Microsoft's IE7 Search Box Bugs Google

tessaiga writes "The New York Times reports that Google is crying foul over a new IE7 search box feature that defaults to MSN Search. Although the feature can be modified to use Google or other search engines, Google asserts that "The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7." Google goes on to assert that the move "limits consumer choice and is reminiscent of the tactics that got Microsoft into antitrust trouble in the late 1990s". I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available."

Defaults vs. Presets

The main difference between the IE7 search box and the Firefox and Opera search boxes is that the IE7 search box comes preloaded with only one search provider: MSN. Firefox and Opera both include a half-dozen or so providers when you install them. (You can add additional search engines in all three.)

Well, that, and Firefox doesn't have a setting for a "default" provider. It "defaults" to the last one you used, which can be helpful if, say, you use Google most of the time and want to do a bunch of IMDB lookups in a row. (Yes, you can add IMDB as a search engine.) Of course, if you've never used the box before, it starts out with Google...

Of course, you can always read what the IE team has to say about searching [msdn.com]...

Care to support that accusation?

Search engines pay money to the browser makers to get their search engines in there anyway.

Um, care to back that up?

The two biggest browsers right now are IE and Firefox; Microsoft is basically promoting their own product here (MSN Search) so I doubt they're "paying" anything directly, so really your point seems to suggest that Google has paid Firefox to be the default search. That's a pretty strong statement to be making without any evidence.

Re:Care to support that accusation?

http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/Mozilla_makin g_tens_of_millions_of_dollars_from_Firefox.asp [spamdailynews.com]

Re:Care to support that accusation?

Search engines pay money to the browser makers to get their search engines in there anyway.

Um, care to back that up?

Funny, I thought that "accusation" was common knowledge [gigaom.com]. Opera, for instance, hasn't exactly been hiding the fact. Back in September, Jon von Tetzchner said [operawatch.com]:

What finally made [going free] possible is the increase in revenues from search and service partners. We can now go free and still increase our revenues.

And later in the same interview:

We have been working with Google for a long time. Our new search deal increases our search based revenue, which is an important factor in our decision to go free. We are also working with Google to make sure their services work well with Opera.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

I read through these comments and realize that a lot of these readers still do not understand the real issue here. MS OWNS THE OPERATING SYSTEM!! Google does not! Microsoft provides Walmart, Office Max, Sears, Radio Shack, TigerDirect, (and the list goes on) with the PRE-INSTALLED operating system. The vast majority of users have no idea how to install ANYTHING. They are stuck with using what is pre-loaded, and if it works fairly well, they don't complain.

It does not matter if Google or MSN or Jeeves or any other search engine comes on FireFox or Opera. FireFox and Opera are not part of the pre-loaded OS and therefore are used by only a very small percentage of users.

The real issue is MICROSOFT "CONTROLS" THE COMPUTER for most people. Whatever is put there stays there, and good or bad, is the only thing they are able to use. That is what is referred to as "Monopolistic Power". This is a re-enactment of the NETSCAPE issue and the present WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER issue. MS is not keeping people from using other search engines. They are just taking advantage of the fact that most people are only able to use what is provided, and by bundling it with the OS, they can say it is free.

Since our present administration will not even slap the hand of MS anymore, the only recourse Google will have is to promote by writing a program that loads itself and deletes the MS search engine. Most people would allow that. Like AOL, Google can distribute free CD's in Wallmart and major groceries and even contract with the US Post Office to have CD's distrubuted there.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

The vast majority of users have no idea how to install ANYTHING. They are stuck with using what is pre-loaded, and if it works fairly well, they don't complain.

I think that's a very telling statement. If it works fairly well, why change? If users can't tell an appreciable difference between two products, why would they care which they use? I can tell very cleary you want them to care, but you're fighting for the rights of individuals who really couldn't care less if the Devil himself performed the internet search and told them the results.

