Bing To Become Default iPhone Search?

snydeq writes "BusinessWeek reports ongoing talks between Apple and Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone. The discussions reflect an accelerating rivalry between Apple and Google, one that some believe will be the most important rivalry in tech in the years to come. 'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says one person familiar with Apple's thinking. 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'"

Comments

Big Battle

[sopssa]

Even more than just Apple vs Google fight, this is serious battle between Microsoft and Google. MS has actually made their search engine better than Google (the different categories and combining them together shows this, and it's greatly improved over Live search).

Immediately when Bing was released Google tried to answer back with its sidebar options. But it never really got where Bing is. And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before. It is actually a good product, and actually something MS has left alone from their other marketing efforts (for example, they use flash instead of silverlight, because flash is installed on so many machines, and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine).

I hate microsofts business practices as much as the next guy on slashdot, but Bing is something they're actually done really good. Yesterdays news about Bing deleting user data in 6 months just shows that bitter battle with Google is getting even better and better. Bing keeps gaining market share every month, faster and faster. Google pulls out from China market. Google CEO says privacy doesn't matter. This is something to watch while drinking cola and making some popcorns - two giants fighting to death.

This shows competition is good. It surely leads to innovations.

Re:Big Battle

[kregg]

the thought of using bing makes me cringe

Re:Big Battle

[Totenglocke]

MS has actually made their search engine better than Google

........really? You're the first person I've seen who likes Bing. Anytime I've used it, instead of actual useful links that I get with Google, I mainly get stupid ads for MS products instead.

Re:Big Battle

[contrapunctus]

I know what you mean.
I hate this one person who works for subway (just a nasty personality). The thought of her preparing my food makes me ill.
I once went in and saw that she was working and walked right out.
That's how I feel about bing. (she would be microsoft)

Re:Big Battle

[Darkness404]

MS has actually made their search engine better than Google (the different categories and combining them together shows this, and it's greatly improved over Live search).

Citation needed. Live search was crap, being better than crap doesn't make something great. And I've compared the search results, 80% of the time I prefer Google's results (there was this site that compared Bing/Google/Yahoo and had you pick your favorite and then told you what it was, don't know the URL at the time)

And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before.

And I would imagine that most of that growth is caused by people using the default IE search option which uses Bing.

It is actually a good product,

Again, Citation needed. Is there really anything that Bing does better than Google for the general user?

and actually something MS has left alone from their other marketing efforts (for example, they use flash instead of silverlight, because flash is installed on so many machines, and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine).

Isn't that how -all- Microsoft's products start? First as nice, good projects with open standards, etc. Then they release that one program that breaks the standard and suddenly that becomes the new standard and then close it off to non-MS products.

Google pulls out from China market.

Um, not exactly sure what you meant by this statement, but assuming its anti-Google, I don't really see your point. Basically Google said that they are sick of being the pawns of the Chinese government which is a -good thing-, I really don't think Microsoft would have the guts to say that.

This shows competition is good. It surely leads to innovations.

Competition is good, but corrupt competition is not. Both Microsoft and Google use software patents to discourage competition, both don't care about privacy, and both are willing to be tossed along and won't fight for their user's rights.

Re:Big Battle

[adf92343414]

The only thing cool about Bing is that its name could be a recursive algorithm for Bing Is Not Google. Sure, that's not where the name comes from, but it could have, in some alternate universe.

Sent from my Google Chrome browser running on *cough*Vista*cough*.

Re:Big Battle

[PizzaAnalogyGuy]

But how do you feel about delicious pizza with some mountain dew?

Re:Big Battle

[anglophobe_0]

Are you kidding me? Bing is disgustingly ugly to look at. Google's minimalist design is what keeps me there. The only reason Bing has anything cool to speak of is because it grabs results from wolfram alpha. Besides that, do you really see Google's withdrawal from the Chinese market as a bad thing? If I were trying to run a business in a place where the government is subversive toward US companies (not too far off from California, incidentally), I'd probably leave based on principle as well. Still, I do agree that the poster is dead wrong in casting this as apple v. google. It really is bing v. google; unfortunately, I'm afraid apple is tying themselves to a sinking ship if they go through with this. Wasn't it reported somewhere that bing users are three times as likely as google users to click a paid ad? Says something about why bing's marketshare has grown: it sucks in people who believe ads about bing. That's my theory, anyway.

Re:Big Battle

[obarthelemy]

Flash vs Silverlight: don't worry, as soon as they feel the have enough traction, they'll do just that. I wouldn't know about the rest of you comment, I've yet to try Bing. It's good news if it's both a good and an ethical Search engine.

The one thing that puzzles me: why doesn't Apple go their own way ? On the purely Search part, they have the money, and probably the know-how, to do it. On the linked advertising part, they may pull that off too. Or buy into either of both businesses.

If I were them I would consider buying Yahoo for the search business, and to break into the non-Mac, non-iPhone market. If they're going up against Google, they probably need to match them in the end, which means search, ads, youtube, social site... All of which are fairly open to another large entrant, especially given how pathetic the attempts by MS and old media in those spaces have been ?

Re:Big Battle

[TheLink]

I don't like Bing that much, but it'll be no surprise to me if Bing provides better search results than Google.

This is because lots of SEO spammers are targeting Google. If Bing and Google use different algorithms and they start having similar marketshare that might make it harder for the spammers. Anything that results in less spam in my results is good for me.

Re:Big Battle

[Magic5Ball]

I choose to use Bing with both Chrome and Safari because GIS reminds me that it was designed in the 1990s, whereas Bing's image search has a more functional UI. I also prefer Bing's video search, which naturally extends the idea of the content preview which made Google good in text searches back in the day.

Re:Big Battle

[locketine]

The only flash powered thing I can find on bing is the video player which is a really bad industry practice that needs to stop. They should have used html5 embedded video or silverlight. I would be really surprised if a silverlight player weren't better than any flash player out there due to flash being awerful at utilizing hardware acceleration. They probably made that decision simply because they didn't have to make the player from scratch and wanted excessive content control.

I do like your point about bing making google better but I don't think bing is going to achieve too big of a marketshare if say....IE asked people to choose a default search provider and listed both google and bing. If MS gets apple on board for choosing bing as default search engine then google could get frozen out of a huge chunk of the market without actually making a superior product but rather making a bearable alternative. I don't think I would have switched if MSN search had been comparable to google.

Re:Big Battle

[iVtec]

A 3% marketshare for Bing is hardly anything to get excited about. Bing is seriously terrible compared to Google. Try any other language than english and you're fucked.

Also, Microsoft is terrible at privacy compared to Google. You may be too young to remember Google fighting off a subpoena to hand over user information, while Yahoo and Microsoft caved:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39248192,00.htm
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2006/01/19

Also, where was microsoft when Google was making a stand in China? Yup, nowhere...

Lastly, you mention that microsoft is deleting user data within 6 months as if it's a policy used today. If you read their own announcement, what they're saying is that they'll remove IP addresses from queries after 6 months and remaining cross-session IDs after 18 months. But they plan to implement this policy a year to a year and a half from now!

http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2010/01/19/microsoft-advances-search-privacy-with-bing.aspx

Re:Big Battle

[oztiks]

Google maybe a good search tool but they are not a serious IT brand the Chinese Hacker incident is perfect example of this and why Google cloud services cant be a replacement over Office just yet (maybe one day but not today).

Security, Google dunces out on, Marketing, Google suffers, creating apps that work for business Google still has a long way to go. Sorry if I'm being a bit one eyed on my last point, i purchased Google Docs the other day and was less than impressed.

For me, unless Google employs Darth Vader as CEO and takes on board all these factors then Apple and MS will eat Google for breakfast and it goes without saying that it wont massively affect Google anyway (they wont go broke if this doesn't go through, just lost a stack of money).

Now Apple and MS survive on their iPhone sales and OS sales, if Google is showing that they are trying to take that away from them the battle will get thick. My money is on the fact that Google tries it, gets a bit of head way but inevitably fails, forgets all about it, goes back to buying more unprofitable companies and slapping their adwords into them and the world keeps spinning.

Apple and Microsoft will align in order to make this happen, time passes, other things happen and then Microsoft stabs Apple in the back (Microsoft is good at attacking at moments of weakness) and Apple will partner with Yahoo (or another brand, until they make their own one) and we can all go back to hating Microsoft again.

Re:Big Battle

[Vicegrip]

I fail to see how pulling out of China counts as a boost to competition. Unless you think that Microsoft is rubbing its hands with glee at the opportunity replace Google there and kiss the censors asses in the hope to win market-share over Google. I search extensively all day long for my work and Google is my preference by far. Your reasoning that bing is better than Google is subjective and makes you sound very biased.

Re:Big Battle

[Mystery00]

Bing even has a BETA mark, there's no stopping M$ now!

Re:Big Battle

[seandiggity]

MS has actually made their search engine better than Google (the different categories and combining them together shows this, and it's greatly improved over Live search).

Seriously? I'm not sure how that's even a coherent argument. Regardless, you haven't been paying attention to any of the pay schemes, the funny inaccurate results, the problems with indexing (even when web developers have a sitemap for spiders to look at, they may have to ask in a forum so an MS employee can manually add the pages), the slowness of msnbot sometimes and the aggressiveness of msnbot other times (i.e. DoS attacks that bring down servers), the general disregard for robots.txt, and on and on. I'd provide citations but there are ample examples on the web...just use your search engine of choice ;) Or maybe use Google; it's just a hunch, but I bet Bing is less likely to turn up bad press for Bing...

Re:Big Battle

[DerPflanz]

the thought of using bing makes me cringe

What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe? And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?

On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I would imagine that most of that growth is caused by people using the default IE search option which uses Bing."

What are you talking about? That only makes sense if IE's marketshare were growing. Since it's shrinking, then you'd expect Bing marketshare to shrink if the search box were that impoortant.

"Citation needed"

Do you understand what citations are for? "Citation needed" is a nonsense reply to "it is actually a good product".

"Isn't that how -all- Microsoft's products start? First as nice, good projects with open standards, etc. Then they release that one program that breaks the standard and suddenly that becomes the new standard and then close it off to non-MS products."

See, HERE is where "citation needed" fits. And by "citation needed", I need a cite for all of their products doing this, not a reference to an IBM executive's misquote.

"Um, not exactly sure what you meant by this statement, but assuming its anti-Google, I don't really see your point."

What would it being pro-, anti-, or neutral to Google have to do with your seeing his point?

"Basically Google said that they are sick of being the pawns of the Chinese government which is a -good thing-, "

Debatable, but anyway I don't see YOUR point, since the GP wasn't necessarily talking about the geopolitical ethics of the thing.

"Competition is good, but corrupt competition is not. "

Question: is corrupt competition better or worse, in your opinion, than corrupt hegemony (which is the main alternative presented by the GP here)?

Re:Big Battle

[__aajfby9338]

Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?

Yes. I hate everything about their software products. I will not use them unless I have no viable alternative, and I will go out of my way to use not-quite-viable alternatives instead if I have to.

And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?

Nothing. My respect is not available to them.

On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

He may no longer be a thief, but I still won't trust him. There are plenty of other people who have not already demonstrated their untrustworthiness, so I can get by without that former thief just fine.

Re:Big Battle

[siloko]

But we don't make our decisions based purely on quality - for instance I buy fair trade coffee knowing full well it doesn't taste as good as Lavazza. So I guess people will continue to use Goggle because Microsoft have been raping the landscape for so long . . .

Re:Big Battle

[siloko]

Maybe I continue to use Google because I am wearing goggles . . .

Re:Big Battle

[sigma_epsilon]

I really don't think it makes sense to say that Bing is better than Google. It seems to be a decent engine, but they haven't published their algorithms and thus we really have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. Google, on the other hand, has refined PageRank for a while and I can say with certainty that the math behind it is pretty clever and makes a lot of both intuitive and mathematical sense. Also, Google didn't buy off everyone and his brother for 10% market share. Honestly, if Apple seriously goes down this path it would probably be the worst choice they've made about the iPhone since slaving it to AT&T's botched network, but it might just be like letting the music labels get variable pricing for songs on iTunes. We got DRM removed and some cheaper songs, Apple looked good for ditiching DRM, and -surprise surprise- no one bought the 1.29 songs. Could be an easy way to get the phone further subsidized, and then have 99.9% of the userbase go through an extra step during setup to reconfigure the search engine when they buy their new, cheaper phone.

Re:Big Battle

[node 3]

On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

The thief will have always done the thieving, regardless of what he does later in life. In order for the thief to regain trust, he'll have to admit to that. Has Microsoft done that?

Microsoft hasn't "shown remorse and changed their ways". And this is all assuming one accepts the premise that corporations deserve forgiveness or a second chance in the same way a human does. I'm not convinced they do. Not so readily or so easily, at least.

Re:Big Battle

[Jugalator]

And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before [slashdot.org].

You're talking about the US market alone.

According to Hitslink, Bing even dropped a chunk of market share back in November, and didn't regain it in December. It hasn't seen as much popularity internationally, perhaps because it's lacking international features, such as online shopping. The Swedish Bing for example just use a third-party site for that, not anything integrated to it in their "decision engine". It's just a simple search engine here.

Re:Big Battle

[Nikker]

Just because Microsoft might actually get off their collective asses for once in their lives doesn't get them a cookie in my book. You are talking about a multi billion dollar corporation that has done nothing but hinder an entire industry. There will always be competition where large sums of money are involved and Microsoft while being an extremely 'innovative' and cunning business wise they have coasted happily when it has become the path of least resistance product wise. The entanglement of these three massive companies so directly will evolve some amazing solutions across the board but thanking Microsoft for getting up for Google after they were pissing on their lawn doesn't get them any more from me then before. Microsoft is like a world heavy weight boxing champion that won't get off their chair to dance in the ring, sure they win but they put on a really shitty event. Now Google comes along and they finally have to get off the chair to connect a punch and we all become enthralled but we are supposed to thank a boxer for boxing? I don't think so.

Re:Big Battle

[dredwerker]

But we don't make our decisions based purely on quality - for instance I buy fair trade coffee knowing full well it doesn't taste as good as Lavazza. So I guess people will continue to use Goggle because Microsoft have been raping the landscape for so long . . .

I make my decisions on quality - fairtrade coffee is horrible(massive generalisation poss)- I keep trying it but now I have the nice stuff - hmmmm yummy proper coffee and check out coffeegeek for proper coffee

Re:Big Battle

[pydev]

MS has actually made their search engine better than Google (the different categories and combining them together shows this, and it's greatly improved over Live search).

MS may look better on paper (they always do--bullet lists are their forte). But I tried setting their search engine as the default and gave up after a few weeks: it just doesn't deliver the results. For many of the things I was searching for, the best hits were among the top three with Google, and they were nowhere to be found with Bing.

Even if MS were technically better, what does it matter? Microsoft's major products (Windows, Office) didn't win in the market through being technically better (which they were not when they still had serious competitors), they won through tying, bundling, and branding. Time for a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Big Battle

[pydev]

What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?

Every single product I have ever bought from Microsoft has sucked to some degree (some more than others), so, yes, I do cringe.

I gave Bing a serious try since I don't like all my data going to Google. And? Same thing as with other Microsoft products: it sounds good in theory, it has lots of features, but it doesn't do its primary function very well.

See, people hate Microsoft not because of business strategy, they hate Microsoft because they don't like their products and Microsoft is using business strategy to force them to use those products anyway.

I dislike Microsoft a lot less since their monopoly has started crumbling and I don't have to use them anymore.

Re:Big Battle

[pydev]

But it may so happen that she is really good at work (in case of Bing) despite having nasty personality (she would be microsoft).

The analogy is false; it's not about one employee at a business, it's about a business and a monopoly.

