Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Sep 2017 10:08 UTC
Apple

Consistency is Apple's main motivation given for switching the results from Microsoft's Bing to Google in these cases. Safari on Mac and iOS already currently use Google search as the default provider, thanks to a deal worth billions to Apple (and Google) over the last decade. This change will now mirror those results when Siri, the iOS Search bar or Spotlight is used.

"Switching to Google as the web search provider for Siri, Search within iOS and Spotlight on Mac will allow these services to have a consistent web search experience with the default in Safari," reads an Apple statement sent this morning. "We have strong relationships with Google and Microsoft and remain committed to delivering the best user experience possible."

Interesting move. The only logical move, of course - Bing is terrible - but still interesting if you look at the relationship between Apple and Google.

Order by: Score:
about time,
by REM2000 on Tue 26th Sep 2017 12:14 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

Bing is terrible, i know Google like to collect data but i would love for apple to throw out Apple maps and replace this with google maps.

The ability to download and with much better direction/navigation (Apple maps has on numerous times got stuck in a loop, turn left, turn left etc..) is why i use the google maps app all the time, however it would be nice to have this more tightly integrated into iOS and the apple watch.

Reply Score: 3

RE: about time,
by avgalen on Tue 26th Sep 2017 14:56 UTC in reply to "about time,"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Bing is terrible everywhere, but pretty good in the USA.
Here in The Netherlands I only use Bing for it's Image Search which is better than Googles, though not by much anymore

With Yahoo soon "gone" and now Apple "gone" as the two big reasons why Bing was still alive, all that Bing has left now is "Edge-Default" and that shouldn't be enough to keep it alive.
There already is hardly any competition for Google's search engine, so this step by Apple is yet another nail in the MS-coffin

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: about time,
by haakin on Tue 26th Sep 2017 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE: about time,"
haakin Member since:
2008-12-18

DuckDuckGo works quite well. I've been using it for a few months and I don't miss Google. It's my default search engine in my iPhone and in my computers.

Good searches and a nice privacy policy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: about time,
by darknexus on Tue 26th Sep 2017 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: about time,"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not well enough for me. I wish it did. DDG sucks when trying to research technical material compared to Google's results.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: about time,
by avgalen on Wed 27th Sep 2017 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: about time,"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I just did my yearly comparison test and searched for a few things in google/bing/duckduckgo. DuckDuckGo is just to elementary. For example when I search for my wife all 3 searchengines find her linkedin profile as the first result, but while Google and Bing mention most of the relevant information in their results (occupation, place of residence) I only get a generic "View NAME professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like NAME discover inside"
Basically the same happens for Youtube/FaceBook/etc. With DuckDuckGo I have to click through the results to read anything useful
When I switch to images in DuckDuckGo it only finds 3 while Google and Bing have pages full of them.
When I switch to videos in DuckDuckGo it does find many.

In my simple test DuckDuckGo couldn't keep up with the others and only had the "we don't track you" as it's advantage.

However, when searching for more complicated things (for example the word 'access' or abbreviation 'wca') I discovered the "Meanings" option in DuckDuckGo which simply put DuckDuckGo ahead of all the others in quality/relevance.

So which is best? From now on I will use:
* Google for most searches
* Bing for images
* DuckDuckGo for ambiguous terms

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: about time,
by fmaxwell on Wed 27th Sep 2017 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: about time,"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

For example when I search for my wife all 3 searchengines find her linkedin profile as the first result, but while Google and Bing mention most of the relevant information in their results (occupation, place of residence) I only get a generic "View NAME professional profile on LinkedIn.

So you're disappointed that Duck Duck Go doesn't give guys searching for your wife enough information, like where she lives?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: about time,
by avgalen on Wed 27th Sep 2017 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: about time,"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

The Googs gave me the address of yo mama as well ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: about time,
by yerverluvinunclebert on Thu 28th Sep 2017 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE: about time,"
yerverluvinunclebert Member since:
2014-05-03

Does anyone use Edge?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: about time,
by darknexus on Thu 28th Sep 2017 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: about time,"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Does anyone use Edge?

