Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's IE7 Search Box Bugs Google
tessaiga writes "The New York Times reports that Google is crying foul over a new IE7 search box feature that defaults to MSN Search. Although the feature can be modified to use Google or other search engines, Google asserts that "The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7." Google goes on to assert that the move "limits consumer choice and is reminiscent of the tactics that got Microsoft into antitrust trouble in the late 1990s". I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available."
The main difference between the IE7 search box and the Firefox and Opera search boxes is that the IE7 search box comes preloaded with only one search provider: MSN. Firefox and Opera both include a half-dozen or so providers when you install them. (You can add additional search engines in all three.)
Well, that, and Firefox doesn't have a setting for a "default" provider. It "defaults" to the last one you used, which can be helpful if, say, you use Google most of the time and want to do a bunch of IMDB lookups in a row. (Yes, you can add IMDB as a search engine.) Of course, if you've never used the box before, it starts out with Google...
Of course, you can always read what the IE team has to say about searching...
Which defaults to Google, without presenting a choice.
Google didn't complain much when Safari came out with a Google-only search box.
Microsoft didn't cry foul about that either, I think Google is wrong (or not very right, anyway) in this case.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
From the slashdot summary:
Google's concern and complaint is Microsoft is once again leveraging their monopoly in their Windows domain to control unfairly users' choice to some other market or product, in this case, search engine choice. It could be problematic, maybe even legally, that Microsoft sets the default search to theirs, even though they offer other choices. I agree with Google's complaint and would like to see Microsoft forced to make choosing the search engine part of the setup procedure.
As for the slashdot summary observation Firefox hasn't done the same, Firefox has no monopoly and is therefor in no way obligated in the same way as Microsoft to change the default behavior.
As an aside, and a question, has anyone else had trouble with IE7? In keeping with "knowing your enemy", I installed IE7, and it crashes consistently every time I open up a new page in a new tab. Anyone else seen this?
Firefox isn't a Google product, and isn't subject to the same sorts of antitrust restrictions that IE is. Various combinations that rhyme with 'Clucking Nidiot' were going through my head when I read the blurb.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and thus is subject to a different set of rules. If Firefox had 90% of the browser market then things might be different. As it stands, however, Firefox can include or exclude whoever they want. Microsoft may not be able to.
At least, that's the excuse Google can use. Frankly I'm inclined to think it's "just business".
End of lesson. You may press the button.
"The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7"
Just like Firefox, huh? FX defaults the home page and the search box to Google but you didn't hear Google saying that users should have a choice then.
- Andrew
I meta-moderate because I care.
I'd hardly call this an antitrust issue. A microsoft product is referrign to a microsoft search engine. It's very easy to change it to use a different one. It's when Microsoft makes it impossible to use anything _BUT_ their own products that there's serious problems. Case in point is the inability to 'remove' IE at all, and Microsoft's assertion that it was impossible to do so (then later making versions of windows that have IE removed).
I think Google is starting to feel the pinch. They've tweaked the lumbering behemoth that is Microsoft, and Billy boy is fighting back the best way he can. Back room deals, silent contracts, and subtle manipulation of the market. Google should be more worried about Microsoft pushing their products into the colleges and large businesses, not what the default search engine on one box in one browser is.
Event Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
Nice writeup submitter as you presented an excellent balanced example rather than the often one-sided point of view.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Google should auto-magically have a script that makes it the default search engine when an Internet Explorer user visits http://www.google.com/ to make a search.
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google
- Google doesn't make firefox
- Google isn't a monopoly
- Firefox isn't a monopoly
Your comment is irrelevant. I hear that Adobe Premier doesn't let you search on Alta-Vista too.
Microsoft is releasing a browser which you DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE (it won't be tied into the system as IE currently is), and it defaults to their search engine. Makes sense, if you ask me. What's wrong about this? If it was to give you a choice upon startup of MSN, Google, or Yahoo, they wouldn't get as many search queries. Have they done anything wrong? No. It's not even unethical.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I tried changing the default search to google and it would take.
Is this because it's beta? I didn't like the thinbg anyhow. And too,
a new home page wouldn't take either not even about:blank
I agree that Google is being a bit hypcritical here. It makes business sense that they don't want MSN to be the default, especially since Microsoft is also muscling into the search engine wars, but I think their case would have been stronger if they'd included MSN search in their search options on installation. Then again, part of me is wondering if that might not have caused legal problems in and of itself. "Appropriation of competiting technology and repackaging under a different brand name" or somesuch.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
It's not Googles job to cry foul over things that benefit them. Especially, when it is a third party software.
Complaining about Google being default in Firefox is Microsofts job (or Yahoo or someone else). However, if Microsoft had complained about that they would have _had_ to make it optional in IE7 as well. So, Microsoft kept quiet about that.
If Google had complained about them being the default in FireFox then they would have been on the moral high ground when complaining about IE7. But they wouldn't be in a much better position to convince Microsoft though.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Google didn't write Firefox. Microsoft did write IE7 AND MSN Search. If Google wrote Firefox and put their search in, that would be hypocritical. That's not the case.
This is another instance of Microsoft using its dominance in one market to force its way into another market. They used Windows to force themselves into the browser market, and now that they dominate the browser market they're using it to force themselves into the search market.
if(!cool) exit(-1);
The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.
Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.[66]
It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?
The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7--assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA's supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had "only a low probability of occurrence."[67] Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.
This was one of the Commission's most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.
Even More Similar to Controlled Implosions
Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional demolition--namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:
Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . . The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile.[68]
Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is "by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."[69] Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying:
The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the "official" theory)---requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude
All that said, I don't see any problem with Microsoft doing this as long as the browser isn't bundled with the OS.
Why is Google making such a fuss over this? It seems extremely out of character for them. It's not as though IE7 is going to win people away from Firefox and MSN isn't going to steal users from Google. Seems odd for them to be arguing for one point when they're so far ahead of Microsoft in this game.
I don't use Firefox, but I'll assume what you're saying is correct ...
What Firefox does isn't abusing what may be considered a monopoly power. Microsoft, on the other hand, is using their power in one field to force people back to themselves in another field.
This could be better compared to if you called telephone information, and asked for an ISP, and they sent you to the ILEC's ISP, without disclosing that they were routing you to the ISP they owned. (therefore, shutting out other ISPs)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Ohhhh, right. We need to somehow make Google look bad because they've never been convicted of abuse of monopoly power.
"Google's concern and complaint is Microsoft is once again leveraging their monopoly in their Windows domain to control unfairly users' choice to some other market or product, in this case, search engine choice. It could be problematic, maybe even legally, that Microsoft sets the default search to theirs, even though they offer other choices. I agree with Google's complaint and would like to see Microsoft forced to make choosing the search engine part of the setup procedure."
And Pepsi should get equal time in Coke machines.
Shouldn't microsoft cry foul over Firefox defaulting to Google then?
Turnaround is fair play IMO.
Where was google crying for fairness when their special agreement with Firefox to make google search the default home page and the default search engine?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Ok, a choice between what? Who gets to decide which serach engines get listed as choices and which dont?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search"
it only has 2 web search engines, the rest are specialized (ebay, answers.com, etc) but it DOES include an "Add Engines" link. the page it leads you to does have MSN search
-- lol pwned
The most important difference here is that Google is not a subsidiary or owned by the Mozilla Foundation whereas MSN is owned by Microsoft.
Firefox and Google are two companies that are (to my knowledge) completely independent. Firefox can choose whatever search engine they want to set to default. On top of that, you don't pay for Firefox where you kind of paid for IE7.
The author's analogy of: Is, in my opinion, a poor one. A Mozilla based browser is free for almost any operating system while IE7 is free
To recap, Microsoft putting Microsoft as the default search engine is bad because they are using their operating system and browser market dominance to corner the search engine market. They have no right to do that. Where would we make them stop? It's kind of a slippery slope. It's fine that they've put unlimited funds toward web search and the console market--it's not fine if their forcing or even defaulting their users to themselves in other markets.
My work here is dung.
OTOH, I would much prefer it DOES NOT search for anything. For example, if I type in stuff like 'wwwww.yahoo.com', that STUPID IE just search for it and with the address bar ending up modifed as "http://sea.search.msn.com/dnserror.aspx?FORM=DNSA S&q=wwwww.yahoo.com". Now I need to go delete those characters to modify the original URL!!
Ernest
Except that, well, MSN is getting ad revenue from those search box queries that normally Google would be getting. Given the amount of IE users, that could be a substantial chunk of Google's revenues, possibly enough to start sinking them as a company.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google.
Its the same for Safari on Macs. There is a search box in the upper right that uses Google. I think its great, and I prefer Google, I even have it as my home page, but it seems hypocritical of them to criticize IE 7 for defaulting to MSN search.
I do think that Google is more fair than MSN in their search rankings. Well, partly because the web sites that I have done for various Buddhist and Martial Arts groups in my city are at the top when you do a search, but also because I was turned off when MSN search gave a link to a "Why switch from Linux to Windows" page when users looked up Linux. I think they have changed it now, or become more subtle, but I prefer to have my searches pure.
Having said that, look up the word failure in Google and click the "I'm feeling lucky" button. Another reason to stay with Google.
automatically get downloaded as a "fix" from your friendly monopolistic OS provider, linking to its own service.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This is true, but there is a slight difference... Firefox and Google are 2 different entitities, whereas IE and MSN search are both owned by Microsoft. IE has 90% of the browser market share, thus its decision to set MSN as the default search engine COULD be considered as illegal monopolistic competition.
Firefox, Opera and Safari together have at a minimum 10% of the market, and by some estimates probably have at least more realistically around 15-20% now. Have you forgotten that Microsoft ceded the entire Mac browser market to Apple? Every desktop Linux installation is in a similar situation.
Yes, that's such a monopoly. There's no viable competition since the competition only has a low double digit marketshare as opposed to 50% or more!
Why aren't you bitching about Google trying to buy its way into the same monopoly that you allege Microsoft to have? Don't you think it's "bad for competition" that people are "forced" to use Google by default in Firefox and Opera? Oh the horror, people might have to learn how to switch their default search engine!
My IE 7 beta allows me to change to Google quite easily... I think this is pretty retarded seeing how Firefox is beating IE 7 out, and it's just a damn search engine. Do we pay to use either? Nope, all it's coming down to is Google getting greedy and wanting money from people viewing their adds. Can we say the same about installing the google toolbar and it defaulting to Google? How DARE they release a product that defaults to their mode of search! I can't even change it to another search engine! Monopoly! Anti trust! The sky is falling! Get over it people.. Sheesh
they cant say jack in this situation as I'm looking at my Google toolbar which has Google as default and no MSN for a choice. Yah please shut the fuck up. If they had a Google browser they Google would be the main choice also.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Click the magnifying glass, click "Find search providers." You get a list of providers, including Google and Wikipedia.