In the restaurant analogy, we're talking about a restaurant (Microsoft) that has a monopoly in your town, there's no other. Most of the employees are nasty to you and their food is generally bad. Now they have one desert on the menu that's good, the apple cobbler (search engine). WIth that, they are actually trying to drive the nice, new cafe around the corner (Google) out of business as well. Does it make sense to leave your nice neighborhood cafe and start going to this restaurant for your deserts? I don't think so. You know what's going to happen: after they've driven the cafe out of business, they are going to revert to their old ways, and even their apple cobbler is going to go bad.

(Of course, I don't think Bing is actually very good.)

Re:Big Battle

[EzInKy]

What happened to judging products on their merits?

It is quite common to judge products based on the manufacturer's reputation.

Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?

Absolutely, and their EULAs are even worse today.

And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?

Honestly it would take quite a lot, but acknowledging that using software has no greater relationship to copying than using a book does would be a good start.

On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

Once a whore always a whore is probably the better analogy, particularly considering who Microsoft is in bed with. They make it well known that they continue play for sure.

Re:Big Battle

[Chrisq]

I know what you mean. The worst thing is the word itself. There is a whole world of difference between "I Googled Hillary Clinton last night" and "I Binged Hillary Clinton last night". .... Cringe

Re:Big Battle

[Skythe]

Umm the reason Bing has been gaining marketshare is that since it's release, absolutely any possible setting or search asset under Microsoft's control has been defaulted to Bing. Example: ninemsn.com.au (aus MSN site.. which just timed out), all the search bars in I.E., etc. Since i took that first look at bing i've basically given up and not specifically attempted to navigate to it since, and even so i've still stumbled across it 10 or so times.

Bing is not gaining market share because it's any "better" than Google, or because people like it more. It's gaining market share because of the same reason IE gained so much market share: because it's the default option.

Re:Big Battle

[Chrisq]

What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?

Yes, Yes, Yes
Its like saying that you should allow the KKK to adopt a highway because they do a reasonable job of clearing the litter - sometimes the nature of organisation outways the merrits of the product.

Re:Big Battle

[lintux]

About two months ago I used Blind Search for a week to see how Bing's actually doing. There were two classes of results that I found:

A) Two columns show fairly similar results (Bing and Google) and the third shows somewhat worse ones (Yahoo).
B) One column with good results (Google), the others totally wrong or at least significantly worse.

Although I just tried a query from the second category again and they now all show the best result first (instead of somewhere on the second page). I guess it's time for another week of Blind Search for me.

Re:Big Battle

[wgoodman]

more of, there's been this one restaurant in town for a long time, but all they serve is shit. eventually, a few places open up that serve food instead. everyone flocks to those places and stops going to the place that only serves shit. eventually, the place that only served shit starts to also sell apple pie. and they start paying people to eat the apple pie. some of the people who had been eating apple pie at the non shit serving restaurants start eating the pie at the place that is paying them to eat it. the place that still serves mainly shit declairs that they are the best restaurant in town because people are flocking back to them.

(obligatory)
???

profit.

Re:Big Battle

[BasilBrush]

What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?

I'm not the original poster, but for me, yes. It absolutely does matter what relationship I have with the company I buy products from. And I won't buy anything from Microsoft.

And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?

25 years into their dirty habits, they are beyond redemption. Hopefully they'll take a gradual fade into oblivion.

Re:Big Battle

[rtfa-troll]

If I had moderator points, I would mod you up.

You and so many people that forget how Microsoft got here. Any other search engine as garbage as MSN would have been forgotten by now. Microsoft has driven their search engines through many generations each of which was terrible. If there was real competition in the IT market, other search companies than MS would be able to compete with Google.

The thing to remember is that Bing is great at everything except actually delivering search results. In your search results you want something you can trust and understand, but as we've discussed before. Even today, when Microsoft has tried to hide these problems, when you search for "Why is Microsoft Windows so expensive?" you'll find that on Microsoft's results the page "Why are Macs so expensive?" is high in the top ten whilst doing the same search on Google manages to find plenty more on topic material.

Microsoft amnesia is astounding. Take the last example; Microsoft has biased results, they get caught; they change their results to hide the bias better. Within days we have postings all over the internet denying they were ever biased.

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

add to it, the punishment factor. a thief gets caught and gets punished. and he has his name blacklisted for sometime in the police gazette and possible future misbehavior. microsoft recently pulled off one of the most disgusting malpractices ever known - by scuttling ODF - corruption, vote rigging, bribing across the board, lying - you name it, and they have shown, they havent changed one bit. they mean business and they mean it by any ways possible.

so ignore/ pardon microsoft at your own cost!!!!

Re:Big Battle

[FreeUser]

He may no longer be a thief, but I still won't trust him. There are plenty of other people who have not already demonstrated their untrustworthiness, so I can get by without that former thief just fine.

Exactly right. As a middle-eastern friend of mine once said: "If someone steals from you, forgive them. But tie up your camel." Or put in more familiar terms: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Microsoft has fooled everyone at least once. Let them do it to you again, and you have only yourself to blame.

Re:Big Battle

[rtfa-troll]

What should Microsoft do to regain your respect?

Make good the things they have stolen. Show contrition and remorse.

Give back the Browser market to Mozilla by cancelling all future development of IE and giving a 2 year end of life notice (Netscape is no more; still they should pay compensation to the shareholders).

Give back the operating system market; announce that Windows will be GPLed, compensate the owners of DRDos OS2. Pay back money to all consumers who would have bought

Cancel all future development of the .doc/.docx "standard"; agree to only stick to registered features of ODF. Compensate the shareholders of Wordperfect.

Donate 50% future profits to a charity to pay for victims of computer viruses. Donate a further 25% of future profits to pay for the education of children who were denied access to OLPC laptops by their actions. Remaining 25% left for victims I haven't thought of right now.

I'm sure there's quite a bit more, but that's a beginning.

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

I use this ocasionaly to check up bing performance an dit hasn't made me switch yet. (far from it actually)

http://www.bing-vs-google.com/

Re:Big Battle

[DJRumpy]

Why is the parent modded troll? The results are easily reproducible:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+expensive%3F%22&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sc=1-40

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+expensive%3F%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=%22Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+expensive%3F%22&fp=e8d6ef47431c6a4a

The specific first hit on Bing is the specific answers.yahoo.com question "Why are Mac's So Expensive".

Re:Big Battle

[Stooshie]

That reminds me, I must go and Bing "Bong"

Re:Big Battle

[deepershade]

Is it me or does anyone else suspect that MS/Apple/Or some coffee company is now modding /. posts?

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.citizenarcane.com/files/2005_Jan_14/kkk_adopt_a_highway_2.jpg

Re:Big Battle

[Bert64]

As much as i want to see competition in the search market i simply don't trust MS at all and that keeps me using Google... I would much rather see competition in the general desktop market than in search.
Past history has suggested that although they're playing nice right now, using flash etc... If they were to become dominant in this market, you would soon see silverlight and modifications to the search site forcing people to use IE etc...

Re:Big Battle

[dredwerker]

I can't believe I was modded troll - I genuinely love coffeegeek which isnt a commercial site and I dont like fairtrade. How is that trolling? I like coffee and I dont like fairtrade coffee.
I make decisions based on quality. How can you not - I know I will buy something rubbish because it is made by x company or person - derr.

Re:Big Battle

[Bert64]

Yes...
Microsoft have done a huge amount of damage to their customers and the industry as a whole...

They have stifled innovation for years (for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare, only updated again once its share was threatened several years later).
They have locked thousands of individuals and businesses into their products, removing those peoples freedom to choose the best product for the job. Even worse is that the lockin extends to those who aren't their customers, it's common to send proprietary microsoft format files around and people are expected to open them.

In many markets we are unable to judge products in their merits precisely because of microsoft. A competing product may be cheaper (or free), do everything you need better, but lacks compatibility with some proprietary microsoft technology therefore ruling it out.

To regain any level of respect, they need to undo all of the underhanded anti-consumer actions they have taken, and start competing purely based on the merits of their products in all the markets they operate in.

As it stands, although they may be trying to compete on merit right now, history has shown that once they gain sufficient market share they revert to their usual underhanded practices of locking people in and allowing the product to stagnate and/or using one product to forcibly push another. Don't forget all the "embrace, extend, extinguish" stuff from a few years back...

To give an example, the vast majority of MS products are tied to windows (forcibly pushing)..
By contrast, google simply promote their products, if you use their sites from some non-chrome browsers you will see advertisements for chrome, but the sites will not refuse to work in other browsers and aren't tied to chrome-os etc... This is promotion as opposed to forcibly pushing.

So that's what MS can do, give us the ability to judge all their products on merit and we will be more likely to judge them all that way.

Re:Big Battle

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm sorry, this is an unacceptable Slashdot analogy.

The use (driving) of a car does not make this a car analogy. Please try again.

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Great explanation. A great example with Bing specifically: you can't add your business listing to Bing unless you use Internet Explorer (according to the bing website). It will actually give you a message saying it won't work and doesn't go any further. But you know what? I changed the User Agent String in Safari using the developer tools and it worked just fine... That's strange, why wouldn't microsoft give me a warning that it might not be compatible and let me struggle with my inferior browser? Oh yes, because they want to maintain control over the browser market.

Re:Big Battle

[mcgrew]

MS has actually made their search engine better than Google

In what way, and when did it happen? I tried it when they first launched and was extremely unimpressed.

I hate microsofts business practices as much as the next guy on slashdot, but Bing is something they're actually done really good.

Possible, I guess -- Excel is IMO the best spreadsheet, but I'm unimpressed with anything else they've offered. As far as business practices, I've come to the conclusion that almost all corporations are run by cheats, liars, thieves, and sociopaths. They may have started it, but they're far from alone.

And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before.
Bing keeps gaining market share every month, faster and faster.

Why should I care about any company's market share? I don't own MS stock, nor do I work for them, and that's the only two reasons to care. How much MS stock do you own?

Re:Big Battle

[jgagnon]

It is examples like this that drive so many people's distrust of Microsoft. That and Google seems to be able to find more relevant results on Microsoft's own servers than Microsoft can (searching MSDN, for instance, or Microsoft downloads). It boggles my mind.

Re:Big Battle

[xigxag]

I'm still not buying it. I think it's just a kind of naturally reified Googlebomb/Bingbomb. At this point, all you have to do is start typing "Why is" into EITHER search engine and that entire question will appear as an autocomplete, so clearly, you're not getting unadulterated results in either case.

Yet, if I enter "Why is Microsoft Windows so awesome?" as my question, the second result, ON BING, leads to a page explaining why Linux is better than Windows. Google actually gives more favorable results toward Windows.

In any event, part of the issue is that we have become trained to think of the way that Google ranks things as the standard, and anything divergent from that ideal as skewed and purposefully deviant.

Re:Big Battle

[mcgrew]

is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

The trouble is, how do you know the "reformed" thief is sincere? My elderly dad says "one 'oh shit' wipes out a whole lot of 'attaboys'".

Once bitten, twice shy.

Re:Big Battle

[mdwh2]

Not sure why you were modded down - I completely agree also. Whilst it's true that Apple and Google are now competing in the phone market, here they are both minor players - the more important ones to watch in this battleground are Nokia, and a load of other companies like Samsung, Motorola, LG. To claim that this is "most important rivalry" is taking the RDF to absurdly new heights.

The area where Apple lead is mp3 players, where Google are not in competition. And in the market of search engines, Google are in competition with Microsoft, not Apple.

The default search engine battle has ranged on many devices - yet the sad thing is that this probably only made Appledot because of the Iphone mention, and we haven't had our Iphone story for today.

Re:Big Battle

[DJRumpy]

When you put in a specific quoted phrase into a search engine, you expect it to actually find hits with that result. In this case, searching for "Why is windows so expensive" or "why is microsoft windows so expensive" returns a first result of "Why are Mac's So Expensive?"

If you click on the first link returned by Bing, no where in the linked article does it even have a matching phrase for your actual query.

Re:Big Battle

[nine-times]

Google CEO says privacy doesn't matter

In fairness, he didn't really say that privacy didn't matter. When his quote is taken in context, I think it's pretty clear that he's just pointing out that you can't rely on search engines to guarantee your privacy:

If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

What seemed to draw attention was that during the same interview, he said, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Ultimately I don't think that such a statement is very threatening or judgmental. He's suggesting that if *you* are ashamed of your actions, the perhaps you should stop acting that way. Now it may be outside the scope of his duties as Google CEO to be providing that kind of advice, but then again, it is in the context of pointing out how the Internet isn't a very secure place and your privacy isn't guaranteed. What's more, it's not terrible advice.

Re:Big Battle

[elashish14]

What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?

It's called boycott ie. when you use an alternative product simply because you don't like the business practices of the company that produces it. Doesn't matter whether they have a better product or not; MS has demonstrated that they can't play nice. Of course Google is not perfect but they're at least better. Easy decision for me: I choose Google.

Re:Big Battle

[guruevi]

Bing isn't really gaining that much market share. Remember back in the day when Google came out? They practically killed their competitors (Yahoo, Altavista, MSN) in 2 years. In 2005 they gained over 20% in 6 months, much better than Bing which is a rebranded MSN, Live, etc. Only because of their marketing and practically paying people to use their engine are they gaining a few percentage points. Even MSN Search had higher market shares in the past.

Either way, I don't like Bing - even if it wasn't from Microsoft, it's a bit too heavy and a bit too slow (237k and 2.26s for all those stupid javascripts and images to load while google comes in at 75k at 690ms)

Re:Big Battle

[Shatrat]

Amen. The Memory Stick format is such a blatant grab for cash at the expense of customers it's ridiculous.

Re:Big Battle

[forgotten_my_nick]

They may have improved Bing, but overall I find google gives me results "I am looking for".

Tested this with Blindsearch.

http://blindsearch.fejus.com/

I would take the "gaining marketshare" with a pinch of salt. As it is very different then people actually changing search engines.

Re:Big Battle

[marcansoft]

I hate microsofts business practices as much as the next guy on slashdot, but Bing is something they're actually done really good.

I disagree. So far, I've found no compelling issue to switch to Bing. I see it return noticeably lower quality search results (at least for international users). I did some tests with a certain class of internet scams that try to sell you freely available software and found that international Bing users were exceedingly likely to never notice, as they'd get scam result after scam result, while Google users would receive various "XX is a scam" results as the first few, so it looks like Bing is particularly vulnerable to the usual cross-linking tactics used for affiliate marketing scams. Their indexing bots are intentionally ill-behaved. I've blocked their entire IP space because they've made a habit out of randomly ignoring robots.txt and spoofing their user agent to various versions of IE.

Once Bing starts returning decent quality results and does so without violating accepted behavior guidelines for bots I'll give it a shot again. Until then, I'm not touching it.

Re:Big Battle

[Comboman]

Either the results have changed since you posted or the Canadian version of Bing has different results. When I clicked those links, the first hit on both Google and Bing was a root777.com page about this controversy. The Yahoo Answers page about Macs didn't show up on either search. Keep in mind that it is possible for third parties to 'game' the search results of even the venerable Google (the racist picture of the First Lady showing up as the first hit in a Google Image search being a recent example).

Re:Big Battle

[Idiomatick]

If you do go with MS' cobbler then google does out of biz and you get your just desserts?

Re:Big Battle

[Idiomatick]

I though it was ... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't, can't fool me again."

Re:Big Battle

[Idiomatick]

Nah its a bunch of people whining about search results including /. posts.

Re:Big Battle

[DJRumpy]

I just double checked, and I still get the 'mac' result in the U.S. Very curious that Canada gets a different result. Can someone else confirm?

Here's the first returned link in the U.S. for Bing if anyone is curious:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061212021150AAOfyNz

If you search the return link however, there are no phrases matching "why is windows so expensive" or "why is microsoft windows so expensive", or any other variant of that phrase that I can see.

Re:Big Battle

[VGPowerlord]

They must be different, because the US version definitely returns "Why are Mac's so expensive?" as its first link, as of when I checked 10 seconds ago.

