Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does Bing Have Google Running Scared?

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the or-perhaps-maraschino dept.

Microsoft 560

suraj.sun alerts us to an anonymous-source story up at the NY Post, not what we would normally consider a leading source of tech news, claiming that Microsoft's introduction of Bing has alarmed Google. "...co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service, The Post has learned. Brin, according to sources..., is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists in an effort to determine how Bing's crucial search algorithm differs from that used by [Google]. 'New search engines have come and gone in the past 10 years, but Bing seems to be of particular interest to Sergey,' said one insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The move by Brin is unusual, as it is rare these days for the Google founders to have such hands-on involvement in day-to-day operations at the company, the source added." CNet's coverage of the rumor begins with the NY Post and adds in Search Engine Land's speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330403)

COULD IT BE??

Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketing (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330407)

Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (4, Insightful)

jadin (65295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330437)

And Seinfeld falls into this statement where exactly?

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (4, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330471)

The word "best" does not mean "good", in this context it means "everything else [Microsoft does] is even worse"

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (5, Interesting)

jadin (65295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330559)

Microsoft does marketing better than everything else they do? I don't buy it. Embrace Extend Extinguish comes to mind for starters. I'd say their ability to control the markets they are in is also more effective than their marketing. I'm sure there's more if i cared to keep going. There's a reason we've seen so many anti-trust lawsuits against them, and it isn't because they are great at marketing. I'd even venture that if what they were "best" at was marketing, they wouldn't be the target of so much hatred and scandalous news we hear of every other day at slashdot.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330717)

Microsoft does marketing better than everything else they do?

Yes. They're a marketing company that has some tech leanings - it's been this way for as long as I've been into computers (the early 80's)

I don't buy it. Embrace Extend Extinguish comes to mind for starters.

You mean the marketing thing they need to do because they're incapable of engineering something good themselves?

I'd say their ability to control the markets they are in is also more effective than their marketing.

Umm, marketing is how they control their markets.

I'm sure there's more if i cared to keep going

Maybe you should, because the examples you gave only undermined your point.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330831)

Embrace Extend Extinguish comes to mind for starters. I'd say their ability to control the markets they are in is also more effective than their marketing. I'm sure there's more if i cared to keep going.

Does "marketing" have a strict definition that could not be construed to include those things? I don't know the answer to that. I honestly thought that controlling or at least influencing the market was the primary goal of all marketing efforts and that the main difference between MS and other companies is that MS is more willing to engage in "questionable" marketing practices. I'm being careful how I say that because there are many things they do which may or may not be illegal (don't ask me, ask a lawyer) but in my mind are clearly unethical. I always saw embrace-extend-extinguish and their various forms of vendorlock as essential components of their marketing strategy, which is actually one of the primary reasons why I dislike them.

There's a reason we've seen so many anti-trust lawsuits against them, and it isn't because they are great at marketing. I'd even venture that if what they were "best" at was marketing, they wouldn't be the target of so much hatred and scandalous news we hear of every other day at slashdot.

I think it's a great triumph of their marketing efforts that they remain so profitable despite the widespread disdain towards them. You may hate their guts but if you continue to buy their products they are not going to feel very hated. As the goal of a corporation is to produce a profit, and they are indeed profitable, it would be quite difficult for me to make the case that their marketing is inherently flawed. They have cash reserves which are the envy of many other companies. You could in fact say that their marketing is so effective that only the government was able to do anything to place some limits on it.

As others have said, I cannot prove but suspect that this is sort of like the "automobile recall" situation described in the movie Fight Club. If they know that the profit they will make from engaging in illegal activities is greater than the fines they will have to pay when they are caught, they don't really have a business reason not to engage in them. In that case, while I have no problem saying that they are a bunch of despicable bastards who would probably sell their first-born for a nickel, I must admit that in purely business terms, their strategy is sound.

I'll try to say this in a way that doesn't cause a flamewar. If you disagree with this, I accept that, but understand that at least the perception of this is quite real. Another reason why they are considered a marketing company more than a software company is that, with a few exceptions, it is not difficult to find higher-quality software than what they produce. That's a fact of which the general public is unaware, which is probably also marketing. When Win98 was the most popular desktop OS, Linux users everywhere realized the general public thought that computer crashes and frequent reboots were a normal, inherent part of operating a computer. They were not, and Linux proved that, but there is/was widespread ignorance about these things and the general public continued to buy Windows and learned to accept its problems because it did not occur to them to demand better until years later.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (3, Insightful)

motek (179836) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330769)

Yup, that explains their pitiful market share and the general dearth of resources, so easy to observe in what goes on over there. They are as good as gone...