Doesn't look like it. Even Microsoft don't, just try visiting the VLSC with Edge. The results are, to put it bluntly, hilarious. Visit the VLSC with a browser other than Edge and watch it pop up its advertisement for Edge, and you'll really be laughing. As if that isn't enough, Microsoft themselves don't even include Edge in Windows Server 2016; they only include Internet Explorer 11, a product they're supposedly phasing out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: about time,
by zima on Sat 30th Sep 2017 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: about time,"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft themselves don't even include Edge in Windows Server 2016; they only include Internet Explorer 11, a product they're supposedly phasing out.

don't they keep ie for corp deployments? in that light, keeping ie in a server release makes sense...

Reply Score: 2

RE: about time,
by darknexus on Tue 26th Sep 2017 18:57 UTC in reply to "about time,"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Bing is terrible, i know Google like to collect data but i would love for apple to throw out Apple maps and replace this with google maps.

Lol, fat chance. That would, quite literally, be an exact turn-around if they did. Not to say I don't wish the same sometimes, but I doubt it's likely.

Reply Score: 3

RE: about time,
by cranfordio on Wed 27th Sep 2017 13:03 UTC in reply to "about time,"
cranfordio Member since:
2005-11-10

Bing is terrible, i know Google like to collect data but i would love for apple to throw out Apple maps and replace this with google maps.

The ability to download and with much better direction/navigation (Apple maps has on numerous times got stuck in a loop, turn left, turn left etc..) is why i use the google maps app all the time, however it would be nice to have this more tightly integrated into iOS and the apple watch.


I don't have a source for this, but if I recall correctly, though I may be remembering rumors as opposed to facts, the main reason Apple dropped Google Maps was because of data collection. Google knew they had the best product on the market at the time and told Apple that they wanted more user information or Apple couldn't have Maps anymore, so Apple chose to build their own.

I think Google Maps and Apple Maps can vary greatly based on where you live. These are of course my experiences where I drive and use navigation. The first positive for Apple Maps is the integration with the OS and Siri. Being able to just tell Apple Maps where I want to go without making sure the app is open is the number one reason I use Apple Maps.

I drive to several remote locations and for me Apple Maps gives the best directions. It seems like Google Maps is trying to purposely make me drive by businesses when it isn't necessary. For example, when I go to my parents it is almost 15 minutes faster to get off on one exit and take the back roads to their house. Apple Maps tells me to go that way. But, Google Maps wants me to go to the next exit, where all the restaurants and shops are, and then go through town. It is only 15 minutes extra in a five hour drive, but for me every minute counts. I could be wrong but I feel Google does this on purpose because they know that retailers are the ones that pay for advertising and they want to try and lead you toward them when possible. But, this 15 minutes is the longest extra time I have ever seen Google Maps take me. Often it is only a few minutes and 80+% of the time the routes are exactly the same.

As far as rerouting around traffic I have found them to both be equal. My wife, she still prefers and uses Google Maps, and I tested it a few times on long road trips and every time an alternate route was suggested due to traffic they both suggested the same alternate route within a minute of each other.

The one thing where Google Maps is better is with telling me which lane to be in. But, for me at least, I don't find it all that useful because I have been driving for decades before we got turn-by-turn navigation in our smartphones so I still read the road signs.

Reply Score: 1

Bing isn't bad
by zlynx on Tue 26th Sep 2017 15:38 UTC
zlynx
Member since:
2005-07-20

I use Bing and Edge on my Surface tablet. Just because I want to keep trying other options than Firefox and Google.

Bing is surprisingly good for what people say about it. I could use it for all my searching and it would be good enough.