In fact, have a screenshot!

Re:Big Battle

[IICV]

They have stifled innovation for years (for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare, only updated again once its share was threatened several years later).

This is what's really insidious about Bing. What happens if Microsoft wins the current search engine wars, like they did the browser wars or the operating system wars? Will they keep on innovating, or will search stagnate for a decade?

Whenever Microsoft wins, everyone else loses.

Re:Big Battle

[D'Sphitz]

(for example, they use flash instead of silverlight, because flash is installed on so many machines, and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/3785979156_e06cb135cb_o.png

Re:Big Battle

[Comboman]

Weird! Here's a screenshot of the results I see: screenshot

Re:Big Battle

[Zarf]

Interestingly.. what happens with...
"Why is Microsoft Windows so awesome?" ... which is more relevant?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+awesome&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+awesome%3F&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=

I think the Google search is actually better... but I could be biased.

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand the difference between a monopoly and a dominant market share, do you?

Re:Big Battle

[DJRumpy]

LOL ;) Bing Response: We did not find any results for "Why is Microsoft Windows so awesome".

Re:Big Battle

[schon]

the thought of using bing makes me cringe

What happened to judging products on their merits?

Why are you assuming he's not judging it based on merit?

Maybe he likes his search engine to be unbiased?

Re:Big Battle

[VGPowerlord]

Remember back in the day when Google came out? They practically killed their competitors (Yahoo, Altavista, MSN) in 2 years.

I remember when Google came out and killed their competitors (Altavista, Excite, Lycos, Yahoo, etc...). However, your list includes an entry that didn't exist when Google entered the market...

In 2005 they gained over 20% in 6 months,

[citation needed]

ComScore Networks reported that Google had a 6% (from 36.3% to 42.3%) increase between February 2005 and February 2006.

Re:Big Battle

[shutdown -p now]

I'm sure there's quite a bit more

After everything you've already listed, I find it hard to imagine a list of "more" that wouldn't include seppuku in it somewhere.

Re:Big Battle

[mrjohnson]

From what I can tell, most of those SEO strategies are much more successful on Bing than on Google. I have several sites that rank well in Google despite never really working on SEO. It's a competitive category and the other sites are spamming the web with all kinds of links.

On Bing, my sites rank nowhere. In fact, they're found several pages into the search, long past some really obscure sites.

Bing is pay to play. Maybe people like that, I don't know. I would rather keep the more democratic Google, who works hard to keep the spammers out.

Re:Big Battle

[xigxag]

Even if one were to concede that Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging the credibility of its own search engine through such a ham-fisted method, the end result of all of that makes no sense. The link given is in no way favorable to Microsoft. The questioner vehemently disses Microsoft, asks the question in a way which is not hostile to Apple, and the answerer gives a reasonable, non fanboi-ish pro-Apple explanation. In other words, this allegedly deliberately crafted by Microsoft link fails to make Apple look bad in any way.

I understand the desire of some people to construct an anti-Microsoft narrative for every situation, but in this case, it doesn't scan.

Re:Big Battle

[liquiddark]

What entire industry has Microsoft hindered, exactly? The IT industry, where they've delivered software and service as a package deal at a level that has made them ubiquitous based on their merits? The software development industry that uses COM and descendants (and DDE before it, even) to implement technologies in self-organizing ways that are occasionally just shy of magical? The tech industry in general, where Microsoft has often driven innovation through both positive (advanced APIs to cover difficult low-level details without smothering the gains they provide) and negative (favouring features over raw performance) drivers?

Open Source is not an industry. It's an approach to a problem. Microsoft has hindered open source, there's very little doubt about that, but it's far from the only effect they've had on software development.

Re:Big Battle

[Chris Burke]

On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

Let me know when that happens.

Until then, a thief is a thief as long as they remain an unrepentant thief.

Re:Big Battle

[Jesus_666]

For me, the first hit is the Google Trends page for the specific search string. Yup, we have just slashdotted a search term.

Re:Big Battle

[CoughDropAddict]

Based on their merits?

The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead...

It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.

In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.

--Internal Microsoft memo drafted for Bill Gates, Feb 21, 1997

In 2002, Be Inc. sued [4] Microsoft claiming that Hitachi had been dissuaded from selling PCs loaded with BeOS, and that Compaq had been pressured to not market an Internet appliance in partnership with Be. BeOS also claimed that Microsoft acted to artificially depress Be Inc's IPO. The case was eventually settled out of court[5] with no admission of liability on Microsoft's part.

--Wikipedia page about BeOS

Re:Big Battle

[liquiddark]

What exactly are you proving there? That Windows has built-in lock-in and competes (sometimes unfairly) with other vendors? I would suggest that you try working in a large company for a while and see how difficult that world is, how impossible the challenge of providing a common infrastructure without the kind of high-class vendor support Microsoft products come with, before you call up a couple of half-assed examples that are provably wrong about why people use MS. People use MS because they know it has a huge weight of support behind and in front of it. BeOS replacing Windows was NEVER a real possibility for anyone with systems more complex than a couple of connected workstations. The Windows API has been over as a concern for ten years, yet people still use Windows.

Re:Big Battle

[rtfa-troll]

Not sufficiently painful. Not sufficiently drawn out. Suicide in this case would just be a case of escaping your duities. :-)

Re:Big Battle

[theun4gven]

I'm still not buying it. I think it's just a kind of naturally reified Googlebomb/Bingbomb. At this point, all you have to do is start typing "Why is" into EITHER search engine and that entire question will appear as an autocomplete, so clearly, you're not getting unadulterated results in either case.

Yet, if I enter "Why is Microsoft Windows so awesome?" as my question, the second result, ON BING, leads to a page explaining why Linux is better than Windows. Google actually gives more favorable results toward Windows.

So what you are saying is that, even though Bing may not be biasing results, in both the "Windows more expensive" and "Windows so awesome" searches Bing returns poor results with Google's being much more relevant?

Re:Big Battle

[thetoadwarrior]

I've personally judge it after using it and it does not offer enough over Google, I find some its results for certain searches to be questionable and quite frankly I don't support any company that uses it advantages in other areas to gain an artificial advantage (ie making your search engine the default in your market dominating browser).

If MS pays to be the search engine on the iPhone I'm fine with that. I wouldn't fight it but I would still think making it the default on IE is wrong.

Re:Big Battle

[Ykant]

there was this site that compared Bing/Google/Yahoo and had you pick your favorite and then told you what it was, don't know the URL at the time

http://blindsearch.fejus.com/

Re:Big Battle

[thetoadwarrior]

Also, where was microsoft when Google was making a stand in China?

Touching themselves over the thought of Google leaving a potentially huge market.

Re:Big Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

"why ipod is better than zune" on Bing yields "10 Reason Why the Zune is Better Than the iPod" as number 1. I'm sure the list goes on and on.

Re:Big Battle

[JD-1027]

And I've compared the search results, 80% of the time I prefer Google's results (there was this site that compared Bing/Google/Yahoo and had you pick your favorite and then told you what it was, don't know the URL at the time)

I've always wanted to do this objectively, so I found the following site. Not sure if this is the one you mentioned, but it worked great.
http://blindsearch.fejus.com/

I found that site by searching for "bing google yahoo search compare" on google. Doing that using our search compare, I chose the correct search site for the answer I was looking for (though it was one link deeper than direct)...
http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=bing+google+yahoo+search+compare&type=web

Then, couldn't resist a Meta compare...Which site is better at telling me which site is better...
http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=which+is+better%2C+google%2C+yahoo+or+bing+search&type=web

My results are similar to yours. I favor Google about 70-80% of the time.

Re:Big Battle

[Actually, I do RTFA]

. There are plenty of other people who have not already demonstrated their untrustworthiness, so I can get by without that former thief just fine.

Well, in the search-engine world, you have Google and Ask. Yahoo is really just a skinned [seems to flip between Bing and Google]. So who is your trusted source? MS just wants your money, Google wants your life. I wouldn't trust either. So which search should I use?

I tend to still use Google a little more, but I'll go to Bing instead of the second page of Google results.

Re:Big Battle

[Zarf]

Ah, should have pasted this instead:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+awesome%22&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Why+is+Microsoft+Windows+so+awesome%3F%22&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq= ... somehow the quotes fell off.

Yep. No results from Bing. So Bing doesn't think Microsoft Windows is awesome?

Re:Big Battle

[that this is not und]

High-class vendor support?

I notice you said LARGE company. I suppose they answer the phone when it's another Fortune 500 calling.

People buy Microsoft because it's all there is, in the flattened environment that Microsoft has successfully plowed clear of competitors.

Now, go back to your office and close the door.

Re:Big Battle

[that this is not und]

Same thing as with other Microsoft products: it sounds good in theory, it has lots of features, but it doesn't do its primary function very well.

It's primary function, as seen by it's developers, is competing with Google. It's a second matter to them whether or not it's a good search engine.

That's how Microsoft has always been. They open business units based on perceived threats to their market share.

Re:Big Battle

[liquiddark]

Way to not make a point. I promise I'll go back to the office as long as you promise to get back under your rock and keep your beard to yourself?

Re:Big Battle

[kregg]

1.I judged Bing by doing a search on the word Linux and at the time it came up with the top result for a linux vs MS Server page on Microsoft. Ok so they fixed that but still. How can I trust them to not hide things from me.

2. Yes. Have you see the Windows 7 party video on YouTube, or have you used Windows Mobile? All very cringe worthy. Bing is just a copy of Google with a fancy background.

3. I would have more respect for Microsoft if they didn't always try to lock you in to their products e.g Sharepoint, Office, C# etc.

4. Hard to say....

Re:Big Battle

[woongbin]

Well, they get the same first result. Please don't tell me Bing's copying Google's result real-time.

Re:Big Battle

[swillden]

On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?

What evidence is there that Microsoft has changed it's ways? There certainly has never been any showing of remorse.

Re:Big Battle

[swillden]

You're too young to have lived through all of the despicable things MS did in the early to mid-90s, aren't you?

Re:Big Battle

[liquiddark]

What did they do, exactly? They bombed a country, maybe? Killed some orphans?

No. They outcompeted their competitors based on merit - Linux being a total joke at the time for anyone who didn't want to send out their home or work computer for a week and didn't have a kernel programmer on hand to fix things when they went pear-shaped, Apple being in utter disarry, Commodore, Be and Atari in the process of failing quietly for reasons that had nothing to do with Microsoft - and in the process they overstepped some ethical lines, which nobody's contesting. But they didn't cause anyone's stuff to stop working in ways that killed anyone. The very commonality of their products made it possible to build a working commercial ecosystem, which is how we all got nice shiny new computers that do all kinds of cool things that are (on the back end) unimaginably complex based on a couple of simple clicks. They built a stable, relatively secure core (NT) for business and a friendly, futz-ish front end for the home (95 et al) and then eventually they brought those worlds together.

Despicable? Seriously, buy yourself a dictionary.

Re:Big Battle

[swillden]

No. They outcompeted their competitors based on merit

Yep, you weren't around. Merit had next to nothing to do with it.

Re:Big Battle

[pydev]

It's primary function, as seen by it's developers, is competing with Google. It's a second matter to them whether or not it's a good search engine.

And it doesn't do the former particularly well because it doesn't do the latter particularly well.

At best, Bing is a barely credible placeholder right now for Microsoft to try their usual bundling and tying games with.

It's not a search engine

[Tibor the Hun]

With apologies to a poster on one of the rumor sites, Bing is not a search engine, it is a decision engine.

But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere, and there are no signs of that.
I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft, what it stands for, and the way it does its business. Pretty much like many Linux folks do.
If he should allow for this, I'll eat my shorts. (Figuratively!)

Re:It's not a search engine

[bloodhawk]

Google are agressively trying to take Apples market, I am pretty sure Steve Hates losing money more than he hates Microsoft, At least his shareholders better hope so.

Re:It's not a search engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve once said, after Apple took $150M USD from M$ a few years ago, that it was not necessary for Microsoft to fail for Apple to succeed.

He may hate M$, but he's a smart businessman, and Apple and M$ have worked together more than you'd think over the years.

I hope the rumor is true, I'm not a fan of Google, or M$, but I'm tired of being mined for data, and right now M$ has a better privacy message.

Even better would be an opt in on all data mining, but we all know there are too many well funded lobbyists flying first class from Silicon Valley/Redmond to ever let that happen.

Re:It's not a search engine

[Lemmy Caution]

Microsoft saved Apple. Microsoft kept Apple viable in the workplace by continuing to release Office for Mac (indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC.) Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software, even their OS, on. And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.

Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to .Mac and now iDisk. Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is. Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.)

All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.

Re:It's not a search engine

[Tibor the Hun]

good insight

Re:It's not a search engine

[westlake]

I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft, what it stands for, and the way it does its business. Pretty much like many Linux folks do

Apple and Microsoft have had a mutually profitable - symbiotic - relationship for thirty years.

Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle.

Microsoft solid middle class value.

Both have a very clear notion of how to profitably leverage the other's platform. Windows gets iTunes. The Mac gets MS Office.

Hate makes good theater - but rarely good business - and the geek needs to remember when he is watching a show.

Re:It's not a search engine

[introspekt.i]

I know corporations are essentially people, but I didn't know that they had feelings.

Re:It's not a search engine

[Lemmy Caution]

OK, that's a fair dig, especially because I'm criticizing that idea implicitly at the beginning. But it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the senior management of Apple might be cheesed at Google...

Re:It's not a search engine

[Chuck Chunder]

But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere

I'd have thought the only reason Apple would consider this is if Microsoft were offering them more money than Google. Assuming Bing is a suitably competent alternative Apple would be insane not to consider it as an option. Similarly Google would be insane to pin all their mobile hopes on Apple's platform.

I think anyone trying to make this into some drama is missing the fact that nothing here suggests either of the companies are making emotionally driven decisions, merely rational ones.

After all, Apple dropping Google is hardly a move that would make Google reconsider Android, it will merely make it more obvious why Google can't afford to put all their, er... apples in the one basket.

Re:It's not a search engine

[prockcore]

I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft

Yes, but he absolutely *hates* Eric Schmidt. He hates how much the iPhone is beholden to Google. Notice how Google has basically been prevented from making iPhone apps now. Why would Apple kill Google Latitude, yet allow Loopt (even use Loopt in their advertising)? Of course we now know that Apple killed Google Voice, not AT&T.

Google Goggles, Google Navigation, even Google Sky Map... all droid-only, and I doubt it's because of Google. The only thing coming out of Google for the iPhone are web apps that Steve Jobs has no control over.

Re:It's not a search engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple was not *SAVED* by Microsoft. Apple still had cash in the bank. The $150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows. Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a "vote of confidence" from Microsoft and Bill Gates.

Google is pissing me off with the wild encroaching into all sectors (not unlike MS) but I do not want BING. It sucks.

Re:It's not a search engine

[derGoldstein]

Before the Android/Schmidt/NexusOne business, Jobs would probably hate having an MS logo anywhere on the iPhone far more than losing some cash to Google. Now though, it's like you said -- they're seriously being aggressive about pretty much everything that Apple was aiming for from the moment they released the iPhone. Things like Chrome OS seem like vaporware now, but if some new netbook/tablet form factor takes off, Google is ready with their code. Their different "vectors of attack" include both MS *and* Apple, they're not blind to the usability angle that Apple has, and they're trying to "steal as much thunder" as they can in any area in which (they think) they can compete.

Re:It's not a search engine

[Fotograf]

do you think anybody would care about ipod if there would be macos required?

Re:It's not a search engine

[Jugalator]

Steve Jobs even introduced Internet Explorer for the Mac once upon a time. Shipping with OS X.

This is an example of how far he is ready to go for profits. That was the same Steve Jobs as is running Apple today.

Re:It's not a search engine

[indiechild]

I think the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Of course Apple is going to negotiate with Google and Microsoft. They want to get a better deal, as John Gruber puts it:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_google_bing_search

Re:It's not a search engine

[RedK]

Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.

