Largely because they know stuff on the Internet is potentially dangerous and full of ads and their own stuff is not, so they want the two sources (and the search mechanisms thereof) kept distinct.
Largely because they know stuff on the Internet is potentially dangerous and full of ads and their own stuff is not, so they want the two sources (and the search mechanisms thereof) kept distinct.
1. Gives a place to plug and train the 1P search engine (Bing) or a place to sell access to a search provider (Apple wrt Google)
2. Pretty easy but flashy feature that doesn’t require any real creativity or delivery risks but is flashy enough to get people promoted.
3. Probably user research shows that computer novices are confused by the difference between a file and web search box.
Don’t underestimate the confluence of these three things: it’s easy to justify as good for the (highly technically inexperienced) user, good for the business, and a solid path to a title bump for all involved.
Web search and local search don't even have the same interface: one takes a string and returns a list of web URLs based on a black box algorithm, the other takes a string along with potential other attributes and returns a list of local files that match a fulltext search.
I don't see any meaningful way to calculate a relevance score across both web results and local files.
The only reason you'd want to do this IMO is if you're desperate to get traffic to your search engine.