I find it odd how people think of businesses as one big entity that knows all, when in reality its loads of small teams, contractors, freelancers etc. sort-of working together. You get that complaint a lot from people who criticize broadcasters in particular.

No, I'm pretty sure Google would need to move the entire Android team to Search if it wanted to compete with a Facebook-owned Bing.

Android is the smartest things they did for their future since their platform for targeted ads.

With Android they can exert control over the mobile platforms. Google Search, GMaps, GMail are the default on all Android devices and beyond.

Now think of Apple. At some point they wanted to switch to Bing, but they didn't. Don't really know the details about why they didn't, but it's quite easy to make a guess ...

I'm pretty sure Apple stayed with Google's Search, because otherwise Android phones would've had (at least) a branding advantage (Google is a synonym for search), not to mention that Google Search is still more potent than Bing. Without GSearch, they probably would have lost GMaps too. Then the argument for Android would have been: ooh, but it comes with GSearch, GMaps and GMail. Apple is not stupid, they couldn't put iOS at a disadvantage, in a world where every other phone comes with Google built-in.

So you see, Android is the platform that keeps them relevant in a mobile world that's tightly controlled by carriers and walled app stores.

> I'm pretty sure Apple stayed with Google's Search, because otherwise Android phones would've had (at least) a branding advantage

Apple stay with Google's Search for two reasons:

1. It's the best search product. 2. Google give them bucket-loads of cash

This isn't rocket surgery.

In the alternative universe where Google didn't do Android, Apple would be able to extract more cash from Google for its search placement, at the very least, since Google would have fewer alternatives.

Yes but as soon as you get into the land of hypotheticals, Symbian can be a successful product Google would lust over. Doesn't make it likely.

Social search is pointless, it does not improve search quality. What it does is allow for overly targeted advertising which while useful it's no where near as valuable as many people think.

PS: Remember when all search companies wanted to become portals? Yea, that did not turn out so well for them.

heck why?

If there is ANYTHING that would get privacy advocates worried, it would be a Facebook+bing+yahoo conglomerate.

Provided google can dodge the quagmire themselves.

Which is why I'm sure the expensive lawyers they have on retainer will probably give them some idea that this is going to be risky.

It's a joke.

I think the world record in questionable speculation was broken here.

forgotten the illegal invasion of iraq so quickly?

touché