
Microsoft Dumping Bing? - narad
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403637,00.asp
======
vasco
"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.

~~~
buu700
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.

~~~
bad_user
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.

~~~
coob
> 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.

~~~
fpgeek
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.

~~~
coob
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.

------
stephengillie
The Cnet article has actual references to the rumor origins:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57422061-75/is-
microsofts-...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57422061-75/is-microsofts-
bing-secretly-for-sale/)

\-------

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...](http://blog.ineedhits.com/search-news/rumours-surface-that-yahoo-
will-move-from-bing-to-google-095511220.html)

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

------
bad_user

         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.

~~~
taligent
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.

~~~
intended
> 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.

~~~
fpgeek
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.

~~~
intended
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.

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

------
gouranga
"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.

~~~
read_wharf
This was my immediate (and only) concern.

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

------
baconhigh
related to zerg-rush, perhaps?

