Slashdot Mirror
Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough
akkarin writes "Following Google's complaint to Microsoft regarding Vista's 'desktop search,'
Google claims that Vista's search has not changed enough: 'Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."'"
"Google says Vista Search Changes not Enough"
Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place. Now they're just whining like babies. It's an operating system. I can understand concerns over Windows Media Player but the file searching mechanism in Vista is almost a necessity when it comes to finding your files. Since when was including a file finder an antitrust violation?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
You don't understand why they are doing this from a logical perspective or from their "do no evil" perspective? Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Seems easy enough to understand although of course it is pretty evil, abusive and all that. So I guess their new motto is "Do no evil unless it gives us money."
Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?
Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.
Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer. Since it is bundled with every single copy of windows since I think 95. To Joe Average user seeing a little 'e' icon on the desktop and equating that with the internet is all you need to do in order to gain an unfair advantage over other web browser companies. Since IE doesnt typically catastrophically fail (it only allows every tom, dick and harry spyware maker to put their crap on your machine) most users never see a need to change.
Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading. It's also the reason that Microsoft didnt automatically push Windows Defender onto XP machines. Even though Norton, Avast! or Kapersky is better most people will refuse to use them because they'll see the little windows defender icon and go 'cool theres my anti-virus'.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Of course they knew about it, everyone did. This is nothing more than free PR at Microsoft's expense, which isn't hard. It may be true that Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves, but this is just two mega-huge faceless corporations working the press.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Let me turn this around.
What if Microsoft turned around and demanded that Google open up their online sites/applications so that the default search engine could be changed to Live search?
Or what if Google is setting a precedent to allow some other spyware developers to demand that Mac OS X or another operating system must have an easily extensible framework for crapware to hook itself into?
It is Microsoft's operating system and the modularity of the system should be entirely up to Microsoft to decide. If Microsoft don't want anything modular/replaceable in Windows then that is fine by me. It is time that people became responsible for their software purchasing decisions. You want to be able to install 3rd party replacements for various software components? Choose a modular operating system. You are worried about your traditional applications not working on the new operating system? Get out of vendor lockin before the problems get even worse. Choose file formats which are open and standardized.
Also, it is hardly as if Google isn't playing some of the old Microsoft tricks with getting their search engine made the default in Firefox, bundling spyware installers with other applications (which are checked ON by default), etc.
I don't get this, either. I'll openly admit to disliking Microsoft and most of their products with a passion, and I'm a happy user of various Google products and services. So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products, as long as Microsoft isn't plagiarizing other folks' stuff.
Would I personally be annoyed by their search feature if I was a Vista user? Maybe, maybe not, but they're not obligated to give me exactly what I want, just like I'm not obligated to buy their product. I happen to have switched over to using a Mac recently (I was previously a hardcore Linux zealot and I still like Linux, but I decided that OS X would fit my needs better for general-purpose use a few months ago, and so far I've been happy with that decision). OS X has its own hardwired-in search feature. I'm free to whine at Apple if I don't like it, they're free to ignore me if they want to, and I'm free to vote with my wallet if I don't like their response. That's the way I think it ought to be, and I don't see why it should be any different with Microsoft/Vista.
If Microsoft does Bad Stuff in their business practices then go after 'em, but I've never seen the logic in forcing them to change their operating system (even back in the old browser war days). I'll accept that using pricing and contracts to try to force their OEM customers to stay away from any other OS vendors may be illegal, anti-competitive and just downright mean, but I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft designing their operating system to not play well with others. I think that hurts them more than anybody else, because it makes folks like me get fed up, wipe their hard drives and install Linux instead, or even go buy Macs rather than facing the prospect of using their next OS release.
Why is this such a big deal? Does Vista prevent 3rd party apps from opening files and reading contents? Or start/stop system services? I really don't see what the big deal is.
As for integrating 3rd party program into the `os search' feature, that's not MS's responsibility---Google isn't paying Microsoft's developers to make such integration possible.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.
