News - Google breached your privacy, so use Bing, says Microsoft

[dangel]

True, but I say "I'm going to do the Hoovering" .... and then I use Sebo to do it.

I haven't used a Hoover to hoover in about 30 years.

It's the first company to do something successfully that spawns the ingrained verb - arguably google were the first to do search really well and the competition couldn't compete. That's no longer true but "google" is now part of our language and therefore is very difficult to get people to look at alternatives (even if measurably better). This was also true of the hoover - but being a paid product people will consider cheaper alternatives or even something more expensive if it's a lot better (e.g. dyson) - but it's on cost where the analogy breaks because search engines are (to the end user anyway) basically free (arguements about advertising and privacy aside). If google is free and bing is free - why would people bother looking at bing if they're already "googling"?

[KrisWragg]

Also "binging" just doesn't sound right to me, "googling" seems to work OK though. I can't imagine using the the phrase "I'll just go bing it" or "I'm binging it just now"

[dangel]

Also "binging" just doesn't sound right to me, "googling" seems to work OK though. I can't imagine using the the phrase "I'll just go bing it" or "I'm binging it just now"

Neither did "google" once upon a time but I do agree - "bing" isn't as catchy by far.

I'll just go bing the wife..

[KrisWragg]

Neither did "google" once upon a time but I do agree - "bing" isn't as catchy by far.

I'll just go bing the wife..

I get where you're coming from, but bing definitely doesn't seem to work as well as google Still, I think bing probably works better than altavista Also... would you "go ask it" or "go jeeves it" ? ... although that one is also very redundant!

[dangel]

I always figured that "ask jeeves" was for the American market - where they think we all talk like toffs off faulty towers

[KrisWragg]

I never quite "got" ask jeeves, it wasn't really useful and I guess thats why it is pretty much dead! I quite like the quirkiness of Wolfram Alpha though, plus it allows you to "go wolf it"

[Saracen]

It's the first company to do something successfully that spawns the ingrained verb - arguably google were the first to do search really well and the competition couldn't compete. That's no longer true but "google" is now part of our language and therefore is very difficult to get people to look at alternatives (even if measurably better). This was also true of the hoover - but being a paid product people will consider cheaper alternatives or even something more expensive if it's a lot better (e.g. dyson) - but it's on cost where the analogy breaks because search engines are (to the end user anyway) basically free (arguements about advertising and privacy aside). If google is free and bing is free - why would people bother looking at bing if they're already "googling"?

Sorry for the delayed response. I missed the thread.

I agree entirely with the first bit (ingrained into language, etc).

Also agree about people looking at alternatives, if they can get the same but cheaper, or even bettter though more expensive.

We part company, though, over putting advertising and privacy "aside". My perspective is that money is not the only form of price, and privacy, or lack thereof, has a value.

What does vary, a lot, and I suspect I'm quite a long way down one end of the range, is the value we each put on privacy. For instance, I will not use store "reward" cards. I had one, years ago, until I woke up and twigged what they were about, and then I shredded it. Have never had another one since, from anyone, and never will. Why? Simply .... privacy.

Clearly, the "price" of that decision is foregoing the discounts, probably £100 or more, per year, I would have got from the "reward".

So, clearly, I'm willing, as a result of an explicitly considered decision, to pay £100 (or, in fact, more than that) simply to "buy" an element of protection of privacy. Or to reverse that, I'm not prepared to sell my privacy to Tesco, or any other shop, for anything like such a paltry sum as £100 .... and no, I'm not wealthy enough to write off £100 as trivial, but my privacy is much more valuable to me than that.

But I go further than that. Most things, I deliberately buy locally rather than online. Convenience is one reason, because it avoids hassle with couriers, but privacy is another. If I buy locally, I can pay in cash. Not using a credit, or debit, card makes it far harder, if not impossible, for a supermarket (or bank or credit card company, for that matter) to track my expenditure, and what they can't track, they can't data warehouse or data mine. So, I end up often paying higher prices simply to buy locally. The same reasoning applies to using Quidco, etc. I could save money, but as a conscious decision, will not. Why? Because privacy is more important to me, for most things, than the difference in cost or the nominal sums in discount from reward cards or Quidco.

I will often even go as far as buying expensive items in specific stores, like John Lewis, and forego both the (sometimes) cheaper online prices and the protection from consumer law in using a credit card because I can pay cash, and will risk relying on good customer services from stores like JL and risk losing even that if I lose the receipt, so I make sure I don't lose it.

I rather suspect, as I said, I'm at the far end of the spectrum in how far I'll go to protect privacy. But the above should make clear, privacy, and avoiding getting any more data in these nosy corporation's intrusive databases than I absolutely have to, has a very definite monetary value to me. I go out of my way, both in cash and effort, to protect that.

[Saracen]

It's the first company to do something successfully that spawns the ingrained verb - arguably google were the first to do search really well and the competition couldn't compete. That's no longer true but "google" is now part of our language and therefore is very difficult to get people to look at alternatives (even if measurably better). This was also true of the hoover - but being a paid product people will consider cheaper alternatives or even something more expensive if it's a lot better (e.g. dyson) - but it's on cost where the analogy breaks because search engines are (to the end user anyway) basically free (arguements about advertising and privacy aside). If google is free and bing is free - why would people bother looking at bing if they're already "googling"?

To go back to my original post, though, I wasn't so much suggesting thait we'd get people to start saying they'll "bing" something, any more than I "Sebo" the carpet. I might vacuum the carpet, but more likely I'll "Hoover" it .... with a Sebo. Similarly, I might say I'll Google something, but that's far from meaning I'll actually use Google to do my Googling.

I probably ought to be googling, rather than Googling, though.