Google: The top search query on Bing is "Google"

[Daniel Sims]

Why it matters: In an attempt to get an antitrust violation with a fine in the billions dropped, a lawyer for Google pointed out this week how successful the search engine is by giving an example of how many people rush to switch to it from competitors.

In 2018 the European Union hit Google with a €4.34 billion (around $5 billion) fine for an antitrust violation. The infraction concerned how Google required Android device manufacturers to pre-install its search engine and Chrome browser to be granted a license to the Google Play store. EU regulators also claimed manufacturers who pre-installed Google software weren't allowed to use Android forks. An EU commissioner said this stifles competition and innovation.

Bloomberg notes that Google is still trying to get the fine overturned, and this week, it told an EU general court in Luxembourg that its search engine is just that popular.

"We have submitted evidence showing that the most common search query on Bing is by far Google," said Alphabet Inc. (Google's owner) lawyer Alfonso Lamadrid.

Lamadrid is likely suggesting that most people use Bing simply because it's the default search engine for Windows' pre-installed Edge browser and that they immediately search for a way to switch to Google.

"People use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to," Lamadrid said. "Google's market share in general search is consistent with consumer surveys showing that 95% of users prefer Google to rival search engines."

According to StatCounter, Google has 92 percent of the search engine market share, with Bing in second place at 2.66 percent.

Last month Bernstein Wealth Management estimated that Google might pay Apple as much as $15 billion this year to ensure that Google remains the default search engine on Apple devices, including iPhones.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/91536-google-tells-eu-court-top-search-query-bing.html

 

[merikafyeah]

"People use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to,"

That's the truth right there. The free market has spoken. Can't side with the EU on this one. Both Google Search and Android are Google's own properties which tie in to the larger Google ecosystem which Google has taken the risk and expense to create. We all know many Google products that have failed and have to be written off as a loss so not even Google can just create success out of thin air so why punish those who succeed? Not a fan of Google's invasive data-mining, but that's one thing and legitimate business success is another. Fair is fair.

And it's not like phone makers HAVE to use Android. Just look at Fxtec and their Pro1 X smartphone. Alternatives exist if people want them. The fact that most people don't care should not be construed as being caused by stifled innovation. At least not in this case.

 

[Uncle Al]

Anti-Trust is what it is. Really doesn't matter what the claims are, it matters what the law is and does. Google has never been honest with the public and never will be as long as they are allowed to run free without fear of individuals bringing legal action against them. If all these companies were as pure as the driven snow, then remove the legal bars that protect them and let's see how long they continue their current practices. If they are so innocent then they don't need special protection.

 

[Burty117]

Now I completely agree most people prefer Google, and absolutely the most searched term on bing is Google.

However, they're paying Apple $15 billion to keep Google the default search engine on Apple's ecosystem?

What they're saying is, if people were given a choice and easily able to try out other search engines, they might actually lose a chunk of business? At least $15 billion?

Hhhmmm, definitely something that's not making them look particularly good.

 

[Hexic]

Now I completely agree most people prefer Google, and absolutely the most searched term on bing is Google.

However, they're paying Apple $15 billion to keep Google the default search engine on Apple's ecosystem?

What they're saying is, if people were given a choice and easily able to try out other search engines, they might actually lose a chunk of business? At least $15 billion?

Hhhmmm, definitely something that's not making them look particularly good.

It does look a little.. shady - but this is common industry practice between companies and their respective ecosystems.

$15B to Apple from Google is a drop in the bucket for Google, so utilizing this preferential default browser nets them many billions more annually than the initial $15B investment.

Now, what is truly ironic is that Apple accepts this money, fully knowing Google’s data mining practices, yet paints themselves as champions of privacy. That’s hypocrisy at its finest - but proves the mighty dollar outweighs any farce of a PR scam.

 

[dangh]

You can't pay other companies billions and expect you won't be target of uncompetitive behaviour practice.

If I create a best ever search engine but can't promote it with billions, then how possibly can I compete?

I use google and I'm happy with it, but if really everyone wants to use google then what's the point paying Apple to make sure they will?

