> Giannandrea wasn't impressed by that, nor Bing's lack of local language coverage in markets Apple cared about, nor the poor progress Microsoft had made improving the search engine since the two tech giants previously discussed search preferences during 2015 and 2016.<p>Sounds like they had much more valid reasons than Bing being wrong about Annie Lennox's first band to me.
<p><pre><code> Giannandrea's testimony, as recorded in the filing, also states: "Microsoft was willing to sell Bing, which you wouldn't do if it was a strategic asset."
</code></pre>
I think safe to say, it wasn't only about Annie Lennox. Even Microsoft knew they had a turd on their hands.
I don’t get this: “Privacy-centric search engine DuckDuckGo, the filing alleges, sometimes preferred to funnel fresh sources of funding to investors rather than improve its own service.”<p>They are using cash flow to pay dividends to investors?
> Privacy-centric search engine DuckDuckGo, the filing alleges, sometimes preferred to funnel fresh sources of funding to investors rather than improve its own service.
I'll never understand why Microsoft, with all their resources, never made Bing a better search engine.<p>They don't have to be conservative. It's not their only cash cow. They can experiment.<p>Instead, they opted to nearly copy Google's UI and leave it at that.<p>I think they would have done a lot better if they invested in a separate company and gave them freedom + lots of resources, like they did with OpenAI.
As someone unfamiliar with how these sorts of proceedings work, how are the statements in the linked filing from competitors/ other companies in the space sourced? Is it discovery done on competitors as part of the defense case, existing public statements, sourced from previous public filings, something different entirely?
The headline is misleading and destructive to discourse by inaccurately simplifying Apple's rejection of Bing to a single, trivial issue, neglecting the broader, critical reasons such as Bing's inadequate local language support and lack of significant improvements. I'm SO tired of headline writers (AND the people who only read headlines).
I imagine that for MS pushing Bing to Apple could be beneficial even for free:). This would force Apple to use their own search engine instead of working with Google, thus hurting both Google and Apple.
So it's natural that the deal didn't happen, I am sure people who make decisions in Apple are very smart and experienced ones.
>The thrust of the filing is that Google invested a lot to make its search service excellent, while rivals never succeeded in attempts to match it – so Google is not a ruthless monopolist, but a restless innovator. Even the presence of Google search in Android and Chrome, the filing argues, did not preclude competition.<p>Or others gave up on innovating because Google is a ruthless monopolist and would kill it either way. Happened to Edge.