What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
192 Comments
- Yazilliclick, on 06/29/2009, -3/+72Isn't that the same problem that faces any product trying to challenge the market leader?
I like bing, it works decent, it's fast, but it's not really better than google. It's better in some aspects but worse in others. Unfortunately the key aspect, search results, still has google in the lead I'd say. - Jdshald, on 06/29/2009, -1/+64then just use http://www.bing-vs-google.com/
bing on the left google on the right. - alpha88, on 06/29/2009, -6/+60Could there BE a worse name?
/chandler - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -5/+57Instead of competing in a saturated market why not innovate and create something new? MS throws a ton of money at RnD only to come up with "me too" products.
- Akairenn, on 06/29/2009, -14/+58Biggest problem facing Bing?
The hideous landing page. :p - Smokeydabear, on 06/29/2009, -3/+42You know what my problem with the bing is? The television spots. They say that there is "search overload" with other search engines, but I have never had that problem. I have always found what I am looking for with google.com and am not going to switch.
- kd420, on 06/29/2009, -17/+53Loyalty to Google, and dislike of MS. Personally I'd rather give Google my traffic and loyalty when their actions have reflected their "don't be evil" motto. MS has just been too much of a dick when it comes to FOSS and Linux for me ever want to help them. If Bing was much better than Google, it would be harder to justify this position without being petty, but there is no clear winner here. Also, Gmail, Gcal, iGoogle etc. are already there...don't fix what isn't broken.
- kleon777, on 06/29/2009, -27/+53My biggest problem is the ridiculous name. Google sounds high tech and sciencey.
- kingmanic, on 06/29/2009, -3/+28lol. although I'm not a fan of 'bing'; google is sort of a whimsical name like 'bing'.
- LordBoreal51, on 06/29/2009, -7/+32Call me stuck in the past, but I actually prefer a minimalist search engine like google where there is Javascript or AJAX garbage slowing my browser down every time I make a search. So regardless of how decent Bing is, unless they can compete with an excellent search engine that unobtrusively displays ads, I'm not going to switch.
- readme, on 06/29/2009, -0/+24There's zero incentive to switch to Bing over Google. Seriously, it does a few extra tricks that Google does but not enough to jump.
What really pisses me off is that the commercials make Bing seem like something that totally fixes what's wrong with Google, but that's BS. The one that makes fun of search engines searching for the words "bar" and "dude" for instance. I plugged those two words in Bing and the results were no better than Google. "Bar" returned a Wikipedia page as a first hit. "Dude" returns a definition but also Wikipedia as the first hit. No better than Google. Totally false advertising. - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -2/+25Google was a "me too" in the sense that it was yet another search engine. The difference however is that Google innovated in that space by creating a new search algorithm. Google rose to be the best in search.
Microsoft on the other hand has not created something new in search, they just finally created something competent. - lostngone, on 06/29/2009, -5/+27The biggest problem facing Bing is that it is a Microsoft product, not loyalty to Google.
- LiquidIse, on 06/29/2009, -2/+24Google has been branded that way. Asprin sounds "medicine-y" because of its current association.
- BrandonJM, on 06/29/2009, -2/+20The fact is, user inertia sets in, and it takes something truly remarkable to break through. Bing is more of the same, and if you look at how the real time web did this past weekend compared to the search engines, you'll see the engines are no longer remarkable.
- mksmothers, on 06/29/2009, -1/+18And in chapter two of marketing 101 we'll be discussing barriers to entry.
- chesscat, on 06/29/2009, -4/+19The reason is because Microsoft's reputation precedes it on any new product and the track record isn't good. In short, they are damaged goods.
- FredFredrickson, on 06/29/2009, -3/+16Though I prefer Google's simple search page, I rather like Bing's landing page sometimes. They feature some neat photography, and I like hovering over the bubbles to see what they say.
- grimacebrown, on 06/29/2009, -4/+16My annoyance with Bing is contained thus:
When I was in 8th some years ago, my teacher (to attempt showing us that the internet wasn't always a perfect or complete searching tool... which is a bit different now) had us look up Eliza Wilkinson. When I first did this search 10-11 years ago... I found nothing on her. I ended up scouring the internet for information on this woman. Eventually I found her...
So NOW... we have Bing and Google. You put Eliza Wilkinson in to either search engine. While both search engines do link you to numerous pages about the letter writer from the Revolutionary War... Bing's first search result is somebody's ***** Facebook page.
This does not bode well for my future searches. - CoreyTamas, on 06/29/2009, -1/+13"Because It's Not Google"
- diggB, on 06/29/2009, -10/+22I like the name. It has a nice bing to it!
