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 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.
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?
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 /..
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
It's not the same playing field now as back then.
"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.
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 ?
Yeah, and next we need to stop Apple from defaulting iTunes to go to their music store!