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"."

Comments

Thanks for the article

[Soporific]

How much of a non-story is this?

~S

Who owns it again?

[randomErr]

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.

People are not stupid - sorry.

[dietrollemdefender]

FTFA: Google believes Microsoft is trying to make it difficult for users to choose any other search engine except Microsoft's on the browser by making its own product the default search window on the toolbar.

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 /..

Re:People are not stupid - sorry.

[yagu]

Whoaaa!

Italics were used to point out the typical "us" (smart people) vs. "them" (stupid people) attitude on /..

Not what I was going for at all, I apologize to all if this seems to by my implied message.

Instead I was trying to emphasize the difference of world perspectives. I daily troubleshoot, code, research all that is computer and related technology. But not everyone does that, and there are shades of degree to which those not in IT have mastered or care to master tuning their computer environments.

I work with non-IT people all of the time, and what used to amaze me I figured out and now understand better. People master the slice of their computer necessary to do work they want or need to do. Beyond that, most know little more. An option to configure a default search engine is first: something they probably wouldn't know about short of having it pointed out to them, and second: something that would interest them little to change if in fact their "out of the box" searching is yielding results. It's a lack of knowledge for those users, not a shortage of intelligence.

You are correct, many people know all about how and what to type, and those who don't aren't idiots because they don't. They know what they have chosen to know.

I hate the car analogy, but here I go again. I couldn't tell you the first thing about how a car works beyond putting gas in it, and changing the oil and topping off the fluids. Beyond that I don't care, I just want it work, and I want it to work well. And, thankfully cars do just that!

Of course there are those who could change the O2 sensor thresholds and they see it as easy-peasy to do. But for those who don't work on cars as a profession or avocation should get reasonable and fair defaults... they do.

Again, apologies to any who interpreted my point as hubris, that's not where I meant to go.

MS doing same thing as with IE vs Netscape

[SydShamino]

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.

Re:Solution

[Kilz]

Your right in a way. They should be forced to pay to have it done. Right after they are forced to break up the company into OS in one company and everything else in another. The USA should have done it long ago when they convicted Microsoft for the anti trust violations against Netscape.

It's simply illegal vs. legal

[jivo]

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...

What's the problem?

[jtownatpunk.net]

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?

Economics 101

[ostehaps]

"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"

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.