So let's recap. People hate installing things. They hate choosing between things they don't understand. And the current option seems just as good as any other to them. Those who do want something else, want to be able to choose... can.

This whole thing sounds like a huge non-issue to me.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

There is a major difference between Firefox or Opera defaulting to Google and IE7 defaulting to MSN: neither Firefox or Opera are owned by Google. Google makes no money in the sell of either. Firefox and/or Opera could change their default to MSN if they so desired. Microsoft could even pay them to do that. But Microsoft deploys IE7 and Microsoft makes money on MSN. That is a problem.

Abuse of monopoly powers

Microsoft could even pay them to do that. But Microsoft deploys IE7 and Microsoft makes money on MSN.

That's not quite what the problem is either.

The real problem is that it's illegal to abuse monopoly powers by using your (otherwise legal) monopoly in one industry to force users to adopt your inferior product in another industry.

For a concrete example - if you have a monopoly in Operating Systems, you can NOT use your operating system monopoly to force users to use your online-store or your media-player or your single-sign-on-service. Google's arguing that you are also not allowed to force people to use your search engine either -- and that users are so unlikely to switch default browsers that making this the default in IE is effectively forcing the users.

Firefox does not have this problem, because it is not illegally abusing any monopoly powers.

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

If Google has leading market share in the search marketspace, how can they claim that Microsoft's intent to default to MSN in IE7 is a not competative practice. I see how the argument works from the OS/effective monopoly perspective, but the argument seems a little weak if approached a different way.

IE defaults to MSN as it's home page, correct? Well, MSN search is there. Google's stating that people won't use their search because users won't change the toolbar default is equivalent to saying that people don't change their default home page - which is untrue.

Where does this end? The default home page? The toolbar option? At some point this gets ridiculous.

The problem doesn't stem from not being able to make a choice, because the settings can be changed. The problem stems from the public not even understanding the difference between the competitors and not caring to change. Who's fault is that? The entrenched vendor who has no reason to promote its competitors or the competitor who needs to make consumer education a priority?

In this case, how do you establish that? The OS is entrenched, but Google market share is significant over MSN's search. I mean hell, its almost 50%. [hitslink.com] How can you argue that your dominance is in danger by a company who holds 8%?

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

If Google has leading market share in the search marketspace, how can they claim that Microsoft's intent to default to MSN in IE7 is a not competative practice. I see how the argument works from the OS/effective monopoly perspective, but the argument seems a little weak if approached a different way.

I would have thought this was an easy question by now. Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop operating system market. Microsoft leverages this monopoly to gain a new monopoly in the web browser market. Now Microsoft is leveraging the browser monopoly to overthrow its competitors and establish a monopoly in the search engine market. Can't you see where this is going? The rules are different when a company develops a monopoly. Up until that point, a practice like this would be considered shrewd business tactics, and provides healthy competition. In fact, it's even OK for their competitors to use this tactic. But when a company that has a monopoly uses tactics like this, it is considered anticompetitive and illegal. They are using a monopoly in one part of the market to gain market share (and eventually set up a monopoly) in another part of the market.

IE defaults to MSN as it's home page, correct? Well, MSN search is there. Google's stating that people won't use their search because users won't change the toolbar default is equivalent to saying that people don't change their default home page - which is untrue.

Actually, it's true. Many people DON'T change their default home page. I helped set up three computers for family and friends in the last two years. Not one of them changed the default page from MSN until I went back later and installed Firefox. In fact, one of them asked me to make MSN the default page for Firefox because that was what they were accustomed to.

The OS is entrenched, but Google market share is significant over MSN's search. I mean hell, its almost 50%. How can you argue that your dominance is in danger by a company who holds 8%?

Google does not yet have a monopoly in the search engine market. But for argument's sake, let's assume that they do. If they used their monopoly in the search engine market to push Google OS and Google Office to their customers (at the obvious expense of competitors), then they would be guilty. It's because the OS (Windows) and Internet Explorer are entrenched that Microsoft could easily erode the dominance that Google has. The 8% market share that MSN Search has means nothing. The 90+% market share that Internet Explorer has means EVERYTHING. Think about it.

