Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Microsoft The Internet Yahoo! News Your Rights Online

Bing Becomes No.2 Search Engine at 4.37% 366

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the now-that's-a-gap dept.
suraj.sun writes "Bing overtook Yahoo for the first time worldwide in January, and increased its lead in February, according to web analytics company, StatCounter. Its research arm StatCounter Global Stats finds that globally Bing reached 4.37%, in February ahead of Yahoo! at 3.93%. Both trail far behind Google's 89.94% of the global search engine market." Just a little more plagiarizing to go!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bing Becomes No.2 Search Engine at 4.37%

Comments Filter:
  • Excellent! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordgeek (112599) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:34PM (#35357902) Journal

    Now if only it didn't suck.

    I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google. Being a monopoly is making them more and more corrupt, and by being the gatekeeper, they now own too much of the internet.

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      Now if only it didn't suck.

      I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google. Being a monopoly is making them more and more corrupt, and by being the gatekeeper, they now own too much of the internet.

      Moammar? Is that you?

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Hush you fool! You know they're listening. Do you *want* to be sent back to the camp?

    • Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suprcvic (684521) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:50PM (#35358164)
      By definition, Google isn't a monopoly. They aren't the only search engine in town, they just happen to be the most successful with a vast majority of the market share. That's not because they are erecting large barriers to entry, it's just because the other search engines aren't as smart as theirs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        A little bit like our other friends in Redmond, no?
        • Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:01PM (#35358328)

          No, it's not. Google has not engaged in any anticompetitive practices to hold on to that market share. Being successful simply because you're good at what you do is not a crime. Microsofts agreements with OEMs, other software makers and Intel were used to make it impossible for other OS makers to compete. It would be like if Google created a new standard called norobotsexceptgoogles.txt and lowered the page rank of any sites that didn't refuse to be crawled by anyone but google.

          • Google may not be a true monopoly but they are an effective monopoly. However that said there is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. It is illegal however to abuse that monopoly to stop future competitors.

            • by Nemyst (1383049)

              Considering they've let Verizon lock some of their Android phones to exclusively use Bing as their default search engine, with no way of removing said app without tinkering and/or rooting, I'd say they've been staying far from anything that could put them in trouble in that regard.

          • Re:Excellent! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:29PM (#35358698)

            1: You don't have to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. You just have to be significantly larger than your nearest rival.

            2: Drastically undercutting your opponents prices in a new market by leveraging profits from a different market to support it can be seen as anti-competitive. Many for profit vendors see google pushing open source products as this.

            • You don't get to call monopoly-sized-things "bad" if they aren't acting anti-competitively, and the term "monopoly" has a negative connotation.

              • by Nadaka (224565)

                No. you are incorrectly believing that monopoly has a negative connotation because you only ever hear about it when preceded by "abuse of".

                Monopolies are not inherently bad. Its just that it puts an entity solely motivated to profit in a position of inequitable power that can be leveraged to further that goal at the expense of everyone else. Abusing that power is negative.

                The only inherent bad quality of a monopoly is in the homogeneous qualities of a monoculture being slow or unable to adapt to rapid chang

          • by grub (11606)

            It's interesting that Microsoft has 4.37% even after making Bing the default search engine on Windows. That's a HUGE number of people changing the default over to other engines
            • by NevarMore (248971)

              Been a while since I used IE, but I think on first run there is a nag screen that lets you pick and its order is randomized.

          • No, it's not. Google has not engaged in any anticompetitive practices to hold on to that market share. Being successful simply because you're good at what you do is not a crime. Microsofts agreements with OEMs, other software makers and Intel were used to make it impossible for other OS makers to compete. It would be like if Google created a new standard called norobotsex—

            My brain instinctively paused right there...

        • by GooberToo (74388)

          No, not even a little bit.

          Google has a near monopoly (which btw, is not illegal in of itself) because the best product is maintaining its position and crowding out inferior solutions.

