To all posters who "feel the need" to correct minor grammatical errors on the internet:
The need to build one's self up is aptly demonstrated by the need and willingness to "correct", i.e. tear someone else down. The constant use of sarcasm is usually indicative of one's insecurities.
Indeed, standards are of no significant importance.
Languages are rules-based; willingness or need to correct someone could be considered polite, actually.
Some choose to correct condescendingly, but generally I find those that do are usually incorrect somewhere else down the road. One can certainly take that opportunity to retaliate if they feel the need. Both of those things do not make nor keep you many friends, however.
Better to ask why they did something that way, and if you are sure you are correct, tell them why they may want to change. If they choose to take the advice, then great. If not, at least you tried to help.
Evil in what way? They haven't withdrawn their services, they aren't suing them. So they poked fun at them. Big deal. It's not as if apple hasn't poked fun or attacked another company.
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
Really? Was that incorrect?
"Apple is working with Microsoft to broaden the iPhone's search and related web services from their current primary dependance upon Google to include additional support for Bing."
...broaden the iPhone's ... services from their current ... dependence...
That matches, doesn't it?
It is wordy, convoluted and badly written, but I think that the grammar is correct.
I'd edit it to:
Apple and Microsoft together are adding additional support for Bing. This will broaden the iPhone's search and related services, which are now primarily dependent on Google.
I mean, fer chrissakes, "additional support for Bing" is the main subject. It is the point. It is the payoff for reading the sentence.
And the AI author forces you to wade through multiple nested clauses to finally get to it. They have a "style" here at AI where they use that type of sentence. They try to pack lots of info into a sentence by stringing adverbs and adjectives into a convoluted mess, which takes too much effort to read.
I prefer short declarative sentences in news stories.
I like seeing Apple opening its doors to other services. Maybe if they work close with Bing, the Maps can be even better than Google Maps, but probably only in US.
The perfect thing for apple to do is to invest in making its own Map APIs and taking YouTube out of iPhone and replacing it with just Internet Videos app that can load Vimeo, YouTube and all other compatible online video services, not just YouTube.
I've found quite the opposite. I usually go to Bing for maps because Bing seems to keep more current information regarding the tenants of certain locations (ie. hotels, restaurants).
... but, yes, you're right, they don't have Streetview.
I'm looking at a New Zealand perspective here. Google Maps has the new streets built just up the road from me but Bing Maps only has one.
Both have incorrect aerial views which are actually 3 years older than when I moved into the place I'm in now... 4 years ago.
It might be different in the States but as I don't live there and need access to reliable maps Bing doesn't cut it.
My understanding was that when Microsoft and Yahoo partnered together Yahoo became the underlying search engine for Bing or am I only thinking of the Yahoo advertising which is actually in partnership with Google anyway?
So, is Apple a single thing or a hive? If raised in the U.S., odds are one will say "Apple is"; in the U.K., one will prefer "Apple are". There is logic to both. If the plural usage seems odd, it is perhaps most so when the collective has a single name. It always sounds funny to me to hear something like, "Manchester United are playing well." Think of an example with, say, a panel of nine members who do not act in unison. Do the panel deliberate, or does it? Its members certainly don't all act the same.
....For what it's worth, Apple is a singular company. Apple has a higher market capitalization than Microsoft. Apple doesn't "have" a higher market cap. It "has" a higher market cap.
Google went from nothing to bazillionaires because of one thing, a stupid search engine with ad money. Doesn't apple see how much money can be made this way? They just bought an ad company to do this for the iphone, so they must be starting to see the light.
How many millions iphones and 'growing' numbers of macs are out there? Man that would be alot of people using 'apple search'... they should totally start there own engine. Why not?!
Apple should just buy Looksmart (LOOK). This company is a 2nd tier pay per click advertising company that owns all the patents and intellectual property rights of Wisenut, a search engine that used to compete with Google at its inception. The Wisenut website was taken offline and the URL was sold but Looksmart retained the patents and IP. Here is a very good link to educate yourself on why Apple should buy them.
