Google isn't going to suffer severe business consequences for (temporarily) losing dominance in the "AI integrated search" field, because the revenue from that field is effectively NaN compared to Google's current revenue. They might hypothetically suffer if AI integrated search grows to become a major fraction of the existing Search revenue and Google fails to deploy their massive existing ML/AI resources to match Bing/OpenAI's unpatented, non-secret and easily-replicated techniques. And big firms have made such strategic errors in the past! But none of that is going to happen in the short term.
Read the comment thread you just replied to and tell me how any of what you just said is relevant to me correcting the sentence "Bing isn't dominating anything haha."
You said they are dominating "AI search" but that's wrong in many ways:
- Google's entire search engine has had many layers of "AI" powering it for years.
- Bing hasn't even released this supposed AI search engine to the public.
Your other example was Tesla and the two examples couldn't be more different. Your statement would be like someone saying Tesla was "dominating" electric cars before they ever even sold a single Roadster and had just posted a demo video. It's just wrong. I can be first to market with a banana that glows in the dark, am I in the club now too?
They may dominate if this exact form of conversational answers proves popular and if launched more than a hacked together demo and only then is some strong claim they are doing anything interesting could be worthwhile.
Until then they are kind-of first-but-actually-not-really in a kind-of-theoretical-market, and not dominating it all or reaping any first-mover advantage given their opponents are ready to follow on immediately.
Just because Google uses AI for things like ranking does not put them in the same category as a search engine with AI integrated. I hope you realize that. There's a clear differentiator at play with Bard and New Bing, and that's the space people are talking about.
The market exists. Products have been announced. Some are clearly more popular than others. I don't know why you care so much that Google beats Bing, but it's plainly obvious both from people's and Google's own reactions that Bing is currently considered the winner in the space.
Will it last? Maybe. Maybe not. The very thread you are replying to is that first movers ultimately fail. But it's plainly clear Bing has captured the first mover advantage in the space, whether you like it or not.
No one hates Google more than me trust, check the comment history. Meanwhile you're stanning for something that has 0% market penetration that is essentially massively PR'ed product announcement with no market fit (not even released), and that already has competitors following easily within months (that are likely better) is some sort of first-mover advantage even comparable to what Tesla had.
On the topic of big companies making strategic errors, it's not entirely unthinkable that if AI generates a lot of hype, Google would throw away its market-dominating search engine and replace it with some AI chatbot-thing without market dominance.
It could very well be that even a small chance of this happening can cause Microsoft to go all in on making Bing more AI. Being very expensive is the point.