After all, it would be rather simple for Microsoft to say that every feature in Vista was subject to change (which they did say, and did change many features, I might add). Then, after the issue had been dismissed once, Google would have had an even harder time bringing it up again. Now, as to whether or not this is a good move, I'm somewhat split.
I suspect that Google doesn't want to be the next Netscape and give up their leadership position due to, well, a combination of things, one of which was Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position. I don't necessarily agree with the way they're handling it, but I suppose they've got to spend their lawyer dollars somewhere--at least they're not attacking a random open source project for infringement of some sort.
Schlock Mercenary
Yes, it is pretty obvious that the little blue 'e' was an abuse of Microsoft's total control of the OS market but I always though the clear cut, slam dunk antitrust violation in that regard was that they made it impossible to use a different browser to download updates for their OS.
They basically said, "Sorry but you can only get support for our OS if you use our browser..." Now how did that get past the DOJ and why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?
Actually, in all technicality, an OS should include a web browser - without IE for Windows, how do you expect to download from the website Firefox or any other browser?
I've always thought the "browser war" thing was a bad example.
(Before you suggest "have a repository like Synaptic or Yum with all third party browsers and even IE so people have a choice" let me mention three words that'll shoot that down: InstallShield Corporation. Lawsuit)
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
With Google's wide array of various products/services, I seriously doubt this is going to turn them into victims.
--"insert clever quote here"
At the same time... just because a feature exists out there, doesnt mean microsoft should be barred from copying it. We wouldnt have GUI os's if that were the case.
Well, it sucks to be them.
The monopoly they have has made them incredibly, incredibly rich. With it comes a cost. Things like this.
In my opinion, de facto-standard operating systems are no different than phone companies -- they tend to be natural network monopolies. It is in everyone's interest to have them open and modular so that there is competition for everything practicable. Web browsers, media players, search utilities. Just about everything but the kernel.
I guess I am the only one here wishing the government was even more aggressively leveling the playing field.
Google may be big and powerful, but they don't have a network monopoly....in almost everything they do, they compete on their merits, not on their network advantage. That is a very important difference.
Google simply wants to be able to replace the desktop search with the google equivalent. The idea is to give the user a choice which desktop search he wants to use - this doesn't mean just MS or Google but also others like Yahoo would benefit from this. AFAIK the indexing of vista can be disabled but there is currently no way to replace the feature with another application. I personally like the way it is working right now. It's like the old story with the browser and the media player. I wonder why Microsoft doesn't make more of these features as seperate applications that integrate into the system using public apis. It would give them a lot less trouble with the competition and anti-trust battles and it would be easier for them to enhance such features because they aren't integrated so deeply into the system. well, just my 2 cents.
Google is scared shitless of Vista's search capabilities, and here's why:
Vista Search (which is about 100 times better than Google's Desktop Search) is only one step away from searching ON THE INTERNET, just as it searches on the desktop now.
If Microsoft gets users used to Vista Search, and then makes it easy for people to use that same GUI to search the internet, Google is suddenly out of business overnight.
Google's popularity right now is based largely on momentum and the "fad" of using its name as a verb. Yahoo's search, for example, is pretty damn near as good as Google's. Since Google's entire business model of search supremecy relies on user laziness and momentum (like most monopolies that aren't enforced by governments like utilities, etc) then their ultimate worry is that Microsoft will incorporate search directly into the OS which will be the ultimate "lazy" option for users.
Why do you think Google pays Adobe $1.25 for each download of Flash or Acrobat which default installs their search toolbar? Why do you think Google pays dell 5 dollars for each install of Google toolbar that ships with all Dell computers? Because Google knows that the way to keep their search monopoly is to make it so the user doesn't even HAVE to make a choice of search engine- it will be there in their face when they update Acrobat or buy a new Dell or download Firefox.
But if Microsoft can make it even EASIER for people not to even need a concept of a third party search engine, then Google is finished.
This is why Google will fight this battle to the very end- they will spend every penny in their coffers to try and stop microsoft from getting users to stop thinking of search as a "site you go to" rather than something that is just built into the OS. I mean literally- Google has absolutely nothing to lose by spending every penny they have to fight this- because if they lose, then the company might as well fold up shop and go home.