The problem with search engines is that people have to use them for them to improve.
This is why an Apple search engine would be tough. Who'd use it? Even if every Mac and iDevice used Apple search it still could not compare to Google's power arising from its popularity.
The same with Bing. Really, who uses Bing?
How many people actually physically type in Google.com into the URL bar and then do the search? I know I don't. I type it into the Search box in Safari.
People don't care about what they use so long as it gives accurate results and so far ALL search engines fail. They have to fail based on the fact they are using boolean searches and so a human not versed in computer thinking will fail to get the results that are required when we think of sentences as wholes not as an entity made of singular parts.
A search for "why do search engines suck?" will not produce the results a human wants because it does a search for why+do+search+engines+suck? which yields results for all of those words not as a sentence.
Using "" may or may not refine the search like it's supposed to but without the "" I don't get anything close to what I'm after. Using the quotes it narrowed down to 1100 results from 2,230,000 but when I clicked the links I either got a list of posts that aren't the one I wanted and I had to search through where I got through 3 pages before I decided to enter the search again into Ask.com (the referring page) whereby I then got the page I was actually after that Google said was the page before taking me to the list page.
Considering Google is just about ad revenue then I think they are purely against what a search engine is meant to be for... searching for information. If anyone can make a better engine it's going to be Apple because they understand what customers want. It will be a few years away but I think they'll do it.
How many people actually physically type in Google.com into the URL bar and then do the search? I know I don't. I type it into the Search box in Safari.
Speak for yourself. "Google" is a verb for crying out loud. Hasn't somebody ever told you to "Google it"? Most people I know go right to Google. Search bar or no search bar. That's a brand that's tough to overcome.
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
Since we're picking nits... Are you sure you know the meaning of the words no one?
Since we're picking nits... Are you sure you know the meaning of the words no one?
Perhaps your intention was to say; "Why do so many have trouble distinguishing..." or maybe "Why do people have trouble distinguishing..." or "Why do so many people have trouble distinguishing..."
Maybe I need to sig this for everyones benefit? No, who'd wanna be 'that guy' ...
Quote:
:
no one
pronoun
no one shed a tear when he was fired: nobody, not a soul, not anyone, not a single person, never a one, none.
As you correctly implied: What about the critic?
I cringe myself when I read/hear the other extreme:
Everybody, everyone
and omniscience:
"The best in the world!"
How I love it when politicians state: "The people are behind us." Even their opposition?
And while Apple Insider is in grammar and definitions session, maybe someone may enlighten us (or me at least) about the difference between:
dependence vs dependance
Please, don't simply quote your favorite online source. Thanks.
CGC
N.B.
We had a session before about "lose, loss, loose ..." and others came up with other words/terms commonly used incorrectly.
But no one lectured, if memory serves. And, there was no attempt to keep on "pounding" all those heads, as it seems to bee the case with "its" and "it's".
Evil in what way? They haven't withdrawn their services, they aren't suing them. So they poked fun at them. Big deal. It's not as if apple hasn't poked fun or attacked another company.
No company is either good or evil. They are out for cash, which is fine. The difference with Google is that they traffic in personal information. If Apple did the same I would have a major problem with it.
Look at the recent situation with Google. While working on StreetView, they snooped on local wi-fi networks and stored that info. They refused to hand over that info to gov'ts and only offered to destroy it. Look at the what happened with Buzz. Even Schmidt said that privacy doesn't exist. They have "eternal" cookies. They serve you ads on Gmail based on the email's content.
If you feel comfortable thusting this company, that fine. Others don't and care about privacy. The amount of info that Google is frightening.
Now, back to the topic. I beg to differ with those who state that:
"Google is so way ahead in the "Search" business, it is unwise for Apple to enter the field."
Apple has shown that it can enter fields where other companies have dominated, and come out the game-changer. The phone business is a very good example.
Personally, I want and need a better Search engine. More than likely, others may have been wanting the same.
