1 00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:12,360 Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 2 00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:15,960 Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland. 3 00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:19,279 Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the 4 00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:23,680 Speaker 1: tech are you So. On May twenty eight, two thousand 5 00:00:23,680 --> 00:00:28,200 Speaker 1: and nine, Microsoft's CEO, who at that time was Steve 6 00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:33,760 Speaker 1: Developers Developers Developers Ballmer, appeared at the All Things Digital 7 00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:39,840 Speaker 1: conference to announce the company's new search engine BING. Previously, 8 00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:44,920 Speaker 1: Microsoft's search tool was called Live Search, but like just 9 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:48,360 Speaker 1: about any company not named Google, Microsoft was kind of 10 00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:52,159 Speaker 1: fighting for scraps now. At that time, Google boasted a 11 00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:57,200 Speaker 1: sixty four point two percent market share for search. Yahoo 12 00:00:57,440 --> 00:01:01,680 Speaker 1: took second place with twenty point four percent. Live Search 13 00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:04,959 Speaker 1: was quietly in the corner with just eight point two 14 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:08,319 Speaker 1: percent of the market share. Now that's according to CNN's 15 00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:12,759 Speaker 1: David Goldman, who wrote about bing's announcement back in two 16 00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:16,280 Speaker 1: thousand and nine. To be fair, Google had a heck 17 00:01:16,319 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 1: of a head start on Microsoft in the search department. 18 00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:25,080 Speaker 1: Google Search initially launched in September nineteen ninety eight, and 19 00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:29,360 Speaker 1: Microsoft didn't introduce the beta for Live Search until March 20 00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:32,200 Speaker 1: of two thousand and six. Though the company had toyed 21 00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:36,080 Speaker 1: with search earlier after acquiring the live dot com site 22 00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:39,480 Speaker 1: in two thousand and five, and had in fact introduced 23 00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:44,559 Speaker 1: ms in search in nineteen ninety nine, but that one 24 00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:49,200 Speaker 1: was powered by a third party search provider. It wasn't 25 00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:53,880 Speaker 1: Microsoft actually powering the search tools. Well. Google rose quickly 26 00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:57,480 Speaker 1: in the ranks of search engines, largely because Google's page 27 00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:01,520 Speaker 1: erank system seemed to have an almost supernatural knack for 28 00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:04,480 Speaker 1: returning the best search results at the top of the list. 29 00:02:04,920 --> 00:02:08,760 Speaker 1: Google was quick to adjust its approach to mitigate web 30 00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:11,200 Speaker 1: designers who used every trick in the book to try 31 00:02:11,200 --> 00:02:15,120 Speaker 1: and fool search engines into listing their sites. For example, 32 00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:19,400 Speaker 1: in ye olden days, a common ruse was to dump 33 00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:23,560 Speaker 1: a dictionary's worth of search terms onto a web page, 34 00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:26,080 Speaker 1: and usually you would do it in very very tiny 35 00:02:26,400 --> 00:02:28,760 Speaker 1: text at the bottom of the page. Sometimes you would 36 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:31,560 Speaker 1: just change the text color to match the background of 37 00:02:31,600 --> 00:02:33,880 Speaker 1: the web page so that people couldn't even see that 38 00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:36,400 Speaker 1: there was text down there, and it would just be 39 00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:40,200 Speaker 1: a pit of seemingly random words. But the goal was 40 00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:43,680 Speaker 1: to get a hit on search engines that were crawling 41 00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:46,280 Speaker 1: the web, that were just looking for pages that contain 42 00:02:46,440 --> 00:02:50,320 Speaker 1: certain search query terms, and sure visitors to that page 43 00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:53,320 Speaker 1: were almost certain to get frustrated when they saw that 44 00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:56,960 Speaker 1: the thing they were looking for wasn't there. But that 45 00:02:57,000 --> 00:03:00,000 Speaker 1: didn't really matter. What mattered was getting that page view 46 00:03:00,280 --> 00:03:03,240 Speaker 1: count up so that you could sell ads on the page, 47 00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:09,800 Speaker 1: because capitalism. Anyway. Google had been growing its influence in 48 00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:13,640 Speaker 1: the search market for years by the time Microsoft launched 49 00:03:13,720 --> 00:03:16,960 Speaker 1: Live Search in two thousand and six, and this wasn't 50 00:03:17,040 --> 00:03:19,480 Speaker 1: just a case of Microsoft wanting to take a step 51 00:03:19,639 --> 00:03:23,960 Speaker 1: from Google's milkshake. In fact, it was more like the opposite, 52 00:03:24,040 --> 00:03:26,480 Speaker 1: because since two thousand and three, at least according to 53 00:03:26,680 --> 00:03:31,280 Speaker 1: Fortune magazine, Bill Gates, the co founder and former CEO 54 00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:34,280 Speaker 1: of Microsoft, was starting to get a real bad feeling 55 00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:38,280 Speaker 1: about Google. He noticed that Google had been advertising job 56 00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:41,120 Speaker 1: positions that sounded a lot more like a company that 57 00:03:41,200 --> 00:03:45,160 Speaker 1: was looking to get into OS design operating system design 58 00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:47,720 Speaker 1: rather than just you know, staying in their lane and 59 00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:52,080 Speaker 1: focusing on search. Gates sniffed out a potential competitor, and 60 00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:55,120 Speaker 1: it was a competitor that was building up momentum, and 61 00:03:55,160 --> 00:03:58,240 Speaker 1: that was something he didn't like very much. Now you 62 00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:01,400 Speaker 1: might think that what I'm in applying is that Bill 63 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:05,120 Speaker 1: Gates doesn't like competition. Let me be clear, I believe 64 00:04:05,160 --> 00:04:08,400 Speaker 1: Bill Gates loves competition because he loves the feeling of 65 00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:13,920 Speaker 1: squashing competition out of existence, either through acquiring the competitor or, 66 00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:19,040 Speaker 1: if possible, making some deals that absolutely destroy the competitor. Now, 67 00:04:19,080 --> 00:04:21,719 Speaker 1: maybe I'm off base. Maybe my perception of Bill Gates 68 00:04:21,880 --> 00:04:25,160 Speaker 1: and his approach to business is not at all accurate, 69 00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,839 Speaker 1: but it sure does feel right to me. But back 70 00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:32,360 Speaker 1: to web search. So Steven Sinofsky, who was head of 71 00:04:32,440 --> 00:04:37,200 Speaker 1: Windows as well as the Office suite of Productivity Software, 72 00:04:37,480 --> 00:04:40,839 Speaker 1: wrote a book last year. It was published. It was 73 00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:44,640 Speaker 1: titled Hardcore Software Inside the Rise and Fall of the 74 00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:48,719 Speaker 1: PC Revolution, And in that book, among lots and lots 75 00:04:48,760 --> 00:04:51,480 Speaker 1: of other stories, he talks about the early days of 76 00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:56,080 Speaker 1: Microsoft getting into web search. Sinofsky would be included in 77 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,520 Speaker 1: the web search team after it had already formed and 78 00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:03,360 Speaker 1: had built to prototype version of the search tool. Christopher Pain, 79 00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:06,919 Speaker 1: who would become VP of Windows Live Search, pitched the 80 00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:10,400 Speaker 1: idea of a Microsoft search tool way back in February 81 00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:13,640 Speaker 1: two thousand and three. He didn't beat around the bush either. 