- andygavin, on 06/29/2009, -2/+14Where do you get that idea? Microsoft is the most likely to have you pay for online services like office. If it wasn't for Google I'd bet your online experience would cost you more, why would you pay for it. Because they'd lock you in with file formats and technology that were only available on their platform. Microsoft has a history of introducing flaws into open technologies to make it difficult for competitors rather than making their products the best: they have in the past resorted to playing dirty.
What seems to be less evil about Google is you are free to leave at any time and that they try to build products that have technical merit. Not force inferior technology on the market because they have a dominant position on the desktop.
Google is the lesser evil for me. - pr0t0, on 06/29/2009, -2/+13I've tried it for a few searches. In every instance, Google returned better, more relevant results. I'm sure there are financial incentives for trying to take some market share for search, but it seems that Microsoft would be better served finding another niche and excelling at that as well as Google does with search.
I recommend anything that Google does not do. - nipterink, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11and if you asked people to start saying "i googled it" instead of "i looked it up" before google was popular you'd get the same reaction.
- FredFredrickson, on 06/29/2009, -3/+14Google sounds high tech if you know what a googol is. Otherwise, I think to anyone who might not have heard of it, it sounds dorky, like someone with a speech impediment gargling on their own drool.
Bing doesn't sound as serious, and it's hard to imagine people saying "let's bing that" the same way they do with Google, but it's probably not any better. - r00fus, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10And you think Bing/Microsoft isn't doing the same (w/r/t user-data collection)?
Naive. - MicrosoftBob, on 06/29/2009, -1/+11I like the recursive acronym better:
"Bing Is Not Google" - ultrafez, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10Using "google" as a verb only sounds normal because its usage has become normal in this age. If Bing were to have been the original, best search engine then "to bing" something would also sound perfectly normal.
- l800LEMMINGS, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10my biggest reason for not adopting bing is how bing would us their newfound market share, because microsoft's track record in the past of bullying with market share has been damning on everything else but them. Google isn't flawlessly responsible but hands down the lesser of two evils.
- mmmunaf, on 06/29/2009, -2/+11Loyalty to Google is one issue. But perhaps having an interface that looks like Jackson Pollack's dog crapped on your screen is problematic as well.
- Yazilliclick, on 06/29/2009, -2/+11They both display ads in the same locations. I'll assume your "is" was supposed to be "isn't" in your first sentence but you'd be wrong there too, they both use javascript and ajax, if anything google uses more.
- CoreyTamas, on 06/29/2009, -0/+9'Isn't that the same problem that faces any product trying to challenge the market leader?'
Nope. Apple has been trying to challenge Microsoft for many years now, and yet Consumer Report Magazine says that Apple has more consumer loyalty than any brand name in the world. - Vusys, on 06/29/2009, -0/+9They're comparing the wrong things in my opinion.
"The group was given two tasks: a search for local hotels, and a shopping search for a new digital camera"
When was the last time that the average person did anything like that? Then compare that to something I do a lot, using Google as a dictionary. As far as I can tell, Bing fails badly: http://www.bing-vs-google.com/?q=define%3A+digg - reddyap1, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9Bing needs to do something revolutionary if they ever want to take a significant share of the search market. Bing might be a really great product but when you are doing essentially what a competitor (Google) is doing who has great brand loyalty it would take something radical to steal those users away.
Microsoft should go back to the drawing board and give us something that would make us look dumb for staying with Google. - evilregis, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9Bing is a perfectly fine search engine. I find results between it and Google were practically identical. The problem for MS is that that's woefully inadequate when it comes to winning over current Google users.
What we often forget is that not EVERYONE is online...at least not like your average digger. There are people buying their first computer and really getting online for the first time every day. Bing's best hope is to win over those users who are not yet hooked on a competing search engine. - Gerz1219, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9This is why you don't cede a market to your competitor for ten years.
- fungie5, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9What? I'd like to see how you would go about justifying that statement.
Google doesn't use underhanded methods to destroy their competition. Instead, they beat the competition by producing a range of truly useful products....and they make them free to use by making ad companies pay for them instead of us. Furthermore, they actively support open-source software by directly investing their own money and promoting open technologies by including them in their own products. Both Firefox and Opera make much of their operating capital from Google. Then there's Google Android, an OS built using technology from open-source software (Linux). Want to hazard a guess as to how much Microsoft invests in free open source software? (rhetorical question).The bottom line is that Google didn't force itself on us. WE picked it as the first choice out of a multitude of search engines. I'm not saying that Google Inc is perfect - just that they haven't committed anything that rivals the misdeeds of Microsoft over the years. - Chirp08, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8Which is awesome if you like that, except when I need to search for something really quick I don't want pictures of hawaii shoved in my face and along the header of my search engine when it has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm on the site. If i want a cool interface I'd still use ask.com before bing anyway.
- FredFredrickson, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8It doesn't cost millions of dollars for only seconds of airtime unless you're advertising during the Super Bowl.