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (3, Informative)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330553)

And Seinfeld falls into this statement where exactly?

Churro sales went through the roof after that commerical aired.
I want one right now.....it still works.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (5, Interesting)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330535)

I agree.

"Taking notice" might be an apt phrase to describe Google's reaction -- but even "concern" would be seriously overstating it -- never mind something like "panic" or "running scared".

Having said that, it's nice to see some competition in search, just as it's nice to see Macs and Linux keeping Windows honest.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330869)

You're probably correct, but by the same token, Google has taken over the search market by competing with incompetence.

I'm not personally convinced that the Google engine is really that good, in fact by design it's all but worthless for certain types of query. Originally it was designed to be fast and to not need to be able to comprehend the content of the page. Over the years they've had to change that because of the gamesmanship that inevitably occurs when you're at the top. And for the queries that I like to make, it doesn't do any better job of finding things than the older MS search did.

It's a sad state of affairs, but right now we should all be cheering on MS in their endeavor this one time, they are the only company right now that's even trying to bring Google into a more reasonable share of search queries.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330555)

I wonder how much Slashdot got from that "massive marketing budget" TFA speaks of. There is nothing else of value in there.

Re:Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketin (2, Insightful)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330587)

Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketing

but but... that's exactly what the advertisement business is all about! It hasn't been about "search" in a long long time (not since maybe 2003 or so when Google's search results started to suck).

Fantasy Vs Reality (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330409)

How the article paints it (and what sells newspapers):

Google Drone: *bursts through the office doors* Fuhrer Brin, Fuhrer Brin! I've news that Microsoft's Bing service is gaining on us!
Sergey Brin: JesusChristJesusChristJesusChrist what're we gonna do?! Oh god oh god, we are so fucked! *kicks over his desk and gets up to pace wildly about the room* Why is there no coke on this goddamn coffee table when I need it?!
Google Drone: *empties a baggy of cocaine onto the polished marble table and starts cutting lines* We need action now, sir.
Sergey Brin: *inhales a long line and rubs his hands all over his face* Ok, ok, I got it. Get every able bodied person on 24/7 shifts for the next month working to make our service better.
Google Drone: Bu ... but sir, what about the 20% of the time they get to work on their own projects ...
Sergey Brin: SCREW that, we have an emergency. Get me everyone in the auditorium now, we ain't leavin' until the Google main search page is shitting rainbows and making the users feel like unicorns!

What's really happening:

Google Drone: *walks calmly into Brin's hermetically sealed chamber* Here's the reports for competitors, sir. It looks like Bing may have established itself as a competitor with Yahoo! but it's too early to tell.
Sergey Brin: *steeples his fingers and lets out a long calm calculated sigh* Great, another trivial nuisance to keep an eye on -- well I didn't get this far by ignoring things. Ok.
Google Drone: I'll put them on the big board, sir.
Sergey Brin: Good but be sure not to put them on the buyout dart board, they're not an option.
Google Drone: Yessir, anything else, sir?
Sergey Brin: Yes, round up the boys in the rec room that seem to have so much free time lately and see if they can brainstorm up an optional beta prototype we could throw on our page to win back the morons ... *ahem* users that left us for Bing. You know some video widget or bell or whistle or some such crap. Those users'll be back anyway.

Re:Fantasy Vs Reality (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330607)

You should consider writing short stories... thats pretty damn good

Re:Fantasy Vs Reality (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330639)

I totally agree that is fantastic writing. Ever though of a career in script writing?

www.sl8it.com

Re:Fantasy Vs Reality (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330755)

Very good, and quite similar to what I figure is really going on.

The google guys are intelligent and pay a lot of attentions to details; while bing is probably not a significant threat, it's no excuse to just ignore it. They are almost certainly looking at their competitors, at what they are doing and how they can counter their moves to stay ahead. Google didn't get where they are by being sloppy and ignoring new trends.

frosty piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330413)

cuntwaffle

Oh that's so reliable (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330421)

Boy CNet is trolling for news. There have been a lot of competitors in the search space. Most of them failed to make a dent because their search algorithm weren't better. Unless Microsoft licensed google's algorithm, the only thing Bing has is an outlook-like interface. Doesn't matter how you dress a pig, it's still a pig.