The Google Search:
Type a simple word, or a group of words. You get a gazillion pages. I typed "Word", and Google spewed: 733,000,000 results Really. How many of us go through all those pages?
Sometimes, you really know something exist in there. And, even remember using it once. But, you cannot recall where you bookmarked that URL. This happened to me so many times. Even after I went through so many pages, it still was not there. It would not have made the Google criteria (see next three below).
What is popular may not be the best. Back to the search using "Word". Is "Word.com" really the most authoritative source? I like Wikipedia, and use it quite often, but same thing.
There is a saying: "What is popular may not be true. What is true may not be popular." Google Search -- if I remember their mantra correctly -- is based on the concept that what is "clicked" most often must be the best. This worship of popularity feeds onto itself.
I am sure that there are many of you who really know your own field. When you do a general Search, you might have found that what you consider as the most reliable source may not even make the first page of Google Search. This is obvious, how can the "masses" know exactly what is most authoritative, if they are still in the process of trying to educate themselves on the topic they are searching. And yet, it is the search and collective clicking behavior of the masses that define Google Search.
I read about alternative Search algorithm efforts by a number of start ups. I am really too tech-savvy to decide which one is most promising. Apple, if it wants to, has the technical expertise to wade through these possible choices.
Apple should do the same with Maps, and basic softwares. I would be so disapppinted if Apple's North Carolina facility would just be used to house music, videos and movies as part of Apple's cloud computing initiative.
Speak for yourself. "Google" is a verb for crying out loud. Hasn't somebody ever told you to "Google it"? Most people I know go right to Google. Search bar or no search bar. That's a brand that's tough to overcome.
Yes but you make it out that if Apple made all the defaults on their OS both desktop and mobile their own search engine people still wouldn't use it. that's incorrect because people know to use the search box in the browser therefore people WILL use it.
As the default for Mac OS X and OS X more people would use Apple's engine instead of Google's therefore Google's share within the Mac community would drop to negligible amounts except of course when they use FireFox.
HAH! Look at the Apple fans touting how great Microsoft's BING is.
they used to bash Microsoft when they were big, but now Google is big and beating up their Iphones and soon to be beaten up Ipads. The difference however, Google is going to win.
I really wish Google wasn't pissing in every pool Apple is playing in.
Well, okay... I can see Googles side of story since the world is flocking away from the desktop and full speed toward the mobile surf anywhere, world and the though that one 800 pound gorilla be it MS or Apple or whoever is so quickly dominating the space would scare the CRAP out of Google.
I mean ... okay owning 80%+ of the MP3 players device market and music sales ... Good on Apple, Google couldn't give a flying phuk.
Mobile is a far more sensitive issue...
Google lives or dies by the searching and focused advertising... this IS how they survive.
Windows, Mac, Linux YAY! Viva la difference.. Google loves the mix and lack of control and Firefox... I'm certain a welcome addition to their web world. Safari too... it kept IE from being the dominant web browser AND something people don't consider... Google had every right in the world to enter the web browser market and I really believe they didn't in order to allow Apple to peruse the windows users with Safari and once Safari share in the windows world was shown to be insignificant it was then when Google finally pulled the trigger and rolled out Chrome.
And now the lines are drawn...
Google couldn't sit back and see Apple own the mobile space lock stock and barrel.. It would be an ENORMOUSLY risky think to have happen, I mean Apple has power and one just needs to look at how FLASH is rapidly being erased from the face of all the better web sites. Who else has that kind of influence?"
---- Yea, I can kinda see where you are coming from..... Google is nice and only owns 89% of world search.... they have to protect their interest...
Apple owns 70% of mp3 players. so of course they are a threat to Google. Poor Google.
----- Google is a big company with lots of money. Apple is a big company with lots of money. They drive in different directions. Google sells service. Period. ..... Apple sells hardware. The rest is just something to get you to buy Apples hardware.
Bad Apple. Good Google... Bad Microsoft.... er........ bite me. :-)
HAH! Look at the Apple fans touting how great Microsoft's BING is.
they used to bash Microsoft when they were big, but now Google is big and beating up their Iphones and soon to be beaten up Ipads. The difference however, Google is going to win.
