Slashdot Mirror
Windows Defense on IE7 Search is No Defense
Vicegrip writes "Stan Beer writes on why Microsoft's and recently Yahoo's supportive arguments for making Windows Live Search the default in IE7 are feeble: "In the case of Google, it pays hard cash to Mozilla and Dell to get the right to have its search engine placed as the default in the browsers.[... by contrast ...] Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser, which sits on the vast majority of PCs in the world"."
From the Fine Article:
That's a pretty disingenuous argument of Yahoo/Microsoft's part. They trot out the fact Mozilla is second most popular, and that Google is doing the same thing. I'm not sure what they're thinking, this point holds no importance.
I'm not even going to bother looking up the numbers, it's enough to point out IE currently is around 80 - 90% of the browser market, and if Mozilla were all of the rest of the market, Google's aggressive penetration is 10 - 20%. WTF?
Also from the article:
Microsoft's contention it's easy is exactly that, their contention. This is a relative measure, and probably 99% of slashdotters would change the search engine default with no difficulty. But one step out of the cozy techno-geek door and easy becomes Partial Differential Equations to many casual users. Remember, Microsoft has been touting their "easiness" pretty much since day one, and each new iteration they say, "trust us, we really mean it this time".
For those who argue Google has their own monopoly in the search engine race (and I would argue that -- they only have dominance, not a monopoly), I will point out in advance that Google's monopoly doesn't matter -- it's legal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to use that monopoly to capture other markets.
Again, this is still about, and always has been, and always will be Microsoft's existing monopoly elsewhere (their OS and desktop offerings) leveraging another niche (in this case, search engines). Microsoft is back in old form, they seem to have shaken any residual fears of the legal trappings of their actions. My guess is they're ready to play as hard a ball as anyone who wants to take them on will. And they have the money trove of petty cash ready to dole out as they pass through each legal (illegal) toll booth.
God Bless Capitalism blended with corruption.
How much of a non-story is this?
~S
You're right, Microsoft should have to pay themself hard cash!
Windows is an extremely insecure OS, right? IE is an extremely insecure browser, right? Windows users click on any 'download' and 'install' button they see, right? Why not just write a virus/trojan that replaces the search bar with Google? Then, in no time, it will propogate and everyone will be using Google.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
I wish they wouldn't do this, and I wish average users were saavy enough to change the default settings and knew what their options were, but these kinds of complaints are starting to get annoying.
If Google (which I love, BTW), doesn't like it, they can write their own browser and make Google the default search. To claim MS doesn't put any money into IE is pretty disingenuous.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Google should go out and make it's own browser, then put it's search engine as default if they don't want to pay money for that right..
The only realistic argument here is that IE has a monopoly for somewhat unfair reasons..
MABASPLOOM!
Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser, which sits on the vast majority of PCs in the world
So basically he is trying to say, that Microsoft isn't investing money to develop IE7?
Dephine URL
Why doesn't MS just pay itself, thus complying with "fair use of marketing capital." (WTF does that mean anyway?)
Really, this guy's argument is that since Google pays for this, it is OK to happen, but since MS owns both the Search and the Browser, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. It seems a bit on the shallow side to me.
Microsoft should open up the bidding then to all search engines to make **their** search engine the default for IE7. And let MSN compete. If MSN wins the profits can be donated to charity or something. There, your non-competitive fears have been quelled.
Who cares if some rich pricks are squabbling with some other rich pricks? It's all a stupid pissing match. Life's too short to worry about this crap.
I just want to get this straight, who owns the IP on IE? Microsoft. Have they totally locked people out of switching to another search engine? Nope, just set a default.
The ONLY way a case could be made is if every other browser on the market made you pick a default search engine up install.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
First time i get the first post ever by the way. This is a quite funny situation i think. Really i would just do like they have been ordered by court and just break the compagnies in a lot of small comagnies so that the compagniy which produce IE has just no question to ask itslef and just go for the compagny which sels the best search engione for the best price whereever it is msnsearch, google or yahoo.
Google can afford the fees to have their search engine prominently placed on certain browsers. What they should be considering is taking the open source engine or Firefox and branding their own Google Browser. Not everyone's heard of Firefox or even Mozilla (go ahead, ask around your company), but I remember a pigmy from the outback approached me once, spear in hand, while I was dying from thirst, lost in the desert, and asked why I didn't just use Google Maps before I came to Australia?
Ok, I understand (to a point) the concern over this, but I don't see how there is really any way to deny MS the right to set their search engine as the default in their own browser. This battle is just silly. It seems to me the point is that there is no faith in the consumers to make up there own mind...which is something I agree with completely. Consumers are just they...they gobble up whatever is tossed in front of them. The only way to battle this is to increase consumer awareness...not chase after the company in question. (Yes, I am a Firefox user, and yes, I have tried IE7..the first thing I did was change all the options to my liking...with Google as the 'default' search engine.)
Why go fast when you can go anywhere? O|||||||O
Parent: This is a relative measure, and probably 99% of slashdotters would change the search engine default with no difficulty. But one step out of the cozy techno-geek door and easy becomes Partial Differential Equations to many casual users.
I've never even heard of "Dogpile" until a 'casual user' pointed it out to me. People (non- /. readers) are not as ignorant or stupid as a few arrogant folks here on /. believe. Those people do not have any problem typing in whatever they want. Browsers and search engines are so common, people use them as easily as the TV.
Italics were used to point out the typical "us" (smart people) vs. "them" (stupid people) attitude on /..
