|
|
|
|
|
|
by crazygringo
1024 days ago
|
|
|
> So in this case they are no longer competing on product quality, but on distribution. Incorrect. Quality is a moving target as search gets better. Competition is in quality and distribution. If Google stops improving and lets Bing move ahead on quality, it'll be dead. Witness the recent worries about incorporating LLM's into search. > Furthermore no one, including Microsoft, is going to risk $20B on overcoming Google's brand preference. Earlier this year there were reports that Samsung was considering switching to Bing, and it was suggested there was a similar $3B contract involved. So of course Microsoft is in the same game, and it's quite obvious that Google wouldn't be paying these sums at all if Microsoft weren't willing to offer something as well (but keeps getting outbid). E.g. if Google weren't paying Apple $20B, it's quite likely that Microsoft would be paying Apple $15B instead. One of them would be. |
|
|
My point was that paying to be the default is not enough. A challenger needs to also overcome the brand preference has built. A one-time investment of $20B (or even $3B) would be wasted. A true competitor would have to be in this for the long haul and willing to outbid Google for many years. Additionally they'd need to invest in building their brand image against Google which would be expensive and risky.
> Samsung was considering switching to Bing
Great case in point. Samsung (not Bing) backed out of this "over concerns of how it could affect its relationship with Google and the market’s perception of the move" [https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730368/samsung-google-b...]
Demonstrates that its not just money that is required to compete with Google.