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

If Google has leading market share in the search marketspace, how can they claim that Microsoft's intent to default to MSN in IE7 is a not competative practice.

Easily. MS is using its monopoly to gain an advantage in the new market. That is the whole point and that is what the law forbids.

IE defaults to MSN as it's home page, correct? Well, MSN search is there. Google's stating that people won't use their search because users won't change the toolbar default is equivalent to saying that people don't change their default home page - which is untrue.

No, it is equivalent to them saying not all users will be knowledgeable or motivated enough to change it. Firefox is far superior to IE in most ways. Even the US government recommends all users switch for security reasons. Still most people use IE. That is not because MS has forced them not to switch, it is because most don't know they can or why they should. Thus consumers use an inferior product and everyone suffers (except MS).

It does not matter that they can switch it. The point is some users won't know they can. Others will know they can, but won't know how. Still others will know they can and how but will be too lazy to bother. The net result is MSN gains marketshare. Can Google set the default browser included with a monopoly on all desktop OS's to google.com? No, they don't have a monopoly to abuse. Thus MS has gained market using their existing monopoly. That is blatantly illegal.

Where does this end? The default home page? The toolbar option? At some point this gets ridiculous.

Legally, all of the above that reference a product in another market. If people make money doing something and MS takes part of that money away using their OS monopoly, they have broken the law.

The problem stems from the public not even understanding the difference between the competitors and not caring to change. Who's fault is that?

It is not Google's job to educate or motivate the people to have to change, rather the onus is upon MS to not make choices in their OS design or settings for people that gain them market share in other markets than desktop OS's. It is part of the price you pay for having a monopoly. When you're really big, the law says you have to watch where you step so you don't crush those smaller.

In this case, how do you establish that? The OS is entrenched, but Google market share is significant over MSN's search. I mean hell, its almost 50%. How can you argue that your dominance is in danger by a company who holds 8%?

MS's market share in Web browsers was 8% once too, before they started bundling it with the OS. Their market share for server OS's was below 8%, before they started tying it to the desktop with secret protocols. Now their products are still inferior, but one has dominated the market entirely and the other is gaining market share. Google has not locked people in in any way to their service. All MS has to do is get their search "good enough" that people won't go out of their way to change settings and they will win with this tactic. That is what is illegal. They aren't winning by producing a product that is better or even as good, just one that is "good enough" and bundled. "Good enough" is not what consumers deserve and the people that make a product that is just "good enough" should not be profiting on it over more innovative companies, just because they already have a monopoly on something else.

Re:Abuse of monopoly powers

Yet, Microsoft is NOT forcing anyone to adopt it. If you want to change it, you can. If someone is so unlikely to switch that's a laziness/ignorance issue on the part of the end user, not Microsoft.

You're wrong, both conceptually and under the letter of the law. Will setting MSN as the default search engine gain MS market share for their service? Yes. Can Google gain the same advantage, not having a monopoly on desktop OS's to use? No. Thus MS has gained an unfair advantage by leveraging their monopoly. That is illegal.

Whether or not this exploiting the fact that people are lazy and ignorant does not figure into it.

Logical Fallacy Alert! False Dilemma Detected!

Don't believe for one moment that Google's motives are pure and "do no evil".

Not to make a judgment about Google specifically, but it's entirely possible to have impure motives without doing evil to get there. Motives are about ends, doing evil is about means. (Of course, there are certain ends that you can only achieve by doing evil -- like deciding to f*ing kill someone.)

One's motive could be to make huge piles of cash, but one could go about it ethically. One could even try to compete on both technical and PR levels.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

I'll think about it for an hour. Still makes sense. Why? Microsoft is a monopoly. Monopolies cannot use their monopoly product (the OS, and according to MS, IE is part of the OS) to leverage other products.