Google needs to buck up and become a man, whining doesn't get you much of anywhere. Just like Firefox and Opera you can change your default search engine.
I also thought it was pretty interesting that IE supports OpenSearch, an open standard to add search engines (unlike FF and Opera).
" Google goes on to assert that the move "limits consumer choice and is reminiscent of the tactics that got Microsoft into antitrust trouble in the late 1990s".
I like Google, but this does not limit consumer choice. IE7 doesn't *block* google's web site. You can add Google search to their search box....
Antitrust would be if when you go to google.com or altavista.com and what not and it automatically goes to MSN.com. And if you use Google in the search box it doesn't limit the searches. Sorry. Google's wrong this one. And they should be careful now. Backwards steps can cause a giant to fall.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
It's their product, shouldn't they be allowed to use their search engine by default? If you don't like it, use an alternative (as I'm sure most of us do). As for the average user, they probably go to www.google.com and start their search from there.
"Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available"
And exactly why would they not be quiet when it benefits them? Google is a companay like any other, and acts in the interests of Google and its revenue. Fortunately for them, most of the time this aligns well with consumer interest, making them 'appear' as a good wholesome company, give it another 5 years when they have 99% of the internet ad and search market and then they will suddenly become the 'DEBIL' (sp. waterboy reference).
A lot of people are bringing up the same points about how you have choice in firefox and what have you, what I'm wondering is; does anybody use the little search bar anyway? I have a personalised google home-page as my home and everytime I want to search for something I open up a new tab an go there... I even try not to (because using the search bar gets firefox money and I'm too poor to donate - so it seems nice) but I just can't remember and end up opening a new tab out of habbit... does anyone use them?
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Call us a Luddite, but we hates the "auto-search"
When I copy and paste a link like "http://internal/dontgoogle/this.php" into my Mozilla or Firefox text field, I'm often greeted with a crappy little "Google could not find any documents that matched..." screen. I suppose there's a way to turn the auto-search off (I never want it to fire), but I'd be happier if it wasn't there at all.
I also think there's a small security risk with auto-search taking over URL fields; every once in a while developers are known to stick credentials in GET strings during testing...
I'm getting tired of companies whining over how other companies write their software. Microsoft writes the program, they can make it default to their system if they want to. I agree that MS *should* allow people to choose what they wish to use in their search, but they should not be forced legaly to - thats just silly. Safari only uses Google for their search - should MSN or Alta Vista get bent about that?
Besides - who here is going to be using IE 7 as their primary browser long term anyway if they only allow you to use MSN? Right... I thought so.
really? I'm sure that they were definately other before.
In fact I remember being irritated when I shifted to 1.5 that Dictionary.com had been *removed* from the default options.... I don't have machine with 1.0 to check right this instant, but when I get home I'll look.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
It's a real shame that most Americans are such sheep that they refuse to even *discuss* these issues.
The terrorists have won...but they don't wear turbans.
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.
Allow me to point out for the implication-impaired that the excerpt is suggesting that Google should have said something to Mozilla about the absence of MSN Search in the search bar drop down of Firefox.
Now, I'm not saying that "tessaiga" should be committed, necessarily. But it couldn't hurt.
Why in Zeus's name would Google care if MSN Search weren't listed as an option? Why would it be Google's responsibility to speak up? Ridiculous. Google wouldn't even have standing to bring it up, should legal action be required.
IE7 is developed by Microsoft and that is where I would complain. firefox isn't made by google, that was mozilla's choice, and it doesnt reflect a product they are developing, hence it doesnt reek of anti-competitive..(ok that might be a bit extreme, but still)
MSN search (Windows Live) is "newer" than stable releases of Firefox, at least as far as publically available WinLive goes.
The problem here is that neither Firefox (or Safari, or Opera, or whatever) are sponsored by Google. Those browsers are the result of one third party choosing another third party for it's default.
Microsoft defaulting to WinLive is just like Windows coming with only IE, and WMP, and not giving the users choices for other third-party sources.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
The amusing part is watching the Google apologists doing logical backflips to explain why it's bad for IE/MSNsearch to behave unethically, yet it's good for Firefox/Google to behave in exactly the same manner.
The Firefox and Opera browsers come with Google set as the default, but [vice president for search products at Google Marissa] Mayer said Google would support unfettered choice on those as well.
It's the default browser in Vista, come '07 your statement is wrong. And that's the big problem here. IE is bundled with an OS (Vista) and Firefox is not. If IE was a completely seperate application then I'd have no problem here, but with Vista that is not the case.
On another note, Google doesn't own Safari or Firefox, so they can pick whatever default search they want.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available."
Except Firefox isn't owned by Google, making this an entirely different situation. Hence, the whole "antitrust" arguement.
This submission should be modded (-1 Flamebait)
/me grabs popcorns
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
IE7 and MSN Search are both developed by a convicted monopolist. Integrating them together smacks of a(nother) Sherman Antitrust violation. Firefox is NOT developed by Google (not a convicted monopolist) and therefor cannot be held to the same standard. If Firefox defaults to Google, it is because the Firefox development team concluded it is a better search engine. FF appears to be motivated primarily by technology, not profit and market share greed. However, it would further appear (and history shows, i.e., Apache v. IIS), technology, not bundling, ultimately drives market share. Furthermore, in regards to Safari having only a single search engine available as an integrated feature, last I cheched Firefox still was a distant second in terms of browser user base while Safari user base barely registers on the radar screen.
The initial IE7 beta actually had a 5 or 6 useful search providers- including Google. I'm guessing suits hadn't gotten to it at that time. A couple betas later it only had MSN.
That's not quite what the problem is either.
The real problem is that it's illegal to abuse monopoly powers by using your (otherwise legal) monopoly in one industry to force users to adopt your inferior product in another industry.
For a concrete example - if you have a monopoly in Operating Systems, you can NOT use your operating system monopoly to force users to use your online-store or your media-player or your single-sign-on-service. Google's arguing that you are also not allowed to force people to use your search engine either -- and that users are so unlikely to switch default browsers that making this the default in IE is effectively forcing the users.
Firefox does not have this problem, because it is not illegally abusing any monopoly powers.
...just what we need. More mindless Google bashing. Sorry, but no matter what you dorks do, Google just isn't the evil company that MS is. If they were they'd be turning over much higher stock values and enforcing lock-ins on their users. Sorry, but if I wanted a daily dose of "evil overlord" I'd be all over MS. Google is more like the middle manager who "gets it".
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
My Mandriva build of FireFox 1.0.6 (which has patches from 1.0.7) has Google, eBay, Amazon, Dictionary, Creative Commons and Yahoo search engines.
Isn't it obvious? Google will soon purchase FireFox and be done with it =)
Here's a little trick for Google users who are going to use IE7: go to the address bar and type "www.google.com." Voila!
This is so much pissing in the wind. Google needs to get over itself and Microsoft needs a good, swift kick in the browser. Who cares! Use the browser you want to use and use the search engine you want to use! Until browsers start blocking particular search URLs of search engines refuse to run in certain browsers, there is... say it with me now... nothing to see here!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I'd be interested to know which search engine generates most revenue for the browser company. After all, Mozilla gets a penny or two every time you do a google search in Firefox and click through an ad, or something like that. Obviously for IE7 the MSN generates the most revenue for the browser company: Microsoft.
A-Bomb
You dont need to use IE7. You can use amything else. Its not like they are saying that they will only allow you to search 'live' on their os.
what about google desktop ? You can't set any other search engine there? You cant use it to search hotmail ?
What about yahoo? It won't let you connect to google talk. Is that bad ?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
This is really whiny of Google actually because it is so damn easy to add Google. Click the magnifying glass, click add search providers. Pick your provider, from a whole host of providers (inclusing Wikipedia, Google, Ask, etc.) Microsoft even went so far as to use OpenSearch, an open standard so anyone can create and add their search engine. They must be feeling the crunch from Redmond...
It's not like Microsoft is trying to prevent users from changing their default search page, and if they did then it would definitely be an antitrust violation. If I am not mistaken, Microsoft makes it easy for a website to make their search engine default:
Do you own a site? Promote your favorite search engines (including your own, if you have one) on your site with Internet Explorer 7! All you need is to run the following script on your page: window.external.AddSearchProvider('URL') Where 'URL' points to an OpenSearch description document, which will tell Internet Explorer 7 how to add the search engine to the browser.
Maybe Google should stop whining and put this on their page and they could easily have users change their default search page when they visit Google.com. Considering they already prop up FireFox from their homepage, would it realy be that hard?
The difference with FF defaulting to Google and IE7 defaulting to MSN is simple. Google != FF. M$ == IE7.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
What Microsoft is doing is called illegal tying of products. Microsoft does not have to prevent the use of competing products, just favor their own.
If Microsoft were truly concerned about satisfying the preferences of their customers, why does Microsoft default to using a search engine that the Internet public has relegated to a distant third? Wouldn't it be a better example of trying to satisfy their customers if Microsoft had put the search engine into IE7 that was by far the most widely used search engine? Why is Microsoft forcing its customers to reconfigure the browser in order to select something that the overwhelming majority have already chosen?
By complaining about it now, Google makes it much harder for Microsoft to "integrate" the search engine into the operating system later.
The best part of it all is that Google's homepage earlier today was proudly wearing a HUGE add for Firefox below the search box, showing off their new toolbar, in deference to Microsoft's antics.
And Google can hurt Microsoft in many ways without much risk.
For example, Google could take Mozilla or Firefox and invest 2 man-weeks in it and release it as the "Google-Browser" (complete with official logo, etc.) and give it a link on the Google-Homepage. Cost for Google: Neglectible. Cost for Microsoft: The loss of the last chance to regain browser-domination. Many people only want to run software from a brand they know. They don't know Mozilla, but they know Google. Heck, I'd guess that 10-20% of users would use it.
Or Google could go to some noname computer maker and create a cheap and simple Linux-based "Google internet station" that is marketed for people who only use the web and email and never install any other software (except virus scanners which they will no longer need). Again neglectible cost for Google. Of course unlike the Browser (which I personally think would be an almost guaranteed success) nobody knows wether this would take off, but if it did, it would cause lots of lost revenue and even more importantly lost marketshare for Microsoft.
The main difference between the IE7 search box and the Firefox and Opera search boxes is that the IE7 search box comes preloaded with only one search provider: MSN. Firefox and Opera both include a half-dozen or so providers when you install them.
That's admirable but it's only a small part of the software freedom you enjoy.