          On the other hand, many superior solutions have been illegally barred from entry because of anti-competitive and illegal practices by Microsoft. Google's situation actually encourages competition and an ever improving product. Microsoft's solution destroys competition and ensures product stagnation and inferior products compare

        • MOST CERTAINLY NOT. I am unaware of any rival startup that has been squashed, bullied, or suffered a hostile takeover by Google. Nor am I aware of any that have been taken to court over frivolous charges, with little other purpose than to bleed them of money. You may or may not paint Google as evil. I'm not believing it, but I'll listen. But, when you compare them to Microsoft, you've lost your case, and your audience. BTW - you may or may not have noticed, but Microsoft's most innovative stuff has al
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by swordgeek (112599)

        They are a near-monopoly. Erecting barriers to entry isn't a sign of a monopoly either, it's a sign of a monopoly that is unfairly using its position/power. (In fact, in most of the western world, anti-monopoly legislation doesn't prevent monopolies, it only prevents them from misusing their monopolistic power.)

        But regardless, it's the lack of a better (or comparable and competing) search engine that I lament.

      • That didn't stop the EU from forcing MS to provide a browser ballot. Despite the fact that IE's market share is falling, Window's market share is falling, you can fully uninstall IE8 from W7, and there are at least 4 other big players in the game who are increasing market share, EU still felt the need to step in.

        It would be funny though, if Google was forced to put a ballot on Google.com, which would redirect you to your search engine of choice.

      • by bsDaemon (87307)

        Some areas of the US were served by a CLEC, not a Bell. I guess Bell wasn't a monopoly, either, cause I had GTE before they merged with Bell Atlantic and became Verizon...

      • Google has not been taken to court and been declared a monopoly, but by definition they have an overwhelming market share in searching, and are by definition a monopoly. In this case they are a natural monopoly, one that has simply grown up by having all their users consume their product over competitors (and by users I mean people who search their site).

        Microsoft became a monopoly in the same way, in that they tied MS DOS and then windows to IBM PC, compatibles, and clones and everyone bought them. Howev

      • by geekoid (135745)

        no, there are a monopoly, there just not wielding their monopoly in a way that sets up barriers.

    • by jgtg32a (1173373)
      Oh it isn't that bad, I've actually found it to be superior when doing Image and Video searches.
    • Content search does suck, but I like the image search much better than the new-ish Google image search.

    • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:10PM (#35358450)

      Oblg.: Bing Is No Good. :-)

    • I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google.

      I've switched recently from google to DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com]. I'd call it a decent alternative with a few advantages over Google, and a few disadvantages.

      All in all, I consider it a slight downgrade, but google was starting to creep me out too much.

    • by fermion (181285)
      MS has a cash cow in office. Like so many other companies they are going to have to risk the cash cow to insure future relevance. Just imagine what would have happened if American car companies would have moved on from gas guzzling cars of the 70's and innovated instead of basking in their multi-hundred-million dollar profits. Reagan would not have had to give them 1.5 billion, in 1980, tax dollars that althout repaid represented a failure of the free market. Likewise Bush would not again have put 13.4
    • by cjb658 (1235986)

      There was one created by some ex-Google employees a couple years ago, I think it was called Cuil. Going to www.cuil.com times out for me, so I guess it wasn't a success.

      I remember trying it a couple times, but I just haven't been able to find another search engine that is good with error messages and technical keywords.

    • I find Bing maps to be much better than Google's. At least for my area, bing has higher resolution maps, and the Bird's eye view is a nifty feature: view and location from any angle. I also thing Bing maps has better transitions for zooming. Zoom in real far on Google maps, then zoom out very fast. Your old position will be a small square in a sea of gray, where the new images haven't loaded yet. On Bing maps you get more transitions as you zoom out.

      I'm actually using satellite images for part of my researc

    • "You have won 2nd prize in a beauty contest - collect 4.37% market share".
  • by Anarke_Incarnate (733529) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:35PM (#35357906)

    "Has overtook Bing"

    Cringe..... Maybe they should BING the word overtaken.

    • by Toad-san (64810)

      My initial response as well. [cringe] Overtook? OVERTOOK? What the HELL!

    • by SavoWood (650474)

      I literally did a facepalm when I saw this. The only reason I was going to post was to make the same observation.

    • by idontgno (624372)

      I suspect that horrid phrasing was an improvement. I imagine the earliest versions of that phrase were something like "has overtookened".

      Hm. That word is perfectly cromulent.

    • by stuntpope (19736)

      Submitter should of drug his dictionary out of hiding.