Microsoft on the other hand is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. What's the difference ? Zune, Windows Mobile, ring a bell ?

Re:It's not a search engine

[Mordaximus]

You need to dig a little deeper friend. All of the nice little things Microsoft did was part of patent infringement negotiations. The cash infusion, the agreement to continue making Office for Mac (the agreement was for 5 years) and Apple making IE the default Mac OS browser were all part of that. By the way - IE being the default browser meant Netscape wasn't. How very nice and generous of them.

They weren't being nice, they were trying to stay out of court. Saved Apple, indeed.

Re:It's not a search engine

[nine-times]

(indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC.)

That may be your opinion, but they still use Entourage which still doesn't have full Exchange support. I don't know how Microsoft could more blatantly trying to trash the viability of Office for OSX in the corporate world than to hobble Exchange support.

Microsoft dropped Exchange support right around the advent of OSX, which was right around the same time they stopped developing IE for Mac, which was also around the time that Apple started to make their comeback. So when you look at it that way, it looks like Microsoft propped up a minor competitor when they were being prosecuted for antitrust violations only to drop support when that competitor stopped being so minor.

Even now, none of Microsoft's Mac software adheres to Mac conventions. They do crap like stick their configuration files into your "Documents" folder. Now supposedly they're going to start offering Outlook for Mac in the next year, but we'll see how that turns out.

Re:It's not a search engine

[nine-times]

Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.

Let's not forget that Microsoft also has a phone OS, owns Danger, and has announced that they plan on releasing a Microsoft-branded phone in the next year.

Re:It's not a search engine

[mamer-retrogamer]

It's true that Microsoft gave Apple an infusion of cash and guaranteed software support for the Mac platform just when it needed it most, but Microsoft was not doing it to be benevolent. It was just beginning to defend itself from the accusations of being a monopoly and needed a "harmless" alternative to the Windows ecosystem they could point to. At the time, Microsoft needed Apple to survive.

Microsoft never thought in a million years thought Apple could ever be a serious competitor to their core business. After all, Microsoft's main business was selling software to computer manufacturers, while Apple sold consumer computer systems directly to a limited subset of consumers. To Microsoft, Apple's competitors seemed to be the likes of IBM, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, etc., all of which purchased their software from Microsoft. With an over 90% market share, Microsoft didn't seem to have anything to worry about from the "beleaguered" Apple.

Fast forward about a decade and a half. The internet has exploded and become the primary way people get and store information. For the first time in computer history, you are less tied to a specific application written by a specific company to access information. As a result, Apple's computer market share is over 10% for the first time since 1994. More and more people are even using non-PC devices to access information. In the exploding smart phone market, Microsoft is now in third place behind Research In Motion and Apple. And with Google now throwing its hat into the smart phone market ring there is even more competition in that sector.

Microsoft is competing with Apple the mobile music device market, and losing. Microsoft is competing with Nintendo and Sony in the home video game market, and losing. Microsoft is competing with RIM and Apple in the smart phone operating system market and losing. Microsoft is losing on a lot of fronts.

Sure, Microsoft is winning is in PC operating systems and PC business software. But as more and more people realize that they don't need a PC with Microsoft software to access and process their information, that market will become less and less important and will lose "share" to seemingly unrelated market areas.

Make no mistake, Apple and Microsoft and Google and Sony and a litany of other technology companies are direct competitors in the, as yet, undefined "electronic information access" market.

As much as the iPhone is locked down, Apple still seems to remember that it is damned near impossible to make a successful computer systems or information access devices without successful third party support. And it gets real complicated when your third parties are also your competitors. Which competitor should Apple help gain a foothold in a market they are nearly dominating? Microsoft? Google? Of course, the simple answer is neither, but that just would hurt Apple in the long run.

Now that we are emerging from the dark ages of the Microsoft monopoly of computer tech, we are headed into very interesting times indeed.

Re:It's not a search engine

[shutdown -p now]

The $150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows. Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a "vote of confidence" from Microsoft and Bill Gates.

Oh yes, I'm sure that Steve was particularly happy to get IE as a default browser for MacOS. You can practically see him beaming in that video!

Re:It's not a search engine

[unix1]

And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.

Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to .Mac and now iDisk. Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is. Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.)

All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.

Well then Apple has something coming to them if they don't see that they will have just as much (if not more) beef with MS as they do with Google. Let's go through your list:

- alternate ecosystem to Apple on mobile devices: check (wait until WinMo7 later this year for a bigger surprise)
- .mac: check (hotmail, msn, etc.)
- iDisk: check

They will still be competing in the area of phones, tablet devices, notebooks/netbooks. And we didn't even get started on desktop/laptop operating systems where MS has anywhere from 80% to 90% market share.

Oh and they've got something else coming to them - MS' motto is NOT "do no evil". In short, they should be aligning themselves with Google even if they get half the "deal" they think they are getting from MS. I thought they'd been burned before by the same company... fool me once....

Microsoft a pawn?

[timmarhy]

MS is hardly anyones fool. what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other. Apple's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat, so initally siding wiht them is logical. Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone. mark my words children....

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[Nostradongus]

Piss weak market share of what? Smart phones? Personal music players? Online music sales? I doubt Apple will side with Microsoft and if they do, it'll only be temporary. It seems more than likely that Apple will buy out some small company and create a Jobs search engine.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[Ethanol-fueled]

MS is hardly anyones fool. what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other.

Haw! MS is the ugly fat chick in the room. A company would have to be desperate to be with her. Microsoft is synonymous with "cheap".

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[mevets]

to say nothing of her transmittable diseases....

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[93 Escort Wagon]

MS is hardly anyones fool. what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other. Apple's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat, so initally siding wiht them is logical. Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone. mark my words children....

Wha'? I know people don't read the articles here - but you should at least consider reading the summary. We're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers. Apple's marketshare is pretty darn good (to say the least). As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group, and they don't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two. It is not Microsoft's golden child by any stretch of the imagination.

Seriously - Microsoft hasn't managed to leverage their Windows near-monopoly into a dominant position in any of these spaces. I'm glad you're happy with your Zune, but... wow. Seriously.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[jim_v2000]

>a Jobs search engine.

It would be like Google, but the only button would be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[johncadengo]

Agreed. I don't see Microsoft as a pawn at all. It seems to me that they are employing the well-known and time-proven strategy of divide and rule.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[introspekt.i]

I'd liken Microsoft to some kind of weird arms dealer in this scenario. It pretty much can't lose if Apple is using its products in some vendetta against Google.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[spintriae]

AskJobs? I doubt it will give you many answers. And I predict a strict secrecy clause in the TOS for the answers is does give.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[spintriae]

> Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone.

And then what? A Windows 7 version of their Macbook? I don't think so, Tim.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[derGoldstein]

At least they're responsible enough to distribute their own prophylactic lately.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[derGoldstein]

Which is a nice departure from their default strategy: throwing money bags at a problem until it's "solved".

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[derGoldstein]

I'd liken Microsoft to some kind of weird arms dealer in this scenario

That's too bad, I think they've cultivated their drug-dealer likeness almost to perfection. At any rate, the ATF should still keep an eye on them.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[derGoldstein]

There would be no buttons. No buttons at all.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[Rogerborg]

Clearly you are utterly ignorant of the subject. A Windows mobile version of the iPhone? That's like a Susan Boyle version of Angelina Jolie.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[timmarhy]

and you know what, Susan Boyle has sold millions of cd's on the back of one damn song. your going to need to come up with a better example then that. remmeber apple doesn't give 2 shits as long as it's selling iphones.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[indiechild]

You'd start typing, and your results magically appear!

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[MrMr]

Microsoft is synonymous with "cheap"
I think you may have misinterpreted their low TCO campaigns.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[jimicus]

>a Jobs search engine.

It would be like Google, but the only button would be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Which, to be fair, would work perfectly well 98% of the time. But you'd wind up with one group of people who ignored the 2% of the time it didn't, claiming it to be totally infallible and another group which focused on the 2% of the time it didn't work to denounce it as a lousy product.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[Rogerborg]

But unlike Susan Boyle, the iPhone and Angelina Jolie are primarily masturbation aids. Use that analogy to prove your point.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[tehcyder]

All there would be is the sound of one hand wanking.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[mdwh2]

Piss weak market share of what? Smart phones? Personal music players?

Phones yes, music players no. But given he was talking about Microsoft, I presume he meant operating systems - and he's right, it would be reasonable for MS to consider Google more of a threat than Apple.

Indeed, their focus on music players, music stores and phones, rather than Macs and OS X, adds to that point. With the "istale", if it's actually released, rumoured to be an Iphone device rather than a Mac, this trend will continue, making them even less direct competition to Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[mdwh2]

Which would take you to the Apple home page.

People would then praise how it Just Works, because if you want to search for the Apple home page, it does so without you even having to tell it. Questions about searching for other pages are dismissed with "But why would I want to do that?"

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[mdwh2]

We're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers. Apple's marketshare is pretty darn good (to say the least).

Apple are about 5% max in the phone market last time I looked. Which is what I thought the Mac's market share was around, too.

As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group, and they don't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two.

Which just adds to his point - since MS aren't in that market significantly, they're even less in competition with Apple these days.

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[mcgrew]

>a Jobs search engine

Wouldn't that be Craigslist?

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[VGPowerlord]

>a Jobs search engine.

It would be like Google, but the only button would be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Really? I didn't think Jobs had anything to do with GNOME!

Re:Microsoft a pawn?

[jim_v2000]

Because everyone would be querying the database 5-10 times per second for each search.

Marketshare gains misleading...

[SuperKendall]

I like competition as much as the next guy.

However, I am really suspicious of Bing's marketshare numbers. Has no-one else noticed that many of those demonic hoverover underline word links pull up Bing now? How much of the increase is because people lingered a little too long over a word on a web page?

Furthermore, anything with a small marketshare can easily post impressive percentage gains quickly...

Bing's results are as you say pretty decent, however I really don't like the super-heavy home page with the ginormous image. It's cool once but I just can't have that for a page I pull up so often... even if cached, the image is just too annoying over time. Goolge has the simplicity aspect right.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[sopssa]

I never see either Bing's or Google's homepage. I just search using my browsers search bar. Actually I was surprised to see Google's fade-in homepage manually after friend told about it.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[jhol13]

Goolge has the simplicity aspect right.

I *really* hate Google for destroying the right-click copy-link-location. Maybe I'll change to Bing, it does not do that.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[LoverOfJoy]

Another factor could be Club Bing. They allow you to earn prizes by playing their games. The games? They are games that do searches on bing.com. So for instance, every word you enter into a crossword puzzle gets a search on bing. If you click for a clue, it does another search. One game easily makes 45 searches or more even if you don't use any hints. Because of the prizes, people are always finding ways to set up bots on multiple accounts to try to get more and more points. Even if Microsoft catches them and invalidates their points, I imagine the searches done still count toward how often Bing is used. It doesn't matter that no one bothers to look at the search results (except briefly if they need a clue).

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[sopssa]

Goolge has the simplicity aspect right.

I *really* hate Google for destroying the right-click copy-link-location. Maybe I'll change to Bing, it does not do that.

This is because they want the data on which result you click. What, you though they didn't do that? When you're clicking any Google link, theres subsequent javascript request being sent to Google on what link you clicked. Completely invisible for user, but good data for Google.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[lorenlal]

The other thing that bothers me about the marketshare numbers is that Microsoft is working the Bing advertising to a point where I can't avoid seeing it. I also notice that somehow Bing seems to be popping up in places that I didn't even think they could. Notice what's powering the map on that page?

Add in the $500 Bing agreement with Verizon.

Add in the fact that Bing is really doing well taking share from their partner.

To me, it boils down to this: I don't trust many people.

I hardly trust Google, but I have yet to see them engage in practices where they abuse their market share. Please correct me if I've missed something.

I know what Microsoft does when they dominate market share... And right now, this product is gaining market share because MS is pouring money into it at a pace that they can't intend on maintaining. I don't know what their plan is, but I have a feeling that this one's not following the "embrace" part of their normal business model. I can't wait to see what they do once Bing closes in on 30% (assuming it keeps gaining). My guess is that they'll find a way to blend it with the desktop OS, and "integrate" it with the desktop search. I'm also sure that desktop search will extend to the general web.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[larry bagina]

google? How about buying up other companies (including competitors/potential competitors) and killing off their products?

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like competition as much as the next guy.

Hi, I'm the next guy.

Competition is generally good, but in this business there's not enough of it to make it all that great.

Microsoft sucks. Security has always been a problem, but the thing about them that bugs me the most is that I can't but a nice (17") laptop without also buying a license for an OS I'm not even going to use.

Apple sucks. I could go on and on about how much they suck, but I'll be brief. The worst thing about them is that they get away with more crap than Microsoft, thanks to their slick marketing campaign.

Google sucks. Well, sort of. Their search engine is great, and they seem to have a lot of offerings, but thanks to the 'Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer', I've always been a little suspicious of any of their software products.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[linumax]

This concern was also raised here. The behavior appears to be browser dependent. I get the proper URL in clipboard using Chrome/Safari/Opera but the modified Google URL using Firefox.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[icebraining]

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/47300

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[MrNaz]

I have yet to see them engage in practices where they abuse their market share.

People often say this. What's the matter with you? Privacy not an issue to you? Even if you don't care if your medical records and employment histories were publicly available, surely the endless stream of acquisitions should alarm you. Google is very quickly becoming the hub of a monoculture far larger than anything Microsoft could ever achieve.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[schnablebg]

The map on weather.com has been Live (now Bing) maps for as long as I can remember.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Em Ellel]

I *really* hate Google for destroying the right-click copy-link-location. Maybe I'll change to Bing, it does not do that.

Erm, ok, I'll bite - how so? I have no problems doing "copy link location" on Google or for that matter on Bing. If you are on a Mac, you might have to hold one of the keyboard modifier buttons to "right click" - but that's hardly Google's fault.

-Em

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[AuMatar]

What are you talking about? It may be my browser, but seamonkey has a copy link location, and it doesn't do anything different from any other website.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Em Ellel]

This concern was also raised here. The behavior appears to be browser dependent. I get the proper URL in clipboard using Chrome/Safari/Opera but the modified Google URL using Firefox.

Sounds like maybe it was either a temporary issue or FUD. Works fine for me on FF. Or maybe original reporter have some ad-ware on their machine.

-Em

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[TeXMaster]

Goolge has the simplicity aspect right.

I *really* hate Google for destroying the right-click copy-link-location. Maybe I'll change to Bing, it does not do that.

What's that? right-click copy-link-address works perfectly for me on Google search links in Opera

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[blai]

Others would think of doing that with an onclick event, not a href attribute containing javascript.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[hairyfeet]

Well to add my exp I have just tried it using Firefox on both WinXP and Windows 7 HP x64, and both seem to be working fine. The only search where I noted the supposed behavior was when I did some Google shopping for Zoom Bass Pedals (my old one is just about had it and I love their fat compression) and that is to be expected since it IS Google shopping.

I tried the same shopping search on Yahoo and found the same redirect behavior. So maybe the person was shopping via Google? Because I just couldn't get the redirect behavior on standard results from either search engine.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[derGoldstein]

Ditto. Whenever I hear (usually reported somewhere) that google is pushing something, or they've added new features/options, I'm surprised even though I used it almost exclusively. This goes for youtube and google news as well. They'll occasionally throw something on one of the front pages, even though most users that are even moderately experienced will dispense with those entry/landing pages as soon as they figure out how. The same goes for Wikipedia -- if I want to find something, I'll just prefix the search term with "wikipedia", I won't actually go to wikipedia.org. I didn't know where *was* a beta interface until someone mentioned it to me (though to be fair, there's a small "try beta" link on every wikipedia page now).

