[crazygringo]

> Lock-in for search engines should be near zero and yet people won't bother switching to or even trying potentially better options.

What are you talking about? People use Google because they choose it.

They change search from the Bing default as one of the first things they do on a new machine.

For most users there isn't anything better than Google. The niche search needs that might lead a HN user to an alternative engine don't apply.

[famouswaffles]

>What are you talking about? People use Google because they choose it. They change search from the Bing default as one of the first things they do on a new machine. For most users there isn't anything better than Google. The niche search needs that might lead a HN user to an alternative engine don't apply.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand with what i'm saying? You think the users changing the default from Bing did so after a lengthy evaluation of quality ? No, they did it because they're used to Google. It's that simple. It's not even about whether google is truly the best or not.

[crazygringo]

> No, they did it because they're used to Google. It's that simple. It's not even about whether google is truly the best or not.

Except it's not. Remember how everyone switched to Altavista in 1996 because it was so much better? Remember how Yahoo took over in 1999 because it was so much better? Remember how people switched to Google in 2003 because it was so much better?

History shows people actually do switch search engines when there's a better one. And they do so quickly. I mean, look at how quickly people adopted ChatGPT for some of the things they used to do with Google!

They're not switching away from Google now for regular serach simply because there isn't a better one for most people.

You have zero evidence for claiming it's because they're "used to Google". People didn't stay with Altavista or Yahoo because they were "used to them". So why would that be any different for Google? The answer it that it's not.

[avgd]

I say this as someone who has tried to switch away from google many times because I dislike google as a company : there is no better search engine out there. There hasn't been for as long as google has existed. Every time I make something like bing or yandex my default search engine I end up getting frustrated with a niche search and type google.com and after typing google.com too many times I get fed up and bring it back as default.

And the two competing search engines I mentioned are pretty much all there is. Other names like duckduckgo aren't real search engines, they are just a frontend for another search engine (DDG uses bing). There just isn't many out there willing to front the bill for crawling and indexing the whole web.

People trying to explain away google's success solely from a marketing standpoint are arguing from bad faith.

[famouswaffles]

>Except it's not. Remember how everyone switched to Altavista in 1996 because it was so much better? Remember how Yahoo took over in 1999 because it was so much better? Remember how people switched to Google in 2003 because it was so much better?

You already have the answer here you said it 3 times - 'so much better'. People switched because it was 'so much better'. Not on par, not slightly better, just so ahead of the competition, it became a talking point all on its own.

If this mass isn't reached then why would you switch ? How would you even know that Search Engine 26 is quite a bit better for most of your queries ?

Do you genuinely think most people are performing lengthy evaluations before they switch default back to google ? so how do they know Bing or whatever isn't better for them ? The answer is that they don't. And it doesn't matter because unless something blows it out of the water and gets people talking then people will not switch.

Familiarity and Trust is basically branding and that's a huge reason people stay on platforms even when there are no network effects.

[crazygringo]

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say anymore. Your original comment was:

> Lock-in for search engines should be near zero and yet people won't bother switching to or even trying potentially better options. At the end of the day, people don't leave what they are used to easily.

Now you're admitting people do switch when something else is much better. And they do so easily. Which was my point.

So I think we agree then?

(And no, people aren't individually trying out 26 search engines. But experts in these things do, and they write articles and post YouTube videos etc. when a new search engine is better, and then people try it out and switch if it really is better. Surely you don't think people should be wasting their time personally comparing every new minor search engine entrant?)

[famouswaffles]

>Now you're admitting people do switch when something else is much better. And they do so easily. Which was my point.

I'm saying people don't bother trying potentially better options and that they don't easily leave what they are used to. What part of that statement implies they would never leave for a much better product? I'm genuinely baffled.

>But experts in these things do

Yeah.. experts in...search engines? Lol. Those guys aren't making videos for marginally better products and even if they are, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

If it was as simple as better model > gets all the users then Anthropic Usage wouldn't still be dwarfed by GPT.

Network Effects are not the only thing that creates stickiness for customers.

[crazygringo]

> I'm saying people don't bother trying potentially better options and that they don't easily leave what they are used to. What part of that statement implies they would never leave for a much better product? I'm genuinely baffled.

The part where you say "they don't easily leave what they are used to".

They do. They leave, easily, when there's a better product. As I gave examples of. I don't know what further evidence you could want. You're positing some supposed stickiness that simply doesn't exist. You've given no evidence of it.