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."
Google didn't complain much when Safari came out with a Google-only search box.
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?
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.
That's precisely what "default" means.
Exactly. The last thing I want when I install a new piece of software is it asking me a bunch of silly questions like this. I like the FF way: A box that lets me search, it show where it is searching (the big G), and it has an entry for "Add more."
Microsoft should be free to choose whatever default they want and not add anyone else by default.
The problem with that defense of Firefox and Google is that Firefox doesn't ask you to specify which one you would like to use, it just defaults to it. And as the summary points out, MSN isn't even an option. Google isn't bitching about that, because it is in their favor (default home page is also a Google site), as opposed to IE7, which isn't.
The stronger case is made in the fact that, when released, IE7 will become the dominant browser on the market. So whatever the default is set to, is probably going to remain on a bulk of the computers it is on. But if someone is going to bitch about setting a default without asking, the same standard should apply to Firefox/Google.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
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.
" 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.
FireFox may not be a Google product however Google will pay you for having other people install it.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
There is a major difference between Firefox or Opera defaulting to Google and IE7 defaulting to MSN: neither Firefox or Opera are owned by Google. Google makes no money in the sell of either. Firefox and/or Opera could change their default to MSN if they so desired. Microsoft could even pay them to do that. But Microsoft deploys IE7 and Microsoft makes money on MSN. That is a problem.
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.
Didn't Mozilla.org make a TON of money off of Google referals directly related to the Firefox search box?
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
If Google has leading market share in the search marketspace, how can they claim that Microsoft's intent to default to MSN in IE7 is a not competative practice. I see how the argument works from the OS/effective monopoly perspective, but the argument seems a little weak if approached a different way.
IE defaults to MSN as it's home page, correct? Well, MSN search is there. Google's stating that people won't use their search because users won't change the toolbar default is equivalent to saying that people don't change their default home page - which is untrue.
Where does this end? The default home page? The toolbar option? At some point this gets ridiculous.
The problem doesn't stem from not being able to make a choice, because the settings can be changed. The problem stems from the public not even understanding the difference between the competitors and not caring to change. Who's fault is that? The entrenched vendor who has no reason to promote its competitors or the competitor who needs to make consumer education a priority?
In this case, how do you establish that? The OS is entrenched, but Google market share is significant over MSN's search. I mean hell, its almost 50%. How can you argue that your dominance is in danger by a company who holds 8%?
Everybody is missing the primary point. You almost got it right, but your first sentence went a few words too long.
The main difference between the IE7 and the Firefox and Opera is that the IE7 search box comes preloaded.
IE will come with any new OS. Firefox and Opera will not.
IE is, by definition a Default & Preset. IE is forced upon you, Firefox and Opera is chosen.
That is where the compaint is based from.
Yet, Microsoft is NOT forcing anyone to adopt it. If you want to change it, you can. If someone is so unlikely to switch that's a laziness/ignorance issue on the part of the end user, not Microsoft.
You're wrong, both conceptually and under the letter of the law. Will setting MSN as the default search engine gain MS market share for their service? Yes. Can Google gain the same advantage, not having a monopoly on desktop OS's to use? No. Thus MS has gained an unfair advantage by leveraging their monopoly. That is illegal.
Whether or not this exploiting the fact that people are lazy and ignorant does not figure into it.
I would have thought this was an easy question by now. Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop operating system market. Microsoft leverages this monopoly to gain a new monopoly in the web browser market. Now Microsoft is leveraging the browser monopoly to overthrow its competitors and establish a monopoly in the search engine market. Can't you see where this is going? The rules are different when a company develops a monopoly. Up until that point, a practice like this would be considered shrewd business tactics, and provides healthy competition. In fact, it's even OK for their competitors to use this tactic. But when a company that has a monopoly uses tactics like this, it is considered anticompetitive and illegal. They are using a monopoly in one part of the market to gain market share (and eventually set up a monopoly) in another part of the market.
IE defaults to MSN as it's home page, correct? Well, MSN search is there. Google's stating that people won't use their search because users won't change the toolbar default is equivalent to saying that people don't change their default home page - which is untrue.
Actually, it's true. Many people DON'T change their default home page. I helped set up three computers for family and friends in the last two years. Not one of them changed the default page from MSN until I went back later and installed Firefox. In fact, one of them asked me to make MSN the default page for Firefox because that was what they were accustomed to.
The OS is entrenched, but Google market share is significant over MSN's search. I mean hell, its almost 50%. How can you argue that your dominance is in danger by a company who holds 8%?
Google does not yet have a monopoly in the search engine market. But for argument's sake, let's assume that they do. If they used their monopoly in the search engine market to push Google OS and Google Office to their customers (at the obvious expense of competitors), then they would be guilty. It's because the OS (Windows) and Internet Explorer are entrenched that Microsoft could easily erode the dominance that Google has. The 8% market share that MSN Search has means nothing. The 90+% market share that Internet Explorer has means EVERYTHING. Think about it.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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."
If Google has leading market share in the search marketspace, how can they claim that Microsoft's intent to default to MSN in IE7 is a not competative practice.
Easily. MS is using its monopoly to gain an advantage in the new market. That is the whole point and that is what the law forbids.
IE defaults to MSN as it's home page, correct? Well, MSN search is there. Google's stating that people won't use their search because users won't change the toolbar default is equivalent to saying that people don't change their default home page - which is untrue.
No, it is equivalent to them saying not all users will be knowledgeable or motivated enough to change it. Firefox is far superior to IE in most ways. Even the US government recommends all users switch for security reasons. Still most people use IE. That is not because MS has forced them not to switch, it is because most don't know they can or why they should. Thus consumers use an inferior product and everyone suffers (except MS).
It does not matter that they can switch it. The point is some users won't know they can. Others will know they can, but won't know how. Still others will know they can and how but will be too lazy to bother. The net result is MSN gains marketshare. Can Google set the default browser included with a monopoly on all desktop OS's to google.com? No, they don't have a monopoly to abuse. Thus MS has gained market using their existing monopoly. That is blatantly illegal.
Where does this end? The default home page? The toolbar option? At some point this gets ridiculous.
Legally, all of the above that reference a product in another market. If people make money doing something and MS takes part of that money away using their OS monopoly, they have broken the law.
The problem stems from the public not even understanding the difference between the competitors and not caring to change. Who's fault is that?
It is not Google's job to educate or motivate the people to have to change, rather the onus is upon MS to not make choices in their OS design or settings for people that gain them market share in other markets than desktop OS's. It is part of the price you pay for having a monopoly. When you're really big, the law says you have to watch where you step so you don't crush those smaller.
In this case, how do you establish that? The OS is entrenched, but Google market share is significant over MSN's search. I mean hell, its almost 50%. How can you argue that your dominance is in danger by a company who holds 8%?
MS's market share in Web browsers was 8% once too, before they started bundling it with the OS. Their market share for server OS's was below 8%, before they started tying it to the desktop with secret protocols. Now their products are still inferior, but one has dominated the market entirely and the other is gaining market share. Google has not locked people in in any way to their service. All MS has to do is get their search "good enough" that people won't go out of their way to change settings and they will win with this tactic. That is what is illegal. They aren't winning by producing a product that is better or even as good, just one that is "good enough" and bundled. "Good enough" is not what consumers deserve and the people that make a product that is just "good enough" should not be profiting on it over more innovative companies, just because they already have a monopoly on something else.
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