Stan Beer writes
'Nuff said.
Monstar L
Again - to be fair, it is obviously valuable to google (they are paying for a much smaller share of the market) why should Microsoft give this property away for free. Oh, and just for thinking about this - realize that spots during the Superbowl cost SIGNIFICANLY more than spots do during reruns of Doogie Howser MD.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
you guys suck!
Ok, so if Google was paying Microsoft to be the default search engine, would that be OK?
Yes, MS is making thier own search engine the default. So what? Every browser is going to have a default search engine (assuming that it has integrated search), is it any suprise that MS chose their own? As long as it's not tied to the OS and as long as you can change it without registy hacking and/or a third-party app I don't see the big deal. It strikes me as a bit of a double standard that Google wants to be able to be the default in Mozilla, but they don't want IE7 to have a default.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
"Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser"
Who pays the developers, builders, testers, and PMs for Internet Explorer?
on their OS that has a monopoly on the desktop!!!!!!
Oh, wait...
Windows operating system is a monopoly as defined by the US and EU.
In the 1990s, Microsoft made its browser the default on its OS. Customers could always change to another, but by making it the default and preinstalled, there was an extra burden on customers who chose to use any competitor's product.
Then, Microsoft bundled its media player with its browser. While the US DoJ has bent over for them on this one, the EU seems poised to punish them.
Now, Microsoft has bundled its search engine with its browser, which is still bundled with its OS monopoly, with which it has already been convicted on illegal practices and is still on probation.
It's pretty simple* > If Microsoft unbundles the internet browser from their OS, and makes folks download IE first (and the interface for downloading IE has equal weight given to Mozilla, Opera, etc.), the Microsoft can do whatever they want inside IE, because it would be unbundled from their convicted-illegal-practices-OS-monopoly. But as long as it ships with Windows, the IE7 default could be construed as illegal and Google probably has a strong case.
*Or, option B, Windows loses sufficient market share to no longer be considered a monopoly. Here's a case where Microsoft could help itself in emerging markets like internet search, media players, content delivery, by letting go of its OS monopoly. Or, it could split itself into multiple companies, thereby letting the other parts act without being shackled by the OS-is-a-monopoly-you-can't-exploit ball-and-chain.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
How can Microsoft be a monopoly if there is Linux?
The EU is just shakin them down for money.
Microsoft owns a search engine. They own a browser. Modern browsers typically have built in search engine capability. It only makes sense that they would use their own search engine in their own browser.
Contrary to what many people like to beleive, Microsoft isn't forcing this on anyone. Maybe a few years ago, when they bullied Netscape out of the market by giving their browser away, and people didn't have many options about browsers, let alone the network speed to download alternatives easily, Microsoft was people's only choice. Now it seems hard to make that argument.
If I were an investor in Microsoft and the managers of IE7 were stupid enough to give Google free advertising revenue isntead of MS Live Search, I'd be pissed. If Google wants to be the default on IE so badly, let them strike a deal with MS for it and PAY for it. Stop asking for handouts, your company is worth ~100 billion dollars. You're not the underdog anymore.
"If you put butter and salt on it, it tastes like salty butter." -Terry Pratchet, on Popcorn.
What I want to happen is something a little more realistic.
Include other search engines by default.
Microsoft wants to push their service. Fine. But let me choose other places to search as well. Include Google, Yahoo, IMDB, Amazon, eBay, Encarta, and whatever other MS searches they want to push, but include options that are easy to select. The benefit of the Firefox search bar is that by default it lets you search the Internet or go shopping or look up something at Answers.com. Multiple sources are good for you.
I realize the chances are slim that this will happen, but I think this would be a very good thing.
Thats like saying that google dont have to pay a cent to punch out google adwords....
If Microsoft wants IE7's default search to be Microsoft's own search engine on Dell machines, then they'll have to pay Dell too. It's up to OEMs as far as OEM versions of Windows are concerned.
Secondly, Google employs people to be full time developers on Firefox just as Microsoft pays people to be full time devs on IE7. And some of the Firefox devs oh Google's pay role are *key* Firefox devs. You honestly think they don't influence what goes into Firefox and make sure that it caters to Google? Google is also paying people to use FireFox. Google is being disingenuous by pretending that Firefox is independent of Google.
Third, Google and Apple have colluded with each other to block alternatvie search providers from the Mac market, as OSX's default browser Safari has support for Google and nobody else (doesn't even allow adding other search providers let alone changing the default). This could run afoul of antitrust. Taking the definition of "trust" from dictionary.com, a "trust" is "A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry." (A single company monopoly is a just a specific case of a trust consisting of just one company.) Google should tread lightly when talking of antitrust, when one could argue that the Google/Apple trust is blocking alternative search providers from the Mac OS much more so than IE7's having a default search provider does.
Fourth, when upgrading to IE7, the default search is whatever it was in IE6. If one had installed the Google or Yahoo toolbar, both of who's setups set IE6's search to be Google and Yahoo respectively, they IE7 will use Google or Yahoo as the default.
Fifth, when visiting Google.com in IE7 (which most google users using IE7 will do), you are greeted with a huge "Click here to make Google the default search provider in Internet Explorer!!" placard.
Sixth, it's easy as pie to change IE7's default search engine, and IE7 supports the open standard "OpenSearch" to do this.
Seventh, IE7 has search provider discovery functionality, whereby if you visit any page that has search functionality, the search engine dropdown lights up, indicating that you can add that search page to the dropdown list permanently, including optionally making it the default search provider.
