4 ms·

I would prefer a strong Microsoft that keeps improving Bing and its web/mobile advertisement branch, which can counter-balance GOOG on web/mobile sphere. A GOOG

I would prefer a strong Microsoft that keeps improving Bing and its web/mobile advertisement branch, which can counter-balance GOOG on web/mobile sphere. A GOOG with almost infinite cash flow from Ads would be as bad as MSFT in 90s. It's already the case that nowadays GOOG has become increasingly more arrogant.

mathattack 13y ago
I think Bing is a lost battle. The real question is what can they do on Azure, and can they move people to a cloud-based Office suite. On arrogance - this comes with size. The larger a company gets, the more internal stakeholders they have. What was once a simple, "Of course we'll change that" turns into "Who else is impacted to this change?" to "Let's only change what we need to, and not get distracted by everything else." My inclination is the more competitors, the better. But we don't necessarily need more standards. Creating another service provider for cloud based computing is great. Creating another browser that everyone needs to optimize their websites for separately - not so great.
- cygwin98 13y ago
  I think Bing is a lost battle. The real question is what can they do on Azure, and can they move people to a cloud-based Office suite. Bing is actually doing surprisingly well, considering the team competes with probably the most successful department and the foundation of GOOG. IMHO it's likely one of very few successful strategic moves of MSFT in competitive markets. Without Bing, GOOG would pretty much print money and pour money on whatever futuristic projects they feel like. Oh, well, they're already doing these stunts, it would only get worse without Bing. Azure and Office-in-the-cloud alone cannot compete with freebies backed by big pockets. Creating another browser that everyone needs to optimize their websites for separately - not so great. I agree on the pains caused by browser fragmentation, but I do think it's still a good thing to have IE especially the new versions around. The recent move of GOOG pushing for Dart is a dangerous sign that GOOG is starting to flex its muscle and do whatever they want. Mozilla alone stands no chance in such a challenge, in a same sense they couldn't in a battle against MSFT about 2 decades ago.
  - skalkin 13y ago
    "Without Bing, GOOG would pretty much print money and pour money on whatever futuristic projects they feel like. " You say it like Google's futuristic projects are bad things; if anything, we need more of them!
    - tcheard 13y ago
      Exactly, I don't see a downside in Google pouring money at futuristic projects. This is a good thing, their research and development only helps the computing industry. I guess people are just stuck in the mindframe that everything Google does is bad. Sure they seem to do some sketchy stuff sometimes with personal information, but that doesn't mean everything they do is a bad thing.
    - gress 13y ago
      They are bad things if they empower an ever more powerful monopoly.
      - bduerst 13y ago
        Nitpick: Not all monopolies are bad (utilities, transportation, etc.) The term you're thinking of is conglomerate, because Google has at least one competitor in every one of it's markets, which isn't a monopoly.
        gress 13y ago
        Nitpick: legally a monopoly doesn't require zero competitors.
        bduerst 13y ago
        > Legally Only when getting fined for antitrust or monopolistic behavior, which doesn't mean it is a monopoly - only that a regulating body is trying to prevent it from eventually becoming one. Definitively, mono-poly means one entity in the market.
- encoderer 13y ago
  Bing has 1/3 of search volume if you include Yahoo, which it serves. Hardly lost.
  - umeshunni 13y ago
    In the US. In desktop. Globally, and once you count mobile, it's negligible. After 9 years on the market, including multiple rebrandings, it's a lost cause.
    - encoderer 13y ago
      Bing was more than just a "rebranding" of Live search. And another thing, it shook Google from complacency. Do you remember the spate of improvements that came on the heels of Bing, some copied directly from Bing like infinite scroll on the image search? We are all better off with a Bing than without. I can comprehend literally zero harm caused by Bing. It's not like you can make a "but IE hurts developers" argument here. Moreover, if 1/3 of desktop US traffic is of nominal value in your opinion, I think possibly you're jaded.
      - zequel 13y ago
        Yep, google was complacent until Bing showed up. Then google released instant results, improved its images and video results. Bing had a better version of initially). Competition is good.
  - mooreds 13y ago
    Here's some numbers--Google has > 85% worldwide market share as of Oct 2013: http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-s...
    - encoderer 13y ago
      And Bing has 33% of domestic share.
  - 13y ago

