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."

Comments

Wow!

[MightyMartian]

They're putting in a link for other search providers! Boy, aren't we glad that MS obeys the spirit of the law, and not just the word.

Re:Wow!

[HellFeuer]

well do you really expect anyone to integrate a third party search into their OS?
why dont people sue apple for Spotlight?

Re:Wow!

[stratjakt]

Who else sells OSX supported hardware then?

Sounds like a monopoly control to me, just a REALLY TINY one.

Re:Wow!

[SEMW]

You have a point. There is indeed a hint of WTF in this story. I mean, we're not talking about middleware like WMP here -- we're talking about finding files on the user's hard drive. If that's ruled to be no longer a core OS function to the extent that Microsoft are legally obliged to offer alternatives to it with the OS, you have to wonder what's next...

Newswire - 21st June, 2017

Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) has announced they will be bundling the Linux kernel with Windows as an alternative to their own, after a 490-page antitrust complaint was filed by the Linux foundation. "We are extremely pleased with this development", Linux kernel BDFL Linus Torvalds was quoted as saying. "For too long have Microsoft been able to get away with forcefully bundling the NT kernel with their OS, forcing other products out of the market in clear violation of antitrust law as it applies to convicted monopolists. No longer!"

This development is not without precedent. After the original case in 2007 forced Microsoft to offer alternative hard drive search tools with the OS, a ruling in 2009 following an antitrust complaint by Stephen Oberholtzer had them bundling an an alternative to the Windows calculator. By 2014, after the famous Litestep case had Windows presenting the user with a choice of window managers on first boot, some have said this step was inevitable.

Asked whether there was any truth in the rumours that Richard Stallman was secretly preparing a dossier to set out the case that Microsoft had failed to offer enough choice to the consumer with regard to product names that feature recursive acronyms and references to Flanders and Swann, he declined to comment.

Re:Wow!

[stephanruby]

"You have a point. There is indeed a hint of WTF in this story. "

Part of the problem is that the lines are being blurred between file explorer and internet explorer, and search and OS search. As terms and concepts we all took for granted when the agreements were written get redefined to mean something entirely different -- previous legal settlements that were based on those concepts may also get called into question and redefined as well.

Re:Wow!

[endianx]

If they want to conduct business in a country where I'm a voter....well, yes, I indeed expect them to do whatever the hell I want them to do. Scary. I knew people thought this way, but I thought it was subconscious.

If you don't like the way a company does business, just don't buy their product.

Re:Wow!

[Chokolad]

> Keep in mind that before Google came in with a powerful search capability, Microsoft didn't have one yet. For all you know, if Google hadn't done one, Microsoft never would have done anything but the piss-poor dog-slow search they had previously. You think the next company will bother, if Microsoft is allowed to continually squash any product it decides it wants to squash?

They actually had a powerful search capability since NT4. It was not well exposed in GUI and was not running by default. It was called Indexing Service. Current Vista Search is modified Indexing Service + GUI. It was even done by the same team.

Let me guess...

[Penguinisto]

...they'll make the same changes that they did when ordered to remove IE from Windows 95?

( "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.

/P

Re:Let me guess...

[Achromatic1978]

To damage competing tech/ products? Huh? The product was easily disabled. Google's complaint, as it is, was that it "wasn't easily disabled enough" (not sure what they were looking for, a Big Red Button on the desktop, or more likely, something that sits in the bowels of Add / Remove Windows Components, not installed by default, so people think that functionality is missing from Windows, and so download GDS) and that it "slowed GDS down" (well, yes, two programs indexing the hard drive will have to share access to it. I'm confused as to why this is MS's problem - you'll note that Windows Desktop Search is equally impaired - actually, even less, because it yields to everything including GDS, whereas GDS won't yield to Windows Desktop Search - this is a fairly understandable concept) - again, not sure what Google's preferred course was for MS, "invent a hard drive indexing routine that doesn't need to read the hard drive" (now that WOULD be innovation).

This is one I'm disappointed MS caved on. Google is doing little more than using the court to proactively hurt competitors, something most people here are usually against.

Re:Let me guess...

[Achromatic1978]

Desktop search is not new, yet Microsoft did not allow for a preferred search facility which disabled their builtin search.

Any application installer can disable the builtin search. This was discussed extensively previously - "GDS has noted that Indexing Service is on, and this will hamper performance. Would you like to disable?" Seems pretty straightforward. After all, the hooks to disable Indexing Service are publicly available and work.

Or should the WDS facility seek out other Desktop Search apps and disable itself if it finds something running? No. If you mean "Search" on the Start Menu, that's fairly encroaching. What next? Should the entirety of the OS be extensible? (Well, it should, but you know what I mean) Should there be an integral API allowing anyone to hook anything into anything? Filesystem? Maybe a competitor could release a new kernel for Vista, should that be allowed to hook into the UI?

They must all competitors to compete.

Show me how GDS is prevented from running? Oh, it's impeded from running at full performance? Guess what, so is Indexing Service. GDS is a user's choice to install? Guess what, the user can also uninstall Indexing Service. That Google have chosen to seek (questionable) legal redress for what is clearly a simple issue to resolve (and one that DEFINITELY would have come up in any usability testing) speaks volumes.