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[derGoldstein]

Have you looked over the hacks that Google Analytics uses? You think that click tracking is an issue? They make the browser effectively "watch you back" with that stuff. If you go over the source, you'll see a nice sliding scale of technology: The first options are always basic HTML, often with deprecated tags, for old/slow machines. As you progress upwards, more and more layers of interface interaction are added, along with huge amounts of data collection. After browsing through enough of their page sources, I'm starting to think that the privacy nuts aren't as nuts as I used to think.
If you want to try this yourself, download Firebug, and add a bunch of monitoring add-ons to it. You'll be amazed at how "chatty" google pages are.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[denmarkw00t]

I started noticing this as I link my friends to things quite often, and its annoying. So, what do you do? Double-click the plain-text URL under the result, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+P - ta da! And if I'm not sharing links, I'm using Google to go to Wikipedia or look up code references. I certainly don't go to or xxxxxxxx.xxx from Google, I know those URLs by heart.

As much as I don't care for their data mining business, I don't care who knows that I'm fervently trying to find that Gizmodo article I read five days ago.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Grey Ninja]

Yes, and it makes us all nervous. But we've yet to see them really abuse the knowledge.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Random5]

Works fine for me, but I'm using chrome. Wait, works in IE too... WTF are you talking about???

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[justleavealonemmmkay]

google recently started suggesting non exact matches and giving them a high rank too. I really hate them for that.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[gabba_gabba_hey]

Hmm, just to add to the other replies to this, I don't see that here in FF either.

"Copy Link Location" works as it should. I see there is an onClick event registered on all of the links that sends some data back to google (which I would expect for their data mining) but as far as copying the url and pasting it elsewhere, it works fine.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[cerberusss]

I never see either Bing's or Google's homepage. I just search using my browsers search bar. Actually I was surprised to see Google's fade-in homepage manually after friend told about it.

On Firefox, the search text will remain in your search bar after you press enter. I really hate this behaviour, because it shows the next person my browsing history. So I often press CTRL-K, then press enter and view the home page.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[darthflo]

I could never really figure out a pattern when Google would distort the links and when it wouldn't, but trusting them to look over live code in their main app, I'm guessing this may be browser-dependent. If the client is a Version of Firefox with the HREF PING "feature", they might make use of that; if the client is known to run JavaScript, onclick is the way to go and finally, if none of the others apply, the links are rewritten to go through google.com/url.

Also, did you really see an a href attribute containing javascript in your Google search results? The whole idea sounds too dumb for Google to me.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[MrMr]

That's odd, I still get those. They're rubbish links running through the Google spyware-system, but they are there.
For instance my first hit for Bing is: '....google.../url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&ei=8xRYS-yCOsfx-QbzpImJBA&usg=AFQjCNH_kUbuWB-3hS1tAW84OLUSYqT8MQ'

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[bjourne]

If you are talking about the green address line, then that is more often than not truncated in some way. The only (simple, non-technical) way to get the address is to click the link, let the page load and copy the url from the address bar.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[spitzak]

You can clear the search area *after* you search.

But I agree it would make more sense for the search to clear out after you do it.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[pydev]

Many people find that behavior useful, which is why it's the default.

There's an extension that changes that behavior and clears the search right away.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[cerberusss]

I did some searching on how to configure this, because it's really useful. For others: the following URL gives good info: http://www.techzilo.com/search-google-address-bar-firefox-google-chrome/

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[michaelhood]

If you're logged in and have web history disabled, you should never see this sort of behavior.. drove me nuts until I figured that out. If you're logged out I'm not sure what the situation is, I'm always logged in for gmail.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[michaelhood]

That's odd, I still get those. They're rubbish links running through the Google spyware-system, but they are there.

For instance my first hit for Bing is:
'....google.../url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&ei=8xRYS-yCOsfx-QbzpImJBA&usg=AFQjCNH_kUbuWB-3hS1tAW84OLUSYqT8MQ'

https://www.google.com/history/edit

Clear your web history and it should pause it. That will stop this behavior..

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[MrMr]

That doesn't help for me: google tells me the history is switched off, but the link that shows 'www.bing.com' on the first mouse-over still copies as a link to a google server.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Ginger Unicorn]

you can just prefix it with "wiki" it has the same effect and takes less time/is less prone to typos

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[nmg196]

> I really don't like the super-heavy home page with the ginormous image. It's cool once but I just can't have that for a page I pull up so often...
> even if cached, the image is just too annoying over time.

The image is loaded dyamically using javascript after the page has already loaded and rendered. It therefore doesn't actually delay when the page becomes usable for searching. The only irritaing thing is that the image always has a different name, so can't adblock it if you don't like it appearing.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[nmg196]

> When you're clicking any Google link, theres subsequent javascript request being sent to Google on what link you clicked

Nope. That's not even possible. Once you've gone to another site, no javascript events on the original site can fire. It's not even physically possible. Don't make stuff up please. They could do it using the Google Toolbar, but not using javascript. The closes thing they do is to use a 302 http header redirect, but again, that's got nothing to do with javascript.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[cerberusss]

Yes, for most people this is useful behavior. There are a couple of extensions to clear the search field after pressing enter, but they have not been maintained, as far as I can see.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[cheekyboy]

im all over white backgrounds, its too corporate, black backgrounds are more hip oldschool style. and easier on the eyes at night time.

Common google, do a time based CSS for us geeks.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[RedK]

It's probably people that use Firefox and NoScript together that get the redirect URL instead of the direct URL. If you look at the source of the page, the "href" for the links is the proper URL and it's through Javascript that the redirection is done when you click on it. With NoScript active for google.com, they have no choice but to make the "href" the redirect URL so they still get the stats.

So do yourself a favor if you really need the feature, allow javascript on google.com.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[konohitowa]

I personally found this interesting: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/bing.com/

Essentially 50 million instant, unique visitors at launch with little growth since. Granted, this doesn't appear to have December numbers in it, and I can't attest to the accuracy or inaccuracy of Compete -- but it still made for an interesting data point.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[lorenlal]

What's the matter with you? Privacy not an issue to you?

Many things, and privacy is an issue to me. I also understand that the web is not a place where privacy really exists. Anyone who runs a mail server, a search engine, and who spiders the web has access to all the information I could ever produce.

Even if you don't care if your medical records and employment histories were publicly available, surely the endless stream of acquisitions should alarm you. Google is very quickly becoming the hub of a monoculture far larger than anything Microsoft could ever achieve.

I don't believe that Google will get my medical records... Unless I import them and hand them over. I certainly don't plan on doing that.

I also do not see anything about Google storing my employment history. BTW - Since I throw that into my resume, I already assume that some search engine has that anyway.

And endless strings of acquisitions, on their own, are not untrustworthy. It's what they do with those products. A poster above yours mentions "buying competitors/potential competitors" and "killing them off." That would certainly be a problem to me, and I'd love to see some cases.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[ErroneousBee]

Except its not a fox, its a dog. Foxes have a known history of abusing henhouse market share, dogs and google dont, whereas Steve Ballmer can often be found with feathers in his teeth.

I think this would have gone better if we had started with a car analogy.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[elashish14]

Add in the $500 Bing agreement with Verizon.

$500?? A true bargain!

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[trapnest]

Is is bad I prefix it with "wikiped"?
Related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOvglodUIcA

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[trapnest]

That's the problem. If I want to right click and get a link I can't get just the url.
For example, if I search "Hello kitty":
The first result is for sanrio.com, I right click and click Copy Link Address in Chrome,
Instead of getting just the url for sanrio.com I get... oh. .....

It seems they've changed that behavior...

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[trapnest]

I can report that google used to do this for all of their results, but that has changed it seems.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[mcgrew]

What?? Right click works, I just tested it. You can copy the link location, open in a new tab/window, copy text... What are you talking about, and who are you trying to troll?

Me, I guess. You got me. IHBT.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Antony-Kyre]

Just block bing using a firewall? But people will use what they will use. Some like Google, some like Bing, and some like AltaVista.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[theJML]

Is this a windows thing, because it works perfectly in firefox for linux. And it works in lynx/elinks... (couldn't test it on IE as I'm not about to try to put that on my Ubuntu machine here at work and it's not on my iPhone (thankfully))

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Grizzley9]

I just use the search engines area on the right. I have it setup to open a new tab on enter so I go straight to the results of whatever engine (site) I chose.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Grizzley9]

Don't use Chrome?

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[eihab]

The closes thing they do is to use a 302 http header redirect, but again, that's got nothing to do with javascript.

Wrong. Google attaches an OnMouseDown event to all the links on the search results page, which means even if you right click on a link that event fires and Google knows you right clicked on it.

The function that handles that event creates a new image object that has an src (loads from) www.google.com/url?sa=T&source=...&oi=..&cad=.. ...

Everything after the /url part of the image are pairs of key/value tokens. So the script running at /url gets:
Sa = T
source = ...
etc.

These key/value pairs basically contain what search terms you used, which link you clicked on, etc. And since the request is on google.com the /url script gets your cookies for Google too so it knows who you are.

This is basically what webmasters did back in the day with transparent 1 pixel images for web analysis tracking, only in this case the image is never embedded in the document or even used, its object is generated on the fly using Javascript and the /url script never even returns anything when your browser tries to request the image, just a HTTP 204 (no content).

Bing seems to have an OnMouseDown event too, so I'm assuming it's doing something similar. I didn't dig into the code though.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[david_thornley]

Unless, as frequently happens to me, I do a search, then realize I'm not getting good results, and modify the search. If the search goes away, I've got to type it in again; if not, I modify and go.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[shutdown -p now]

Nope. That's not even possible. Once you've gone to another site, no javascript events on the original site can fire. It's not even physically possible. Don't make stuff up please.

They do it before the navigation takes place. The way it is done is rather hideous - they attach a handler for onmousedown event for all result links, so when you start clicking (but before the browser treats it as a navigation request), they replace the value of href attribute (which is normally the plain target URL) with the one that redirects the request through a Google server. That server registers your click, and then responds with a redirect to an actual URL.

If you open any Google results page in Firefox, right-click on a result link, and select "Inspect Element", you'll see the onmousedown script in DOM inspector window. It also shows up if you right-click a link and do "Copy Link Address" (but only in FF).

For what's it worth, Bing seems to be doing the same thing.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[schon]

Three options - either use a bookmarklet to strip the redirects; install the Mozilla Googlebar, which has an option to remove the redirects; or use GreaseMonkey to do it (I'd bet there's already a GM script somewhere to do this.)

My bookmarklet to remove redirects looks like this:

javascript:(function(){var%20k,x,t,i,j,p;%20for(k=0;x=document.links[k];k++){t=x.href.replace(/[%]3A/ig,':').replace(/[%]2f/ig,'/');i=t.lastIndexOf('http');if(i>0){%20t=t.substring(i);%20j=t.indexOf('&');%20if(j>0)t=t.substring(0,j);%20p=/https?\:\/\/[^\s]*[^.,;'">\s\)\]]/.exec(unescape(t));%20if(p)%20x.href=p[0];%20}%20else%20if%20(x.onmouseover&&x.onmouseout){x.onmouseover();%20if%20(window.status%20&&%20window.status.indexOf('://')!=-1)x.href=window.status;%20x.onmouseout();%20}%20x.onmouseover=null;%20x.onmouseout=null;%20}})();

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[Mashdar]

Whenever I hear (usually reported somewhere) that google is pushing something, or they've added new features/options, I'm surprised even though I used it almost exclusively.

This is exactly what I love about Google, and exactly why I have used facebook.com only twice this year. Every time I log in to facebook.com all of the menus have changed... And some "features" have been added to make ninja-zombie-robots spam me with 100 more things on an icon-driven list of drivel. I just want my damned friends list and some photos. bring back thefacebook.com!

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[hairyfeet]

Nice theory, except that I had NoScript disabled for those sites. I think more likely they are using a redirect on the shopping site to see what kind of numbers they are getting for shopping, probably so they can set ad revenue. But I have NoScript disabled for both Google and Yahoo shopping and am still seeing the redirect, and I also tried the same searches from my oldest boy's Opera. Same result with redirect, so it has to be a shopping thing since I am not using privoxy or anything that would interfere with Opera.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[jhol13]

This happens at least with Ubuntu 9.10 and www.google.fi with the cookies I happen to have.

For certain.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[thetoadwarrior]

Well you won't get away from mousedown on Bing. Here's what their link consists of:

<h3><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie" onmousedown="return si_T('&amp;ID=SERP,119.1')"><strong>Pie</strong> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></h3>

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[thetoadwarrior]

BTW, I'm aware you mentioned it but you didn't really go into and your post is tl;dr so I made it clearer for others.

Re:Marketshare gains misleading...

[michaelhood]

Try enabling web history and then clearing & disabling it.

as the old saying goes

[stimpleton]

As the old saying goes...Adversity makes strange bed fellows.

Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"Apple is also working on ways to manage ad placement on its mobile devices"

What the hell is that line about. Apple better not be spamming the fuck out fo me when i'm paying for their fucking devices and software AND cell service.

FUCK YOU APPLE.. Dont even try it.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[DirtyCanuck]

The million dollar question is would you still object if you had a reduced bill?

Discounting phone bills in exchange for AD space is a quick way to have everybody consider it.

They can make those losses back with ad revenue and data mining ;)

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[binaryspiral]

Here's your million dollars - no.

How much ad revenue would they make on me, you, or the average schmoe? A few bucks at the most per month? Hardly justifies giving up my screen and bandwidth for a token discount on an outrageously expensive cell phone bill.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool your jets, seriously. They are most likely talking about advertising inside of free applications from the iTunes store. Don't like it? don't use the app, or spend $2 or $3 for the "full" (non-ad-supported) version. There was even talk about Apple competing with Google to purchase "Admob" at one point, a company that does a very significant portion of advertising for the free games on the itunes store.

http://precursorblog.com/content/whyhow-did-google-outbid-apple-admob-schmidt-google-apple-not-primary-competitors

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[TrancePhreak]

Don't forget that the AT&T data plans are not unlimited. They'd likely be seeping off your available data usage.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[arose]

Has it actually ever worked that way when ads get introduced to a previously ad free service? It sure seems to gravitate to 'free money' instead of 'pass along the savings'.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[derGoldstein]

Getting an iPhone is like walking into a cool, refreshing pond, which just happens to be full of leeches. You'll be comfortable as long as your body can generate blood fast enough.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[stephanruby]

Discounting phone bills in exchange for AD space is a quick way to have everybody consider it.

eMachines has done this for computers, and just look at the great reputation they have now. ePhones can do the same for cell phones. Kudos for the idea, I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

- Steve Jobs

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[Rogerborg]

Well, they'll ease the concept into you gently - imagery fully intended - by spamming you with directions to the nearest Starbucks. Or to the one next door if you're already in one. Which you will be.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[MrMickS]

Erm. How about Google. Maybe people can't remember that far back but initially Google was just a search engine. Even now the ads aren't bold and brash, they appear to be just more results. Done right there is no reason why unobtrusive, but relevant, ads can't be placed in search results on the iPhone.

Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?

[arose]

You might have a point if google had been subscription service. However I don't consider things that go from a paid service to free to be a good example as it changes the dynamic completely.

In short, I'm wondering if there is a service that permanently lowered it's rates after introducing ads.

And here I'm trying to get it off my Blackberry

[MichaelPenne]

It showed up after a software update, and for some reason doesn't have an entry in the Applications menu (where I can easily remove Google and other 3rd party apps if I want).

What is really interesting about Bing on the Blackberry anyway if I accidently select it it (after a long time) loads a screen asking me if I agree to the EULA. I click the "I do not agree" button.

It loads anyway.

It's like a shoe that fits so tightly that I can't get it off my foot (maybe that was what Jerry was talking to Bill about?).

Re:And here I'm trying to get it off my Blackberry

[aplusjimages]

Same here. Verizon pushed Bing onto my phone as well. I couldn't see where to delete it as well. I clicked on it as well just to see it and it automatically changed my home page and won't let me change it to anything else but Bing. Great.

