Microsoft's IE7 Search Box Bugs Google 803
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."
Safari search (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither did Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox can do it, Microsoft probably can't (Score:5, Insightful)
From the slashdot summary:
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?
Cue the "Google is a hypocrite" posts (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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.
Makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Adding MSN Search (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:2, Insightful)
Firefox and Opera both include a half-dozen or so providers when you install them.
Yes, but MSN search is conspicously absent from Firefox's supplied search engine list (I don't know about Opera's list).
Well, that, and Firefox doesn't have a setting for a "default" provider. It "defaults" to the last one you used
Before you use the search bar, it is defaulted to Google. Looks like a 'default' to me.
Now, I'm a happy FireFox user myself, but in this case, you really have to call it as you see it. IE users can (and probably will) add Google to the search list, just as they can (and probably don't) add MSN to Firefox's list. There's really no ground for a complaint here, unless you want to complain about the core isue of a browser being bundled with the OS in the first place.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:5, Insightful)
That's precisely what "default" means.
Re:A choice, yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should be free to choose whatever default they want and not add anyone else by default.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Google != Mozilla Foundation (Score:5, Insightful)
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: Is, in my opinion, a poor one. A Mozilla based browser is free for almost any operating system while IE7 is free
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.
Antitrust trouble... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:One other detail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safari search (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is hardcoded into Safari. It's not even customizable, it's right their in the binary. The reason is because Apple likely makes money from every search, in a similar way to the fact that Firefox makes money from Google searches.
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.
Yes It Will (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, Google doesn't own Safari or Firefox, so they can pick whatever default search they want.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Firefox does not own Google.
2) Firefox is NOT the dominant browser.
3) Google IS the dominant search engine.
4) Firefox must be intentionally downloaded as an alternate to Microsoft.
For these three reasons it is reasonable for Firefox to make Google the default, but it is not reasonable for Microsoft to make their own product the default.
Because Firefox does not gain from making Google a default, it is more permisable. As a monopoly induced dominant browser, Microsoft has additional responsibilities that Firefox does not have. As Google is more popular than Microsoft, it makes perfect sense for Firefox to default to the most popular engine. Because 99% of the people using Firefox do so because they DISLIKE Microsoft other product (I.E.), it even makes some sense not to bother including Microsoft search.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Mozilla.org make a TON of money off of Google referals directly related to the Firefox search box?
Re:Abuse of monopoly powers (Score:5, Insightful)
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%?
Logical Fallacy Alert! False Dilemma Detected! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Search Box vs. No Search Box (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question:
Right-click on the toolbar. Click "Customize." Drag the search box off of the toolbar. Enjoy your search-box-free surfing.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Safari search (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Abuse of monopoly powers (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Regardless of who is making money on what here's the bottom line:
Firefox defaults to Google, but you can change it.
IE7 defaults to MSN, but you can change it.
Microsoft has issues, but this isn't one of them. Spend your energy on legitimate claims.
Re:Safari search (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is. It's completely different, because Microsoft's browser comes bundled with their operating system, and their operating system is a monopoly, with which Microsoft has already been convicted of illegally squashing competition in other markets through bundling.
In other words -
IE7 can default to MSN Search and have no other options if it is downloaded separately from the OS, because Microsoft and Google would in that case be no different.
However, if IE7 is bundled with the OS, then the "MSN Search default" is bundled with the OS, and Microsoft must abide by the rules of a monopoly convicted of illegal practices.
My GM car... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Abuse of monopoly powers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Abuse of monopoly powers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Care to support that accusation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Abuse of monopoly powers (Score:3, Insightful)
When everyone made the switch to Google that gave them dominant market share in search, wasn't the default "search from address bar" setting in IE at MSN? If thats the case, and MS is so awesome at leveraging their monopolies - how did Google gain share? How did they become dominant?
People keep arguing that MS is leveraging a monopoly that was already in existence when Google took over. Why the hell would Google magically begin losing share now, especialy if it gained so much in the face of this monopoly?
People KNOW about google. I just don't think this prediction holds any water. I don't think Google is going to lose a thing. Google can't be this awesome search beast and a weak can't compete entity at the same time. ESPECIALLY with such a vocal following. I don't see anyone here screaming "MSN YAY!" I see alot of counter arguments, but no one actually cheering for MSN.
Hell, I think most people here change the default search engine from MSN to Google on their parents/family/users systems while fixing other issues. MSN couldn't BUY that kind of loyalty. To think that a default setting is going to ruin everything is a little unrealistic.
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We stongly believe they are abusing their power in the market place." said Google's legal representative, "We assert that they should have links to our sites prominantly placed near, or even replacing, their branding. Also, we believe the advertising on those sites should be provided by us, that the anti-phishing feature in Vista should mark all Microsoft sites as suspect, and that Windows Defender should uninstall Internet Explorer and Windows Update should install Firefox."
Re:Abuse of monopoly powers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Can you really blame M$, though? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's simply smart business practice to do this. Would you openly give your users a reason not to use your product? No, I'd think not. That'd be like Windows coming with a folder on the desktop, full of links to various Linux distributions.
Re:Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:3, Insightful)
"Choose a default search engine:
!* MSN *!
Altavista
Ask
Google
"
What would Google have to complain about then? I can't POSSIBLY imagine that they'd have a problem with this arrangement, would they?
Let's call a spade a spade here -- GOOG is acting in its own self interest by making this an issue... if MSFT gains search market share, GOOG's revenues will decline. I think Google's time & effort would be a lot better spent in other areas, but hey, if they want to bitch at Microsoft for making such a no-brainer decision (Let's see... Microsoft's new browser will default to... Apple's home page, and Google as search! Duh!?), it's their time wasted, not mine. I know how to change the target of my autosearches, and I will.
And the (obvious) difference is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Logical Fallacy Alert! False Dilemma Detected! (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that Mozilla has long positioned itself as an alternative to Microsoft, at least in the browser space, and that many developers and early adopters are strongly anti-Microsoft, would you really expect them -- Google or no Google -- to include a Microsoft search as a default option? It might seem logical, but as you may have noticed, people can get surprisingly emotional about their software.
Amazon(Which happens to be powered by Google),
Not last I looked. It returns Amazon.com product listings. A9 gets its web results from Google (last I looked, anyway), but Amazon's internal search results are, well, internal.
No, Google does NOT want to compete on technical merits
You keep saying this, but you don't back it up with any support. Claiming that Google doesn't want to compete on technical merits because this complaint isn't technical in nature is like saying that Microsoft doesn't care about the server market because the X-Box team isn't working on IIS. The two are not mutually exclusive, however much you want to portray them that way.
Re:Defaults vs. Presets (Score:4, Insightful)
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.