This morning on Memeorandum there are dozens of bloggers reacting to a New York Times article about IE 7.
Dean Hachamovitch, head of the Internet Explorer team responds: "the search box in IE7 is not Microsoft’s. It belongs to the user. Our guiding principle for the search box in IE7 is that the user is in control."
Nicholas Carr makes an even more interesting point: "If Google wants to fully live up to its ideals – to really give primacy to the goal of user choice in search – it should open up its home page to other search engines."
A convicted monopoly using it’s desktop market to push unfairly push into other areas. What’s wrong with that? Typical Microsoft.
Robert wrote: “Google is paying Firefox to be included as the default engine, if I remember right, and quite a few Firefox employees are also Google employees. So there’s at least a little bit of a tie there.”
This is something I’ve been wondering about for awhile, but I haven’t been able to find public source files about the financial and other forms of assistance different corporations provide to different “non-commercial” efforts. Have you come across any resource for transparency in this area…?
Robert wrote: “Google is paying Firefox to be included as the default engine, if I remember right, and quite a few Firefox employees are also Google employees. So there’s at least a little bit of a tie there.”
This is something I’ve been wondering about for awhile, but I haven’t been able to find public source files about the financial and other forms of assistance different corporations provide to different “non-commercial” efforts. Have you come across any resource for transparency in this area…?
Firefox may not officially be Google’s product but it is for all intents and purposes. Google has made Firefox developers fulltime Google employees who only work on Firefox. Hmm… Google also pays Firefox roughly $30,000,000 a year for making Google the default browser in Firefox.
I guess it depends on how you want to define the ownership of an open source project but Google is as close to an owner (and sugar daddy) as Firefox has… Do you think that the Firefox guys would go work on something that would make Google unhappy and jeapordize 30 million dollars or the paychecks of their key developers? Really.
Firefox may not officially be Google’s product but it is for all intents and purposes. Google has made Firefox developers fulltime Google employees who only work on Firefox. Hmm… Google also pays Firefox roughly $30,000,000 a year for making Google the default browser in Firefox.
I guess it depends on how you want to define the ownership of an open source project but Google is as close to an owner (and sugar daddy) as Firefox has… Do you think that the Firefox guys would go work on something that would make Google unhappy and jeapordize 30 million dollars or the paychecks of their key developers? Really.
If you are using IE7 beta, then you already know that both Yahoo, and Google are advertising directly to you to make them the default search when you visit their sites. If you have ever bought a computer from HP/Compaq then you know that the OEM automatically sets your homepage to a specially designed one for you on Yahoo. The Oem’s are already doing deals. When you get Adobe Acrobat now you automatically get a Yahoo search bar. Now Google is jumping in with offering the Firefox browser with Google as its default. And how many “freeware” companies are trying to shove IE toolbars down our throats. They are using the negative opt out system too by automatically checking the “include Yahoo/Google toolbar”. I wonder if this is really the root of the complaint. I wonder if the business model they push includes this captive audience of Google toolbar users? Now without an IE7 toolbar, suddenly they don’t have a captive audience. What do you call an underdog that’s no longer an underdog? A free market competitor. Welcome to real business, Google.
If you are using IE7 beta, then you already know that both Yahoo, and Google are advertising directly to you to make them the default search when you visit their sites. If you have ever bought a computer from HP/Compaq then you know that the OEM automatically sets your homepage to a specially designed one for you on Yahoo. The Oem’s are already doing deals. When you get Adobe Acrobat now you automatically get a Yahoo search bar. Now Google is jumping in with offering the Firefox browser with Google as its default. And how many “freeware” companies are trying to shove IE toolbars down our throats. They are using the negative opt out system too by automatically checking the “include Yahoo/Google toolbar”. I wonder if this is really the root of the complaint. I wonder if the business model they push includes this captive audience of Google toolbar users? Now without an IE7 toolbar, suddenly they don’t have a captive audience. What do you call an underdog that’s no longer an underdog? A free market competitor. Welcome to real business, Google.
This discussion is unneccesarily getting complicated. What choices are you guys suggesting?
Giving people choices is not good. Windows is already thought of as having too many dialogue boxes. I’ve always heard that OSX needs very few tweakings out of the box. Thats what MS should also try to do.
