

"The 411 Parable": Goog411 vs Bing411 - Make sure you are playing the same game. - benhedrington
http://buildcontext.com/blog/2011/the-411-parable

======
indygreg2
I was working at Microsoft/Tellme at the time Bing411 was launched and would
like to state a few facts:

\- When launched, Bing411 was essentially a re-branding of Tellme's
1-800-555-TELL service.

\- 1-800-555-TELL has been running since 2000 or something like that. I
attended the 10th anniversary party, which I believe was in 2010.

\- Microsoft didn't need to launch a Microsoft-branded 411 to collect
utterances, for they had acquired Tellme and had many utterances coming in
under their umbrella of services

\- Tellme's bread and butter was speech recognition on the telephone and they
are still in that space today, so Bing411, 1-800-555-TELL are still relevant
for them.

I can also say that a lot of the speculation in the article about Microsoft's
"reaction" is just wrong. But, I won't go into specifics because they aren't
relevant.

I enjoyed the author's original point about making sure you are playing the
same game. Unfortunately, the example used is factually inaccurate.

~~~
sixcorners
Don't all those points fit into the story in that blog entry? No one is saying
that Microsoft needed voice data. From e40's comment: "I think the point of
the article is that they don't need to mine utterences with Bing 411, and that
they merely did the service to compete with Google, without knowing why Google
made the service in the first place." Isn't the speculation about Microsoft's
reaction the heart of the issue? If Microsoft did buy Tellme's service so that
they could compete with Google's that would explain how Microsoft wasn't
playing the same game Google was. Edit: I do agree that the blog post is all
speculation. I'm just saying that I don't think those points prove that it is
wrong.

~~~
anorwell
Microsoft bought Tellme (of which 555-TELL was a very small part) in March
2007 [1]. GOOG-411 was announced in April 2007. [2]

[1] <http://techcrunch.com/2007/03/14/microsoft-acquires-tellme/>

[2] [http://techcrunch.com/2007/04/06/google-launches-
free-411-bu...](http://techcrunch.com/2007/04/06/google-launches-
free-411-business/)

~~~
sixcorners
From that article: "This is actually a product that Google’s been testing in
various formats for some time. Steve Poland (a regular contributor here) is
pointing me to some posts (and here) by Greg Sterling from last year that
discuss this. The earliest reports on this are from October 2006, and the
service may be from an acquisition of 1-877-520-FIND. More information here."
Again though.. Pure speculation.. It's not implausible because big companies
do keep tabs on their competition. Also not sure if Microsoft's history with
their product goes back even further.

------
anorwell
The tone of this article bothers me. There are some smart people working at
Microsoft. The level of discussion is higher than "Hey, google made a thing,
we need the same thing."

Like the article points out, Microsoft has no shortage of utterances due to
their acquisition of Tellme. Why, then, do they need to mine utterances with
Bing 411? (Assuming they don't--I'm sure they do.) Bing 411 is a genuinely
useful service that adds value to the Bing brand. It needs no additional
reason to exist.

All this aside, the article is factually incorrect. It implies that localeze
was contracted to provide Bing 411. In fact, localeze provides listings
(according to the press release the article links), and are presumably one of
many listing providers used. Microsoft/Tellme provide the actual Bing 411
service. I don't know for sure, but Tellme's (now Microsoft's) 1-800-555-TELL
number almost definitely predates GOOG-411.

~~~
e40
> Why, then, do they need to mine utterances with Bing 411?

I think the point of the article is that they _don't_ need to mine utterences
with Bing 411, and that they merely did the service to compete with Google,
without knowing _why_ Google made the service in the first place.

------
varunsrin
Somehow, it doesn't seem like Google's plan was much of a secret, even back in
2007: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/goog-411-isnt-what-you-
thin...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/goog-411-isnt-what-you-think/852)

~~~
benhedrington
Yep, not saying it was a secret... Tim O'Reilly had it nailed back then... but
the story I have to remind myself of is that too many times we go off face
value rather than digging in and listening to people like Tim... This happens
all over the place and it was worth capturing the story that replays in my
head each time I see a new revision of it.

