Bing: Google gets some real competition
By Chris Gaylord | 11.20.09
It’s hard to compete when your opponent’s name is so popular that it’s become a verb. Such is the plight of every search engine that dares to challenge Google.
Last year, four search engines made up more than 95 percent of all search traffic: Google, Yahoo, MSN, and Ask. Only Google increased its share of the pie that year, eating up 67 percent of all searches in January and 72 percent by 2009, according to the online traffic monitor Hitwise.
But something changed this year. Microsoft retired its MSN site and launched a new search engine called Bing. Now, this newcomer is the only one gobbling more of the pie, almost doubling MSN’s share since Bing launched in June. Bing is still relatively small. Hitwise says it served about 10 percent of searches in October. But its new formula distinguishes itself from Google’s in several interesting and useful ways. No wonder it’s grabbed more converts than any competitor this year.
Bing sells itself as a general-interest search engine, but its real philosophy is more nuanced. Whereas Google more or less treats every search the same – current events, product reviews, and quirky queries all run through the same massive database – Bing focuses on the few hundred terms that people search for the most. It then tries to craft the perfect results pages for those selected items.
In other words, if Google is a phone book to the city – where you can find everything – Bing is the tour book, with more helpful information on certain attractions. Bing will still find results for anything you throw at it, but Google often does a better job with those screwball queries.
Bing shines most in three areas. It helps shoppers with filters that let them narrow their product searches; a cash-back program also saves a few percent off certain items. When looking into celebrities, Bing rolls in biographical information and updates from the person’s Twitter messages. Third, searches for flight information come with a digital travel adviser that suggests whether ticket prices will likely go up or down in coming weeks.
Perhaps the new Visual Search shows off this focus most clearly. It’s attractive, clever, useful, yet only works with 50 search terms.
Read entire post | Comments (one comment)
Google Chrome OS: Why should people switch?
By Andrew Heining | 11.20.09
Will you be using Chrome OS a year from now?
At the Web-based operating system’s coming-out party at Google headquarters on Thursday, Google presented its vision of Chrome, and a huge amount of information on what the browser and operating system are based on, how they run, and the safeguards in place to ensure they run well. But missing in all of that, at least to this observer, was a clear exposition of how Google plans to get users onboard – in essence, the hook.
Now, to be fair, we’re a year off – Google vice president of product management Sundar Pichai stressed as much before launching into the thinking behind Chrome. But after all was said about Chrome (and boy, there was a lot said in the hour and 20 minute-long presentation) we’re left with one big question: Why?
The answer to the first why – “Why is Google pushing this and investing so much?” – is pretty simple: Advertising. A super-fast, Web-geared operating system is the smoothest road online to Google ads.
But the other why – “Why should I use it?” – is a bit harder to pin down. If there were some killer something, we could see it. A really sleek device like the mythic Apple tablet – or better yet, a free one – would do the trick. But Google’s revelation, that Chrome will run on just a select list of netbooks to start, and that it would be aimed primarily at the secondary PC market, has us scratching our heads. People upgrade from, say, a Ford Escort to a Mustang for the horsepower, from a Corolla to a Prius for the gas mileage. What’s going to make folks ditch Windows or Mac OS X for Chrome? It can’t just be Chrome’s touted speed, can it?
Many people don’t like changing browsers, let alone operating systems, yet Google expects them to jump to one that does away with such basics as local storage, offline access to data, and the familiar interface they’re used to? Yikes.
Google is first to admit that many things need to fall into place for Chrome OS to appeal more than just a niche audience – and many are already in motion. Netbooks need to continue their rise in popularity, phones need to continue their trend toward mini computers. HTML5 and its peripheral-tapping power needs to be more thoroughly hashed out and developed. Desktop apps need to be turned into Web apps.
And most important of all, the cloud, the backbone of Chrome and any apps that would run on it, needs to become more trustworthy. (Imagine what your computer would resemble if an outage like the ones that recently struck Flickr, GMail, and Twitter hit the Google cloud – a svelte paperweight comes to mind.)
Many in the tech world are skeptical over whether Chrome OS can meet its lofty goals, but one thing’s for sure: if Google can pull them off, it will have engineered a revolution in the way people think of computers.
––
What’s your take? Are you excited about the prospect of using Google Chrome OS? Put off by its limited specs or supported devices? Leave a comment or join the conversation on Twitter – we’re @CSMHorizonsBlog.
Read entire post | Comments (no comments)
Forget the fangs. It’s spam that should really scare ‘Twilight’ fans.
By Matthew Shaer | 11.19.09
Fans of “Twilight” and “New Moon” already have plenty to be scared about – vampires, werewolves, a swirling debate over the feminist values of Stephenie Meyer’s hit series.
But what about malware? According to reports from the around the Internet this morning, the Twihard set was recently targeted by a group of online scammers, who sought to profit off the “New Moon” hype.
Here’s how it went down: If you searched for “Stephenie Meyer” on Google yesterday, one of the results that popped up was a listing for “Stephenie Meyer at 365Multimedia.com.” Sounds fairly innocuous. Clicking on the link launched a security scan, which told users that their computer was at risk of malware infestation.
Of course the whole thing was a scam, and those unlucky enough to click through the prompts were asked to purchase a cleanup program for $80.
80 bucks! That’s a lot of movie theater tickets. Or a lot of copies of Stephenie Meyer’s books. Either way – it’s a bad way to lose a hefty chunk of change.
