This is partly preying on the fact googles 'doodles' weaken their brand/trademark.
Back when every google doodle clearly had the word "Google" in, that was okay.
But often now, the doodles are just some random picture. At that point, there is no brand recognition to their homepage beyond a blank white background and centered search box, which microsoft has copied here because those elements alone are not enough to form a legally protectable brand.
I bet this is 100x+ more effective at keeping people on Bing than anything else MS has tried. Same idea as knock-off brands with labels and designs inspired by the name brand.
People may eventually realize they're not on Google, but probably only after being not displeased in Bing's results. If they have a bad experience, oh well, they were planning on using google anyway.
They're really using every tactic they can -- and for the life of me, I have no idea why. They've pushed so hard, for so long, to make Bing succeed -- even forcing it in the Start menu -- and it's still not owning the search space.
Honestly whatever the hell Google offers at this point has been disguising itself as google search for years. It sure as shit is not what people expect from google.
Nothing can keep me on Bing unless the results improve. Or am I the only one who regularily gives Bing a try only to find out the results are irrelevant?
Disclaimer - I used to work on Bing like... 8 years ago.
There's probably some debate around whether this is nefarious or genius, but I'd lead towards the later. "google" has always been one of the number one search terms, and the amount of people who would open chrome, search for google in the address bar, then open google in the google search results, then do their search, was wild. There's a very large percentage of less technical people who aren't looking for Google, they're looking for search, and in their mind the two are the same.
They likely don't care what search engine they're using, so I suspect this actually captures a very large amount of search volume, while still solving the intent of the user.
Disclamer - I owned a restaurant that gave Pepsi products to customers who explicitly ask for a Coke.
There's probably some debate about whether this is nefarious or genius, but I lean towards the later. "Coke" has always been the number one request from our patrons, and the amount of people who just wanted any soda but said "coke" was wild. there's a very large percentage of poorly palated patrons who aren't looking for a Coca-Cola, they're looking for a soda, and in their mind the two are the same.
They likely don't care which soda they're drinking, so I suspect this actually captures a very large amount of soda sales, while still solving the intent of the patron.
What's that? There's a process server outside? Whatever for?
> They likely don't care what search engine they're using
That's nothing, for our next iteration our navigation system will take you to the nearest Woolworths because they've got a commercial partnership with us even though the customer quite clearly said 'Coles'. It's likely they don't care.
The ones debating whether this is nefarious or not are the ones ruining the tech industry. This is absolutely nefarious. Whether or not it's a clever path to promotion due to corporate incentives is irrelevant.
I'm curious what part of Microsoft's culture enables these satirically slimy product decisions. In theory, other megacorps should be no better, but somehow they seem to maintain a bar that Microsoft always manages to stoop below
With all due respect, still feels bs to rationalizing the intentional misleding of these poor people. It is not a coincidence that Google and search is the same in their heads.
I used Bing on mobile for a while, and I quickly noticed a horrible dark pattern: the mobile website has a little banner that pops up at the top prompting you to download their app, but this banner only loads in after a short delay (maybe half a second) after the rest of the page. In particular, it shows up right where the search bar was (pushing the bar downwards) - meaning that if I aim for the search bar right when the page loads, I often end up hitting the banner ad right as it loads in. I’ve probably loaded their App Store page a dozen times at this point by accident - it’s that annoying.
I swear this is deliberate. There’s not really any good reason for a delay on the “you should get our app” banner that I can see, and even less of a good reason to have it load at the exact position of the search bar. Some engineer in Redmond is probably feeling really good about tricking people this way…
Fun fact: Microsoft Ads (the place you go to buy ads on Bing) is essentially a carbon copy of Google Ads in every way imaginable. The UI is, quite literally, exactly the same. The names of the features are nearly identical. There is very little differentiation, and it's 100% by design - doing this makes it very easy for marketing people to switch between ad platforms without needing to learn a completely new interface.
It's quite entertaining to watch. Google will release a feature, and then a few weeks later Microsoft announces the exact same thing.
Microsoft is learning that copying success is often easier than creating it from scratch. Making their products look identical to Google's makes it a lot easier to switch between the 2.
