So their beta customization had a small bug where you could not revert to no image.
So google could/will just add a revert button and all is fine and dandy, I don't think that is an issue, if they really removed it (and it was never up in most of the world anyway) then there must be another bug or reason we did not hear about yet, because they already have the customization with their 'igoogle' and their gadgets and such, so it seems they don't enforce clutter free interfaces but there's another reason.
Maybe MS threatened them about some copyright issue of having a search page with background picture? If so they might just need time for their lawyers to find a way to sidestep that.

And that's the new thing the west imported from china and the saudi, suits that force companies to change things but also forces them to not mention why, same is happening with VLC, their new version has no shoutcast service discovery, release notes says 'removed shoutcast' forum questions on videolan has management replying 'module was removed' and no more, but when you search you find that the VLC guys were sued about having shoutcast support and that's why they had to remove it but were also ordered to NOT tell why, it's a nice 4th Reich they are setting up here isn't it, gag orders with no reason but quelling dissent.

Fallout seems to be that the google logo isn't using proper PNG transparency anymore, weird

One of the things I like most about Google is that it's not cluttered up with a bunch of unnecessary junk. Google's homepage is centered around ONE main feature: the search query. There isn't anything else to speak of on their main page, and that's how it should be.

If you look at Yahoo.com in comparison, every big news story, sports score, web icon, and link just all get shoved into your face when you visit their main page - wasting bandwidth, looking cluttered, and being otherwise ugly.

That's why Yahoo sucks, and Google rules - Yahoo are suck in 1998, while Google are 2010. Adulterating Google's neat, professional-looking stark-white background is an atrocity.

I test it every few weeks to see if it's getting better. It's not. I still see way too much extraneous content. I can still get to what I need faster with less garbage on Google. Plus, Google doesn't have to pay people to use their site like MS does.

I can't remember the last time I needed to

Also, Firefox lets me set a soothing gray background instead of the glaring white.

@JimBob
Bing stinks. I've tried it enough, and it's crap for both use and results. I'm not a big M$ fan for a start (waits for laughs -- Thank you, thank you. Shecky Luddite. I'm here every day.) but I'm objective enough when I wish to be. -- I'd elaborate except that I don't want the least chance of helping to improve bing.

Did it change for everyone, or just those who are not logged in? I like how Google looks with my Picase image on its page. Still shows for me. When I updated Chrome, it asked if I wanted to change the image, and it shows up nicely in Firefox and IE8.

IGoogle shows my theme at the top, Google itself shows my star cruiser from Star Trek Online, and all is well.

I too was bothered by Google's forced switch of backgrounds. The change required me login to Google, and then select my background (no white default was available), and then login again. Google wouldn't allow me to opt out. I decided to think of it as a gift from those wonderful folks in the People's Republik of Kalifornia.

Anybody who hasn't tried bing has no idea how much better it is than google...

Use it for a week now, and then comment on whether it is bad or not!

Why would google ever want to mimic bing it is by far the worst search engine I have ever used.

They've fixed it now, with options to turn on and off, it also works really well with the doodles.

Bing didn't invent backgrounds

Ask.com had them first, but no one cares.
Try to never write an article again? ok?

ya, maybe a worthless topic but people are interested in this kind of stuff. Simplicity is key is one thing that can be learned from this. I like meebee's page pretty simple and clean http://bit.ly/mbtrendingtopics

maybe that wasnt necessary, but i still use a wallpaper on my google page ^_^

ugh, haters are so retarded

@Jason - you complain about the article wasting your time, and yet still take time to make a comment - how fickle.

I care what Google shows when I do searches, and to me the issue of usability was a big one - people with visual impairments (colour, focus) would have found it very difficult to see any of the links that surround the search box.

I'm not visually impaired, and even I found it difficult to focus on Google's prime aim - to search.

I am glad they kept it white, admitted it was a fail, although I wouldn't mind a iGoogle style banner IMO - it would not interfere with the navigation of the Google homepage.

Because Microsoft clearly invented the background image, right?

i like google always have.its sturdy,safe,secure,fast.but that bing from microsoft is a joke!it steals your default search over n over.dosent let one choose.then attempts to set up compatability issues.the bing threw microsoft dose.now my whole smn email is so screwed up.since i wont let bing take over.i have to fight to keep google.thats some boosheet!bing sucks big time!

...is that Google saw a need to mimic bing in the first place, messing with the tried and true and what all of us who've tried bing just come back to. Like the old "If I wanted Windows, I'd have bought a Mac" days (we old DOS-heads lost anyway), if I wanted bing, I'd freaking type www.bing.com.

This article, along with every other article on this topic, was a complete waste of my time. Am I the only one who doesn't give a damn whether we can have background pictures on the google page??