Is Google turning into the dreaded Microsoft?

[A895]

I did not say they do not know, I said they do not care enough. Everyone uses Google. Your friends do, your teachers do, your professors do - there is not a real chance that you can form a habit to use something different. And using Google does not affect you, there is no real reason why you should change the service.


Yeah, but because almost everyone uses Google - and Google does an amazing job on pushing its own services and hiding away everything else that is in competition to them- people do not really see the alternative services. It is as simple as that.

Here is a question: Do you really belilefe that Google delivers best results noone can compete with? Go ahead and Google + Bing for "Android". The results will be very, very --- very similar. And the video search of Bing is even better than Googles(at least in my opinion). Nowdays one can hardly say that Google is the only search engine that delivers good results. But man is a creature of habit.

Yeah Google is better than bing, I tried to use bing exclusively for a while and it is decent it misses a lot of results. For video search, Bing is good, but their mobile video search sucks.

Google is the only search engine that scales to whatever device you are using. For Bing, if you are using it on anything but the desktop version you are going to have a bad time.

So yes Google is the best search engine for now, and they don't hide results. Google caters results to what you like or want so the more data they have on you, of course you will see only what you want to see. But if you go into google.com/dashboard and erase and opt out of googles data holdings, you get much more neutral results.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Tatoeternietoe]

Google has somewhat on a monopoly on search, but basically bc they are just so good at what they do! Bing's Search goal at the moment is to be 90% as good as Google (I heard this from someone at Microsoft)...

Also, the EU breaking up Google thing is not going to happen. It's a symbolic action from the European Parliament (who have much more talk than power).

 

[A895]

Google has somewhat on a monopoly on search, but basically bc they are just so good at what they do! Bing's Search goal at the moment is to be 90% as good as Google (I heard this from someone at Microsoft)...

Also, the EU breaking up Google thing is not going to happen. It's a symbolic action from the European Parliament (who have much more talk than power).

Yeah the EU doesn't have the power to break up Google. At most Google will pull out of the EU, and no Google Services for Europe and then people will be mad the EU.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

it misses a lot of results.

How do you define this "results that are obligated to be shown by search engines" that bing misses?

 

[A895]

How do you define this "results that are obligated to be shown by search engines" that bing misses?

I used Bing for a while and it misses useful or helpful links that Google will otherwise show. If I am doing a research project, Google would be my first choice as opposed to Bing.

The first 2 to 3 results will be similar but when you want to get more technical and search for really specific things, Google is better. And you didn't address my other points.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

I used Bing for a while and it misses useful or helpful links that Google will otherwise show. If I am doing a research project, Google would be my first choice as opposed to Bing.

The first 2 to 3 results will be similar but when you want to get more technical and search for really specific things, Google is better. And you didn't address my other points.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I often use whatever search engine is setted as default (except it is something like "ask", which is useless) - and thus often use Bing(is the default on my laptop). One could argue about yahoo, but I do not see any differences in regard of "result quality" between Bing and Google. What is "useful and helpful" is very subjective, so it is hard to argue like that. I wrote a whole lot of papers and other stuff for university and had to do researches all the time. I do not agree that there is a big difference (in regards of quality) between Bing and Google. You get different results, yes. But it is not like the one offers better or more helpful results than the other. And as said - this being a very subjective matter, imho it is not suitable to be used as an argument.

And you didn't address my other points.

Well, I have never used Bing on a mobile device, so there is nothing I can add to this point.

And I do not feel like arguing about the fact that Google does not treat everything "worth finding" equally, placing things at the top or bottom as they please(while I also do not want to say that Bing is any better). I probably would be like "they obviously do", you would be like "nah they don't". Pointless .

 

[A895]

I often use whatever search engine is setted as default (except it is something like "ask", which is useless) - and thus often use Bing(is the default on my laptop). One could argue about yahoo, but I do not see any differences in regard of "result quality" between Bing and Google. What is "useful and helpful" is very subjective, so it is hard to argue like that. I wrote a whole lot of papers and other stuff for university and had to do researches all the time. I do not agree that there is a big difference (in regards of quality) between Bing and Google. You get different results, yes. But it is not like the one offers better or more helpful results than the other. And as said - this being a very subjective matter, imho it is not suitable to be used as an argument.


Well, I have never used Bing on a mobile device, so there is nothing I can add to this point.

