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"."

24 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Yahoo and Microsoft say what? by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the Fine Article:

    However, representatives from both Microsoft and Yahoo have publicly said that Google is being hypocritical. They say Google has deals with companies like Mozilla, which makes the second most popular browser Firefox and PC maker Dell, where Google is the default search window in the browsers.

    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 argues that it will be easy for IE7 users to change the default search engine to Google if they want to. However, "easy" is a relative term. For any IE7 user, it's always going to be easier to just leave the default browser as it is - Microsoft's factory setting.

    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.

    1. Re:Yahoo and Microsoft say what? by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget the "ease" with which users can change their search engine - the bottom line is that most casual users don't really care. Many would probably ignore the search bar and browse over to Google anyway (that's what my reference case, my wife's 84 year-old grandfather does).

      This is one of the most overblown issues I've seen here in quite a while, and that's saying something.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Yahoo and Microsoft say what? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      1) Go to google.com
      2) Click a link that says "Make Google your default Search Engine".
      3) Agree to some security dialog.

      You haven't convinced me that this is some horrendous technogeek task. In fact, it seems that regular users ALWAYS seem to have Google/Yahoo toolbars installed without any assistance from their local nerd.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    3. Re:Yahoo and Microsoft say what? by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

      I'm sick of hearing people repeat this like parrots.

      Google has monopoly on the search engine market right? You may argue but they have the huge share, Yahoo's second the MSN/Live is lurking in the 3rd place. By the same definitions we use for Microsoft, Google has a monopoly on search right now.

      Did anyone make a fuss that they "abused" their monopoly to advertise Firefox few days ago? And having specialized campaigns for promoting Firefox for which Google itself pays big bucks for every installation (yes with the Google toolbar in it, of course).

      I can almost hear MS haters whine "but nag nag Firefox isn't owned by Google, and Live.com is owned by Microsoft". Google doesn't need to technically *own* Mozilla, they just need to work as a single entity like they do now.

      Did you never notice the lead Firefox developers actually work at Google? Did you notice even the Mozilla/Firefox sites are hosted at Google?

      Oh by the way regarding "no choice, omg evil Microsoft selected live.com as a default!" how about mentioning Safari has Google search *HARDCODED*, so Mac users pretty much have no choice, this time for real.

  2. Solution by aallmighty · · Score: 3, Funny

    You're right, Microsoft should have to pay themself hard cash!

    1. Re:Solution by Ossifer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're right, Microsoft should have to pay themself hard cash!
      Isn't that effectively what they are doing? If they didn't put their own search engine in as default, they could be collecting cash from others.
    2. Re:Solution by boldtbanan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Isn't that effectively what they are doing? If they didn't put their own search engine in as default, they could be collecting cash from others.

      Exactly. The economic term for this is an 'opportunity cost.' I'm sure Google would pay a ton of money to be listed as the default search engine on IE, but Microsoft decided that it's worth more to them to set their own search engine as the default, thus forgoing cash profit.

      As long as you have the option to override the default search engine, I don't see what the problem is.

    3. Re:Solution by bhirsch · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shhh. Don't bring irrelevant things like financial return and opportunity cost into this. The really issue here is that M$ is teh sux0r!!!

  3. Easy Fix by Kainaw · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. Sorry... by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Sorry... by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do see your point - Google's got no complaint. They're stepping out on a limb to try to get some attention and maybe increase their search engine dominance. Nothing wrong with that, except that, as much as I like them, this kind of thing is starting to annoy me.

      MS spends millions of dollars to develop IE and "give" it away, you'd think they could put the search engine of their choice as default without people whining about it. It's just one of those cases that no matter what MS does, there's going to be people complaining.

      Like I said, the preferable thing is for people to learn what their options are instead of just accepting the defaults, but other than that, too bad.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  5. I hate defending MS, but.. by neoform · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  6. So, start the bidding... by everphilski · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. Google can afford it by lymond01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

  8. People are not stupid - sorry. by dietrollemdefender · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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 /..

    1. Re:People are not stupid - sorry. by yagu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:People are not stupid - sorry. by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      begin_rant

      I seriously beg to differ. I would not call people dumb. Disinterested. But the behaviour is the same.

      As an example: my sister-in-law (a lawyer, and one of the smartest people I know); who happens to be a hero of mine (having returned to obtain her law degree at the age of 45), who ALSO posesses an RN degree, AND has run a sucessful clothing store (not a franchise), is a computer "idiot".

      She needs coaching on many of the basics, and continually seems to pick up stuff like Gator. Along with browser homepage hijacking. The complaint? "It runs slow" or "I can no longer connect". I clean her laptop every 6 months to a year... she considers it a "tuneup", similar to her car.

      She is NOT capable of entering a complex URL, and yet prefers Google as her home page (clean, simply, and searching is efficient and effective). My wife, on the other hand, prefers ANOTHER search engine (oriented toward academics, not so clean, but much more relevent to her). My wife will then use Google if the first results don't work (my wife is considerably more "computer savy", and CAN type a URL).

      If the next version of IE plants an MSN homepage on her... it will be months before it is replaced with Google. And an "integrated search"? Never. Simply because I won't know or bother. Any MS related issues, WHATEVER they are, are simply accepted as the "cost of buying a Dell" instead of an Apple.

      Will MS make more money from this? Sure. Is it bad? Only if MS is leveraging a monopoly. My sister-in-law won't care; frankly, I don't really care either. Google, on the other hand, probably DOES care. Which is why they have raised the issue.

      As usual, YMMV. But, please, when I refer to an "average user", I do not mean that they are an idiot, or sub-normal. They may know a BUNCH of stuff that I don't (from gardening to rocket science).

      end_rant

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    3. Re:People are not stupid - sorry. by gid13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I recognize that the original poster already said that wasn't what he was going for, but being someone who works in tech support, I have to disagree with you. A very significant percentage of people (I'd estimate about 75%) are ignorant, stupid, lazy, or a combination (by my definitions, of course). The ignorant won't know about Google and will use what's given to them. Barring someone coming along and saying "hey Google is way better" they won't bother. The stupid won't be able to figure out how to change it (this is not MS's fault, though I'm a Linux fan myself MS does a good job of making things easy, but even MS can't do much for the disturbingly many people who can't figure out how to right-click). The lazy won't bother to change it. Thus MS can leverage their OS monopoly to muscle in on a new market. Which is illegal.

  9. MS doing same thing as with IE vs Netscape by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  10. Google is full of it by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. It's simply illegal vs. legal by jivo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  12. What's the problem? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  13. already there. by everphilski · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:It's very normal by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I never anthropomorphize my computer. She hates it when I do that.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.