Re:Default but still switchable actually helps goo

[Lemmy Caution]

You are delusional. Most users do not switch their defaults. Most users do not hear about these kinds of decisions at all. And Google is an ad company. Not have Google be the default engine isn't a shot-across-the-bow, it's pissing in their Corn Flakes.

Microsoft still way behind.

[aussersterne]

What makes Google special isn't just its web search, it's the total value proposition. That little series of links across the top of the page. I can type a phrase and search the web. If that doesn't turn up what I want, I can just click "Images." Then "News." Then "Scholar." Then "Maps." I can search in a variety of well-sandboxed, semantically contextualized datasets for the same phrase, rapidly, without re-typing it, and at a single source.

Beyond just searching, I have a single iPhone app (Google) that lets me manage documents, my email, and my searching all with a single interface and within a single authentication context, rapidly and a fairly solid history of reliability and predictability.

When I can do all that with Bing, and with a site design that scales well from tiny devices to full-on desktops, let me know.

Until then, I believe Google's basic business model is fairly secure. Bing? Bing just just web search for full-fledged personal computers. Sure, that's what made Google to begin with, but it's actually a tiny part of the total value proposition that Google represents today.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[jim_v2000]

>That little series of links across the top of the page.

Bing has those.

>lets me manage documents, my email, and my searching all with a single interface

If you log into Bing, you also log into Windows Live, which gives you access to Email, Calendars, your 25GB SkyDrive, and (coming soon) online office apps. As far as being able to do those from the iPhone...I would expect to see that soon, if not already. There is a Bing app, but I don't know exactly what it does.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[alexandre_ganso]

You mean, hotmail (or windows live mail now, whatever it is called, it's the same one as 1995)? That crap slow as hell and that works poorly even on IE8?

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[SpeZek]

You mean, hotmail (or windows live mail now, whatever it is called, it's the same one as 1995)?

No, it's not the same as from 1995. It's been Web 2.0'd.

It got worse.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[david_thornley]

If you log into Bing,

Why would I possibly want to log into a search engine? Logging in is an inconvenience for paid services or personal services, neither of which I want in a search engine.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[jim_v2000]

Have you actually used it recently? Seems pretty clean and quick to me. But then again, I use Gmail mostly, and even then, I use the Windows Live Mail desktop client to access all my email accounts...so I don't pay much attention to the web front-ends.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[jim_v2000]

I was comparing to Google's services, such as email and calendars, troll. Obviously you don't have to log into Bing or Google to just do a search.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[alexandre_ganso]

Yes, I tried it after I got replied here.

I don't have this windows live mail desktop client. I used it on the web. And I agree with the post from SpeZek. It got worse indeed. It is slow as hell, I can't find a way to use it with the keyboard, I can't mark several messages most of the time, as if I mistake a small checkbox, every other selected mail is lost.

And:

Oh my god, it's full of spam!

It worse than yahoo and WAY worse than gmail.

Tried it on firefox and safari, though.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[jim_v2000]

You went here: http://mail.live.com/?

It's not slow at all...but maybe that's because I'm using Chrome. It's also a really clean UI. But yeah, their spam filtering sucks.

Re:Microsoft still way behind.

[alexandre_ganso]

Yes. I tried. And you made me waste my time with that crap again, now no chrome!

I still cannot see messages' subjects. I still cannot select the messages right, and they still think I need viagra!

I have to confirm about everything pretty much like vista. Don't they have an antivirus online? I would recommend them clamav.

Human sacrifice

[RevWaldo]

Apple and Microsoft working together - mass hysteria!

Re:Will you finally own up to Apple's Evil?

[Lemmy Caution]

The thing I love about this story, in the way that I love to see a brawl break out in the stands, is that while Microsoft aficionados - or even tolerators - are a distinct minority in Slashdot, Apple fans and Google fans are about equal in representation here. So this is a perfect wedge story. (Grabs popcorn.)

For myself, I use Google Products and Microsoft Office on Mac OS X 10.6 on my MacBook Pro, running Windows 7 in Parallels and bootcamping to play games. I like open source stuff when I can use, too (scientific and data viz/analysis software especially - yay, R.) So, I don't have a dog in this fight. Or, I have 3 dogs. That all smell. I do like the Google dog just a little better than the others, though.

If so, Apple is hurting themselves more

[WindBourne]

Apple should realize that once MS comes on strong with Bing in this space, that they will use it on their phone. The issue here is that MS is composed of total idiots, HOWEVER, they like to throw money and their already established monopolies at other ones. As such, MS will go after Apple's iphone. And they will slowly eat away at them. OTH, if Apple either works with a different company, or even with Google, they will still remain the leader.

Re:If so, Apple is hurting themselves more

[CodeBuster]

Excuse me, but I think that you are misreading this. The more likely scenario is that Microsoft is enlisting Apple's help in its battle against everything Google. Apple has been a niche market player for most of its existence and it wasn't until relatively recently, with the development of the iPod and later the iPhone, that Apple captured a franchise position in a new market (namely mobile audio and video distribution). Google, on the other hand, is the biggest threat that Microsoft has faced since its founding and it has wasted no time in moving aggressively against both Microsoft and Apple, once Erich Schmidt left the board (that was the final sign that a war was brewing), by attacking their established franchises. In the case of Microsoft it is Google apps and Chrome OS while for Apple it is Android and the Google phone. Microsoft benefits more from having Apple as an ally in the fight against Google rather than attacking Apple with Windows Mobile, which isn't a serious contender anyway, while Google delivers a body blow to Windows and Office. No, Microsoft and Apple will set aside their differences, for now, to address the challenge of Google.

Re:If so, Apple is hurting themselves more

[Tim C]

The issue here is that MS is composed of total idiots

And yet, they are one of the computer industry's biggest players, and their software is on the vast majority of desktop machines. Even if you believe it's all because of anti-competitive practices and shady business deals, that still points at them being anything but total idiots.

Re:If so, Apple is hurting themselves more

[WindBourne]

So was Al Capone and his minons bright? Are the gangs of today bright? When you are FORCED to use illegal means to acquire and hold a monopoly, and to throw 10000x more money at competitor, then you are composed of idiots. Had MS been composed of brilliant ppl, then they would not have been forced to be illegal or to have to outspend their competitors by that amount.

Re:If so, Apple is hurting themselves more

[CodeBuster]

You've given reasons why Microsoft would court Apple to work against Google, but not why Apple would go along with MS's offers.

Apple would go along with Microsoft because the Android OS and Google phone represent a much more serious competitive threat to iPhone than Windows Mobile does. Apple should cooperate with Microsoft if that cooperation improves the competitiveness of iPhone vis-a-vis Android more than it helps Windows Mobile become a viable competitor. Microsoft hasn't shown much interest lately in improving Windows Mobile (that might change, but not quickly); preferring instead to put resources into Bing and shoring up the Windows and Office franchises.

Google is growing at MS's expense while creating new ways for Apple to grow at MS's expense.

Google is competing directly with Apple more and more these days and when it comes to mobile computing Google and Apple are basically on a collision course in the mobile device markets. As I have already said, the day that Eric Schmidt left Apple's Board of Directors was the confirmation that Google and Apple are now competitors; not partners.

To use an analogy, I would compare this to the present geopolitical situation in Pakistan. The classic arch-enemy of Pakistan has been India (as Microsoft has classically been the arch-enemy of Apple). However many experts feel that Pakistan is underestimating the threat posed by the Taliban by continuing to focus their attention on India, which is not as pressing a problem as the Taliban. In a similar fashion, it would be a mistake IMHO for Apple to underestimate Google and mistake them for a partner rather than a competitor.

The Windows->Google-on-Mac->Apple path is an easier one for Apple to thrive in than the direct Windows->Apple path

And yet Apple has classically resisted third-party attempts to marginalize core Apple software packages because it is the total "package" (hardware + software) that constitutes the premium experience that Apple charges premium prices for. If Google apps compete effectively with Quicktime, iWork, GargageBand, etc...it lessens the reasons to buy an expensive Apple product when one could get the same Google apps on a cheaper commodity PC. Reducing barriers to "switching" is a two-edged sword for Apple. If Google succeeds in "replacing" premium apps on MacOS then Apple's pricing model is in trouble.

Google's not particularly attacking Apple so much as attacking the much larger (in the phone industry) companies; the iphone has great publicity but hasn't grabbed much of the market. Google's growth there can, again, be at everyone else's expense and open the path for Apple's continued growth.

The more that the iPhone edges out other competing phones and divides up the market between itself and the Android phones, the more that iPhone will find itself being targeted by Android competitors. The iPhone has more ground to loose in the phone market because it is already wildly popular. Thus, new iPhone customers must be convinced that iPhone is a better choice than a Blackberry or the new slate of competing Android phones; especially the Motorola Droid on Verizon.

Any deal Google makes is an opportunity for Apple to demand the same good deal, for example.

It is doubtful that Google will be able to make as good of a deal as Apple did with AT&T; especially on Verizon. Steve Jobs has a reputation as a very shrewd negotiator (when he chooses to negotiate rather than directly compete) and it isn't clear, at least to outsiders, that any particular individual at Google is his equal in that department.

More like a whore

[Provocateur]

No, no, not what you think, more like "Who're we dealing with today"

You know, like Where do you want to go today. Really.

P.S. And not because of the earlier item re MS siding with AT&T vs. Tivo.

One person .... ???

[kWahab]

'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says ONE person familiar with Apple's thinking. 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'"

I wonder who it is ?

Re:One person .... ???

[mjwx]

'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says ONE person familiar with Apple's thinking. 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'

"I wonder who it is ?

Microsoft is a "pawn" in this battle in the same way as the US was a pawn in the Iraq-Iran war. The US was not a combatant, but this did not make them Iraq's bitch. In fact it was quite the opposite and the same is true with most of MS's deals historically, unless you're bigger and smarter then MS you'll end up as their bitch, not even IBM could avoid this... twice.

As for the war, it seems to be a little one sided with Apple doing all the fighting. Apple is switching to Bing, Apple de-listing/rejecting Google applications. Google on the other hand has not attacked Apple, Google is focusing on it's core offerings (Search, Advertising, Android and so forth) as well as branching out into new ones like Retail (the Nexus one, and yes they need to get more experience at selling fast) but not actually attacking Apple.

Re:One person .... ???

[Jesus_666]

I thought Google's core offerings were search and ads. The smartphone platform that is seen as the biggest threat to the iPhone is still a bit too recent for me to consider it a core offering. And it also nicely illustrates how Google is moving in on Apple's territory. And Google's Something One smartphone is a very direct attack on one of Apple's most profitable markets.

Re:One person .... ???

[mjwx]

I thought Google's core offerings were search and ads.

Sofware development and imagery are other core offerings. Google have a sizable stake in GeoEye(satellite imagery), Android counts as software development. Until now Google's only customer for development is Google, but this does not exclude it from being a core offering.

One smartphone is a very direct attack on one of Apple's most profitable markets.

Competition is not an attack.

This in no way inhibits or seeks to inhibit Apple. When a company loses to fair competition it is because that company could not compete, not because it was under attack. In this way Google's entry into the phone market is not an attack any more then Apple's entry was an attack onto Nokia et al.

Fair competition is akin to natural selection, being killed in a war is artificial selection. Entirely different beasties.

'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'

[NoPantsJim]

Sure. The corporation with the $271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $190 billion. That makes sense.

Re:'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'

[Lemmy Caution]

More details on the various players here.

Re:'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'

[tokul]

The corporation with the $271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $190 billion. That makes sense.

It makes sense when bigger part of 271 billion market cap comes from completely different market and 190 billion corps have higher market share in selected market.

Re:'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'

[NoPantsJim]

I suppose what I mean is that pawn implies being pushed around for someone else's goals. I don't think Microsoft is dumb enough to let Apple dick them around just to screw Google. If anything, Microsoft would find a mutually beneficial middle ground.

My main argument with the summary was the use of the word "pawn". I am no Microsoft fanboy (or Apple fanboy for that matter) but implying Microsoft would be dumb enough to get led around by a smaller company irked me.

Who approached who?

[atomicstrawberry]

Whether or not the two companies are talking isn't really as relevant as who it was that brought up the possibility. Did Apple approach MS (in which case it's all but assured to happen) or did MS approach Apple as a potential vehicle for marketing Bing to people? Semantics, maybe, but the origin of the push will make a big difference to the outcome of any talks.

"Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle"

[spintriae]

Who are the other seven pawns at Apple's disposal? Yahoo maybe? Who else?

The missing detail

[dangitman]

This rumor is correct in a way, but is missing crucial details. The iPhone's search will be powered by a Bing... but it will be Bing Crosby.

Re:The missing detail

[Itninja]

But in time that engine will become obsolete and then it will be powered by Denise Crosby. But we all know how that will end: less than a year and the engine will demand a more prominent role and probably just up and quite altogether. Only to come crawling back a few years after that to play it's own hybrid offspring from another time-line. Bitch.

Re:The missing detail

[VGPowerlord]

Then the engine will host a documentary about the Bingies.

Blame Firefox

[SuperKendall]

I *really* hate Google for destroying the right-click copy-link-location. Maybe I'll change to Bing, it does not do that.

Google didn't do that. Pretty much any browser except for Firefox copies the REAL link just fine.

Firefox instead tries to go the extra mile by looking at the href, noticing there's an onclck(), and following that to figure out what URL will be called when you, well, click. So it copies some URL you are never meant to see, much less copy. The fact is that Firefox is NOT copying the visible text, and I don't think it's fair to blame that on Google.

Re:Blame Firefox

[causality]

The fact is that Firefox is NOT copying the visible text, and I don't think it's fair to blame that on Google.

Have you used Firefox? It has two options: one is "Copy" which copies the visible text; the other is "Copy Link Location" which places the URL in the clipboard. In this case, Firefox is not copying the visible text because the user is not telling it to do that.

Re:Blame Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

I have noscript on. I'm always getting the real URL. I guess that some people hate noscript, but it works just fine for me.

Re:Blame Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox does the right thing here because it shows you the actual URL you'll be directed to. Anything else is fundamentally broken and a detriment to security.

Re:Blame Firefox

[shutdown -p now]

Have you used Firefox? It has two options: one is "Copy" which copies the visible text; the other is "Copy Link Location" which places the URL in the clipboard. In this case, Firefox is not copying the visible text because the user is not telling it to do that.

You still misunderstand. For Google result pages, the href attribute of the links is actually the original URL (which can be trivially checked by looking at the source HTML). However, the page also has some JavaScript which intercepts clicked links, and redirects you via Google so that they detect the click. The problem with Firefox is that its "Copy Link Location" command does not copy the value in a/@href (as all other browsers do it), but tries to be smart, looks for said associated script, and sees where it will forward you to.

Re:Blame Firefox

[garry_g]

And that is the fault/error on the side of Firefox why? Sorry, but Firefox goes that extra mile because webpages might lead you somewhere else than they actually pretend to lead you ... complain to Google about doing that, or write a Greasemonkey script to clean up that click-tracking ... (I wouldn't wonder if such a script already existed ...)

Re:Blame Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

The standard was <a ping...>. Unfortunately, "privacy" folks went nuts about it and didn't want any browser to support it. Firefox implemented it but turns it off by default.

At the time, some folks such as me pointed out that a site could always do whatever it wanted with the html, so limiting this kind of an interaction was a pointless battle. By not supporting ping we'd just make the sites use redirectors or javascript hackery to get the same information. Thanks to the anti-ping folks, we got the fun of open redirector vulnerabilities, now we have links that don't copy, and at no point did the analytics information that sites collect ever change. Thanks!

Re:Blame Firefox

[KiloByte]

So Firefox is the only one not vulnerable to false links. It tells you where the link actually leads instead of where it claims to.