82 00:05:13,800 --> 00:05:16,520 Speaker 1: He told his bosses that in order to build a 83 00:05:16,640 --> 00:05:19,479 Speaker 1: good search tool, one that could go toe to toe 84 00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:22,120 Speaker 1: with Google. It was going to take a huge investment, 85 00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:25,640 Speaker 1: like one hundred and fifty million bucks and a year 86 00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:28,920 Speaker 1: and a half of work at least, and that didn't 87 00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:32,400 Speaker 1: include the creation and maintenance of server farms that would 88 00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:35,600 Speaker 1: actually handle all the search traffic. But his pitch got 89 00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:39,360 Speaker 1: the thumbs up from his higher ups, and Project Underdog 90 00:05:39,800 --> 00:05:43,200 Speaker 1: was a go. So Christopher Pain then said upon the 91 00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:48,760 Speaker 1: launch of Live Search, quote, combined with the rich browsing 92 00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:53,560 Speaker 1: and integrated searching services delivered by Windows Live Toolbar and 93 00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:57,600 Speaker 1: Live dot com, the new search service offers customers the 94 00:05:57,640 --> 00:06:03,800 Speaker 1: next generation of unified services today, which doesn't mean much 95 00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:07,240 Speaker 1: on the surface, right, But some of those services that 96 00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:11,520 Speaker 1: Live Search would offer included the ability to preview search results, 97 00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:15,279 Speaker 1: to do image searches, and to create search macros to 98 00:06:15,400 --> 00:06:18,840 Speaker 1: customize the experience to the user. So if you had 99 00:06:18,880 --> 00:06:21,640 Speaker 1: a very particular way you wanted to go about searches, 100 00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,279 Speaker 1: you could create a macro for that and not have 101 00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:26,839 Speaker 1: to recreate it every single time you needed to use search. 102 00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:30,119 Speaker 1: But there was no question that Google was running away 103 00:06:30,160 --> 00:06:33,520 Speaker 1: with search, even as Microsoft argued that Live Search was 104 00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:37,080 Speaker 1: a more versatile tool than Google was. The hope was 105 00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:41,760 Speaker 1: that this new search engine, that Bing, which would replace 106 00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:45,800 Speaker 1: Live Search, would rise to the challenge and wrestle away 107 00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:50,039 Speaker 1: a good chunk of that dominant market position from Google. 108 00:06:50,520 --> 00:06:55,280 Speaker 1: Spoiler alert, that would not happen. So, according to stat counter, 109 00:06:55,760 --> 00:07:00,159 Speaker 1: Google currently enjoys an even more dominant position than it 110 00:07:00,160 --> 00:07:05,480 Speaker 1: did before. Right when Live Search debuted, Google held you know, 111 00:07:05,640 --> 00:07:10,800 Speaker 1: sixty four percent of the global market. Well, stat counter 112 00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:15,240 Speaker 1: says that Google today has around ninety percent of the 113 00:07:15,280 --> 00:07:18,440 Speaker 1: market share for web search and Bing has less than 114 00:07:18,480 --> 00:07:22,000 Speaker 1: five percent. Now, I should add that's from an analysis 115 00:07:22,040 --> 00:07:26,080 Speaker 1: of the market from just one company, and in previous 116 00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:29,200 Speaker 1: reporting in twenty twenty four, stat Counter indicated that Google 117 00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:31,960 Speaker 1: had actually taken a pretty massive hit in market share, 118 00:07:32,240 --> 00:07:35,920 Speaker 1: dropping as low as eighty six point five to eight percent. Now, 119 00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:39,120 Speaker 1: in an earlier report, that drop was even more drastic. 120 00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:42,320 Speaker 1: Stat Counter analyzed and said that it was down to 121 00:07:42,400 --> 00:07:46,040 Speaker 1: seventy seven point five to two percent. However, they later 122 00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:49,560 Speaker 1: revised that saying that that was an error. But even 123 00:07:49,600 --> 00:07:53,480 Speaker 1: at the lowest point, even with the error, like, let's 124 00:07:53,520 --> 00:07:56,440 Speaker 1: say that seventy seven point five two percent was actually accurate, 125 00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:00,640 Speaker 1: that's still higher than the market share Google enjoyed back 126 00:08:00,680 --> 00:08:03,680 Speaker 1: in two thousand and nine when Microsoft first announced BING. 127 00:08:03,880 --> 00:08:07,480 Speaker 1: So even if you say, yeah, Google took a big hit, 128 00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:11,760 Speaker 1: it's still higher market share than it had when Microsoft 129 00:08:11,840 --> 00:08:14,679 Speaker 1: was trying to take a swing at the king. Now. 130 00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:18,960 Speaker 1: Some thought that when Microsoft announced BING that it was 131 00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:22,920 Speaker 1: really just a rebranding of Live Search, that all Microsoft 132 00:08:22,920 --> 00:08:26,560 Speaker 1: had really done was collect the various features of Live 133 00:08:26,640 --> 00:08:30,600 Speaker 1: Search under a more unified approach and then rebranded it BING. 134 00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:34,280 Speaker 1: And from what I can tell, that's a fairly accurate 135 00:08:34,400 --> 00:08:37,920 Speaker 1: take on what had happened. Not that Microsoft didn't introduce 136 00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:41,680 Speaker 1: new features, but ultimately this was really an attempt to 137 00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:46,000 Speaker 1: have BING be memorable and to stand out because Live 138 00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:50,560 Speaker 1: Search just wasn't ringing in the ears of the web 139 00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:54,200 Speaker 1: denizens out there, and hopefully BING would be able to 140 00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:57,880 Speaker 1: attract curious users who would use it and then find 141 00:08:57,880 --> 00:09:02,120 Speaker 1: they preferred Microsoft's approach to Google's. According to a blog 142 00:09:02,160 --> 00:09:06,440 Speaker 1: post by trung fon Bing beat out the name Bang 143 00:09:06,960 --> 00:09:10,320 Speaker 1: as the actual name for the search tool, that Microsoft 144 00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:14,080 Speaker 1: had been debating between Bang and Bang, and that they 145 00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:17,920 Speaker 1: chose Bing because well, you know, we use Google as 146 00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:21,920 Speaker 1: a verb, right, Like I googled that for you? For example, 147 00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:27,079 Speaker 1: if people were to use bang as a verb that, well, 148 00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:31,120 Speaker 1: it's best we just leave that one alone. Plus Fn says, 149 00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:35,079 Speaker 1: some folks would argue that BING is actually an acronym. 150 00:09:35,360 --> 00:09:38,680 Speaker 1: I think this is playful. It's not really an acronym, 151 00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:42,600 Speaker 1: but folks enjoy saying it is that being stands for, 152 00:09:43,160 --> 00:09:47,640 Speaker 1: but it's not Google. Satya Nadella, who would later go 153 00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:50,480 Speaker 1: on to become CEO of the whole Ding dang dern 154 00:09:50,559 --> 00:09:54,400 Speaker 1: Company of Microsoft, was put in charge of the development 155 00:09:54,440 --> 00:09:57,200 Speaker 1: and launch of BING. He would then go on to 156 00:09:57,440 --> 00:10:02,280 Speaker 1: oversee cloud services before becoming ce of the overall company. Now, 157 00:10:02,280 --> 00:10:07,160 Speaker 1: in case you're curious, Statista has a different picture of 158 00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:11,000 Speaker 1: global web search market share in that as of January 159 00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:14,840 Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, it estimates Google holding nearly eighty two 160 00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:18,760 Speaker 1: percent of the market and being at a fairly nice 161 00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:22,000 Speaker 1: ten point five to one percent, so like double what 162 00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:26,760 Speaker 1: stat Counter had suggested. So, according to Statista, Microsoft has 163 00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:29,880 Speaker 1: actually made some gains in its overall market share by 164 00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:32,439 Speaker 1: switching from live Search to Bang as if you remember, 165 00:10:32,559 --> 00:10:36,600 Speaker 1: Live Search was hovering at around eight percent. However, since 166 00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:39,440 Speaker 1: Google also saw gains in that time, you could really 167 00:10:39,440 --> 00:10:42,439 Speaker 1: make the argument that Microsoft's bump did not come at 168 00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:48,360 Speaker 1: the cost of Google. Instead, Microsoft's bump came from Yahoo's decline. Anyway, 169 00:10:48,640 --> 00:10:52,160 Speaker 1: back to the announcement. At All Things Digital, Steve Baumer 170 00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:55,720 Speaker 1: took the stage and he claimed that quote BING enable 171 00:10:55,880 --> 00:10:59,160 Speaker 1: people to find information quickly and use the information they 172 00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:03,040 Speaker 1: found to accomp tasks and make smart decisions. End quote. 