Your comment can be turned around, just as easily. Is it not also just as possible that your denigrating remark may be affected by how you view Apple or those who like Apple products?
If your goal is to add to the discussion, not sure your comment will achieve that goal. It will just create more divide, because of bad blood.
There is a saying that states: "We are prisoners of our space and time." I hope I do not have to explain that to you.
Actually, I am not a fan of Microsoft. Because of the browsers I use, the default Search and Maps are always Google.
However, I have been doing a lot of satellite viewing of places to look for facilities for business projects in California. I noticed by accident that companies, like realtor.com and others use Bing to show real estates.
I discovered "Bird's Eye View" feature of Bing. If you analyze some buildings and locations, like I do, you will find this feature very very useful. I do not know if Google has the equivalent, but it does not show when I do Maps. The "Street View" of Google cannot replace the information that you I get from the "Bird's Eye View" feature of Bing.
Honestly, I have not used the Search Engine of Microsoft recently. If there is an "instant" way to try it and other Search, I would more than likely try them all. Then see where I can get the best result. I used to have a website where I have all the most popular Search engines. But, it is so inconvenient to keep going back to my page to do a quick search.
My preference is for Apple to create their own in-house Search and Maps.
That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.
Good list. Although I suspect it depends on each Apple person's own experiences and history. I will never trust MS (no need for the $ these days) having been in the business from late 70's through late 90's and used to love Google and Adobe which makes me conflicted now. However, as the Trolls now have to drink 'DroolAid' I don't mind too much
HAH! Look at the Apple fans touting how great Microsoft's BING is.
they used to bash Microsoft when they were big, but now Google is big and beating up their Iphones and soon to be beaten up Ipads. The difference however, Google is going to win.
Now, back to the topic. I beg to differ with those who state that:
"Google is so way ahead in the "Search" business, it is unwise for Apple to enter the field."
Apple has shown that it can enter fields where other companies have dominated, and come out the game-changer. The phone business is a very good example.
Personally, I want and need a better Search engine. More than likely, others may have been wanting the same.
The Google Search:
Type a simple word, or a group of words. You get a gazillion pages. I typed "Word", and Google spewed: 733,000,000 results Really. How many of us go through all those pages?
Sometimes, you really know something exist in there. And, even remember using it once. But, you cannot recall where you bookmarked that URL. This happened to me so many times. Even after I went through so many pages, it still was not there. It would not have made the Google criteria (see next three below).
What is popular may not be the best. Back to the search using "Word". Is "Word.com" really the most authoritative source? I like Wikipedia, and use it quite often, but same thing.
There is a saying: "What is popular may not be true. What is true may not be popular." Google Search -- if I remember their mantra correctly -- is based on the concept that what is "clicked" most often must be the best. This worship of popularity feeds onto itself.
I am sure that there are many of you who really know your own field. When you do a general Search, you might have found that what you consider as the most reliable source may not even make the first page of Google Search. This is obvious, how can the "masses" know exactly what is most authoritative, if they are still in the process of trying to educate themselves on the topic they are searching. And yet, it is the search and collective clicking behavior of the masses that define Google Search.
I read about alternative Search algorithm efforts by a number of start ups. I am really too tech-savvy to decide which one is most promising. Apple, if it wants to, has the technical expertise to wade through these possible choices.
Apple should do the same with Maps, and basic softwares. I would be so disapppinted if Apple's North Carolina facility would just be used to house music, videos and movies as part of Apple's cloud computing initiative.
CGC
I totally agree. The search concept needs a paradigm shift. And who better than Apple to 'bring it'
Meanwhile I keep pointing out Apple not only bought Placebase but also Siri. They didn't buy these companies for fun. I keep feeling Apple have something under-wraps. It might be that it is not ready for WWDC but I am hoping this year we see something. Bing may be deliberate obfuscation.
