Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint
Raver32 writes to tell us that Microsoft will be making changes to their desktop search tool in Vista after a 49-page antitrust complaint was filed by Google. "Microsoft initially dismissed the allegations, saying regulators had reviewed the program before Vista launched. However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary."
( "what? We did it because we were told to! Not our fault your desktop is all broke now!" )
Okay, so prolly not like that. But seriously; they could've avoided the bad PR by just responding to a quiet request in the first place, instead of being pushed into it... as usual.
I realize there's prolly some sort of 'we only do it when we have to' mentality prevalent in Redmond, but when is someone there going to realize that maybe, you know, they can take a chance and do The Right Thing - when the asking is being done quietly and politely, and not finally and grudgingly do it later when there's a big fat lawsuit or four hanging over their heads?
I know, I know... but I still have some small bit of dreamer left in me.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Kneel before Google!
The omnipotence of GOOG is starting to get just plain scary.
Currently bidding on sig
Contrary to the title of the article...
Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint...MS hasnt agreed to do anything...
However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary.(Micorsoft,) Please define "if necessary"... is it:
Until such a definition is announced by MS, this statement doesnt mean much of anything - except perhaps as an attempt to make the general public think they are addressing the issue of choice on the public's behalf (as most of the general public will probably read into their statement in the same way that happened when the article title was created).
Just my thoughts on the matter...
-Robert
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
well do you really expect anyone to integrate a third party search into their OS?
why dont people sue apple for Spotlight?
Man, ya'll must be sheep. Seriously.
Look. MS wrote the OS. MS owns the OS. MS can do whatever they want with it. If that means integrate whatever the **** they want, then piss off. If you don't like it, don't use it. It is not drinking water. Yes, you can live with MS. I don't use Windows, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure MS does not loose this fundamental freedom.
I find it quite unbelievable some people's feelings of entitlement. No, you are not entitled that somebody provide an OS that does what you want how you want it.
Your job depends on using Windows? Quit. It's not that hard. You are not under threat of violence. There are other jobs out there. Start your own business. Mow a lawn, I don't care. You are free people in a free society. Just choose not to participate in what you disagree with. What are you, sheep?
No, mostly you're just arm chair pundents. Debating the evilness of some entity but not getting up long enough to do something about it.
"Desktop Search" is what you turn off to gain HDD access speed, because you actively organize your personal files (unlike other schmucks).
why the hate?
.. (except for gaming of course)
do u think saying fuck a few times will prove u correct?
MS bashing is fun, but do realize, that the line between added application and OS feature, is really not that clear cut. i could take things to their logical extreme and argue that everything other than the kernel is not part of the OS.. of course i would be wrong, but the point is, "this is an OS feature, not an application" can sometimes be a very valid argument..
my point about spotlight was this: spotlight and the vista search are the SAME, in terms of the nature of the functionality they offer to the end user... why is one considered an added application while the other is an OS feature?
and just to be clear... I do not know the law, and I am not arguing about the law... it is simply that this time i feel microsoft is justified, and being forced to provide even a link to someone else's program is unfair, and has the potential of being taken to ridiculous extremes..
and no i am not a microsoft fanboy.. in fact i am not even a windows user
Cheering for either company is ridiculous. So Bill Gates has a few more billions than Sergei and Larry, but so what. It's not like any of us have our own private 737 to fly around in.
I like an OS to come with more stuff out of the box with every release. It's just less complicated to put in one CD and get everything - that's why I like Linux and OS/X. People have a right to make their products, however they want them. It sucks to bolt rear views on a car after the fact, and it sucks to go and download a bunch of unintegrated utilities onto your drive.
Google could have been proactive and released a Vista Upgrade for their search, with an Aero look, that shuts of Microsoft search. They could go and see every OS out there, and for Vista owners, drop down a new FireFox and a new Google Search FOR VISTA. But instead of being agressive, they cry to lawyers just like Netscape did. The result will be the same.
Microsoft delivered a new search experience with their new OS, and it is time for Google to respond with product.
I'm waiting for a new Google Search for Vista.
This is my sig.
I mean, they have Spotlight and that's Apple-only and bundled, right?
To have an embedded search utility on an OS just seems logical. Microsoft may be hated around here, but for an OS maker to change the default search to something else just seems stupid. They are bundling it because it's an OS and it needs a desktop search.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
> I mean, we're not talking about middleware like WMP here -- we're talking about finding files on the user's hard drive.
