In June Microsoft released a new search engine named Bing, which is available in a beta version for Taiwan. Already, reports are suggesting that Google might be running scared — but does Bing really have the search engine bling to topple the titanic Google?
It strikes me as quite obvious that if Google has made all of its money from a search engine, why can’t others? Why aren’t there more competing search engines from huge companies like Microsoft, Apple or Sony? The main problem is what people perceive as your core competence these days, and only Google seems to be synonymous with search. To be fair, this reputation evolved very quickly: before Google there were AltaVista, Lycos, WebCrawler, Yahoo, Excite, Hotbot — just to name but a few — but Google completely destroyed the competition in less than two years by being able to get more relevant search results for its users using a more advanced search algorithm. Before long, word of mouth had almost everyone using Google.
However, if Bing were actually better than Google, one would assume that in the long run, after a period of competition, Bing would evolve as the dominant search site, exactly as Google did. Of course, history is littered with examples of better technologies that failed to prevail: Beta Max vs VHS, Qwerty vs Dvorak, Amiga vs PC. The fact is, now that the majority of people are Net savvy and search engines are no longer the exclusive tools of geeks, being better does not automatically mean commercial success. Things like advertising, strategic marketing and management play just as heavy a role as the product itself.
In this respect, Google employed a shrewd business plan: It didn’t spread itself too thin in its early stages by claiming to be anything other than a search engine. It only began to expand once it had literally become synonymous with search — to the extent that “google” has replaced “search” in our vocabulary.
However, whereas “google it” can now be used without further explanation, “bing it” is still meaningless. Google became involved with search in its infancy, back in the days it was almost impossible to see an ad for a search engine, so word of mouth was the best advertisement and being known as the “search guys” worked. Since then times have changed, people are hungry for more and there is room for more search engines — but people need a reason to swap. Firefox, for example, offered a better browsing experience than Internet Explorer.
Marketing is almost certainly going to play a big role in whether or not Bing succeeds. Nowadays, Google spends around US$25 million on advertising per year. Microsoft is planning to spend up to US$100 million to promote Bing, according to reports.
So what makes Bing any different? It appears to be almost identical to Google in every way, inspired by Google’s years of research into sparse user interfaces. The main visual difference is a background image that changes daily (I personally find that Bing’s background and logo make it look less professional than Google, but that doesn’t really matter if it’s more competent).
Apart from different backgrounds and logos, the most obvious distinction is the way Microsoft is marketing Bing as a “decision engine.” This strategy is obviously Bing’s unique selling point, as articulated by the catchphrase: “When it comes to decisions that matter, Bing & Decide.” But aggressive marketing and buzzwords like “decision engine” and “Bing & Decide” do not a better browser make.
On Bing’s Web site (I selected US because the site was not fully functional in Taiwan) I browsed a description of the engine explaining its merits. After reading the blurb, I was convinced that Bing was somehow optimized for certain things. One statement in particular — “Bing digs deep into airline Web sites so you don’t have to” — piqued my interest.
To compare Bing with Google, I googled “Taipei to London flights” in both search engines. The two sites offered almost identical hits. However, Google provided a slightly more convenient way to compare prices, as Bing’s results weren’t integrated with Expedia and other online ticket sellers as Google’s were. Nonetheless, the fact that Bing was able to almost match Google’s results was highly impressive, considering it has been going for less than two months — it also makes me question just where it gets its data, and what its algorithm does. Out of curiosity, I tried Yahoo, which produced results similar to both Bing’s and Google’s, as did Webcrawler and Altavista — it’s astonishing just how similar search engines actually are.
Next I tried searching for a product. Here Bing slightly outdid all its competitors, including Google, by bringing up a bar on the left-hand side that displayed categories relevant to the product, such as troubleshooting, reviews, etc. It also brought up a handy review of the product in the form of graphics. This may be more efficient than Google, especially for those who are fairly new to using search engines. After exploring Bing further, I found a pretty capable video site (www.bing.com/videos) where users can view previews of videos by running the mouse over them.
Bing is certainly a capable search engine — if it had been available in its current form five years ago, it would probably be where Google is now — but its merits may not be uncovered for a while. It’s clear that breaking into the search engine market is tough; most existing search engines produce results of comparable quality, so it would appear that reputation is key. Buzzwords like “decision engine” and novel ways to search might not help. Take, for instance, the launch of a revolutionary new “computational knowledge engine” called Wolfram Alpha released within the last few months but still completely unheard of. Likewise, “Google Squared,” an application launched this summer that shows search results in spreadsheet form, remains largely unknown.
Over the coming months, I hope to see more from Bing. The capacity to predict prices, allowing users to wait for cheaper airline tickets, for example, would really set it apart from the rest. But for now, I will be alternating between Google and Bing until I decide which, if either, is better.
Gareth Murfin is a freelance applications developer and technology consultant: www.garethmurfin.co.uk
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the country’s other political groups dare not offend religious groups, says Chen Lih-ming (陳立民), founder of the Taiwan Anti-Religion Alliance (台灣反宗教者聯盟). “It’s the same in other democracies, of course, but because political struggles in Taiwan are extraordinarily fierce, you’ll see candidates visiting several temples each day ahead of elections. That adds impetus to religion here,” says the retired college lecturer. In Japan’s most recent election, the Liberal Democratic Party lost many votes because of its ties to the Unification Church (“the Moonies”). Chen contrasts the progress made by anti-religion movements in
Taiwan doesn’t have a lot of railways, but its network has plenty of history. The government-owned entity that last year became the Taiwan Railway Corp (TRC) has been operating trains since 1891. During the 1895-1945 period of Japanese rule, the colonial government made huge investments in rail infrastructure. The northern port city of Keelung was connected to Kaohsiung in the south. New lines appeared in Pingtung, Yilan and the Hualien-Taitung region. Railway enthusiasts exploring Taiwan will find plenty to amuse themselves. Taipei will soon gain its second rail-themed museum. Elsewhere there’s a number of endearing branch lines and rolling-stock collections, some
Last week the State Department made several small changes to its Web information on Taiwan. First, it removed a statement saying that the US “does not support Taiwan independence.” The current statement now reads: “We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. We expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” In 2022 the administration of Joe Biden also removed that verbiage, but after a month of pressure from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), reinstated it. The American
This was not supposed to be an election year. The local media is billing it as the “2025 great recall era” (2025大罷免時代) or the “2025 great recall wave” (2025大罷免潮), with many now just shortening it to “great recall.” As of this writing the number of campaigns that have submitted the requisite one percent of eligible voters signatures in legislative districts is 51 — 35 targeting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus lawmakers and 16 targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers. The pan-green side has more as they started earlier. Many recall campaigns are billing themselves as “Winter Bluebirds” after the “Bluebird Action”
RSS