  • by stcdm33 (1942322) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:35PM (#35357916)
    How many of those are by choice and how many are by devices and/or apps that have Bing forced on them?
    • by netdigger (847764)
      I actually really want to know this. A few people have asked me how to remove Bing from their phones. And lets not mention the Windows 7 phones. LOL
    • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:50PM (#35358166) Journal

      Where I live, all the goverment employees computers are set to use Bing in the IE search box (and this cannot be changed, it is enforced by group policy) because Microsoft gave the government a discount if they made all government employees use Bing on their work machines.

      Of course government employees can type in "google.com" into the address bar and use Google (or whoever else) if they wish, but I would imagine most just enter things into the search bar.

      • Microsoft abusing their monopoly yet again, using their desktop OS to force their way into the search (advertising) market. They haven't changed a bit.

    • Couldn't the same be said for Google? Isn't Google the default search engine for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera? Doesn't Google toolbar come pre-installed on some machines? Isn't Google the default search engine on every iPhone and Android device?
    • And what percentage of searches are people typing google into their default Bing search engine?
    • by bcmm (768152)
      I'm surprised there are so few yahoo users - after all, the Yahoo Toolbar is bundled with the Java installer for Windows, and with Yahoo Messenger, and at least in Firefox, it automatically hijacks the search bar, which most users don't know how to configure.
    • You mean like Android or Chrome or...

      The search Business is all about defaults. Google developed an operating system in order to be the default search engine.

  • by XB-70 (812342) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:39PM (#35357964)
    ...and I has been over-took by yous's bad grammar!
  • Overtook? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NitroWolf (72977) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:40PM (#35357998)

    Overtook? Really? Why do we have editors? Why not just vote on the news items that get posted, since the editors apparently are incapable of doing their job. On top of that, the whole first sentence is a complete mess, not to mention the rest of the summary. Did a 5th grader write it?

    Maybe the submitter should have plagiarized someone competent in grammar and spelling.

  • by Toe, The (545098) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:42PM (#35358034)

    Which is more surprising? That 4.37% can land a #2 spot, or that anyone uses Bing?

    Both are rather startling, imho.

    • I actually use travel.bing.com... I like the UI and it seems to get it's prices pretty well. And the historical data is nice to have access to, even if you can only see 3 months ahead.
      • by Asic Eng (193332)

        "I actually use travel.bing.com..."

        Well I have a young child, so I'd prefer if I could search for children's fares as well. Interface is ok otherwise, but not better or worse than your average flight search site.

  • Yahoo = Bing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cforciea (1926392) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:43PM (#35358052)
    Since Yahoo is powered by Bing, isn't this a little like saying Bing has "overtook" Bing?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:50PM (#35358160)

      Since Bing is getting data from Google doesn't that make Google 94.31%?

    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      Damn, just ran out of +1 Insightful, Article Submitter and Editards Are A Bunch of Marketdroid Cretins Who Don't Know The Difference Between An Engine And A Brand ratings points.

      I make that 4.37% + 3.93% = 8.3% for Bing, the "search engine".

    • by rolfwind (528248)

      Since Yahoo is powered by Bing, isn't this a little like saying Bing has "overtook" Bing?

      In one sense, yes. But in another, no. Yahoo was once powered by Google. Since Yahoo can just switch out what they use relatively seamlessly from the perspective of the average user, it's implicitly understood that the numbers are just comparing what the internet population uses as a portal/url for search.

  • wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markass530 (870112) <markass530@nospam.gmail.com> on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:43PM (#35358066) Homepage
    Considering it's the default search engine on I.E. and we all know how loathe people are to change defaults (IE6 market share anyone) this is a pretty sad number.
    • by Kjella (173770)

      They haven't figured that out... they've just figured out how to go to google first...

    • Yes - this is the case in the large organisation I work for - we share terminals briefly for looking up data, and sometimes search the web. It isn't time-worthwhile to go through changing the default search engine to google, although I still do it every now and then.

      I have seen people 'bing' for 'google'

      D

  • I'd bet that most of this increase is due the switch by Verizon to force Bing as the default search provider. Every so often, I forget to go to google.com first -- seeing the lack of usable results I'm instantly reminded and switch back to google, but I'm sure that still counts in Bing's favor.... perl @+?*.-&'_:$#/%!"
  • Baidu (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stargoat (658863) * <stargoat@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @12:55PM (#35358258) Journal

    The fact that this article does not mention Baidu makes me very suspicious. Its information is fallacious.