I suggest having a ‘right click’ change search engine option. Now thats fair in my opinion. Easy to find… Any other opinions?
This discussion is unneccesarily getting complicated. What choices are you guys suggesting?
Giving people choices is not good. Windows is already thought of as having too many dialogue boxes. I’ve always heard that OSX needs very few tweakings out of the box. Thats what MS should also try to do.
I suggest having a ‘right click’ change search engine option. Now thats fair in my opinion. Easy to find… Any other opinions?
“I tried to change Firefox to use MSN, I can’t get it to work. I read some forums and the only thing I cam up with is something called about:config, then adjust the search engine. I still couldn’t get it to work. Why can’t I change my search reference through the options dialog? Why is it so hard?”
It’s not hard at all. Here’s how to change Firefox’s default to any other search engine:
Click the icon in the search input window (if you still have a default installation, it’s probably a “G” for Google)
Select the new engine from the list.
If the engine you want isn’t there (MSN, for example) select “Add engines…” instead.
On the page that loads, select the engine you want.
Select the new engine from the list.
The next time you open firefox, that will be your default.
“I tried to change Firefox to use MSN, I can’t get it to work. I read some forums and the only thing I cam up with is something called about:config, then adjust the search engine. I still couldn’t get it to work. Why can’t I change my search reference through the options dialog? Why is it so hard?”
It’s not hard at all. Here’s how to change Firefox’s default to any other search engine:
Click the icon in the search input window (if you still have a default installation, it’s probably a “G” for Google)
Select the new engine from the list.
If the engine you want isn’t there (MSN, for example) select “Add engines…” instead.
On the page that loads, select the engine you want.
Select the new engine from the list.
The next time you open firefox, that will be your default.
“Google also pays Firefox roughly $30,000,000 a year for making Google the default browser in Firefox.”
Can you provide support for that figure? Everything I read says the amount is undisclosed, and the Mozilla foundation was only started with a $2M grant from AOL, so $30M would be an awful lot of money even once.
“Google also pays Firefox roughly $30,000,000 a year for making Google the default browser in Firefox.”
Can you provide support for that figure? Everything I read says the amount is undisclosed, and the Mozilla foundation was only started with a $2M grant from AOL, so $30M would be an awful lot of money even once.
Solomenrex:
IMHO, I am not saying Google is charging money for skewing their ranks. It might have been fairer if they did that.
What I am saying is that it is in Google interest to adapt their ranking algorithm so that commercial sites, which are willing to pay to be on the search result page, do pay to be there. The quality of search result page does not decrease because these commercial links will show up there, because showing up on Google is make or break for many websites. This does not give any additional benefit to customers, except the free search. In the long run, it puts a drag on online commerce. Website would be forced to bid higher and higher to be on Google rather than spending money in naturally attracting customers. Because Google may tweak its search engine, if not already done so, to be biassed against commercial websites.
Irrespctive of that, Google has two parts to its search page configuration. Organic result and paid result. OEMs could have certain configuration for payment too.
You go to Dell.com. It can show you, Google default (-$20), MSN default (-$15), Yahoo default (-$10). This is a choice to customers as well as some value return.
Customers are the winners here.
Google knows that the Nash equilibirum is in their favor if they only have to compete on quality (assuming they think they have superior quality), but they also know that Nash equilibirum is not in their favor, if they have to compete on value too? Not letting a user to waive their right to initial default is taking away the user’s bargaining position. It is like car company’s are forced to compete on quality rather than on “quality – price”. People would need lexus only and no toyota. (Note I am not saying whether Google is lexus or Yahoo, or MSN is lexus. I am saying people may prefer toyota over lexus.)
PS: The commentator is a Microsoft employee.
Solomenrex:
IMHO, I am not saying Google is charging money for skewing their ranks. It might have been fairer if they did that.
What I am saying is that it is in Google interest to adapt their ranking algorithm so that commercial sites, which are willing to pay to be on the search result page, do pay to be there. The quality of search result page does not decrease because these commercial links will show up there, because showing up on Google is make or break for many websites. This does not give any additional benefit to customers, except the free search. In the long run, it puts a drag on online commerce. Website would be forced to bid higher and higher to be on Google rather than spending money in naturally attracting customers. Because Google may tweak its search engine, if not already done so, to be biassed against commercial websites.
