3 ms·

Keep in mind how severely the quality of Google search results or e.g. any consumer facing piece of Microsoft software (Windows, Office, OneDrive, etc.) have de

by Topfi 11mo ago

Keep in mind how severely the quality of Google search results or e.g. any consumer facing piece of Microsoft software (Windows, Office, OneDrive, etc.) have deteriorated to the point it has far transcended the more nerdy corners of the web, yet both continue to retain a strict grip, thanks to buy in/brand strength.

ForHackernews 11mo ago
There's no viable alternative for either of those yet. Massive network effects around Microsoft office, and Google's only real competition is the equally-bad Bing.
- Topfi 11mo ago
  Both DuckDuckGo and Kagi are, purely focused on result quality in 2025 far better than Google currently, but that does not matter if one has no need beyond the most basic results. And much of the MS Office suite is actually a worse copy of another product, merely copied and forced via network effect. There are more than enough far better alternatives to e.g. Teams and OneDrive. The latter even makes Excel far less reliable to the point of unusability. Not to mention Windows is easily replaced for the truly average person who spends their entire computer use inside a Chromium browser nowadays. Outside PC Gaming (which is far from the average if we are honest), the vast majority of people never touch software that isn’t already on mobile or more likely exclusively in the browser. Familiarity and brand strength, not need or compatibility, keep the customer facing offerings of MSFT going. That isn’t inherently unreasonable either, for these people Windows is fine as Chrome works well enough on it and they do not have any needs beyond that, so why switch. Same with search, Google still finds flights, restaurants, Wikipedia, etc. Being better is worth little if the vast majority are sufficiently well catered to by the incumbent. Even if another OS or search may improve their experience somewhat (better reliability, longer battery life, etc.) that doesn’t trounce the established player as long as the few basics aren’t utterly broken even to them. You can actively antagonize your users, be worse than the competition, more expensive too, you only loose most if you make the few things most have purely become reliant on and are expecting worse, basically regress. Reason all the bugs in Windows are fine, after all the memories of most people are dominated by BSODs and just not crashing daily is enough to be considered pretty good, despite the overall experience far worse than most other OS/DE combis.
  - ForHackernews 11mo ago
    DDG uses Bing's index. Kagi costs money. But you knew that already.
    - Topfi 11mo ago
      Kagi gives you free searches and you pay for Google with you data/advertisements so it costs something too, but you knew that already. And both provide more reliable results, so what are you trying to say?
  - boredtofears 11mo ago
    > Both DuckDuckGo and Kagi are, purely focused on result quality in 2025 far better than Google currently I wish this was true
    - Topfi 11mo ago
      You don't have to take my word for it. Open the three next to each other, type in a search query. Only one will provide part of the results as a wildly inaccurate "overview" that somehow manages to link to sources telling you the opposite or contradicts itself inside the text box, which can also not be deactivated. Those are the results you get from Google and that alone makes quality worse, pure and simple. More subjectively, but if you want to ignore the "AI overview" and consider that not results (then why are they on my results page?!), just look for a specific, slightly older video on Youtube, a site Alphabet themselves run. You can provide the exact title down to the letter and are in many instances going to struggle to find it with Youtube search or Googles Video Search, even when wrapping in ", etc. Kagi and DDGs video search tabs meanwhile yield the desired results. Again, this doesn't mean they are amazing or massively far ahead as Google was able to reliably provide such results in the past. It just means that Google Search has regressed, yet users stuck with it because, as I've been saying, quality (or lack thereof) has a hard time overcoming brand strength.
      - boredtofears 11mo ago
        I had DDG set as my default for years and found myself resorting back to google so often I had to finally admit to myself their results were inferior even to the diminished google result. I just didn’t seem to get the result you’re claiming on the everyday type of queries I make.
tarsinge 11mo ago
I have been using DDG for years and even with Google quality having plunged it is neither better nor less expensive (nor the default when non technical users just type in the search bar of their browser). Yahoo has shown that even with immense brand recognition people will still switch if the alternative is really better. And if Google was 2x more expensive than DDG they’d switch too. Regarding Microsoft it’s not as easy to switch as going on another website, OpenAI doesn’t have that ecosystem lock in.
- Topfi 11mo ago
  > Yahoo has shown that even with immense brand recognition people will still switch if the alternative is really better. But it didn’t, Google users beyond a few initial super users who switched early on in the late nineties/early two thousands, track directly with the massive growth in new active web users. These new first time web users, far more than switching made up the growth between 2002-2006 that made Google dominant over Yahoo. It also should be kept in mind how much better Google was over Yahoo, whereas I am doubtful LLMs will have such deviations in quality, looks more like the opposite. Point remains, OpenAI will, in my opinion, retain the strongest consumer share of LLMs, regardless of output quality, introduction of ads, etc. This is not ecosystem lock in, it is solely branding. What do you think most have in mind when you mention search? What when it comes to online shopping? Now do the same for “AI”. Only one brand comes to mind for most.
array_key_first 11mo ago
It's due exclusively to network effects. People use Google search because they have (or rather, need) a Google account. Also, there are no alternatives really, because search is very difficult. Microsoft has alternatives, but it doesn't matter, because you're artificially restricted from using them. All your friends (MBAs who cut your check) are using Excel, so why don't you just use Excel too?

by Topfi 11mo ago

ForHackernews 11mo ago

There's no viable alternative for either of those yet. Massive network effects around Microsoft office, and Google's only real competition is the equally-bad Bing.

