5 ms·
I have a bit of a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory as to why Google is copying Bing in several respects recently. From a game-theoretic perspective, it is to Goog
by lmkg 16y ago
I have a bit of a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory as to why Google is copying Bing in several respects recently. From a game-theoretic perspective, it is to Google's advantage for the search industry to be as homogeneous as possible, because they're the incumbent.
As long as there's a difference between the major search engines, there's at least some sort of reason to go with one of the minor engines, for some fraction of people, some fraction of the time. If all the search engines are the same, Google wins because no one has a reason to switch and Google has the advantage of inertia. It is possible that it's better for Google to be identical to Bing rather than superior to Bing, especially depending on how situational or subjective that "superior" happens to be.
While I'm not a huge fan of Google, I don't think they would intentionally have a dick-ish strategy like that. However, I do think that their test-driven nature could push them in this direction anyways even if they don't intend to. Every time they try a feature and people don't like it, they can switch to Bing and Google gets the feedback... unless it's a clone of a Bing feature, in which case people can't really switch. So bad ideas that are clones of Bing features have a statistical advantage.
This is not to say that cloning Bing features is always a bad thing. I actually prefer Bing. I'm just saying that clones of Bing features have a statistical advantage during testing, regardless of how good they are in an absolute sense.
The solution, obviously, is Duck Duck Go. Or, more generally, if the search landscape is less of a duopoly, this phenomenon wouldn't exist as much.
- BenS 16y agoMight be over-analysis. Perhaps google just heard that people like pictures on the bing page, so they tried to push it on google for a day, both to see what happens and increase igoogle. i was surprised how fired up people got.
- edanm 16y agoI tend to think the whole "Google copying Bing" thing is terrible for Google's image. Bing is not a major player in the search field. Why is Google acting like Bing's the one to beat? And if they do insist on copying Bing, at least they can copy the right stuff (brilliant UI elements like much improved image search, with endless scrolling).
- PostOnce 16y agoControlling >10% of a multi-billion-dollar industry doesn't make you a "major player"? What does? The three major players are: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Trailing distantly is Ask; there is little else of note. Microsoft is pushing Bing. It will likely beat Yahoo in terms of market share by year's end.
- to_jon 16y agoYou're right, it is terrible for Google's image. The way you give a competitor credibility is through this kind of obvious imitation. Google is sending a clear message that it believes Bing is worth imitating in numerous ways. What's worse, Google is highlighting Bing's strengths- which is unfortunate, as Google is the superior search engine. Bad move.
- kyro 16y agoNo, the solution isn't that obvious. Even with recent changes, regardless of who's copying who, I still much prefer Google to DDG. The layout makes it easy to traverse more results more quickly, and the typography and colors are a lot more crisp, among other things. All this DDG talk is getting tiring.
- wgj 16y agoIt's not tiring for people who want to analyze where other companies are doing well or poorly. An independent willing to take on the execution challenges of a generalized search engine is truly rare anymore. What others good examples are there to watch besides DDG?
- kyro 16y agoOne-liners claiming that DDG is the clear alternative and solution are hardly analysis.
- wgj 16y agoI have a lot of respect for Gabriel. If I'm able to say that in one line, then so be it. Edit: lmkg's comment didn't say everyone should use DDG for all search needs. It pointed out the value of independent alternatives. One liner or not, it's valid and relevant. DDG is valuable to the discussion because it specifically attempts to innovate rather than copycat the status quo.
- nostrademons 16y agoI have a lot of respect for Gabriel too, but that's different from saying that DDG is the answer to all your search needs.
- lmkg 16y agoWgj is correct, and I meant the DDG comment to be tongue-in-cheek. I think that became less clear because I segued into a serious point, sorry for the confusion. My point was only that a third search engine means that Google homogenizing the search industry isn't a good strategy anymore. DDG does that merely be existing, outside of anything else it does to differentiate itself (or rather, it would if it had more market share).
- moolave 16y ago*coughmonopolycough? Or just plainly increasing their market share.
- chintan 16y agoI was thinking about it from Game-theoretic perspective. This is too early move, given Bing has less than 15% share. Bing is giving comparable search results in terms of quality - although I found their UI glossy and cluttered. Now Google is trying to minimize the differences between the two search engines in terms of UI/navigation. So I now have a lower-barrier to switch. Clearly this move has back-fired and probably Bing should clean up their UI to grab people in-between like me. The day Search Engine becomes a commodity, this market is over.