Re:Oh that's so reliable (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330477)

so you believe that google's algorithm is the absolute best and no one could ever develop a better one?

Re:Oh that's so reliable (0)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330739)

Wow. Talk about unfair flamebait mods...

Re:Oh that's so reliable (5, Informative)

shoemilk (1008173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330479)

Google's algorithm rocks for English results, but blows for Japanese. Use google to search for anything in Japanese and the first page is littered with blog posts instead of real information. There's a reason that Yahoo is still the king in Japan (over 80% usage)

Re:Oh that's so reliable (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330655)

Yeah, but a pig people are used to look at. Look and feel goes a long way with most people, they are comfortable with what they know.

Whatever (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330429)

Your competitor releases a product, you analyse it. That simple.

When I worked at VMware we analysed every VirtualPC release both before and after Microsoft acquired it. There was a checklist of VMware "innovations" which we had metrics to measure how well VirtualPC didn't stack up against.

If you don't do this, you don't know why your product is better than your competitor's, and so you don't know how to compete with them. Unless, of course, you're like Microsoft and think "compete" means "lie".

Re:Whatever (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330539)

Unless, of course, you're like Microsoft and think "compete" means "lie".

Whatever, Microsoft knows what the consumer wants. It's not speed or accuracy or any of that stuff that Google uses to measure "quality." It's so much more simpler than that. Microsoft has searchability.

What? You don't know what searchability is? Well, then you're like the guy in Microsoft's commercial where a user is using Bing and his friend comes up and asks him what "searchability" means and everyone laughs him out of the room. You don't want to look stupid, do you? Didn't think so.

You don't need numbers and statistics that can be twisted, you just need to know that Bing has the best searchability. Jerry Seinfeld will eat a churro to that. Searchability. It's just more searchable.

Sad thing is, that'd probably be an effective ad. And if you don't think so, look at Budweiser's latest campaign.

Baa. Baaaaaa. Baa.

"Microsoft knows what the consumer wants" (3, Insightful)

alizard (107678) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330643)

So how are you doing with your Zune? Happy with your Vista installation? Do you miss MS Office's Clippy? Are you old enough to remember Microsoft Bob?

What M$ has going for it is consumer inertia, monopoly business practices, and a big installed base. Your belief in their genius at understanding consumer wants is faith-based. The list of M$ marketing and tech failures above is a long way from complete.

That said, I use Bing occasionally when I don't find what I want in the first couple of pages of google hits. It isn't better, but sometimes, different is what's needed. As for their translation setup... the dual window thing might be useful for a professional language translator who's trying to clean up the translator's output, but if one doesn't speak the language, google's straightforward translation interface that simply throws the translation on a page works better.

While google should watch them as they do any other competitor, they have no reason for concern. At least not this year.

Re:"Microsoft knows what the consumer wants" (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330665)

WHOOOSH.

Re:"Microsoft knows what the consumer wants" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330745)

Happy with your Vista installation?

Actually, yes I am.

Re:Whatever (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330671)

If I didn't know better I'd say you were making some sort of parallel argument to Mac users talking about "usability," or KDE users talking about "customizability." ;)

It's a good argument, but intangibles aren't always a scam... just most of the time.

hmm (5, Interesting)

pwolf (1016201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330431)

I've only used Bing twice. Once when i heard about it on slashdot and then again after I saw a commercial... thought i'd give it another try. Other then a decent marketing campaign, Bing just doesn't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google doesn't already have. Google does what I need so I'll continue using it.

Re:hmm (4, Funny)

number6x (626555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330693)

Bing gives us what Google already gave us 10 years ago. This is a major advance for Microsoft.

They used to be the company that gave us what Apple gave us a decade ago, now they are the company that gives us what Google gave us a decade ago.

It's good to see that Microsoft is not stagnating, but is still able to trail way behind its competitors always trying to be something it isn't.

I miss the Microsoft of the 1980's, when they actually had products that weren't copies of everybody else's products.

Re:hmm (1)

Hucko (998827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330817)

Ah... how's that again?

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330719)

It's the default search engine for IE 8. I accidently used it and it was good enough that I didn't immediately retry in google (which Is what I did when confronted with their previous search engine.)