Any time they try to do something good, the government steps in and says it's anti-competitive. Meanwhile, Apple and Linux implement similar features and brag about how Windows doesn't have them.
I'm not trying to take sides in the OS wars, but I'm really getting sick of the government bullying Microsoft. If there's anything worse than a company bullying someone, it's the government bullying someone, regardless of who they are.
Google will modify its motto to "Do no evil, but let a little justice slip out occasionally" and keep MicroSoft alive.
Why? Because to vanquish would be merciful, and Redmond deserves to wallow in the wreckage of its APIs for as long as possible.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Google is a web search engines, that keeps track of your searches, it is an email service that data mines your email, it is a micropayment service that tracks your payments, it is an advertising service that tracks you browsing the net, should it really be a disk searching service that tracks your searches on your own media and data mines that.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Why push it further? Are you kidding, They should keep pushing it. Each time Microsoft comes up with a remedy, it is so half-assed that it is usually no better than before. They will make it annoying as they can get away with to use any competitor's product. This is exactly what is wrong with a monopolistic business. Their business model has nothing to do with competing for a customer by providing a better product. They use their product to control and limit because most customers do not have another practical choice.
Personally, I always use FTP to download Windows Firefox builds.
Centralization breaks the internet.
For web browsers: I can install Opera, Firefox and now even Safari on Vista. Opera happens to be my favourite.
For media players: I can install Winamp, iTunes, Zoom Player and many other players. I happen to prefer Media Player.
For search utilities: I can install Google DS, Copernic. I happen to use none of them (including the built-in).
For antivirus: I can install AVG, Nod 32, Norton, etc. I happen to use AVG.
Remind me again how MS has actively blocked other companies from writing software that competes with their own? They haven't? Oh...so Google's just being a whiny little bitch here? Thought so.
Command Prompt FTP? Although that's certainly an option, I really don't think that would fly with Microsoft's majority target marget... If you meant Windows Explorer FTP, that's provided by IE so I wouldn't use that as an example.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
One could also say having a browser is a "demanded feature" of an OS. What was wrong about MS tying IE with Windows?
In addition to leveraging its monopoly position on 98% of the world's PCs to instantly create overwhelming market share for IE almost instantly in 1997, MS also added proprietary extensions to IE to distort the market of the web itself. That allowed MS to kill Netscape's revenue from servers. IE didn't compete with Netscape as a product until Netscape itself began to fail with the fiasco of Communicator 4. IE 1-3 were junk. IE 4-6 were better than what Netscape offered only because the company had been vanquished and was no longer offering anything.
Google faces the same impossible leverage. While MS can "compete" against Google desktop or browser tools, it can't compete in web search and marketing. So it is using its monopoly desktop position to roll out integrated search that can't be disabled or replaced by third party vendors. Once MS establishes market share on the basis of disposable PCs being replaced, and not consumer choice, it can then start directing all web search to its own servers exclusively.
Google currently has to fund Mozilla's Firefox to the tune of about $50 million a year to maintain an alternative browser. That reminds one of the fact that the only competition to Windows on the desktop PC is Linux, which is free. Microsoft has still managed to prevent OEMS from bundling it.
So anyone who thinks that MS' monopoly isn't in place or is no longer being abused is delusional:
- There is no free market in PC desktop OSs (Apple could not sign up OEMs, and even the free Linux struggles to gain adoption)
- There is no free market in desktop application suites (Office is rivaled mainly by free OpenOffice)
- There is hardly a free market in web browsers (the only option is the free, DIY Firefox)
Do we want to further restrict the market in online web search and offer Microsoft additional exclusive power over a market where there is now choice?
What's next, will we make all peripherals only something one can buy from Microsoft? How about games? What other markets would people prefer to hand over to Microsoft?
The problem is, when markets are handed to MS, they become entangled in proprietary tetherings to Windows and innovation rapidly stops. Once MS marginalized Netscape, it quit its own development of IE, and another major version wasn't shipped until *five years* later, and only then because Firefox had begun eating back some market share.