173 00:11:03,240 --> 00:11:06,280 Speaker 1: That is a direct quote. So that's why there's some 174 00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:09,679 Speaker 1: mangled syntax in there. I didn't misspeak, that's just what 175 00:11:09,760 --> 00:11:12,760 Speaker 1: Baumer said. But what he was saying is that BING 176 00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:15,800 Speaker 1: wasn't a search engine, not at all. It's not a 177 00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:19,880 Speaker 1: search engine. It was a decision engine. So what does 178 00:11:19,920 --> 00:11:22,920 Speaker 1: that mean, Well, I would argue it doesn't really mean 179 00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:27,080 Speaker 1: much of anything. Bing operates as a search engine, but 180 00:11:27,160 --> 00:11:30,560 Speaker 1: the implication here is that BING would return more relevant 181 00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:34,520 Speaker 1: results to queries and less junk and ads, so that 182 00:11:34,600 --> 00:11:37,000 Speaker 1: you would actually get the information you needed in order to, 183 00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:41,480 Speaker 1: you know, do something else to make a decision. He said, 184 00:11:41,559 --> 00:11:45,000 Speaker 1: this is what is relevant when you are searching for 185 00:11:45,080 --> 00:11:48,360 Speaker 1: something like People don't search just to search like they're 186 00:11:49,240 --> 00:11:51,839 Speaker 1: unless you're just really bored. You're not going onto a 187 00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,280 Speaker 1: search engine to search random topics. Typically you're searching for 188 00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:59,120 Speaker 1: a reason, and it's often so that you can make 189 00:11:59,160 --> 00:12:01,920 Speaker 1: a decision about out something. So that's I think what 190 00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:05,839 Speaker 1: he meant by a decision engine. This was the tool 191 00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:08,240 Speaker 1: you would use to get the information you needed in 192 00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:11,360 Speaker 1: order to make that decision. Now, that decision might be 193 00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:14,400 Speaker 1: related to, you know, searching for a restaurant or planning 194 00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:17,600 Speaker 1: a vacation, or doing a job search or something like that. 195 00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:21,760 Speaker 1: And the slogan that they used was bing and Decide. 196 00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:24,240 Speaker 1: There were a lot of jokes about being about the 197 00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:27,840 Speaker 1: name being, which typically happens in the tech sphere whenever 198 00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:32,640 Speaker 1: there's a new tech service or product introduced, Invariably there 199 00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:35,680 Speaker 1: are a lot of jokes made about whatever people decided 200 00:12:35,720 --> 00:12:40,920 Speaker 1: to name that thing. I'm thinking of, stuff like the iPad. Obviously, 201 00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:47,440 Speaker 1: Microsoft's own Zoon MP three player had a feature called 202 00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:50,880 Speaker 1: Squirt where you could share a music track with another 203 00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:53,800 Speaker 1: Zoom user, and I can't tell you how many jokes 204 00:12:53,840 --> 00:12:56,400 Speaker 1: were made about that. So yeah, there were a lot 205 00:12:56,440 --> 00:13:00,600 Speaker 1: of jokes being made quickly following this announcement. Now, initially 206 00:13:00,880 --> 00:13:05,320 Speaker 1: Bing's search offered four different flavors. If you will, you 207 00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:10,480 Speaker 1: could search in health, local businesses, travel, and purchases. So 208 00:13:10,600 --> 00:13:13,480 Speaker 1: at the get Go. It had a much more focused 209 00:13:13,520 --> 00:13:17,000 Speaker 1: approach to search, and the plan was always to expand 210 00:13:17,040 --> 00:13:20,160 Speaker 1: on this and not relegate BEING to some sort of 211 00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:23,400 Speaker 1: niche search engine that you'd only use for things like, 212 00:13:23,480 --> 00:13:27,120 Speaker 1: you know, shopping online or something, or needing to find 213 00:13:27,160 --> 00:13:30,280 Speaker 1: a doctor in your area. They wanted it to be 214 00:13:30,800 --> 00:13:36,120 Speaker 1: useful in all different realms, but they had specific subcategories 215 00:13:36,160 --> 00:13:39,679 Speaker 1: of search that would, in theory at least, really focus 216 00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:41,880 Speaker 1: the results on whatever it is you were looking for. 217 00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:45,520 Speaker 1: As Goldman pointed out in that CNN piece I mentioned earlier, 218 00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:49,120 Speaker 1: the tool was quote set up to organize search results 219 00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:52,040 Speaker 1: in relevant groups rather than as a series of links. 220 00:13:52,080 --> 00:13:55,120 Speaker 1: For instance, a search for flight to New York may 221 00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:59,319 Speaker 1: yield New York destinations like hotels, restaurants, and museums as 222 00:13:59,400 --> 00:14:03,680 Speaker 1: almost a guidebook page end quote. Presumably this was a 223 00:14:03,679 --> 00:14:06,480 Speaker 1: decision made not just to provide more utility to the 224 00:14:06,600 --> 00:14:11,080 Speaker 1: end user, but also to differentiate Being from Google. And 225 00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:15,600 Speaker 1: that's the beginning. We'll talk more about Microsoft and Being 226 00:14:15,800 --> 00:14:17,760 Speaker 1: in just a moment, but first let's take a quick 227 00:14:17,800 --> 00:14:30,920 Speaker 1: break to think our sponsors. We're back. Bing would present 228 00:14:31,200 --> 00:14:35,280 Speaker 1: the user with a pain called the explore pain. That's 229 00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:39,000 Speaker 1: pa in e and this pain would include a history 230 00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:42,440 Speaker 1: of searches and tools to navigate to specific results relating 231 00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:46,600 Speaker 1: to the query, and suggestions for related searches. It's obviously 232 00:14:46,680 --> 00:14:49,120 Speaker 1: changed over the years, but I used being to do 233 00:14:49,160 --> 00:14:52,200 Speaker 1: a search while I was researching this episode. I did 234 00:14:52,240 --> 00:14:54,600 Speaker 1: a search on the history of Being itself, and the 235 00:14:55,200 --> 00:14:58,400 Speaker 1: little panel on the left gave me tools to navigate 236 00:14:58,440 --> 00:15:01,680 Speaker 1: a Wikipedia article quickly so I could zip over to 237 00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:06,480 Speaker 1: relevant sections like history or features. Now I don't typically 238 00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:08,840 Speaker 1: use Wikipedia in my research, at least not as a 239 00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:12,880 Speaker 1: primary resource. I'll use it to find other resources on occasion, 240 00:15:13,000 --> 00:15:15,760 Speaker 1: or to look for more information that flesh's stuff out, 241 00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:20,640 Speaker 1: but only then if that material has proper citation so 242 00:15:20,720 --> 00:15:24,760 Speaker 1: I can find the actual resources that provide that information. 