- Qumahlin, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7Actually a facebook result would be most likely to be the least relevant as the indexed content would only contain Eliza's name once since its not actually indexing the content of her facebook page; whereas the other results contain her name multiple times as well as tons of cross links to other sites about her or mentioning her.
The amount of other sites linking to her should make the revolutionary Eliza Wilkinson far more relevant than the facebook nobody Eliza Wilkinson....but since MS owns a small part of FB you can clearly see where their priorities lie.
They clearly have some pretty crappy rankings considering if you search for "George Washington" the first result is a city by that name...where as on Google the first result is exactly what you would expect, the link to George Washington's biography on the official .gov site....which on Bing is the 3rd result...
Does Bing have a "I'm feeling lucky" type button, cause if they do I sure as hell would be annoyed that the first result never seems to be the one thats actually relevant. - FredFredrickson, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9What the hell is the "real time web"?
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9It's Gaelic for "Thigh turkey is done."
- WiseWeasel, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8The ONLY reason Bing will become #2 is because MS will make it the default search engine in Windows. That's IT, and that's why MS is so hated. They don't need to compete, they can just bully their way into the market.
- chicagospur, on 06/29/2009, -3/+9That's my point. I didn't have to modify my search to get what I wanted from Bing.
- EntropyFan, on 06/29/2009, -4/+10@davidkeithjones
MS's has created a new search algorithm...
MS has also created some new ways of looking at the results (I like the fly-over movies)
Why is it 'creative' when it is Google, and 'copy' when it is MS? - nyxerebos, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6I beg to differ. Though the video thumbnail thing is cool, Bing seems much less interested in indexing 'adult' content. Google has the more complete index in my experience.
- FXNGLAS, on 06/29/2009, -1/+7I did some research on this... Maybe not millions, but a few minutes will cost a million.
Depends on the station, network, time of day and slot.
Slots are often pre-sold and you can't buy into them, the Network News, for example. Major advertising area. Some slots are simply not avaiable.
A local commerical on a local station at 2 AM on the midnight movie runs as cheap at $150 per 30 seconds.
A local commercial on a hot show like reruns of Friends or Star Trek on an "off channel" at, say, 8 pm on a Saturday can run $3,000 per 30 seconds.
A local commercial on the 6 pm news on a network affiliate runs about $8,000 per 30 seconds.
A local commercial on the half hour slot of a network affiliate for a show like CSI can run $10,000 per 30 seconds
A network commercial generally runs $200,000 and up for 30 seconds on a low rated show (CSI will cost you more, except the slots are taken by the Ad Agencies, so you have to be with the agencies to get the slots, except for half hour, before the show and after the ending credits) and you have to buy in quanity, say $2 million worth, otherwise you will pay a premium price.
Buying in quantity gets you a break. If you pay $2,000 for example, you'll get the WHOLE midnight movie on a local station at 12 am to 2 am. That means you'll get two commercials every 10 minutes between 12 and 2. That's far less than $150 per 30 seocnds.
That's about $85 per 30 seconds. You can do even better if you buy it every weekend for a year. To get this rate, however, you are paying like $85,000 a year in advance.
Probably get your cost down to $35 per 30 seconds.
That's how Cal Worthington and Fucillo do it.
You can buy 3AM to 4AM on Channel 12 for about $2,500 and run a one hour infomerical if you want!
Undestand what an Ad Agency is (Chait Day, Needham World Wide), they come in to a network with a dozen clients and on a high rated show like CSI they will gobble up all the time slots and present their clients, but this leaves the network with not slots to sell EXCEPT half hour (go to the fridge and bathroom) and BEFORE AND AFTER CREDITS (channel changing, fridge and bathroom). Those slots are good, but dead meat.
So NEEDHAM comes in and pays NBC $500 million to buy slots for the year $800 million to CBS and $700 million to ABC
They then put Toyta, Nike, whoever their current clients are into those slots.
Chiat Day does the same thing
Thompson Agency does the same thing
NBC, CBS and ABC pre-sell all their major high ratings slots a year in advance.
Local time buyers do the same thing for Cal Worthington or Fucillo Ford and Honda
The half hour is reserved for local stations and "indepedents" who buy in at very high rates. - jakem1, on 06/29/2009, -3/+9Which market? Microsoft have never owned search. In fact, Microsoft have never really had a dominating web strategy, with the exception of their browser.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6My biggest problem with Bing is how condescending (and untrue) their ads are. I have never gone to Google to get a piece of info and been rendered catatonic by mountains of useless search results. In most cases I find my answer on the first page. If you are looking for information on plasma televisions and getting confused by definitions of blood plasma then you are a halfwit.
- Locupleto, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6Now if Google would release an OS that is “just as good” as Windows I would switch in a heartbeat.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 196 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is