The problem with Windows enthusiasts is they they do not understand what is going on, they don't grasp what has happened, they fail to consider the consequences of further abuse. They are very much the same as the ~25% of Americans who support a rudderless war with a blank check, a president who had installed the beginnings of a fascist, terrorizing police state, and the beginnings of a pseudo-christian theocracy ruled by a clergy of corporate board members.
So far, so good! Let's see more of the same cause it's working so well. Don't consider the alternatives! Stay the course.
These people make my head explode.
-
Safari on Windows? Apple and the Origins of the Web
One of the surprises unveiled in the WWDC keynote was the beta release of Safari 3.0 for both Mac OS X Tiger and Windows XP and Vista. While it was known that a new version of Safari would appear in Mac OS X Leopard in October, getting a beta now for today's Tiger was news. The release of Safari for Windows PCs went even further, raising the question of why Apple would port its browser to a platform that perhaps has too many already.
Apple in the Web Browser Wars: Netscape vs Internet Explorer
Apple's surprise delivery of the Safari web browser for Windows at WWDC was described by seve
You're right. F*ck M$ for bundling IE. I use their bundled FTP client...
I'm not pro-M$, I'm anti-hypocrite.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Yes, of course. MS should allow us, no *must* allow us to modularly swap out any portion of it's OS for that of a competing product, right?
I mean, why stop at indexing? Why not force them to let us swap out the shell? Or the filesystem? Or the Kernel, FFS??
Sorry. Search is part of the filesystem. Any modern OS that does not allow you to quickly and easily search your files is seriously lacking.
If Google doesn't want to use Microsoft's indexing service, great. Their problem, not Microsoft's.
With IE (or Firefox, or any web browser), the work is trivial. All the browser has to do is to form an HTTP request and send it. The result page can be highlighted with the keywords if the browser supports it (Maxthon, and I presume an extension to Firefox, do the job).
The work with desktop search is non-trivial, however. The options aren't the same, the results aren't presented in the same way. GDS uses a web interface, MS search uses an Explorer interface. Sure, it *can* possibly be done, but I can't see any justification for bringing anti-trust into this -- or even why it *should* be done. It would involve a hell of a lot of work, for one.
Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable, another saying that the audio stack should be replaceable, and finally a request for the entire kernel to be replaceable. All of these *can*, very theoretically, be done.
I am someone appauled that some of you still dont get it. Google's bitching to Redmond is the exact same thing as if they went to Torvalds say "We want in or we cry to Mommy". If you code your own OS, but by George you better not have an integrated file search program or you might find Google knocking down your door. Are YOU obligated to provide Google anything? Of course you are not, and neither should Microsoft.
Google capitalized on some areas where Microsoft's offerings were lackluster or nonexistent. Thats cool.
Now the gravy train has run out and Google shouldnt have a case. Its offerings are not as great as Microsoft's and Microsoft should not be forced into supporting it. As long as they dont break patent laws, let them do whatever the hell they want since it is legally their code.
For the record I would love to see each and every Windows OS replaced with Linux.
I won't complain too loudly when one of my least favorite companies gets kicked in the corporate nuts a bit, but I don't get the rationale behind some of the different rules that they need to operate under.
I get that they're evil monopolistic bastages and have earned restrictions and punishments because of their business practices, but some of the "feature" restrictions (i.e., regarding Internet Exploder and this search feature) have never quite made sense to me. Maybe that's just because I don't have a deep enough understanding of the circumstances of their evil monopolistic bastagism, and probably never will because I don't like spending a lot of time reading or thinking about their stuff. Their efforts to not be interoperable annoy me and induce me to spend my money elsewhere when I have the option, but I've never felt that those specific anti-social behaviors were particularly unethical. I figure that Exploder and the like can fail on its own merits, and I'll just happily use Firefox or whatever other browser I feel like using. Or go buy a different OS if I don't like theirs, with the assistance of the legal spanking that makes it harder for them to keep me from doing that.