What is "preloaded" with Firefox is entirely up to the distro you are using. Any of the thousands of GNU/Linux distros can put whatever they want there. What the Mozilla foundation does is irrelevant and the issue is spurious. You have options, right down to making your own distribution. An easier option for larger organizations is custom package management. Because free software has no owner, you own your computer.
What is "preloaded" on a Windoze system is what Bill Gates wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update." When someone else owns your software, they own your computer.
The other kind of "preloading" is OS preloading by every major computer vendor, which is obnoxious. It's not easy to avoid the M$ tax and Paladium promisses to make it even more difficult. It's a good thing M$ is flexing their muscles on such a pointless but visible thing. Such things should make the EU anti-trust fine decisions quicker and easier. I'm looking forward to the EU taxing those morons $500,000,000/day.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Google asserts that "The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7."
Yeah, that's exactly what I want when I start using a browser, a popup window asking me which coporate giant I want to control a tiny feature I (as an average user) will probably never use. I _real_ sure FF's creative commons search wouldn't be there anymore, nor any other communitiy feature.
Look, Google, I know this sucks for you, but the users come first. Badgering them is not the solution to your business complaints. What ever happened to the guys who came up with "I'm Feeling Lucky"?
Sorry, MS wins this round. Atleast until somone comes up with a better solution that grants choice without destroying convenience, which is the whole point of the search box feature.
-mix
I don't discuss the idea that the earth is the center of the universe either. That doesn't make me a sheep. It makes me someone who can understand logic and reason, not somebody who believes every one-sided conspiracy theory they see.
In short, this sure looks hypocritical to me.
According to the article here: http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4114/53/
Google actual pays for the privilege to be the defaut search for Firefox and Opera.
...then don't use it.
Google is simply mistaken. It is by choice that people install IE7 & MS doesnt force upgrade anyone. And whoever does install they go through MS's EULA.
Does Microsoft own Internet Explorer? Furthermore, is Google a convicted monopolist? We're not talking apples vs. apples here.
A bit off-topic, but if you want to be able to change Safari's search box, check out AcidSearch:
http://www.pozytron.com/acidsearch
"AcidSearch is a search enhancement for Safari. It adds unlimited "Search Channels" to the Google search field. Channels can be customized in a nearly infinite variety of ways. AcidSearch also includes powerful features such as JavaScript support, the ability to import iSeek and Butler Search Sites, true hierarchical menu organization, and the ability to search multiple search engines at the same time. AcidSearch also allows you to access your search channels with key equivalents, shortcuts (a la SafariKeywords), and a contextual menu."
I find it very very interesting that the latest few Google articles have been tagged 'evil'...
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
I don't like the search box in Firefox. Google is my home page, so it's superfluous. How do I get rid of the search box entirely? Switch to IE7?
Edith Keeler Must Die
A microsoft product is referrign to a microsoft search engine. It's very easy to change it to use a different one.
Yes. It is just as easy as it was in 1998 to change IE to that other browser.. now what was its name? You know, what I mean. I think it started with "net" or something.Besides the obvious appearance of the subject. No one commenting so far seems to see the difference here. IE7 defaulting to MSN "IS" a Microsoft business unite. Firefox "IS NOT" in any way a business entity of Google, nor is Safari, Opera or any other. They have to pay when that search bar is used. Remember the story about how much the Mozilla foundation (what ever their name is ) received from Google searches? Mozilla/Firefox/Opera/Safari not including MSN or defaulting to Google is not a monopoly practice, while Microsoft using their Browser to Control 9X% of the users in the world to use their search engine either "is" or "looks" (aka looks like a duck, walks like a duck... ) like a monopoly practice.
I think their case would have been stronger if they'd included MSN search in their search options on installation.
What are you talking about? Google's web browser?
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
"The Firefox and Opera browsers come with Google set as the default, but Mayer said Google would support unfettered choice on those as well."
All they are saying is don't preselect the search tool - allow the end user the choice at initial launch of the product. Google is protecting it's search business from Microsoft unfairly leveraging the widespread distribution of it's browser. They are not being hypocritical. Microsoft will benefit financially by driving more search traffic to their site. Firefox does not benefit financially from Google search traffic. This is apples and oranges.
http://www.worldsoccerbars.com
i have ie 7 beta 2 installed. based on experience, when i visited sites such as google and yahoo, they have a script intalled that alerted me to make their sites as default for the search box in ie. once you agree, the plugin is installed and makes their site the default.
i have installed firefox and the default search is google. i used safari and their default search is google as well.
though i am not for microsoft, i would say google's actions with the other browsers *may* cause them troubles in the future. when the share of non-ie browser increases, then microsoft can sue them back because users are not given choice what search engine to choose from.
my point is, if they want a neutral search page, the first startup of the browser should not default to any particular site but to a "customization" page for preference including search sites. users should explicitly choose.
what would google want as action if ever they will push through the an antitrust suit? make google the default search in ie?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
The parent has the perfect summary of the problem, I wish I had mod points, but since I don't, please mod it up for me.
Let's think about this for a second. What if Microsoft had included google as the primary search provider in IE7?
Now you would have a case stating that MS is trying to make money by marketing a product that boasts of google's search engine without their authority.
So, instead, they decided they might as well use THEIR OWN software to advertise and otherwise promote THEIR products. Imagine that -- have you ever seen a Comcast commercial while watching TV provided by Comcast? Hell, have you ever gotten an advertisement in the same envelope as your cell phone bill?
The arguments here are saying that when nextel sends me a bill, I should have the option to get an ad for cingular...?
It's easy to twist words to fit your argument, but how about using a little common sense here.
Microsoft is promoting Microsoft's products.
'Nuff said.
You need Vista PRC for that to work. Red Flag might do the same. In the mean time, I recommend you use a free OS instead so that you can chose for yourself.
I can't imagine how much money you would have to pay Mozilla and then each and every GNU/Linux distro to include a M$ search in their list of engines. Is there anyone besides Steve Ballmer's "brainwashed" kids who uses M$'s second rate search engine by choice?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The difference is that Microsoft has a near monopoly in the browser area, and IE 7 is likely going to ship with Vista and be pre-installed on 99% of computers in the near future. The issue is that they are not allowed to use pre-existing monopolies to buy their way into new ones!
Mr. Period: Nine is the one that's right by ten!
Nine: One day I will kill him. Then, I will be Ten.
Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS. Which seems to be fine with the govt as long as they don't exploit it to push other products. Microsoft was nailed for exactly that in the browser war. The latest case in the European Union is that Microsoft includes a streaming media client (Media Player) in their monolopy os that only works with their streaming media server. So they leverage their desktop os monopoly to sell server system. The case even gets a lot of coverage on Slashdot. Latest story here
So now they default to MSN search in their monopoly desktop os.
What is so difficult to understand here???
Don't believe for one moment that Google's motives are pure and "do no evil".
Not to make a judgment about Google specifically, but it's entirely possible to have impure motives without doing evil to get there. Motives are about ends, doing evil is about means. (Of course, there are certain ends that you can only achieve by doing evil -- like deciding to f*ing kill someone.)
One's motive could be to make huge piles of cash, but one could go about it ethically. One could even try to compete on both technical and PR levels.
of course, what would happen if some new search engine pops up? do they then get to sue microsoft, firefox foundation, and opera for not including them in their box?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Change it to Yahoo to piss Google off, then make it where they can't change it to use google :)
Firefox is not a product that belongs to google - it is a community creation. Whereas ie is something that microsoft produces for its own profit, and forces upon the pc users with all the operation systems that it sells.
In short, defaulting the search to google is firefox community's own choosing, and people are free to get or not to get firefox according to their own whim, whereas defaulting the search to msn is microsoft's own scheme which is clearly something that is thought of to get people who are just starting out with pc's, newbies to using msn search.
indeed an act of monopoly, and microsoft should be sweating its ass over it in europe, i guarantee you.
Read radical news here
MS is going to have IE7 (at least by defailt) point to MSN, if only for the reasoning that they should be allowed to showcase other products.
I hate Microsoft and even I'm kinda understanding their reasoning, here. If you tell Microsoft that they can't use Internet Explorer, Hotmail or anything else to use MSN Search, why even offer a search engine to begin with?
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I'd like to be able to pull a statistic out of my ass regarding use of search boxes, but I'm loathe to make one up on the spot and I don't know what the actual statistics would be. Anyhow, my suspicion is that, given a search box, most people will use that rather than type in their favorite search engine's address and type in a query. It's just easier. Most people intially downloaded the toolbar to block popups. But after that was not so much an issue, I think that having a search box was the reason most people downloaded it. The convenience is very nice. Will they keep downloading Google toolbar now that there's pop-up blocking and a search box? I know I haven't downloaded the Google toolbar for FireFox.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Maybe the reason the Firefox search box wasn't a problem is that Mozilla does not have a (near-)monopoly on desktop operating systems.
:/
Or maybe it's just because Google happens to be the default in Firefox.
chown -R us ~you/base
Firefox is even more fool-proof (less convenient IMO): there's a completely separate box to enter search text.
How does your browser work?
Just to save time, I'll summarize the typical MS-basher's point of view:
In summary: Anything Microsoft does is bad -- even if it's good when other companies do it. Anything Microsoft does is bad -- even if they were doing the exact opposite last year, and we said that was bad.
I don't think most people use the search box even when one exists on their browser. I know even as an intermediate->advanced computer user I sometimes forget and type google in the bar. Also, if MSN is the only option I don't know how many people will even use it, they might just resume googling like they did before.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
You're absolutely right. I wrote that while distracted by half a dozen other things and realized I'd mixed up Google and Firefox in my references after submitting. *shrug* And you're the first person to realize. Congratulations.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I got real pissed off at GM Cars for including a GM Radio in their GM Car.
Sure, I know I can change it to some other brand like Clarion or Bose. But damnit, the default installation was a GM Radio and that's just not right.
Clarion and Bose should file a complaint, because clearly GM Radios have a monopoly on GM cars and it's anti-competitive for GM Cars.
-David
Textbook answer. You'd rather lash out personally than think critically about the issues.
Given that the OP was focused on WTC 7 let's discuss that. Exactly how do you reconcile the fact that a 47-story steel-framed building (which was actually far stronger than normal buildings of this type, owing to the fact that that it was built straddling an existing electrical substation), collapsed suddenly and completely into its own footprint, after only a few small fires were seen on a few floors?
Come, now...let's see that 'logic' and 'reason you value so highly.
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search...
IMHO Google is rigt here. The difference is the use of an existing market dominance to create a new one. In the case of the "browser war", Microsoft illegally misused their OS monopoly to create a browser monopoly, and that's illegal both in the US and in EU.
In this case, Microsoft are using their existing market dominance to promote their own search engine, which I see as a clear violation of the anti trust law.
