

Eric Schmidt testifies: Bing could eclipse Google by next year - sytelus
http://cnnmoneytech.tumblr.com/post/10483503055/eric-schmidt-thinks-bing-rules

======
joebadmo
It seems clear to me that what Schmidt meant with the comment is that the
industry is volatile enough that some commentators predict an upset. This is
obviously to counter claims that Google is too big or too powerful, which is
also obviously what the hearings are really about. That's not a "bald-faced
lie."

Saying Schmidt lied to Congress is the bald-faced lie.

~~~
Permit
Has the search engine been volatile at all over the last five years? It seems
to me to be extremely stable compared to other areas of the web. Eric Schmidt
knows that Bing isn't going to be eclipsing Google any time soon, I think
that's what the author was getting at.

~~~
joebadmo
I don't know what you consider volatile, but Bing launched in 2009 and now has
over 30% marketshare. Yahoo also quit search. Other challengers keep popping
up too (Wolfram Alpha, Blekko, Duck Duck Go, etc.).

Anyway, I found it clear that Schmidt wasn't saying that he thought Bing was
going to beat Google. He said there are others who think that. You can call
that misleading or slippery, but it's by definition not a bald-faced lie.

~~~
wanorris
Yes, Bing has gained marketshare. But over that time period, Google has lost
only 2 tenths of a share point. For Bing to pass Google, they would suddenly
have to lose a minimum of a whopping 15 share points after a decade or so of
share growth and two years of stable share.

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing to suggest that it is at all likely that
Bing is going to start taking large amounts of share from Google after no
record of having done so to date. Do you disagree?

~~~
diminish
On the other side, Bing needs to bring more advertisers to their adcenter, to
get higher ppc prices for higher revenues. Google benefits from much more
advertiser presence as a result of search market share. Or if advertisers open
up their ads using robads standards, bing and other Google competitors would
have a higher monetization; see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3022998>
for rsobad

------
Retreads
Good testimony. The comments seem like a pretty smooth way for Google to:

-(As the writer identifies) try not to seem like a monopoly

-try to simultaneously reassure investors. It sounds like parody on purpose...nobody can take it seriously except an official record

-acknowledge that any tech is ripe for disruption, even in the face of giants. Google, especially, knows this.

edit:formatting (I'm a noob here!)

------
jroseattle
It's ironic how similar the commentary from Schmidt compared to Gates from the
MS investigation. There are plenty of competitors, technology moves quickly,
customers can switch...yada yada yada.

To this day, I find the chief outcome of the MS anti-trust trial is this:
gov't now feels it has the discretion to investigate/disrupt/control any
technology firm with decent market size.

Looks like Google is going to have to start innovating in the areas of
lobbying and campaign contributions.

------
xtacy
I am curious, how would you compute market share of Bing when Yahoo! uses Bing
as its backend? Combined with Yahoo, Bing _powers_ 35% of the searches.

~~~
acangiano
In my experience with a variety of sites, Google's market share is easily
80-85% (according to the stats for each of these sites). And I don't mean
technical sites, for which it's rarely below 95%. Whether you consider Bing
alone, or you consider Bing and Yahoo, I don't buy for a second that they have
anything over 15-20% market share at the moment.

~~~
ChuckMcM
This is probably a more interesting metric, which is seeing the referrer lets
you know how someone found your site. And Google consistently scores higher
numbers here on my personal web site.

However, that statistic says more about ranking too, since sites higher in the
ranking in Google's results will get more referrer hits, if the same site was
lower ranked in Bing's index it would get fewer hits from Bing. In the ideal
case one could compare the relative referrals from a site which falls in the
same spot (preferably #1 for best sampling) on both indexes.

------
simonbrown
Clicky's stats show Google at around 90% on desktop and 96% on mobile.

[http://getclicky.com/user/#/marketshare/global/search-
engine...](http://getclicky.com/user/#/marketshare/global/search-engines/)

~~~
icebraining
That URL gives you a login page. Direct link:
<http://getclicky.com/marketshare/global/search-engines/>

------
petercooper
The other article on CNN about this shows Schmidt taking oath. Could some of
these statements, founded on inaccurate information, be considered perjurious?

~~~
pork
There was nothing false about what he said. His statement was prefixed with
"some commentators note...", which is absolutely true. Unfortunately, the word
"commentator" has mistakenly been conflated with authority and accuracy in
popular culture, even though a "bored Mashable reporter with a journalism
degree and Excel" is technically a "commentator". Any sort of analysis, such
as the questionable linear extrapolation used by the Mashable reporter, is
also treated as authoritative and accurate and amplified through the echo
chamber of the popular press. That failing is not Schmidt's, but our own.

For his part, Schmidt was doing what hired goons are hired to do -- mould the
truth, but never to the point of (detectable) perjury. You can bet your life
that there is an army of lawyers with sweaty brows in Mountain View poring
over every possible response to every possible question.

------
wslh
Just imagine if Microsoft gives a good boost ($$$) to Firefox to be the first
search engine in the box?

------
nathanwdavis
I've lost a little respect for Schmidt with this news.