Yeah, I'm nit-picking here... I agree that they've earned some punishment, but I'm just quibbling about some specific actions and consequences which make me scratch my head, amongst all of their other clearly wrong behavior and well-earned punishment.
If they can't bundle a browser (which are ubiquitious), why should they be allowed to bundle an FTP client (which are less often used), for that matter why should the be allowed to bundle a file manager (even if it's little more than a file dialogue), or why should they be allowed to bundle notepad which is effectively isn't anything more than a text dialogue?
All the assholes pinning wistfully for the days of Netscrape which never beat out the government project that spawned it (Mosaic. And for that matter IE didn't until well after Mosaic closed up shop.) they've never read a computer structure and organization book. Not one. Not one chapter. Not even the forward.
As for why Microsoft should use 53kr17 APIs, they need to provide 2 levels of functionality. A reliable abstracted API which people can use, and can be resonably assured of pretty robust backwards compatability. And a lower level that does the real work, including supporting the APIs which can last. Now these should be 'private', Microsoft eating their own garbage, and reinventing various flavors of square, and other oddly shaped wheels, hey, not everything can be anticipated, and deadlines aren't exactly the stuff that makes for bulletproof decisions.
It's not like Google let's all their knowhow and specific implimentation out there. You don't think with page rank opened up and exposed through their api, people couldn't do interesting things? Things google might not be interested in? I'm sure they could. But they don't. At least in microsofts case, they don't deny people outright the change to develop amazing and interesting things on their platform.
In this case, google was complaining about having to stop a service with their installer. If that's too much for them, maybe I shouldn't be using google ANYTHING at all.
If you don't remember, there was a trial that forced microsoft to open up and play more fairly in those other things you mention. If the governments, as well as "whiney little bitches" weren't keeping microsoft in check, things would be a lot worse.
You make a couple comments that are technically true, but gloss over details to an absurd degree.
"IE4 surpassed Navigator in marketshare some time in 1999." Who cares? The real fact to consider is that IE resulted in an immediate plunge in Netscape's market share, from over 80% in 1996 to being a minority a year later. That's leverage. Part of that leverage in 1997 was MS using threats of delaying Office for Mac to get Apple to sign an exclusive deal to only put IE on the Mac desktop.
--
Mac Office, $150 Million, and the Story Nobody Covered
"In July of 1997, the ongoing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft appeared to vanish with the announcement a new cooperative partnership. Why did Microsoft invest millions in a partnership with its most obvious remaining competitor in the desktop operating system market? "
--
MS didn't have to "surpass" anyone in market share immediately, it only had to suffocate Netscape and destroy its cross-platform strategy so there were no choices left. After there is no choice, MS is your choice.
I agree that Netscape screwed up its own game. However, MS not only put a bullet into Netscape's head, but further monopolized the browser market, to the point where the only competitors since have been a free project and a few niche micro-minorities: Opera on mobiles, and Safari on the Mac. That is not an open market.
Your comments about there being no market for Linux or Mac OS X on PCs fallacious; if you don't know how OEM contracts work, go look it up. There is no open market for PC OS and hasn't been since the early 90s. Apple could not find licensees the same way Linux can't get OEMs to offer it outside of a token hobbyist offering. Those contracts were all tied up by MS.
Nothing is free. If you want the browser to be free, and MS to provide it, you are inviting MS to run your desktop. Good for you, I don't care. The problem is that the market should not be dominated by any player with the ability to set prices and prevent innovation, particularly not the tech market.
You can also support mob protection for your block because they do such a good job, but that doesn't mean the world shouldn't enforce racketeering laws. Most of us don't want to live in a shitty world run by thugs.
You provide a good example of someone with an argument but without much grasp of what has happened, is happening, or will happen if the status quo is maintained. That makes your arguments, which are easy to pull apart, simply not worth very much.
How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin?
It has worn thin. We've wised up. We now realize what each and every person is to Google. People and their personal information is nothing more than a way for Google to make money.
Google uses you. Not the other way around.
Who cares?