Re:hmm (1)

x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330861)

I used it when someone on slickdeals posted that you can save a bit of money searching for your purchase through bing and then buying it from the link bing gives. I saved $7 on a $25 item. I won't use it as a search engine instead of Google, but when I want to buy something online I'll see if bing offers a cashback option on it. You have to sign up for a hotmail account and go through all of the windows live id crap to get the cash but for a 30% discount that's worth the hassle of creating an account that I'll never use for anything else. Meh... I may not be using bing as a primary search engine (so Google is losing none of my business) but I'll use it to see if my product can get any cheaper.

They probably should be scared (1, Interesting)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330439)

Being scared may be just the motivation they need to keep innovating, and potentially culling some more fat. They dropped notebook and some other services last year, which, while a bit crappy for those of us using those services, was probably ultimately a good move which freed resource to be better spent elsewhere.

As we're all fond of saying, MS tends to get things right on the third try (or just eventually). MS themselves got scared enough a few years back to actually put together a good search engine this time. Yeah, it took them awhile, but they've got a decent chance of becoming a good alternative to Google again. I've used Bing as my main search system for about 4 days after launch, and it was fine. I find myself alternating between google and bing about once per day now.

What if MS was able to use Bing to get back to a 30-40% search market share in the next few years? That would certainly change the dynamics of the search field again, and I think it would be changed for the better.

Re:They probably should be scared (2, Insightful)

boyter (964910) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330577)

I must admit I myself have done the same thing. I realised my reliance on Google a few years ago and tried to use alternatives more most of my search needs, and then in a fix compare against Google results. The problem I found was that Google presents a single view of the web that while it may seem accurate isn't the whole picture. People would say to me "If Google can't find it then it dosn't exist", and then be surprised when I said I found it using Yahoo, Gigablast or Live.

Bring on more competitive search engines. If nothing else it will force Google to innovate because I don't see their current interface being the best view into the web.

Uhuh (5, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330449)

Google is Kleenex. You don't even really care that your wife bought Puffs. You'll still call them Kleenex and 9 out of 10 times you're going to pick them first by name. This simply isn't going to go the way of a meme. People aren't just going to jump ship in droves because it's different and not nearly as convenient. Start worrying when the numbers start talking. Getting excited about ANYTHING Microsoft does online is beyond premature. Hell, it might be IM-mature technologically speaking.

Re:Uhuh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330549)

I bet you have a bunch of crumpled, stiff Kleenex under your bed.

*BSD is Dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330457)

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle [198.62.75.1] could reanimate the corpse at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Good. (5, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330459)

This is how market competition is supposed to work.

Evil or not, a Google without competition inevitably stagnates.

Re:Good. (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330581)

This is how market competition is supposed to work.

Evil or not, a Google without competition inevitably stagnates.

Yes but how did Microsoft manage to compete with Google's Search engine?

What I'm confused about is Bing's quickness. I mean, I've read so many articles and patents about Google doing such and such to make its searches so quick and responsive. Not saying that Bing is just as quick but I don't notice a difference. So what's up? Has Microsoft implement hundreds of thousands of Red Hat modified kernels on machines in huge server farms like Google? You know with special impossible to understand BigTable and networking technology? Has hardware gotten so much better between then and now that this can be done on Windows virtualized on a hundred beefy machines?

I know no one can answer my questions but it's one of two things: 1) Microsoft read what I read and implemented Google or (dare I propose this?) 2) Microsoft -- in a shocking move -- actually did something really neat and innovative. Bing is getting decent reviews but maybe the usage doesn't demand what Google has to perform.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330809)

I mean, I've read so many articles and patents about Google doing such and such to make its searches so quick and responsive. Not saying that Bing is just as quick but I don't notice a difference. So what's up?

Um...were search engines ever slow? I assume you mean in terms of click search -> get results. Even back in the days when Netscape was king, I don't remember Yahoo or Webcrawler or whatever being limited by anything but the speed of my dialup modem. So I'm struggling to understand why you would think that a search engine, behaving like a search engine does, is some kind of baffling mystery which threatens Google.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330819)

I mean, I've read so many articles and patents about Google doing such and such to make its searches so quick and responsive. Not saying that Bing is just as quick but I don't notice a difference. So what's up?

