Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

sammobile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 748 posts

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#471

Post by all2 »

amluto wrote: post #384
hrunt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also on a total sidenote, if you told me 5 years ago that Bing would be a serious threat to Google I would have a laughed. If you had told me 3 months ago that Bing would be a serious threat to Google, I still would have laughed. That's how much impact the ChatGPT integration had for Bing -- overnight.

Google has spent the last 10 years ago making Google worse. They achieved this in large part by making the whole Internet worse [0], but a search engine with results of the quality of Google 10 years ago would be a serious competitor. [0] For example, Google used to have a fairly strictly enforced rule that indexable content had to actually be visible to an unauthenticated user. The current crop of sites that have ap…

I've been using DDG and Brave for a few years now, and I went back to Google yesterday because its the default for Chrome on my phone. I was startled at the difference in quality, especially with Brave vs Google. Brave typically prefers long-form writing and the quality of the articles is typically a lot higher than what I found using Google.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#472

Post by Sai_ »

paulpan wrote: post #467
ksec wrote: post #36

This is basically Samsung asking Google to pay up. Google needs to pay Apple / iOS for Default Search Engine, and paying Samsung for staying on Android with Google Search. Basically Google is being squeezed left and right. So the only way to increase revenue or profits to satisfy the money they spend on Apple and Samsung? More Ads on Youtube and Google Search. The more Ads they serve, the worse UX they have. All whil…

The frenemy status of Google-Samsung is once again on display. Samsung probably hasn't been happy with the Google's continued Pixel phone push :p But why is Google paying Apple to be the default search engine on iOS devices? It seems a waste of money as Apple would be stupid to default to any other search engine given the lower search quality results. End users would notice if there was a result degradation and likel…

Apple may not consider any other default search engine only in the absence of a search engine other than google offering a pot of money to be the default search engine.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#474

Post by hbn »

chankstein38 wrote: post #298
ur-whale wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure ChatGPT can hallucinate For the non-ML crowd out there, in the AI world: to hallucinate to lie

You're absolutely correct but it's fair to also point out that people do this constantly as well. Try googling any controversial topic.

People as a whole say a lot of things, correct and incorrect. But ChatGPT is a single thing that has a fairly impressive rate of reliability on information, but if you get into certain levels of details on certain topics, it'll just spit out false information that's indistinguishable from the correct stuff. I wouldn't expect a human to do that: trick me into thinking they're an expert with an encyclopedic, verifiably correct knowledge of a topic, but then confidently start lying about that same topic in that same conversation. It's much harder to vet, or know when you need to vet.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#475

Post by foobiekr »

jrockway wrote: post #452
ksec wrote: post #36

This is basically Samsung asking Google to pay up. Google needs to pay Apple / iOS for Default Search Engine, and paying Samsung for staying on Android with Google Search. Basically Google is being squeezed left and right. So the only way to increase revenue or profits to satisfy the money they spend on Apple and Samsung? More Ads on Youtube and Google Search. The more Ads they serve, the worse UX they have. All whil…

Is GCP really a failure? I think the product is OK and they seem to have some big customers. They're maybe #3 in the space, but you can make a lot of money without being #1. Yes, we all hate their support structure (it goes through SADA), but the price is right. At my last company with 4 engineers we were paying AWS ~$1000/month for support. At my current company back when we had a cloud service on GCP, we got weekly…

I am curious why you find it cheaper than AWS. Are you sure the application didn't change and was at the same scale?

In my experience, GCP and AWS are within a tiny % of each other.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#476

Post by slig »

all2 wrote: post #471
amluto wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has spent the last 10 years ago making Google worse. They achieved this in large part by making the whole Internet worse [0], but a search engine with results of the quality of Google 10 years ago would be a serious competitor. [0] For example, Google used to have a fairly strictly enforced rule that indexable content had to actually be visible to an unauthenticated user. The current crop of sites that have ap…

I've been using DDG and Brave for a few years now, and I went back to Google yesterday because its the default for Chrome on my phone. I was startled at the difference in quality, especially with Brave vs Google. Brave typically prefers long-form writing and the quality of the articles is typically a lot higher than what I found using Google.