Anyone who's interested in information other that parroted anti-Microsoft FUD.
The real fact to consider is that IE resulted in an immediate plunge in Netscape's market share, from over 80% in 1996 to being a minority a year later.
Rubbish. It took years for IE to displace Navigator. In 1999, the market was only just starting to see IE use exceed Navigator use. Further, Navigator's decline lines up exactly with its increasing levels of suckiness.
That's leverage.
Indeed. The "leverage" of a superior product. Cunning and dastardly work, to be sure.
Part of that leverage in 1997 was MS using threats of delaying Office for Mac to get Apple to sign an exclusive deal to only put IE on the Mac desktop.
Undoubtedly without that extra 1% or so of marketshare such a deal represented, IE would have been an abject failure.
"In July of 1997, the ongoing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft appeared to vanish with the announcement a new cooperative partnership. Why did Microsoft invest millions in a partnership with its most obvious remaining competitor in the desktop operating system market? "
I've read the site before and it is an excellent example of anti-Microsoft FUD and conspiracy theories. Presumably you're quoting it here to take advantage of the general anti-Microsoft sentiment of Slashdot.
I agree that Netscape screwed up its own game.
Which is all that really matters, given that most of your arguments are hanging off the example of Netscape's failure being somehow due to underhanded and/or illegal Microsoft machinations.
However, MS not only put a bullet into Netscape's head, but further monopolized the browser market, to the point where the only competitors since have been a free project and a few niche micro-minorities: Opera on mobiles, and Safari on the Mac. That is not an open market.
At which time in the past were you thinking of when the browser "market" _wasn't_ made up of one or two giants and a handful of "micro-niche minorities" ? First there was Mosaic, then there was Navigator and Mosaic, then there was Navigator and IE, then there was IE, now there is IE and Firefox.
How is the current situation in any way unusual, given the history of the web browser ?
Your comments about there being no market for Linux or Mac OS X on PCs fallacious; if you don't know how OEM contracts work, go look it up.
Then why aren't people out there raking in money hand-over-fist selling PCs running Linux, if the demand is so high ? Forget the major sellers, if - as you imply - people are desparate to buy Linux PCs, why aren't there dozens of startups selling them as fast as they can put them together ?
There is no open market for PC OS and hasn't been since the early 90s.
It has always been trivial to buy a PC with the OS you want, or without an OS at all.
Apple could not find licensees the same way Linux can't get OEMs to offer it outside of a token hobbyist offering. Those contracts were all tied up by MS.
Ridiculous. The last time Apple licensed clone Macs it nearly killed them. While Macs are much more competitively priced these days, significantly reducing the likelihood of that happening again, "whitebox Macs" would work directly against the main things that makes Apple "cool" - exclusivity and perceived premium.
Steve Jobs has *zero* interest in Macintoshes being sold by anyone except Apple. Unlike you, he has an excellent understanding of what it is that makes Apple successful, and why people buy (or covet) Apple products. I only wish I'd had more money on hand to plough into Apple stock back in '97 when he took over as CEO.
Nothing is free. If you want the browser to be free, and MS to provide it, you are inviting MS to run your desktop.
I don't care who provides it. I use Firefox on all my PCs, regardless of whether they're running Windows, Linux, OS X, S
So I install Opera, fine, now how do I remove Internet Explorer? I don't watch DVD's or listen to Music at work so how do I remove Media Player to free up some HDD space?
I can't! That's the problem, all the bundled shit (yes that's the quality too) should be optional AND removable.
Common sense is not so common
Well, what if all image formats opened in Paint when you click on them, and there was no way to disable that? Adobe would be allowed to put a hook into Paint itself, so that after loading in Paint, it could then also pop up Photoshop. That's pretty much the equivalent situation.
This is blatantly ridiculous. People are not stupid, and they'd spot this, and Microsoft are simply not dumb enough to try it. Collecting this sort of data would at least require a waiver in the OS licence, and I guarantee you that if it were there you'd have heard about it by now.