243 00:15:24,840 --> 00:15:28,160 Speaker 1: Because old habits die hard. I'm not saying that Wikipedia 244 00:15:28,520 --> 00:15:32,840 Speaker 1: is a bad resource or that's misleading, but rather I 245 00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,200 Speaker 1: was trained to never use Wikipedia as a main source, 246 00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:39,080 Speaker 1: and that training has a firm hole of my behaviors 247 00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:42,040 Speaker 1: to this day. So I will read a Wikipedia article 248 00:15:42,280 --> 00:15:45,760 Speaker 1: and then follow the resources to read the stuff that 249 00:15:45,920 --> 00:15:50,040 Speaker 1: was used to generate those perspectives that are reflected in 250 00:15:50,080 --> 00:15:53,160 Speaker 1: the article. But yeah, I still don't use Wikipedia as 251 00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:56,720 Speaker 1: a main resource to this day. Anyway, Microsoft made some 252 00:15:56,880 --> 00:15:59,760 Speaker 1: big moves with BING. In July two thousand and nine, 253 00:16:00,280 --> 00:16:04,000 Speaker 1: after launching, the company reached a partnership agreement with Yahoo, 254 00:16:04,240 --> 00:16:08,000 Speaker 1: and BING would be used to power searches on Yahoo, 255 00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:11,360 Speaker 1: which was, of course a iconic web portal site. For 256 00:16:11,400 --> 00:16:14,320 Speaker 1: the longest time, Yahoo was one of the big names 257 00:16:14,360 --> 00:16:18,200 Speaker 1: in search before Google kind of eclipsed it, and this 258 00:16:18,320 --> 00:16:21,080 Speaker 1: is not that different from how Google negotiates to be 259 00:16:21,120 --> 00:16:25,160 Speaker 1: the default search engine on other platforms, such as the 260 00:16:25,200 --> 00:16:29,360 Speaker 1: default search on say, Apple devices. The original deal had 261 00:16:29,400 --> 00:16:33,120 Speaker 1: Yahoo agreed to carry BING ads on desktop searches, though 262 00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:36,520 Speaker 1: later the companies would renegotiate that so that fifty one 263 00:16:36,640 --> 00:16:39,840 Speaker 1: percent of ads would come from BING and the other 264 00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:43,560 Speaker 1: forty nine percent could come from Yahoo's Gemini platform or 265 00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,960 Speaker 1: any other third party company like Google. For example. In 266 00:16:48,040 --> 00:16:52,240 Speaker 1: twenty ten, Microsoft made a deal with Facebook so that 267 00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:56,800 Speaker 1: visitors on Facebook would get BING search results while searching 268 00:16:56,920 --> 00:16:59,160 Speaker 1: within the social network. So if you use the search 269 00:16:59,240 --> 00:17:03,640 Speaker 1: tool in face Book, you got BEING results. Similarly, Microsoft 270 00:17:03,640 --> 00:17:06,800 Speaker 1: would make a deal with Amazon so that Alexa, the 271 00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:11,360 Speaker 1: digital personal assistant, would actually draw from Being search results, 272 00:17:11,520 --> 00:17:13,800 Speaker 1: and in that way Microsoft was taking a page out 273 00:17:13,800 --> 00:17:17,520 Speaker 1: of Google's playbook, though on a much smaller scale. Still, 274 00:17:17,880 --> 00:17:22,080 Speaker 1: every percentage point of market share counts, and by counts, 275 00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:24,600 Speaker 1: I mean counts in the form of a couple of 276 00:17:24,680 --> 00:17:29,640 Speaker 1: billion dollars in revenue potentially per percentage. Those are huge stakes. 277 00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:33,120 Speaker 1: So when I talk about Google having a dominant position 278 00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:36,919 Speaker 1: and being being relegated to you know at most around 279 00:17:36,960 --> 00:17:40,040 Speaker 1: ten percent of the market share, that ten percent still 280 00:17:40,080 --> 00:17:44,200 Speaker 1: represents billions of dollars in revenue. This is a big deal. 281 00:17:44,680 --> 00:17:48,399 Speaker 1: So even if Microsoft's not dominating that space, it is 282 00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:52,720 Speaker 1: a significant contribution to revenue. So you know, no small 283 00:17:52,720 --> 00:17:56,800 Speaker 1: shakes there. In twenty twelve, a few different things happened. 284 00:17:56,840 --> 00:18:01,480 Speaker 1: For one thing, Microsoft introduced bing ads. Microsoft also introduced 285 00:18:01,520 --> 00:18:04,680 Speaker 1: a refresh in its layout and created what it called 286 00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:07,880 Speaker 1: a three column design which is kind of self explanatory, 287 00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:11,560 Speaker 1: as well as a search plus social feature or the 288 00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: social sidebar. Microsoft explained in a blog post that quote 289 00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:20,080 Speaker 1: ninety percent of people consult with a friend or expert 290 00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:23,120 Speaker 1: before making a decision, whether it's something as simple as 291 00:18:23,200 --> 00:18:26,000 Speaker 1: which train will take you uptown or who is the 292 00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:30,000 Speaker 1: best dentist in Boulder. Often people are the most trusted 293 00:18:30,080 --> 00:18:33,159 Speaker 1: source of information end quote. Now, I don't think that 294 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:36,600 Speaker 1: comes as a shock to anyone. I think anyone kind 295 00:18:36,640 --> 00:18:40,080 Speaker 1: of can have a grasp that the opinions of people, 296 00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:45,080 Speaker 1: particularly people you know, hold more weight than anonymous information 297 00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:48,920 Speaker 1: posted on a website or a search results page. Online 298 00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:52,160 Speaker 1: retailers have been leaning on user reviews for decades as 299 00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:55,000 Speaker 1: a way to move merchandise. People trust the reviews of 300 00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:59,159 Speaker 1: other customers, unless, of course, those reviews end up not 301 00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:04,159 Speaker 1: reflecting actual customer experiences but are instead paid reviews. That 302 00:19:04,240 --> 00:19:07,480 Speaker 1: becomes a whole issue. But if the information is coming 303 00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:10,560 Speaker 1: from a person rather than a company or a soulless 304 00:19:10,680 --> 00:19:14,160 Speaker 1: search engine results page, it tends to carry more weight. 305 00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:18,359 Speaker 1: So it made sense to incorporate these social elements. So 306 00:19:18,520 --> 00:19:21,399 Speaker 1: the new design of Being in twenty twelve would feature 307 00:19:21,640 --> 00:19:26,280 Speaker 1: three columns. The leftmost column, the widest one, contained the 308 00:19:26,480 --> 00:19:29,800 Speaker 1: core search results for whatever the query was. Then in 309 00:19:29,880 --> 00:19:32,879 Speaker 1: the center column, which was a little bit more narrow, 310 00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:37,240 Speaker 1: you had the snapshot column. This one would contain relevant 311 00:19:37,240 --> 00:19:41,080 Speaker 1: information related to the query. So, for example, let's say 312 00:19:41,119 --> 00:19:44,720 Speaker 1: you were searching for information about a potential vacation destination. 313 00:19:45,080 --> 00:19:47,720 Speaker 1: Let's say you're on bing and you're doing a search 314 00:19:47,840 --> 00:19:51,359 Speaker 1: about Disney World. So the leftmost column you would have 315 00:19:51,440 --> 00:19:55,280 Speaker 1: links to things like probably the main Disney World web page, 316 00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,720 Speaker 1: but the central column could include information to stuff like 317 00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:03,520 Speaker 1: flights or details about hotels in the area, or even 318 00:20:03,600 --> 00:20:06,080 Speaker 1: restaurants in the area where you can make a reservation. 319 00:20:06,160 --> 00:20:09,720 Speaker 1: That kind of thing. Now, the third column, the social sidebar, 320 00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:13,120 Speaker 1: contained information pulled from your friends as well as other 321 00:20:13,280 --> 00:20:18,280 Speaker 1: enthusiasts or experts that had content that relates to the 322 00:20:18,320 --> 00:20:23,240 Speaker 1: search query. So maybe you would search for disney World 323 00:20:23,359 --> 00:20:26,440 Speaker 1: and in that social sidebar you would see posts from 324 00:20:26,480 --> 00:20:30,440 Speaker 1: your friends, posts from Facebook, for example, of friends who 325 00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:33,000 Speaker 1: had gone to Disney World and stayed at a particular hotel. 326 00:20:33,080 --> 00:20:36,439 Speaker 1: Let's say they stayed at Disney World's Caribbean Beach Resort, 327 00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:38,399 Speaker 1: and you can see what they thought of the place. 328 00:20:38,800 --> 00:20:42,960 Speaker 1: You would never have to rely solely on marketing from 329 00:20:43,040 --> 00:20:45,960 Speaker 1: Disney itself, right, You could see what actual human beings 330 00:20:46,000 --> 00:20:49,480 Speaker 1: felt about the location, and you could use that to 331 00:20:49,520 --> 00:20:52,800 Speaker 1: help make your decision. And being could even help you 332 00:20:52,880 --> 00:20:55,479 Speaker 1: with this. They could identify folks in your friends circle, 333 00:20:55,680 --> 00:20:58,439 Speaker 1: such as on Facebook, who might know more about whatever 334 00:20:58,480 --> 00:21:00,840 Speaker 1: it is you were searching for. So if you didn't 335 00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:02,960 Speaker 1: find the information you needed or you wanted to have 336 00:21:03,040 --> 00:21:05,720 Speaker 1: the opinion of someone you trusted. It could say, Hey, 337 00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:08,639 Speaker 1: your friend Bob goes to Disney World all the time. 338 00:21:09,040 --> 00:21:12,639 Speaker 1: Ask Bob, Bob's going to give you the straight information 339 00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:17,480 Speaker 1: about the Caribbean Beach Resort. Microsoft called its approach always present, 340 00:21:17,920 --> 00:21:21,480 Speaker 1: never intrusive, which is important, right, like to be able 341 00:21:21,520 --> 00:21:23,960 Speaker 1: to say, Hey, you can leverage your friend group to 342 00:21:24,000 --> 00:21:26,680 Speaker 1: get more information about this. We'll even help identify who 343 00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:29,920 Speaker 1: those people are. That can come across as pretty creepy. Right. 