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."'"
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
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.
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
No. Google is stuck in the, "We can force MS to ask their users to install our software in place of theirs because MS is still percieved as a monopoly" mode. Let's see Adobe publish open APIs for their entire Creative Suite. Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.
The idea that Google is still an underdog to MS is pure fantasy. But Google's gonna milk the perception for all it's worth.
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.
Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this case was much worse than you say here.
The irony...
MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright. Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al, and MS finally lost the court case, but it was too late for Stac, which went under. The judgment probably got split up amongst the shareholders, but in the end the company died, and MS had succeeded in putting a perceived competitor out of business as they intended, though it came at a small (to MS) monetary cost.
In actual fact, Microsoft v Stac was a patent case and had zero to do with copyright. Software patents are bad, remember, so Stac *should* have lost the case.
Also, as I said elsewhere, what killed Stacker (along with the 3 or 4 other identical programs that were on the market at the time) was plummeting hard disk prices, massive disk growth and a fundamentally fragile-and-prone-to-catastrophic-data-loss application design. Unfortunately for Stac, their buggy whips were no longer a compelling product in the days of the horseless carriage.