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

[Deacon Frost]

Bing is dead.

It's rise to number 2 was a one day only deal.

Not only did it quickly fall back to number 3, it fell to search levels below Live.

Fantastic news!

Thanks for the updated info. :D

[C_Guy]

Google has their work cut out for them now. They might want to start by actually applying their motto instead of making a mockery out of it. Just a thought.

[shakey_snake]

^lol perhaps you need to look at the actual chart first.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-w...090508-20090606

[Kirkburn]

Fantastic news!

Thanks for the updated info. :D

What? That's some surprisingly close-minded thinking.

[Deacon Frost]

What? That's some surprisingly close-minded thinking.

It would have been several years ago :p.

Now it's logical to conclude that! :)

[Kirkburn]

It would have been several years ago :p.

Now it's logical to conclude that! :)

It depresses me that you have that signature, yet act like this. You're supposed to be open-minded and clear thinking. You're not displaying it.

Google is the search monopoly, not Microsoft. Just because you have an overwhelming share in one market doesn't mean you can't compete in another.

Remember this is about being in second position, and still below the 10% mark, not first.

[Deacon Frost]

It depresses me that you have that signature, yet act like this. You're supposed to be open-minded and clear thinking. You're not displaying it.

Google is the search monopoly, not Microsoft. Just because you have an overwhelming share in one market doesn't mean you can't compete in another.

Remember this is about being in second position, and still below the 10% mark, not first.

I am very open-minded :p. Microsoft, however, has displayed that anything they get control of, they use against people. You can see it in every new project they release. So to support Bing's success is as horrible as supporting communism.

Let's not just leave this with an insult to MS supporters tho :p.

Here's my points:

PC -

Pros:

Microsoft's personal computer is very nifty for the average computer user. Grandma, in her 80's, can keep in touch with her grand kids via the interweb. It can bring people together, and makes accessibility very easy. The customizable aspects, and the cheap costs of it make it the most effective in its market.

Cons:

1. Almost every average person who uses a PC has no concept of how they work, how to control their data, how to read and understand complex mathematical problems, or even how to make sure they didn't just download a virus by opening an email from a person who claims you won the lottery. The average PC user is an idiot, because they do not have the knowledge needed to maintain what they live off of. The PC gave you simple buttons, and an easy to use interface so you could do what you needed to do, but it kept you stupid.

2. Microsoft made a hit off of its release to everyday people, so they had enough money to make a monopolized industry. Software became dependent on their hardware, and more and more people were forced to use PC's.

Count-Con (Pro):

Microsoft created a large database full of helpful hints and tips. These assisted users in maintaining their computer simply by searching their problem. They also created live support, forums, and much more as the years progressed. This allowed users to run computers without knowing everything about them.

Count-Con (pro) - Con:

Users are controlled by Microsoft through dependency. Without the help of educated professionals, people would not be able to operate their machine, install new software, or anything like that. They would be in the dark about where to go.

Why are the cons bad?

If the average PC user does not understand certain key fundamentals, then they are a hazard to everyone else. They promote the use of CWS (computers while stupid), which causes the mass transfer of viruses, the huge influx of spam, the incredibly annoying customization of hardware for unnecessary reasons, and so much more.

Operating Systems -

Pros:

The windows operating systems allow users to run a neat interface to which they can easily navigate around.

Cons:

CWS. Need I say more? The operating systems by Microsoft are not only redundant and expensive, but serve absolutely no purpose except to keep the average PC user stupid enough that they give them more money. Hey, it's just business? Lets promote a business that is doing just that, and not actually trying to make the electronic world better :). /Sarcasm.

Windows Search -

Pros:

It's all stolen from Google, so you know it works. They can't come up with anything better, so they just take various concepts from different sites, and use their insane amount of money to market it.

Cons:

You all accept them, and praise their thievery and stupidity. Yet you act like hypocrites when someone uses their software without their approval.

FINALLY

Internet Explorer -

Pros:

Great for stupid people.

Cons:

Doesn't adhere to standards. Creates unnecessary software just so they can control its users. Horrible for web developers. ****ty ass interface. 6+ years behind the rest of the market. STILL NOT THEIR OWN CREATION. 90% of it is taken from other browsers and it is then marked up, and resold. >.>.

Uh, that was a bit of a rant. But you get my point :). I'm not close minded. I've come to a rational conclusion that if anything bad happens to Microsoft, it will be doing the world a favor. Bing failing is a good thing. It means people are starting to realize how horrible of a company this is.

Just a note:

Even though Google is owning the search engine ratings, they're still promoting a lot of good. They help people learn from the use of their software. They teach people how to do things so they're not stuck depending on Google for help.

It's an old saying... Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for a lifetime.

[Kirkburn]

I am very open-minded :p. Microsoft, however, has displayed that anything they get control of, they use against people. You can see it in every new project they release. So to support Bing's success is as horrible as supporting communism.

...blah...

That is one huge misguided and ignorant rant there. There's just too much to refute.

People of lesser intelligence can use PCs? This is one of your "cons"? I would have thought it was a pro.

