Microsoft Dumping Bing? | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft Dumping Bing?

pcmag.com

19 pointsnarad27 comments

"This forces Google to adjust all of its strategies to counter this threat. In so doing, Google must take its eye off the Android ball, allowing the Microsoft's Windows Phone and tablet initiative to catch up to Android."

It seems like the author believes Google is a two person company which cannot compete on several fronts.

No, I'm pretty sure Google would need to move the entire Android team to Search if it wanted to compete with a Facebook-owned Bing.

Android is the smartest things they did for their future since their platform for targeted ads.

With Android they can exert control over the mobile platforms. Google Search, GMaps, GMail are the default on all Android devices and beyond.

Now think of Apple. At some point they wanted to switch to Bing, but they didn't. Don't really know the details about why they didn't, but it's quite easy to make a guess ...

I'm pretty sure Apple stayed with Google's Search, because otherwise Android phones would've had (at least) a branding advantage (Google is a synonym for search), not to mention that Google Search is still more potent than Bing. Without GSearch, they probably would have lost GMaps too. Then the argument for Android would have been: ooh, but it comes with GSearch, GMaps and GMail. Apple is not stupid, they couldn't put iOS at a disadvantage, in a world where every other phone comes with Google built-in.

So you see, Android is the platform that keeps them relevant in a mobile world that's tightly controlled by carriers and walled app stores.

> I'm pretty sure Apple stayed with Google's Search, because otherwise Android phones would've had (at least) a branding advantage

Apple stay with Google's Search for two reasons:

1. It's the best search product. 2. Google give them bucket-loads of cash

This isn't rocket surgery.

In the alternative universe where Google didn't do Android, Apple would be able to extract more cash from Google for its search placement, at the very least, since Google would have fewer alternatives.

Yes but as soon as you get into the land of hypotheticals, Symbian can be a successful product Google would lust over. Doesn't make it likely.

heck why?

If there is ANYTHING that would get privacy advocates worried, it would be a Facebook+bing+yahoo conglomerate.

Provided google can dodge the quagmire themselves.

Which is why I'm sure the expensive lawyers they have on retainer will probably give them some idea that this is going to be risky.

It's a joke.

Social search is pointless, it does not improve search quality. What it does is allow for overly targeted advertising which while useful it's no where near as valuable as many people think.

PS: Remember when all search companies wanted to become portals? Yea, that did not turn out so well for them.

I find it odd how people think of businesses as one big entity that knows all, when in reality its loads of small teams, contractors, freelancers etc. sort-of working together. You get that complaint a lot from people who criticize broadcasters in particular.

I think the world record in questionable speculation was broken here.

forgotten the illegal invasion of iraq so quickly?

touché

The Cnet article has actual references to the rumor origins: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57422061-75/is-microsofts-...

-------

Edit: The rumors seem to be the confluence of a few data points:

1. Microsoft just sold 750 AOL patents to Facebook.

2. Microsoft execs contacted Facebook last year about buying Bing.

3. Yahoo is rumored to be negotiating a switch from Bing to Google. [1]

[1] http://blog.ineedhits.com/search-news/rumours-surface-that-y...

Why would anyone pay for Bing? It costs MSFT almost a billion a quarter and has around 4% market share.

     From the TFA: "hooking Yahoo, Bing, and Facebook"

I can't possibly see what good can come out of that for Facebook.

Bing could be matched with Facebook, in the same way Google+ is now linked with Google's search results. However the problem is that Google's Search is a near monopoly and it would be bad for Facebook to invest too much into this ... you don't defeat a company like Google by attacking it head on (Microsoft style), instead you are better off making it obsolete. Such a union would distract Facebook from improving things that actually matter, giving Google+ time to catch up.

And hooking Yahoo with Facebook would not be in Facebook's best interests. Facebook needs to popularize its own distribution channels for news, its own online email service, its own instant messanger, its own photo sharing services. At this stage they are powerful enough to pass on cooperation and instead prefer to lock-in their existing user base, which is growing like crazy anyway.