I have no idea how Apple can solve this issue though; search with Google and it pulls up total crap along with accurate information. You can search for something and unless you have sufficient education on the subject how would you know? Just one example, I know people that actually built electrolysis systems to run off their car batteries to generate hydrogen to power their cars, seriously! They point to endless Google results pages to 'prove' this works. Point them to a paper on the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics and they tune out.
Comments
To all posters who "feel the need" to correct minor grammatical errors on the internet:
The need to build one's self up is aptly demonstrated by the need and willingness to "correct", i.e. tear someone else down. The constant use of sarcasm is usually indicative of one's insecurities.
Indeed, standards are of no significant importance.
Languages are rules-based; willingness or need to correct someone could be considered polite, actually.
Some choose to correct condescendingly, but generally I find those that do are usually incorrect somewhere else down the road. One can certainly take that opportunity to retaliate if they feel the need. Both of those things do not make nor keep you many friends, however.
Better to ask why they did something that way, and if you are sure you are correct, tell them why they may want to change. If they choose to take the advice, then great. If not, at least you tried to help.
its current primary dependance upon Google...
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
Really? Was that incorrect?
"Apple is working with Microsoft to broaden the iPhone's search and related web services from their current primary dependance upon Google to include additional support for Bing."
...broaden the iPhone's ... services from their current ... dependence...
That matches, doesn't it?
It is wordy, convoluted and badly written, but I think that the grammar is correct.
I'd edit it to:
Apple and Microsoft together are adding additional support for Bing. This will broaden the iPhone's search and related services, which are now primarily dependent on Google.
I mean, fer chrissakes, "additional support for Bing" is the main subject. It is the point. It is the payoff for reading the sentence.
And the AI author forces you to wade through multiple nested clauses to finally get to it. They have a "style" here at AI where they use that type of sentence. They try to pack lots of info into a sentence by stringing adverbs and adjectives into a convoluted mess, which takes too much effort to read.
I prefer short declarative sentences in news stories.
The perfect thing for apple to do is to invest in making its own Map APIs and taking YouTube out of iPhone and replacing it with just Internet Videos app that can load Vimeo, YouTube and all other compatible online video services, not just YouTube.
I've found quite the opposite. I usually go to Bing for maps because Bing seems to keep more current information regarding the tenants of certain locations (ie. hotels, restaurants).
... but, yes, you're right, they don't have Streetview.
I'm looking at a New Zealand perspective here. Google Maps has the new streets built just up the road from me but Bing Maps only has one.
Both have incorrect aerial views which are actually 3 years older than when I moved into the place I'm in now... 4 years ago.
It might be different in the States but as I don't live there and need access to reliable maps Bing doesn't cut it.
You've got that backwards.
My understanding was that when Microsoft and Yahoo partnered together Yahoo became the underlying search engine for Bing or am I only thinking of the Yahoo advertising which is actually in partnership with Google anyway?
....For what it's worth, Apple is a singular company. Apple has a higher market capitalization than Microsoft. Apple doesn't "have" a higher market cap. It "has" a higher market cap.
Google went from nothing to bazillionaires because of one thing, a stupid search engine with ad money. Doesn't apple see how much money can be made this way? They just bought an ad company to do this for the iphone, so they must be starting to see the light.
How many millions iphones and 'growing' numbers of macs are out there? Man that would be alot of people using 'apple search'... they should totally start there own engine. Why not?!
Apple should just buy Looksmart (LOOK). This company is a 2nd tier pay per click advertising company that owns all the patents and intellectual property rights of Wisenut, a search engine that used to compete with Google at its inception. The Wisenut website was taken offline and the URL was sold but Looksmart retained the patents and IP. Here is a very good link to educate yourself on why Apple should buy them.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2020...ne-search-fray
The problem with search engines is that people have to use them for them to improve.
This is why an Apple search engine would be tough. Who'd use it? Even if every Mac and iDevice used Apple search it still could not compare to Google's power arising from its popularity.
The same with Bing. Really, who uses Bing?
How many people actually physically type in Google.com into the URL bar and then do the search? I know I don't. I type it into the Search box in Safari.