Google is a great search engine and most people will always choose it. But paying other companies to make it a default engine IS anticompetitive behaviour.

 

[merikafyeah]

To be fair, Apple doesn't have their own search engine, so if they're going to pick a default, who will it be? Probably ends up being Google anyway. Does anyone honestly believe Apple would put Bing as the default on all their devices? Or Yahoo? Let's be real guys.

 

[Puiu]

"People use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to,"

That's the truth right there. The free market has spoken. Can't side with the EU on this one. Both Google Search and Android are Google's own properties which tie in to the larger Google ecosystem which Google has taken the risk and expense to create. We all know many Google products that have failed and have to be written off as a loss so not even Google can just create success out of thin air so why punish those who succeed? Not a fan of Google's invasive data-mining, but that's one thing and legitimate business success is another. Fair is fair.

And it's not like phone makers HAVE to use Android. Just look at Fxtec and their Pro1 X smartphone. Alternatives exist if people want them. The fact that most people don't care should not be construed as being caused by stifled innovation. At least not in this case.

What you said makes no sense. When a company this large reaches the stage of a full blown monopoly your arguments fall apart. Regulation is there to protect you, the consumer, from the known and well documented anti-consumer practices of these kind of companies.

The whole "free market" excuse is just a pipe dream that some americans still believe in, it doesn't work like that in Europe. Governments are voted in to protect your interests and what you are asking is for your government to do nothing in hopes that the "free market" corrects itself. In case you haven't noticed, it never has and never will.

Google, Apple, Amazon and other similar companies have become too big. It's time for them to face the consequences of their actions.

There is a big difference between consumers preferring a product/service/company and letting said product/service/company dictate the entire market without any protection for consumers. You end up with things like Apple's fight against right to repair so they can keep charging you almost the value of a new product to fix yours.

 

[TheNetAvenger]

"People use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to,"

That's the truth right there. The free market has spoken. Can't side with the EU on this one. Both Google Search and Android are Google's own properties which tie in to the larger Google ecosystem which Google has taken the risk and expense to create. We all know many Google products that have failed and have to be written off as a loss so not even Google can just create success out of thin air so why punish those who succeed? Not a fan of Google's invasive data-mining, but that's one thing and legitimate business success is another. Fair is fair.

And it's not like phone makers HAVE to use Android. Just look at Fxtec and their Pro1 X smartphone. Alternatives exist if people want them. The fact that most people don't care should not be construed as being caused by stifled innovation. At least not in this case.

Yet, the better product with better integration is Bing, thus the market failed, as it usually does.

Popular does not equal better.

Apple products are another shining example of market failure. When people can be easily manipulated, there is no such thing as a free market.

 

[TheNetAvenger]

To be fair, Apple doesn't have their own search engine, so if they're going to pick a default, who will it be? Probably ends up being Google anyway. Does anyone honestly believe Apple would put Bing as the default on all their devices? Or Yahoo? Let's be real guys.

Apple did just this at one time, until Google paid them about 15 billion. For years the internals of Siri used Bing due to the contextual features in Bing.

 

[TheNetAvenger]

"People use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to,"

That's the truth right there. The free market has spoken. Can't side with the EU on this one. Both Google Search and Android are Google's own properties which tie in to the larger Google ecosystem which Google has taken the risk and expense to create. We all know many Google products that have failed and have to be written off as a loss so not even Google can just create success out of thin air so why punish those who succeed? Not a fan of Google's invasive data-mining, but that's one thing and legitimate business success is another. Fair is fair.

And it's not like phone makers HAVE to use Android. Just look at Fxtec and their Pro1 X smartphone. Alternatives exist if people want them. The fact that most people don't care should not be construed as being caused by stifled innovation. At least not in this case.