344 00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:33,400 Speaker 1: It seems to suggest that Microsoft knows all about the 345 00:21:33,480 --> 00:21:36,960 Speaker 1: interests and experiences of your friends group, and that can 346 00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:40,000 Speaker 1: feel pretty intrusive. And Microsoft was trying to get ahead 347 00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:42,680 Speaker 1: of that saying oh, no, no, no, no, we're present, 348 00:21:42,920 --> 00:21:45,679 Speaker 1: but we're not trying to intrude upon everything. We're just 349 00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:48,800 Speaker 1: there as a resource to help you get more information 350 00:21:48,880 --> 00:21:52,359 Speaker 1: so you can make your decisions. That's a tricky path 351 00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,800 Speaker 1: to walk. It is hard to say, yeah, we're going 352 00:21:55,880 --> 00:21:58,119 Speaker 1: to point you in the right direction by having you 353 00:21:58,160 --> 00:22:01,440 Speaker 1: connect with people you actually know. Oh, but don't worry 354 00:22:01,480 --> 00:22:03,680 Speaker 1: about how we know that this is the right person 355 00:22:03,760 --> 00:22:08,640 Speaker 1: to talk about this thing. It's tough. Also, Microsoft updated 356 00:22:08,760 --> 00:22:12,040 Speaker 1: its slogan for its search engine, so earlier on it 357 00:22:12,119 --> 00:22:16,200 Speaker 1: was bing and decide, but in twenty twelve, Microsoft changed 358 00:22:16,240 --> 00:22:21,480 Speaker 1: it to bing is for hashtag doing. Microsoft maintained that 359 00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:24,520 Speaker 1: more often than not, people weren't just searching for something. 360 00:22:24,520 --> 00:22:27,000 Speaker 1: They weren't, you know, using search as the first step 361 00:22:27,160 --> 00:22:31,439 Speaker 1: to go down a rabbit hole of information. Typically, instead, 362 00:22:31,440 --> 00:22:35,200 Speaker 1: they were using it as the beginning of actually doing 363 00:22:35,320 --> 00:22:38,280 Speaker 1: something to take some form of action, as opposed to 364 00:22:38,320 --> 00:22:42,240 Speaker 1: just reading about stuff in a somewhat random fashion. If 365 00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:45,080 Speaker 1: you're searching for something, it's probably because you have a 366 00:22:45,119 --> 00:22:48,879 Speaker 1: plan to do something, whether that's by you know, pet 367 00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:54,080 Speaker 1: food or book travel plans, or find a new job, 368 00:22:54,160 --> 00:22:57,240 Speaker 1: whatever it may be. It wasn't just I'm just curious 369 00:22:57,520 --> 00:23:00,520 Speaker 1: what kind of jobs does Facebook have right now. Over 370 00:23:00,560 --> 00:23:05,120 Speaker 1: the following years, Microsoft continued to invest in being Yahoo 371 00:23:05,160 --> 00:23:08,719 Speaker 1: would go into further decline and Bing would at least 372 00:23:08,920 --> 00:23:11,840 Speaker 1: take up some of that slack. Google would continue to 373 00:23:11,920 --> 00:23:15,040 Speaker 1: dominate the search market, but some folks were looking around 374 00:23:15,080 --> 00:23:18,240 Speaker 1: for an alternative to Google because, well, for a lot 375 00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:22,000 Speaker 1: of reasons, but some folks were looking for it because 376 00:23:22,040 --> 00:23:26,280 Speaker 1: Google's incorporation of paid search results was really irritating them. Now, 377 00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,960 Speaker 1: these are the ads that look like normal search results. 378 00:23:29,960 --> 00:23:33,080 Speaker 1: They are designated as ads. It's not like Google is 379 00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:35,960 Speaker 1: trying to completely pull the wool over your eyes, but 380 00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:38,399 Speaker 1: they typically are at the very top, right where you 381 00:23:38,400 --> 00:23:41,639 Speaker 1: would expect the best results to be. That's where the 382 00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:45,159 Speaker 1: advertised results are, and for a lot of people, it 383 00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:48,840 Speaker 1: can feel almost deceptive to see that the first answers 384 00:23:48,840 --> 00:23:51,399 Speaker 1: to whatever your question happened to be are all coming 385 00:23:51,440 --> 00:23:53,840 Speaker 1: from sources that paid to be at the top of 386 00:23:53,880 --> 00:23:56,800 Speaker 1: the heap, and you might even suspect that none of 387 00:23:56,840 --> 00:24:01,399 Speaker 1: those results will contain the best answer for your question, 388 00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:04,960 Speaker 1: or even worse that if you were to follow those results, 389 00:24:05,000 --> 00:24:07,119 Speaker 1: you would just kind of land on a page that 390 00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:10,600 Speaker 1: doesn't address what you were wondering at all. Instead, it's 391 00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:13,200 Speaker 1: just looking to convert you into a customer of some sort, 392 00:24:13,480 --> 00:24:16,560 Speaker 1: and instead you would have to scroll down past those 393 00:24:16,680 --> 00:24:20,480 Speaker 1: paid spots to find the actual results that didn't pay 394 00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:23,080 Speaker 1: to be there. They're just rising to the top because 395 00:24:23,119 --> 00:24:26,960 Speaker 1: of Google's page rank system. That's not a great user 396 00:24:27,000 --> 00:24:30,080 Speaker 1: experience if you feel like you constantly have to skip 397 00:24:30,440 --> 00:24:33,639 Speaker 1: the first few results in order to see things that 398 00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:38,919 Speaker 1: aren't tainted by the fact that people paid to be there. Plus, 399 00:24:39,160 --> 00:24:42,000 Speaker 1: there was this concern of Google scooping up so much 400 00:24:42,040 --> 00:24:45,640 Speaker 1: personal information in an effort to target ads more effectively 401 00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:49,040 Speaker 1: that it was a threat to privacy. That's a huge issue, 402 00:24:49,040 --> 00:24:51,880 Speaker 1: at least for some users it is. I think anyone 403 00:24:52,000 --> 00:24:54,960 Speaker 1: who actually spends a little serious time thinking over the 404 00:24:55,000 --> 00:24:59,680 Speaker 1: implications of privacy ultimately arrives at a fairly dark conclusion 405 00:24:59,840 --> 00:25:02,720 Speaker 1: of about most of the web these days. It's hard 406 00:25:02,760 --> 00:25:06,520 Speaker 1: to avoid, particularly if you're talking about companies like Google 407 00:25:06,760 --> 00:25:10,800 Speaker 1: or Meta that leans so heavily on advertising as the 408 00:25:10,880 --> 00:25:15,560 Speaker 1: majority of their revenue source. These companies have found far 409 00:25:15,640 --> 00:25:19,719 Speaker 1: more value in targeted advertising than just general advertising, so 410 00:25:20,560 --> 00:25:24,520 Speaker 1: by its very nature, these companies are dependent upon leveraging 411 00:25:24,560 --> 00:25:28,840 Speaker 1: your information as effectively as possible in an effort to 412 00:25:28,920 --> 00:25:32,120 Speaker 1: make more money. Then there's the perception that Google search 413 00:25:32,160 --> 00:25:34,240 Speaker 1: results are just you know, not as good as they 414 00:25:34,359 --> 00:25:37,359 Speaker 1: used to be. And it's true that Google changes up 415 00:25:37,359 --> 00:25:40,560 Speaker 1: how its search algorithm works on occasion. When I wrote 416 00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:43,880 Speaker 1: for how Stuff Works, that was a constant source of anxiety. 417 00:25:44,160 --> 00:25:47,200 Speaker 1: Early on, when I worked at HowStuffWorks dot com, that 418 00:25:47,240 --> 00:25:51,680 Speaker 1: website consistently ranked very high in search results, at least 419 00:25:51,680 --> 00:25:54,280 Speaker 1: for you know, queries that related to stuff that was 420 00:25:54,320 --> 00:25:57,439 Speaker 1: on our website. If we had an article about something 421 00:25:57,480 --> 00:26:00,800 Speaker 1: about how something worked, and you were searching for something 422 00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:03,959 Speaker 1: along those lines, our website often would pop up at 423 00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:06,240 Speaker 1: the very top of the search results, and that meant 424 00:26:06,280 --> 00:26:08,760 Speaker 1: we got a lot of incoming traffic from people who 425 00:26:08,840 --> 00:26:11,760 Speaker 1: were just looking stuff up. And it was always our 426 00:26:11,920 --> 00:26:15,720 Speaker 1: goal to make HowStuffWorks dot Com a destination website on 427 00:26:15,800 --> 00:26:18,119 Speaker 1: its own. It would be a place for people to 428 00:26:18,160 --> 00:26:20,800 Speaker 1: go to just by choice, just to browse around, not 429 00:26:21,000 --> 00:26:24,359 Speaker 1: just when they were looking for a specific answer. But 430 00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:28,119 Speaker 1: that just was kind of a pipe dream. The simple 431 00:26:28,160 --> 00:26:30,960 Speaker 1: truth of it was the vast majority of visitors who 432 00:26:30,960 --> 00:26:34,760 Speaker 1: went to how Stuffworks dot Com arrived there via search, 433 00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:39,360 Speaker 1: and that meant we were heavily dependent upon how Google 434 00:26:39,440 --> 00:26:44,440 Speaker 1: ranked us. And unfortunately for How Stuff Works, our ranking changed, 435 00:26:44,600 --> 00:26:48,080 Speaker 1: and it changed while I was actually there. Now, keep 436 00:26:48,119 --> 00:26:50,159 Speaker 1: in mind, I've worked the same job since two thousand 437 00:26:50,160 --> 00:26:52,439 Speaker 1: and seven, but the company around me has changed like 438 00:26:52,560 --> 00:26:55,760 Speaker 1: six times. But yeah, back with How Stuffworks, Google made 439 00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:59,080 Speaker 1: some adjustments to its search algorithm and How Stuff Works 440 00:26:59,160 --> 00:27:02,400 Speaker 1: did not pop up quite so frequently. Now, I don't 441 00:27:02,440 --> 00:27:04,960 Speaker 1: think it was just Google punishing How Stuff Works. I 442 00:27:04,960 --> 00:27:07,879 Speaker 1: think there were some complicating factors, the big one being 443 00:27:07,920 --> 00:27:11,600 Speaker 1: that at the time we were owned by Discovery Communications, 444 00:27:11,640 --> 00:27:14,880 Speaker 1: and some might argue that How Stuff Works had become 445 00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:17,080 Speaker 1: kind of a dumping ground for a lot of lower 446 00:27:17,160 --> 00:27:20,800 Speaker 1: quality article topics. The writing was still top notch, the 447 00:27:20,840 --> 00:27:23,680 Speaker 1: writers were still doing a great job, but the subject 448 00:27:23,680 --> 00:27:26,359 Speaker 1: matter of the articles, it just wasn't the type of 449 00:27:26,359 --> 00:27:30,240 Speaker 1: stuff that we would typically pitch During our weekly content meetings. 