Lastly, IE has had a search pane since IE4, and the default has always been MSN. Why is Google so upset now just because IE7 uses a search text box in the upper right corner (like all of today's browsers do) rather than the search pane that previous versions of IE used?
Google is full of it.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The difference is in the control: Microsoft are illegally using their monopoly to gain a competetive advantage. They control their browser through an OS/browser monopoly. Google is playing fair, and simply paying for product placement.
You could argue that Microsoft is behaving double badly here: They are illegally using their illegally acheived browser monopoly to leverage their search enging, instead of fighting fair with Google. No wonder some people see them as the spoiled child, that never won anything in a fair fight...
It seems to me that even if Microsoft did cater to Google's request and created an initial search engine selection option, their own search engine would be the first in the list of choices. Since most people just want to get through such prompts, they would be likely to simply choose whatever the first search engine in the list was, in a rush to get through the setup.
It just seems like anyone who wouldn't take the time to change the default search engine to Google isn't going to care enough to choose Google if IE asks them what they want their default search engine to be.
Just have Microsoft set up a monthly transfer of some suitably large amount from MSN division to IE division.
Can anyone be sure that what Google gives Dell is cold hard cash and not a credit in adword funny money?
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
What exactly is wrong with Microsoft setting the default search engine in THEIR browser to THEIR engine? It's not like they're restricting the use of different search engines. I'm generally pro-Google, but I think it's fairly unrealistic of Google to expect Microsoft to let users choose their default search engine (considering the majority of users would probably choose Google :-p).
In the case of Google, it pays hard cash to Mozilla and Dell to get the right to have its search engine placed as the default in the browsers.
So what's the problem? Let them pay Microsoft for placement like they pay everyone else. That's google's business model so it shouldn't be a big deal. They expect people to pay them for preferred placement so why don't they offer some cash to microsoft for preferred placement?
Google owns Mozilla, right?
They are. Except for IMDB and Encarta. When you hit "Add search providers" it takes you to this page. If IMDB and Encarta supported OpenSearch, they could be there too.
Get over it people. Go ahead and mod me crappy, I've said something that could be misconstrewed as pro-Microsoft.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
[... by contrast ...] Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser
Except of course ALL THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS OF THE BROWSER ITSELF. Or are they saying IE is worthless? I'm confused!
My sig is too lon
This is my point of view exactly. Microsoft also payed hard cash for the right to put their SE as the default: it's called "The cost of developing Internet Explorer." I'm not saying it's OK for MS to do it, just that the argument made by TFA is not a good one.
Similarly, Firefox is gaining new traction. 1.5 seems to be a real killer app, because it showing up in the weblogs a lot more recently.
IE7 is very foreign. It's a weird decision to change the interface.
Worse, Mozilla's interface is very familiar to IE6 users.
MS is handing the browser war to FF on a platter, with ribbon, the whole shabang, lock stock and barrel, etc.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
As long as Apple doesn't allow me to choose Yahoo! (or other) in Safari, I don't see how MS needs to defend not offering their customers a choice either.
On the PC, I've pretty much switched to Firefox anyway, and I'm kind of sliding that way on the Mac too, because of the damn search bar.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
So Microsoft will pay Microsoft to place its search engin in the lead position. Problem solved!
I've often ranted about Microsoft, but I don't see the issue here, really. It seems reasonable for MSIE to have MSN search set as the default.
Also, have you tried going to http://www.google.com/ using IE7? A nice big obvious button is displayed in the upper right part of the window, saying "Click here to make Google your default search" (or something like that; I'm on my Mac so I can't check the exact verbiage right now). People who like Google search will not have a problem making this switch; unless you think pressing a button is too technically challenging.
#DeleteChrome
Stan Beer has obviously never heard of the concept of an opportunity cost and thus misses the point completely. By putting its own search engine in IE7 as default, Microsoft is forgoing the revenue that others would have paid them to put another engine there instead. This is completely equivalent to paying a sum.
As has been stated so many times it hurts (but to no avail, apparently), the central issue is that of monopoly power. Microsoft has a monopoly position in the OS and browser markets. While it's free to use that market power in a number of ways within those markets, it's not allowed to abuse it to gain a dominant position in other markets. It's that simple. It's the law. Accept it.
Well if this http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184558&cid =15241605 is true, then it will be exploited soon after the release to hijack the browser
"Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser, which sits on the vast majority of PCs in the world"." Contrary to the quote, by placing it's own search engine into IE7 Microsoft is paying in that it is not selling that function to another company, like how Google is paying Mozilla and Dell. Microsoft is in a sense paying in terms of lost revenue that they could have been earning if they decided to sell that function to lets say, Google. But does that make sense? I think alot of people here have a serious case of the "Tall Poppy" syndrome.
You mean, for you? It depends on how interested you are. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yesterday, I installed the Google Video Player standalone application on my system. When it finished, the installer presented me with a checkbox for setting Google my default search engine. It was checked by default, and I was about to blindly hit "Finish" without giving the widget any thought. Most people would probably do the same.
Usually, the last dialog in an installation asks the user about adding items to the start menu, the desktop, or other such means of starting the application. How does Google Video have any relation to Google Search? Why should the Google Video installer try to hook into my browser and set up Google Search? I don't know.
It's pretty apparent that both companies highly value having their search engines as users' defaults. And I think both companies are trying to accomplish this however they can. Google is complaining because they have a good image in the public's eye, and hope to leverage Microsoft's image as a monopoly to generate some public outrage in their favor. There's no right or wrong here, it's just one company versus another.