Re:Blame Firefox

[darthflo]

Nobody's at fault. The standard defines how authors (including Google) are to write their pages and how User-Agents (including Firefox) are to render it. It doesn't define how the browser chrome's supposed to look (heh, d'you really think the fugly hack Firefox' interface is or that cluttered mess called Internet Explorer would've made it through?). What's defined, almost down to the pixel, is the rendered page, bordered on top by the tab, on the right by the scroll and on the bottom by the status bar.

Google uses two attributes of the A tag in conjunction: HREF and ONCLICK. Href tells the user-agent where to send the client if the link is interacted with, i.e. clicked on or highlighted and confirmed with a press of return. This is meant to be the destination site. Most user-agents reveal this information to their user when hovering over the link. This can be helpful when deciding whether to visit the page or not. Sending it through a forwarder is allowed but generally considered bad behaviour, because it removes the ability to "look ahead" from the user.
The onclick attribute is a call to an embedded script in the page. This could be used to do additional processing when clicking a link. For example, href could be used with target to open a link in a new window. Onclick could be used to open a window of a specified size and configuration for all clients who run scripts, while those who don't will get the default window. With smaller capabilities from the browser, the experience would degrade gracefully. Onclick can, as Google prominently demonstrates, also be used to track which search results their users click on for a given query. Their rationale is most likely getting feedback in order to improve their search results. Obviously, there is a slight loss of privacy.

Now on to "Copy Link Location". This feature is a part of the browser. HTML or related standards won't touch this, so Firefox doesn't violate any standards there. Applicable standards would be along the lines of the Gnome Human Interface Guideline or the equivalents for other platforms. None of those define the expected behaviour of "Copy Link Location" in relation to a hypertext document.
The only standard that applies is user expectation, which should be copying the href attribute. Fx tries to go above and beyond that and catch the actual location the user might be forwarded to by extended onclick attributes. For some combinations of href and onclick, this can yield better results. For some (including Google), it won't.

TL;DR: No standard applies. Firefox attempts to go above and beyond user expectations, fails to deliver and is somewhat at fault.

Re:Blame Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox does the right thing here because it shows you the actual URL you'll be directed to. Anything else is fundamentally broken and a detriment to security.

If you are depending on people reading link text for your "security", I'd say that's fundamentally broken. If it matters, one should be using certificates, SSL, and whenever available, DNSSEC. Anything else opens up far too many alternative avenues for trickery. Furthermore, if you don't trust the html of the page you are on, you probably should not be clicking on anything anyway, as there are still many bad tricks the author can pull on you using tools such as invisible elements and iframes. I guess Firefox is now helpfully executing those click actions automatically without you clicking on them; there may be interesting new possibilities there I guess.

Back to non-malicious sites, Firefox has now broken perfectly honest redirectors all over the web for a minimal to nonexistent additional security.

P.S. since you seem to think Firefox should display the actual URL you'll be directed to, why shouldn't it show where the redirector is going to send you, rather than the redirector itself?

Re:Blame Firefox

[Rhaban]

Firefox goes that extra mile because webpages might lead you somewhere else than they actually pretend to lead you ...

And how does stopping you from copying the url in the href by replacing it with the url where javascript would redirect you helps at all, when you do want to go to the href url?

Re:Blame Firefox

[garry_g]

In the case of "poison" links, at least you see that you're at the wrong place ... and, as someone else stated, you can still copy the verbose link (i.e. text) from the google page ... still, just because Google uses JS to hide their clicktracking, Firefox isn't at fault for using the actual link ... one could maybe add another context-menu-entry in such cases to allow for copying either the HREF or the JS link ...

Re:Blame Firefox

[xigxag]

I think it is fair to blame it on Google. Look at the status bar. Hovering over the link shows the actual link. But as soon as you press right-click, regardless of whether you actually copy anything, the link changes to a referrer. If I had to guess, I'd say it was done as part of the collaboration between Google and Firefox. Firefox is paid for by Google, and so this is simply another way for the browser to make itself valuable to its benefactor.

Re:Blame Firefox

[LiquidFire_HK]

I'm sorry but I don't see anything that indicates this is the case, nor can I see how this would even be possible to accomplish. How would you know where some piece of JS will redirect you to without executing it?

At any rate, copying Google search result URLs works just fine for me in Firefox.

Re:Blame Firefox

[Chris Pimlott]

Curious, you're right, I hadn't noticed that. It appears that Firefox actually changes the href in the DOM as soon as you right click on the link

1. Search for "CPAN"..
2. However over the first link (to cpan.org)
    Status bar shows the unadorned link, "http://www.cpan.org"
3. Right click on the link
    Status bar now shows the google passthrough link, "http://www.google.com/url?..."
4. Hightlight the CPAN hyperlink, right click and view source
    The href has been changed

Re:Blame Firefox

[shutdown -p now]

I'm sorry but I don't see anything that indicates this is the case, nor can I see how this would even be possible to accomplish. How would you know where some piece of JS will redirect you to without executing it?

Well, if the piece of JS is just a single function call that redirects to a given URL, it would be fairly trivial. No-one is saying that it can handle arbitrary URLs, only the common cheap trick of a one-liner in onclick. Many web crawlers could handle this for years.

In this case, though, I've played with it in Firefox DOM inspector, and it's a tad different. Google doesn't use JS directly to navigate you to a different page. Instead, they change the value of a/@href when a mouse button is pressed over it (onmousedown)! The difference is that in Firefox, that handler is (for some reason) called on any mouse button, so invoking context menu on the link also does it; while in IE/Chrome/Opera/... it only happens on left mouse button down, so context menu is not affected.

Either way, definitely a hack on Google side.

Re:Blame Firefox

[shutdown -p now]

It's not Firefox's fault. See my post above for an explanation of what Google actually does (it's more subtle than just intercepting onClick).

Re:Blame Firefox

[causality]

Have you used Firefox? It has two options: one is "Copy" which copies the visible text; the other is "Copy Link Location" which places the URL in the clipboard. In this case, Firefox is not copying the visible text because the user is not telling it to do that.

You still misunderstand. For Google result pages, the href attribute of the links is actually the original URL (which can be trivially checked by looking at the source HTML). However, the page also has some JavaScript which intercepts clicked links, and redirects you via Google so that they detect the click. The problem with Firefox is that its "Copy Link Location" command does not copy the value in a/@href (as all other browsers do it), but tries to be smart, looks for said associated script, and sees where it will forward you to.

When you don't accept or execute Google's Javascript, the "copy link location" works as you would expect for every other site. As their search engine is the only service of theirs that I use, it's easy for me not to accept their JS.

Re:Blame Firefox

[thetoadwarrior]

Actually the error should lie with Firefox because what Google does is not Google specific. If most of the major search engines do it then you should account for that.

But that said, I tested Firefox and it does copy the correct URL. I'm not sure what other people have that's causing it to act different.

Bing:
<h3><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie" onmousedown="return si_T('&amp;ID=SERP,119.1')"><strong>Pie</strong> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></h3>

Ask.com
<a target="_blank" class="L4" onmousedown="return fp(this,{en:'sx',io:'0',b:'a002',tp:'d',ec:'2',ex:'tsrc%3DRFE'},'false',0)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie" id="r1_t"><b>Pie</b> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>

Yahoo's solution, while different, is, imo, worse:
<a href="http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A03uv8YGr1hLLIwA_2xLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MGRnOXJpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA1VLMDY1MF82NTA-/SIG=11kfvbjli/EXP=1264189574/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie" class="yschttl spt" orighref="http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A03uv8YGr1hLLIwA_2xLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MGRnOXJpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA1VLMDY1MF82NTA-/SIG=11kfvbjli/EXP=1264189574/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie"><b>Pie</b> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>

Maps?

[thzinc]

Will Apple ditch Google Maps in favor of Microsoft's offering as well, or is really just an addition to the list of search providers in Safari?

IBM and Intel were once Apple's enemies ...

[perpenso]

As the old saying goes...Adversity makes strange bed fellows.

Both IBM and Intel were once portrayed as "enemies" by Apple, and both were lampooned in the Apple ads of the day. Partnering with IBM or Intel was once considered inconceivable by Apple's more "enthusiastic" fans. Yet it happened. It would be more difficult in the Microsoft case, but with Apple anything is possible.

--
Perpenso Calc for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN

Re:IBM and Intel were once Apple's enemies ...

[shutdown -p now]

It would be more difficult in the Microsoft case, but with Apple anything is possible.

Given that it happened in the past, why would it be particularly difficult?

Jobs may have some personal feelings about it, but he's also a very good businessman, and business is business.

Total world domination!

[Fished]

1. First, they ignored us.
2. Then, we declared war on them.
3. Then, they ignored us.
4. Then, we took the webservers. And they kind of noticed us.
5. Then, they ignored us.
6. Then, we took the netbooks. And they really started noticing us.
7. Then, they ignored us.
8. Then, we took the mobile phones. And they started to worry.
9. Then, we ignored them. And they stopped ignoring us. Kind of.
10. Then, came the next big thing. And it didn't say, "Microsoft," but came from Google or Apple.
11. Then, we ignored them completely. And it ran Android and OSX/FreeBSD.
12. And then, we won.

Re:Total world domination!

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how iPhone will start their next step, as one of crazy Nintendo fans, this is really attracting to me!

http://www.jojam.tw/blog/post/26323134

Don't worry about the mandarin, just see the pics and u'll know their idea. Fantastic!!
Honestly, if Nintendo publish this Nintenphone, iphone / android will face a serious threat.
And, embed Bing or Google as the primary search enginge seems not an important issue for Nintenphone users.

Isn't it like in Battlestar Galactica (spoiler)

[dushkin]

when we realize that a character we kinda like (Apple) goes against a character we mostly love (Google) because it turns out IT'S ACTUALLY A FUCKIN' CYLON SYMPATHIZER, YOU GUYS! (Microsoft)

Re:Micro$oft owns apple

[gyrogeerloose]

since the longest time, so no surprise here. Feel free to do some fact checking.

[Citation needed]

4/1?

[ryanhos]

Wow...April is coming early this year.

Strategery

[symbolset]

Microsoft has finally awakened to the fact that they're fighting for their life here. It's good that they've woken up in that Redmond ivory tower - it means they'll finally have to start thinking about what products we might want, how they can increase demand be delivering features and security. This is a lot better than the previous model of telling us what we should want. It's bad because it's easier to kill a sleeping giant than one that's alert and fighting.

It's bad in that once awakened, they fight hard and take no prisoners. It means they will induce more OEMs to force Bing on us - in fact word has it they're negotiating with Apple for just that. I hope that Jobs will be enough offended by the idea of a " Bing powered iPhone " to prevent that. Not only are they forcing the search engine, but they want top billing. That's hubris. I would be offended too if I engineered this device that swept the mobile phone world, only to find that someone else who did everything they could to prevent it wanted to claim they "powered" it. It would take a lot of money to assuage my ire. Office 11, crippled in the usual ways, would not cut it for me, and I don't think Steve Jobs is dumb enough to take that deal.

Regardless this represents a phase change in their strategy that we should be alert to.

calling bullshit

[Tom]

I'm calling bullshit on this one.

Apple goes for "sexy" in everything it does. Tell me where Bing is sexy? It has no appeal whatsoever to anyone I know. Heck, 80% of the people I know probably don't even know what the heck it is and would guess it's a new clothes shop or something.

I also think Apple got into bed with MS once and still feels somewhat sorry about it. After initial great support (IE on Mac is said to have been far better than the windos version) MS did to them what they do to everyone: Let them hang. I doubt that brings them much love from Apple.

"We"?

[CountBrass]

"We"? Either you're over-identifying or you have some serious psychological issues. Either that or Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer have joined Slashdot although I struggle to see why they'd use 'foredecker' as their username.

Re:"We"?

[Foredecker]

CountBrass - I work at Microsoft. I'm a dev manager in Windows. Ready my profile. Its very easy to find and quite public.

I think I can safely say 'we'.

-Foredecker

Pfft.

[CountBrass]

You mean in the same way that the Zune "slowly ate away at" the iPod?

Re:Pfft.

[WindBourne]

Apple never helped MS with any of that. OTH, MS made friendly with many companies and then destroyed them after they had the advantage. Apple's desktop comes first to mind. Sybase is next. But so does Borland, AOL, Novell, and netscape. In fact, when MS wants into an area, they are more than happy to destroy any 'Friend' to get to what they perceive as a threat.

Intuit, Survives because they have a monopoly backing their books desktop. Without that, intuit would have lost LONG ago. Basically, when a company falls into bed with MS, MS will us that knowledge and position to destroy.

Cars?

[CountBrass]

So what you're saying is that Apple, a character kinda like (Volkswagen) goes against character and gets bought out by (Porsche), a much smaller company. But it turns out IT'S ACTUALLY A FUCKIN' CYLON SYMPATHIZER(sic), YOU GUYS (because Volkswagen turn around and take over Porschs). Is that what you're saying?

interface

[StripedCow]

Let's hope that they will polish up Bing's interface while they are at it.

1984

[davygrvy]

Images of 1984 by George Orwell pop into mind like the three factions: Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. “War is Peace” "Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.” It's always 2 vs 1

Integrate with desktop search

[Moabz]

Bing, you got it ...
Adds delivered to your desktop

Past companies who partnered with Microsoft

[Solandri]

Some past companies who partnered with Microsoft (or tried to):

IBM
Spyglass
Stac Electronics
Sun
Sendo
OpenDocument

Good luck, Apple!

Re:Past companies who partnered with Microsoft

[shutdown -p now]

Apple should be on that list, as well - it's nothing new for them.

However, the difference between other companies on said list and Apple is that Apple actually benefited a lot from doing so.

Re:Past companies who partnered with Microsoft

[ucblockhead]

You forgot one former partner.

Re:not even in the same league / market

[mgblst]

Fuck off fanboy.

Bias in results

[polyp2000]

Search
"switching to ubuntu" on bing ,
and then try Google.

Googles first result is "switching to ubuntu from windows"
Bings first result is "switching to ubuntu from OSX"

Re:Bias in results

[Chris Pimlott]

SwitchingToUbuntuFromWindows on the Ubuntu wiki is the first hit on both for me.

Bing search
Google search

Re:Bias in results

[thetoadwarrior]

Look at the auto-suggest. It suggests something up to "switching to" and then goes away where as it does not on Google. Further examination shows that auto-suggest mysterious dies when trying to combine both ubuntu and windows together.

"unbuntu to windows fails", even "unbuntu windows" fails, "ubuntu download" works but trying to get anything after download seems to fail especially typing windows.

A lot of people are dependant on auto-suggest now, especially for topics new to them (ie switching to a new OS) and by manipulating the results of auto-suggest (but not the actual results) they can sway people without being flat out accused of censorship of the competition.

Re:Bias in results

[man_ls]

Auto-suggest tends to be generated based on search popularity. If not a lot of people are typing the terms you want to see, they're not going to show up in auto-suggest. Unless someone added them manually, I suppose -- but that's where the REAL bias would be.

Re:Bias in results

[thetoadwarrior]

That would make sense if there weren't documented examples of biased results linux auto suggestions

http://lpdc.be/colar/brols/Google-Bing.png

Similar things happened with search for blue screen of death and windows as I recall. Admittedly both instances don't do that now which is no surprise considering how much attention it received.

2nd Source?

[phooka.de]

All articles I see refer to business week.

Can we have a second independent source, please?

It sounds implausible enough to drive business week's webtraffic. It includes all bis three in IT, a sure way to generate traffic. It implies that Apple-Fanboys will soon support the arch-enemy, a sure way to boost webtraffic.

I don't buy it, not without a second source.

Re:2nd Source?

[mcgrew]

All articles I see refer to business week.

I think the Ferengi Times covered it, but that periodical is only available on Ferengenar and on Wall Street.

Re:not even in the same league / market

[nyctopterus]

The most-used apps on the iPhone (and probably any other smart phone) are Google's. There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1% sliver of the phone market cares about.