They've always used copying as one of their signature moves, see zune vs ipod, win3/95 vs mac, early Internet explorer based on spyglass/NCSA mosaic, Novell eDirectory vs ActiveDirectory, C# vs Java, F# vs Ocaml, and many more I would have to think hard about and take a long time to remember.
They tend to enter late with a me-too product, whether they copy, acquire, or embrace-extend-extinguish, but copying does play as large a role as any of their strategies, none of which generally involve actual innovation and often lean heavily on illegal, underhanded, or unethical business tactics.
Adversarial compatability is not a reason to mock a competitor to an entrenched monopoly.
I have no love for Microsoft, but the idea that a locked in monopoly, responsible for tainting or outright destroying huge swaths of the internet, is a "success"...
Not gonna lie though. Making a fake page that looks like a competitor to show people after they ask you to give them their competitors site is very mockable.
I see the similarities between these situations, but the difference is deception, Not that it's "copying".
I prefer bing + copilot as a search engine over google if I must use one. Been using it since the beta, have a corporate/business account now. It (usually) provides a good description of my answer and gives sources I can click on to verify. No other search engine I am aware of is doing this right now, although I know chatGPT has recently introduced or talked about a feature like this (I don't really use chatGPT). This is exactly what I want in a good search tool. However, my frustration with bing arises in that from one day to the next there is absolutely no consistency in how "good" the tool feels - almost like there are times they downgraded the underlying model to reduce load/cost without informing the user. They should focus on a better user experience than google, which if I can interject my opinion, is a shockingly low bar these days, and let growth happen by simply being a good tool - all the gimmicks and attempts they've made at mass adoption has seemed very forced. And yes, I'm aware of the natural lock-in advantage google has and how hard that is to surmount, but bing has a large enough percentage of search userbase by now to achieve its own critical mass if it needed to, IMO. Forcing adoption and locking it into microsoft ecosystem will probably eventually be the reason I stop using it.
I started a new job where I have to use windows, and more than once I didn’t realize I was using bing until I went to turn on verbatim and it wasn’t an option.
Side note, I miss search engines from 20 years ago, I can’t believe it’s gotten this bad.
Given the tricks that Google play (or at least played) in hijacking their own search results to scare users into switching to Chrome, I shed no tears here. Google set a new lower standard in deceitful behaviour, and Microsoft are simply following.
Sheesh, if what you say is true I guess decency is headed towards extinction, and even big companies are acting like the supposed con-men sellers of a Middle Eastern bazaar...
I'm usually not a fan of user deception. But I can't bring myself to care much that Bing is trying to play off the masses' pavlovian trust of the google interface.
That's the "offensively inoffensive" Corporate Memphis art which Microsoft is pushing aggressively everywhere, so I recognised it at first glance as being from MS and not Google. Google has a slightly different style.
> This is only funny because no one takes bing seriously.
But Microsoft is way more dangerous than Google. They've been using all the dirtiest tricks in the books since decades longer than Google. MSFT also has a market cap 30% greater than the one of GOOG.
Microsoft is known in the industry, all around the world, for illegal kickbacks (including to officials).
Google may be bad but Microsoft is just downright an evil company. In addition to that, as the old saying goes, the day Microsoft produces a product that won't suck, it's going to be a vacuum cleaner.
At least Google gave back a lot to open source and contributed a huge lot to Linux and to Linux's success.
I'm not saying Google is clean but they're not anywhere near as dirty as Microsoft.
The whole agenda / narrative that pushed by Microsoft shills atm is also all too obvious "You must break Google". I don't think so. I think it's Microsoft that should be broken up by anti-trust regulations enforcement.
I think it's hilarious because they're doing the same shenanigans that Google does.
When you search on Google everything above the fold is not "a list of search results". Often it's a definition or conversion calculator or some other custom UI that isn't "a list of search results".
Microsoft has programmed Bing to do the exact same thing. Everything above the fold is a custom UI that coincidentally looks a lot like the Google Search engine. The Chef's kiss is that it scrolls down just the tiniest bit to put the Bing UI above the fold rather than hide it. This gives them plausible deniability.
It's brilliant and hilarious. I love it. I'm still not using Bing (or Google for that matter) but I love it.