Um...were search engines ever slow? I assume you mean in terms of click search -> get results. Even back in the days when Netscape was king, I don't remember Yahoo or Webcrawler or whatever being limited by anything but the speed of my dialup modem. So I'm struggling to understand why you would think that a search engine, behaving like a search engine does, is some kind of baffling mystery which threatens Google.

Psst! I think the internet is a bit bigger than it was in the netscape days.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330787)

Arguably Google hasn't had competition in years.

Competition can only help (5, Interesting)

chebucto (992517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330463)

Whether or not the story is true, competition - even from the likes of Microsoft - competition in the search market is a good thing to have. Google has been been without serious competition in the web search market for almost a decade, and there are definitely ways they can improve the quality of their results.

Two things that most people will want avoided are 1) feature-bloat rather than basic s/n improvement as the method of competition, and 2) unfair use by microsoft of its (diminished) OS monopoly. Both these things were seen in the browser wars, and it took 5 years (more or less) for browser software to recover from that fiasco.

The machine the goes BING! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330483)

Typical Microsoft.

It's all marketing.

Woo hoo.

Bing doesn't work... (5, Interesting)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330503)

I know this might shock the US crowd, but the rest of the world exists too, and nobody told Microsoft while they were developing Bing's neat features. So what happens is, that all those interesting little local search and filter things are useless to everyone else and winds just winds up being Live Search with new branding.

I like the concept of the filters but they only work for a very small selection of US centric pre-selected results. In fact if it isn't on MSN.com it doesn't seem to exist as far as Bing is concerned.

So bing is meh, it was an interesting demo but just wasn't developed enough to be a real product. Google's unfiltered results are still much better than Live Search.

Nothing to worry about (1, Insightful)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330509)

Just a few random searches will prove that google brings back more relevant results. I'm actually surprised people are still talking about it.

I don't know, but it should (5, Insightful)

juanergie (909157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330511)

Any self-respecting organization will take a close look at a competitor product, specially when such competitor happens to be one of the world's largest player in the industry.

Bing will certainly snatch a fraction of the market share owned by Google; modern top management theories demand that Google determines whether the market share lost to the rival will be a single user or a more considerable fraction.

It is not about Sergei pissing his pants, but about him and his company designing a solid strategy to respond to their competitor's move.

As much as I hate to say it... (5, Interesting)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330525)

When I first heard about Bing I laughed at the thought of people actually dropping tried and trusted Google for some kind of Microsoft re-branded Windows Live Search, then I started paying closer attention to what I was actually getting when I searched on Google.

Over the last several years I thought it was my imagination or increasing impatience that has caused my increased dissatisfaction with Google's search results but when I think about it more closely pagerank has been around for a long time and it hasn't altogether changed much. With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm and finding ways to artificially boost your website's relevance and this has basically resulted in the increasing decline of Google's search results over the last several years.

Just as an actual example I was looking into buying a guitar amp online I had heard about and I wanted to find a website I had been to before on another computer that had a database clips demoing various amps and other guitar gear but I couldn't remember the name. After getting frustrated with several Google searches yielding nothing but trash for the obvious search queries, I turned to Bing because I thought it might be worth a laugh. First result was the website I wanted from the beginning, and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft's products as much as anyone else around here.

Obviously (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330527)

as it is rare these days for the Google founders to have such hands-on involvement in day-to-day operations at the company,

Because the party is on the plane [wallstreetfighter.com] , and not in the office?

Have any of you actually used bing? (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330529)

bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites

bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless. with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information. i could definately see why google has jumped into action, only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (5, Insightful)

MattXBlack (1534971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330595)

Maybe because SEOs aren't targeting Bing yet. It's the same reason most viruses are for Windows.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330621)

bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites

bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless. with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information. i could definately see why google has jumped into action, only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.

Google's link-aggregators are there because of Google's market share. Were Bing to...uh...somehow become dominant, it would have the same sorts of problems pop up. Anyway, I don't think quality matters when it comes to web search. Google is a verb, and that's enough to give it the number one slot for a very long time.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330709)

oh man where to start.

Maybe bloggers and link aggregators will find how to game bing in the future, but for the moment i find it's the better search engine, which really leads to your next statement which is pretty unbelievable - do you really think quality doesn't matter?! i don't ever want to hear you bagging microsoft products that have high market share or that are poor quality then, because according to you it doesn't matter.

for the rest of us, the quality of the results DO matter, and google would be stupid to ignore such a product.

