Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bing Becomes No.2 Search Engine at 4.37%

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-that's-a-gap dept.

suraj.sun writes "Bing overtook Yahoo for the first time worldwide in January, and increased its lead in February, according to web analytics company, StatCounter. Its research arm StatCounter Global Stats finds that globally Bing reached 4.37%, in February ahead of Yahoo! at 3.93%. Both trail far behind Google's 89.94% of the global search engine market." Just a little more plagiarizing to go!

55 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent! by swordgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if only it didn't suck.

    I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google. Being a monopoly is making them more and more corrupt, and by being the gatekeeper, they now own too much of the internet.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Excellent! by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Hush you fool! You know they're listening. Do you *want* to be sent back to the camp?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Excellent! by suprcvic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By definition, Google isn't a monopoly. They aren't the only search engine in town, they just happen to be the most successful with a vast majority of the market share. That's not because they are erecting large barriers to entry, it's just because the other search engines aren't as smart as theirs.

    3. Re:Excellent! by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A little bit like our other friends in Redmond, no?

      --
      Loading...
    4. Re:Excellent! by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are a near-monopoly. Erecting barriers to entry isn't a sign of a monopoly either, it's a sign of a monopoly that is unfairly using its position/power. (In fact, in most of the western world, anti-monopoly legislation doesn't prevent monopolies, it only prevents them from misusing their monopolistic power.)

      But regardless, it's the lack of a better (or comparable and competing) search engine that I lament.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    5. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's not. Google has not engaged in any anticompetitive practices to hold on to that market share. Being successful simply because you're good at what you do is not a crime. Microsofts agreements with OEMs, other software makers and Intel were used to make it impossible for other OS makers to compete. It would be like if Google created a new standard called norobotsexceptgoogles.txt and lowered the page rank of any sites that didn't refuse to be crawled by anyone but google.

    6. Re:Excellent! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oblg.: Bing Is No Good. :-)

    7. Re:Excellent! by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      Nobody has a problem with copying, not even google. The problem is that they aren't even *improving* anything! If people want copied google search results they will just use google.

    8. Re:Excellent! by vlm · · Score: 2

      By definition, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. They aren't the only operating system in town, they just happen to be the most successful with a vast majority of the market share. That's not because they are erecting large barriers to entry, it's just because the other operating systems aren't as smart as theirs.

      See what I did there?

      I think you may have missed this entire wikipedia article mostly about microsoft, most of which google is not guilty of. Neither are pure saints or pure sinners, but one is certainly way worse than the other, and only the astroturfers claim MS is the better one.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

      Google is a natural monopoly, looking at the capital costs of gathering all that data. I'm not seeing a cruddy OS, cruddy web browser, or a middle of the road office suite as being natural monopolies, given the evidence that it doesn't take too many people or too much time to do a better job. On the other hand, replicating google would be quite challenging.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:Excellent! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Actually, I was under the assumption that Bing Is Not Google.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Excellent! by fermion · · Score: 2
      MS has a cash cow in office. Like so many other companies they are going to have to risk the cash cow to insure future relevance. Just imagine what would have happened if American car companies would have moved on from gas guzzling cars of the 70's and innovated instead of basking in their multi-hundred-million dollar profits. Reagan would not have had to give them 1.5 billion, in 1980, tax dollars that althout repaid represented a failure of the free market. Likewise Bush would not again have put 13.4 billion of tax payer money into Chrysler and GM, at a time when all such money was deficiet spending and we all were allegedly worried about the debt.

      The point is that corporations tend to equate profits with health. This is a fallacy as we have seen profits evaporate in a couple quarters on a number of occasions. The MS Software model is quickly becoming obsolete. The closed proprietary OS integrated by a third party is an experiment that has failed, particularly in smart phones. For iOS, for Android, for Symbian, the system builder has full acess to code and the ability to do with as they wish. It is failingThe hardware people do not have go to the software people and beg for fixes, nor do they have to pay crippling license fees.

      More people expect to pay for innovative products, but not to keep paying for legacy products. MS Office will eventually be replaced by Google Docs or OpenOffice.org or the like that run on whatever hardware a company want to buy. This is as sure as MS products replaced IBM integrated products. No one want to be stuck in a single vendor situattion, and anyone who thinks MS is not a single vendor situation is delusional.