450 00:27:30,400 --> 00:27:32,560 Speaker 1: We would get these assignments that would be related to 451 00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:35,840 Speaker 1: big ad deals. This is not a joke. There was 452 00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:41,240 Speaker 1: one time where we had a package, an ad package 453 00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:44,040 Speaker 1: that was related to the topic of towing, as in 454 00:27:44,080 --> 00:27:47,400 Speaker 1: towing something behind your car. And I don't remember how 455 00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:49,760 Speaker 1: many articles were part of that package. I want to 456 00:27:49,800 --> 00:27:53,520 Speaker 1: say it was something ludicrous like eighty articles. Now, that 457 00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:57,280 Speaker 1: could just be a drastic exaggeration, but in my mind, 458 00:27:57,359 --> 00:27:59,520 Speaker 1: it wasn't that much of an exaggeration because I know 459 00:27:59,600 --> 00:28:02,600 Speaker 1: I wrote at least five articles about towing and I 460 00:28:02,640 --> 00:28:06,080 Speaker 1: don't even drive, y'all, And that was part of the 461 00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:09,440 Speaker 1: issue I think that heard our rankings and Google search. 462 00:28:09,480 --> 00:28:11,240 Speaker 1: Another was that we had to write a lot of 463 00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:15,120 Speaker 1: articles that were tied to various discovery shows, and some 464 00:28:15,160 --> 00:28:18,120 Speaker 1: Discovery shows I really liked. I thought they were high quality, 465 00:28:18,240 --> 00:28:22,199 Speaker 1: like MythBusters, for example, writing articles relating to MythBusters that 466 00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:26,080 Speaker 1: was fun. But other shows felt less fun like they 467 00:28:26,080 --> 00:28:30,359 Speaker 1: were more exploitative, shows that leaned heavily on othering, for 468 00:28:30,440 --> 00:28:34,359 Speaker 1: example by taking some people and then saying, oh, aren't 469 00:28:34,400 --> 00:28:37,400 Speaker 1: they odd for one reason or another? Or they were 470 00:28:37,520 --> 00:28:40,120 Speaker 1: shows that had almost a side show kind of vibe 471 00:28:40,160 --> 00:28:41,920 Speaker 1: to them. I'm not going to name any because I 472 00:28:41,920 --> 00:28:43,440 Speaker 1: don't want to give any more attention to them. But 473 00:28:43,440 --> 00:28:45,320 Speaker 1: there were some shows that I thought I felt really 474 00:28:45,360 --> 00:28:49,800 Speaker 1: icky about, and occasionally How Stuff Works authors would have 475 00:28:49,840 --> 00:28:52,920 Speaker 1: to write articles relating to that stuff too. Thankfully I 476 00:28:52,960 --> 00:28:55,680 Speaker 1: didn't get those assignments, at least not most of the 477 00:28:55,720 --> 00:28:58,760 Speaker 1: time anyway. In my opinion, the combination of Google changing 478 00:28:58,800 --> 00:29:01,400 Speaker 1: its search algorithm and How Stuff Works generating a lot 479 00:29:01,440 --> 00:29:04,800 Speaker 1: of arguably lower quality content, again not because of the 480 00:29:04,880 --> 00:29:07,360 Speaker 1: writing but just because of the subject matter, led to 481 00:29:07,440 --> 00:29:10,320 Speaker 1: our page not ranking as highly in search results, and 482 00:29:10,360 --> 00:29:13,160 Speaker 1: that hurt How Stuff Works a lot. As traffic began 483 00:29:13,200 --> 00:29:16,000 Speaker 1: to slow down. Even our fans made note of that. 484 00:29:16,280 --> 00:29:18,800 Speaker 1: It became kind of a joke that you would start 485 00:29:18,800 --> 00:29:22,120 Speaker 1: calling how stuff works how towing works. But that's all 486 00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:24,520 Speaker 1: water under the bridge these days. At last I heard 487 00:29:24,560 --> 00:29:27,800 Speaker 1: how Stuff Works had shifted dramatically by firing the entire 488 00:29:27,960 --> 00:29:32,120 Speaker 1: editorial staff, switching to AI generated articles, and then using 489 00:29:32,240 --> 00:29:35,680 Speaker 1: contractors as editors to give those articles a look see 490 00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:38,400 Speaker 1: to make sure they weren't wildly inaccurate. I do not 491 00:29:38,560 --> 00:29:40,600 Speaker 1: know if that's still the case, however it may have 492 00:29:40,720 --> 00:29:44,640 Speaker 1: changed anyway. Kind of got off topic there, My apologies. 493 00:29:44,640 --> 00:29:47,240 Speaker 1: This is something I'm passionate about. Let's take another quick break. 494 00:29:47,240 --> 00:29:50,120 Speaker 1: When I get back, I'll straighten out. We'll get back 495 00:29:50,160 --> 00:30:02,520 Speaker 1: on topic. We're back. So before I went to the 496 00:30:02,600 --> 00:30:05,239 Speaker 1: ad break, I was talking about how there was this 497 00:30:05,320 --> 00:30:08,360 Speaker 1: general perception that Google search results just weren't the same 498 00:30:08,440 --> 00:30:10,600 Speaker 1: quality as they used to be. And yeah, with How 499 00:30:10,640 --> 00:30:13,040 Speaker 1: stuff Works, you could argue part of the reason for 500 00:30:13,120 --> 00:30:17,240 Speaker 1: How Stuff Works this particular fate wasn't that Google's results 501 00:30:17,360 --> 00:30:20,120 Speaker 1: had declined in quality, but that the content on How 502 00:30:20,120 --> 00:30:23,840 Speaker 1: Stuff Works was declining in quality. But generally speaking, people 503 00:30:23,840 --> 00:30:27,280 Speaker 1: were saying Google search results just aren't very good, like 504 00:30:27,640 --> 00:30:31,360 Speaker 1: I'm not finding what I need to find. So that 505 00:30:31,760 --> 00:30:35,840 Speaker 1: led to some people asking for alternatives to Google. They 506 00:30:35,880 --> 00:30:39,200 Speaker 1: found that the privacy issue, the advertising issues, those were 507 00:30:39,240 --> 00:30:41,680 Speaker 1: just having too big of an impact on the actual 508 00:30:41,680 --> 00:30:44,800 Speaker 1: search results. This brings me to an article in Wired 509 00:30:45,000 --> 00:30:47,920 Speaker 1: back in twenty eighteen. It was written by Brian Barrett 510 00:30:48,000 --> 00:30:51,400 Speaker 1: and it's titled I used only Bing for three months. 511 00:30:51,440 --> 00:30:54,760 Speaker 1: Here's what I found and what I didn't Now. Barrett 512 00:30:54,800 --> 00:30:57,520 Speaker 1: first used the bing search app, So this is the 513 00:30:57,520 --> 00:31:00,840 Speaker 1: mobile app that at the time included specific types of 514 00:31:00,880 --> 00:31:05,240 Speaker 1: search ranging from videos to news, to music to gas. 515 00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:07,760 Speaker 1: So I guess if you wanted to search for gas 516 00:31:07,920 --> 00:31:10,000 Speaker 1: stations that are close to you, you could do that, 517 00:31:10,280 --> 00:31:13,640 Speaker 1: or petrol stations if you prefer. You know. Obviously Google 518 00:31:13,840 --> 00:31:18,040 Speaker 1: has different subcategories of search as well, like Google News, 519 00:31:18,280 --> 00:31:21,280 Speaker 1: so this is not that unusual. But it was a 520 00:31:21,320 --> 00:31:26,120 Speaker 1: pretty wild variety of topics that Barrett encountered, and Barrett 521 00:31:26,120 --> 00:31:29,640 Speaker 1: claimed that the different tabs led to presentations of search 522 00:31:29,680 --> 00:31:34,800 Speaker 1: results and just general content that varied in usefulness and coherence, 523 00:31:34,880 --> 00:31:38,760 Speaker 1: like if you navigated to the near me tab, for example, 524 00:31:38,880 --> 00:31:42,560 Speaker 1: you would get certain stuff served up to you automatically 525 00:31:42,600 --> 00:31:44,840 Speaker 1: before you would even start searching. Same with any of 526 00:31:44,920 --> 00:31:47,640 Speaker 1: the others. But he did say the near metab presented 527 00:31:47,720 --> 00:31:51,560 Speaker 1: him with an array of things located close by, including 528 00:31:51,600 --> 00:31:55,200 Speaker 1: an ar augmented reality style feature where you could hold 529 00:31:55,240 --> 00:31:57,920 Speaker 1: up your phone and using the rear facing camera, it 530 00:31:57,960 --> 00:32:00,720 Speaker 1: would display results in your screen for plays that were 531 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:03,200 Speaker 1: near you, like in the direction that you were holding 532 00:32:03,200 --> 00:32:05,080 Speaker 1: your phone, so you can hold up your phone and 533 00:32:05,080 --> 00:32:08,080 Speaker 1: see that maybe down the street there's like a little 534 00:32:08,120 --> 00:32:10,840 Speaker 1: Mexican restaurant, and it would include stuff like the rating 535 00:32:10,920 --> 00:32:13,720 Speaker 1: for that restaurant and maybe the hours for it, just 536 00:32:13,720 --> 00:32:16,240 Speaker 1: by holding up your phone and looking at the screen 537 00:32:16,280 --> 00:32:18,920 Speaker 1: as you move your camera around, which is pretty nifty, 538 00:32:19,000 --> 00:32:22,160 Speaker 1: particularly for back in twenty eighteen, because we're still talking 539 00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:25,440 Speaker 1: about implementations that are essentially the same thing, and it's 540 00:32:25,760 --> 00:32:29,480 Speaker 1: six years later now. Now. Overall, Barrett's experiences seemed like 541 00:32:29,560 --> 00:32:33,000 Speaker 1: he found the taxonomy and organization of the Being search 542 00:32:33,040 --> 00:32:36,880 Speaker 1: app a little weird and haphazard. The actual search was 543 00:32:36,920 --> 00:32:39,880 Speaker 1: pretty straightforward, but the stuff that was presented on each 544 00:32:40,000 --> 00:32:44,360 Speaker 1: tab like a landing page, that's what seemed very weird 545 00:32:44,400 --> 00:32:46,720 Speaker 1: to him. I recommend reading the article to get the 546 00:32:46,760 --> 00:32:49,960 Speaker 1: full effect of what he was saying. Again, that's in wired. 