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.
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.
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.
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.
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