True, but... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330721)

If google has been sitting on their laurels, relatively speaking, and allowing SEO types to game the algorithm outside of Google's advertising model, then something is wrong. If Bing truly has a roughly comparable quality results without being vulnerable to current google SEO strategies, then maybe one way or another it could make SEO less effective.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330695)

bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless. with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information.

That's probably because Bing Is Not Google; give the useless link farms a little while and they'll ensure Bing looks like Google.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330725)

so you would be willing to admit linux isn't anymore secure than windows then, because it's market share is so low the scum hasn't latched onto it yet? anti microsoft sentiment on this site constantly attacks that logic, it's interesting that so many people are now playing this card in defense of google.

Crap comes from people learning to Game Google (3, Interesting)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330747)

If getting your site in Bing's search results means big bucks, they're gonna Game that just the same. You'll see the crap come flushing in.

Re:Crap comes from people learning to Game Google (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330773)

you don't know that for sure though, do you. what if MS has come up with a better search engine? this is why google would/should be investigating and improving their own performance. ultimately we are the winners, so i hope MS has actually lifted the bar on google.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330803)

I used it once. There were Spanish and Italian links within the first three results. Around result seven was a title full of line noise and text full of random words. Somewhere in the results I saw _anal sex_. I had to wipe away a tear, for bing reminded me of the Alta Vista search engine from the 1990s.

Re:Have any of you actually used bing? (1)

ekhben (628371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330827)

... admit it, you searched for "latina takes it from behind".

parent is lying (5, Insightful)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330807)

Parent got rated "+5, insightful"...really? More like "-1, full of shit".

See for yourself. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=hardwood+suppliers&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

I'm no carpenter, but I looked at all of the first 20 links and only one of them was a link farm. The rest were either actual vendors of hardwood floor supplies or legitimate lists of suppliers (like the ones magazines often have). In nearly every case there was an actual physical location or an online store where I could purchase wood.

If you're going to troll for Microsoft, go do it somewhere where people are too dumb to verify your claims.

Bing promotion (2, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330531)

Microsoft drones doing a "Microsoft product is good" ad campaign, just that using that plain words they said "Even competition thinks that is good".

Of course that if some competitor does a big fanfare move Google should be concerned, and see if what looks as pure vapor have some smoke in there, as if something is being cooked there. Is it just aesthetics? There were some prizes recently for photographical iGoogle themes. But if is something more complex than that, and if not covered by some of the weird Labs testing runnings, a better understanding on that is required.

mod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330543)

bleak fu7ure. In BSD has always

Well, I didn't think Americans would fall for. . . (0, Troll)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330551)

I didn't think a significant number of Americans would be stupid enough to fall for the whole 'Terrorists' thing, but holy smokes, I guess all the Fluoride and Big Macs played a number on their brains.

I guess the question is whether or not the world is stupid enough to fall for an extended Bing marketing campaign, because Americans certainly are.

--Granted, I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think "Google", but when I think, "Bing", I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.

I have no doubt that a significant number of retarded apes will do whatever the hell Microsoft tells them to do, and I betcha anything there have been tense talks over in Redmond about whether or not to release Windows 7 with an integrated Bing search bar built into the final version. You KNOW that if they thought they could rape you and take your wallet and get away with it, they would. MS is like the Blob from 50's sci-fi. Hungry, smart and without ethics, only a half-assed legal system keeps those fuckers in check. I would much rather have a company which at least attempts to make ethical behavior part of its mission statement.

But in the end, it doesn't matter to me; I know for a fact that I will NEVER knowingly give Microsoft an inch where I don't absolutely have to.

Speaking of which. . . I wonder if the new game system MS is developing where it watches your body language is at all creepy?

-FL

An alternate to Google atleast (5, Interesting)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330557)

I have been using Bing for the last few weeks and comparing with Google by running the same queries on both.

At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results). But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.

Bing is a huge improvement over Yahoo at least for general queries.

It's a pity that Safari (at least on Mac) doesn't allow any other search engine except Google. That is just plain mean.

Re:An alternate to Google atleast (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330877)

It's a pity that Safari (at least on Mac) doesn't allow any other search engine except Google. That is just plain mean.

There is this add-on, Inquisitor [inquisitorx.com] , that lets you search with Yahoo.