So how can you avoid falling prey to this kind of stuff in the future? In an interview earlier this year, Dave Marcus, director of security research and communication at McAfee Avert Labs, told the Monitor that the best precaution is common sense. Don’t click on strange links, and don’t download anything from an unfamiliar website.
Marcus also suggested a list of precautions all users should follow: run regular antivirus scans; invest in prepackaged security suites marketed by companies such as Symantec, McAfee Avert, and Panda; pay attention to site advisories, and track reports of new viruses.
And stuff some garlic in your shirt sleeves.
On a unrelated note, Robert Pattinson, one of the stars of “New Moon,” recently told a reporter that the “Twilight” series was like a “virus.” Ha. Anyway, drop us a line on Twitter. We’re @CSMHorizonsBlog.
Read entire post | Comments (one comment)
Modern Warfare helps buoy Q3 profits at GameStop
By Matthew Shaer | 11.19.09
The success of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the new first-person shooter published by Activision, has reportedly helped boost profits for the most popular video game retailer in the US. According to the Associated Press, sales rose to $1.83 billion in the most recent quarter at GameStop.
That’s a sizable increase over the $1.7 billion figure from the same time last year. More important, it’s hope for the video game industry at large, which has struggled to fight its way out of a prolonged sales slump. In an interview with the AP, GameStop CEO Daniel DeMatteo said that Modern Warfare 2 could presage a turnaround in industry health.
“We are optimistic that the huge success of this game will serve as a bellwether for what we can expect for the remainder of our holiday game sales,” DeMatteo said.
It’s a lot to put on one game’s shoulders, but as we’ve reported recently, Modern Warfare 2 has shattered several sales records, including the one for most successful launch in entertainment history. Modern Warfare 2 sold 4.7 million copies in the first 24 hours in the US and the UK, raking in $310 million. By comparison, “The Dark Knight” made only $155 million in its opening weekend. More people saw that movie than played Modern Warfare 2, but dollars are dollars.
For its part, GameStop announced it had unloaded 2.5 million copies of Modern Warfare 2 within 72 hours of the game’s release, breaking the previous company record.
Meanwhile, Activision says Modern Warfare 2 grossed $550 million in worldwide sales since last week’s launch – another entertainment industry record. The Los Angeles Times, citing a source at Activision, reports that 8 million copies of the game have been sold; analysts expect that at least another 10 million games will be eventually be unloaded.
“The title’s success redefines entertainment as millions of consumers have chosen to play Modern Warfare 2 at unprecedented levels rather than engage in other forms of media,” Activision CEO Bobby Kotick said in a statement yesterday.
Have you had a chance to play Modern Warfare 2? Drop a line in the comments section, or find us on Twitter.
Read entire post | Comments (one comment)
Google phone rumors put damper on Droid buzz
By Matthew Shaer | 11.18.09
As if we weren’t already buried in Android buzz.
A week after Verizon Wireless rolled out the Droid, a smartphone manufactured by Motorola and powered by Google’s Android operating system, one blogger is reporting that Google is prepping its very own Android handset. According to the estimable Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, the Google phone could hit shelves as early as the first months of 2010, just in time to mop up the post-holiday traffic.
Here’s Arrington on the Google phone, which will reportedly be sold directly through retailers:
They were long planning to have the phone be available by the holidays, but it has now slipped to early 2010. The phone will be produced by a major phone manufacturer but will only have Google branding (Microsoft did the same thing with their first Zunes, which were built by Toshiba). There won’t be any negotiation or compromise over the phone’s design of features – Google is dictating every last piece of it. No splintering of the Android OS that makes some applications unusable. Like the iPhone for Apple, this phone will be Google’s pure vision of what a phone should be.
This is potentially ground-breaking news, and it didn’t take long before the blogosphere was bandying around Google phone rumors at a terrifying velocity. But let’s take a step back. What would a Google phone really mean? Well, for one, it would be a major buzz kill for Verizon Wireless.
According to media tracking firm Flurry, more than 250,000 people picked up a Droid handset last week – a major-league kick-off, no matter which way you slice it. And early tests of the Droid have been pretty positive, with reviewers praising the Droid’s navigation capabilities, its full QWERTY keyboard, and its suite of web applications.
A Google phone, presumably, would run roughshod all over Verizon’s plans for world domination. It would also add to the congestion in an already crowded market. Palm is busy pushing its Pixi and its Pre, while Apple is rumored to be rolling out a cheaper iPhone. Then there’s the BlackBerry Storm, to say nothing of phones such as the Motorola Cliq.
Still, the Google phone, which Arrington says could be manufactured by LG or Samsung, would have enough cache to cut through the noise. The bigger question is whether Google wants to get into the hardware game. In a much-discussed interview with the New York Times, Palm CEO Jon Rubinstein suggested that a good smartphone is product of synergy – something Google can certainly provide.
“The companies that will deliver the best products are the ones that integrate the whole experience — the hardware, the software and the services — and aren’t getting one piece from here and one piece from there and trying to bolt it all together,” Rubinstein said.
Of course, it’s possible that the Google phone is only a big, fat rumor. Over at PC World, JR Raphael cautions readers to have some patience. “Here’s the truth: Google may very well have something like this in the works,” Raphael writes. “It strikes many in the tech industry as unlikely – but hey, anything’s possible. The point, however, is that contrary to what many reports are implying, we simply don’t know.”
Drop us a line here, or on Twitter, @CSMHorizonsBlog.