Ps People are not using Bing to search for Google, they are typing Google into their address bar, because they have no clue it can be used to search.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

More like "what's good alternative to Google that doesn't collect all your personal data and on sell it"

 

[captaincranky]

No big surprise here, Google has their search algorithms tweaked to the point that you can talk to the computer in plain, conversational English, and it will find what you're looking for

 

[CrisisDog]

Bing worked surprisingly well with Cortana and Windows phones, as I noticed it gave results pertaining to my current location. Otherwise, it was / is garbage, and I always switch to the Google search engine, because it just effing works. Keep in mind, I hate Google and refuse to use Android, Gmail, and multiple other services they provide...

 

[merikafyeah]

What you said makes no sense. When a company this large reaches the stage of a full blown monopoly your arguments fall apart. Regulation is there to protect you, the consumer, from the known and well documented anti-consumer practices of these kind of companies.

The whole "free market" excuse is just a pipe dream that some americans still believe in, it doesn't work like that in Europe. Governments are voted in to protect your interests and what you are asking is for your government to do nothing in hopes that the "free market" corrects itself. In case you haven't noticed, it never has and never will.

Google, Apple, Amazon and other similar companies have become too big. It's time for them to face the consequences of their actions.

There is a big difference between consumers preferring a product/service/company and letting said product/service/company dictate the entire market without any protection for consumers. You end up with things like Apple's fight against right to repair so they can keep charging you almost the value of a new product to fix yours.

Too often people mistakenly conflate market dominance with an actual monopoly. Google does not provide anything for which there is no alternative.

All big companies started out small. If the stories are to be believed, many of them started out in people's garages. They got to where they are now by providing a product or service that people preferred over what was available at the time. In other words their power was borne from consumer choice. Those who argue that Google is now too big don't understand what new regulations would do specifically. Regulations won't take away Google's market dominance. That's the pipe dream. The only thing that will take away Google's grip on the market is for people to stop choosing to use Google services, or for other cases, stop buying Apple products, or stop using Amazon or anything that relies on AWS.

New regulations could stop Apple's and many other companies' anti-right-to-repair practices, but even without regulations the free market will push back. The Framework laptop is a laptop designed with user repair as the core philosophy. The fact that this exists is proof that the statement "the free market never has and never will work" is patently false. Regulating Apple to stop being sh|tty is a net positive but a company begrudgingly respecting the consumer will never be as good as a company that is pro-consumer from the get-go. More often than not, what is hindering more small businesses like Framework from popping up is steep regulations.

Regulation is a double-edged sword. For every instance of a regulation seemingly reigning in big business, there are ten other hidden instances of big business using regulations to stomp out smaller competitors.

 

[merikafyeah]

Yet, the better product with better integration is Bing, thus the market failed, as it usually does.

Popular does not equal better.

Apple products are another shining example of market failure. When people can be easily manipulated, there is no such thing as a free market.

Manipulation is not coercion. All advertisement is a form of subtle manipulation.

To deny the free market necessitates that one denies personal agency I.e. assuming responsibility for one's own choices. Case in point, there is nothing stopping you from switching the default search in Siri and Safari to Bing.
You have the freedom to choose.

 

[captaincranky]

Manipulation is not coercion. All advertisement is a form of subtle manipulation.

Whatever "manipulation" you may encounter or fall prey to, is really an effect, rather than the cause. The cause is, the advertising industry's immersive utilization of propaganda techniques.

The public's problem is the fact that in the US these days nobody is willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

For me, Google's actions are a joke. Google and Amazon can follow me around all they want, but at the end of the day, my buying choices are mine, and mine alone.

I have yet, to buy anything whatsoever from Google's "targeted advertising" included with my email. In my case, I believe Google is ripping off the advertisers, because they're surely pissing away their money trying to sell me their crap.

So you're correct, if someone has no sales resistance, you can't blame Google.

However, the most glaring abuse on the part of large corporations is stifling competition using hostile takeover tactics. Or to the opposite extreme, simply overpaying for smaller businesses as it says in the movies, "making them an offer they can't refuse" Either way, they do limit your choices.

Being "a monopoly", is equivalent to the "search for the holy grail,, you may never truly find it, but I bet they'll come damned close.