Re:An alternate to Google atleast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330879)

Yes, specifically the 'mean' part means that I mostly use Firefox on the Mac.

That and the constant Safari 4 crashing thing.

Re:An alternate to Google atleast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330883)

At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results). But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.

Eh, isn't "pretty much identical results" pretty faint praise? Aren't you supposed to switch products because you actually get some sort of net benefit out of it?

The sound of "found": Bob Hope (1, Redundant)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330593)

This morning, our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service, that has Google absolutely shitting its pants, unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before [today.com] : Bob Hope.

We spent lots of time listening to you, except when you told us how much MSN Search^W^WLive Search^W^WKumo sucked 'cause youâ(TM)re just wrong about that, to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today. Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so passe, dahling.

So today we're introducing a new kind of search, that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff, to instead help you make faster, more informed decisions. (Windows 7 is peachy keen, by the way.) We think of Bob Hope as a Decision Engine. We've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono, co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope.

So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search? We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach. A name that was memorable, short, easy to spell, and that would function well as a URL around the world.

And just look at these results!

What do we want?
Braaains.
When do we want them?
Braaains.
What do I need to run Windows 7?
Braaains.
What's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded?
Braaains.
What's the final proof of Steve Ballmer's equal genius to Steve Jobs?
Vistaaa.

This is something new, something improved! You need to try it! It'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we can't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts! Please, come and try our new and improved service! FOR GOD'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE. OR THE PUPPY GETS IT. We're Microsoft. We're serious as a heart attack on this one.

On the other hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330597)

shouldn't we expect a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering such as this with a re-re-re-launch of MS's search engines? By now they must be pretty desperate...

Re:On the other hand... (1)

ekhben (628371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330875)

If you're wondering if we MIGHT see astroturfing, I don't think you and I read the same comments thread.

What do you mean "If"? (2, Funny)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330603)

What do you mean "If Yahoo exited the field"? Do you actually know anyone who uses Yahoo for search? What was the last time you've heard "yahoo it"? How about "google it"? Yahoo still makes the best portal (my.yahoo.com - although they are getting annoying with their cutesy changes), but search? Anyone remember Altavista? Yahoo, meet Altavista.

Re:What do you mean "If"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330687)

Y! owns Altavista. I'm pretty sure they're on good terms.

Oh and only about 80% of the Asian market uses Y! to search. So no, I don't actually know anyone who uses it for search...

Re:What do you mean "If"? (2, Informative)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330737)

Perhaps I wasn't sarcastic enough... Yes, I am aware they are one and the same now (altavista provides search for Yahoo).

Re:What do you mean "If"? (3, Interesting)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330793)

http://www.alexa.com/topsites [alexa.com]

Only one domain on the entire web gets more traffic than yahoo.com and that's obviously google.com.

In various countries in the far-east, Yahoo beats out Google to the #1 spot.

Yahoo is still a vast presence in search-engine-land.

And yep, my granny says "I'll google it" and promptly clicks on her yahoo.com bookmark. The term means "search" to many users, not any specific brand. In much the same way (at least in the UK) that someone might "hoover the room" with their Dyson.

Re:What do you mean "If"? (4, Informative)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330845)

Alexa just shows the domain. I will bet you a vast majority of the hits are my.yahoo.com portal traffic, not search.

This is all well and good... (1, Insightful)

Punker22 (844641) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330625)

Except that Bing sucks... Once the novelty of it wears off it will quickly relinquish it's temporary market share.

Simply No (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330627)

Bing is US centric garbage and the add rating agencies will note this in hours.

It is a further failure in M$ top down thinking, and their ability to hire and motivate good people.

Would you want to work for a chair throwing idiot standing for a college drop out?

Google should be scared (5, Funny)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330631)

Go to bing.com and click on video search. Then type in "naked women" and hit enter. Hover your mouse over each thumbnail. Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing, they are already destroying them where it counts, as a porn search engine.

Re:Google should be scared (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330759)

Nope, it's no good for searching pr0n. naked women [bing.com] doesn't turn up pr0n on the first page.

Fast (2, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330649)

I tried a few searches on Bing, and one thing I noticed right away is how fast it is. It seems to be just a little snappier than Google. The search results seem to have equal correctness.

No Big Deal! (0, Redundant)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330669)

I wouldn't worry about anything until Sergey starts throwing chairs around!