      Bing evidently has some good features. One reason people don't use bing is because MS does not provide an integrated environment like Google does. Google rewards with real product form using the search engine. MS could do this, in many ways much better than Google, but they wold have to sacrifice near term profits. They could put office online, and let anyone use it on any OS, but then why would people buy Windows machine when maybe an Android tablet might suit their needs at half the cost? They would lose the MS Windows OEM sales that cover so much of their fixed costs. They are stuck. They can't be innovative without risking short term profits.

      And the entry to the search market is huge now given the data centers that have to be built. I am not one to think of Apple when thinking of innovative internet strategies. They are creative by never had have a real internet product. However, with the data center, and the iOS, they may be able to leverage me.com into something that can compete with google. The google search and google maps seem so last decade. Apple has money to invest in products that rival Google, and if they did they could take a large chunk of the search market, and create an entry point to business, all in one go.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    11. Re:Excellent! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      I find Bing maps to be much better than Google's. At least for my area, bing has higher resolution maps, and the Bird's eye view is a nifty feature: view and location from any angle. I also thing Bing maps has better transitions for zooming. Zoom in real far on Google maps, then zoom out very fast. Your old position will be a small square in a sea of gray, where the new images haven't loaded yet. On Bing maps you get more transitions as you zoom out.

      I'm actually using satellite images for part of my research, and I chose Bing's over Google's for just this reason.

      Also, what exactly is wrong with Bing's results? Generally, I don't think I've found any deficiencies from using it. If anything, I've been finding more link farms at the top of Google results lately.

    12. Re:Excellent! by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      No, not even a little bit.

      Google has a near monopoly (which btw, is not illegal in of itself) because the best product is maintaining its position and crowding out inferior solutions.

      On the other hand, many superior solutions have been illegally barred from entry because of anti-competitive and illegal practices by Microsoft. Google's situation actually encourages competition and an ever improving product. Microsoft's solution destroys competition and ensures product stagnation and inferior products compared to what the market would otherwise bring.

      In short; Microsoft bad, Google good.

    13. Re:Excellent! by BassMan449 · · Score: 2

      Google may not be a true monopoly but they are an effective monopoly. However that said there is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. It is illegal however to abuse that monopoly to stop future competitors.

    14. Re:Excellent! by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1: You don't have to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. You just have to be significantly larger than your nearest rival.

      2: Drastically undercutting your opponents prices in a new market by leveraging profits from a different market to support it can be seen as anti-competitive. Many for profit vendors see google pushing open source products as this.

    15. Re:Excellent! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      That didn't stop the EU from forcing MS to provide a browser ballot. Despite the fact that IE's market share is falling, Window's market share is falling, you can fully uninstall IE8 from W7, and there are at least 4 other big players in the game who are increasing market share, EU still felt the need to step in.

      It would be funny though, if Google was forced to put a ballot on Google.com, which would redirect you to your search engine of choice.

    16. Re:Excellent! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      I guess I was wrong

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym

      Although it doesn't make much sense to me.

    17. Re:Excellent! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      MOST CERTAINLY NOT. I am unaware of any rival startup that has been squashed, bullied, or suffered a hostile takeover by Google. Nor am I aware of any that have been taken to court over frivolous charges, with little other purpose than to bleed them of money. You may or may not paint Google as evil. I'm not believing it, but I'll listen. But, when you compare them to Microsoft, you've lost your case, and your audience. BTW - you may or may not have noticed, but Microsoft's most innovative stuff has always been acquired in one manner or another. Google, on the other hand, innovates day in, and day out. Not only do they innovate, they host sites where innovative people can get together and create yet more innovative stuff. Compare that to "embrace, extend, extinguish".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Excellent! by funfail · · Score: 2

      What do you expect me to do? Write a spider and create an index of the web on *my* computer?

      --
      Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!
    19. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      you must be GNU around here

      (capture was 'funniest' - just a hint for you mods)

    20. Re:Excellent! by Raenex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even when Microsoft was at the top of it's position in the 90s, it didn't have exclusive control. You could always get a Mac or use Linux.

