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."
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.
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!
From TFA:
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:
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?
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
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.
"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.
http://www.mhall119.com
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.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
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:
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.