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."

Comments

Defaults vs. Presets

[Kelson]

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...

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

[Muerte2]

I don't know where you got your information. My copy of IE7 came with: MSN, Yahoo, Google, and Ebay. I quickly switched from MSN to Google in about 3 seconds. Then I remembered I was running IE7 and promptly switched back to Firefox.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

[sbrown123]

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.

Safari search

[mapinguari]

Google didn't complain much when Safari came out with a Google-only search box.

Re:Safari search

[AeroIllini]

Microsoft is certainly in their right to do this. It's no different. It should make absolutely no difference whether the product being promoted is yours or a third party's.

It absolutely makes a difference.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. That means the *rules change*. They can no longer just operate normally like a standard, non-convicted-monopolist business can. There is a very strict set of rules they have to follow in order to maintain competition in the marketplace, and these rules are different from those of other companies.

Google was right to bring this up. Since the Department of Justice doesn't seem interested in following up on the conviction, it is up to the other big players in the industry to point out the ways that Microsoft is violating the anti-trust provisions. The other browsers can default to whichever search engine they want, even if they make money from it. Microsoft cannot.

Firefox

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Firefox

[DragonWriter]

If you want to push this argument, I have to tell you that Google is very close to being a monopoly, and that is exactly how they got Firefox to default to them.

Its not illegal to be a monopoly (and even less so a near monopoly) in one market and, as a result of that, to have other players then promote your monopoly (or near-monopoly) product in its own market.

It is illegal to leverage your monopoly power in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market.

Now, my guess is that using MSN search as a default in IE (which, IIRC, predates IE7; if you type an invalid address into the IE6 address bar the default behavior, ISTR, is an MSN search -- I can't check because even though I have IE6, mine has Google Toolbar which replaces the default behavior with a Google search) probably doesn't reach to that level, and, insofar as it does, the IE7 search box behavior is probably less problematic than the pre-IE7 address bar behavior.

But to pretend that there was some parallel between Microsoft using its OS dominance to push the MSN search system through the IE browser it controls, and Google using its search dominance to push Google search through the Firefox browser which it doesn't control is, well, missing the point rather badly.

It's not Googles job to cry foul

[3770]

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.

Re:One other detail

[man_of_mr_e]

No, but one of the lead Mozilla developers, Ben Goodger, is a Google Employee.

Antitrust trouble...

[mikesd81]

" 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.

Re:One other detail

[DaHat]

FireFox may not be a Google product however Google will pay you for having other people install it.

Abuse of monopoly powers

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft could even pay them to do that. But Microsoft deploys IE7 and Microsoft makes money on 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.

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

[GreyPoopon]

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.

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.

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Care to support that accusation?

[CableModemSniper]

http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/Mozilla_makin g_tens_of_millions_of_dollars_from_Firefox.asp