If MS hasn't changed the result in the meantime, the screenshot in the article is slightly dishonest by omission. The journalist has manipulated the browser window's size and scrolled down a bit so that only the "promoted result" is visible and without any indication. The journalist's characterization
> Before you scroll down to the actual search results, you’re presented with an all-white page with a centered, unbranded search bar and a multicolored doodle above it that’s heavy on yellow, red, blue, and green.
is dishonest.
In actuality, Google-like interface appears as a full-width promoted result/ad before the organic results. There is vaguely the words "Promoted by Microsoft" by the top-left, and a 'X' by the top-right. For large enough viewports, the 'X' and organic search results are visible. The "Promoted by Microsoft" is visible without scrolling at any size.
Note nevertheless that the journalist has also failed to point out a particular interaction that would support their thesis. For searches that trigger this "promotion", the window immediately scrolls the page so that the promotion is aligned to the top of the viewport, and the search bar in the promotion is focused. (The "Promoted by Microsoft" is visible without scrolling at any size.)
If one is logged in (and on Edge?), this promotion is still present, but as a tiny search box before the organic results.
Actually, this is a brilliant move by Microsoft. As a developer, I can tell you that user interface mimicry is a time-honored tradition in software. Remember how Facebook copied Snapchat's stories? And plus, Google's monopoly needs to be challenged, and if users can't tell the difference in quality between Bing and Google anyway, then what's the problem? The real problem is that people are too used to Google. This might help break that habit.
[+] [-] londons_explore|1 year ago|reply
Back when every google doodle clearly had the word "Google" in, that was okay.
But often now, the doodles are just some random picture. At that point, there is no brand recognition to their homepage beyond a blank white background and centered search box, which microsoft has copied here because those elements alone are not enough to form a legally protectable brand.
[+] [-] ballenf|1 year ago|reply
People may eventually realize they're not on Google, but probably only after being not displeased in Bing's results. If they have a bad experience, oh well, they were planning on using google anyway.
[+] [-] stemlord|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] spacemanspiff01|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mlekoszek|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] foobiekr|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] zb3|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jjcm|1 year ago|reply
There's probably some debate around whether this is nefarious or genius, but I'd lead towards the later. "google" has always been one of the number one search terms, and the amount of people who would open chrome, search for google in the address bar, then open google in the google search results, then do their search, was wild. There's a very large percentage of less technical people who aren't looking for Google, they're looking for search, and in their mind the two are the same.
They likely don't care what search engine they're using, so I suspect this actually captures a very large amount of search volume, while still solving the intent of the user.
[+] [-] CobrastanJorji|1 year ago|reply
There's probably some debate about whether this is nefarious or genius, but I lean towards the later. "Coke" has always been the number one request from our patrons, and the amount of people who just wanted any soda but said "coke" was wild. there's a very large percentage of poorly palated patrons who aren't looking for a Coca-Cola, they're looking for a soda, and in their mind the two are the same.
They likely don't care which soda they're drinking, so I suspect this actually captures a very large amount of soda sales, while still solving the intent of the patron.
What's that? There's a process server outside? Whatever for?
[+] [-] quink|1 year ago|reply
That's nothing, for our next iteration our navigation system will take you to the nearest Woolworths because they've got a commercial partnership with us even though the customer quite clearly said 'Coles'. It's likely they don't care.
[+] [-] shiveenp|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vasco|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] from-nibly|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] RajT88|1 year ago|reply
Machiavellian, even.
https://ianchadwick.com/machiavelli/chapters-15-21/chapter-1...
[+] [-] ClassyJacket|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] suddenexample|1 year ago|reply
I'm curious what part of Microsoft's culture enables these satirically slimy product decisions. In theory, other megacorps should be no better, but somehow they seem to maintain a bar that Microsoft always manages to stoop below
[+] [-] gazchop|1 year ago|reply
The fact windows is full of dark patterns to try and get you to use it is pathetic disrespectful hubris not genius.
[+] [-] szundi|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nneonneo|1 year ago|reply
I swear this is deliberate. There’s not really any good reason for a delay on the “you should get our app” banner that I can see, and even less of a good reason to have it load at the exact position of the search bar. Some engineer in Redmond is probably feeling really good about tricking people this way…
[+] [-] null0pointer|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cj|1 year ago|reply
It's quite entertaining to watch. Google will release a feature, and then a few weeks later Microsoft announces the exact same thing.