It should be observed that if Google had its own OS with a monopoly in the desktop PC market, Microsoft's action would then not be objectionable, given how monopolies in any one market are exclusive.
Funny, I just received an article in my mailbox today from a security newsletter that I subscribe to titled: "IE 7.0 and Attractive Alternatives"
Which to me was a bit like saying "Rosie O'Donnell and Attractive Alternatives". Of course, I haven't yet bothered to read either of TFA's.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
...that little box somehow renders vast numbers of users totally incapable of typing "google" in the address bar, forever doomed to be inescapably drawn in a hypnotic, drooling trance to whatever stupid widget happens to be placed in the top right corner of their screens. I think there is a case to be made that such easily trained troglodytes are of questionable legal competency and quite possibly should be institutionalized for their own safety and that of society in general.
Google does not need to pay one cent to place all these products in its search engine, which has a huge market share.
But Google's page doesn't include products from competitors.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Microsoft does not need to pay a cent for putting live search as defualt? what about all the money spent on developing IE7, if google will come with their own browser - ofcourse it will have google as its default search enginge. it's all BS. I found it very easy to change the defult search engine on IE7 to google.
"Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser,"
Is MS supposed to pay itself for the right to set its search engine as the default?
A possible solution is to let someone pick from a list the first time an Internet search is done, and include Yahoo, Altavista, and Google as some alternatives.
Oh You POS
TFA makes no mention of the fact that computer distributors (Gateway, Dell, Sony) will no doubt be able to change the default search engine in IE7 when IE7 is bundled as part of the OS.
I've used IE7 and I'm not really impressed by the UI. I never used the integrated search (I don't use the integrated search in Firefox either).
I personlly don't find anything wrong with Microsoft making their search engine the default in IE7 as long as they make it simple for a novice user to change the search engine. The only other option they would have is for NO search engine to default and have the user define the search engine the first time they try to use it.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Uh... Hello? Am I the only one who thinks this article is absolutely, completely, and utterly retarded?
... wait, what's your argument again? Can someone please enlighten me on the purpose of this argument? To show that Microsoft has a monopoly that threatens to take over everything? Yeah, we already know that. That doesn't really change anything though. Bitch all you want about Microsoft's monopoly... but *this* is POINTLESS. It's their browser, and they do as they please with it. End of story.
I am no Microsoft advocate. Far from it. But IE7 is Microsoft's browser. They do whatever the fuck they want with it. Next thing we know, we're gonna be telling Daimler-Chrysler to stop using Daimler-Chrysler engines on their vehicles because
Now excuse me, I'm gonna go wash my mouth [errr... fingers] with hydrochloric acid... I've defended Microsoft enough for a lifetime.
I installed IE7 beta yesterday and the search engine is defaulted to was Google. In fact, it's the only option I have. MSN isn't even an option. Don't ask me why because I don't know. But I think mayhaps these stories are sensationalized crap.
Not the biggest fan of Microsoft, but....c'mon Google: Quit whining like a little pansy. IE is a Microsoft product, so it should be able to put whatever search it wants on there. Personally, I will simply set my homepage to google like I always do. Not becasue the search bar isn't handy, but because the page loads quickly.
Things is, Google made a good thing by keeping their page simple, and I use for this reason (well, and it works). I will not 'not' use it because the toolbar has an MS search on it.
Go back to the comment of 'How much of a non-story' is this....and let it sink in.
Well, when Google starts making and shipping its own OS, it can make Google the default search engine for no cost as well. As much as we all hate Microsoft, doesn't it make sense to do what it does? If Google sold an OS, would it make Microsoft or Yahoo the default search engine? ...let me guess..."No". Or would /. ers get just as upset at Google for making not so simple to use MSN or Yahoo in this hypothetical "Google OS"?
How much does it cost to develop IE?
/topic
Consider this (hypothetical ?)scenario:
Assume that Google creates a browser...What should be the default search engine ?MSN or Yahoo or Google ? One may argue that the Google browser is not dominant as IE, so the default can be Google, and I shall buy into that argument. However five years later, when the Google browser does become the dominant browser, do we expect Google to change the default to MSN or Yahoo ?
based off Debian, of course.
I think based on the comments I'm reading here that there is a missing point.
If I may, I'd like to include that point...
87 F. Supp. 2d 30
This is the case citation. I recommend reading it if you have access to lexis nexis. Here's ONE relevant snippet:
[*38] If the evidence reveals a significant exclusionary impact in the relevant market, the defendant's conduct will be labeled "anticompetitive" - and liability will attach- unless the defendant comes forward with specific, procompetitive business motivations that explain the full extent of its exclusionary conduct. See Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 483 (declining to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment because factual questions remained as to whether defendant's asserted justifications were sufficient to explain the exclusionary conduct or were instead merely pretextual); see also Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 605 n.32, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467, 105 S. Ct. 2847 (1985) (holding that the second element of a monopoly maintenance claim is satisfied by proof of "'behavior that not only (1) tends to impair the opportunities of rivals, but also (2) either does not further competition on the merits or does so in an unnecessarily restrictive way'") (quoting III Phillip E. Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Antitrust Law P 626b, at 78 (1978)).