Irrespctive of that, Google has two parts to its search page configuration. Organic result and paid result. OEMs could have certain configuration for payment too.
You go to Dell.com. It can show you, Google default (-$20), MSN default (-$15), Yahoo default (-$10). This is a choice to customers as well as some value return.
Customers are the winners here.
Google knows that the Nash equilibirum is in their favor if they only have to compete on quality (assuming they think they have superior quality), but they also know that Nash equilibirum is not in their favor, if they have to compete on value too? Not letting a user to waive their right to initial default is taking away the user’s bargaining position. It is like car company’s are forced to compete on quality rather than on “quality – price”. People would need lexus only and no toyota. (Note I am not saying whether Google is lexus or Yahoo, or MSN is lexus. I am saying people may prefer toyota over lexus.)
PS: The commentator is a Microsoft employee.
sam: Why does the textbox/dropdown search feature in IE7 suddenly change the rules? IE6 and before have an entire panel (an explorer bar, along with Favorites and History) devoted to search, activated by the very prominent Search button on the toolbar. And really, you have to make just as many clicks to search the old way as the new, since you need to click on the IE7 textbox to give it focus, whereas in 6 you have to click the search button (but the textbox there has focus upon activation)
I am of the opinion that as long as MS gives users the option to plug in another search engine (or any integrated functionality), I think they’re playing fair. It should not be a great shock that a company will make their offering the default choice (I do agree that they have to actually offer the choice, being a monopoly and all). I think no default search at all is ultimately more tedious to the basic user (and not everyone knows the difference between Yahoo, MSN, and Google)
sam: Why does the textbox/dropdown search feature in IE7 suddenly change the rules? IE6 and before have an entire panel (an explorer bar, along with Favorites and History) devoted to search, activated by the very prominent Search button on the toolbar. And really, you have to make just as many clicks to search the old way as the new, since you need to click on the IE7 textbox to give it focus, whereas in 6 you have to click the search button (but the textbox there has focus upon activation)
I am of the opinion that as long as MS gives users the option to plug in another search engine (or any integrated functionality), I think they’re playing fair. It should not be a great shock that a company will make their offering the default choice (I do agree that they have to actually offer the choice, being a monopoly and all). I think no default search at all is ultimately more tedious to the basic user (and not everyone knows the difference between Yahoo, MSN, and Google)
Saying that others, including Google, should do the same is not a defense, you know, because of the illegal monopoly thing. Microsoft is acting badly in search and music and the commission in charge is asleep at the wheel…
Saying that others, including Google, should do the same is not a defense, you know, because of the illegal monopoly thing. Microsoft is acting badly in search and music and the commission in charge is asleep at the wheel…
This is hypocrisy from Google. They own Firefox. Try to unplug Google from it and see how far you get. No matter how much about:config editting you do, or removing search plugins, ultimately you have to build your own modified version to take Google out.
Why isn’t one of the top 3 search engines distributed with Firefox by default? I like Fx as a browser, but as a philosophy its starting to stink of the Google investment.
MS are old evil, Google is new evil, and if they think we should let them have our search stats and combine them with our web browsing habits (analytics), an that we should still buy their “do no evil” mantra, then they’re going to suffer.
This is hypocrisy from Google. They own Firefox. Try to unplug Google from it and see how far you get. No matter how much about:config editting you do, or removing search plugins, ultimately you have to build your own modified version to take Google out.
Why isn’t one of the top 3 search engines distributed with Firefox by default? I like Fx as a browser, but as a philosophy its starting to stink of the Google investment.
MS are old evil, Google is new evil, and if they think we should let them have our search stats and combine them with our web browsing habits (analytics), an that we should still buy their “do no evil” mantra, then they’re going to suffer.
“Try to unplug Google from it and see how far you get. No matter how much about:config editting you do, or removing search plugins, ultimately you have to build your own modified version to take Google out.”
What the heck are you smoking? Read comment #32 for how to change Firefox to use something other than Google. It’s dead simple.