Microsoft is learning that copying success is often easier than creating it from scratch. Making their products look identical to Google's makes it a lot easier to switch between the 2.
[+] [-] theonemind|1 year ago|reply
They tend to enter late with a me-too product, whether they copy, acquire, or embrace-extend-extinguish, but copying does play as large a role as any of their strategies, none of which generally involve actual innovation and often lean heavily on illegal, underhanded, or unethical business tactics.
[+] [-] solarkraft|1 year ago|reply
Props for one of the rare times they apparently thought a UI through.
[+] [-] oehpr|1 year ago|reply
I have no love for Microsoft, but the idea that a locked in monopoly, responsible for tainting or outright destroying huge swaths of the internet, is a "success"...
Not gonna lie though. Making a fake page that looks like a competitor to show people after they ask you to give them their competitors site is very mockable.
I see the similarities between these situations, but the difference is deception, Not that it's "copying".
[+] [-] Arnavion|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] PessimalDecimal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tim333|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bangaladore|1 year ago|reply
I wonder if Brave is specifically deleting this element.
[+] [-] riiii|1 year ago|reply
-- Dr. Adrian Mallard
[+] [-] JohnMakin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] granzymes|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] grumpykitten|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dec0dedab0de|1 year ago|reply
Side note, I miss search engines from 20 years ago, I can’t believe it’s gotten this bad.
[+] [-] rlpb|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] netsharc|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unethical_ban|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] userbinator|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] lupusreal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] croisillon|1 year ago|reply
- no one ever
[+] [-] asdasdsddd|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dzhiurgis|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] TacticalCoder|1 year ago|reply
But Microsoft is way more dangerous than Google. They've been using all the dirtiest tricks in the books since decades longer than Google. MSFT also has a market cap 30% greater than the one of GOOG.
Microsoft is known in the industry, all around the world, for illegal kickbacks (including to officials).
Google may be bad but Microsoft is just downright an evil company. In addition to that, as the old saying goes, the day Microsoft produces a product that won't suck, it's going to be a vacuum cleaner.
At least Google gave back a lot to open source and contributed a huge lot to Linux and to Linux's success.
I'm not saying Google is clean but they're not anywhere near as dirty as Microsoft.
The whole agenda / narrative that pushed by Microsoft shills atm is also all too obvious "You must break Google". I don't think so. I think it's Microsoft that should be broken up by anti-trust regulations enforcement.
Shittiest company on earth.
[+] [-] cptskippy|1 year ago|reply
When you search on Google everything above the fold is not "a list of search results". Often it's a definition or conversion calculator or some other custom UI that isn't "a list of search results".
Microsoft has programmed Bing to do the exact same thing. Everything above the fold is a custom UI that coincidentally looks a lot like the Google Search engine. The Chef's kiss is that it scrolls down just the tiniest bit to put the Bing UI above the fold rather than hide it. This gives them plausible deniability.
It's brilliant and hilarious. I love it. I'm still not using Bing (or Google for that matter) but I love it.
[+] [-] ricoche|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] baxtr|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jhanschoo|1 year ago|reply
> Before you scroll down to the actual search results, you’re presented with an all-white page with a centered, unbranded search bar and a multicolored doodle above it that’s heavy on yellow, red, blue, and green.
is dishonest.
In actuality, Google-like interface appears as a full-width promoted result/ad before the organic results. There is vaguely the words "Promoted by Microsoft" by the top-left, and a 'X' by the top-right. For large enough viewports, the 'X' and organic search results are visible. The "Promoted by Microsoft" is visible without scrolling at any size.
Note nevertheless that the journalist has also failed to point out a particular interaction that would support their thesis. For searches that trigger this "promotion", the window immediately scrolls the page so that the promotion is aligned to the top of the viewport, and the search bar in the promotion is focused. (The "Promoted by Microsoft" is visible without scrolling at any size.)
If one is logged in (and on Edge?), this promotion is still present, but as a tiny search box before the organic results.
[+] [-] nathanmills|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mrayycombi|1 year ago|reply
I've avoided Google for years. Quack.