Maybe as someone else said, it's only good in the US. But it is good.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bing isn't bad
by Sidux on Tue 26th Sep 2017 16:12 UTC in reply to "Bing isn't bad"
Sidux Member since:
2015-03-10

Billions paid by Google to have this set as default.
Bing was added back when Apple was trying hard to get rid of everything Google under iOS umbrela.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by raom
by raom on Tue 26th Sep 2017 16:20 UTC
RE: Comment by raom
by Morgan on Tue 26th Sep 2017 17:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by raom"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

For me it has nothing to do with "doing illegal shit", I prefer not to have my searches logged just as I prefer not to live in a house with glass walls and no curtains. Privacy is rarely about legal vs illegal activity, it's about a feeling of owning one's own information and controlling access to it. Why demonize the natural desire for privacy by framing it as presumed guilt?

If you want to know more about me, ask me, don't follow me everywhere I go and log everything I do. If someone did that in the physical world, they would be arrested for stalking, why should it be any different online?

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by raom
by binary0x01 on Wed 27th Sep 2017 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by raom"
binary0x01 Member since:
2014-03-25

That's exactly my view; people are giving up their freedoms under the guise of righteousness stemming from this need to conform and see eye to eye with everyone else, along with assuming people that do not conform are involved in illicit activities by default and are therefore guilty until proven innocent... which is completely backwards.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by raom
by Kochise on Thu 28th Sep 2017 02:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by raom"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Especially when the sense of righteousness tend to switch from time to time and has already led mankind a few times into "the darkest times of its history". What kind of society that promotes democracy and freedom needs such kind of mass applied surveillance ? Ain't that a little hint already ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by raom
by raom on Thu 28th Sep 2017 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by raom"
raom Member since:
2016-06-26

" I prefer not to have my searches logged just as I prefer not to live in a house with glass walls and no curtains"

If you lived in a house with glass walls anyone who sees you can easily and permanently identify you as an individual and link your actions to you. To google, you are merely a tiny dot in their statistics, statistics they use to generate advertisement money.

Certainly, if the data fell onto unscrupulous hands they could also identify you, and I'm sure google has succumbed to government pressure to use their data, but in those cases, again, if you've not done anything seriously illegal on the internet, you'd be dismissed and continue to be a statistic. Installation of dictatorial government in the US is extremely unlikely with the amount of guns the population has.

Sure, in a perfect world, full privacy on the internet would be easily achievable. I should've added " you shouldn't care enough about user tracking on a search engine to use a much inferior alternative" to my original comment, because I do care, since it bothers me a bit.

I stand by my opinion that, unless you're doing something illegal, or are paranoid, you shouldn't ditch google for something with much inferior results like DuckDuckGo.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by raom
by yerverluvinunclebert on Thu 28th Sep 2017 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by raom"
yerverluvinunclebert Member since:
2014-05-03

" if the data fell onto unscrupulous hands they could also identify you, and I'm sure google has succumbed to government pressure to use their data,


Data does fall into unscrupulous hands all the time. You just said it. What a silly post.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by raom
by tylerdurden on Thu 28th Sep 2017 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by raom"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

His whole post is an ode to dissonance.

Conditioned minds have to go through all sorts of logic loops to make the indoctrination work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by raom
by raom on Fri 29th Sep 2017 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by raom"
raom Member since:
2016-06-26

You keep worrying about the important things in life, like whether some government slime is laughing behind your back at your excentric porn tastes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by raom
by tylerdurden on Fri 29th Sep 2017 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by raom"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You do realize that guy wearing the tinfoil hat in your mirror is you, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by raom
by darknexus on Thu 28th Sep 2017 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by raom"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'll just add one word to this: Equifax.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by raom
by zima on Sat 30th Sep 2017 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by raom"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Your searches, or even browsing history, are quite possibly still logged by some secret NSA programme or the like ;)

I like google logging, I can see what's logged myself; I don't feel like it infringes my privacy; I own and control this info.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by raom
by tylerdurden on Sat 30th Sep 2017 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by raom"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Is this sarcasm? If you did not pay for that info, you don't own it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by raom
by zima on Sat 30th Sep 2017 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by raom"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh but I do, before it's submitted; I decide for it to be "out there"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by raom
by Megol on Wed 27th Sep 2017 09:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by raom"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

Unless you're doing illegal shit, you shouldn't care whether a search engine tracks you or not. Google is not going to divulge your embarassing pr0n searches.


