In technology, the only constant is exponential change. It is remarkable, therefore, to consider that one of its key sectors, search, has changed little during the past 10 years.
While it has evolved to cope with multimedia content and improved as algorithms have become more powerful, the presentation of a list of links to relevant web pages against a keyword search has been the de facto setting since market-leader Google came to public prominence at the turn of the Millennium. Perhaps the main reason comes down to the old adage: "If it ain't broke..."
In its short history, Google has become a powerhouse, with an 85% UK market share and a market cap of $132bn. Meanwhile, Microsoft, arguably the most successful technology company ever incorporated, lies a distant third in the search market (4% UK share) and has consistently failed to dent Google's ubiquitous dominance. But it is from this also-ran position that Microsoft has reinvented its offering with Bing, what it terms a "decision engine".
A quicker route to the information required to make the right choice sounds compelling and market reaction has been relatively positive. But, paradoxically for a search engine, its appearance asks as many questions as it answers.
If it succeeds in giving consumers the right information from more generic search terms, will this drive up the cost of keywords? Microsoft currently says only that it will be monitoring the situation.
Does its approach of categorising information mean the well-honed SEO and analysis skills within agencies will also need to adapt? And can anyone really hope to gain meaningful share from Google through innovation alone? Let's not forget it has become so big because it's so good.
To have an overly dominant player in any market is not desirable. It is widely hoped, therefore, that the talent Microsoft undoubtedly possesses has finally been put to good use in the search market. But will we soon be Binging rather than Googling?
Microsoft will count on the $100m marketing campaign giving Bing a good start and a few extra points this year would be viewed as a success. But history suggests, to achieve its stated aim of being a strong second, a $20bn deal with Yahoo may yet prove more cost effective.