And I do not feel like arguing about the fact that Google does not treat everything "worth finding" equally, placing things at the top or bottom as they please(while I also do not want to say that Bing is any better). I probably would be like "they obviously do", you would be like "nah they don't". Pointless .

So what is your point then? If it all comes down to subjectiveness like you say does that not make Google better if they are the first search engine people think of? Shouldn't other search engines work towards being better than Google?



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[tgp]

Go ahead and Google + Bing for "Android". The results will be very, very --- very similar.

There's a valid reason for that. Check this out...

 

[DJantel Ware]

So what is your point then? If it all comes down to subjectiveness like you say does that not make Google better if they are the first search engine people think of? Shouldn't other search engines work towards being better than Google?



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

My point here (not the overall point!) is that there are other search engines that do well and people could use them, but they don't because they are used to Google (I listed some reasons for that already). Thus it is not entirely true that Google is so popular because it is so much better than anything else. If you argue like that, than you would have to say Microsoft/Windows is so much better than any other operation system because a lot of people think of Windows first when they think of computers. But you can hardly say that, Windows is just everywhere and everyone is using it for ages, which is the reason it is so present.

Shouldn't other search engines work towards being better than Google?

Yes, of course they should.

BTW: The original point was that Google has a huge impact on almost everything that happens on the internet and thus has a huge impact on a whole lot of companies. This is simply true - I do not see a legitimate reason how one could deny this fact. How other search engine companies perform and what the right way to change this situation is - this is another question that is hard to answer.

 

[A895]

My point here (not the overall point!) is that there are other search engines that do well and people could use them, but they don't because they are used to Google (I listed some reasons for that already). Thus it is not entirely true that Google is so popular because it is so much better than anything else. If you argue like that, than you would have to say Microsoft/Windows is so much better than any other operation system because a lot of people think of Windows first when they think of computers. But you can hardly say that, Windows is just everywhere and everyone is using it for ages, which is the reason it is so present.



Yes, of course they should.

BTW: The original point was that Google has a huge impact on almost everything that happens on the internet and thus has a huge impact on a whole lot of companies. This is simply true - I do not see a legitimate reason how one could deny this fact. How other search engine companies perform and what the right way to change this situation is - this is another question that is hard to answer.

Windows is so ubiquitous is because it is much cheaper than Macs and has more applications. Windows can be had on $100 tablets now. Mac OS X was always a high end computer OS. But, people know about Macs and use them, I mean iOS is almost half of all U.S. smartphone market share, Macs are super popular for writers, and bloggers. Macs are super popular in college especially.

But it all boils down to competition isn't as good as Google or otherwise the superior product would win out right?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Almeuit]

I say no.

 

[DJantel Ware]

Windows is so ubiquitous is because it is much cheaper than Macs and has more applications. Windows can be had on $100 tablets now. Mac OS X was always a high end computer OS. But, people know about Macs and use them, I mean iOS is almost half of all U.S. smartphone market share, Macs are super popular for writers, and bloggers. Macs are super popular in college especially.

But it all boils down to competition isn't as good as Google or otherwise the superior product would win out right?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I say no as well.
Linux is for free - you still do not see it on the majority of the computers. I do also not see why what you said would "boil down" to this conclusion. And I already wrote why I think this is not true in general. More importantly, it does not affect the original point at all. I do not see why we should basically argue about whether Google is a successful company or not, whether it is "the best" or not. Nothing of this changes the fact that it is a bad thing that one company has so much power.

 

[A895]

I say no as well.
Linux is for free - you still do not see it on the majority of the computers. I do also not see why what you said would "boil down" to this conclusion. And I already wrote why I think this is not true in general. More importantly, it does not affect the original point at all. I do not see why we should basically argue about whether Google is a successful company or not, whether it is "the best" or not. Nothing of this changes the fact that it is a bad thing that one company has so much power.

You are overstating Googles power, which is the issue. This is problem I have with people who say WP is failing without Googles services. No, WP is failing because it has no flagships and no apps.

And Linux still isn't all that regardless of what the nerds say. I know it is powerful, but it isn't consumer friendly in the slightest.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

You are overstating Googles power, which is the issue.

. How can you simply claim that? 80% of the whole searches worldwide are going through Google. The internet is used through Google. This is nothing one can argue about. And why are you talking about WP now?

And Linux still isn't all that regardless of what the nerds say. I know it is powerful, but it isn't consumer friendly in the slightest.