Maybe not but some of us don't like being targeted and tracked. Some other realized the dangers it opens up to - oppressive regimes would love to get dirt on everyone, hackers don't need governmental support to use private information to ruin lives.

In most cases this tracking doesn't give us users any advantage. In theory it can improve what the search engine (or other services using tracking) presents for a certain search. In practice the effect is minimal or even in the noise - there have been research about this so not just my opinion.

TL;DR it's generally useless, the company needn't divulge anything willingly for it to be dangerous.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by raom
by zima on Sat 30th Sep 2017 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by raom"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In most cases this tracking doesn't give us users any advantage.

I like being able to search for what I read in the past...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by raom
by bert64 on Wed 27th Sep 2017 13:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by raom"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Just like Equifax isn't going to divulge your personal information...

Reply Score: 3

Eh, not that strage
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 26th Sep 2017 20:42 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Google still makes maps, gmail, calendar,chrome, search apps for ios and Mac OS, right?

Its not that odd. Just a realization that Microsoft isn't investing that much into bing anymore. Google never stops improving search.

Edited 2017-09-26 20:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Eh, not that strage
by avgalen on Wed 27th Sep 2017 08:38 UTC in reply to "Eh, not that strage"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Just a realization that Microsoft isn't investing that much into bing anymore.
Citation needed!

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Tue 26th Sep 2017 21:53 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

Maybe now that Steve Jobs is long dead, any animosity from Apple towards Google is over.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Tue 26th Sep 2017 22:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by unclefester on Wed 27th Sep 2017 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Android has gone from 0% to 90% of the smartphone market. Even in Apple's last remaining stronghold - the USA - Android has twice the market share.

Every indication is that the iPhone 8 is not selling as well as expected.

Apple should be terrified.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by avgalen on Wed 27th Sep 2017 08:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Even in Apple's last remaining stronghold - the USA - Android has twice the market share.
Can you provide a source for this? I thought it was more like 55/45 than 66/33 nowadays

Every indication is that the iPhone 8 is not selling as well as expected.
I would be interested in a source for this, but especially in a source that says that Apples total iPhone sales are not as high as expected. Apple changed from selling only 1 "latest and greatest" device in the past to 2 sizes, to 2 sizes and an older model, to 2 sizes and several older models and an ultra-high model

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Wed 27th Sep 2017 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Android has gone from 0% to 90% of the smartphone market. Even in Apple's last remaining stronghold - the USA - Android has twice the market share.

Every indication is that the iPhone 8 is not selling as well as expected.

Apple should be terrified.


Usual nonsense. If you think iOS and Apple are in trouble you are delusional.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by cranfordio on Wed 27th Sep 2017 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
cranfordio Member since:
2005-11-10

Every indication is that the iPhone 8 is not selling as well as expected.


I think this would say otherwise, https://goo.gl/dU5Fyi

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 29th Sep 2017 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"Maybe now that Steve Jobs is long dead, any animosity from Apple towards Google is over.


Its because of the way the global mobile computing device business has unfolded, there are now few material sources of tension between Apple and Google.
"

Yeah, at least now that Apple has realized that they have no hope of winning the war they tried to start, and has finally stopped playing petty "not invented here"/protectionist games with iOS (well, mostly)... Did you make yourself dizzy while trying to spin that as a victory for Apple?

a) Android hasn't stopped iOS from running on a billion devices and becoming a hugely successful platform (in terms of usage and money perhaps the most succesful), basically Android poses no serious threat to Apple's business or the viability of its platform.


The only thing sadder than a braggart publicly stroking their own... ego, is a braggart who has to boast about someone else's achievements. It makes you sound like an elementary schooler bragging that "my dad can beat up your dad!"

But yes, we get it, Tony - Apple has the BEST money, YUGE MONEY, and all negative coverage of Apple is FAKE NEWS, etc, etc. That about cover it?

b) Apple is doing stuff to differentiate its products that Google can't easily copy (at the moment). Apple is now innovating in silicon so fast and so successfully that its hard see how anybody can catch up in the medium term.