      If I decide I'm tired of Google, I can at no cost and with no limitations switch to yahoo, or Bing or one of the other engines out there. There is no cost to the customer, there are no restrictions in choosing to use other options that are equally free.

      As has been pointed out on Slashdot before, you aren't the customer. You are what is being sold to advertisers. The advertisers are the Google's customers, and from their point of view, if they want to pay for search engine advertisements, Google is the monopoly equivalent of Microsoft.

      I was actually shocked when I read the headline. I knew Google was popular, but the number two position is only at 4%? Wow.

  2. Editing is a lost art by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Has overtook Bing"

    Cringe..... Maybe they should BING the word overtaken.

    1. Re:Editing is a lost art by schmidt349 · · Score: 2

      No, "has overtaken" is the _present_ perfect of "overtake." The _past_ perfect (or pluperfect) is "had overtaken."

      Jesus, I had to know these things to get through 2nd grade. Just what are they teaching in schools nowadays?

    2. Re:Editing is a lost art by xaxa · · Score: 2

      "Bing has overtook Yahoo"

      overtook is the past tense of overtake.

      Overtook is the past simple tense: "Bing overtook Yahoo".

      Overtaken is the past participle, and is needed here: "Bing has overtaken Yahoo".

    3. Re:Editing is a lost art by slim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I think it's well wrote as well.

    4. Re:Editing is a lost art by stuntpope · · Score: 2

      Submitter should of drug his dictionary out of hiding.

  3. How many by choice? by stcdm33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many of those are by choice and how many are by devices and/or apps that have Bing forced on them?

    1. Re:How many by choice? by netdigger · · Score: 2

      I actually really want to know this. A few people have asked me how to remove Bing from their phones. And lets not mention the Windows 7 phones. LOL

    2. Re:How many by choice? by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where I live, all the goverment employees computers are set to use Bing in the IE search box (and this cannot be changed, it is enforced by group policy) because Microsoft gave the government a discount if they made all government employees use Bing on their work machines.

      Of course government employees can type in "google.com" into the address bar and use Google (or whoever else) if they wish, but I would imagine most just enter things into the search bar.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    3. Re:How many by choice? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      You mean like Android or Chrome or...

      The search Business is all about defaults. Google developed an operating system in order to be the default search engine.

    4. Re:How many by choice? by randallman · · Score: 2

      Microsoft abusing their monopoly yet again, using their desktop OS to force their way into the search (advertising) market. They haven't changed a bit.

  4. And I has by XB-70 · · Score: 2

    ...and I has been over-took by yous's bad grammar!

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  5. Overtook? by NitroWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Overtook? Really? Why do we have editors? Why not just vote on the news items that get posted, since the editors apparently are incapable of doing their job. On top of that, the whole first sentence is a complete mess, not to mention the rest of the summary. Did a 5th grader write it?

    Maybe the submitter should have plagiarized someone competent in grammar and spelling.

  6. Double-surprise by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which is more surprising? That 4.37% can land a #2 spot, or that anyone uses Bing?

    Both are rather startling, imho.

  7. Yahoo = Bing by cforciea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since Yahoo is powered by Bing, isn't this a little like saying Bing has "overtook" Bing?

    1. Re:Yahoo = Bing by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Damn, just ran out of +1 Insightful, Article Submitter and Editards Are A Bunch of Marketdroid Cretins Who Don't Know The Difference Between An Engine And A Brand ratings points.

      I make that 4.37% + 3.93% = 8.3% for Bing, the "search engine".

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Yahoo = Bing by owlstead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, so now we know the number of people too lazy to change their default search engine :)

  8. wow by markass530 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering it's the default search engine on I.E. and we all know how loathe people are to change defaults (IE6 market share anyone) this is a pretty sad number.

  9. Bing = Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since Bing is getting data from Google doesn't that make Google 94.31%?

  10. Probably due to Verizon / RIM by Soskywalkr · · Score: 2

    I'd bet that most of this increase is due the switch by Verizon to force Bing as the default search provider. Every so often, I forget to go to google.com first -- seeing the lack of usable results I'm instantly reminded and switch back to google, but I'm sure that still counts in Bing's favor.... perl @+?*.-&'_:$#/%!"

