Bing To Become Default iPhone Search?

Big Battle by sopssa · 2010-01-20 16:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by kregg · 2010-01-20 16:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

the thought of using bing makes me cringe
Re:Big Battle by contrapunctus · 2010-01-20 17:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Darkness404 · 2010-01-20 17:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Big Battle by iVtec · 2010-01-20 18:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by DerPflanz · 2010-01-20 20:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
Re:Big Battle by __aajfby9338 · 2010-01-20 20:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by node+3 · 2010-01-20 20:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Nikker · 2010-01-20 20:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Re:Big Battle by pydev · 2010-01-20 21:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by pydev · 2010-01-20 21:21 · Score: 4, Funny

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 by EzInKy · 2010-01-20 21:55 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:Big Battle by BasilBrush · 2010-01-20 23:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by rtfa-troll · 2010-01-20 23:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Big Battle by FreeUser · 2010-01-20 23:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Re:Big Battle by DJRumpy · 2010-01-21 00:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Bert64 · 2010-01-21 01:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Big Battle by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-01-21 01:30 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Big Battle by jgagnon · 2010-01-21 01:55 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:Big Battle by IICV · 2010-01-21 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by liquiddark · 2010-01-21 05:09 · Score: 2, Funny

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 by theun4gven · 2010-01-21 07:25 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

Marketshare gains misleading... by SuperKendall · 2010-01-20 16:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Marketshare gains misleading... by sopssa · 2010-01-20 16:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

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... by jhol13 · 2010-01-20 17:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by LoverOfJoy · 2010-01-20 17:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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... by lorenlal · 2010-01-20 17:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 17:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by linumax · 2010-01-20 17:34 · Score: 2, Informative

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... by icebraining · 2010-01-20 17:40 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Marketshare gains misleading... by hairyfeet · 2010-01-20 18:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Marketshare gains misleading... by derGoldstein · 2010-01-20 18:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Marketshare gains misleading... by derGoldstein · 2010-01-20 18:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Marketshare gains misleading... by denmarkw00t · 2010-01-20 18:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by bjourne · 2010-01-20 20:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Football Odds
Re:Marketshare gains misleading... by michaelhood · 2010-01-20 22:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

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... by nmg196 · 2010-01-20 23:14 · Score: 2, Informative

> 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.

as the old saying goes by stimpleton · 2010-01-20 16:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--

In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.

Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2010-01-20 16:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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? by DirtyCanuck · 2010-01-20 17:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by TrancePhreak · 2010-01-20 17:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT? by arose · 2010-01-20 17:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT? by derGoldstein · 2010-01-20 19:24 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:It's not a search engine by Lemmy+Caution · 2010-01-20 17:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Default but still switchable actually helps goo by Lemmy+Caution · 2010-01-20 17:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:It's not a search engine by Tibor+the+Hun · 2010-01-20 17:04 · Score: 2, Funny

good insight

--
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.

Re:Microsoft a pawn? by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-01-20 17:05 · Score: 2, Funny

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".

Human sacrifice by RevWaldo · 2010-01-20 17:07 · Score: 3, Funny

Apple and Microsoft working together - mass hysteria!

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Re:Will you finally own up to Apple's Evil? by Lemmy+Caution · 2010-01-20 17:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by WindBourne · 2010-01-20 17:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Microsoft still way behind. by jim_v2000 · 2010-01-20 17:22 · Score: 2, Informative

>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.

--
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.

Re:Microsoft a pawn? by mevets · 2010-01-20 17:25 · Score: 4, Funny

to say nothing of her transmittable diseases....

Re:Microsoft a pawn? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2010-01-20 17:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Microsoft a pawn? by jim_v2000 · 2010-01-20 17:26 · Score: 5, Funny

>a Jobs search engine.

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

--
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.

'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.' by NoPantsJim · 2010-01-20 17:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Name...That...Autocomplete!

Re:It's not a search engine by westlake · 2010-01-20 17:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Blame Firefox by SuperKendall · 2010-01-20 17:47 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Blame Firefox by causality · 2010-01-20 18:13 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Blame Firefox by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-20 19:40 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by garry_g · 2010-01-20 19:47 · Score: 2

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 by KiloByte · 2010-01-20 20:40 · Score: 2

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.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Blame Firefox by darthflo · 2010-01-20 20:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by garry_g · 2010-01-20 21:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by xigxag · 2010-01-21 02:06 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.

Re:It's not a search engine by Lemmy+Caution · 2010-01-20 18:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

Total world domination! by Fished · 2010-01-20 18:28 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1

Re:It's not a search engine by prockcore · 2010-01-20 18:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 18:35 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by derGoldstein · 2010-01-20 19:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Microsoft a pawn? by derGoldstein · 2010-01-20 19:20 · Score: 3, Funny

There would be no buttons. No buttons at all.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.

calling bullshit by Tom · 2010-01-20 19:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Microsoft still way behind. by alexandre_ganso · 2010-01-20 19:31 · Score: 2, Informative

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:It's not a search engine by indiechild · 2010-01-20 20:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Past companies who partnered with Microsoft by Solandri · 2010-01-20 22:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

IBM
Spyglass
Stac Electronics
Sun
Sendo
OpenDocument

Good luck, Apple!

Bias in results by polyp2000 · 2010-01-20 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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"

--
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp

What could they do? by Lorien_the_first_one · 2010-01-21 02:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.

Re:When has MS changes its ways? by jgagnon · 2010-01-21 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.

Re:not even in the same league / market by radish · 2010-01-21 04:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

Browser defaults by phorm · 2010-01-21 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

Slashdot Mirror

Bing To Become Default iPhone Search?

79 of 463 comments (clear)