People don't care about what they use so long as it gives accurate results and so far ALL search engines fail. They have to fail based on the fact they are using boolean searches and so a human not versed in computer thinking will fail to get the results that are required when we think of sentences as wholes not as an entity made of singular parts.
A search for "why do search engines suck?" will not produce the results a human wants because it does a search for why+do+search+engines+suck? which yields results for all of those words not as a sentence.
Using "" may or may not refine the search like it's supposed to but without the "" I don't get anything close to what I'm after. Using the quotes it narrowed down to 1100 results from 2,230,000 but when I clicked the links I either got a list of posts that aren't the one I wanted and I had to search through where I got through 3 pages before I decided to enter the search again into Ask.com (the referring page) whereby I then got the page I was actually after that Google said was the page before taking me to the list page.
Considering Google is just about ad revenue then I think they are purely against what a search engine is meant to be for... searching for information. If anyone can make a better engine it's going to be Apple because they understand what customers want. It will be a few years away but I think they'll do it.
How many people actually physically type in Google.com into the URL bar and then do the search? I know I don't. I type it into the Search box in Safari.
Speak for yourself. "Google" is a verb for crying out loud. Hasn't somebody ever told you to "Google it"? Most people I know go right to Google. Search bar or no search bar. That's a brand that's tough to overcome.
Originally Posted by Ensign Pulver View Post
its current primary dependance upon Google...
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
Since we're picking nits... Are you sure you know the meaning of the words no one?
Since we're picking nits... Are you sure you know the meaning of the words no one?
Perhaps your intention was to say; "Why do so many have trouble distinguishing..." or maybe "Why do people have trouble distinguishing..." or "Why do so many people have trouble distinguishing..."
Maybe I need to sig this for everyones benefit? No, who'd wanna be 'that guy' ...
:
no one
pronoun
no one shed a tear when he was fired: nobody, not a soul, not anyone, not a single person, never a one, none.
As you correctly implied: What about the critic?
I cringe myself when I read/hear the other extreme:
Everybody, everyone
and omniscience:
"The best in the world!"
How I love it when politicians state: "The people are behind us." Even their opposition?
And while Apple Insider is in grammar and definitions session, maybe someone may enlighten us (or me at least) about the difference between:
dependence vs dependance
Please, don't simply quote your favorite online source. Thanks.
CGC
N.B.
We had a session before about "lose, loss, loose ..." and others came up with other words/terms commonly used incorrectly.
But no one lectured, if memory serves. And, there was no attempt to keep on "pounding" all those heads, as it seems to bee the case with "its" and "it's".
It can get "itchy, when you rub it in too much".
Evil in what way? They haven't withdrawn their services, they aren't suing them. So they poked fun at them. Big deal. It's not as if apple hasn't poked fun or attacked another company.
No company is either good or evil. They are out for cash, which is fine. The difference with Google is that they traffic in personal information. If Apple did the same I would have a major problem with it.
Look at the recent situation with Google. While working on StreetView, they snooped on local wi-fi networks and stored that info. They refused to hand over that info to gov'ts and only offered to destroy it. Look at the what happened with Buzz. Even Schmidt said that privacy doesn't exist. They have "eternal" cookies. They serve you ads on Gmail based on the email's content.
If you feel comfortable thusting this company, that fine. Others don't and care about privacy. The amount of info that Google is frightening.
"Google is so way ahead in the "Search" business, it is unwise for Apple to enter the field."
Apple has shown that it can enter fields where other companies have dominated, and come out the game-changer. The phone business is a very good example.
Personally, I want and need a better Search engine. More than likely, others may have been wanting the same.
The Google Search:
- Type a simple word, or a group of words. You get a gazillion pages. I typed "Word", and Google spewed: 733,000,000 results Really. How many of us go through all those pages?
- Sometimes, you really know something exist in there. And, even remember using it once. But, you cannot recall where you bookmarked that URL. This happened to me so many times. Even after I went through so many pages, it still was not there. It would not have made the Google criteria (see next three below).