Now, this is not impossible to be gotten around. The entire reason why Windows XP was shipped one year after Windows 2000 is simple: Microsoft wanted to bundle Windows Messenger, and a new version of IE and Outlook Express with Windows 2000. But they couldn't. How do you get around that?

Simple: make them an "inseparable" part of a "new" operating system. Voila! Windows XP.

In any case, the spirit is obvious: MS should not be able to do this. The *leteter*, though, may be different...

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

Because Firefox does not gain from making Google a default

Didn't Mozilla.org make a TON of money off of Google referals directly related to the Firefox search box?

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

Yeah, Google employs Firefox developers directly and indirectly pays Mozilla salaries. I suppose technically they're independant, but realistically Mozilla.org is a division of Google, Inc.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

>Of course, if you've never used the box before, it starts out with Google...

That's precisely what "default" means.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

The problem with that defense of Firefox and Google is that Firefox doesn't ask you to specify which one you would like to use, it just defaults to it. And as the summary points out, MSN isn't even an option. Google isn't bitching about that, because it is in their favor (default home page is also a Google site), as opposed to IE7, which isn't.

The stronger case is made in the fact that, when released, IE7 will become the dominant browser on the market. So whatever the default is set to, is probably going to remain on a bulk of the computers it is on. But if someone is going to bitch about setting a default without asking, the same standard should apply to Firefox/Google.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

Hmm,

I run Firefox 1.5.0.1 and MSN is indeed an available option. IIRC I did have to select "Add Engines" but it is most definitely in the list now, as is Dictionary, IMDB, and Wikipedia respectively.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

The problem with that defense of Firefox and Google is that Firefox doesn't ask you to specify which one you would like to use, it just defaults to it.

• Google - has a monopoly on nothing. Thus it has no ability to illegally leverage a monopoly.
• Firefox - has a monopoly on nothing. Thus it has no ability to illegally leverage a monopoly.
• Microsoft - has a monopoly on desktop OS's. Thus it is forbidden from using that desktop OS to gain market share in another market, i.e. search engine services.

But if someone is going to bitch about setting a default without asking, the same standard should apply to Firefox/Google.

The same standard is applied. As soon as either of them gains a monopoly and enters into the other's market (or any other market) they will forbidden from abusing the first monopoly from gaining market share in the second. For example, If google dominates the search services industry and is declared a monopoly it is illegal for them to intentionally change their search algorithm to always return GoogleOS or GoogleBrowser as the first search result for "OS" or "Web browser."

Microsoft is in the wrong here.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

I don't know where you got your information. My copy of IE7 came with: MSN, Yahoo, Google, and Ebay. I quickly switched from MSN to Google in about 3 seconds. Then I remembered I was running IE7 and promptly switched back to Firefox.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

Talk about sour grapes.

When you first install Firefox, the default search provider is Google, and in fact Google even kindly provides their own startup page for Firefox users!

The fact you can easily change the configuration of Internet Explorer 7.0 to default to Google instead of MSN Search shows that (IMO) Microsoft hasn't really done anything wrong.

Re:Defaults vs. Presets

The main difference between the IE7 search box and the Firefox and Opera search boxes is that the IE7 search box comes preloaded with only one search provider: MSN. Firefox and Opera both include a half-dozen or so providers when you install them. (You can add additional search engines in all three.)

Everybody is missing the primary point. You almost got it right, but your first sentence went a few words too long.

The main difference between the IE7 and the Firefox and Opera is that the IE7 search box comes preloaded.

IE will come with any new OS. Firefox and Opera will not.

IE is, by definition a Default & Preset. IE is forced upon you, Firefox and Opera is chosen.

That is where the compaint is based from.

Safari search

Google didn't complain much when Safari came out with a Google-only search box.

Re:Safari search

Microsoft is certainly in their right to do this. It's no different. It should make absolutely no difference whether the product being promoted is yours or a third party's.