There are Linux distributions that operate exactly like Windows or iOS. It is simply not true that it "isnt consumer friendly in the slightest".
For example... ...ok, it is not a pc, but you know Androids kernel is Linux, right? I hope you don't hate your phone .

 

[A895]

. How can you simply claim that? 80% of the whole searches worldwide are going through Google. The internet is used through Google. This is nothing one can argue about. And why are you talking about WP now?


There are Linux distributions that operate exactly like Windows or iOS. It is simply not true that it "isnt consumer friendly in the slightest".
For example... ...ok, it is not a pc, but you know Androids kernel is Linux, right? I hope you don't hate your phone .

You are twisting my words and it is annoying. Please stop and go back to what I said. I never said I hate Linux, I said it isn't consumer friendly and it isn't. People already think Windows is bad. The internet isn't used through Google it is just one of many doorways.

As I said there are alternatives to Google. You are overstating their power. You make it seem like people have no choice, they do, but they choose to use Google.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

I never said I hate Linux, I said it isn't consumer friendly and it isn't

So you claim Android is not consumer friendly? Why are you on this forum, why do you use Android?
This is a good example to show that your claim is simply not true.

I am in no way twisting your words. I just show what you actually claim. It is funny how you ignore or water down facts you yourself repeat over and over again. 80% of the searches go through Google - you yourself say everyone chooses to use Google. You try to water down this fact by general (almost unrelated) statements like "Google is just one of many doorways" - yes, there are more doorways but it does not matter if noone uses them. Does not change anything about this fact. Nothing at all.

The internet is absolutely used through Google, you do not go and guess random URLs you can type in your browser. If you want something from the internet, you go and search for it in search engines. And 80% of the whole world does that in Google. There is nothing to overstate, it is a fact.

And whether people have a choice or not is also completely unimportant in this matter. It does not change the facts.

 

[Ry]

I used Bing for a while and it misses useful or helpful links that Google will otherwise show. If I am doing a research project, Google would be my first choice as opposed to Bing.

The first 2 to 3 results will be similar but when you want to get more technical and search for really specific things, Google is better. And you didn't address my other points.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Example of queries.

 

[A895]

So you claim Android is not consumer friendly? Why are you on this forum, why do you use Android?
This is a good example to show that your claim is simply not true.

I am in no way twisting your words. I just show what you actually claim. It is funny how you ignore or water down facts you yourself repeat over and over again. 80% of the searches go through Google - you yourself say everyone chooses to use Google. You try to water down this fact by general (almost unrelated) statements like "Google is just one of many doorways" - yes, there are more doorways but it does not matter if noone uses them. Does not change anything about this fact. Nothing at all.

The internet is absolutely used through Google, you do not go and guess random URLs you can type in your browser. If you want something from the internet, you go and search for it in search engines. And 80% of the whole world does that in Google. There is nothing to overstate, it is a fact.

And whether people have a choice or not is also completely unimportant in this matter. It does not change the facts.

It is so hard to have a conversation with you because you keep changing the argument and twisting my words. I dislike that immensely.

 

[A895]

Example of queries.

 

[DJantel Ware]

Hah. Now it is just the "twisting words" argument again. What I dislike is that you and now thracian throw around phrases that sound good in general (like "people have a choice!", "punish a company for being successful") but are completely unrelated just to cover up/water down simple facts noone can seriously be arguing about. I did not say people are dumb and do not know, I did not say lets punish / break up Google, I did never say Google is bad at what it does - all of this is completely unrelated.

A monopoly exists when the system itself has roadblocks in place to prevent other companies from operating. That's not the case here.

You sir should go and look up the word monopoly. Also, it was already mentioned that it is not a strict monopoly, as there are other competitiors.

Unrelated to this fact, but it is also just not true that Google does not have "roadblocks" to prevent other companies to be successful at services Google offers. It is a simple fact, e.g. it is no accident that you always get google maps as a search result when you look up some location. And no, I do not want to discuss the fact whether it is acceptable or not that google pushes its own services within its own service(search engine) - I simply state that this is the case.

And agian: I do not say Google is bad at what it does, I do not say we should punish Google and break it up. I said it would be healthy to have more competition (that actually matters) in this field for very, very obvious reasons.

I think I made this statement pretty clear, since I wrote it like 100 times by now. . I see that you do not to share this opinion, but there is obviously also no point in walking in circles and say the same things over and over again.