Bing Is No. 2 in Search, Yahoo Down, Google Next


Recommended Posts

Key word here is *Forced* Please look up that definition before responding to my lol @ being forced to comment :D

Being done without your permission is the very definition of forced. So yes in essence you are FORCED in sending your data to Google. So go ahead and please look up the definition yourself, hot shot.

Nothing I said was wrong.

No one used Live for search and Bing, today, is only slightly higher than nothing. And that's with an $80 million dollar ad campaign supporting it right now. Once the campaign goes away, so will Bing. Technology of other companies will surpass it just as it has passed Microsoft overall. (In case anyone missed it, 3 years ago I said Microsoft doesn't matter anymore.)

Some people used Live Search, just not very many. The reason why not many people used Live Search is because it just wasn't that good - simple as. Much of the functionality was the same as Bing but Bing has also added a whole wealth of technology and functionality on top of that, as well as enhancing it's relevancy and interface. Live Search had an awful homepage; whilst less minimal than Google, I actually think Google's didn't look as ugly. Now, Bing looks beautiful and functions very well, so it won't fail.

It may not beat Google, but it won't fail as a search engine because it just works and works well. Hopefully it will beat Yahoo! in time and then be on it's way to beating Google, but it takes time. It takes time to beat a competitor in anything - these things don't just happen overnight like it seems you expect. If you read the article I linked to, it states that Bing's market share is slowly rising :) Hopefully it's not just because of the market share; hopefully it's because people are trying it out and enjoying using it, but time will tell.

Not only does it take time to beat the competition but it also takes time for users to adjust and change their searching habits. Search engines are one of the most used web services by individuals, so it will take time to adjust. I still typed in 'google.com' for a good few days after I switched to Bing and had to keep changing the URL to 'bing.com' each time - I did that automatically because I was used to Google. Now, though, I go straight to Bing as I am used to the transition.

I stress again, Bing is far from dead :)

Being done without your permission is the very definition of forced. So yes in essence you are FORCED in sending your data to Google. So go ahead and please look up the definition yourself, hot shot.

I have to disagree. Being done without your permission is deceitful, but not forced. Forced would be if they made you use their search engine and didn't let you use another search engine, taking your details at the same time. You are not forced, because you can stop them from taking your details by using another search engine :)

Bing is far from dead ;)

I should hope so, after the billions MS has lost on MSN-Live-Bing.com. With that much funding behind it, it would be an epic disaster if they couldn't get it past 10% marketshare.

Now I wonder how long it will be before Google and Yahoo add the same pr0n video preview feature that has been driving the interest in Bing so far? I'm not knocking the feature at all, I just don't think it is a substitute for Google's more comprehensive search results.

I've used Google forever and now find myself using bing more and more. I tried to use Live Search before but it seemed to irritate me, why bing doesn't? idk. Does the name sound stupid and child-like? yes. Am I going to keep using it? hell yeah.

The live video is so full of win.

it does control around 90% of the market in operating systems
That's desktop operating systems and not operating systems overall. In that market I would guess it's less than 25%.
and over 75% of the market in word processing software.
I'm doubting that number, too, but you may be right.
With Google litterally every where you turn on the web, you are forced to submit data to Google. Many sites use Google to power their search engine on their own web page, so you are forced to use Google almost daily.
But a monopoly must not only control a market but also prevent or limit entry by competitors into that market. Also, submitting a search query is not what I would call forced submission of data. That's how these tools work and can't in any other way.
Being done without your permission is the very definition of forced. So yes in essence you are FORCED in sending your data to Google. So go ahead and please look up the definition yourself, hot shot.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forced

I should hope so, after the billions MS has lost on MSN-Live-Bing.com. With that much funding behind it, it would be an epic disaster if they couldn't get it past 10% marketshare.