I like Google's free services. If you've ever dealt with Yahoo mail, by comparison Gmail is a bloody miracle.

Google's search algorithms are beyond amazing. Just make sure you use them to find what you want, not what Google wants you to find.

Advertisers are far from blameless when it comes to ads in search results. SEO, (search engine optimization), is a business in and of itself. Think tanks write software to manipulate results, pushing their product to the top of the results pile.

And face it, if you're too lazy to look past the first page, you're getting what you deserve, the options the advertisers want you to have.....

 

[Puiu]

Too often people mistakenly conflate market dominance with an actual monopoly. Google does not provide anything for which there is no alternative.

All big companies started out small. If the stories are to be believed, many of them started out in people's garages. They got to where they are now by providing a product or service that people preferred over what was available at the time. In other words their power was borne from consumer choice. Those who argue that Google is now too big don't understand what new regulations would do specifically. Regulations won't take away Google's market dominance. That's the pipe dream. The only thing that will take away Google's grip on the market is for people to stop choosing to use Google services, or for other cases, stop buying Apple products, or stop using Amazon or anything that relies on AWS.

New regulations could stop Apple's and many other companies' anti-right-to-repair practices, but even without regulations the free market will push back. The Framework laptop is a laptop designed with user repair as the core philosophy. The fact that this exists is proof that the statement "the free market never has and never will work" is patently false. Regulating Apple to stop being sh|tty is a net positive but a company begrudgingly respecting the consumer will never be as good as a company that is pro-consumer from the get-go. More often than not, what is hindering more small businesses like Framework from popping up is steep regulations.

Regulation is a double-edged sword. For every instance of a regulation seemingly reigning in big business, there are ten other hidden instances of big business using regulations to stomp out smaller competitors.

Market share is what determines if it is a monopoly, duopoly, etc or not. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple.

"All big companies started out small." - and you want me to cry a river for their success and accept everything they do once they become a monopoly?

"New regulations could stop Apple's and many other companies' anti-right-to-repair practices, but even without regulations the free market will push back." - push back what? Apple controls every aspect of their products with both software restrictions and hardware restrictions. the "free market" is not going to change this. you are paying exorbitant amounts of money and you will continue to do so for many many years without legislation to stop it.

"Regulation is a double-edged sword." - we've long passed the point of the
"wait and see" approach. Regulation is required now.

I've seen people like you before, confusing legislation with something stupid like socialism or even communism. It's why large companies trample you and your rights and you just turn the other cheek hoping things will change by doing nothing. DO SOMETHING about this problem if you don't want legislation. Otherwise you've waived your right to complain about legislation just like you've sold your soul defending monopolies that are actively and brazenly anti-consumer.

 

[wiyosaya]

I highly doubt that what Google says about Google being the top search on Bing is not, in some way, manipulated to make Google look like a drag queen.

Also, I routinely block third-party cookies which goes a long way, as I see it, to Google or Bing following me around and skewing their results just because I visited XYZ site.

I've been using Bing since day one. I do, very rarely, use Google. IMO, all search engines suck these days. Their algorithms are based on "OR" queries which routinely return things that are not relevant to all the terms in a search. Neither Google or Bing is any better as I see it, for search algorithms. For the same search terms, both will return irrelevant results, both will return the same results, and they will also return different results. To me, it seems like somehow, search engines have decided that the more crap they can splatter on your screen for "search results" gives the impression of their search algorithm being the best. It reminds me of searching for products on Amazon - chances are you get products that are not what you are looking for in an effort by Amazon to get you to buy something or anything that they can dupe you into buying. They all play their monopolistic game. And anyone using any search engine has to have their BS detector set on high, otherwise, the user is just playing into their hands.

Plus, Bing has Bing rewards which I use to buy toilet paper. Another thing that I like about Bing is the picture of the day.

 

[wiyosaya]

Manipulation is not coercion.

Maybe not by the dictionary definition, however, as I see it, it is just one rung below on the ladder of unethical actions. Then add on to that, of what use are search results if the algorithm is designed to manipulate? In such a case, the search result are, by definition, biased to manipulate rather than properly inform.