What Facebook must really do to survive Google is to do something about that shitty mobile app. Google is winning the distribution channels on mobiles because of Android, their search engine is the default on all smartphones, Google Maps too, Gmail is more and more popular ... so Facebook can't afford to not be in this game, because I don't have trouble seeing Google+ as the default on smartphones.

Bing (search engine) + Facebook's demographic targeting sounds formidable to me actually.

Few things need addressing here:

- Google is the one that needs to survive Facebook. Not the other way around. Right now Facebook has the more compelling advertising platform that they are only starting to use (see: mobile). If companies do start moving money across it could do some immediate damage to Google's bottom line.

- Google Maps is going to have a rocky road ahead if Apple does plan to release iMaps for iOS 6. And given the talent Apple acquired it could be something special.

- Google+ will never be the default on iPhone. Twitter is. Facebook will be.

The problem for Google is that they have made enemies of Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook. Not a good situation to be in.

> The problem for Google is that they have made enemies of Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook. Not a good situation to be in.

This is in essence their current strategic problem.

With the exception of Twitter (which Google tried to buy), I think all of these companies are their natural enemies.

Apple is a natural enemy of Google for the exact same reason Microsoft is - they don't want to see their products commoditized by web apps. The Apple/Google alliance was unnatural and only lasted as long as their common enemy did. Meanwhile, Yahoo and Facebook offer core services that broadly overlap with Google's (even pre-Google+). Both are competing for the same advertisers' dollars. And Facebook's deep social graph has been identified as a threat to Google's search for a long time.

They are mutual competitors - no doubt/debate about that.

But in purely strategic terms, you cannot have a battle on all fronts, and hope to win unless you have some deus ex machina / strong advantage you can use.

An alliance at this time, will reduce their fronts, and immediately put their competitors in a fix.

Its probably one of the more better strategic moves to make.

      Google is the one that needs to survive Facebook

In this industry, that's not how it works. Smaller companies must survive the bigger ones, not the other way around.

Google survived Microsoft, but that didn't kill Microsoft, which is doing just fine. Microsoft survived IBM, but that didn't kill IBM, which is doing just fine.

The problem smaller companies face is that bigger companies get benefits by (1) being in the market for a longer time + (2) having their products integrated to work well with each other + (3) having more resources + (4) having the ability to push new products down the throats of their customers.

The one weakness of such a big company is the Inventor's Dilemma. Microsoft survived IBM by making hardware a commodity, making IBM obsolete from their viewpoint. Google survived Microsoft in the same way, by relying on the web, which made Windows irrelevant from their viewpoint.

     Google Maps is going to have a rocky road ahead 
     if Apple does plan to release iMaps for iOS 6

Google Maps is still going to be the default on every other phone. It's also a solid product that's hard to beat. Will iMaps have turn-by-turn navigation? And when will iMaps have maps for Europe, including Eastern Europe? If iMaps will not be at least as good as GMaps is, then Apple will have a problem, because Android will be perceived to have the better app.

     Google+ will never be the default on iPhone.
     Twitter is. Facebook will be

It will be the default on Android, and say what you will about it, but it is more popular than the iPhone.

     The problem for Google is that they have made
     enemies of Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook

I agree. Google+ was a stupid move. However, I don't see how Google is more of a threat to Apple than Microsoft is. I also see Facebook being more of a threat for Twitter, than Google is. The enemy of my enemy doesn't seem to apply so well here.

Funny that searching bing for any of the articles pertaining to this attempted sale comes up with nothing. Prove me wrong?

"Tried" to dump Bing.

If they succeed, I wonder how this will affect DuckDuckGo as I understand they source a lot of information via Bing.

This was my immediate (and only) concern.

Facebook buying Bing to fight against Google Search would be like buying a gunboat to fight a destroyer.

related to zerg-rush, perhaps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com