Bing gives better video and image search results. Google videos only give you Youtube. Bing gives you Dailymotion, Metacafe, Vimeo, etc. So it is better for porn ;)

Yeah I knew all along thats what you're talking about.

I also knew its not a correct number to look at when calculating month to month revenue increase.

You're saying that Bing generated 19.5 million X your magic and wrong CPC formula extra revenue in January which is incorrect. Its 358 million X magic formula which you still need to work on. 

True True.

But if Microsoft didnt kill it already its because they know it will start making money just like Xbox now.

What divisions are losing money for MS ?

Bing and Windows Phone ? 

Office, Windows, Sjydrive, Skype, Xbox, Azure, all enterprise i think that makes money.

Not sure though.

I'm not discussing revenue from a volumetric increase, I'm discussing revenue from a market share increase - only relevant thing to discuss since this thread is about market share not volumetric increase in searches. I mean it's in the OP.

As for you saying I'm wrong, here's some more charts to assert my position:

Click through rates = what portion of searches are CPC...and CPC average rate:

Looks like $0.40 was low for Bing, $0.66. Using new numbers for January using above rates:

19.5m (search proportion of 0.1% market share increase) * 0.0161 (CPC portion) = 313,950. And at $0.66 per = $207,207

Volumetric just for fun:

358m * 0.0161 = 5,763,800 * $0.66 = $3,804,108 - pretty abysmal when they lose over $130m/month.

I don't have the numbers to back it up, but i think Windows Phone, the Xbox devision and Bing are the only one's that haven't made Microsoft money so far.

What you're (essentially) saying is, the revenue gain due to the small market share increase is larger than it would seem at first glance, because you have to also factor in overall search volume growth to get a real number on revenue gain. You can't just multiply the small market share gain * last month's revenue to get an accurate total, you would need to use the overall volume gain percentage as the multiplier (while factoring for click through rates and values). You're saying market share increase is not equal to revenue increase in a rapidly growing market... aka, MS could stay at the same market share percentage, or even lose some market share, and as long as the overall industry growth is high enough, they would still see an overall revenue gain. Conversely, they could gain a large amount of market share but lose revenue if the industry were shrinking at a pace faster than their market share gain.

Simply put, revenue growth for a search provider is more directly related to overall search volume, and not directly related to the market share number. You're not negating market share, just pointing out a more important factor in the equation as related to total revenue.

EDIT: Without knowing the rate of increase or decrease of the overall industry, the market share number is completely useless in determining revenue gain or loss.

Cool and all, but whats Bings marketshare in the world.

Again, volume isn't a useful statistic when talking about MARKET SHARE.

But, 17.6 billion in December -> 19.5 billion in January. This is in the OP's links. !0% increase in total volume.

Yes, but he was talking about revenue, which is not directly related to market share. Volume is directly related to revenue in this case, so it was valid for him to bring volume up when discussing revenue (even if the original article is primarily about market share). Market share is only a comparison to competitors, so cannot be used by itself in an equation to determine revenue.

It's similar to people coming into a discussion about CPU clock rate and saying something like 'clock rate isn't the only factor in determining speed', then going on to talk about cache, hyperthreading, or architecture. He's expanding the discussion beyond just market share so he can discuss revenue effectively.