In the case of Firefox, neither the Mozilla organization nor Google are misusing a market dominance to promote a product. Google is simply the default, probably because it's the bigest search engine. This is legal in just about the same way as it's legal for PC producers to preload PCs with Windows.
Google is evil and Microsoft is good? Say it ain't so!
In related news, Hell froze over!
Until Microsoft starts charging people to download IE7, I think people really need to shut the fuck up about the default search engine. Really now. So, now I guess they have to put in a disclaimer "This product will use it's parent company's search technology when a term is entered into the search box". Oh, really? Can't have that. Count yourselves lucky it CAN be changed. Anybody who cares about this for more than just a few fleeting seconds really has far too much time on their hands.
Just do what I did, set up some firewall rules on your local network that sends people to google when they enter any of the popular search URL's. It's dirty, but sure to satisfy even the most dyed-in-the-wool OS / Browser / Search engine zealots.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
when you first install windows (or pull your new dell out of the box) and you fire up the intarweb, the default browser is IE, which by default goes to MSN... so IE7 (a microsoft product) now adds a search box in their product that goes to their search engine? so?
If the users didnt change their default home page away from MSN then its the same situation, if they have changes their homepage, they can change their default browser
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I've been playing with IE7 recently, and I've noticed two things.
On my stripped down VM. the Search defaults to MSN. It doesn't have any other search engines available unless you add them to the list. which is easy to do.
I have the Beta Google Toolbar installed on my Main PC. after IE7 installed, the Search defaults to Google and doesn't list MSN search unless you go to the Add website in IE7. You don't have to reinstall the toolbar either. it just carries the settings over from IE6.
This is nothing new. IE has had integrated searching since IE4. It's been set on MSN for years. It's never bothered Google before so why all of a sudden is it bothering them?
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
but I'm not gonna whine because they deploy their software in such a way that makes the most sense for their business.
...but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.
Many years?
Search engines pay money to the browser makers to get their search engines in there anyway.
Um, care to back that up?
The two biggest browsers right now are IE and Firefox; Microsoft is basically promoting their own product here (MSN Search) so I doubt they're "paying" anything directly, so really your point seems to suggest that Google has paid Firefox to be the default search. That's a pretty strong statement to be making without any evidence.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
For one google funds firefox from the click traffic it gets. Do you know many open source projects that are funded by the multi-billion-dollar moster?
Google also blacklists konqueror (which is the only sane alternative). But wait until konq provides a "disable google ads" feature:)
If browsers were really free, we would have ad-less internet. As long as you are seeing those ads you can be sure that mozilla is somebody's product.
--agnostic
All of the moaning about Firefox "defaulting" to Google and Safari is missing the point. Google is NOT, despite being heavily used, in a monopoly position in its market, there is lots of choice and it has no way to FORCE people into using their search engine.
Microsoft ARE a monopoly who have consistently abused that position to gain unfair advantage in other parts of their business. Google not bitching about Firefox is NOTHING like the IE 7 element for several reasons
1) IE 7 comes pre-installed on Vista
2) Microsoft operate a monopoly on desktop operating systems
3) Microsoft have been found guilty twice of abusing that position (although only the EU has balls enough)
If Opera had their own browser and search engine then Google WOULDN'T be "bleating" about that as Opera can't force anyone to use their browser. Microsoft DO force people to use theirs as part of the operating system.
The saddest bit about all of this on Slashdot is that ever people reduce it to a technology fight (Firefox v IE, MSN v Google) when in fact its an economic fight between an upcoming company and a convicted monopolist. Bugger whether IE 7 is better or worse, the whole aim of this feature is to use MS Desktop users to increase traffic to MSN while decreasing traffic to Google, this is an abuse of Microsoft's position.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Because as we all know giving people choices is a bad thing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with giving people the option of choosing their search engine. Granted, most people don't know what a search engine is ("I just use the blue thingy") and would probably select the default selection anyway but at least giving the option to those who have a small understanding of these things isn't that hard, he says hoping not to be proven wrong.
Google counters that claim with a study it sponsored that was conducted by Tec-Ed, a research firm. It found that only a third of users could master the four-click process to change the default.
Oh well, so much for hoping.
The issue is a simple one: Microsoft does not want to give people a choice of what search engine to use. If they did they'd see their usage drop as more people found that Google did a better job displaying useful results more quickly and with less clutter. For them to say that offering a few choices would be limiting is disingenous since by their actions they are limiting choices.
Since Google has said that what's good for the goose is good for the gander (i.e. unfettered choice) there isn't an issue of bias other than Google wanting to compete head-to-head with Microsoft. Besides, Microsoft has said in the past that something either was or was not possible then turned around and did what they say they couldn't do. They can offer the user choices for search if they want to. The question is: will they do it willingly or will they have to be forced into doing it?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
One could see it as follows: Microsoft is pointing to it's own search engine, so as not to impose a significant load onto a third party. (Meaning that it will foot the bill for the processing/bandwidth/etc. required to offer such a service.)
Because honestly, wouldn't Microsoft require at least some form of permission before it could point millions of users to any given (external) search engine, being that such a service is rather essential these days?
Move along folks. there are more important things in the world to be upset about. This is not an issue.
You got the touch!
Forgive me if I laugh a little bit about Google but Google just showed to Microsoft how to do it. And Microsoft will copy anything which can be copied as easy as the search field. So I wonder if Google never tries something which Microsoft can't copy, maybe they simply don't know anything. Well I'm curious when Google will jump on the cross-platform train (http://wyoguide.sourceforge.net/papers/Cross-plat form.html) which Microsoft definitely won't go. Sure enough cross-platform won't kill Microsoft but it will hurt them quite a bit. ;-)
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
Google makes no money in the sell of either.
Google's main source of revenue is the advertising they display in search results. When Firefox or Opera default to Google, they are in effect directly boosting Google's revenue stream. By the millions of dollars.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So Google says, "The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7." We all know Firefox defaults to Google (a company that Mozilla has a financial arrangement with), and it doesn't give users a choice when they first start up the browser. In fact, Firefox goes one further, not only defaulting the search box to Google, but defaulting your start page to a Google search page (with Firefox branding), again without asking the user. Microsoft makes it easy to switch search providers. They adhere to the OpenSearch standard for search links. They support search discovery. Oh, and the search box in IE7 gets set to the AutoSearch setting from IE6, so if a user or admin has changed that to Google, you'll start up IE7 and the search box will be Google.
Yes, Google is only complaining about IE. But it's not like they're trying to force a double standard. They're looking out in their best interests, yes, but they are certainly OK with IE, FF and Opera playing by the same rules.
Implicit Evaluation with PHP
Come to think of it, what other search engine would be a more sensible choice for a general-purpose FF default? I mean, I mostly use RollYo and Furl myself (yanno, to filter out the content-siphons & parking lots & to easily find the crap I vaguely remember the jist but not the source of...), but those would hardly be better choices for the FF neophyte.
Unless an efficient, comprehensive, open-source, not-for-profit, community driven search service rises up & gains the necessary mindshare, I think Google's earned its place in FF's search box.
Pi Ran Out
Seriously, I just attempted to add google as my default search in IE7 and its so easy that anyone who cannot figure it out probably will not be using the search feature inbedded anyways.
I've noticed that IE7 defaults to MSN as it's homepage if the user hasn't set one yet. Worse yet, the favorites default to many Microsoft owned pages. Obviously this limits consumer choice and is anti-competitive! How long are we going to tolerate such defaults from a convicted monopolist?
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and thus is subject to a different set of rules.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft.
Google is known for making easy-to-use software. Usable software does not tend to interrogate you with a bunch of questions when you first start it. By asking somebody else (anybody!) to add this misfeature to their software, they're saying that their competitors should do dumb things they wouldn't do themselves, in the name of 'fairness'. Bullshit.
Look at google.com. It doesn't ask you any questions: it just shows you a box and lets you search. Why would IE7 ask you how you want to search before searching? That would be absurd. Best to pick some default, and let people change it if they want -- which is precisely what they did.
Should google.com start by asking you if you want to use Google's search engine or MSN's? That would be fair, too. We don't want google.com to give unfair advantage to Google's search engine, just because they're produced by the same company, after all.
So what WOULD you guys like IE7 to default to? So what you guys are proposing is for IE7 to default to GOOGLE? Brilliant. The whole idea of the browser prompting for which 3rd party search provider during install is a dumb idea.
As a consumer, I want the least # of prompts as possible. If I want to customize my browser, I'll do so AFTER my browser is up and running. I don't want to be asked 1 million questions during the install.
Frankly, the browser is optional and the default search can be changed. This is what Microsoft should have been doing all along.
The default search doesn't even have to be changed by the end-user. Google could reach an agreement with major suppliers such as Dell and ask them to change it. After all, the majority of customers prefer Google and I'm sure many suppliers would use Google as the default if they in return could put a Google-sticker on their boxes.
First off, I would like to say that I use FF and Google all the time.
/.ers
My only problem with IE in general is that all of the WebCT courses I am taking require I.E. in order for the webpage/page functions to display properly. There have been sometimes when I use FF to submit an assignment only to find out a day later that the submit function did not work since I used FF and the deadline to submit has passed. This also happens when I take exams. In FF, the timer starts when I click to begin and for some reason I am disconnected from my session (b/c the system does not send "Keep-Alives" in FF, only in IE)and I try to re-open it in FF and it tells me I have 5 mins. to complete a 50 questons test!
The only reason I have I.E. installed is so that when I have to submit an assignment/exam, I must use I.E. to do so.
Otherwise, I would only use FF.
Anyway, that is my experience with I.E.
Cheers,
Fellow
"We stongly believe they are abusing their power in the market place." said Google's legal representative, "We assert that they should have links to our sites prominantly placed near, or even replacing, their branding. Also, we believe the advertising on those sites should be provided by us, that the anti-phishing feature in Vista should mark all Microsoft sites as suspect, and that Windows Defender should uninstall Internet Explorer and Windows Update should install Firefox."