Topfi 11mo ago
Both DuckDuckGo and Kagi are, purely focused on result quality in 2025 far better than Google currently, but that does not matter if one has no need beyond the most basic results. And much of the MS Office suite is actually a worse copy of another product, merely copied and forced via network effect. There are more than enough far better alternatives to e.g. Teams and OneDrive. The latter even makes Excel far less reliable to the point of unusability. Not to mention Windows is easily replaced for the truly average person who spends their entire computer use inside a Chromium browser nowadays. Outside PC Gaming (which is far from the average if we are honest), the vast majority of people never touch software that isn’t already on mobile or more likely exclusively in the browser. Familiarity and brand strength, not need or compatibility, keep the customer facing offerings of MSFT going. That isn’t inherently unreasonable either, for these people Windows is fine as Chrome works well enough on it and they do not have any needs beyond that, so why switch. Same with search, Google still finds flights, restaurants, Wikipedia, etc. Being better is worth little if the vast majority are sufficiently well catered to by the incumbent. Even if another OS or search may improve their experience somewhat (better reliability, longer battery life, etc.) that doesn’t trounce the established player as long as the few basics aren’t utterly broken even to them. You can actively antagonize your users, be worse than the competition, more expensive too, you only loose most if you make the few things most have purely become reliant on and are expecting worse, basically regress. Reason all the bugs in Windows are fine, after all the memories of most people are dominated by BSODs and just not crashing daily is enough to be considered pretty good, despite the overall experience far worse than most other OS/DE combis.
- ForHackernews 11mo ago
  DDG uses Bing's index. Kagi costs money. But you knew that already.
  - Topfi 11mo ago
    Kagi gives you free searches and you pay for Google with you data/advertisements so it costs something too, but you knew that already. And both provide more reliable results, so what are you trying to say?
- boredtofears 11mo ago
  > Both DuckDuckGo and Kagi are, purely focused on result quality in 2025 far better than Google currently I wish this was true
  - Topfi 11mo ago
    You don't have to take my word for it. Open the three next to each other, type in a search query. Only one will provide part of the results as a wildly inaccurate "overview" that somehow manages to link to sources telling you the opposite or contradicts itself inside the text box, which can also not be deactivated. Those are the results you get from Google and that alone makes quality worse, pure and simple. More subjectively, but if you want to ignore the "AI overview" and consider that not results (then why are they on my results page?!), just look for a specific, slightly older video on Youtube, a site Alphabet themselves run. You can provide the exact title down to the letter and are in many instances going to struggle to find it with Youtube search or Googles Video Search, even when wrapping in ", etc. Kagi and DDGs video search tabs meanwhile yield the desired results. Again, this doesn't mean they are amazing or massively far ahead as Google was able to reliably provide such results in the past. It just means that Google Search has regressed, yet users stuck with it because, as I've been saying, quality (or lack thereof) has a hard time overcoming brand strength.
    - boredtofears 11mo ago
      I had DDG set as my default for years and found myself resorting back to google so often I had to finally admit to myself their results were inferior even to the diminished google result. I just didn’t seem to get the result you’re claiming on the everyday type of queries I make.

tarsinge 11mo ago

I have been using DDG for years and even with Google quality having plunged it is neither better nor less expensive (nor the default when non technical users just type in the search bar of their browser). Yahoo has shown that even with immense brand recognition people will still switch if the alternative is really better. And if Google was 2x more expensive than DDG they’d switch too. Regarding Microsoft it’s not as easy to switch as going on another website, OpenAI doesn’t have that ecosystem lock in.

Topfi 11mo ago
> Yahoo has shown that even with immense brand recognition people will still switch if the alternative is really better. But it didn’t, Google users beyond a few initial super users who switched early on in the late nineties/early two thousands, track directly with the massive growth in new active web users. These new first time web users, far more than switching made up the growth between 2002-2006 that made Google dominant over Yahoo. It also should be kept in mind how much better Google was over Yahoo, whereas I am doubtful LLMs will have such deviations in quality, looks more like the opposite. Point remains, OpenAI will, in my opinion, retain the strongest consumer share of LLMs, regardless of output quality, introduction of ads, etc. This is not ecosystem lock in, it is solely branding. What do you think most have in mind when you mention search? What when it comes to online shopping? Now do the same for “AI”. Only one brand comes to mind for most.

array_key_first 11mo ago

It's due exclusively to network effects. People use Google search because they have (or rather, need) a Google account. Also, there are no alternatives really, because search is very difficult. Microsoft has alternatives, but it doesn't matter, because you're artificially restricted from using them. All your friends (MBAs who cut your check) are using Excel, so why don't you just use Excel too?