Live data from Hacker News

Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

sammobile.com

601–610 of 748 posts

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% of what I search for, I can independently confirm once I have it in hand. For the other 5%, I avoid ChatGPT.

Reminds me of Knoll’s law of media accuracy: “everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge”. Humans are pretty good bullshitters too!

Problematically, they're much better bullshitters than ChatGPT. And if you used Google to find them, they're probably either selling you something, or you had to navigate a minefield of people who are in order to find them.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happily made up citations for me. In a follow up, I asked it not too, and to please use only real papers. It apologized, said it would not do it again, then in the same reply made up another non-existent but plausible citation. Checking the links is a good practice. I feel like we just created an interesting novel problem in the world. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Sounds like you should be doing the research yourself but are relying on an untrusted source to feed you answers? I don't think we're there yet...

On the contrary, I was doing a calibration, asking about something to which I know the answers very well. To see if it was trustworthy.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happily made up citations for me. In a follow up, I asked it not too, and to please use only real papers. It apologized, said it would not do it again, then in the same reply made up another non-existent but plausible citation. Checking the links is a good practice. I feel like we just created an interesting novel problem in the world. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Are you talking about Bing Chat, which cites actual web pages it used to make the summary, or ChatGPT, which is a very different beast and relies on built-in knowledge rather than searches?

Good call. I was using ChatGPT.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#604
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you manage the hallucination problems, or do you not seem to be having them? I’m blown away by the competence of the language model but its willingness to make up facts makes me leary.

> its willingness to make up facts makes me leary I see you haven't met humans

When google sends me to a website, I can at least judge the credibility of a website.

When ChatGPT tells me something, I have no idea if it's paraphrasing information gathered from Encyclopedia Britannica, or from a hollow-earther forum.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pet topic of mine to think about - so my (probably over-long) two cents below... For context, I worked at Google for ~4 years, and have also been at two other FAANGs, as well as done time at VC-funded startups. I'd like to think I have a good gamut of experiences to compare against both in the realm of smaller companies and massive megacorps. Google's problems are (from most severe IMO to least severe): - P…

>Google has poor product strategy overall. The company tends to swing for a lot of home-runs but structures these endeavors poorly. I wouldn't say so; I mean they like to experiment a lot but their product strategy is good in the long term e.g. Google Search, Google Mail, Google Maps, YouTube, Google Chrome, Android etc. If 5 experiments fail and 1 succeeds and brings billions of dollars in revenue that's win in thei…

> "Google Search, Google Mail, Google Maps, YouTube, Google Chrome, Android etc."

This is a vindication of Google's M&A department and an indictment of Google's actual product orgs. Out of this list of 6 major Earth-shaking products only 3 came from Google itself. YouTube, Android, and Maps were all acquisitions.

And of the homegrown successes the last one of note (Chrome) was released 15 years ago. In other words: Google has been completely unable to produce a mega-hit product for 15 years by itself.

> "If 5 experiments fail and 1 succeeds and brings billions of dollars in revenue that's win in their book and in my book too."

Yes, and this is how all other tech companies operate as well, the problem is that Google experiments incompetently.

Take for example the recent and total failure of Stadia - they sunk truckloads of money into developing the underlying technology, which is legitimately impressive. And then they slapped a substandard (let's be honest, less than substandard) go-to-market strategy around it. And after it predictably floundered they walked away from the thing entirely.

Meanwhile on the other side of the fence Microsoft developed basically the same product, but with a better go-to-market strategy has now carved out a niche for themselves in streaming gaming.

Both companies experimented, one got the product to stick, the other flailed around before declaring the experiment a failure - even though within the competitive landscape it was obviously viable.

Or for something more currently topical - Google literally invented LLMs but failed to productize it. They put in the money and failed to get the result where another company did.

The list goes on and on. The claims of "see what sticks" is a superficial mantra and its practitioners often forget that how you go about experimentation affects your odds of success. Google has IMO one of the worst experimentation processes (or really just what other companies call product strategy) in BigTech.

Google has taken the notion that you can swing at multiple balls that are tossed your way and generalized it to mean that one doesn't have to be any good at hitting the ball, because given a sufficient large N pitches you're gonna get a hit anyway. This is poor business strategy and it's showing.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#606
post #543
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2022, Google was 80%+ directly dependent on Ads for revenue, and 10.3% indirectly dependent on it. I assume the 10.3% is "Google Other". That's things like YouTube Premium, Play Store and hardware. How is any of that even indirectly dependent on ads?

> YouTube Premium is dependent on ads because YouTube as a product is dependent on ads. Without ads, YouTube Premium wouldn't exist. I think the vast majority of that 10.3% is YouTube Premium, YouTube TV, Play Store and their hardware. But I still think most of those are in service to their ad engine.

That just circular reasoning. "The company wouldn't exist without ads, so I will consider all this subscription and hardware revenue to actually be ad revenue, and then complain that they're too dependent on ads".

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#608

It makes sense, though. Google search is terrible. Bing isn't great, either. But Bing probably charges less, and if there's no real quality difference between the two, why pay more?

You've got the flow of money inverted... Phone manufacturers don't pay for the right of getting to set a search engine as the default. They expect to be paid.

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This nails it (I used to be a PM, now I'm an engineer) The PMs job has become so much about process, that any 'product sense' is completely disregarded because it can't be measured objectively. Truly great products e.g. the original iPhone, rarely have PMs

The original iPhone did very clearly and famously have a product manager. It was the same person that was also responsible to paper of CEO.

Ken Kocienda one of the first engineers working on the iPhone disagrees with you on that https://twitter.com/kocienda/status/1529521111104299008?s=20

Re: Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

#610
post #476
post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this comment got me to switch from google, thanks
Post reply on HN