J_RaD
msg:4023598 | 7:11 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
great! I actually use wolfram for math answers
|
sem4u
msg:4023646 | 9:14 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Wolfram Alpha was a great acquisition for Bing/Microsoft, and could well help form the making of a great search engine. I am looking forward to seeing some of the live results from this.
|
davidof
msg:4023647 | 9:25 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
They just need to integrate Google's results now and they might have a half decent search engine.
|
sem4u
msg:4023672 | 10:19 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Ha ha, well I think they will become more commercial than Google...going by what I have seen in their commercials.
|
Seb7
msg:4023680 | 10:55 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
wow. Wolfram Alpha is a sophisticated engine. Wish Google bought it. I cant see how Google will keep up with this.
|
robzilla
msg:4023691 | 11:38 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
It's a licensing deal, not an acquisition.
|
Todorovic
msg:4023778 | 2:46 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I think about this , good move from Microsoft
|
bwakkie
msg:4023789 | 3:05 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
So google could still buy it ;-)
|
J_RaD
msg:4023817 | 3:44 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
They just need to integrate Google's results now and they might have a half decent search engine
|
|
and what is wrong with bings results? They seem good to me.
|
sem4u
msg:4023824 | 3:57 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| It's a licensing deal, not an acquisition. |
|
Sorry, my mistake there.
|
Copeland
msg:4023952 | 6:39 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Unfortunately the quality of search engine results is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of users. People don't use Google because it has better search results but because Google is synonymous with search. Using Google for search is a habit -an instinct at this point- and not a conscious decision. It won't matter if another company delivers better search results with a new search engine unless people want something better or different. The market is not demanding that of search. What matters is that another company redefines what search is and makes Google look passé. If/when this ever happens, Google will lose market share faster than they can spend money.
|
ciaoenrico
msg:4024059 | 8:52 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I agree with Copeland - if Microsoft wants to really take any market share from Google, they'll first need to show the market what better search results should look like. THEN they'll have to show the market that Bing actually has them. That's why they launched with all that "decission engine" nonsense. It was a way to get around having to compete in the marketplace as a search engine. (Which, of course, Bing is.)
|
rros
msg:4024615 | 8:51 pm on Nov 13, 2009 (gmt 0) |
> What matters is that another company redefines what search is and makes Google look passé. ...redifining search. Copeland, what an interesting and profound post. Thanks. Providing the typical 10 listings on 1st page does not fit the concept of redefintion. Perhaps a complete overhaul is needed.
|
kapow
msg:4024870 | 12:15 pm on Nov 14, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Sadly quality is not the main market drive, exposure moves markets more than quality. Remember where Google came from? Google gained exposure from appearing on Yahoo, THEN the market noticed their quality. Perhaps WA will get noticed now.
|
|