If the defendant with monopoly power consciously antagonized its customers by making its [**12] products less attractive to them - or if it incurred other costs, such as large outlays of development capital and forfeited opportunities to derive revenue from it - with no prospect of compensation other than the erection or preservation of barriers against competition by equally efficient firms, the Court may deem the defendant's conduct "predatory." As the D.C. Circuit stated in Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co.,
***Please note the above paragraph... 'with no prospect of compensation other than the erection of preservation of barriers agsint competittion by equally efficient firmw'***
Please be aware slashdotters, you're views, however well formulated they may be, ARE NOT THE LAW. Please check the relevant laws and cases. As you can see, clearly there is precedent in the Neumann case, reafirmed in the Microsoft case, that THIS IS MONOPOLY ABUSE.
Granted arguments can be made in Microsoft's favor, but I find this a trouble precedent for corporate behavior. Usually when you're found GUILTY of a CRIME you should lay low and NOT COMMIT the SAME CRIME AGAIN!
Maybe I'm just crazy...
I sorry but what's the point. Companies wih monopolies leveraging their monopolies to expand into new markets? The hell you say. Who'd a thunk it possible. That like posting an article that a lion killed a zebra. I am apathetic to the plight of the zebra because I am not on the menu. Equally, I could care less about Google's problems because I can always change the default search engine. Moreover, I don't even use Windows or IE.
For the record, I do use Google search engine 99% of the time more out of habit rather than any loyalty. Although, I don't like all the crap (buzzlogs, enterainment news, and the like) that is on Yahoo and MSN website.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
According to the IE blog, here's what happens:
1) You have IE6 installed, and upgrade - your autosearch provider is automatically populated. This is the ONLY thing that is populated. It was VERY LIKELY set by your toolbar provider or your OEM.
2) The only time it default to MSN is when you don't have it set... and, BY THE WAY, on a fresh install it's already set to MSN if you don't have it set. IE7 doesn't do any updating of this.
3) On Windows Vista, it's completely configurable and, again, your OEM or toolbar provider will already have set it.
The only people this will affect are those that do full off the shelf installs of Vista and who choose to do fresh installs without migrating their old their own data. All IE7 is doing is IF you don't have your autosearch setting set, instead of sending you to about:blank, it sends you to MSN (which, again, it does already).
Where's the choice on Firefox for MSN search? Any of the browsers that can be used on Linux - Where's the choice for MSN?
I use firefox, and I use google exclusively. Now I'm starting to rethink google because lately they seem more like a Big Company, and less like the "friendly geeks coding apps".
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
As a web designer/dev I installed Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 seven days ago. When I launch it, I see that the default option for search is Google -- not MSN!
Have I missed anything?
Since MS abused its monopoly in the OS market to create a competitive advantage in the browser market... is it legal for them to use that competitive advantage to enter ANOTHER market (search engine)?
I want to:
...
- Buy Diet Coke from the Pepsi machines at my office
- Get a Whopper at McDonalds
- Watch "The Sopranos" newest episodes on NBC
- Have Dubya back therapeutic cloning
- Pay only $1/gal for gasoline
Come on, Google! Kwitchersnivelin'
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
A lot of people seem to be arguing over the 'easiness' of switching search engines.
I think this original comment made a good point, but mistakingly placed it under the easiness arguement. That is this:
So the point is actually one of convenience. It is more convenient not to change the browser's default search engine, and nothing short of asking preference on first run is going to change that.This has been standard in IE for a while now. To change the *default* home/search, you have to make some registry changes.
You can set a homepage through IE, but the default is kept in there and it will revert on occasion.
Make the virus/plugin present a choice. If it gives you a choice (including the status quo), is it still a virus?
Has anyone installed the latest IE7 beta, gone to google.com and followed the prompts that ask if you want to use google as the integrated search?
The results are fairly pertinent to this discussion.
Google doesn't just become a search option - it becomes the default integrated search client. Meaning that everytime you restart IE7, google will be used as the integrated search client unless you manually change it to Microsoft Search each time you start IE7.
And while users are making an active choice to install google integrated search, how many users do you think will start up IE7 for the first time, visit google and follow the on-screen prompts to insall the google search integration - and then have no idea how to set another search client as the default?
The main problem is the desktop os monopoly that MS exploits to gain in other markets. Simple as that. And, according to the US govt. illegal. For very good reasons IMHO.
Is that so hard to understand?
The answer appears to be yes.
What is wrong with Doogie Howser MD?
Neil Patrick Harris
"In the case of Google, it pays hard cash to Mozilla and Dell to get the right to have its search engine placed as the default in the browsers.[... by contrast ...] Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser"
So IE7 was programmed by a bunch of unpaid programmers doing it for the sheer fun?
I don't like Microsoft but this is very dumb. Google could fork Firefox and make Google the default search engine. Or Google could buy Opera and make Google the default search engine. Then they wouldn't have to pay for Google to be the default search engine.
You could argue that Microsoft gets an advantage in that it is being installed as the default on every windows box but to argue about the how they get there search engine installed as the default for free is bogus.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It does not cost the search engine anything for the browser to be developed.
Google pays to have their search engine listed first. MSN could pay Dell to list their MSN Search first. This has nothing to do with how much it costs to write a browser. Microsoft could take funds from Google to list them first as well, which might be quite interesting, but I doubt that would happen.
Forget the default search engine, I think they should go after Microsoft for defaulting to MSN as the default home page. Not only does Microsoft get all the traffic by default when people launch Internet Explorer, but they also place Ads on the page.
So, not only are they making a new business off of their current monopoly, but they are making quite a bit of money just on the ads. I mean, who would bother with MSN if they weren't forced into going there in the first place.
Operative word: "sits"
GUYS!
I just noticed, GOOGLE has a link to SEARCH THE WEB in gmail.....and it links to GOOGLE's SEARCH!!!11 I bet they arn't paying themselves hard cash for that....the insanity.....