GNAA Announces Cleansing Of The Star Trek Gene Pool Impi - Black Ops, South Africa It is with great regret that we in the glorious GNAA were called to arms against a revered institution known as Star Trek. Impi, while in training as a high priest in the popular religious cult scientology, was approached by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy to contract the services of the Black Ops wing of the GNAA. Both Shatner and Nimoy, on which the Star Trek franchise and legend were built, expressed serious concern with regard to the affront of a little known "television station" called G4TV. "Star Trek prides itself on boldly going where no man has gone before. Not boldly sitting on your fat ass and playing computer games and talking about it in a failed IRC channel!" said Shatner. "G4TV is taking the very ethos of Star Trek and perverting it for profit. They have targeted a segment of the population known as Fatmerica. Their actions in sanctioning such an event promote obesity and diabetes within our youth and we as Star Trek representatives do not want to be associated with this sentiment." Leonard Nimoy was instrumental in crafting the attack on #startrek20 on the IRC network irc.gamesurge.net. Using an exploit that allowed a redirect from the www.g4tv.com to the infamous Last Measure, many fatties were tricked into being Last Measured. "They turned on us," said Neal Tiles, president of G4TV. "It was like stampede at a buffet, there was nothing we could do. People were ping timing out all over the place. Mothers were calling the station asking why their children were looking at gay porno. It was a nightmare. Our moderator of the channel, Ravager|CH, tried valiantly to keep things together, but he was eventually g-lined due to massive complaints against the channel." The overwhelming success of the operation was reflected by the failed moderator Ravager|CH own words: [23:37] another ruined night.. About G4TV: Jews4Profit
That IE is owned by Microsoft and that Firefox is owned by The Mozilla Foundation. If Mozilla wants to put Google in there by default it is of no fault to Google. Now M$ putting MSN search as the default engine in IE7 is no big deal to me (I use Mozilla, not Firefox) however to say that "Google is being quiet" about them being the default search engine in a browser that they do not own which implies that they share some fault in the actions of The Mozilla Foundation is preposterous. Hahaa. Who cares. HAVE A GREAT DAY EVERYONE!
Everyone knows that it's easy to change the default search plugin, but it's the fact that M$ made the choice to make their search engine the default, purely for business and promotional reasons. Not that I blame them though.
Now, the difference with Google is that they did not directly make the decision to have their search engine be the default in Firefox. In the beginning, the developers simply made it default because it was the biggest search engine at the time. Now, fast forward a few years, and Google is still the default search engine, albeit with a bit of persuasion, I'm sure. (I.e: Mozilla gets a kickback for each time someone searches Google using their search plugin) The fact still stands though that Google was not and still isn't the main contributing factor in Google being the default search engine in Firefox.
All your reading ability are belong to me.
See Microsoft Sends Broken Stylesheets to Opera for just one example.
Back in the pre-1.0 days of Firefox, and shortly before Opera's win32 client became free, Microsoft.com and MSN were both doing things that would make the browsers' compatibility appear subpar.
If you were building a browser, would you include links to websites that intentionally broke your rendering, or slowed your downloads?
I'm sorry that you're confused about regulating monopolies, shithead. IE7 is a monopoly, douchebag. Monopolies have been shown by economists to be INHERENTLY bad for consumers and therefore a legitimate target of government regulation, whackjob. You are free to play again when Firefox becomes a monopoly, turd. Meanwhile, try learning even a tiny bit of economics, fuckwad.
Ok, come on people. THIS IS NOTHING NEW! Google come on, really, why ar eyou getting mad NOW?! Default start page on a Windows Install? MSN.com What's RIGHT THERE? MSN Search. Hit the "Search" button in IE and what do you get? MSN Search. THIS IS NOTHING NEW! All Microsoft has done is change the location of it. NOTHING MORE. Wonderful 'user' attitudes we have here. Most people are on the internet now are smart enough to change their default search engine anyway. (Think something asking you if you'd like to use "X" for future searches.). Does Microsoft have a monopoly? Nope. And if something that is VIABLY better actually comes out, their OS marketshare will plummett. And by better I mean Sally Joe and her boyfriend Billy Bob can install the OS, install applications, play games, check email, etc. etc. etc. without struggling any more than they do now on a windows machine. Ubuntu almost comes close to that, at least for the install. Microsoft's OS dominance is simply because of a lack of a viable alternative. Not because of "unfair bundling". Not fair to whom? Linux? Unix? FreeBSD? Mac? Hah! If any of those ever targeted the end user, AND made things easy/compatible (Which Apple has made radical steps towards doing in the last few years, and their sales reflect that), Microsoft's OS Throne would be in danger of being ursurped. My opinion, take it or leave it. Just think before you just dismiss it. On a side note, I run Gentoo (4.2.6 Kernel) on my laptop (Wow, that was fun) along with XP Pro. My desktop runs XP Pro. Only reason my desktop isn't running Gentoo x64 (or another flavor, whatever happens to suit my tastes at the moment), No Shockwave/Flash player, and I don't much care for Cedega. Is it because I believe Windows is inferior? Nope, not at all. I'm just bored with it.
Can you truly blame MS, though, for making their search engine the default one in THEIR browser? It's the same as Windows only coming with IE, WMP, and the assortment of other M$-made products.
It's simply smart business practice to do this. Would you openly give your users a reason not to use your product? No, I'd think not. That'd be like Windows coming with a folder on the desktop, full of links to various Linux distributions.
All your reading ability are belong to me.
Firefox users are smart enough to know that 'Alternative' search-engine plugins ARE available.
(MOST) IE users are not as smart, even though the button in the drop down menu clearly states 'find more providers'. They probably confuse providers w/ ISP's.
What google should do is... incorporate a IE7 detection system into their adwords program and link users to the IE7 google-search plugin download/install page on microsoft.com, so that way the few lamors who actually read their ads, may even click on one, who knows.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
As posted elsewhere, you might want to read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/04/30/587373 .aspx
The most relevant part is:
"The Default: The typical default when users install IE7 on their Windows XP machines will most likely be their usual search engine. Despite claims from some people around the web, MSN is not "The Default." The search box in IE7 uses IE6's AutoSearch setting because we think this setting is the best indication IE has of the user's preference. I do web searches every day to find feedback about IE7, and have read some positive feedback to date on this. IE6's AutoSearch setting today reflects the other software (e.g. Yahoo, Google, or Windows Live toolbar) that the user has installed. Of course, if you buy a new machine from an OEM after we release the final IE7, that OEM can (and will probably) choose a search engine for you."
So it bases its default upon the default you already had in the previous version of their browser. That's not bad behaviour per se. However, given that IE6 had MSN search as ITS default, there is some measure of abuse here.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
If Firefox is used because people DISLIKE Microsoft, they can download firefox and not worry about it after the 1 use of IE7 to get firefox. If you do like Microsoft, why does your search engine have to default to somewhere else besides msn? If you don't like it you can change what you use, if you do like it you don't have to. People are trying to punish microsoft because they don't like the software they provide with it? thats ridiculous, i actually prefer IE7 over firefox or opera, and while i would rather have google be my default search engine i wouldn't care that IE7 included their own. It makes it easier for those who don't know the differences between search engines just use the thingy that says 'search' and does what they want to do... SEARCH, i bet it still helps those people find what they are looking for rather than not including anything. who cares what company it comes from, if you care that much about it you can change it.
Dear Microsoft Fanboys,
There is no law against wanting to be a monopoly. You'll have to wait for Google to actually crush you to play that card. Enjoy the waiting as your monopoly slowly erodes, erodes, erodes! Then, spring into action, whining about Google's monopoly. I'll listen. Then.
Can anyone say BETA software? As in, not final yet? Stop complaining about anti-trust issues on a product that hasn't even been released yet...
...that the Google icon was missing when you switch to use the goole search instead of MSN? There was another one missing, but I forget what it was...I've already uninstalled the IE7 beta 2.
I'm not sure how much this beta will be of the final version, but MS certainly has some time left to change it after the outcry. Granted I'm not for MS, but I'm also keeping an open mind about the facts. Its a beta and might possibly change, god I hope so. The GUI is ass backwards imo. They should have just added tabbed browsing (without the gay quick tab), then added all the 'security' changes to it and the ability to uninstall it if the user so chooses. Which is what I choose to do in the end. I actually was sort of giddy that I was able to uninstall Internet Explorer in XP. Granted IE7 in XP is still going to have some files linked to windows as that is the way the OS is programmed, but still neat concept.
But I know for sure that the new layout is going to confuse the hell out of the normal Joe user. They failed to be like Firefox in the end. Nice try MS. Maybe IE 8, 9, 10? Even when all is said and done I'll probably just stick with Firefox, they seem to be on top of their game for now.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
By invoking antitrust, Google has finally done evil. Overtly, that is.
Does Microsoft have a monopoly?
Yup.
The difference is that the FCC regulates telcom monopolies. Whether they're doing it well is an issue for the next election. As usual, people think they're voting with their pocketbook on tax issues, and ignore the legal monopolies that really bite them. So Time Warner doesn't have to give me channel selection, but we have cheap gasoline. It's a toss-up, but I think gasoline is more important.
"Although the feature can be modified to use Google or other search engine"
It can be modified! Not through some obscure registry setting but using a regular configuration screen?
How can this even be considered foulplay?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
All software companies should be allowed to tell Microsoft how to design all the software they write. If I create a shell extension that overrides existing shell behavior in Windows, Microsoft should be forced to ask the user whether to use mine or theirs. It pisses me off that when I navigate to a ZIP folder, MS doesn't ask me whether I want to use the built-in code, WinZip, or InfoZip. And it pisses me off that when I try to edit a photo, it doesn't ask me whether I want to use Photoshop or Paint Shop. And when I filter spam, it should automatically give me a list of 50 anti-spam providers instead of making the assumption that I'd want to use Microsoft's. Same goes for burning CD's, indexing files, editing text files, checking email, scanning for spyware, firewall, photo slideshows, recycle bin, encrypted folders, etc etc etc.
In fact, it REALLY pisses me off that when their apps run, it doesn't ask me which brand of XML parser to use. It doesn't ask me what TCP/IP stack to use. The nerve!
I WANT MY CHOICE DAMMIT!!
The thing about Firefox defaulting to Google is the Google isn't a subsidary of the Mozilla Foundation.
The other thing is that the Mozilla Foundation isn't a convicted criminal monopoly.
Google is perfectly correct - this is just another Microsoft move of the "leverage monopoly in one area to gain market share in another" business method, the very one that they were convicted for.
Just because it benefits Google doesn't mean they aren't right.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Microsoft owns their browser and is using it to leverage their other property--MSN search, or whatever they're calling it these days. Google does NOT own Firefox--Firefox is a third party. Microsoft is using one hand of their monopolistic giant to put money into their other hand. Google is not, and as such, as a valid point, IMHO.
That said, of COURSE it works to their [Google's] advantage that Firefox behaves in such a manner. However, that doesn't mean that the Mozilla Foundation isn't free to switch their default over to MSN if their user base overwhelmingly requests it.
-buf
Try putting a space in front (which is likely to happen when you're copy'n'pasting)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Except they aren't trying to compete on technical levels. They are whining about a Beta(Not FOSS beta, proprietary beta) piece of software, that doesn't include them as an option.
