3 ms·
Not many people Well, yeah. But they could, and that would be nuclear for google. I'm amazed that the people in this thread honestly believe that the HTML ren
by mynameishere 18y ago
Not many people
Well, yeah. But they could, and that would be nuclear for google. I'm amazed that the people in this thread honestly believe that the HTML rendering code is anything but a side-issue at google. Management probably just said to the engs, "Okay, use whatever's best" and that was that.
Almost every dollar google makes comes through IE and Firefox. It's like...if Fedex only had two drivers, one of whom was a UPS shareholder, and the other a revolutionary socialist. I don't know how google could not view this as a strategic problem. Msft could say "to hell with google", set live.com as the default search on IE and give firefox a billion dollars to do the same. R.I.P. google.
- unalone 18y agoNah. Google has a brand going. People will avoid Live Search if it's placed in front of them. Google has a rep as "most relevant" and that's hard to knock back.
- mynameishere 18y agoWord to the wise: live.com is as good, if not better, than google right now. There is a lot of underlying vulnerability, though I agree that google is the dominant brand. It would take a 10 minute experiment for Mr Average to switch.
- unalone 18y agoHuh! You know, I was going to be snotty and disagree, but I just did a search for myself and my book on Live, and the results were FAR more ordered and accurate. Thanks for the tip-off!
- rflrob 18y agoI agree... As anecdotal evidence, there's the fact that "to google" is becoming a more and more common verb, while "to live search" isn't.