"I do get a little frustrated when people treat computers as some kind of magical or animate object."
I talk to my car all the time. When the lead in my pencil breaks I accuse it of being stupid. People have been giving boats names for millennia. A computer has far more animate-object-like responses than any of these. Computer behavior is, in many ways, more human than dog behavior. It would be very strange, and possibly slightly inhuman, not to anthropomorphize computers a little.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
You're close... Google would have to make their own desktop OS, market it and get it in the hands of 95%+ of all users on the planet, AND make their own browser, THEN they could have google.com be the default and not have to pay for it.
Obviously, it's cheaper for them to drag out the lawyers than it is to actually compete fairly with Microsoft. Google's just as bad as every other big company, and I'm getting sick of them. I may just change my default search engine...
How the heck is this even worthy of discussion? So Microsoft are including a Microsoft-based search in IE7? Who cares?! IE7 is Microsoft's software to do with as Microsoft see fit. I completely fail to see how this is problematic, especially if they've even gone so far as to include a feature that allows users to change the default search. Jesus! Just use Firefox if you want something different. It's not like they're blocking Google in IE7 or something.
Fanboy Microsoft-bashing retardation at its worst. And I freely admit to hating Microsoft myself!
Just because users are stupid doesn't mean that there is some kind of evil monopoly at play. New computers have come with MSN.com set as their homepage for years, yet even users as daft as my great grandmother find and use Google over MSN. She's 94, by the way, and hates all the "blue junk" that MSN uses.
Would you rather MS show an empty blank page at startup and no default search engine configured? Image the user frustration when they try to search and IE7 pops up a box "I see you're trying to search... which search engine should I use?" In slight defense of MS, Firefox doesn't do that, nor does Safari or Opera. In fact, the three latter browsers set their default to Google. Go figure.
It is EASY to change the embedded search option in IE7. Just as easy as it is in Firefox et all.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=browser&btnG= Google+Search
explorer shows up in 7th place.
now MS and Yahoo! will acuse google of favouring Mozilla on their search index, never mind the fact that explorer doesn't even show on the 1st 10 results in MSN search.
Yahoo! seems the most favorable search engine for Explorer. MS's browser is 4th.
What ? Me, worry ?
These organizations need to quit whining about MS and do something creative to counter whatever conspiracy and monopolistic strategy of the week Bill Gates has. MS happened to be first to market and that automatically gives you a competitive edge. They just did it on such a massive scale that it's taking companies a lot longer than usual to bite into their market share, but it'll happen once the creative's at competing companies stop feeling sorry for themselves and get to work. Would you like some cheese with that? Geezuz.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
Many years ago, I was in an elevator. There were 3 people: A fellow programmer, a secretary, and me. I asked the fellow programmer if so and so were still there - innocently enough - I was wondering if he went to lunch or left for the day. Maybe a stupid way to put it, but I was on a death march and I wasn't thinking too clearly - kind of like now :-) ..." I can't remember the rest, but I still remember how pissed I was at her for misunderstaning me. And now, I did the same to someone else.
Anyway, the secretary went ballistic. She started yelling at me, "So you think your sooo good! (We just had layoffs at PMSC) You think that you're
Again, my apologies.
It's interesting that this pro-Google "analysis" was put on slashdot as a story, when 80% of the blogs/articles I've read on this issue take Microsoft's side. Oh wait, this is slashdot, the site that uses a borg icon for Microsoft topics and broken glass for Windows topics (all other topic icons are nuetral, free of editorial spin).
Negotiate with Dell, pay them and let them remove the IE icon from the desktop and replace with a Firefox bundled with Google Toolbar.
Considering the more ignorant people will buy Dell, and more savy people will change their default search engine and even the browser and even the OS, Google will be the default search engine on virtually all computers.
Oh, I am just kidding. Microsoft have more ca$h to buy Dell.
Yeah, and next we need to stop Apple from defaulting iTunes to go to their music store!
So MS does not have to pay to have it's search first on the bowser. Nonsense. They pay and pay a lot. Who do you think pays the salary of the IE developers? it comes from Windows sales. Just as Firefox developers get paid by google (and others). End of story.
If cash makes it okay, then this is pot calling the kettle black.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
My problem with MS' tactic of including their versions of everything with windows is not the effect it has on people who are reading this, but on the common user or new computer owner. Follow me thorugh this scenario
Aunt regina goes out to buy her first computer. Not knowing or careing too much about the latest trends/cutting edge/etc. she goes to best buy (as opposed to i.e. dell) and says "Gimme that one!" Naturally the system comes preinstalled with some flavor of windows. Is there really any option for the non-technical end user? You could argue OSX offers some competition, but one trip through the software isles and its pretty obvious how lopsided that competition is. So Auntie goes home and gets the 8 year old from next door to come hook up her computer and network connection.
Finnaly all set for her first trip onto that new highway that nice Mr. Gore built, Auntie clicks on what? IE of course, because its the only option on her computer. What just happened here? MS used its market dominance in the home OS market to gain market share in the browser arena. So the page loads, and what is the default page that loads? The MSN home page of course. MS portal market share +1. Now is auntie gonna go change her home page anytime soon? My guess is probably not, while it may only take a few clicks to do, its not what I would call easy or obvious. Should a first time user even be messing with a setting that is only a tab or two away from options that could render your web browser, or even your entire internet connection, unusable? Suppose Aunti dear needs some information, oh look, theres a box called search! how easy. MS search engine share +1.