- What is popular may not be the best. Back to the search using "Word". Is "Word.com" really the most authoritative source? I like Wikipedia, and use it quite often, but same thing.
- There is a saying: "What is popular may not be true. What is true may not be popular." Google Search -- if I remember their mantra correctly -- is based on the concept that what is "clicked" most often must be the best. This worship of popularity feeds onto itself.
- I am sure that there are many of you who really know your own field. When you do a general Search, you might have found that what you consider as the most reliable source may not even make the first page of Google Search. This is obvious, how can the "masses" know exactly what is most authoritative, if they are still in the process of trying to educate themselves on the topic they are searching. And yet, it is the search and collective clicking behavior of the masses that define Google Search.
I read about alternative Search algorithm efforts by a number of start ups. I am really too tech-savvy to decide which one is most promising. Apple, if it wants to, has the technical expertise to wade through these possible choices.Apple should do the same with Maps, and basic softwares. I would be so disapppinted if Apple's North Carolina facility would just be used to house music, videos and movies as part of Apple's cloud computing initiative.
CGC
Speak for yourself. "Google" is a verb for crying out loud. Hasn't somebody ever told you to "Google it"? Most people I know go right to Google. Search bar or no search bar. That's a brand that's tough to overcome.
Yes but you make it out that if Apple made all the defaults on their OS both desktop and mobile their own search engine people still wouldn't use it. that's incorrect because people know to use the search box in the browser therefore people WILL use it.
As the default for Mac OS X and OS X more people would use Apple's engine instead of Google's therefore Google's share within the Mac community would drop to negligible amounts except of course when they use FireFox.
they used to bash Microsoft when they were big, but now Google is big and beating up their Iphones and soon to be beaten up Ipads. The difference however, Google is going to win.
I really wish Google wasn't pissing in every pool Apple is playing in.
Well, okay... I can see Googles side of story since the world is flocking away from the desktop and full speed toward the mobile surf anywhere, world and the though that one 800 pound gorilla be it MS or Apple or whoever is so quickly dominating the space would scare the CRAP out of Google.
I mean ... okay owning 80%+ of the MP3 players device market and music sales ... Good on Apple, Google couldn't give a flying phuk.
Mobile is a far more sensitive issue...
Google lives or dies by the searching and focused advertising... this IS how they survive.
Windows, Mac, Linux YAY! Viva la difference.. Google loves the mix and lack of control and Firefox... I'm certain a welcome addition to their web world. Safari too... it kept IE from being the dominant web browser AND something people don't consider... Google had every right in the world to enter the web browser market and I really believe they didn't in order to allow Apple to peruse the windows users with Safari and once Safari share in the windows world was shown to be insignificant it was then when Google finally pulled the trigger and rolled out Chrome.
And now the lines are drawn...
Google couldn't sit back and see Apple own the mobile space lock stock and barrel.. It would be an ENORMOUSLY risky think to have happen, I mean Apple has power and one just needs to look at how FLASH is rapidly being erased from the face of all the better web sites. Who else has that kind of influence?"
---- Yea, I can kinda see where you are coming from..... Google is nice and only owns 89% of world search.... they have to protect their interest...
Apple owns 70% of mp3 players. so of course they are a threat to Google. Poor Google.
----- Google is a big company with lots of money. Apple is a big company with lots of money. They drive in different directions. Google sells service. Period. ..... Apple sells hardware. The rest is just something to get you to buy Apples hardware.
Bad Apple. Good Google... Bad Microsoft.... er........ bite me. :-)
Just a thought,
en
HAH! Look at the Apple fans touting how great Microsoft's BING is.
they used to bash Microsoft when they were big, but now Google is big and beating up their Iphones and soon to be beaten up Ipads. The difference however, Google is going to win.
Your comment can be turned around, just as easily. Is it not also just as possible that your denigrating remark may be affected by how you view Apple or those who like Apple products?
If your goal is to add to the discussion, not sure your comment will achieve that goal. It will just create more divide, because of bad blood.