IE not Microsoft's own development? Do you also complain when people move company, and say they're still working for the old company or something...

Windows is redundant and expensive? It "serves no purpose"? Do you really believe this?

"Software became dependent on their hardware". Microsoft have always been primarily software developers, not hardware developers. You're thinking of Apple.

Google doing "more good" in the world than Microsoft? Have you seen MS's R&D budget? What's your reasoning behind this?

Windows Search "stolen" from Google? What proof do you have of this assertion?

It certainly isn't a "rational" decision that anything bad that happens to MS is good. People, humans work for MS, in many many different endeavours. They aren't evil robots as you seem to believe.

While I don't like bringing this up ... why does your avatar, an iPod style logo with the text "iFrost", not surprise me. For someone who wants to give the impression of thinking outside the box, that's not a good way to go about it.

[zeke009]

If no one used Live Search, why would they just suddenly start using Bing? Bit fishy if you ask me. Just novelty probably, will soon wear off.

More wide spread advertising for one. People probably only knew of Google, with the ad blitz MS has started to run the masses are learning of another option.

I personally like it, I often search one thing in Bing and then hit Google and I get nearly identical results. For me, I do like the layout of presentation of Bing's results more so than Google.

[drhowarddrfine]

More wide spread advertising for one. People probably only knew of Google, with the ad blitz MS has started to run the masses are learning of another option.

So far this has failed as search on Bing has dropped below that of Live, as shown in the post above.

"Software became dependent on their hardware". Microsoft have always been primarily software developers, not hardware developers. You're thinking of Apple.

Microsoft writes up their own hardware specs and publishes them. This is how computers get that little Windows sticker on them. Usually software is written to follow hardware, not the other way around.

Google doing "more good" in the world than Microsoft? Have you seen MS's R&D budget? What's your reasoning behind this?

One look at Google Labs will show more things available for general use than anything you can think of coming out of Microsoft. Microsoft R&D has little to show for it that anyone here could think of.

[Calum Veteran]

One look at Google Labs will show more things available for general use than anything you can think of coming out of Microsoft. Microsoft R&D has little to show for it that anyone here could think of.

I take it you're joking? Have you even used Bing?

Here are some of the more advanced things which Google have not come close to competing with -

Website previews where you can hover over each search result and see part of the website, before you click. This saves time and effort as you don't end up clicking through to any unhelpful links first - something which happens in Google a fair bit, at least for me and others I know.

PowerSet technology which brings medical articles, Wikipedia articles and other things right into the actual search results, so you don't have to click out to another site to read all of the information.

The dynamic sidebar which changes to relate to the query you have entered (e.g. if you type "Brandon Flowers", you will get links to results specifically related to "Merchandise", "Posters", "Interviews" etc; if you search for a city, you may get links to results related to "Tourism", "Attractions", "Weather", etc.

Those are just a couple and as long as you are using the 'United States (English)' market, I suggest you try it all out before you judge.

Also, about that article that was posted - this month isn't over yet.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Calum

[Kirkburn]

Microsoft writes up their own hardware specs and publishes them. This is how computers get that little Windows sticker on them. Usually software is written to follow hardware, not the other way around.

They most certainly do not tell other people exactly how to make their hardware. (Have you not noticed the variety in peripherals available to you or something?) They'll deal with the API hooks, but not functionality - that's the point of drivers. They're what let the hardware work with the PC.

Admittedly I am not a developer, but the sticker is to say "this hardware works with Windows", not "MS has designed this hardware".

One look at Google Labs will show more things available for general use than anything you can think of coming out of Microsoft. Microsoft R&D has little to show for it that anyone here could think of.

99% of the Google stuff is based on the internet. Microsoft stuff has no such restriction. Google Labs is generally lots of little projects which are design to be immediately used. That's not R&D. I'm sure it's not even Google's main R&D efforts.

Some examples that are well known:

ClearType

Surface

WorldWide Telescope

and all sorts of other stuff that gets incorporated into other projects, like image stitching.

Are you suggesting Google Labs covers all of the areas on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Res...#Research_areas ?

Edited June 8, 2009 by Kirkburn

[drhowarddrfine]

I take it you're joking? Have you even used Bing?

That hasbeen of a search engine? Hah! Bing is dead.

Also, about that article that was posted - this month isn't over yet.

Yes, and Bing is starting at the bottom and going down.

[drhowarddrfine]

They most certainly do not tell other people exactly how to make their hardware. (Have you not noticed the variety in peripherals available to you or something?) They'll deal with the API hooks, but not functionality - that's the point of drivers. They're what let the hardware work with the PC.

Windows Hardware Developer's Group

99% of the Google stuff is based on the internet. Microsoft stuff has no such restriction. Google Labs is generally lots of little projects which are design to be immediately used. That's not R&D. I'm sure it's not even Google's main R&D efforts.

You think how Google works with the internet doesn't involve R&D? You think RDFa, Microformats, HTML5 interacting with Chrome, Android, Docs, GMail, AdSense, Google411, GoogleMaps, and on and on is just "web stuff"?