To me, it only looks like it's forcing Microsoft to obey anti-trust laws and provide a means for competitors to play in the desktop search market instead of harming others by making it look like the competitors software is massively slowing down the OS by having two indexing systems.

FUD. For one, it doesn't slow down the OS per se. It slows down the indexing system of two separate applications. GDS and Indexing Service. MS isn't spinning it to say "GDS is slowing down your OS, get rid of it". It's simple resourcing.

IMO, Microsoft should be required to take Vista off the market until this is fixed. They are doing exactly what they've done for years in regards to harming competition on the Windows OS monopoly and they are currently still under sanctions from previous illegal anti-trust actions.

Off the market? Pardon me while I cry with laughter. Harming competition? I guess you mean by putting in an unremovable, un-disable-able indexing service that slows down a competitors desktop search app. Except, what's that, oh, yes, it IS removable, by USER or by EXPOSED API. And it is disable-able, by USER or by EXPOSED API. Remind me again how you think this should be dealt with.

Something fishy

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

When I read the slashdot discussion when the complaint first appeared I was initially supportive of google. But after reading rest of the discussions I became quite ambivalent about the merits of Google's complaint. But now MSFT is doing an about face. Sounds fishy. It must have done something more than simply providing a desktop search. Otherwise MSFT would not change its stance this quickly.

Also I am reminded of the fights between AOL and MSFT about allowing the PC makers to install additional icons in the desktop touting services that competed with MSN etc back in the Win95/98 time frame. AOL won, but it became irrelevant eventually. Will the scenario repeat? Has google jumped the shark?

49-page?

[BlackCobra43]

That just raises further questions!
1. WHY such an odd (pardon the pun) number of pages?
2. What does it matter? Does anyone think that more pages = better? Did MS' lawyers see the brief and go "Shit guys, it's over 47 pages long. We better settle!"?

Re:49-page?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"XX-page document" is reporter code for "so long I feel justified not having read it."

So

[xinjiang77]

Either Google wants to control our OS or media search engines have turned into whiny conglomerates that fight over whose right it is to search what. I am more concerned about Google throttling competition than MS.

Sadly this so far means nothing...

[RobertM1968]

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:

• If Google continues their anti-trust case?
• If enough end-users complain
• If they are forced to because of the results of the anti-trust case
• If BillG feels "charitable" towards his competition

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

Digging into the article

[jeevesbond]

From TFA:

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

The bit most interesting to me was this. Does this mean that Microsoft have done again what they were penalised for in 2000? Two of the restrictions placed upon it then were:

Requiring Microsoft to disclose technical details about the inner workings of its operating systems to those wanting to write software for them. Competitors had complained that Microsoft had secret "hooks" in Windows that it used to make its applications perform better.

Barring Microsoft from including code in its programs that would hurt the performance of competing products. Competitors charged that Microsoft deliberately designed products to hamper the way other programs work.

So, I imagine they're back to using the secret API for the Microsoft search, while slowing down the 'official' APIs third parties must use. Although the press item only has one sentence on it, this 'optimisation' issue is as important as Microsoft providing a competing product to Google Desktop Search in my opinion.

I assume the technical information handed over to Google will be details of how to access key parts of Microsoft's hidden-hook goodies?

Re:For those who haven't been following the issue:

[sid0]

The issue with your post is the statement:

The issue here is that Microsoft does not include a way to turn off its own desktop search

It does. It includes *several* ways to do so. Disable the service, use net stop, use the API.

Re:Wow!..Not so much

[mhall119]

"OSX supported hardware" is not a market, it's a product. You can legally have a monopoly on a product (patent, copyright, trademark), but you can not (unless otherwise specified) have and use a monopoly on a market (Desktop computing) to give you an unfair advantage in another market (Internet Search).

Here Microsoft is using their Desktop monopoly to boost their online search business and (this is the illegal part) restricting their monopoly product from using someone else's online search business.

Re:Sheep

[yorugua]

There is no law prohibiting a monopoly.

There are laws prohibiting from abusing a monopoly. I guess that's the case here.

Re:Why don't they file against Apple?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why don't they file against Apple? I mean, they have Spotlight and that's Apple-only and bundled, right?

Who the hell modded this "insightful?" First, Apple is not a monopoly, so they cannot illegally leverage that monopoly via bundling, hence there is no legal action that makes sense. Second, Google was not even complaining about the bundling (although they have every right to). They complained about two things:

• MS's search feature slows down other search features.
• MS's search feature uses undocumented APIs that provide an unfair advantage to competitors who don't happen to also have the source code and documentation to Windows.

Apple fits into neither of those categories. Google has an indexed search on OS X and it uses the same API and hooks as Spotlight, resulting in no slowdowns for Google's tool and no disadvantage given to them.

Are those enough reasons? If not, please RTFA before posting again.

Re:Wow, I call B.S.

[chubba27]

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.

Re:I think the problem is WHY they're doing things

[drsmithy]

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.