Hacker News Reader

Comment by axod | Hacker News Reader

You're wrong. The iPod was significantly better. People bought it. then it became 'hip' and 'cool', and some people only bought it because it was hip+cool.

I had several mp3 players before an ipod and the difference in usability was massive.

For a search engine, results are pretty much the only thing that matters. That's why google won.

View on HN

I apologize, I should have been more specific. What I should have said was that results were important when web search was in its infancy.

It has been refined to the point of irrelevance.

I still have trouble finding what I'm looking for, so I don't really know what you're talking about.

You can't put a dress on an also ran and take on Google. It has to kick Google's ass.

What sorts of things do you look for that you aren't able to find with google?

Or with Bing, for that matter :)

Why does it have to 'kick Google's ass'? As long as the search result quality is comparable, there is no consumer lock-in keeping users from changing their habits and typing 'bing' rather than 'google' in their browser-bar.

Remember: Power-users who fiddle with Google Apps aren't the ones paying the bills -- it's the casual users who click those ads that bring in the cash.

It may sound foolish, but many of those casual users would prefer to see a serene image during their work-day rather than Google's stark whiteness. I'm already seeing many more converting paid clicks coming from Bing than Live.com ever delivered, so it seems to be working.

Go Bing! I'm thrilled to have another quality location I can advertise with!

People associate google with search. To get them to change, you have to offer them something better/more than google. And if you're microsoft, it's an uphill battle, because most users hate you, so you'll have to be even better than that.

The Bing interface is prettier and is as-fast-or-faster than Google. That's 'better/more' enough for the typical computer user.

Remember: If you're reading Hacker News, you're not a "typical computer user". You're not the type of person that's lining Google's pockets -- you're probably a cost.

Most "typical computer users" don't hate Microsoft. They're happily using Word and IE, love FreeCell, and couldn't tell you what Emacs or The Gimp were to save their lives. People stopped reflexively typing 'yahoo' and 'altavista' pretty easily when their friends recommended 'google' and could do the same for 'bing'.

Keystrokes aren't a switching cost and Google isn't nearly as invincible as you might think.

When people are searching google, they don't want pretty. They want bare bones functional, it works. Bing looks cluttered, busy, and reminds me of why everyone switched to google in the first place - to get away from all the idiotic 'portals' that were trying to have as much stuff on the search page as possible.

Let me quantify a little more... People associate microsoft with bad things, and the past - their operating system crashing and dying. It's a necessary evil for them (Until they discover linux/osx if they ever do). Google on the other hand is associated with providing good search results, and allowing them to find what they want to, quickly.

I agree, google isn't invincible, but I believe if it is to be replaced, it'll be by a startup. Not a rebranding of a god-awful search engine by microsoft.

>> "That's 'better/more' enough for the typical computer user."

It's really not. You're talking about changing everyones behavior. Why would they do that? Because it looks prettier? You're delusional.

>>"the past - their operating system crashing and dying. It's a necessary evil for them (Until they discover linux/osx if they ever do)."

Don't intend to start a flame war but this is ridiculous. How do you explain ~95% of desktops in the world running windows? As far as discovering linux/osx is concerned, it isn't for the common computer buyer yet. It is the computer scientists/hackers who discover them. Most of the common people probably haven't even heard of linux.

You're right, they probably haven't even heard of linux, and that's likely the way it'll stay, even as they start buying netbooks preloaded with linux.

You can't put a dress on an also ran and take on Google. It has to kick Google's ass.

Wrong. Microsoft only has to show it can compete, and it has won. They get to keep: the significant portion of the populace that's only dimly aware that they can switch search engines and also the portion that doesn't care. Certain types of results have a slicker presentation -- right there, many of the habitual users of those subsets are going to go to Bing, and these habitual searchers are probably many of the people most valuable to advertisers.

Remember, to win against the Germans at Stalingrad, the Russians first had to fight them to a standstill and keep them grinding their gears there for awhile. Sometimes the key to victory is to sap your opponent's momentum by just holding them at bay. (That said, I hope Google pulls off some fantastic stuff in response!)

I just wish Microsoft would learn from its past and be a leader again.

Actually, I think they just took the lead in search results presentation.

>> "Actually, I think they just took the lead in search results presentation."

Is that a serious comment? They took the lead by copying googles layout and colors? Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic here.

The other UI crap I don't care for personally. I don't think it makes up for the significantly worse search results.

Maybe for the first 3 months, by that time other companies got the message. So Apple started to advertise, advertise and advertise until everyone had a white on pink burned into their eyes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com