“Try to unplug Google from it and see how far you get. No matter how much about:config editting you do, or removing search plugins, ultimately you have to build your own modified version to take Google out.”
What the heck are you smoking? Read comment #32 for how to change Firefox to use something other than Google. It’s dead simple.
“The Google toolbar is also something users install by choice.”
There is plenty of software out there that will try to install the Google toolbar as part of its installation and some go to quite a lot of length to make sure it ends up being installed. There’s probably some cash incentive there. The DivX codec being the most prominent I can think of. The last time I looked at it I had to tell it twice not to install the Google toolbar and still it ended up on my machine. In my opinon tactics like that border on spyware, no matter how benign the Google toolbar may be.
Squarely on topic, I don’t see what is stopping Google from using half of their homepage with a huge banner that says “Click here to make this go away and us your default search provider!” which invokes the OpenSearch API (Hell, they’re free to be annoying and do it without any interaction each time you open Google until you finally give in).
It’s also tremendously amusing to note posts from puzzled people who state that after installing IE 7 it defaulted to Google since that’s how they had things set in IE 6.
Microsoft should just get Google to commit to the same kind of deal they have with FireFox. You’d loose some MSN customers but if they use your main competitor you’ll at least have them cough up a few pennies for every search made
. That’s a win-win scenario.
On a serious note, the first time a user enters a search in the search box, IE could just direct to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/searchguide/default_new.mspx and have the user pick.
“The Google toolbar is also something users install by choice.”
There is plenty of software out there that will try to install the Google toolbar as part of its installation and some go to quite a lot of length to make sure it ends up being installed. There’s probably some cash incentive there. The DivX codec being the most prominent I can think of. The last time I looked at it I had to tell it twice not to install the Google toolbar and still it ended up on my machine. In my opinon tactics like that border on spyware, no matter how benign the Google toolbar may be.
Squarely on topic, I don’t see what is stopping Google from using half of their homepage with a huge banner that says “Click here to make this go away and us your default search provider!” which invokes the OpenSearch API (Hell, they’re free to be annoying and do it without any interaction each time you open Google until you finally give in).
It’s also tremendously amusing to note posts from puzzled people who state that after installing IE 7 it defaulted to Google since that’s how they had things set in IE 6.
Microsoft should just get Google to commit to the same kind of deal they have with FireFox. You’d loose some MSN customers but if they use your main competitor you’ll at least have them cough up a few pennies for every search made
. That’s a win-win scenario.
On a serious note, the first time a user enters a search in the search box, IE could just direct to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/searchguide/default_new.mspx and have the user pick.
“What the heck are you smoking? Read comment #32 for how to change Firefox to use something other than Google. It’s dead simple”
Yes thank you, I am quite capable of editting search ‘plugins’ (if mostly to remove spying features pre-1.5)
How about hard wired parameters in about:config for Google? How about accidentally typing a single word in the address bar and being directed to a Google search?
“What the heck are you smoking? Read comment #32 for how to change Firefox to use something other than Google. It’s dead simple”
Yes thank you, I am quite capable of editting search ‘plugins’ (if mostly to remove spying features pre-1.5)
How about hard wired parameters in about:config for Google? How about accidentally typing a single word in the address bar and being directed to a Google search?
“How about hard wired parameters in about:config for Google? How about accidentally typing a single word in the address bar and being directed to a Google search?”
No, seriously. Can you hook me with whatever is making you type this stuff?
With a fresh install of Firefox under OSX or WinXP (Wheee for Parallels), typing “test” into the address bar results in a page telling me that http://test/ could not be found. What do you see?
Now, with a fresh install of Windows XP (followed by the appropriate service packs and such) typing “test” into IE 6.0.2900.2180 _does_ result in an MSN search page with the following url: “http://search.msn.com/results.asp?FORM=AS35&srch=5&q=test
“How about hard wired parameters in about:config for Google? How about accidentally typing a single word in the address bar and being directed to a Google search?”
No, seriously. Can you hook me with whatever is making you type this stuff?
With a fresh install of Firefox under OSX or WinXP (Wheee for Parallels), typing “test” into the address bar results in a page telling me that http://test/ could not be found. What do you see?