There is a saying that states: "We are prisoners of our space and time." I hope I do not have to explain that to you.
Actually, I am not a fan of Microsoft. Because of the browsers I use, the default Search and Maps are always Google.
However, I have been doing a lot of satellite viewing of places to look for facilities for business projects in California. I noticed by accident that companies, like realtor.com and others use Bing to show real estates.
I discovered "Bird's Eye View" feature of Bing. If you analyze some buildings and locations, like I do, you will find this feature very very useful. I do not know if Google has the equivalent, but it does not show when I do Maps. The "Street View" of Google cannot replace the information that you I get from the "Bird's Eye View" feature of Bing.
Honestly, I have not used the Search Engine of Microsoft recently. If there is an "instant" way to try it and other Search, I would more than likely try them all. Then see where I can get the best result. I used to have a website where I have all the most popular Search engines. But, it is so inconvenient to keep going back to my page to do a quick search.
My preference is for Apple to create their own in-house Search and Maps.
CGC
That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.
Good list. Although I suspect it depends on each Apple person's own experiences and history. I will never trust MS (no need for the $ these days) having been in the business from late 70's through late 90's and used to love Google and Adobe which makes me conflicted now. However, as the Trolls now have to drink 'DroolAid' I don't mind too much
HAH! Look at the Apple fans touting how great Microsoft's BING is.
they used to bash Microsoft when they were big, but now Google is big and beating up their Iphones and soon to be beaten up Ipads. The difference however, Google is going to win.
Not this one
Now, back to the topic. I beg to differ with those who state that:
"Google is so way ahead in the "Search" business, it is unwise for Apple to enter the field."
Apple has shown that it can enter fields where other companies have dominated, and come out the game-changer. The phone business is a very good example.
Personally, I want and need a better Search engine. More than likely, others may have been wanting the same.
The Google Search:
- Type a simple word, or a group of words. You get a gazillion pages. I typed "Word", and Google spewed: 733,000,000 results Really. How many of us go through all those pages?
- Sometimes, you really know something exist in there. And, even remember using it once. But, you cannot recall where you bookmarked that URL. This happened to me so many times. Even after I went through so many pages, it still was not there. It would not have made the Google criteria (see next three below).
- What is popular may not be the best. Back to the search using "Word". Is "Word.com" really the most authoritative source? I like Wikipedia, and use it quite often, but same thing.
- There is a saying: "What is popular may not be true. What is true may not be popular." Google Search -- if I remember their mantra correctly -- is based on the concept that what is "clicked" most often must be the best. This worship of popularity feeds onto itself.
- I am sure that there are many of you who really know your own field. When you do a general Search, you might have found that what you consider as the most reliable source may not even make the first page of Google Search. This is obvious, how can the "masses" know exactly what is most authoritative, if they are still in the process of trying to educate themselves on the topic they are searching. And yet, it is the search and collective clicking behavior of the masses that define Google Search.
I read about alternative Search algorithm efforts by a number of start ups. I am really too tech-savvy to decide which one is most promising. Apple, if it wants to, has the technical expertise to wade through these possible choices.Apple should do the same with Maps, and basic softwares. I would be so disapppinted if Apple's North Carolina facility would just be used to house music, videos and movies as part of Apple's cloud computing initiative.
CGC
I totally agree. The search concept needs a paradigm shift. And who better than Apple to 'bring it'
Meanwhile I keep pointing out Apple not only bought Placebase but also Siri. They didn't buy these companies for fun. I keep feeling Apple have something under-wraps. It might be that it is not ready for WWDC but I am hoping this year we see something. Bing may be deliberate obfuscation.
I have no idea how Apple can solve this issue though; search with Google and it pulls up total crap along with accurate information. You can search for something and unless you have sufficient education on the subject how would you know? Just one example, I know people that actually built electrolysis systems to run off their car batteries to generate hydrogen to power their cars, seriously! They point to endless Google results pages to 'prove' this works. Point them to a paper on the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics and they tune out.