Well, that's not ALL we're talking about. Remember, this was an MS-made replacement for Google's desktop search and Microsoft only made it AFTER seeing Google's product, at which point they merged it into Windows at a fairly deep level.
In other words, I don't really care what they put into their OS, but WHY they put it in there: to kill off competitors (Google) and their products.
Because you are in the minority in your disapproval of those companies. You won't get the government to do anything about it either if that is the case.
Does anybody actually read these, or just start bashing? Microsoft does not *prevent* anyone from adding a different desktop search. They have not "added locks to the fridge" so that you can't add Pepsi. They've just made it so that you have to bring in your own Pepsi and stock it yourself. If you're too lazy to do that, that's your problem. You have that choice. If you went into a Chevy dealership and bought a Corvette and then told them that you wanted a Ferrari engine instead of the Chevy engine, do you think they'd change it for you? Did you see an option for the Ferrari engine on the sticker? Doubt it. You can replace it, but you'll have to get off your lazy ass and replace it yourself. Don't want to go through the hassle? Then buy something else.
I don't give a damn what Apple does. They're influence on the market is next to insignificant. I don't use Apple hardware or operating systems on a regular basis. Apple could shut down tomorrow and it would adversely effect less than 10% of all PC users out there.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, that's not ALL we're talking about. Remember, this was an MS-made replacement for Google's desktop search and Microsoft only made it AFTER seeing Google's product, at which point they merged it into Windows at a fairly deep level.
Rubbish. Microsoft first said Vista (Longhorn at the time) would have "Desktop Search" a year before before Google's first GD beta (and two years before Apple released Spotlight). Further, they'd been talking about the broad concept since at least the mid 90s.
In other words, I don't really care what they put into their OS, but WHY they put it in there: to kill off competitors (Google) and their products.
The idea that it was a "response" to Google's product (and hence some deliberate, targeted attack), doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Most companies don't require a majority of consumers to patronize them in order to stay in business. If I open an arcade where people pay me to skin sweet little baby bunnies alive, it doesn't matter from an economic standpoint that 95% of the town is against me, as long as the other 5% pay me enough to stay in business. However, a majority of consumers certainly can push through any legislation they care enough about. Bunny killer :p
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
It is clear cut in this case.
MS didn't provide this feature in their OS.
Admittedly, they should have done so decades ago, but they didn't need to because they have a monopoly, and developing features for customers costs money. Instead, third parties, including Google, invested time and effort to provide the feature to Microsoft vict\\\\ customers, and by doing so added value to the Windows platform.
Microsoft then belatedly implemented their own version of the feature, and therefore became competitors to the desktop search providers. In addition, they made sure their own search tool also connected to their MSN search if the customer performed an internet search using the same tool.
In other words, they leveraged their ownership of the Windows operating system to install their own search tool in a way that made it unlikely their prior benefactors could continue to provide competing desktop search tools, and recoup their investments. They also leveraged their monopoly of desktop operating systems to undermine their competitors Internet search businesses by linking the Vista desktop search to their own MSN Internet search.
The lesson for potential partners/competitors of Microsoft? Don't add value to Windows.
and no i am not a microsoft fanboy
All Microsoft fanboys say that. It's damn near a signature for them.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
MS didn't provide this feature in their OS.
Microsoft have been providing some form of search in their OS since at least Windows 95. Since DOS 1.0, if you consider dir [/s] *file* a "search" (and given how many people seem to consider find / -name "*file" a "search", that's not unreasonable).
The indexing searching of Vista is a clear and predictable evolution of functionality that's been present in Windows since before Google even existed.
Admittedly, they should have done so decades ago, but they didn't need to because they have a monopoly, and developing features for customers costs money. Instead, third parties, including Google, invested time and effort to provide the feature to Microsoft vict\\\\ customers, and by doing so added value to the Windows platform.
This is a non-sequitur. Pretty much every piece of moderately advanced functionality in every OS appeared via "third party" software first.
Microsoft then belatedly implemented their own version of the feature, and therefore became competitors to the desktop search providers.
False. Microsoft announced "desktop search" would be in Vista (then Longhorn) a year before GDS was even available as a beta.
In addition, they made sure their own search tool also connected to their MSN search if the customer performed an internet search using the same tool.
I.e. just like Google do with GDS.