Now, with a fresh install of Windows XP (followed by the appropriate service packs and such) typing “test” into IE 6.0.2900.2180 _does_ result in an MSN search page with the following url: “http://search.msn.com/results.asp?FORM=AS35&srch=5&q=test
Google apparently sees no problem with its monopoly on searching in the Mac OS. Mac’s default browser Safari is *hard-wired* to use Google and nothing else. Google is being very hypocritical.
Google apparently sees no problem with its monopoly on searching in the Mac OS. Mac’s default browser Safari is *hard-wired* to use Google and nothing else. Google is being very hypocritical.
Search for “flower” on Google. It does not show you 1800flowers.com or ftd.com in the main result but shows flower.com.
If you search google for “flowers” 1800flowers is the first result. ftd is the third.
If you search for “flower” on MSN, 1800-flowers isn’t even listed anywhere. I guess 1800-flowers doesn’t want to advertise with Microsoft.
Live.com is a mess. There’s half as many search results visible on the screen at any time and the AJAX scrollbar is just plain silly – not a functional achievement like scrollable maps are on Google.
Dean Hachamovitch, head of the Internet Explorer team responds: “the search box in IE7 is not Microsoft’s. It belongs to the user. Our guiding principle for the search box in IE7 is that the user is in control.”
The user is already in control. Overwhelmingly, the user chooses to use Google, not MSN Search. So for Dean to make that claim while simultaneously creating a search widget in IE that defaults to MSN search is entirely disingenuous. Clearly, the mode of operation here is to make MSN search more easily available to users by 1) leveraging IE marketshare and 2) leveraging the windows monopoly in violation of antitrust law by bundling IE with Windows.
Things finally got good for web browsers with the introduction of firefox, more than 5 years after Microsoft used illegal, anticompetitive methods to drive Netscape out of the market – these are illegal, anticompetitive methods for which Microsoft was found guilty of violating Sherman Antitrust law, a felony.
I’m just wondering what good “service” Microsoft and the IE team think they can provide by illegally leveraging bundling once again to harm a competitor instead of growing marketshare by making a superior product and getting adopted by consumers naturally. I fear what’s going to happen is 5 years of inferior search results because Microsoft again leverages an existing monopoly in order to take over a market.
Search for “flower” on Google. It does not show you 1800flowers.com or ftd.com in the main result but shows flower.com.
If you search google for “flowers” 1800flowers is the first result. ftd is the third.
If you search for “flower” on MSN, 1800-flowers isn’t even listed anywhere. I guess 1800-flowers doesn’t want to advertise with Microsoft.
Live.com is a mess. There’s half as many search results visible on the screen at any time and the AJAX scrollbar is just plain silly – not a functional achievement like scrollable maps are on Google.
Dean Hachamovitch, head of the Internet Explorer team responds: “the search box in IE7 is not Microsoft’s. It belongs to the user. Our guiding principle for the search box in IE7 is that the user is in control.”
The user is already in control. Overwhelmingly, the user chooses to use Google, not MSN Search. So for Dean to make that claim while simultaneously creating a search widget in IE that defaults to MSN search is entirely disingenuous. Clearly, the mode of operation here is to make MSN search more easily available to users by 1) leveraging IE marketshare and 2) leveraging the windows monopoly in violation of antitrust law by bundling IE with Windows.
Things finally got good for web browsers with the introduction of firefox, more than 5 years after Microsoft used illegal, anticompetitive methods to drive Netscape out of the market – these are illegal, anticompetitive methods for which Microsoft was found guilty of violating Sherman Antitrust law, a felony.
I’m just wondering what good “service” Microsoft and the IE team think they can provide by illegally leveraging bundling once again to harm a competitor instead of growing marketshare by making a superior product and getting adopted by consumers naturally. I fear what’s going to happen is 5 years of inferior search results because Microsoft again leverages an existing monopoly in order to take over a market.
Google apparently sees no problem with its monopoly on searching in the Mac OS. Mac’s default browser Safari is *hard-wired* to use Google and nothing else. Google is being very hypocritical.
That’s Apple’s choice, not a result of some nefarious partnership with Google.
Google apparently sees no problem with its monopoly on searching in the Mac OS. Mac’s default browser Safari is *hard-wired* to use Google and nothing else. Google is being very hypocritical.