It absolutely makes a difference.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. That means the *rules change*. They can no longer just operate normally like a standard, non-convicted-monopolist business can. There is a very strict set of rules they have to follow in order to maintain competition in the marketplace, and these rules are different from those of other companies.

Google was right to bring this up. Since the Department of Justice doesn't seem interested in following up on the conviction, it is up to the other big players in the industry to point out the ways that Microsoft is violating the anti-trust provisions. The other browsers can default to whichever search engine they want, even if they make money from it. Microsoft cannot.

Neither did Microsoft.

Microsoft didn't cry foul about that either, I think Google is wrong (or not very right, anyway) in this case.

Firefox can do it, Microsoft probably can't

From the slashdot summary:

I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pull-down menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.

Google's concern and complaint is Microsoft is once again leveraging their monopoly in their Windows domain to control unfairly users' choice to some other market or product, in this case, search engine choice. It could be problematic, maybe even legally, that Microsoft sets the default search to theirs, even though they offer other choices. I agree with Google's complaint and would like to see Microsoft forced to make choosing the search engine part of the setup procedure.

As for the slashdot summary observation Firefox hasn't done the same, Firefox has no monopoly and is therefor in no way obligated in the same way as Microsoft to change the default behavior.

As an aside, and a question, has anyone else had trouble with IE7? In keeping with "knowing your enemy", I installed IE7, and it crashes consistently every time I open up a new page in a new tab. Anyone else seen this?

Google != Mozilla Foundation

I agree with the parent post, but I'll attempt to target the real problems with the analogy a little more concretely.

The most important difference here is that Google is not a subsidiary or owned by the Mozilla Foundation whereas MSN is owned by Microsoft.

Firefox and Google are two companies that are (to my knowledge) completely independent. Firefox can choose whatever search engine they want to set to default. On top of that, you don't pay for Firefox where you kind of paid for IE7.

The author's analogy of:

I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available."

Is, in my opinion, a poor one. A Mozilla based browser is free for almost any operating system while IE7 is free ... so long as you've purchased Windows [microsoft.com].

To recap, Microsoft putting Microsoft as the default search engine is bad because they are using their operating system and browser market dominance to corner the search engine market. They have no right to do that. Where would we make them stop? It's kind of a slippery slope. It's fine that they've put unlimited funds toward web search and the console market--it's not fine if their forcing or even defaulting their users to themselves in other markets.

Re:Firefox can do it, Microsoft probably can't

it crashes consistently

Oh, that feature's been in there at least since 4.0!

One other detail

Firefox isn't a Google product, and isn't subject to the same sorts of antitrust restrictions that IE is. Various combinations that rhyme with 'Clucking Nidiot' were going through my head when I read the blurb.

Re:One other detail

No, but one of the lead Mozilla developers, Ben Goodger, is a Google Employee.

Re:One other detail

FireFox may not be a Google product however Google will pay you [toprankblog.com] for having other people install it.

Cue the "Google is a hypocrite" posts

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and thus is subject to a different set of rules. If Firefox had 90% of the browser market then things might be different. As it stands, however, Firefox can include or exclude whoever they want. Microsoft may not be able to.

At least, that's the excuse Google can use. Frankly I'm inclined to think it's "just business".

Hardly anti-trust. This is just normal business.

I'd hardly call this an antitrust issue. A microsoft product is referrign to a microsoft search engine. It's very easy to change it to use a different one. It's when Microsoft makes it impossible to use anything _BUT_ their own products that there's serious problems. Case in point is the inability to 'remove' IE at all, and Microsoft's assertion that it was impossible to do so (then later making versions of windows that have IE removed).

I think Google is starting to feel the pinch. They've tweaked the lumbering behemoth that is Microsoft, and Billy boy is fighting back the best way he can. Back room deals, silent contracts, and subtle manipulation of the market. Google should be more worried about Microsoft pushing their products into the colleges and large businesses, not what the default search engine on one box in one browser is.