Some examples that are well known:

ClearType

Surface

WorldWide Telescope

and all sorts of other stuff that gets incorporated into other projects, like image stitching.

That's pretty pitiful. Here's my list. But for all the research you show Microsoft investing in, I ask again, what has come of it? Surface? ClearType? Is that all you got?

[Kirkburn]

Windows Hardware Developer's Group

What exactly is your point?

You think how Google works with the internet doesn't involve R&D? You think RDFa, Microformats, HTML5 interacting with Chrome, Android, Docs, GMail, AdSense, Google411, GoogleMaps, and on and on is just "web stuff"?

That's pretty pitiful. Here's my list. But for all the research you show Microsoft investing in, I ask again, what has come of it? Surface? ClearType? Is that all you got?

Did I say it doesn't involve R&D? No. But you seem to be misunderstanding the term. Google's products are not all "R&D". They're useful, but I don't think you want to go down the road of comparing who produces the greatest number of "products". You won't like the answer.

R&D does not require an end product, it's about creating and researching ideas, some of which may be turned into products. Some research just get published in journals.

So, I guess you didn't bother following my link. Ho hum.

[drhowarddrfine]

What exactly is your point?

You said Microsoft doesn't mess with the hardware.

Did I say it doesn't involve R&D? No.

You said:

Google Labs is generally lots of little projects which are design to be immediately used. That's not R&D.

But you seem to be misunderstanding the term. Google's products are not all "R&D". They're useful, but I don't think you want to go down the road of comparing who produces the greatest number of "products". You won't like the answer.

Apparently you have forgotten there is the "development" part of "research" in R&D.

R&D does not require an end product, it's about creating and researching ideas, some of which may be turned into products. Some research just get published in journals.

But you were the one that claimed Microsoft turned out more products due to their larger research budget and number of research activities. If that were true, where are the results? Microsoft has failed at search and failed at making a modern browser and failed on the internet at large.

[Kirkburn]

You said Microsoft doesn't mess with the hardware.

I did not. But it is not their job to design hardware to work with PCs. MS provide the hooks, the hardware manufacturer's use them to what they want. They have a lot of freedom to try new things.

Apparently you have forgotten there is the "development" part of "research" in R&D.

And did I suggest that the number of products reflects R&D investment? No. In fact, I'd specifically advise against it.

But you were the one that claimed Microsoft turned out more products due to their larger research budget and number of research activities. If that were true, where are the results? Microsoft has failed at search and failed at making a modern browser and failed on the internet at large.

Again, I did not. This all came from the comment about which company was doing "more good" - I feel the R&D budget of a company corresponds fairly well with how much "good" they're doing in expanding the improving the state of human knowledge and abilities. Not who made the most products.

[Growled Member]

So far this has failed as search on Bing has dropped below that of Live, as shown in the post above.

It doesn't matter now. People think Bing is a hit because a few websites said it was, and now it will be. It takes on a life on it's own after a while. Very few people in this thread comments on that post because they just don't want to believe that.

It's just like the "Vista is terrible" comments. People still believe that. It doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore.

[Calum Veteran]

Bing is dead.

It's rise to number 2 was a one day only deal.

Not only did it quickly fall back to number 3, it fell to search levels below Live.

drhowarddrfine, you couldn't be more wrong :) Please read this article - We're not in Omaha any more: Microsoft's Bing share on the rise

Bing is far from dead ;)

[drhowarddrfine]

drhowarddrfine, you couldn't be more wrong :)

Nothing I said was wrong.

Bing is far from dead ;)

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.)

[soonerproud]

How do you figure? Allowing a company to branch out, and take control of even more scenarios is what makes them a monopoly. I said Microsoft was a monopoly in a joking manner, if you didn't catch that. For one, it's not a monopoly yet (because linux, and apple still exist), but to give them more things which they can use to hold against users is just a horrible idea.

The whole thing is, when Microsoft gets control of something, they not only control it, they use it against people to siphon more money out of their pockets. Giving them better results for a new project they launched will only give them more control in something they don't need control over.

Google has done well for the internet, even if they do have less than noble reasons. They don't make it required to have them on your computer, nor do they force you to use their technology for what other people release.

So, giving them more stuff for use = bad.

Now how in the world do you figure that Bing is going to forced upon you? Microsoft has enough trouble with antitrust law around the world to be caught doing something like that.

Microsoft is legally defined a monopoly in the US and other parts of the world because it does control around 90% of the market in operating systems and over 75% of the market in word processing software. A company doesn't have to have $100 of the market to be a monopoly, they just have to control the market with a subvtantially larger share than the next nearest competitor (Apple in this case.)

Google is doing every thing you accuse Microsoft of trying to do with our internet data and searches. 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.

[dwhall]

lol @ forced to send data to google... wtf??

[soonerproud]

lol @ forced to send data to google... wtf??

If you have third party cookies enabled, you are forced to send data to Google. Instead of making snide remarks, it might actually behoove you to research all the ways Google collects info on you without your knowlege or permission.

[dwhall]

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

[TheLaughingMan]

lol, just tried out bing today I must say i love it. Love the way you can preview videos ( will play with it more later)