  11. Baidu by Stargoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fact that this article does not mention Baidu makes me very suspicious. Its information is fallacious.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  12. The Irony by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The company that brought us Windows Search and Sharepoint has started an internet search engine.

    No thanks.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  13. overtook by nimbius · · Score: 2

    and with this sentence, the cries of a thousand editors were silence in one fell swoop.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  14. Google Web == MS Desktop by Syncerus · · Score: 2

    Why is Windows monoculture bad and Google monoculture good?

    Monoculture is monoculture.

    --
    "Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
    1. Re:Google Web == MS Desktop by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the interface to Google monoculture is just a standard compliant browser. So the cost of switching away from Google, when its demands are onerous, is practically zero. The only way Google can maintain its leadership position is by making sure its customers are happy. Otherwise they will just walk away. The foundation of Microsoft monoculture was interlocking monopolies between the OS and the application stack (mainly MSOffice) and the switching costs were enormous.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Google alternative: duckduckgo by lrnj · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google.

    I've switched recently from google to DuckDuckGo. I'd call it a decent alternative with a few advantages over Google, and a few disadvantages.

    All in all, I consider it a slight downgrade, but google was starting to creep me out too much.

    --
    Learn Japanese RPG -- lrnj.com
  16. Pyrrhic Victory by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many tens of millions of dollars in development hours and PR efforts has this cost them? And for what? To say they are a bit better than Yahoo which is quite literally a zombie?

    Once again, Microsoft makes much hyperbole about obtaining dominance, rolls out it's big new weapon of terror, fires it's salvo and calls it a victory when it manages to only barely scratch the armor of it's target.

    Oh how the mighty have fallen.

  17. Re:Bogus! by Nadaka · · Score: 2

    No. you are incorrectly believing that monopoly has a negative connotation because you only ever hear about it when preceded by "abuse of".

    Monopolies are not inherently bad. Its just that it puts an entity solely motivated to profit in a position of inequitable power that can be leveraged to further that goal at the expense of everyone else. Abusing that power is negative.

    The only inherent bad quality of a monopoly is in the homogeneous qualities of a monoculture being slow or unable to adapt to rapid change. And that does not necessarily apply to corporate entities in the way it applies to evolving populations.

  18. No robot sex...? (Re:Excellent!) by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2

    No, it's not. Google has not engaged in any anticompetitive practices to hold on to that market share. Being successful simply because you're good at what you do is not a crime. Microsofts agreements with OEMs, other software makers and Intel were used to make it impossible for other OS makers to compete. It would be like if Google created a new standard called norobotsex—

    My brain instinctively paused right there...

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  19. Re:The only use of Bing by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I don't need advertising companies watching everything I do under the guise of "free stuff".

    So, which crawler are you using to operate your own search engine, and how many pages are you indexing?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. Where are they getting their numbers? by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ComScore reports search engine market share for the US each month. They report, for January 2011:

    • Google: 66.6%, down 1% since last month.
    • Yahoo: 16.1%, up 0.1%.
    • Microsoft: 13.1%, up 1.1%.
    • Ask: 3.4%, down 0.1%.
    • AOL: 1.7%, down 0.2%.

    Yahoo is just reselling Bing now. Yahoo no longer has a search engine. So Bing's total is 29.2%. The US market has been split about like that for the last several years - Google with 2/3 of the market, Microsoft + Yahoo with 1/3, and the rest nowhere.

    Outside the US, Google is dominant in most countries other than China (Baidu) and Russia (Yandex).

  21. no robot sex 'cept googles! by MorbidBBQ · · Score: 2

    Where else do I get my robot sex fix?
    37.com just doesn't cut it for bender vs fembots.
    Kartoo.com no longer exists for action like RepliCarter scissors Terminatrix.

  22. Grammar. by Tolkien · · Score: 2

    Bing has overtook? What? Try overtaken.

    --
    how is babby formed?
  23. Re:Bogus! by ynp7 · · Score: 2

    Perhaps you don't understand what connotation means. "Monopoly" certainly suggests or implies something negative to the vast majority of people. Whether or not that is justified is another matter. Though the answer to that is probably, "when in doubt."

  24. Re: Monopoly by ozbird · · Score: 2

    "You have won 2nd prize in a beauty contest - collect 4.37% market share".