Here's Page 1 of the NYT article

Article points to page 2 - here is page 1. [com.com] Note also that Markoff contributed to the reporting.

Nice writeup submitter as you presented an excellent balanced example rather than the often one-sided point of view.

This is what Google should do...

Google should auto-magically have a script that makes it the default search engine when an Internet Explorer user visits http://www.google.com/ [google.com] to make a search.

Firefox

I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google

- Google doesn't make firefox
- Google isn't a monopoly
- Firefox isn't a monopoly

Your comment is irrelevant. I hear that Adobe Premier doesn't let you search on Alta-Vista too.

Re:Firefox

If you want to push this argument, I have to tell you that Google is very close to being a monopoly, and that is exactly how they got Firefox to default to them.

And as a personal rant I have to say that as a consumer I have never felt hurt by MS's monopoly (my Linux box is doing fine right next to my XP box - thank you very much), however I have been hurt by telco monopoly numerous times. Maybe some articles devoted to the woes that our dependance on companies like Time Warner Cable on monopoly markets would be a refreshing change to all the MS bashing on slashdot.

Re:Firefox

If you want to push this argument, I have to tell you that Google is very close to being a monopoly, and that is exactly how they got Firefox to default to them.

Its not illegal to be a monopoly (and even less so a near monopoly) in one market and, as a result of that, to have other players then promote your monopoly (or near-monopoly) product in its own market.

It is illegal to leverage your monopoly power in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market.

Now, my guess is that using MSN search as a default in IE (which, IIRC, predates IE7; if you type an invalid address into the IE6 address bar the default behavior, ISTR, is an MSN search -- I can't check because even though I have IE6, mine has Google Toolbar which replaces the default behavior with a Google search) probably doesn't reach to that level, and, insofar as it does, the IE7 search box behavior is probably less problematic than the pre-IE7 address bar behavior.

But to pretend that there was some parallel between Microsoft using its OS dominance to push the MSN search system through the IE browser it controls, and Google using its search dominance to push Google search through the Firefox browser which it doesn't control is, well, missing the point rather badly.

Yes It Will

It's the default browser in Vista, come '07 your statement is wrong. And that's the big problem here. IE is bundled with an OS (Vista) and Firefox is not. If IE was a completely seperate application then I'd have no problem here, but with Vista that is not the case.

On another note, Google doesn't own Safari or Firefox, so they can pick whatever default search they want.

Adding MSN Search

I agree that Google is being a bit hypcritical here. It makes business sense that they don't want MSN to be the default, especially since Microsoft is also muscling into the search engine wars, but I think their case would have been stronger if they'd included MSN search in their search options on installation. Then again, part of me is wondering if that might not have caused legal problems in and of itself. "Appropriation of competiting technology and repackaging under a different brand name" or somesuch.

It's not Googles job to cry foul

It's not Googles job to cry foul over things that benefit them. Especially, when it is a third party software.

Complaining about Google being default in Firefox is Microsofts job (or Yahoo or someone else). However, if Microsoft had complained about that they would have _had_ to make it optional in IE7 as well. So, Microsoft kept quiet about that.

If Google had complained about them being the default in FireFox then they would have been on the moral high ground when complaining about IE7. But they wouldn't be in a much better position to convince Microsoft though.

pay attention man

"I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pulldown menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search"

it only has 2 web search engines, the rest are specialized (ebay, answers.com, etc) but it DOES include an "Add Engines" link. the page it leads you to does have MSN search

Don't search!!!!!

"The best way to handle the search box [...] would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7."

OTOH, I would much prefer it DOES NOT search for anything. For example, if I type in stuff like 'wwwww.yahoo.com', that STUPID IE just search for it and with the address bar ending up modifed as "http://sea.search.msn.com/dnserror.aspx?FORM=DNSA S&q=wwwww.yahoo.com". Now I need to go delete those characters to modify the original URL!! Ernest

*sigh* you are 2 clicks from Google on IE...

