liked that.