547 00:32:50,120 --> 00:32:52,320 Speaker 1: I used only Being for three months. Here's what I 548 00:32:52,360 --> 00:32:55,240 Speaker 1: found and what I didn't. Now. Barrett said that for 549 00:32:55,280 --> 00:32:58,080 Speaker 1: the most part, being delivered search results that were at 550 00:32:58,160 --> 00:33:01,360 Speaker 1: least as good as Google's, although there was an exception. 551 00:33:01,680 --> 00:33:04,400 Speaker 1: If Barrett searched for a specific article that had been 552 00:33:04,400 --> 00:33:07,560 Speaker 1: published on Wired, he found it was really challenging to 553 00:33:07,840 --> 00:33:10,800 Speaker 1: get BING to return relevant search results, Like they just 554 00:33:10,840 --> 00:33:14,200 Speaker 1: weren't popping up, even if he included several words found 555 00:33:14,280 --> 00:33:16,640 Speaker 1: in the headline of the article, or he included the 556 00:33:16,720 --> 00:33:19,680 Speaker 1: site like he wrote like in Wired, or if he 557 00:33:19,760 --> 00:33:22,640 Speaker 1: included the author who wrote the original piece, and that's 558 00:33:22,720 --> 00:33:25,840 Speaker 1: just kind of odd. But otherwise, he said, his take 559 00:33:25,960 --> 00:33:29,720 Speaker 1: was quote search is search is search end quote, meaning 560 00:33:29,720 --> 00:33:32,360 Speaker 1: that it's pretty unremarkable for the most part, Like, as 561 00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:36,160 Speaker 1: long as you're doing it, okay, it's good enough. And 562 00:33:36,480 --> 00:33:41,680 Speaker 1: it's not like Google has the market on effective web search. 563 00:33:41,960 --> 00:33:45,160 Speaker 1: They just have the market on search in general. Now. 564 00:33:45,160 --> 00:33:48,840 Speaker 1: In twenty twenty one, Bloomberg reported that a lawyer for 565 00:33:48,960 --> 00:33:51,920 Speaker 1: Google had a bit of ironic information for the world, 566 00:33:52,160 --> 00:33:55,280 Speaker 1: and that was that the top searched term on bing 567 00:33:55,720 --> 00:34:00,960 Speaker 1: was in fact Google. Now, if that's true, that has 568 00:34:01,000 --> 00:34:04,360 Speaker 1: to stay. So why would the lawyer even bring this up? Well, 569 00:34:04,600 --> 00:34:08,280 Speaker 1: that was because Google was already in a stew because 570 00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:12,040 Speaker 1: regulators around the world were looking at the company's dominant 571 00:34:12,040 --> 00:34:15,360 Speaker 1: position and web search something that's still going on today, 572 00:34:15,680 --> 00:34:18,960 Speaker 1: and the argument was that Google held the equivalent of 573 00:34:19,000 --> 00:34:22,480 Speaker 1: a monopoly, and yeah, if you're hovering around ninety percent 574 00:34:22,520 --> 00:34:25,440 Speaker 1: of the market share, you kind of are a monopoly. 575 00:34:25,760 --> 00:34:28,960 Speaker 1: I mean, if nine out of ten web searches around 576 00:34:29,000 --> 00:34:32,319 Speaker 1: the world are happening on your platform and the other 577 00:34:32,560 --> 00:34:36,560 Speaker 1: one out of ten are divided up among all your competitors, 578 00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:40,280 Speaker 1: that's a pretty bleak picture as far as competition is concerned. 579 00:34:40,320 --> 00:34:43,080 Speaker 1: But Google's response was, Hey, it's not our fault. We 580 00:34:43,200 --> 00:34:47,880 Speaker 1: give the best search results. Even our largest competitor, Microsoft 581 00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:51,360 Speaker 1: bing sees that the top search query in their own 582 00:34:51,480 --> 00:34:54,680 Speaker 1: search tool is for us. How is it our fault 583 00:34:54,719 --> 00:34:57,399 Speaker 1: that we're doing it better than anybody else, or how 584 00:34:57,480 --> 00:35:00,840 Speaker 1: is it a bad thing? The verge is Mitchell Clark 585 00:35:01,040 --> 00:35:04,320 Speaker 1: looked into this in October twenty twenty one and found 586 00:35:04,320 --> 00:35:08,640 Speaker 1: that a third party SEO analysis firm called au Refs 587 00:35:08,840 --> 00:35:15,800 Speaker 1: AhR EFS backed up what Google's lawyer claimed that Google 588 00:35:16,000 --> 00:35:19,640 Speaker 1: was in fact the top searched term on bing, followed 589 00:35:19,640 --> 00:35:23,239 Speaker 1: by YouTube, which of course is another Google property. Then 590 00:35:23,400 --> 00:35:28,280 Speaker 1: Facebook and then whoopseee back to Google with Gmail. Yikes, 591 00:35:28,360 --> 00:35:32,520 Speaker 1: but that's global searches. If you restricted it to US 592 00:35:32,560 --> 00:35:36,400 Speaker 1: based searches, it would change. Actually Google fell to third place, 593 00:35:36,719 --> 00:35:40,680 Speaker 1: Facebook took the top spot, but still Google being a 594 00:35:40,840 --> 00:35:46,200 Speaker 1: top five search item on the BING search tool. That's rough. Also, 595 00:35:46,320 --> 00:35:50,440 Speaker 1: here's another fun fact. Bing was the seventh most searched 596 00:35:50,640 --> 00:35:54,839 Speaker 1: term on BING, which definitely sounds weird, right, like, why 597 00:35:54,880 --> 00:35:58,440 Speaker 1: would someone go to bing to search baning because you're 598 00:35:58,480 --> 00:36:01,720 Speaker 1: already there? But as Clark points out in his article, 599 00:36:01,960 --> 00:36:04,920 Speaker 1: that could come down to people using a platform that 600 00:36:04,960 --> 00:36:08,000 Speaker 1: has being set as the default search engine, but it's 601 00:36:08,040 --> 00:36:11,200 Speaker 1: not being itself. So let's say that you know, you're 602 00:36:11,320 --> 00:36:15,359 Speaker 1: on a desktop app or a mobile app and BING 603 00:36:15,520 --> 00:36:18,320 Speaker 1: is powering the search, but it's not, you know, branded 604 00:36:18,320 --> 00:36:21,319 Speaker 1: as BING, then maybe you would search ban in there 605 00:36:21,400 --> 00:36:24,839 Speaker 1: to go straight to the BING search page itself as 606 00:36:24,840 --> 00:36:29,400 Speaker 1: opposed to just the search bar inside the app. That 607 00:36:29,719 --> 00:36:32,120 Speaker 1: makes sense. In fact, that could also be how it's 608 00:36:32,120 --> 00:36:34,319 Speaker 1: happening with Google that people want to go to the 609 00:36:34,320 --> 00:36:37,200 Speaker 1: Google home page and so they're just typing in Google 610 00:36:37,440 --> 00:36:40,800 Speaker 1: in whatever platform they happen to be in, and sometimes 611 00:36:40,840 --> 00:36:43,880 Speaker 1: that's powered by bing, So I bet Google is actually 612 00:36:43,880 --> 00:36:47,960 Speaker 1: a fairly high search term in Google's own search queries 613 00:36:48,000 --> 00:36:50,319 Speaker 1: as well, right, Like, I don't think it's just that 614 00:36:50,360 --> 00:36:51,960 Speaker 1: people are on bing and they're like, Oh, I don't 615 00:36:51,960 --> 00:36:54,480 Speaker 1: want to be here, let's look for Google anyway. In 616 00:36:54,600 --> 00:36:58,080 Speaker 1: late twenty twenty two, Microsoft engineers began to work with 617 00:36:58,160 --> 00:37:02,360 Speaker 1: another technology that would change search and this is generative AI. 618 00:37:02,920 --> 00:37:07,440 Speaker 1: So before OpenAI began to dominate headlines in late twenty 619 00:37:07,520 --> 00:37:11,680 Speaker 1: twenty two, Microsoft already had access to the GPT for 620 00:37:12,160 --> 00:37:16,880 Speaker 1: Large Language Model and was probing its capabilities. Microsoft engineers 621 00:37:16,920 --> 00:37:19,960 Speaker 1: were really impressed with the performance of the Large Language Model, 622 00:37:20,120 --> 00:37:22,919 Speaker 1: and they began working on a search tool that could 623 00:37:22,920 --> 00:37:27,520 Speaker 1: tap into those capabilities and combine them with search results. 624 00:37:27,560 --> 00:37:30,799 Speaker 1: And they called it Prometheus, which is a humble name 625 00:37:31,120 --> 00:37:35,760 Speaker 1: to be sure, that's sarcasm. So Prometheus was a tool 626 00:37:35,840 --> 00:37:39,600 Speaker 1: that could mix generative AI responses with search results and 627 00:37:39,680 --> 00:37:43,400 Speaker 1: provide answers to a user that, if everything worked as intended, 628 00:37:43,760 --> 00:37:47,160 Speaker 1: might give all the information needed for basic queries, or 629 00:37:47,239 --> 00:37:49,920 Speaker 1: it could serve as a good start for a deeper 630 00:37:50,080 --> 00:37:54,799 Speaker 1: dive into the topic. Microsoft would ultimately develop Prometheus into 631 00:37:54,800 --> 00:37:58,280 Speaker 1: a new feature in being called Bing chat a chat 632 00:37:58,320 --> 00:38:03,600 Speaker 1: GPT like aiic conversationalist that could answer questions all by itself. Now, 633 00:38:03,680 --> 00:38:07,640 Speaker 1: most of the time those answers were perfectly cromulent, to 634 00:38:07,719 --> 00:38:11,319 Speaker 1: quote the Simpsons, but in other cases you would get outliers. 