My personal anecdote with Bing (2, Interesting)

2Bits (167227) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330697)

I know that Microsoft is to be evil, and Google is to be the good guy, and /.ers mostly side with Google, yada yada yada...

All that asides, I'd like to say that, from my personal experiences, Bing is pretty good. I've been using it on and off since its launch, before its ad campaign. Note that I still use Google on an everyday basis, but Bing has been doing better and better.

I spent a bored Saturday afternoon, comparing the two, with different methods that I use everyday for searching:

  • keywords or phrases
  • keywords, with + sign, AND, OR etc
  • Chinese keywords + English keywords
  • Natural questions (e.g. Where do I find xxx?), in English and Chinese
  • Proper names, product names, location names, etc
  • Some others non-pattern searches

In over half of what I put in, Bing came up with results that made more sense to me, and which are closer to what I'm searching for. I found that Google is more and more rigged with "hidden" ads, which is quite annoying at times. Maybe it's just that Google is better known, and all the so-called SEO experts work on it more, but it's still annoying.

That's just personal experience, and it's by no means scientific. YMMV. I, for one, welcome good search engine, even from the evil empire.

Yada, yada, yada? (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330799)

Keep doing business with a company that constantly breaks the law.

It is not Yada, yada, yada. It is simply that some of us actually prefer to do business with companies that are not unethical ...

You may hate to say it, (me too) but I've had the (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330703)

...same good results. Google's page rank system can and is being gamed all the time and so Google results includes lots of results that Bing's algorithm spares us from. Brin is right to be nervous. And I hate to say it too (i.e.,that Bing is a Mircro$oft service.) It just goes to show that MS really can perform, when they want to. It was the same way during the browser wars years ago. MS made a better one at a lower cost and improved it constantly. But after Netscape was crushed MS just cruised along on the wave of a monopoly. IE got stale, slow and ripe for competition to emerge. Kinda like Google search is today.

Re:You may hate to say it, (me too) but I've had t (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330797)

Give it time. If Bing catches on in any sort of way, it's dead certain the same people gaming Google will start to target Bing too. And when that happens I think we'll see Google's years of experience with dealing with being gamed give it the advantage again.

Please! Thwart that Search Monster that is Yahoo! (2, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330713)

>> speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.

Similar to how the world of racing would look if stuffed turtles left it.

Dot Connections (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330731)

Let's see. NY Post = NewsCorp, Hulu; Google = Newspaper-killer who should pay to link news articles, YouTube. MySpace fits in the mix somehow (NewsCorp owned).

News flash (0, Offtopic)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330735)

Elephant scared of teeny tiny mouse.

Video Search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330741)

After putting "stargate s05e08" in the video search, I must say, I'm impressed.

Rumor started in the NY Post? (4, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330771)

Rupert Murdoch's NY rag (the WSJ being the other)? Then it's scurrilous and almost certainly not true. Google isn't worried about Bing. The whole thing smells of astroturf and paid shills operating under cover of darkness.

Bing = Lipstick on a Pig (1)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330779)

Seriously... it's completely useless for someone in Western Australia.
Google is a powerful tool that I've found manages to index Microsoft own support site better than Bing does.

From my perspective they've done little more than join a bunch of poor performing search engines together and given it a New Yorker sounding name.

Lipstick on a Pig.

Re:Bing = Lipstick on a Pig (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330855)

Seriously... it's completely useless for someone in Western Australia.

Why WA specifically?

Phone search (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330781)

I rarely use my cell phone for anything other than phn calls the other day but out of courioisity decided to take a look at the data access. I went to do a web search and it said "powered by Bing".
Is this what MS is really after? Does Google compete in this space. I have no clue as, as I said, I don't use these services.

Anyone?

Johnny come lately, again (0, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330829)

Another MS gimmick where they missed the boat, wait until its too late, come up with an inferior competitor, then hack their OS so it only uses it.. I mean hack IE so that it uses it as the default page. What's next from Redmond, some lame-ass MP3 player thats not as cool as an iPod, BROWN, doesn't work on Macs, and has a gay name?

ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28330867)

I searched for "ass" on bing, and I found what I was looking for! Great site!

Bing cares about my preferences... (2, Informative)

The Pirou (1551493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28330889)

Of course Google is scared! Bing doesn't require me to change my Image search filters to allow explicit material EVERY time I open a browser and search for 'boobs.'
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?