Brave Search is like Google from 2005/6.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#477

Post by wlesieutre »

Andrex wrote: post #406
usrusr wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look how well Huawei smartphones are selling in the west (not well at all). And that's not because of lack of trying, I've been on a team where everybody agreed that supporting their phones had zero upside outside of the cash Huawei offered for a port of our apps. And we did it, only because they paid so much. And those were laughably unattractive apps (think yellow pages), I can't even start to imagine what they mus…

Huawei was selling well in the west until the US Gov't blocked them. https://www.economist.com/business/2022/10/25/ren-zhengfei-h...

Because they used to have Google's play store and other services. Parent commenter's point is that a manufacturer having the open source parts of Android isn't necessarily worth much on its own.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#478

Post by jsnell »

bena wrote: post #413
jsnell wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think traveler01 does have a valid question. Essentially, with all of their engineers, why is Google so limited? [...] They just don't seem to be able to monetize beyond ads. Google's non-ads businesses are about $60 billion / year revenue. That seems like quite a lot! To put it in context, that non-ads business would be in the top 20 for all tech companies by revenue. More than e.g. Oracle or Cisco. Roughly the…

And that's a fair response to the question. But it is true that the vast bulk of their revenue does come from ads. So it gets complicated. If you were to take away their non-ad revenue, Google would be fine-ish. If you were to take away their ad revenue, Google would be in serious trouble. Compare with Microsoft. Their biggest revenue source is Cloud services. And that's only about a third of their total revenue. And…

Diversification takes time. In 2011, their non-ads business was about $1 billion / year. That revenue has grown by 60x in 11 years, so about 50%/year growth for more than a decade. For most businesses those numbers are an amazing success story. It's only in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime search ads business that this would look disappointing.

Microsoft already had diverse businesses 40 years ago, and have "just" needed to maintain that. They're now diverse by default as long as not too many of those existing lines of business fail. No matter how successful a new business of theirs is, it's really hard for it to grow fast enough to threaten that diversity.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#479

Post by hintymad »

simula67 wrote: post #21

I always thought that Google made a big blunder by not encroaching upon Microsoft's turf more aggressively. They should have tried to make a better desktop OS (just buy Canonical or something) and then eat into Microsoft Office market share by releasing Google Office for Desktop. Wait for an opportunity to emerge and then pounce. This is precisely what Microsoft did to Google. They had Bing running in the background…

> They should have tried to make a better desktop OS

Wouldn't office suite be a better target? Everyone uses it. Lots of low hanging fruits. Easy to win the heart of geeks. Ample opportunities to integrate with other enterprise services.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#480

Post by adfgadfhionio »

SquareWheel wrote: post #91
lightbendover wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last thing anyone should ever want from a search engine is different results from the next person over.

That might be true in concept, but I don't think it's true in reality. When people search for something online, they want the first result to be whatever they had in mind. If I search for Python, I want the homepage for the programming language. When somebody else searches for Python, they might be looking to learn about the animal. You could argue that we should just ask for exactly what we want, but that puts more…

I can type at 100 words per minute. Typing "programming language" after every search will cost me maybe two seconds per search. The savings are trivial. The costs, however, are not trivial. I have on several occasions spent half an hour trying to make a search engine handle a query that I know worked in the past. And that's when I find what I'm looking for at all. They have optimized the happy path but made failures worse and more frequent.

What really bothers me is that no one asked what I want. These companies replaced my tools behind my back. I have seen literal fistfights between machinists over people messing with their tools. This is at least that bad and probably worse. Software is central to how I make sense of the world. Software is not just part of my livelihood; it is how I make sense of the world. Changing my software behind my back is like "upgrading" my eyes while I sleep. Why do we accept that such a central part of our world is completely out of our control?

Post reply on HN