~~~
varunsrin
well, Marissa Mayer of Google explicitly stated in a public announcement in
October 2007 that it was going to be used for speech recognition algorithms.
And many, many news blogs published that.

[http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-management/google-wants-
your...](http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-management/google-wants-your-
phonemes-539)

Your article makes it seem like the fact that Google was using 411 for voice
analysis was somewhat 'unknown' until 2009, whereas I would say that the
knowledge was actually quite mainstream and, frankly, hard to ignore.

I would argue that assuming that the Bing team completely failed to see all
the news articles and press releases (from Google, no less) about this for 2
years, is perhaps a little presumptuous? Maybe, as another poster mentioned,
they are still getting value out of the 411 service?

I do agree with your point, and there are many many times I've seen companies
do this, but Bing 411 vs Google 411 might not be the right example since
Google's intentions were very clear, right from the start.

Disclaimer: I work on MS Office (completely unrelated to Bing & the 411
service, but still not what you would call an unbiased source)

------
tomerico
While I cannot speculate on Microsoft purpose of a 411 service, I think it is
pretty obvious why google dumped theirs - they now have access to an enormous
source of human speech through google voice.

~~~
brudgers
That's what I was thinking. But it also implies that Google could drop Voice,
or Gmail, or Maps, if something better comes along.

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
They certainly could. If you don't like that, don't rely on it, or make sure
to export your data regularly. That's true of any free service, tbh.

------
mxavier
I'll play devil's advocate here. Are we sure Microsoft is not doing the same
data mining on Bing411 as Google did on Goog411, and haven't dumped it because
it is either a valuable service in their eyes or they are not done gleaning
what google gleaned from their head start?

I somehow doubt this is the case but I'm not so sure we can assume that it is
not.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Microsoft doesn't play the same sort of long game that google does. Microsoft
plays a traditional long game: market penetration, brand loyalty, development
stack, "synergy" (real or imagined), etc. Google plays a much more subtle
game. They'll do something like GOOG411 just to get better voice recognition
algorithms. They'll also do things like develop a state of the art web browser
just to jostle the browser development community out of its laziness and
propel web standards and browser performance forward. That sort of thing is
just not in Microsoft's DNA to do or even conceive of doing.

------
spinchange
It still seems really odd to me that Google 86'd all explicit phone number
directory -related stuff. The "phonebook:" operator is no more either. Yes, I
know traditional web search and Maps are pretty good most of the time, but I
come across many cases where they are not. Especially when it's a residential
phone number (that is otherwise publicly listed) or a less web savvy local
business.

Phone directories may, in fact, be very antiquated but they're still a thing,
the data is there and often useful. Why not index it? Why not let me expressly
look-up a phone number anymore?

------
bimbly
Interesting read. But the best part for me was learning about a new free 411
service. At least once a week, I start to call Goog411 before sadly
remembering the service was discontinued.

~~~
tobtoh
Is it really an interesting read? (this isn't a criticism of bimbly, more at
poor quality blog posts in general (a particular bee in my bonnet at the
moment))

The blog post basically consisted of a made up example to make a point that
the blog author felt was valid. Now I happen to agree with the basic point the
author was trying to make, but I think it's a reflection on the really poor
quality of so many blog posts where people have some idea they want to pitch
as insightful and then they fail to do any actual research and/or wrap it in a
made up story. The 'parable' is pretty worthless when people like Indygreg
above state that the motivations that the author guessed at was completely
wrong.

------
contextfree
Even if we accept the very dubious premise that Bing411 was motivated entirely
by a misunderstanding of Google's aims for Goog411, so what? A good cautionary
tale needs to demonstrate the dire consequences of whatever you're cautioning
against, but you haven't actually showed anything bad happening to Bing or
Microsoft as a result of their alleged confusion. Really not the best vehicle
for your moral.

