You probably just search for some linux or other geeky stuff. There's no money in that so marketers don't target it. Normal people don't search stuff like that, most often they might search for products or some news. Google is full of junk with stuff like that, while Bing is not.

That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others. Google favors their news service, maps, YouTube, shopping and every other service over others. Bing returns results objectively.

There are also differences in algorithms. Bing doesn't count so called junk-links while Google does. Bing prefers link inside good, relevant content. Google, on the other hand, counts all kinds of links. That's also why Google is full of shitty results, as SEO spammers game the system by spamming links to blog comments and every other place where they can get it. As Bing doesn't count those links almost at all it means their results are much more cleaner.

The problem Bing is facing is that they cannot get as much user data from searchers as Google. They miss a lot of long-tail keyword data that Google gets just because of their dominant market share. They also miss a lot of data of what result user thinks is relevant and good for the search query (both Google and Bing track which result user clicks on) and how much they spend on the site (both services again track if you return back from that result - if you come back quickly, it's obviously worthless result for the query). This is also the same reason why Bing toolbar gathers that data on users who use Google - the same thing that somehow got twisted in slashdotters heads as Bing scraping and stealing results from Google. The only thing they do is collect that click data.

Judging by the usual slashdot response of "but they should just improve their algorithms", people don't seem to get how immersively complex current search engines and their algorithms are. It's not just about following links on other websites - we have been past that for almost 10 years now. Algorithms are the base of the search engine, but they're almost worthless without all the keyword and usage data that really powers them. That is also why Google is so keen to collect every single piece of information they can get their hands on.

Microsoft has done a lot of things correctly with Bing. I would say their algorithms are even better than Google's, as they're able to compete with much smaller market share and data against Google and actually provide better results. It has come a long way from the Windows Live Search days.

This after Google themself take a broad patent like this?

Patents are a bad idea and everyone is just getting them to sue other companies.

They aren't paid forever, patents last for 20 years.

You know, someone has to do research and invent those things. You can't just copy everything off someone else. If you look at past and current communist countries you can see they're not exactly the most advantageous countries in the world, especially without copying things from other countries where they are first developed. I agree that some of the patent issues are completely ridiculous, but removing the patent system (and in a slightly related note copyright system) creates more problems than it solves. People should just try to find the best balance.

Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.

Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android. Companies stupidly believed the whole free hype and are only now starting to realize that they would actually need to pay something for Android. When you license a mobile OS from other provides, for example from Nokia or Microsoft, all the relevant patents to the OS are included within the deal, the costs are known upfront and it's just simpler. They can only blame themself for not seeing thru the Google marketing.

Narcism isn't a personality disorder. There are many good things it brings to a person. You could just as well say that anyone with good self-esteem is narcistic. People seem to make up "disorders" for every kind of behavior nowadays..

There also weren't any ActiveX standards, but people still seemed to hate when Microsoft added non-standard features to IE. Just when we seemed to get a standard web browsing experience Google comes in and starts adding its own features. Soon were back to the web where one site works with one browser and another site works with other and you have to switch between browsers.

It's Visual Studio. Intellisense is the autocompletion feature...

Why would it be replacing Javascript? It's just for those situations where you want to run something that needs better hardware access, like games. Judging by the documentation it doesn't even have access to the DOM. Besides, I don't think other browsers will be implementing it anytime soon. It's just another Chrome-only thing they're adding to try to break compatibility.

It's currently in use in USA and Canada. Stop acting like North America is the whole world.

Now that's just idiotic comparison. Cost of steel, labor and know-how is a fixed cost. You pay it, you get it. The data that Google has compared to competitors can't be bought.

I would personally hate if someone always called me about every mundane detail in their life. I have lots of things to do, I don't want to chit-chat in phone unless it's actually something important. However I can go to Facebook when I have time and most of my friends (you know, you can choose them and even ignore the real life friends who spam shit) post only interesting or fun stuff. Besides, how do you show photos via phone?

Social networks aren't the problem here, they're really good especially if you know people from several parts of the world or travel a lot. You just have to use them correctly.

Yahoo doesn't completely use Bing yet. They announced the transition in 2009 but it will happen by the next year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search