Dude, you've got this seriously wrong, iTunes is the killer app. The iPhone isn't really a smart phone, it's an iPod with a built in phone. It got people who don't even know what a smart phone is buying them.

  Android is a smart phone users/geeks gadget, I don't think the overlap is that great.

Re:Porn Search Engine

[garfi5h]

Behold. A new search engine will arise: bingbus.com. The ultimate porn search engine.

Comeon

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no love for Bing. Ive tried and tried, but its nowhere near Google in delivering relevant results.
Also Bing often waste space by delivering the same results over and over. It feels like the 90s again..
If someone wants to praise Bing, then please show the result comparisons, or shut up ;-)

However, Windows XP is probably the most useful, easy, flexible and pretty stable OS out there. Its a neat combination of many things, and even has lots of free software / freeware going for it (bye bye OS X!). With Styler and some DLL hacks, you can even style XP to look better than Vista.
Microsoft Office is and has always been at the forefront of office automation, which sorry to say, OO just cant compete with due to its java dependency and poor UI designers.
VBA is just pure genious. Now everyone can make their own automations, and quickly utilize the power of MS Office, SQL Server and any COM/Dotnet apps. Once you have weeded out the security holes, it DOES deliver much of what was promised with IT.. Nobody has ever come near this usability yet, and its been here for years.
Yes, I have used Lotus 1-2-3 and other spreadsheets, Wordperfect. They were good, but somehow lost the battle. Too bad, but honestly, Ive always prefered Word and Excel.

How many millions of users make their own Excel sheets, Word documents, Powerpoint presentations? Lots! Some even go so far as to make their own in-house applications with them, and its really quick (and dirty), but it gets the job done!

Give praise where praise is due dude, because nobody else has ever come close to striking the right balance what Microsoft has over the years.
Theyve been providing the best tools for office workers for years, and nobody has been able to bring so much as a dent to their market.
Maybe Windows7 will also be good, its too early to tell, but it looks promising. I just wish they could clean up their GUI, instead of clutter it more (bye bye Vista!).

Btw, every time I go with Linux (Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu, ...etc... etc), I end up having to fix broken ACPI, broken distro-hacks which bypasses /etc/network/interfaces and then manages to break itself, and other silly things which should just work out of the box. Granted XP also has its share of fail, but as long as you dont have proper end-user testing and test-cases, Ubuntu will never be ready for the masses. Hello, why not do automated test-cases of distros? Then ACPI will be easy to test in every release
Linux is Good for serving though, but I had to spend a day fixing the ACPI because my server is now a laptop (with batteries as UPS - pure genius), and the screen would just blank, not go off, among other silly failures in Ubuntu 9.04 (I couldnt use 9.10 because of incompatibilities with Dell hardware). Such failures, if left unnoticed, can actually melt a laptop (when u need to have the lid closed)!

I WISH there were more and better alternatives out there, but they *need* to properly test and update their software first, before I can bother using it on the desktop. This has been the state for Linux in the past 10 years. Every time I install Linux, I have to spend days fixing what should work out of the box. It just takes longer time than XP, which is not such a moving target, and you dont need more than TweakUI, Styler, Portable Apps (no I DONT want/need MS Install Shield!), MS Office and the dozens or so OS configurations u love to hate ;)

With experience, I can get XP up and running in like 4-5 hours. Linux may take several weeks to weed out the bugs, especially if you want the desktop experience.. Not worth it IMHO.

Re:Comeon

[biryokumaru]

Let me put this in a bad car analogy for you:

I've always driven Chevys. I've had 5 of them so far, and I love'em. I know how to change the oil, I can get parts easily, and I can do lots of general maintenance without much hassle. I've even replaced the engine in my old Corvette with a new 350 after I blew up the original (I know, my bad >.

Now my wife has convinced me to buy a Toyota. It took me over an hour just to figure out how to change the oil. From looking at the Haynes manual, I think I might have to take out the engine just to change the fuel filter.

Why are Toyotas so terrible? Are they a clearly inferior product? I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but our new Toyota gets 2-3 times better gas mileage than my old Corvette. It might not be as easy to fix when certain things break, and the sound system is clearly inferior to the one I'd put in the Corvette, but mostly things in the Toyota do work better than in any of the Chevys.

When shit breaks, I'm clueless. Because I've only ever had Chevys. It's not Toyota's fault I have an extremely narrow breadth of experience in the automotive repair field. That's my fault. My ignorance doesn't make Chevy a better manufacturer.

Stop blaming Linux for your lack of experience.

Microsoft & Apple

[Ice Wewe]

If this is anything like their previous relationships, it won't end well.

Remember those early versions of OS X? The ones that shipped with IE 5 as the default (and only) web browser. Any self respecting person would immediately uninstall IE after downloading Mozilla/Opera/Netscape because IE 5 was horrible.

I think we should give Microsoft a chance to show that they've changed, but if history is any indication, this agreement will likely end up causing user frustration and resentment.

Apple Vs Google

[mjwalshe]

soory Google is in the Advertsing business Apple is not. In No way at all is Apple Googles primary enemey or vice versa

Re:not even in the same league / market

[pydev]

The iPhone isn't really a smart phone, it's an iPod with a built in phone

Interesting point, but it doesn't change the 1% market share and 3x price. And there are plenty of MP3 and music apps on Android.

I'm not sure how much that accounts for the popularity of the iPhone. I always carry an iPod Nano for music, regardless of which phone I'm using; I never found it made much sense to use the phone for MP3.

Android is a smart phone users/geeks gadget, I don't think the overlap is that great.

Well, whatever the reason, we seem to agree there; this is not an epic Google/Apple battle.

When has MS changes its ways?

[SmallFurryCreature]

I hear you saying that you think MS is a reformed thief. Fine, but where is your evidence? I seen them not change at all. People have been saying for over 10 years that MS has changed and it is never true.

But fine, point me to some evidence.

Re:When has MS changes its ways?

[DerPflanz]

I hear you saying that you think MS is a reformed thief.

In that case, you heard wrong. I merely ask questions. It seems like Microsoft cannot do anything right, whatever they do. The fact remains that they did a lot of questionable things, have been convicted and created bad products. But, if they do make something useful or of good quality, it gets judged based on those previous products and actions. I think people should judge products on their merit or quality. Of course you would be suspicious if it came from a producer that has created only bad products before. But if you dismiss the product beforehand, the company will never have any chance to become better.

Re:When has MS changes its ways?

[jgagnon]

But life doesn't work that way. If someone is convicted of being a child molester 40 years ago and hasn't had a single "incident" since, I still wouldn't let them near my kids. That's an extreme example, but that's the way many people seem to think. In this case, Microsoft has a long history of abusing user and partner trust, so why should anyone believe anything they do now is trustworthy? It doesn't matter if they produce the "best product ever" because some (maybe even many) people will always consider their actions in the past as relevant to what they're doing now. And those people, historically, have good reason to be suspicious.

Re:When has MS changes its ways?

[DerPflanz]

But life doesn't work that way.

It does for smaller crimes. But, you give me a good answer to my question. For you, Microsoft will never be redeemed for their crimes, or at least not in our lifetime.

Well, I am suprised

[SmallFurryCreature]

I frankly didn't see this coming. Steve Jobs must really be asleep at the wheel.

So, Google launches a mobile phone and all of sudden that is the big enemy? The biggest competitor? Has Jobs gained his kidney in exchange for his brain?

Google vs Apple: mobile phone.

MS vs Apple: Mobile phone, OS, Browser, Office productivity, home movie making software, media codecs, media plugin for browser, music shop, MP3 player (iPod vs Zune), portable media player (iPod touch vs Zune HD), Tablet, server OS...

The list probably goes on, but anyone with a brain will notice the difference already in the list size.

Apple seems to be cutting of its head to spite its face. They don't want google to have iPhone search data... why? Because MS won't be using the data to promote their OWN smartphones AND everything else OVER Apples product.

Either Apple sees google blowing them out of the water in every other aspect as well (do they think Android/ChomeOS could wipe OSX of the map?) or they got VERY short memories. MS does NOT play well, they should know this, they been screwed before.

I predict that this will NOT work out well, don't know how it is going bite Apple in the ass, but if you seen as many butts with MS tooth prints in it, you know the signs.

What could they do?

[Lorien_the_first_one]

To put this post in context, check out this video to see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo

In Microsoft's fantasy world, everyone uses Windows, Microsoft development tools and there is no competition. What could they do to regain my respect? Stop lying about their competition (especially Linux), drop their patents and lawsuit threats, embrace and support open standards without extending them with proprietary lock-in. Put customers first before the egos of executives and shareholders. Quit trying to embrace, extend and extinguish FOSS.

Oh, and they could try making better software instead of spin.

I know. They have a business model they are trying to support, and shareholders to satisfy. But their all-encompassing, over-arching, take-no-prisoners attitude has gotta go.

Gotta agree

[SmallFurryCreature]

I just don't get the logic of competition either, already posted elsewhere in this thread but MS competes with Apple on far more fronts, practically ALL of them. The only difference is that Apple sells desktop PC's and MS doesn't. But MS is coming out with a tablet, as is Apple, they both got mobile phones AND mp3 players, server OS...

I just don't get it.

Re:Perverse Bias in results

[grepppo]

Even worse, at the bottom of the bing search "Six reasons to switch from Ubuntu to Vista" !!!??

Apple was not *SAVED* by Microsoft

[beetle496]

Please mod parent up. Please mod grandparent down.

That's funny, I don't see

[aussersterne]

Books
Finance
Scholar
Translate
Blogs
YouTube
Calendar
Photos
Documents
Reader
Groups

or the "even more" link that takes you to yet more Google offerings.

Much more, if you compare Google News to Bing News or Hotmail to Gmail, I think you'll find that there's still something significant missing from Bing, even if the word itself is there.

Re:That's funny, I don't see

[jim_v2000]

No, it's not exactly the same, but it does have images, videos, news, etc that you can click to see without retyping your search.

Huh?

[JustNiz]

Apple are so scared of Google they jump into bed with Microsoft? wow.

The Unmentioned WHY

[Archangel Michael]

I have a theory about this, and it hasn't been mentioned in this thread that I've seen.

Apple is considering this deal because it will significantly weaken MS, and Google both.

Think if it this way, Apple has no dog in this show (Search), they don't care one way or another except for Google has Android, and MS is ... well MS.

By having this deal, MS is funneling $ to Apple, for what? An icon on the iPhone? Apple knows that it would be fairly easy to ALSO install a Google Icon, and make it fairly easy for the average iPhone user to switch.

Best of both worlds, Apple gets $ from MS, and doesn't prevent people from moving to Google.

Well that and BING Is Not Google.

Feels like Bush having dinner with Bin Laden

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Although Bush and Bin Laden having dinner would be less likely to surprise me.

Re:not even in the same league / market

[radish]

I'm sorry - are you high? You claim that iPhone has "1%" of the smart phone market, and that Android has more? Utter crap. The most recent data I could find from the end of last year gives Apple 18%, behind Symbian and RIM. Android is showing a whopping 3.5%. Now I'm sure Android did much better in Q4 and will continue to rise, but I would bet my house they won't even reach iPhone by the end of 2010, never mind pass them.

WTF are people smoking

[MistrBlank]

We've already established Apple doesn't feel it needs to crush opponents to win. It just needs to exist to win.

Why does anyone think that Apple needs to get into bed with Microsoft over Google? Here's a tip, all three are competitors with each other in the mobile market. As far as device makers go, neither google nor M$ actually make their phones, the Nexus One is STILL AN HTC DEVICE.

Please stop spewing this CRAP and sensationalistic reporting to keep people visiting the site. This is about as bad as suggesting Apple dump their hardware sales and license to Dell.

Re:WTF are people smoking

[Duradin]

Probably because culturally we've adopted the unsophisticated view that for someone to succeed everyone else must fail and that anything short of total $NOUN domination is a failure.

Tautology time: Apple is Apple. As long as Apple remains Apple and is profitable as Apple, Apple doesn't need to try to become Google or Microsoft. But in this mba laden world if Apple isn't increasing their market share (never mind if they are profitable already at their current share) at their competitors expense then they are obviously failing.

Re: Microsucks didn't save Apple

[pubwvj]

Microsoft didn't save Apple.
Apple doesn't need Office.
Office is an elephant in a row boat.
Too much feature bloat and lack of focus.
Elephants also don't have thumbs.

Browser defaults

[phorm]

Notwithstanding the idea of google being a "nice, new cafe", you forgot the part where the own the maker of your car's GPS, or whatever, and when you look up any food the GPS defaults to setting your route to their restaurant.

Would Bing be nearly as big if it weren't the default search engine in IE? I doubt it. Having an alliance between MS and Apple making it default on iPhones makes it even worse...

Re:Micro$oft owns apple

[gyrogeerloose]

A thirteen year old agreement (which has since expired) to develop software for the Mac is hardly what could be called "ownership." Nor is that $150 million in non-voting stock, which Microsoft sold long ago for a tidy profit.

I own a staggering fourteen shares of AAPL; that's nowhere near the amount that MS owned but because mine is real voting stock, I actually have more control over the destiny of Apple than Microsoft ever did.

Al-Quaeda air

[phorm]

If Al-Quaeda suddenly started donating to orphanages, building schools, and then started an airline with cheap booze, hot stewardesses, and free flights for Americans... would you fly with them?

How about you throw in that in the meantime they're still planting roadside bombs and otherwise doing other evil things.
But hey, it's a free first-class flight. Never mind that looming tower in the distance.

With a well-deserved reputation, it will be a LONG bloody time before many in the industry trust MS, if ever. Probably not until their "mighty empire" has been brought down more than a peg or two and they *HAVE* to behave in order to do business, as opposed to bulldozing their way through competition.

Re:Default but still switchable actually helps goo

[Yvan256]

With all the cash they've got they can probably afford Frosted Flakes.

Searching on "google is evil"

[Beerdood]

I thought those results seem a bit skewed, so I thought I'd do a search on "why is google evil", on bing and on google.

If you look at those results, the google results actually have more page links related to google being evil (all on first page, exception of one like to a google corporate policy. The same search on bing only returned half of the pages actually linking google to evil (#3,4,5 are links specifying that google isn't evil). Clearly bing has a pro google bias, and google has some sort of grudge against google!

I'm not defending microsoft here, and I don't understand their search strategy, but maybe their search results deliberately return some opposites or counterpoints to the question asked / standpoint. Personally, I would rather have a search engine show a couple of counterpoints on searches like "Democrats are destroying America", "Republicans are destroying America", "Why religion is right", "Why religion is wrong" etc... Maybe it'll help people see multiple viewpoints and be a little more objective.

Re:not even in the same league / market

[pydev]

You claim that iPhone has "1%" of the smart phone market

No, I claim that iPhone has 1% of the phone market, which it does.

and that Android has more?

No, I did not. Go back and read what I wrote.

There just is no "battle" here. Google may be a threat to Apple, but Apple just isn't a threat to Google.

User choice

[Macka]

If Apple do go down this route they had better leave the option open for users to change back to google if they see fit. I have no interest in using Bing - I'm very happy with the search results I get from google thanks.

And if Apple decide to do a Verison and take the choice away from me then I won't hesitate to take the option to jailbreak my iPhone: something I've never felt the need to do before now. I expect I would not be alone either.

The future is one word...

[mantissa128]

Goople.

Actually quite the opposite

[SuperKendall]

So Firefox is the only one not vulnerable to false links.

Firefox is the only one that copies a link I cannot see in the href when I view source. And you are claiming it is less vulnerable...

What it is regardless, is less useful. If someone has an href that's what I want to copy, not whatever horror Javascript is performing upon the link.

Listen DIPSHIT, DISPICABLE is exactly right

[omb]

As a twice convicted corporatist criminal convicted on two continents and with innumerable convictions for theft, the officers should be in a Supermax.