Click the magnifying glass, click "Find search providers." You get a list of providers, including Google and Wikipedia.

Google needs to buck up and become a man, whining doesn't get you much of anywhere. Just like Firefox and Opera you can change your default search engine.

I also thought it was pretty interesting that IE supports OpenSearch [wikipedia.org], an open standard to add search engines (unlike FF and Opera).

Antitrust trouble...

" Google goes on to assert that the move "limits consumer choice and is reminiscent of the tactics that got Microsoft into antitrust trouble in the late 1990s".

I like Google, but this does not limit consumer choice. IE7 doesn't *block* google's web site. You can add Google search to their search box....

Antitrust would be if when you go to google.com or altavista.com and what not and it automatically goes to MSN.com. And if you use Google in the search box it doesn't limit the searches. Sorry. Google's wrong this one. And they should be careful now. Backwards steps can cause a giant to fall.

Search capability

Here's a little trick for Google users who are going to use IE7: go to the address bar and type "www.google.com." Voila!

This is so much pissing in the wind. Google needs to get over itself and Microsoft needs a good, swift kick in the browser. Who cares! Use the browser you want to use and use the search engine you want to use! Until browsers start blocking particular search URLs of search engines refuse to run in certain browsers, there is... say it with me now... nothing to see here!

My GM car...

I got real pissed off at GM Cars for including a GM Radio in their GM Car.

Sure, I know I can change it to some other brand like Clarion or Bose. But damnit, the default installation was a GM Radio and that's just not right.

Clarion and Bose should file a complaint, because clearly GM Radios have a monopoly on GM cars and it's anti-competitive for GM Cars.

And the (obvious) difference is...

Microsoft owns their browser and is using it to leverage their other property--MSN search, or whatever they're calling it these days. Google does NOT own Firefox--Firefox is a third party. Microsoft is using one hand of their monopolistic giant to put money into their other hand. Google is not, and as such, as a valid point, IMHO.

That said, of COURSE it works to their [Google's] advantage that Firefox behaves in such a manner. However, that doesn't mean that the Mozilla Foundation isn't free to switch their default over to MSN if their user base overwhelmingly requests it.

-buf

Google is not trying to play fair

I installed one of the first IE7 beta releases. I was surprised that the new search box includes a drop down that lets you change to AOL, Yahoo, Google, or Ask Jeeves (but defaults to MSN). I selected Google once, it worked as expected, but the next time I launched IE, it was set back to MSN Search. Without digging much further, I figured that was just how it had to be... Microsoft was giving space to the others, but still asserting its control.

Then when I browsed to the Google homepage, I got a little DHTML pop-up window that said something to the effect of "hey, you're using IE7, wanna change the default for your searchbox to use Google?" Perfect, I had wanted to do that, and I guess they figured out how. So I press OK. I restarted IE7, and sure enough, my default search was now Google. Thanks Google.

Except, a funny thing happened when I let Google change my settings. That list of alternate search engines that Microsoft had provided, for the user's benefit, was now replaced by a single choice: Google. Yes, I wanted Google as my default, but I never said I wanted Google as the only choice! That's annoying.

That is when I noticed the Search Settings... menu option at the bottom of the search bar's menu. It includes a Restore Defaults... button, which does exactly that. I clicked it, and all of my search engines were back (and MSN Search was back to being the default). From that Search Settings screen, I selected Google, and clicked Set Default. Now Google was my default search engine, AND I still had the choice of selecting a different engine from the drop down. That is what I wanted. Why didn't Google give me what I wanted?

Re:A choice, yeah...

Exactly. The last thing I want when I install a new piece of software is it asking me a bunch of silly questions like this. I like the FF way: A box that lets me search, it show where it is searching (the big G), and it has an entry for "Add more."

Microsoft should be free to choose whatever default they want and not add anyone else by default.