That’s Apple’s choice, not a result of some nefarious partnership with Google.
I don’t understand that monopoly argument at all. Currently IE7 is free download, so you must decide to install it to, well, install it. This will continue being true for all Windows versions except Vista. Microsoft Vista OS has 0% market share at the moment, so again you must decide to buy it to run it. There is zero monopolistic pressure – getting IE7 or not is completely elective process.
Plus IE7 respects your settings upon installation. And lets you easily switch to a different search engine. And lets you to switch to google as soon as you visit their page. How is that for being a good market citizen?
I don’t understand that monopoly argument at all. Currently IE7 is free download, so you must decide to install it to, well, install it. This will continue being true for all Windows versions except Vista. Microsoft Vista OS has 0% market share at the moment, so again you must decide to buy it to run it. There is zero monopolistic pressure – getting IE7 or not is completely elective process.
Plus IE7 respects your settings upon installation. And lets you easily switch to a different search engine. And lets you to switch to google as soon as you visit their page. How is that for being a good market citizen?
Kloto, a good market citizen would make the default on first run display a page that something like the following:
“Microsoft recognizes that search is an important feature of web browsers and has a large impact on your web browsing experience. Because user choice is important to us, here’s a list of the 5 most used search engines as of the writing of this software. We’ve pre-selected Windows Live Search because we think it’s just spiffy. Also, we get the ad revenue it generates.”
The fact that Firefox or Safari or Camino or whatever other browser you can cite doesn’t do this is mitigated by one very important factor. Two browsers are shipped with current computers (IE and Safari — Linux rarely ships with a computer, so I’ll ignore it for now) and only one of those browsers defaults to using a search engine that generates a per-click profit for the company that ships the OS.
Firefox ships with a default of Google because Firefox makes money on a per-click basis from Google. Good for them. No one is being forced to use Firefox. We’re being forced to use IE and Safari, at the very least to go and download the browser of our choice.
Finally: Yes, Microsoft is being pressured into playing by rules different from their competitors. This is fair and just _because they have been convicted of anti-trust violations_. When you’ve been found to use anti-competitive practices in the past, _every_ move made should be subject careful scrutiny to confirm that it isn’t happening again.
Kloto, a good market citizen would make the default on first run display a page that something like the following:
“Microsoft recognizes that search is an important feature of web browsers and has a large impact on your web browsing experience. Because user choice is important to us, here’s a list of the 5 most used search engines as of the writing of this software. We’ve pre-selected Windows Live Search because we think it’s just spiffy. Also, we get the ad revenue it generates.”
The fact that Firefox or Safari or Camino or whatever other browser you can cite doesn’t do this is mitigated by one very important factor. Two browsers are shipped with current computers (IE and Safari — Linux rarely ships with a computer, so I’ll ignore it for now) and only one of those browsers defaults to using a search engine that generates a per-click profit for the company that ships the OS.
Firefox ships with a default of Google because Firefox makes money on a per-click basis from Google. Good for them. No one is being forced to use Firefox. We’re being forced to use IE and Safari, at the very least to go and download the browser of our choice.
Finally: Yes, Microsoft is being pressured into playing by rules different from their competitors. This is fair and just _because they have been convicted of anti-trust violations_. When you’ve been found to use anti-competitive practices in the past, _every_ move made should be subject careful scrutiny to confirm that it isn’t happening again.
Scott, I’m afraid you missed my Vista argument: Microsoft is not pressing you to use IE7. You will have to decide either to buy Vista retail box or to download it [free] from their page. And most certainly when you get preinstalled OEM copy of Vista it will point to whichever home page and search engine were chosen by the assembler, again, of your choice.
Now to your suggestion of the start page: I respectfully disagree. For me it’s all or nothing decision, and if you include 5 search engines, you must include all! Frankly, how do you decide which ones are top 5? In which field? Say, if you include Google, but exclude PriceGrabber, MySimon or maybe CampusI, then Google’s inferior Froogle sidekick gets unfair advantage over these specialized searches.
Scott, I’m afraid you missed my Vista argument: Microsoft is not pressing you to use IE7. You will have to decide either to buy Vista retail box or to download it [free] from their page. And most certainly when you get preinstalled OEM copy of Vista it will point to whichever home page and search engine were chosen by the assembler, again, of your choice.