Time will tell, but, for me, it is the best search engine out there and more advanced over Google with the PowerSet technology behind it and the beautiful interface, so if it doesn't get over 10% market share then it means users haven't given it a fair chance. It would be the only explanation. As with operating systems, there is an immense bias amongst some users, when it comes to search engines - even if they will like another search engine and find it more useful than their current one, they won't try the new one out and give it a fair chance. They may play with it, but they won't consider the benefits with an open mind. The same is the case for some people who state that they exclusively love Windows and Mac OS X is a rubbish operating system.

Some of these may have given the other a chance and decided it wasn't for them; others are just being completely biased.

Now I wonder how long it will be before Google and Yahoo add the same pr0n video preview feature that has been driving the interest in Bing so far? I'm not knocking the feature at all, I just don't think it is a substitute for Google's more comprehensive search results.

I agree that the video preview feature, whilst nice, is not a substitute for comprehensive search results; however, it is a very nice feature to go hand-in hand with the more comprehensive search results which Bing has over Google :)

One thing I can't live without is Google's embedded calculators and dictionaries in the search engine

Sometimes I need to do silly things, like convert metric to imperial units or whatnot, so I don't need to find a website to do the conversions.

I have to disagree. Being done without your permission is deceitful, but not forced. Forced would be if they made you use their search engine and didn't let you use another search engine, taking your details at the same time. You are not forced, because you can stop them from taking your details by using another search engine :)

You don't have to use Google as your search engine for them to track you. Many sites use Google services to track your movements, even if you don't use any Google products. Google also owns Doubleclick and other advertising services and it builds a huge data base with all the info collected by these different services. Their tentacles are in almost all places on the web now so you are submitting data back to Google, even with Bing as your search engine.

Now, when did you ever give all these sites permission ot use Google services to track you? I know I don't sign a EULA at each site I visit giving up my privacy. That is why I always suggest blocking third party cookies. It stops most of that type of tracking cold in it's tracks.

And that links backs up what I said is something being done to you (collecting your personal info without your consent) with out your explicit permisson is being FORCED upon you.

enforced or compulsory

Both are true about how sites and Google collects your data. It is both enforced and compulsory, meaning they don't ask your permission and they require it as part of a visit to thier sites.

Time will tell, but, for me, it is the best search engine out there and more advanced over Google with the PowerSet technology behind it and the beautiful interface, so if it doesn't get over 10% market share then it means users haven't given it a fair chance.

Users don't like change. It has to be something really, really, that much better, good before people will change. It doesn't matter if we are talking search engines, OSes, whatever.

One thing I can't live without is Google's embedded calculators and dictionaries in the search engine

Sometimes I need to do silly things, like convert metric to imperial units or whatnot, so I don't need to find a website to do the conversions.

Bing does definitions, calculations and conversions too. Perhaps not everything google offers, but all of the ones I've tried - which don't work?

It's new, just wait and Google will be top dog in the park again.

It still is, by a huge margin. Are you bothering to read the thread?

That's desktop operating systems and not operating systems overall. In that market I would guess it's less than 25%.

Ahahahaha. *wipes eye* .... Seriously? You think Windows has less than a 25% share overall? What the heck are all these other PCs running?

Please tell me you're not suggesting including electronic devices like DVD drives, aeroplane systems?

i haven't stopped using bing since it's release, i love it. the search results are leaving google in it's dust!

the name (bing) rocks! what is a 'google' anyhow? isn't that the sound someone makes when your chocking them? "google google ahkk"

lol!

Wow, I never used Live Search because I found it slow and didn't care for some of the results. But Bing on the other hand is lightning fast (even faster than Google to me it seems) and the results are pretty spot on. Plus, I love the new design as well.

I might just switch to using Bing as my default homepage soon :)

One thing I can't live without is Google's embedded calculators and dictionaries in the search engine

Sometimes I need to do silly things, like convert metric to imperial units or whatnot, so I don't need to find a website to do the conversions.

I think all major search engines do that, nothing special.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!