 

[merikafyeah]

Maybe not by the dictionary definition, however, as I see it, it is just one rung below on the ladder of unethical actions. Then add on to that, of what use are search results if the algorithm is designed to manipulate? In such a case, the search result are, by definition, biased to manipulate rather than properly inform.

? Search engines aren't meant to inform, they're meant to give you what you search for, or rather they attempt to point you towards other places which may have what you're looking for. How useful the results are depends on who's looking.

 

[merikafyeah]

Market share is what determines if it is a monopoly, duopoly, etc or not. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple.

"All big companies started out small." - and you want me to cry a river for their success and accept everything they do once they become a monopoly?

"New regulations could stop Apple's and many other companies' anti-right-to-repair practices, but even without regulations the free market will push back." - push back what? Apple controls every aspect of their products with both software restrictions and hardware restrictions. the "free market" is not going to change this. you are paying exorbitant amounts of money and you will continue to do so for many many years without legislation to stop it.

"Regulation is a double-edged sword." - we've long passed the point of the
"wait and see" approach. Regulation is required now.

I've seen people like you before, confusing legislation with something stupid like socialism or even communism. It's why large companies trample you and your rights and you just turn the other cheek hoping things will change by doing nothing. DO SOMETHING about this problem if you don't want legislation. Otherwise you've waived your right to complain about legislation just like you've sold your soul defending monopolies that are actively and brazenly anti-consumer.

----"Market share is what determines if it is a monopoly, duopoly, etc or not. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple."----

I'm only confused about how you can so easily change the meaning of words to what YOU feel they should mean, and still expect others to be on the same page.

----"All big companies started out small." - and you want me to cry a river for their success and accept everything they do once they become a monopoly?----

The point was to illustrate a dynamic process, that a company does not grow from small to big in a vacuum. If you intrinsically understand this process, then you'd understand why more regulation rarely leads to the desired outcome. It's not as simple as "Company does bad thing", then "New regulation says 'Don't do that'", then "Everything is better". The real world almost never works like that.

----"New regulations could stop Apple's and many other companies' anti-right-to-repair practices, but even without regulations the free market will push back." - push back what?----

If anti-right-to-repair practices are undesirable, then the market will push back by producing companies that are pro-right-to-repair, like Framework. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple.

----Apple controls every aspect of their products with both software restrictions and hardware restrictions. the "free market" is not going to change this. you are paying exorbitant amounts of money and you will continue to do so for many many years without legislation to stop it.----

Who's "you"? "I" am certainly not being forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for a product I don't like by a company I don't agree with.

----"Regulation is a double-edged sword." - we've long passed the point of the "wait and see" approach. Regulation is required now.----

Required to do what SPECIFICALLY? What specific things would a new regulation need to accomplish in order to say, stop Google from being evil?

----I've seen people like you before, confusing legislation with something stupid like socialism or even communism. It's why large companies trample you and your rights and you just turn the other cheek hoping things will change by doing nothing. DO SOMETHING about this problem if you don't want legislation. Otherwise you've waived your right to complain about legislation just like you've sold your soul defending monopolies that are actively and brazenly anti-consumer.----

Apparently you haven't seen people like me before because I don't actually believe legislation automagically leads to communism.
I don't believe bad things get better with inaction, which is why I often do possibly the most powerful thing a regular person can do: I vote with my wallet and my time. For example, I don't buy Apple products because I don't like Apple and their anti-consumer practices.
I don't defend anti-consumer policies and I have no reason to complain about legislation which helps the consumer, "IF" that's what's actually being passed. History has shown that nine times out of ten a piece of legislation doesn't actually do what's on the cover since Washington is in the back pocket of Big Money. Being skeptical is not an unreasonable position.

 

[captaincranky]

If anti-right-to-repair practices are undesirable, then the market will push back by producing companies that are pro-right-to-repair, like Framework. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple.

BUT, if today's "free market" spawns such companies that support "right to repair", Apple will simply "nip it in the bud", buy the company, and force their existing policies, on the new company, which is now "under their umbrella, so to speak.