This is pretty much exactly what they're asking; the issue is whether this should be a replaceable element of the operating system. Obviously file indexing is a pretty core function of most modern operating systems, and it's not like Apple have announced plans to allow users to replace Spotlight or anything, and I doubt that would be easy on a technical level.
It's an interesting issue in any case. Making it replaceable when it's hooked so closely into the system is technically difficult (especially when it's not a core requirement of the system) and offers very little in terms of tangible benefits. The main issue, though, is that Vista's release schedule was so long that third-party replacements such as Google Desktop Search had appeared to provide this functionality on top of the existing system.
Well, come now. Tell me you didn't expect - "install linux" as a response to this?!
... or something): If you buy a car with 4 seats and only use 2 do you complain that the company welded the seat stanchions in?
Optional - check, you don't have to buy a MS OS.
Removable - check, logically and physically removable.
So I'm also going to go with a car analogy just to finish off nicely (incidentally in Soviet Russia your posts finish you off with some hot grits
Ponder me this riddle:
What search would you rather use:
1.) a search designed by a company that makes money by selling you an OS, and therefore includes a search engine as a feature to help sales, or
2.) a search designed by a company that makes money by saving your search results and serving you targeted spam?
How about some facts?
Look at Wikipedia's reports of various market share stats for that period. There is no controversy that Netscape's market share plunged in 1997. Now look up the browser MS shipped in 1997. It was not a superior product competing in the market place, because nobody chose IE; they got it by default.
Sure, after MS set up a barrier to Netscape's business plan, it could then invest more into browser development. After 1997, Netscape could do very little, while MS rapidly released three major new versions in 97, 99, and 2001.
What needs to be noted is what happened after AOL/Netscape/Mozilla stopped delivering anything as a competitor. Microsoft, without any further need to take the browser market, froze development of the browser for half a decade. Another version of IE wasn't delivered until 2006, and only because Firefox was starting to compete again.
You can say all you want about what "Steve Jobs" wants or knows, but since you can't understand why anticompetitive behavior and monopoly maintenance are bad for markets, I also have to assume you know nothing about what was going on inside Apple.
We also know, because Jobs announced it, that Jobs did try to sign fair contracts with cloners, and we also know (those of us that do) that Jobs entertained the idea of broadly licensing Rhapsody and YellowBox for Windows. That was NeXT's business model, and Apple tried to maintain it under the name Apple Enterprise.
The problem was that OEMs like HP and Dell would have nothing to do with Apple because Microsoft threatened to raise their Windows OEM prices dramatically if they did. Dell even scrambled to move its web store from NeXT's WebObjects to Microsoft's ASP after Apple bought NeXT.
Linux faces the same barriers to competition, but largely lacks the marketing muscle of Apple, making it even more difficult to line up and offerings of Linux on name brand hardware. Dell's placeholder Linux offerings are quite obviously bullshit, and as was recently reported, it will not sell them to businesses at all. Why not?
You have sassy comebacks for all sorts of things, but they are all based on fact free assertions. You also seem happiest when building strawmen and asserting your victory in ripping them apart. I did not admit any problems in a "primary argument" I never made. Instead, I linked to the article I wrote where one of the main points was that Netscape failed due to its own problems, both in strategy and in development.
Microsoft used Netscape's weakness in order to dominate the market, tying the web platform to its monopoly on the desktop and injecting proprietary extensions in order to make web apps require IE on Windows. That prevented any opportunity for competition, and ended any vehicle for Sun's Java. MS pretended to support Java on its own browser, but only with the intent of leading Sun down a dark hallway and shooting it when out of sight. That helped prevent any sort of meaningful cross platform way to deliver applications.
If you can't fathom a link between "no competition" and "no innovation," and want me to list innovations that are being prevented by anti-competitive behavior, I'll have to leave it at that, because there's no point in arguing with someone who willfully chooses to be obtuse. You may as well demand proof for the roundness of the Earth, evidence of man-made climate change, or a complete study on why dumping more war into Iraq won't solve the problems.
-
Web Browser Wars: Netscape vs Internet Explorer