But, if you load up Firefox, which they heavily support and fund, MSN isn't even an option unless you add them in. I don't see them going up to the Firefox team and saying "You know guys, we should have Google, Yahoo, and MSN as the 3 basic choices on a clean install of FF considering they are the top 3 search engines out there" No, instead we get Google, Yahoo, Amazon(Which happens to be powered by Google), Answer.com, Ebay, and Creative Commons?
No, Google does NOT want to compete on technical merits, they know they have a huge name, a name that can beat MS's name, they also know that right now the stage is set so that any attack on MS is seen as wholy valid and a win for the little guy. Looks like Google's marketing department came straight from the old MS to me.
With Firefox, I don't even use the search box anymore. I set up a bunch of keyword based quick searches.
g [search string]
gives me a google search
wiki [string]
gives me the wiki entry
gn [search string]
google news
word [word]
dictionary lookup
weather [town|zip code]
gives me weather underground
imdb [movie|person]
Internet movie database
And so on and so forth. Much easier than having to pick one from a list and then typing the word(s).
It's my second favorite feature of Firefox after the tabs.
Microsoft is; tried, convicted, and unapologetic for past behaviour. In addition, Firefox doesn't come pre-installed on the OS that is shipped with 95% of the desktop machines sold. I commented previously that Microsoft would find a way to 'cut off Google's air supply', and one way to do it would be to make sure that Windows/IE went to MSN search by default, or perhaps even exclusively. It was marked as a 'troll', but a tiger doesn't change its stripes, and abusive monopolists don't change their business practices unless they are forced to do so by the government. And the current government has signaled very clearly they they don't have a lot of interest in prosecuting anti-trust law violations. As long as that is the case, Microsoft will continue to treat the law as an annoying inconvience.
"I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.""
Google does not control Firefox development or standards. It is up to Microsoft to assert to Firefox that they are being infringed upon and ask the Firefox development community include MSN as a search option. Google is only responsible for fighting their own battles and there is nothing about fair trade practices that say a company is required to make an argument for their competitors. Of course Microsoft will never ask this of the Firefox development community because that would provide acknowledgment of Firefox as realistic alternative to IE6/7. The last thing Microsoft wants right now while trying to roll out IE7 is to give any additional legitimacy to Firefox as true competitor and alternative.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Oh please.
Changing the search engine in IE 7 involves all of two clicks. How is that the same?
No. The parent is correct. That would be a horizontal monopoly. A vertical monopoly would be much akin to Ma Bell splitting into SBC, Bell South, AT&T, et cetera on 4/1/84. Yet under the parent Bell System, for all intensive purposes, still controlled all land lines and access to them. Ask any past local DSL provider or MCI or Sprint what investments they had to make in order to circumvent that hold, as they still paid to one of Ma Bell's holdings for access and the ability to provide a service to their customers.
A vertical monopoly is much akin to many such acquisitions taking place today, especially in the Cable sector. AOL/Time Warner ring a bell? That's vertical. Just picture a lineage structure much like a geneology tree with the parent company at the head and it's holdings as the children. In contrast, if you buy the original parent's assumption of a "monopoly", the IE department with Microsoft would be very much horizontal. Some companies like GM divest it's parent holdings into several horizontal structures, like Chevrolet, Buick, et cetera, which is much akin to Microsoft and it's several product departments.
However, you would have to be a knife wielding zealot to buy into any presumption of guilt on Microsoft's part as a monopoly, at any point in time in history. Why wouldn't a company bundle a browser or media player with their product? Should the Justice Department have forced Microsoft to divest itself of the Notepad division as well? Right. Give it a rest already. Microsoft gave us what we all asked for back then - a simple computing experience. Simple as that. The fact that other competing OS(s) at the time, like Apple, couldn't provide a browser to match it, speaks volumes about capitalism and the free market at it's finest - money and ideas talk, bullshit walks. And Netscape seemed like it was running a marathon back then in 95 too. It stunk. You know it. I know it. Even grandma knew it. Netscape made the IE turd smell like a freaking rose petal baby. You zealots ask yourself this: Netscape still exists, and hey, in fact, you can install it even on linux. Wow! And why don't you install Netscape instead of firefox or mozilla? Hmm? If you can't answer that question, then you're not even wearing rose colored glasses while you cast aspersions against Microsoft. You're wearing a sleeping mask as you really damn the free market and choice. The free market spoke. You lose. The choice WAS made - simplicity with features with all it's naughty caveats as well. The public wasn't dumb back then. I sure didn't see a gun pointing to my head when I tried Netscape then. No one's pointing it at you now either.
So, now some zealots cry "foul! foul!" when they happily install Ubuntu or Red Hat with firefox happily bundled (and set to default) as their browser. Take the plank from your own eye first. And the blatently obvious hypocrisy of not providing an MSN search engine to google, which is met with even greater crys of "huh? oh wait! foul! foul! foul I say!". Oh, the irony.
The real truth of the matter is that google is a flash in the pan. You need not cast eye of newt nor entrail of pig into the cauldron to see it either:
1. Google continues rolling out product alternatives like email, video player, et cetera, yet still has no OS offering. Why? Think about that for a second. Done thinking? See if you agree? Because they can't. Why? Well, offering an OS and all the dirty laundry which comes with it, like security and public perception, would ripple throughout their investment sectors. And yes, they would kill to offer an OS alternative to Microsoft. Kill I say! Google founders originally were just offering a unique search engine. It grew into something more over the next two to three years as investors approached them. It was never meant to be as seen today. It's a bastard child raised on it's own by it's surrogate investor parents. It was never meant to be.
2. Google offers money for web sites offering big bold
Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.
1.) Firefox isn't a monopoly.
2.) Google said, right in the article, that they'd support this initial setup question being asked by Firefox as well as IE7.
There's nothing "oddly quiet" about it.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I see no reason why someone would want to use MSN search over Google, but if you do, or simply want a more configurable solution you can use Acid Search. Not to mention some other very useful tools needed for browsing.
/.
I use this Mac Safari plugin constantly with
But, if you load up Firefox, which they heavily support and fund, MSN isn't even an option unless you add them in.
Given that Mozilla has long positioned itself as an alternative to Microsoft, at least in the browser space, and that many developers and early adopters are strongly anti-Microsoft, would you really expect them -- Google or no Google -- to include a Microsoft search as a default option? It might seem logical, but as you may have noticed, people can get surprisingly emotional about their software.
Amazon(Which happens to be powered by Google),
Not last I looked. It returns Amazon.com product listings. A9 gets its web results from Google (last I looked, anyway), but Amazon's internal search results are, well, internal.
No, Google does NOT want to compete on technical merits
You keep saying this, but you don't back it up with any support. Claiming that Google doesn't want to compete on technical merits because this complaint isn't technical in nature is like saying that Microsoft doesn't care about the server market because the X-Box team isn't working on IIS. The two are not mutually exclusive, however much you want to portray them that way.
Interestingly enough, I just installed IE7 and feel obliged to inform you that my IE7 is set to Google by default with no alternatives.
I don't use IE for anything else than updating Windows so I don't know how thats happened.
Great, I have this Firefox 3.1 installed to replace my IE 8. Bang, there is this dialog box asking what to use when there is a .doc file to view, ok, choose OpenOffce. And bang, there is this dialog box asking what to use when there is a .xls file, ok, choose OpenOffice again. And bang, ...; and bang, .... And that is stupid, isn't it?
Solution? Just use some common sense. Your system has set OpenOffice to open .doc file, ok, then I use that to open a .doc file, too. Over half of online human population are using Google for search, right? Put it in the search box as default. Or if you want something fancier, let the browser to examine your browing history of a previous browser and do a better guess. I bet the significant majority of the guess results will be the current Firefox default, Google. That is to say, the Firefox default is appropriate, isn't it? And that also means the IE7's default search strategy is more a concern of its company's interest than that of the customers', isn't it?
How typical. When asked to put up or shut up, the administration apologist tucks his tail between his legs and flees. Over 2 hours with no reply.
How depressingly predictable.
I *just* installed IE7 Beta2 over a relatively clean XPSP2 install and, for whatever reason, my IE7 search bar defaulted to Google. I had/have Google toolbar installed, and I have Google desktop running.
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.
1. Google is not a monopoly.
2. Firefox is not a monopoly.
3. Google does not own Firefox.
4. Google is not using its monopoly in one area to take over another area via Firefox.
Google benefited from the actions of an independent party with 5-10% market share.
Microsoft is leveraging their monpolistic control over one market to take over a new market.
Google has done nothing wrong in this case, nor have the benefited from the wrong actions of others. Microsoft is doing something clearly forbidden by anti-trust laws, and for which they have previously been convicted in multiple courts of law on multiple continents.
I downloaded it a month ago, and the default search engine IS Google. There is a little greyed out text and all searches go through google - I changed no search settings.
Sorry, but this is not the same. GM does not use one monopoly to leverage another monopoly. That's the difference.
Microsoft used their OS monopoly to gain a browser monopoly. Thats illegal - even in the liberal US!
Microsoft is now using their browser monopoly to promote Microsoft's search engine. That's illegal. When you have a monopoly, there are certain rules you must follow.
Using Google as the default browser in Firefox, having GM install a certain radio in their cars, or pre-loading PCs with Windows is legal.
It looks to me like Google has some laying off to do. Get rid of some of the new idiots they have working for them. First, it's Microsoft's software. Why should they have to provide the option of deciding what search engine IE's (again, their software) search bar uses? Google just wants some free advertising AND millions of free visitors. It would be one thing if Microsoft denied the use of Google entirely, but they aren't. IE has to start somewhere, if they want it to be on one of their website's, it's fine with me. If they want the search bar to default to their website, it's fine with me. I can actually figure out how to change these things, unlike some of the below zero IQ people we have using computers these days. It's all about getting something for free these days. Get everything for nothing. Step on those that have something, so you can steal it for yourself.
Google is biggest player in search. But it is not the biggest player in online mail applications. But in gmail, you have a "search web" option which defaults to google for search engine. Shouldnt it be including other search engine too and not use google by default??
If the 80 million in commissions Firefox/mozilla foundation made from google is only 15-25% of the total billed (google keeps this figure secret..)then google has made a TON of money from being the default on firefox.
Google is just being a little baby, they have the money to make there own OS/browser wifi networks and tons of other things.
I'm a little confused by all of the comments crying foul and shouting about monopolistic practices.
Microsoft had to make SOMETHING the default, otherwise the search box wouldn't work (of course, then everyone here would be ridiculing them for shipping a product that doesn't work "out-of-the-box").
And why wouldn't they default the search to their own product? It's called CROSS-SELLING! Monopolistic practice would be to prevent users from changing the default engine, or to somehow tamper with the results from non MSN searches. The box even says "MSN Search" in it before you type anything. Adding a search is ridiculously easy, and they even tell you how to add a link to your own site to add yourself as a search provider!