Now to your suggestion of the start page: I respectfully disagree. For me it’s all or nothing decision, and if you include 5 search engines, you must include all! Frankly, how do you decide which ones are top 5? In which field? Say, if you include Google, but exclude PriceGrabber, MySimon or maybe CampusI, then Google’s inferior Froogle sidekick gets unfair advantage over these specialized searches.
So if Live search decides to promote Da Vinci Code, should Vatican complain that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly?
you know – Windows monopoly > Vista monopoly > MSN search Monopoly > Da Vinci Code monopoly
So if Live search decides to promote Da Vinci Code, should Vatican complain that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly?
you know – Windows monopoly > Vista monopoly > MSN search Monopoly > Da Vinci Code monopoly
Saying IE7 is an optional download is disingenous. Saying Vista has 0% market share is disingenous.
Vista gets released, market share is going to climb steadily, through the next cycle of replacement.
Don’t forget most of the new Vista installs will be new PCs, so there’s no previous user preferences, and now, we’re back to the default of MSN.
It’s glaringly obvious Microsoft is playing the long game here. The user may be in control for the short term, that stops when a new version of Vista is received, on a new machine, and what do you know, Google isn’t even in the list of search engine options, you have to go to a seperate web page to add them in.
Yeah. New spin, same Microsoft, same tricks. Can’t compete on a level playing field.
Saying IE7 is an optional download is disingenous. Saying Vista has 0% market share is disingenous.
Vista gets released, market share is going to climb steadily, through the next cycle of replacement.
Don’t forget most of the new Vista installs will be new PCs, so there’s no previous user preferences, and now, we’re back to the default of MSN.
It’s glaringly obvious Microsoft is playing the long game here. The user may be in control for the short term, that stops when a new version of Vista is received, on a new machine, and what do you know, Google isn’t even in the list of search engine options, you have to go to a seperate web page to add them in.
Yeah. New spin, same Microsoft, same tricks. Can’t compete on a level playing field.
Boooooring… J, the girl (I presume) has a point and you buddy cannot read.
Boooooring… J, the girl (I presume) has a point and you buddy cannot read.
I rather like Google and all it’s tools. I am actually a Google freak and when it comes to browsers I must admit I am a Firefox user and will never ever use a different browser except if it is much better than Firefox.
I must admit that this new MS options sounds all too innocent to me and unforetunately MS also knows that 80% of the market out there does not really care which search engine they use whether MSN or Google, so they will most probably stick with whatever the default is.
The positive side will be that it will force more and better innovation from the competition. Case in point is Netscape, their browser to me just plain sucked and now with Firefox I am all Mozilla again. Unfortunately it was a little too late for Netscape.
I also feel the Google experience is better than the MSN one, I like the way Google changes the Google image ever so often depending on current events etc. Small things that will keep me on Google, and ultimately the term “Just Google it” sounds better than “Just MSN it” to me personally.
I rather like Google and all it’s tools. I am actually a Google freak and when it comes to browsers I must admit I am a Firefox user and will never ever use a different browser except if it is much better than Firefox.
I must admit that this new MS options sounds all too innocent to me and unforetunately MS also knows that 80% of the market out there does not really care which search engine they use whether MSN or Google, so they will most probably stick with whatever the default is.
The positive side will be that it will force more and better innovation from the competition. Case in point is Netscape, their browser to me just plain sucked and now with Firefox I am all Mozilla again. Unfortunately it was a little too late for Netscape.
I also feel the Google experience is better than the MSN one, I like the way Google changes the Google image ever so often depending on current events etc. Small things that will keep me on Google, and ultimately the term “Just Google it” sounds better than “Just MSN it” to me personally.
The thing that lacks the most competitive fairness about Microsoft, is that regardless what I set for my default, IE opens when other Microsoft software requires something like ActiveX. Since MS Show requires IE, users are not allowed a choice in that case. There are many examples, but a webinar reaches more than just one user at a time.
I see ActiveX as a child of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish technology. It’s sooo obvious that it hides in plain sight. I think serious concerns have merit, and Google is a day late in lodging them.
-detlev