Your perception of how things should work, doesn't address the "stifling competition" aspect of the larger issue.

Any company can make a "fool proof device", but making it "imbecile proof", is a far more difficult undertaking. Hence all the malware that is installed directly from the Google app store.

But, if legislation to require a course in internet safety were introduced, before a >license< to purchase a cell phone was issued. think of all the massive protests and charges of "communism" which would be worldwide, would occur.

By the same token, Apple should be protected from having to "re-repair", a device that "Joe Blow's Cellphone Repair", screwed up.

OTOH, Apple's greed in not allowing business to apply for the status of "Apple authorized repair facilities", is for all intents is "blatant highway robbery" based on their exorbitant .repair charges..

However EULAs that basically allow Apple to allow your to "use their device", should definitely be scrutinized by government, and legislatively modified in the consumer's favor

 

[merikafyeah]

BUT, if today's "free market" spawns such companies that support "right to repair", Apple will simply "nip it in the bud", buy the company, and force their existing policies, on the new company, which is now "under their umbrella, so to speak.

A company purchase and acquisition must be agreed upon by both parties. A company like Framework would not agree to be purchased by a company like Apple since it would mean compromising their core values, the same values which drove them to start the business in the first place. Not even Apple can buy what isn't for sale. It may not be common but there are still businessmen who value their vision and principles more so than the money.

By the same token, Apple should be protected from having to "re-repair", a device that "Joe Blow's Cellphone Repair", screwed up.

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise? Obviously if "Joe Blow's Cellphone Repair" botched a repair it's on them to make it right at their own expense.

OTOH, Apple's greed in not allowing business to apply for the status of "Apple authorized repair facilities", is for all intents is "blatant highway robbery" based on their exorbitant .repair charges.

This is actually not how it works. It's not quite common knowledge just yet, but Apple's Authorized Repair Program (ARP) is a huge sham that actively prevents those who become "authorized" repair centers from doing actual repairs. Not only does Apple not provide those who join the ARP the necessary parts and schematics to do advanced repairs, they'll actually terminate a license if they find such parts and schematics being used upon a mandatory inspection of any authorized repair center. Essentially, authorized repair centers are just glorified shipping depots that mail your device to a separately contracted facility while sending you a refurbished model instead of actually repairing your original device.

Louis Rossmann covers this a lot on his channel. Here's a recent video covering this topic:

If new legislation is to be written, what it should do specifically is prevent Apple and others from barring their suppliers from selling parts to third-parties, as well as mandating that companies provide board views and schematics to independent repair businesses. It should also restrict companies from using software to prevent third-party repairs such as locking a device should a part with a different serial number be used.

 

[captaincranky]

A company purchase and acquisition must be agreed upon by both parties. A company like Framework would not agree to be purchased by a company like Apple since it would mean compromising their core values, the same values which drove them to start the business in the first place. Not even Apple can buy what isn't for sale. It may not be common but there are still businessmen who value their vision and principles more so than the money.

We pretty much agree on every point, save for the premise of this one.
"Idealism", is the province of the young".In analog, every student who enters medical does so because, "they just want to help people"

After a time though, they still "want to help people", as long as they can live in a million dollar house while doing so.

My point is that, "power corrupts", is not the whole story. Money IS power, or at least is its adjunct.

So, for all these people who you describe as , "starting a business in their garage", may be facing an uncertain future, a big pile of money could take all that doubt and uncertainty away in a split second.. Nor can you feed a family on your "ideals"..

So, how someone is going to change the world, and teenaged girls proclaiming, "I'll never have sex before marriage", it's great stuff to bandy about at the Friday night pot party, but can't be counted on with the passage of time.

Every politician seeking a first term of anything, proclaims, "I'm getting into politics to change the system". After that, they just become the same scourge that that peers have already become and embraced

Suffice it to say that once an individual reaches the point of being a major corporate executive, you can bet that they're a sociopath. (And sh!t rolls downhill from there)..