Microsoft offers plenty of obvious opportunities to attack them for anti-competitive practices, so why go looking for petty, borderline cases?
I just visited google's page with IE7 and I got a wonderful popup on their page.
. exe
Make Google your search
engine in Internet Explorer
with a lovly arrow pointing at the search bar... And there's a button marked "Make Google my search". Sounds pretty easy to re-assign the search to google. It's actually harder to move it back to MSN (they have no popup "informing" you of the choice).
The button points to http://www.google.com/options/setie7defaultsearch
I think it is perfectly fine, and Google needn't make a fuss. MSN is a Microsoft thing, and it's natural to promote it as the default, luckily it's not stuck that way.
/not/ the default search engine.
For an easy way to see it, Microsoft will promote their own things. McDonalds will not promote the Whopper. Microsoft will not promote Google. It wouldn't be logical.
Google just needs to calm down. Plus, the search engine in Firefox doesn't have a default. It's a list of different search engines. The last one used is the last one showed. I don't use it for many things, I would normally use the Google or Yahoo Toolbar. The last thing I used the built in search for was Meriam-Webster.com and it's still there. And
What it seems that all of you have forgotten is that Google Search and Firefox, while not from the same company, provide revenue to each other. They are as linked as IE and MSN. With Googe's market penetration it is getting dangerously close to a monopoly itself. This 'request' is nothing more that Google threatening to use the government to increase their profits and market share.
IE7 simply uses the search settings that the users previous IE6 profile used. Seems to make sense that when upgrading from IE6 to IE7 you'd retain the same home page, search engine, favorites, etc. I installed IE7 beta 2 a few days ago and the default search engine was Yahoo, with no other search engines present on the IE7's search dropdown. It took me less than 30 seconds to add Google and MSN.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
A lot of people seem to be upset about Microsoft every now and then, but this should not be one of the many instances.
1) Internet Explorer is no longer required. Vista will make this a recommended install, not optional.
2) Google and other search engines are not blocked. The only difference here is that Microsoft integrates their own search engine to those who want it there. The rest can simply remove it or leave it where it is.
3) This is only one of many features that are bundled with the operating system of Windows. If Google's argument was true, shouldn't PerfectDisk bitch about the Defrag tool, and perhaps the Google Desktop should be an available option in Windows for searching documents? In fact, why not remove the search function in Windows then since it intrudes on other products?
4) My grandfather uses Google manually, meaning that he visits Google.com. He wasn't even aware that you could search through the integrated Google Toolbar. Point is that putting in a search bar doesn't necessarily make anyone prefer MSN.
5) If anyone is used to Google and prefers Google, that person will notice that MSN differs from Google in many ways and will therefore a) not use the search bar or b) uninstall it.
6) Microsoft isn't intruding Google's space because it bundles the MSN search with Internet Explorer. How come we haven't heard the whine before? After all, MSN is linked by default in all versions of Internet Explorer. This is just a logical step towards an integration of two optional services: MSN and Internet Explorer.
7)Windows is obviously a prominent operating system, but it also serves many purposes; it must fit the Photoshop professional, the programmer, the average web surfer, the gamer, but also the old guy's needs who has no clue what's good and what's not. Rookies don't go download FireFox and they don't navigate Google, because they don't know what it is. If Microsoft leaves functions out to let its customers find it on their own, they will be left out in the dark.
In my opinion, an operating system must include a big bunch of applications, and if a power user is unhappy about something, then there's the option to remove whatever he or she dislikes. It's really that simple. If I buy a new computer for my grand father, I don't want to download and preset FireFox, StuffIt, Google Toolbar, etcetera. It should be there, bundled and ready to be modified - IF you want to do it.
Full Tilt
Google needs to have their monopoly powers trimmed in the same way MS does. As it stands, there is IMO too much power in their hands -- and their hands are non-neutral as can be seen from the bias shown (do a web search) by google against certain groups who have seen google curtail their "free-speech rights".
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
This is a little outa hand. Its there browser and they should be able to make there search default. People have the chose whether or not to buy MS's OS or not. the chose to use there Browser or not. The right to change there home page. Wouldnt you do the same. HP doesnt cry that dell chooses to make there Pcs home page Dell. or that they use a Dell desktop image, or even the mouse pad. Taco Bell is owned by Pepsi and they only have Pepsi softdrinks. I have the chose to change my background to my current fav car, set my default home page to /. set my search to google. Reinstall my OS of choice on the PC throw out the mouse pad and not buy the drink at taco bell. And if its the Value Meal, i dont have to drink it...
Apple controls the one and only OSX "distro" and that distro's default browser uses Google as its search engine without even an option to add any others.
You say, "What is "preloaded" on a Windoze system is what Bill Gates wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update." When someone else owns your software, they own your computer." Well, what is preloaded on a MAc is what Steve Jobs wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update". When someone else owns your software, they own your computer.
So start complaining that Apple's default browser only support's Google's search engine, and you might have a point. (Well, you still won't but at least you'll be consistent.)
(And BTW, Windows OEMs can make the default search engine of IE whatever they choose.)
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Killing someone is a means...
an end would be having someone dead...
one solution to this end that would involve no evil would be to "wait"
(go tell aunt Rhody the old grey goose is dead)
Internet Explorer 6 (and also 5) has a feature where any string entered in the address field that does not start with "http:" or "www" (and perhaps more string combinations) will trigger a "Search for $enteredtext" in the dropdown below the address bar. If you click this entry (or press the down arrow to highlight it and press Enter), it will navigate to an MSN search for that string. Additionally, addresses entered that don't result in a DNS "non-existent domain" error will trigger an MSN search for the string (which usually ends in that smarmy "We can't find $enteredtext" page from MSN). This feature could be interpreted by some organizations as a security vulnerability if users constantly enter an internal hostname or internal machine IP address without leading it with "http://", as they should be doing. Other browsers would just interpret it as a request to navigate to "http://$enteredtext"
So how does a discrete "search" field make things much different than before? Or was Google just looking for a "catalyst", an excuse to start litigation?
Unrelated observation: I've noticed that a lot of other browsers are adopting the "error page" scheme of displaying errors, as opposed to dialog boxes that need to have "OK" clicked to dismiss the dialog boxes. So far I've seen Opera 8.5 (Windows and OS X) and Firefox 1.5 (Windows; haven't confirmed OS X yet) doing it. I do like the fact that I don't have to click "OK" to dismiss the window, but I can't shake the thought that it's taking extra processing to render these errors. Then again, it was Internet Explorer that I always saw taking a long time to render something from "res://C:\WINDOWS\system32\shdoclc.dll", but that was most likely from a quirk in the status bar code (which is perhaps why Microsoft now discourages the use of the status bar in Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I've been searching with Amazon's A9 for months, but today I was surprised to discover a dramatic decline in quality of search results. Then I saw the Microsoft logo and knew why.
I've reconfigured my browser to default to Google instead of A9
or were you trying to be funny?
Try harder. You don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality.
Are you aware that MS is a monopoly, and this move is illegal for them (under anticompetitive laws)?
Or do you just think everyone should stop picking on MS?
You seem to be using a pronoun inappropriately. When you say "they" you appear to be referencing Google. However, Google does not make the web browser you are talking about. As such, your "they" is wrong. Please email Zonk and ask him to down-rate your post. Thank you.
Ever notice the &client=firefox qstring variable when you use Firefox's search box? You think they're tracking that for kicks? Or you could it have to do with AdSense revenue? 72 millions dollars worth of revenue to Mozilla in 05, last I read.
Oops, I meant to say 'addresses entered that DO result in a DNS "non-existent domain" error'. If addresses that succeeded DNS lookup triggered an MSN search, that would be a slowdown for the user and a gigantic load increase for MSN search.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
When Google has it's own browser, it can put it's website as default. Thsi is Microsoft's browser, it *should* be up to them.
I may be a fan of Google search, but I support Microsoft's right to write their software as *they* want to write it. All this anti-bundling / anti-competitiveness nonsense is load of shit.
Go ahead and cry about it. Go ahead and name all the useless comapnies ruined by Microsoft's products. Don't bother me none. If WinAMP, Firefox, Google, and AIM can survive, the rest that didn't had issues far beyond something as simple as a little competition from MS.
Who cares?
Who in their right mind that has any serious sense of security and performance is still using IE? Much ado about nothing. Firefox is the clear winner.
For Google. Look at it this way: MSN has been the default web page for years on IE. Their search bar is RIGHT THERE.
But enough people still use Google to give them a near monopoly in the market. In fact, despite the fact that IE basically starts out by forcing you to MSN and that search bar, Google still beats them.
Derive Politics
Why don't they cry foul over Firefox????????? ...because it defaults to Google.
Google is a monopoly on the internet now. They are too big and dangerous. I kind of like the Judges idea of having 3 microsofts one each for OS, Business software and everything else.
I say we breakup google into 5 companies one each for google search, gmail, google earth , google video and everyhting else. Aslo force Google to make their code open source and their search engine available for license to any competitor
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
**Life is too short to be serious**
Yo, Microsoft, this is easy to fix. Have that search box up there. The first time they type something in, a menu pops up and you have to choose one of the search engines. It's fine to have MSN search at the top. The others on the list should include at least Yahoo, Google, and Ask. After that first time, you use whatever search engine they chose last time.
Firefox, Opera, same goes for you.
Except Firefox isn't owned by Google, making this an entirely different situation. Hence, the whole "antitrust" arguement.
I keep seeing people repeat your statement, and I wonder if any of you even know what the "trust" in "antitrust" means? Or why Teddy Roosevelt was known as a "trust buster".
From dictionary.com:
Trust: A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
In otherwords, a trust is one or more companies working together to restrict competition by controlling resources of and entry points to a particular market. A single company that has a "monopoly" is a special case of a trust consisting of one company. But trusts generally have multiple companies, and antitrust law was originally written to combat multilpe companies colluding with each other to restrict competition. Firefox and Google being different companies is irrelevant (and I've read that Google pours funds into Firefox anyway, so one has to wonder how independent Firefox is to begin with).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Precisely, Reverend Purlie, precisely. :-)
The parent's post is the most succinct and insightful regarding this issue.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Explorer Destroyer!
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
OK, but really.. what do you EXPECT Microsoft to do? Put Google as the default when they're spending billions trying to promote MSN Search? Come on..
It's a Microsoft browser on a Microsoft OS, of COURSE they're going to default to MSN Search. So long as they provide a method of changing it (easilly) - I don't see the problem.