I'm sure you think that somehow angers anyone who's critical of Apple (or "Apple Haters," to use the preferred iFanboy terminology) - but in reality, anyone who's been around long enough to remember Apple advocacy in the 90s & early 00s almost certainly finds it hilarious. And not just because it's a great opportunity to throw the "Megahertz Myth" stupidity back in your faces - the BEST part will be watching iFanboys squirm while trying to argue against that, while simultaneously trying dance around admitting that Apple was wrong/dishonest when they did the same thing. The only thing that could make the whole situation any more delicious is if Android device makers started holding Photoshop "bake-offs" & claiming that the results showed their processors are faster because of a single blur filter that they can run faster.

Also, I think maybe you forgot to add a "mobile" qualifier to that - for some reason, Intel & AMD don't exactly seem to be running scared... probably because Apple's processors aren't anywhere near the performance of either company's processors, except maybe their hobbled, bargain-basement ULV chips. Call me when Apple manages to make something with performance even remotely comparable to a contemporary i7 or Ryzen chip.

c) Apple is not in a position (at the moment) to create its own search engine that could deliver the same quality as, or compete with, Google search (or even Bing). If it could it would, as Apple seeks to control the entire product stack.


Gotta love the way you left the most significant point for second-last - which also happens to be the only one where you admit anything even remotely negative about Apple. In journalism, I believe that's called "burying the lead."

The "(at the moment)" qualifier was cute, though. We both know that Apple will NEVER be capable of building a successful search engine, let alone one that's competitive with Google - there's no open sores code for them to leech-off for search, like there was with KHTML, so the only possible way that Apple could put out a search engine that wasn't a complete dumpster fire is if they took the lazy route & acqui-hired someone like DuckDuckGo. The simple reason they could never build it themselves is because they don't control the internet, and they're clearly incapable of building a successful product around any ecosystem they can't control.

d) The reason Apple is comfortable (at the moment) with using Google’s search system is because Google has not tried to deliver a deliberately inferior search product on iOS, as


...as Apple is infamous for doing with every piece of software they've ever released for a non-Apple platform, you mean?

it did with maps under Rubin’s misguided reign. He actually thought that Android was the product and failed to notice that Google only has one significant revenue earning product which is advertising


There we go - the classic Tony Swash "But... but... but... Google is an advertising company" talking-point. You're playing ALL the hits today, aren't you? Let me me guess, if I search for specific phrases from your comment (using Google, of course), will I also find that you copy-pasted the exact same comment to/from 2 or 3 other sites again?

and that everything it does is designed to support that core business. His desire to use Google’s systems such as maps to give Android a competitive advantage actually damaged Google’s real business interests and hence he was dumped.


[citation needed]

Google does not have to make Android win, or beat Apple, in order for its business to succeed, similarly Apple does not have to beat Android or Google in order for its business to succeed.


That's probably the most the honest, objective statement I've ever seen you post here. Of course, you left out a key difference: Google understood that from the very beginning - while Apple (and their fanbase) has only just clued into that in the last few years. Coming from a die-hard Apple apologist, that's a bit like a creationist trying to lecture the scientifically literate on the importance of intellectual rigor.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by tylerdurden on Fri 29th Sep 2017 01:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

There was no animosity between Google and Apple. Heck, I think Jobs was a mentor to the founders of Google at some point.

You can go over to google's campus and see plenty of apple gear all over.

What apple was doing was simply not rely on a possible competitor for strategically important sectors of their business. Just like google or microsoft do themselves.

Corporations are, and in a sense act, just like countries; there are no "friendships," just "interests." The dramatic personification people, usually not in the industry, throw when dealing with these huge corporations is mainly a creation of the press.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by zima on Sat 30th Sep 2017 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Offtopic (since the original discussion timed out): Are you saying here http://www.osnews.com/permalink?649289 the image sensors in phones can approach or even surpass tech in DSLRs?

Reply Score: 2