So now Aunties had a few days enjoying her online experiance and is getting used to her computer, so she decides to try out this new fangled e-mail, see why theres such an uproar about meat in a can. She looks around her computer and sees something that looks like an envelope, clicks it, and like magic theres MS outlook. MS mail app share +1. She checks her inbox and look, a nice note from her friend Betsy about their last trip to the bahamas, its even got an attatchment, a short beach boys clip (run betsy, run! here comes RIAA!) So auntie downloads the clip and double clicks it, and what does it open with? Windows media player of course. MS media player share +1.
My biggest problem with this is the lack of obvious options. Sure everyone here knows half a dozen programs for each of the above tasks, but from a new user's point of view, there is no options. Unless you already know of a competing product, know where/how to find it, and have the technical profficancy to install it, your going to keep using whats already there. MS is using its (near) monopoly of the home OS market to create an installed userbase for all of their other products. This creates a nearly unbeatable market advantage. Given all the negative press surounding IE these days would anyone purposefully choose it over firefox? maybe, because of its brandname recognition, but the real driving force behind explorers dominance is its preinstalled base. That was the basis of the anti-trust suits involving netscape. MS is now(and has been) leveraging their installed userbase of IE users (which I'm sure will eventually be autoupgraded via windowsupdate, be curious to see if it resets your default browser when it installs IE7) to gain an unfair advantage in its search engine battle. This tactic is, IMO, a clear abuse of a monopoly's position. MS is gaining users not through advertising, better performance, marketing agreements or any other reason besides the fact that their versions of software are bundled with their OS. As a monopoly holder it is MS' resposibilty to ensure they are not abusing their position, but instead MS flouts thier power then cries when they get a slap on the wrist.
rabble rabble
Google thinks the OS will be irrelevant. The future will be web applications. They work hard to make computers running any OS to become as useful as Windows through really well done web applications that work great in Opera, Firefox, Safari, IE, etc.
Google's recent complain boils down to IE getting bundled with the OS. If IE were not bundled, they probably wouldn't care if IE even had MSN hardcoded in.
If they are successful in their quest for OS irrelevance, their complaint is trite and does nothing but fuel backlash. Perception-wise, they went from "Microsoft, do whatever you want, it won't change the outcome" to "MS owns and we're scared."
Perhaps people are a little ticked that Google has 1/2 the valuation of Microsoft. A $150 billion company would only complain like this because their one source of 99% of their revenue is so easily attacked.
Maybe the problem is that Google is just overvalued as a search engine.
...in the US. The anti trush law is a very peculiar law, at least in the US.
First of all, it states that special rules apply, as soon as you're a monopoly, or will become one. You are not allowed to compete in the same way anymore, hence Microsoft broke the law when they bundled Windows with IE to obtain a browser monopoly. It's probably still illegal, but there is a problem...
In the US, breaking the anti trust law cannot be fined. You may be forced to forced to pay some sort of remedy, or do something (eg. break up the company into two independant competing companies). But the state cannot issue a fine! In other words: Microsoft can probably just continue, as long as the remedy doesn't work!
Now EU is another matter! This is why the EU case with Microsoft's media player is interesting. The EU may force Microsoft to pay a fine, that even Microsoft will notice... I can't wait! :-]
Now we're getting somewhere! :-))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_c ase
http://rjdohnert.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/windows- defence-on-ie7-search-is-no-defence/
Thats what I think of Stans article.
I'm so sick of everyone crying about MS and how evil they are with their super-duper monopoly powers. Don't like Windows? install a different OS. Don't like IE7? use an alternate broswer. Don't want MS Live Search as the default? Change it -- it only takes 3 clicks. I mean come on, IE7 has a search bar, and *some* search engine is going to be set intially. Why is everyone screaming foul that they (suprise) chose their own search engine rather than a competitors? Its hardly a monopolistic practice if their are viable alternatives -- and quit responding with "but all the dumb people will use it because they don't know how to change it". All this tinfoil hat crap about "capitalism blended with corruption" is getting old. For all the complaining, I haven't seen anyone give a reasonable statement of what MS should have done different.
Microsoft has done nothing wrong. Internet Explorer is their product and they can make it how they like. Do people expect them to make a competitor's search engine the default?
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
It is easy. I use IE7, and to the right of the address bar is a shortened search bar, where you can type in a string, hit enter, and it will search for those terms.
To the right of that is a magnifying glass icon. You click it, and a drop-down menu appears with the choices "AOL search", "Ask Jeeves", "Google", "MSN Search", and "Yahoo! Search". You can't make it much easier to change the default search by placing the button to change the search right next to the search.
Interestingly enough, if you go to Google and are using IE7, there will be a link at the bottom of the page to change IE7's default search to Google. So, even if Joe Citizen can't figure it out, Google can do it for him.
As for the whole monopoly thing, I would also argue that Microsoft has only a "dominance." They have more or less the same market share in software as Google does in search. Besides, having a monopoly isn't illegal (using it to "capture other markets" isn't illegal, either), but coercively abusing your position as a monopoly to erect false barriers of entry is. Actively and explicitly stifling free-market competition with a monopoly is illegal; bundling services essential to an out-of-the-box desktop OS isn't (or at least, shouldn't be.)