  • The Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ShavedOrangutan (1930630) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:00PM (#35358310)
    The company that brought us Windows Search and Sharepoint has started an internet search engine.

    No thanks.
    • by mapkinase (958129)

      I think you got it backwards:

      MSN Search first launched in the third quarter of 1998 and used search results from Inktomi

      Windows Search first popped up in XT (after that) and it is a rather decent search. I am using it all the time at work.

      Microsoft SharePoint 2003 - the first commercial release of SharePoint

      • The default Window Search in XP just does not work. It can't find anything. Simple text in a .txt file doesn't come up. It's like nobody ever tested it at all before release.

        And then there's Sharepoint. Again, I can "search" for a term that I know is somewhere and it won't show up. Since search doesn't work, I have to send raw URLs out to people and they're always something like "https://monkey.spank.org/gtfo/wtf/LAME/sites/Guides%20or%20Documents%20Blah.aspx?RootFolder=%2asdf%2zxcv%2fGTFO%2fSites%20
  • At 4.37%, they should say there is no one in 2nd place and give Bing 3rd place at best.
  • by nimbius (983462) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:09PM (#35358438) Homepage
    and with this sentence, the cries of a thousand editors were silence in one fell swoop.
  • by Syncerus (213609) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:10PM (#35358454)

    Why is Windows monoculture bad and Google monoculture good?

    Monoculture is monoculture.

    • by bsDaemon (87307)

      Because this is Monoculture 2.0!!!

    • by radl33t (900691)
      Monoculture is not inherently good or bad. It can be leveraged for good and bad. Corporate monoculture is generally bad because corporations are amoral and hence act unethically and illegally. Microsoft's behavior is infamous. I disagree with many choices made at the Googleplex, but to me it doesn't appear they have yet leveraged their monoculture in anyway that rivals Microsoft.

      Windows is an inferior product (especially in the past), which has lent significant ammunition to critics of Microsoft. Is ther
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Because the interface to Google monoculture is just a standard compliant browser. So the cost of switching away from Google, when its demands are onerous, is practically zero. The only way Google can maintain its leadership position is by making sure its customers are happy. Otherwise they will just walk away. The foundation of Microsoft monoculture was interlocking monopolies between the OS and the application stack (mainly MSOffice) and the switching costs were enormous.
  • Pyrrhic Victory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @01:44PM (#35358920) Homepage Journal

    How many tens of millions of dollars in development hours and PR efforts has this cost them? And for what? To say they are a bit better than Yahoo which is quite literally a zombie?

    Once again, Microsoft makes much hyperbole about obtaining dominance, rolls out it's big new weapon of terror, fires it's salvo and calls it a victory when it manages to only barely scratch the armor of it's target.

    Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    • To say they are a bit better than Yahoo which is quite literally a zombie?

      It is even more pathetic than that. Yahoo is actually using Bing as its search engine provider for quite some time. So the migration is not due to any inherent superiority of Bing over Yahoo, noticed by the users. The computers set to use yahoo by default, which happened when the users installed yahoo instant messenger some four or five years ago, are dying. They are being replaced by new ones that use Bing by default. This set of users, about 8% of the total, are clueless about search engines. These chump

  • on being the top loser.

  • And yet still on all the websites I maintain, I see zero referers from anything but Google. People actually use these other search engines?
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @02:26PM (#35359534) Homepage

    ComScore reports search engine market share for the US [comscore.com] each month. They report, for January 2011:

    • Google: 66.6%, down 1% since last month.
    • Yahoo: 16.1%, up 0.1%.
    • Microsoft: 13.1%, up 1.1%.
    • Ask: 3.4%, down 0.1%.
    • AOL: 1.7%, down 0.2%.

    Yahoo is just reselling Bing now. Yahoo no longer has a search engine. So Bing's total is 29.2%. The US market has been split about like that for the last several years - Google with 2/3 of the market, Microsoft + Yahoo with 1/3, and the rest nowhere.

    Outside the US, Google is dominant in most countries [searchenginewatch.com] other than China (Baidu) and Russia (Yandex).

  • by Tolkien (664315) on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @03:00PM (#35359924) Journal
    Bing has overtook? What? Try overtaken.

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...