It took me all of 30 seconds to change the default to Google. Are Google really throwing their toys out of the pram over this?
well at least to most people. Its more of a portal with a weak search. Although that might be changing. The difference is that most people that get Firefox, choose to install it, and if it comes with some flavor of Linux, there usually is like 3 other browsers they can pick from.
I'm going to make MSN search the default search for my firefox browser. That'll teach 'em!!!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I installed one of the first IE7 beta releases. I was surprised that the new search box includes a drop down that lets you change to AOL, Yahoo, Google, or Ask Jeeves (but defaults to MSN). I selected Google once, it worked as expected, but the next time I launched IE, it was set back to MSN Search. Without digging much further, I figured that was just how it had to be... Microsoft was giving space to the others, but still asserting its control.
Then when I browsed to the Google homepage, I got a little DHTML pop-up window that said something to the effect of "hey, you're using IE7, wanna change the default for your searchbox to use Google?" Perfect, I had wanted to do that, and I guess they figured out how. So I press OK. I restarted IE7, and sure enough, my default search was now Google. Thanks Google.
Except, a funny thing happened when I let Google change my settings. That list of alternate search engines that Microsoft had provided, for the user's benefit, was now replaced by a single choice: Google. Yes, I wanted Google as my default, but I never said I wanted Google as the only choice! That's annoying.
That is when I noticed the Search Settings... menu option at the bottom of the search bar's menu. It includes a Restore Defaults... button, which does exactly that. I clicked it, and all of my search engines were back (and MSN Search was back to being the default). From that Search Settings screen, I selected Google, and clicked Set Default. Now Google was my default search engine, AND I still had the choice of selecting a different engine from the drop down. That is what I wanted. Why didn't Google give me what I wanted?
WHOA! IE beating other browsers in internet standards. Am I seeing things? That is just AMAZING!
I bet you it's their own admins posting that garbage.
If Microsoft were to include Google as the default search engine, don't you think Yahoo! and Ask will sue them?
Whilst I think Google is probably the best search engine, and deserves to be the default option on IE7, I think it could be a concern if every browser on every platform defaulted to a Google search. I'd like to explain an issue that concerns me regarding the "monopoly on search."
Google has done marvellous things for the user and developer communities. I'd hate to sound ungrateful. However, as a web-developer I have been stung more than once by the "Google Sandbox" effect - whereby newly-registered domains are held off the index (except for contrived, specific keyword searches like the exact domain name) for months. One of my sites has still not been indexed after eight months despite the fact it has many incoming links from related sites with reasonable PageRank, and despite the fact that it follows Google's content recommendations to the letter.
The Google Sandbox effect (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_Effect) has not been evident in MSN search (or other engines) for my sites, but because they have such a tiny market share, they don't drive any business to me. I would welcome a little competition in the search market, purely so that controversial decisions made by the engines do not have such a broad impact on the web.
I think Google, and everyone else for that matter is missing a minor point - of course IE7 doesn't have much by way of drop down options - that's because it's still in beta.
;)
I think you'd have every right to complain if it RTM'd with one search provider, but that's not the case, yet
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.
it would be new to me, that firefox was written by google
it is this simple:
google: objectively best engine -> it's in firefox default setup
yahoo: popular engine -> it's in firefox default setup
msn: bad engine, unpopular, restrictive terms of use -> not in
you see, Firefox has about 10% market share, IE has 85% so making an engine the default in firefox does not have such an impact on the search engine market like it will have in IE7...
also IE users are mostly unexperienced PC users that don't want to be confronted with manually CHANGING the default search engine... so making MSN default in IE7 will reach more people - which also will mostly not be willing to change the default settings manually (especially since msn already LOOKS a lot like google...)
all together I come to the conclusion that ms does this with a purpose... they want to abuse their market share in the browser market to suppress their competitors in the search engine market...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I don't see MSN as an available pre-loaded option in Firefox. How do you like them apples, Google. When you load Google earth it asks if you want to set IE to search Google as default, it doesnt ask if you want to set it as MSN search. Please, Google, that's a bit lame.
MSN simply isnt important enough. Firefox only lists the top few most important search sites (read: most sought). MSN gets large number of hits due to Microsoft's tricks and it being the default homepage on all windows. But its really quite a minor search engine site.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
... because Google didn't build Firefox. Firefox developers just know it's the best search engine for the job.
So how can you use that as an example?
Because of Microsoft's anti-trust problem they should have to provide the user with a choice, even if Google is not listed, just to show that they are not trying to monopolize the search engine business.
Now I hate Microsoft and IE as much as the next guy...and I still fail to see the problem. I know the anti-trust screamers are out on this one, but doesn't it really come to this:
Microsoft is *gasp* setting their browser to use *gasp* THEIR search engine??
Ye gods! Why didn't I think of this?? Maybe Firefox/Mozilla should get a searchable directory going, and default to that. Oh yeah...DMOZ...is that even still around??
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available."
I didn't realize that Google was a monopolist bundling their wares with their own operating system and browser? Sheesh...
why doesnt google tell mozilla to add msn search to firefox and m$ add google search to ie7; both browsers set to random defaults instead of suing each other wastin all that money on lawyers.
Go do about:config and search for keyword. If you set keyword.enabled to false, it tries to add .com. So, it still goes to internal.com, but doesn't search google. If you don't want it doing anything, leave it enabled and set keyword.url blank.
DR-DOS. GEOS. DesqviewX. OS/2. All superior products to Redmond's offering at the time. All crushed by leveraging market share. Go back under your bridge.
As far as I can tell, the entire literate world uses google or some other oddball engine. The people that use google can never use MSN since the MSN search just doesn't feel right and it always sends the user to either Microsoft, Dell, Amazon, or AOL.
I figure that both Google and Yahoo will do just fine since everyone will have either the google search bar or have their homepage set to google.
Not a big deal. (BTW, Doesn't IE already default to MSN for their search button?)
let me see...oh you are right! I've been using Firefox a long time but it never occured to me to click the 'G' button.
:-)
I guess Microsoft knows this user behaviour, don't they?
Disregarding the consequences of monopoly and where the money is, makes your opinion worthless mate. You have to assess all factors to get the truth, FFS.
Sure it smacks of hypocrisy on Google's part, but when you examine the facts, it is plain to most people that the two situations are not the same. The fact of the matter is most people have other things to worry about than who provides their search and their browser. If they are not asked up front for a choice, they'll stick with whatever the box uses by default. MS will gain market share in a distinctly non democratic fashion, which is an abuse of their browser monopoly, gained through their OS monopoly.
Google are justifiably nervous about this.
As Microsoft's opinion is that people can and will change the search box to what ever they like, so why they don't put Google or Yahoo as a default and MSN as separate option and everyone would be happy?
If this isn't the case then Google has an issue to complain!
The main difference between that feature in ff and ie7 is that ie7 will be pre-installed with windows vista.
Just curios, but isnt't this a feature that can easily abused to hijack the browser?
You just visit some shady site, and you are one click away from using some unknown site, that will be opened on every search from you.
If you mimic the interface of google or of msn, even better, the user may not notice at all!
Neither Firefox/Mozilla nor Google have a controlling monopoly on any related technologies - Microsoft DOES.
Google is not owned by the Mozilla Foundation
MSN Search IS owned by Microsoft.
People who actively choose to use either FireFox or Google (usually) have the knowledge and skills to understand what the concept of 'default' is, and that there is a reasonable chance that it isn't what they want. (Or at the very least, they have an association with someone else that has these qualities)
People who buy 'pee cees' from various retail outlets usually do not know this, and often dont even have a clue that there ARE operating systems other than Windows, or that they have any options to anything other than what comes preset and preinstalled.
Now do you understand the difference?
My desktop runs linux.. it came with firefox which itself has google as the default search. I set the searchbox to use boardtracker most of the time instead but I also notice that when just typing in a word in firefox location bar it does a google search before redirecting to some other site.. no idea where that option is configured, presume it exists somewhere but its well hidden.
My PDA came with opera installed.. I never use it for browsing but its the only browser on the pda and I don't know what other options exist for that model since I never bothered to look.. I presume opera would do the job anyway so no need to look for something else.
No idea what browser ships with OS/X but I guess its not now nor will it be IE7.
At the end of the day.. MSFT owns the largest share of the desktop OS and Google owns the largest share of the search biz.. MSFT uses its position to push non-google products and Google uses its position to push non-msft products.. both get pissy when the other pushes into their territory which both are increasingly doing. Its going to be fun.
So this would be monopolistic that Microsoft is having it's Microsoft web browser default to Microsoft's search engine? Alothough Microsoft does not restrict the end user to configure other search engines. But Google puts out it's Google Toolbar, that defaults to Google's search engine, and can not be changed that I know of. I don't see how that is any better, maybe Microsoft wants to have the ability to be set as default on the google toolbar. No I don't use Google Toolbar, and I also don't use Microsoft's Search Engine. That to me says that their technicially playing by the rules, it's just hard ball. Flamebait if you wish, but remember Microsoft atleast's gives you the option to configure different search engines.
IE7 beta2 (which I uninstalled right after testing it for 2 days) allows you to select Google for the search box during the setup. I had no problems with it at all. Of course MSN is going to be the default, but it IS important to know that MS has not done anything to limit the use of google as a search provider. In fact MS has made room for Google in their browser by allowing you to select google as the search provider in the IE7 setup screens. And it's not something that you can just skip over you must select a search provider. Now that's fair, right? Sounds fair to me...
The first time the browser is used, ask the person what search engine he/she would like to use as the default. This isn't rocket science......
IE7 will be bundled with most popular OS in the world, Firefox is still free download and is bundled only by few distros as default browser.
Next question?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Last I checked, Google didn't develop the Firefox browser, and shouldn't be held accountable in any way for what Firefox defaults to. Microsoft, on the other hand, definitely is responsible for what their browser defaults to.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Wrong. Motive is about desired consequences, evil is about actual consequences.
(Of course, there are certain ends that you can only achieve by doing evil -- like deciding to f*ing kill someone.)
Unless, of course, you are partial to Time as a murder weapon....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
When Google reportedly represents 76% of the Mozilla foundation's income, that's the same kind of "independence" as many of the groups doing Windows TCO studies get accused of.
More to the point, I think, is that Firefox includes an "Add engines" page, which lets anyone interested add MSN to those available by default. And, as many people have noted, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which Google is not.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Microsoft can put whatever they want in as the default search engine and it makes no difference to me. I'll still be using Firefox at home and work. The only things I use IE for is Windows Updates and to check my web pages to make sure Microsoft's poor CSS support isn't screwing them up too much.
"IE7 allows for search engine options just like firefox, and IE7 doesn't use its biggest competitor by default, again just like Firefox."
I don't follow--how is a search-engine a `competitor' to a web-browser?
-rozzin.