It would be different if Microsoft prevented (coerced) anyone from using a different search engine, or a different web browser or word processor. It's a simple matter for people to use Google instead of MSN, Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, and WinAmp instead of Media Player. Just because most people are too lazy to switch from the defaults doesn't mean Microsoft is abusing their monopoly - these people obviously don't care, and the whole point of Windows is to have an easy-to-use, ready out-of-the-box desktop OS. The OS is designed for these people, and is that much more effective for including functions they're most likely to need. In other words, providing a product complete with the services their targeted users will need isn't making a monopoly - it's making a good product.
DATABASE WOW WOW
If Microsoft provides a way to change the setting for the default for the search engine used then that should be enough. What does Google expect them to do, default to Google instead. That's fairly stupid on their part. Market share means nothing in this discussion since their is a way to change the setting. It would only mean something if Microsoft defaulted it to their search engine and didn't provide any way to change it. Google needs a reality check on this one.
However, the appeals court did affirm in part Judge Jackson's ruling on monopolization.
...
...
...required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and...
...
...
On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case.
The dissenting States regarded the settlement as merely a slap on the wrist.
Microsoft's obligations under the settlement expire on November 12, 2007.
Of course, there is a good reason for Microsoft to do this: If Microsoft had to just fight fair, like Google and many other companies, they probably wouldn't stand a chance!
... I would phone up Microsoft and say "Hi, you're going to have to pay me NOT to change the default search engine to Google/Yahoo/whoever". If they tried to cram some crazy pricing scheme down my throat, off to the courts.
Hell,Quit having a fit,Google.You've won.Google is now a standard.Ordinary folks don't even know there ARE other search engines.My sis saw me using Dogpile and couldn't believe anyone bothered to make another search engine.The SECOND I handed her the pc she closed out Dogpile and fired up Google.When I asked her why she didn't even try Dogpile,She said with all seriousness "Its not Google".
You won.Be a good sport about it and let Microsoft set their little defaults and then set back and laugh as the biggest search on Google becomes "How do I change the toolbar on IE to go to Google?".No one is going to "MSN it".Just keep your site the way it is and enjoy being king of search.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
is 100s of millions of dollars to build the browser. When Google pays 100% of Mozilla's development cost, and then pays some more, they can talk.
[i]In the 1990s, Microsoft made its browser the default on its OS. Customers could always change to another, but by making it the default and preinstalled, there was an extra burden on customers who chose to use any competitor's product.[/i]
So, what extra burden was this? Grab a CD with a copy of another product? Go to the competitor's website using IE? If anything that last one might be argued as reducing the burden, don't you think?
Sorry, but that there was possibly more of a burden to install Netscape, or Mozilla, or anything else doesn't make for an extra burden.
Didn't we just read an article here the other day that IE costs MS millions of dollars to make and maintain with no real income? Now we hear that IE is free to MS with no cost? How can it be both? How can MS do no good, no matter WHAT? I am no fan of MS, but these contrasting arguments are not really enough to convince people to use linux on a regular basis.
Hey, I was just kidding, it should be RPM based!
Since IE4, MSN search has been the default search engine in IE. It was released in 1997 and included in every OS since Windows 98. Explain how this has hurt Google at any point during it's entire history let alone today. Heck. Show me where this button has given MSN search a majority share in search engine hits.
Just noticed something. I Installed IE7 on another machine and went to Google. In the Upper right Corner, there's a box saying "Make Google your Default Search Engine! Click Here!" The link pointing to a program that will set it for you. Heck. Google didn't even have to make a program to change it since IE7 supports OpenSearch, Which works great since I went to This page and installed Google (and set it as my default when I installed it by checkmarking the default box) and wikipedia from there. It's actually easier to change search engines in IE7 than it ever was in IE4-6.
Google has so much brand recognition at this point that if anyone does use the IE7 search regularly, they'll probably switch to Google as their main provider since Google points it out and IE7 makes the switch stupid easy. The only way this would ever change is that Google royally screws up, or MSN search creates a search engine that is undeniably better than Google.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
So Google bitches that IE will have MS's own search engine as the default, though the user can easily change it.
Well here on MacOS X, Safari has Google as the one and only search engine in the search box. You can only change it through 3rd party hacks, and you can't hide the stupid thing.
So what's google bitching about really, oh yes, that they don't have a lock-in market.
Dell's PC's are preset to go to dell.com. Wherever this person got the idea that they go to google is wrong.
In your world, monopoly situations that stagnate industries, raise prices and lower value to the consumer are good things that should be encouraged and silly companies like Google should just try to behave in the same way. After all the whole point in capatalism is to crush the competition so you can then use your monopoly to create new monopolies in other industries!
Yeah Google, you're just moaning about nothing. Sure.
FFS.
Google can be the default in other browsers by paying for it, which they do. They can't be default in IE, MS will never allow it. This wouldn't be an issue, like you say, MS make the browser themselves, it's up to them what to do about search-defaults. But the fact that MS have a browser monopoly makes the situation different. They can make money from MSN-search without having to actually offer a competitive advantage, this is anti-capitalism and should be prevented by law.
Luckily it is prevented by law. I'm just amazed so many slashbots fail to see the distinction.
I specifically said this wasnt troll. If you disagree, you're welcome to (though as stated before, you're a fucking moron). But modding down because you're a fucking moron? Yeah, that's a sure way to show people you're smart! You fucking moron.
If you want to try to defend google's actions, that's one thing. But just saying "hurr hur! I have mod points lol ur soo gay to be right all the time!"? fuck you.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Does anyone else think that MS re-entered the browser wars just so they would have an excuse to do stuff like this, i.e. promote their own products? I mean the potential financial gain from making Windows Live the default search is probably greater the cost of developing the upgrade of IE6 to IE7.