I almost exclusively use Duck Duck Go (https://duckduckgo.com/) as an alternative to Google. The only time it doesn't give me the answers I need is occasionally for code / bug related searches, in which case I go back to Google.

I have also noticed the more detailed a query for technical issues, bugs or combinations of software, I have to rely on Google as well. My workflow is similar to yours. I silently hope this is just a matter of DDG improving over time.

But truth to be told, DDG is so handy with the shebang keywords, I search Google using it and only leave DDG in my Firefox search bar and specialize with !g !gv !gi as needed.

Actually, yeah, whenever I need to search for something code related I don't go to Google, I just redo the DDG search with !g at the end. The shebangs are incredibly useful for that.

second this. I've using duckduckgo for about two years so far, both in dekstop and mobile. This is a really google replacement, and we can search other sites directly with the shortcuts ..

github? !gh

wikipedia? !w

youtube? !yt

google? !g

images? !i

and there are tons of them!!

I'd rather have a decentralized alternative ala bitcoin then another mega corp search engine.

EDIT: on that point. It would be very neat but probably very difficult to build a search index based on a agreed upon algorithm like bitcoin. There would be a need for some sort of voting system to update the algorithm and moderate people gaming it.

Yacy[1] is a decentralized search engine

[1] http://www.yacy.net/en/

For the privacy-aware, Apple used to be a good alternative for Google, but I'm afraid that soon this will no longer be the case.

What are you basing this statement on?

Google's businessmodel is based on mining and "selling" your data (you are not the customer).

Apple's businessmodel is based on selling real products.

Apple still collects data on you. Google knows what sites you browse on the Web and what Web sites you search for. Apple knows what apps you search for in the App Store and what you buy in the store, and probably usage statistics. At some point, if not already, that data will be used to profile you and generate revenue maximizing suggestions of goods and services to buy in the App Store.

You're completely missing the point.

Google makes 90% of their revenue from advertising.

Apple makes <5% of their revenue from App Store sales.

So you're ok with your data being collected, as long as they don't make money of it?

Sorry, but I hope you agree that one's web browsing behavior is a gazillion times more interesting than one's app-usage behavior.

My search queries start with Siri and end in Safari

Apple knows my web browsing behavior because Safari is my default mobile browser app syncing my history, reading list and bookmarks with desktop Safari.

Apple knows where I work, live and my travels via Apple Maps and Passbook

Apple knows a few of my purchases via ApplePay both in the real world transactions and via ApplePay in apps.

I used MobileMe mail before switching to GMail and have considered switching to iCloud mail.

Apple knows a lot more interesting things about me than Google.

Search is a dirty business - in the sense that you have to index everything, even the content you don't like, in order to be truly useful (with he common sense exceptions for scummy, abhorrent and/or illegal content).

I could be wrong, but I think Apple might have an ideological problem with a lot of content. It's their call if they decide to filter that stuff out, but it's censorship, and I struggle to see how that would result in a "better" search engine.

EDIT: Applebot still has uses beyond a search engine though. I think Apple are being straightforward in it's explanation. It's for Siri and Spotlight.

Well with the control freaks that are apple, we know better than you approach and the love me in the curator/gatekeeper spot ideology, seems like the only search engine apple can produce is yahoo circa 1998. Also - no porn and torrents on it.

In what way do you imagine Apple will be better?

My question is: why do we need an alternative really? What is better when even more companies index everything and perhaps screw with your privacy? My intuition agrees with you though. More companies == more competition. At some point privacy might be a selling point for them.

On the other hand: it is kind of crazy that when I read about "indexing the web" it starts ringing all kind of privacy bells, while apple's incentive might not even be to violate people's privacy.

When one company have more than 90% market share then: Yes, we do need an alternative. (Google market in search has been reported to be as high as 94% in countries like Denmark).

If a company manages to upset Google then that company ceases to exists online, regardless of the validity of Google reason to blacklist that company. Ideally no search engine would be above 20% market share (20% being a random low number I just made up).

Right now websites and marketing material/money is directed at Google exclusively, making it continually harder for new search companies to succeed.

I agree with you. Google has too much power over small webshops. If you somehow come in bad standing at Google you can just shut down your operation, because you won't make much money.

It's nice to have alternatives for something that's so fundamental to how we use the internet.

Google works well today, but what about 5 years from now, or 10 years from now? What if you need to be signed into Google+ to Google search? What if your Google+ account needs to be tied to a mobile phone? What if Google has limited search, and you need to own a Chromebook or Android device for the full search experience and viewing more than 10 results?

Competition keeps them in check from doing anything outrageous, and then if they decide to anyway, we have other choices we can migrate towards.

Why would they abandon free advertising income, there's yet 3 billion+ people to learn how to use the internet, that's a lot of money son.

The main problem with Google is not that it indexes everything, but that it indexes everyone - since almost everyone (at least in US and Europe) uses Google. A strong competitor would limit Google's reach in this regard. In this particular case we could assume Google would know far less about iPhone owners. In longer term Google (and others) would have adapt to that limited reach: either by forcing its way onto iPhone somehow, or - hopefully - by not basing its offer on its vast knowledge about users.