Hacker News Reader

Comment by tom_rath | Hacker News Reader

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!

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com