mathattack 13y ago

I think Bing is a lost battle. The real question is what can they do on Azure, and can they move people to a cloud-based Office suite. On arrogance - this comes with size. The larger a company gets, the more internal stakeholders they have. What was once a simple, "Of course we'll change that" turns into "Who else is impacted to this change?" to "Let's only change what we need to, and not get distracted by everything else." My inclination is the more competitors, the better. But we don't necessarily need more standards. Creating another service provider for cloud based computing is great. Creating another browser that everyone needs to optimize their websites for separately - not so great.

cygwin98 13y ago
I think Bing is a lost battle. The real question is what can they do on Azure, and can they move people to a cloud-based Office suite. Bing is actually doing surprisingly well, considering the team competes with probably the most successful department and the foundation of GOOG. IMHO it's likely one of very few successful strategic moves of MSFT in competitive markets. Without Bing, GOOG would pretty much print money and pour money on whatever futuristic projects they feel like. Oh, well, they're already doing these stunts, it would only get worse without Bing. Azure and Office-in-the-cloud alone cannot compete with freebies backed by big pockets. Creating another browser that everyone needs to optimize their websites for separately - not so great. I agree on the pains caused by browser fragmentation, but I do think it's still a good thing to have IE especially the new versions around. The recent move of GOOG pushing for Dart is a dangerous sign that GOOG is starting to flex its muscle and do whatever they want. Mozilla alone stands no chance in such a challenge, in a same sense they couldn't in a battle against MSFT about 2 decades ago.
- skalkin 13y ago
  "Without Bing, GOOG would pretty much print money and pour money on whatever futuristic projects they feel like. " You say it like Google's futuristic projects are bad things; if anything, we need more of them!
  - tcheard 13y ago
    Exactly, I don't see a downside in Google pouring money at futuristic projects. This is a good thing, their research and development only helps the computing industry. I guess people are just stuck in the mindframe that everything Google does is bad. Sure they seem to do some sketchy stuff sometimes with personal information, but that doesn't mean everything they do is a bad thing.
  - gress 13y ago
    They are bad things if they empower an ever more powerful monopoly.
    - bduerst 13y ago
      Nitpick: Not all monopolies are bad (utilities, transportation, etc.) The term you're thinking of is conglomerate, because Google has at least one competitor in every one of it's markets, which isn't a monopoly.
      - gress 13y ago
        Nitpick: legally a monopoly doesn't require zero competitors.
        bduerst 13y ago
        > Legally Only when getting fined for antitrust or monopolistic behavior, which doesn't mean it is a monopoly - only that a regulating body is trying to prevent it from eventually becoming one. Definitively, mono-poly means one entity in the market.
encoderer 13y ago
Bing has 1/3 of search volume if you include Yahoo, which it serves. Hardly lost.
- umeshunni 13y ago
  In the US. In desktop. Globally, and once you count mobile, it's negligible. After 9 years on the market, including multiple rebrandings, it's a lost cause.
  - encoderer 13y ago
    Bing was more than just a "rebranding" of Live search. And another thing, it shook Google from complacency. Do you remember the spate of improvements that came on the heels of Bing, some copied directly from Bing like infinite scroll on the image search? We are all better off with a Bing than without. I can comprehend literally zero harm caused by Bing. It's not like you can make a "but IE hurts developers" argument here. Moreover, if 1/3 of desktop US traffic is of nominal value in your opinion, I think possibly you're jaded.
    - zequel 13y ago
      Yep, google was complacent until Bing showed up. Then google released instant results, improved its images and video results. Bing had a better version of initially). Competition is good.
- mooreds 13y ago
  Here's some numbers--Google has > 85% worldwide market share as of Oct 2013: http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-s...
  - encoderer 13y ago
    And Bing has 33% of domestic share.
- 13y ago