635 00:38:11,400 --> 00:38:14,360 Speaker 1: You get really weird stuff where the chatbot would present 636 00:38:14,520 --> 00:38:21,200 Speaker 1: incorrect or bizarre responses, sometimes like emotionally tinged responses, and 637 00:38:21,719 --> 00:38:25,440 Speaker 1: often this fell into the category of hallucinations or confabulations. 638 00:38:25,480 --> 00:38:27,880 Speaker 1: In other words, the stuff that where an AI model 639 00:38:27,960 --> 00:38:33,480 Speaker 1: starts to statistically select the most likely following word, but 640 00:38:33,560 --> 00:38:36,000 Speaker 1: it turns out it's the wrong word or the wrong 641 00:38:36,120 --> 00:38:39,440 Speaker 1: series of words, and that you know, just sometimes the 642 00:38:39,640 --> 00:38:43,920 Speaker 1: correct answer is an outlier statistically speaking, but AI models 643 00:38:43,960 --> 00:38:47,800 Speaker 1: follow the most likely statistical response, and so sometimes you 644 00:38:47,880 --> 00:38:51,200 Speaker 1: get weird stuff. Kevin Russ of The New York Times 645 00:38:51,239 --> 00:38:54,680 Speaker 1: wrote that the AI powered search propelled Being into becoming 646 00:38:54,719 --> 00:38:58,920 Speaker 1: his favorite search engine initially, but he followed that up 647 00:38:58,920 --> 00:39:01,359 Speaker 1: with another piece just a little bit later, in which 648 00:39:01,360 --> 00:39:04,520 Speaker 1: he said that further interactions with the AI powered chatbot 649 00:39:04,880 --> 00:39:09,399 Speaker 1: made him feel kind of unsettled, and it dethroned Being 650 00:39:09,560 --> 00:39:12,040 Speaker 1: from being his favorite search engine. To read about his 651 00:39:12,239 --> 00:39:15,120 Speaker 1: uncanny chat encounter with Bing. You need to check out 652 00:39:15,120 --> 00:39:18,480 Speaker 1: his article from February sixteenth, twenty twenty three, in the 653 00:39:18,480 --> 00:39:22,560 Speaker 1: New York Times. It's titled a conversation with Bing's chatbot 654 00:39:22,760 --> 00:39:27,120 Speaker 1: left me deeply unsettled. And yeah, he explains like this 655 00:39:27,200 --> 00:39:31,040 Speaker 1: interaction convinced him that AI is not really ready for 656 00:39:31,400 --> 00:39:35,959 Speaker 1: regular interactions with humanity, that those sort of things can 657 00:39:36,239 --> 00:39:40,280 Speaker 1: turn in a way that one are not necessarily helpful 658 00:39:40,280 --> 00:39:43,680 Speaker 1: and two can be outright disturbing, Which is an interesting take. 659 00:39:44,560 --> 00:39:49,680 Speaker 1: But Microsoft has famously invested heavily in artificial intelligence, so 660 00:39:49,719 --> 00:39:52,920 Speaker 1: I don't think we're backing out of AI powered search 661 00:39:53,040 --> 00:39:57,240 Speaker 1: anytime soon. It's one of those elements where Microsoft really 662 00:39:57,280 --> 00:40:01,920 Speaker 1: believes they can take a solid shot at Google. Google 663 00:40:02,000 --> 00:40:06,000 Speaker 1: obviously has also invested heavily in AI powered search, although 664 00:40:06,040 --> 00:40:09,960 Speaker 1: Google's attempts have received a lot of ridicule based upon 665 00:40:10,480 --> 00:40:12,920 Speaker 1: some bad results. I mean, you know, being told that 666 00:40:13,080 --> 00:40:15,120 Speaker 1: the best way to keep cheese on your pizza is 667 00:40:15,120 --> 00:40:18,560 Speaker 1: by mixing glue in with the cheese is not great, 668 00:40:19,080 --> 00:40:21,920 Speaker 1: not a great look. So yeah, the Google's had its 669 00:40:21,960 --> 00:40:26,120 Speaker 1: own setbacks when it comes to generative AI incorporated within search, 670 00:40:26,360 --> 00:40:29,600 Speaker 1: and I think Microsoft sees that as a real opportunity 671 00:40:29,640 --> 00:40:33,480 Speaker 1: to make a bigger dent in Google's dominance. And again, 672 00:40:33,719 --> 00:40:36,480 Speaker 1: when every percentage point is equivalent to a couple of 673 00:40:36,520 --> 00:40:40,880 Speaker 1: billion dollars of revenue, that's a worthy endeavor. Notably, Microsoft 674 00:40:40,920 --> 00:40:45,279 Speaker 1: is dedicated around fourteen billion dollars into open ai. That's 675 00:40:45,520 --> 00:40:48,640 Speaker 1: that's the company that created GPT and chat GPT. But 676 00:40:48,760 --> 00:40:52,919 Speaker 1: more recently the two companies appeared to be reevaluating that relationship. 677 00:40:53,040 --> 00:40:55,960 Speaker 1: There's been a lot of articles published about how Microsoft 678 00:40:56,040 --> 00:40:59,839 Speaker 1: is looking at diversifying its approach to artificial intelligence, that 679 00:41:00,040 --> 00:41:02,520 Speaker 1: people at the company executives that the company have started 680 00:41:02,560 --> 00:41:06,919 Speaker 1: to question whether it's wise to depend so heavily upon 681 00:41:07,600 --> 00:41:12,080 Speaker 1: a partner company for AI capabilities, and that perhaps it 682 00:41:12,160 --> 00:41:15,520 Speaker 1: might be better to spread out and look at other 683 00:41:15,960 --> 00:41:20,120 Speaker 1: opportunities for AI and not just hit your wagon to 684 00:41:20,320 --> 00:41:24,360 Speaker 1: open AI's horse. Meanwhile, open ai has said, hey, should 685 00:41:24,360 --> 00:41:26,880 Speaker 1: we ever get to a point where we create artificial 686 00:41:27,080 --> 00:41:31,960 Speaker 1: general intelligence, we're severing the relationship with Microsoft so that 687 00:41:32,000 --> 00:41:36,160 Speaker 1: they cannot use AGI because we're too worried that Microsoft 688 00:41:36,200 --> 00:41:39,600 Speaker 1: would use it for bad reasons and we would get 689 00:41:39,680 --> 00:41:43,600 Speaker 1: negative consequences. Also, open ai has reserved the right to 690 00:41:43,640 --> 00:41:46,919 Speaker 1: define what AGI is and decide when they get there, 691 00:41:47,800 --> 00:41:51,120 Speaker 1: So it essentially feels like it's a bargaining chip that 692 00:41:51,239 --> 00:41:55,280 Speaker 1: open ai is saying, hey, unless you continue to fund 693 00:41:55,360 --> 00:41:58,839 Speaker 1: us with billions of dollars each year, because AI is expensive, 694 00:41:59,080 --> 00:42:01,440 Speaker 1: and if we don't get billions of dollars, we will 695 00:42:01,600 --> 00:42:04,399 Speaker 1: spend ourselves out of business. Then we're going to take 696 00:42:04,400 --> 00:42:05,960 Speaker 1: our toys and you're not going to be able to 697 00:42:06,040 --> 00:42:09,160 Speaker 1: use them, and then you're really going to be behind Google. Again, 698 00:42:09,360 --> 00:42:12,200 Speaker 1: that seems to be what's going on, at least from 699 00:42:12,239 --> 00:42:14,880 Speaker 1: my perspective at the corporate level, and that's kind of 700 00:42:14,880 --> 00:42:18,960 Speaker 1: where BING is right now. Does it become this heavily 701 00:42:19,120 --> 00:42:23,879 Speaker 1: AI dependent search tool that can potentially take a big 702 00:42:24,000 --> 00:42:27,800 Speaker 1: chunk out of Google's search dominance. It raises other questions 703 00:42:27,840 --> 00:42:30,799 Speaker 1: as well, like if a search engine ends up giving 704 00:42:30,880 --> 00:42:32,960 Speaker 1: you the material you need without you having to go 705 00:42:33,040 --> 00:42:36,320 Speaker 1: through and click on a link, then what good is 706 00:42:36,360 --> 00:42:39,560 Speaker 1: the search engine as a search engine? Because if the 707 00:42:39,680 --> 00:42:43,360 Speaker 1: traffic is not ultimately going to the companies that host 708 00:42:43,480 --> 00:42:48,400 Speaker 1: the information provided to create those answers, then those companies 709 00:42:48,400 --> 00:42:51,520 Speaker 1: are ultimately going to go out of business, and then 710 00:42:51,560 --> 00:42:54,160 Speaker 1: you no longer have a source of information to pull 711 00:42:54,200 --> 00:42:56,440 Speaker 1: from to get those answers that you need in the 712 00:42:56,480 --> 00:42:59,760 Speaker 1: first place. So, in other words, the fear is that generative, 713 00:42:59,800 --> 00:43:05,480 Speaker 1: a eye powered search will ultimately cannibalize the Internet and 714 00:43:06,120 --> 00:43:09,359 Speaker 1: kill the source of info that it depends upon in 715 00:43:09,440 --> 00:43:11,680 Speaker 1: order to give us answers, and instead we're going to 716 00:43:11,680 --> 00:43:15,359 Speaker 1: get answers that get less and less good as time 717 00:43:15,440 --> 00:43:19,280 Speaker 1: goes on, until ultimately we arrive at ideocracy. All roads 718 00:43:19,320 --> 00:43:23,840 Speaker 1: lead to idiocracy eventually. Is the saying that I just 719 00:43:23,880 --> 00:43:28,359 Speaker 1: made all right on that cheerful note. I hope all 720 00:43:28,400 --> 00:43:30,839 Speaker 1: of you out there are doing well. If you are 721 00:43:30,880 --> 00:43:33,280 Speaker 1: in the United States and you have not yet voted, 722 00:43:33,520 --> 00:43:37,239 Speaker 1: the election day is tomorrow, November fifth. No matter what 723 00:43:37,360 --> 00:43:40,760 Speaker 1: flubbs someone might say, it's not January fifth, it's November fifth. 724 00:43:40,960 --> 00:43:43,759 Speaker 1: Go out there and vote. Do your research, make an 725 00:43:43,760 --> 00:43:47,799 Speaker 1: informed decision. The future of the country depends upon it. 726 00:43:48,160 --> 00:43:52,160 Speaker 1: The future of democracy depends upon it. Democracy only works 727 00:43:52,480 --> 00:43:56,120 Speaker 1: if people participate in it. So do your research, get 728 00:43:56,160 --> 00:43:58,759 Speaker 1: out to your polling place and vote if you haven't already. 729 00:43:59,239 --> 00:44:01,759 Speaker 1: And for those of you around the world, I wish 730 00:44:01,840 --> 00:44:04,840 Speaker 1: you the absolute best. I hope you're doing well, and 731 00:44:04,920 --> 00:44:14,319 Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech stuff is 732 00:44:14,360 --> 00:44:18,880 Speaker 1: an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the 733 00:44:18,960 --> 00:44:22,560 Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your 734 00:44:22,600 --> 00:44:23,320 Speaker 1: favorite shows.