Clearing my mind this morning on a few news items ...
It appears that Micro$oft's new Internet Explorer 7 is the target of a Google complaint about search engines. Google, the company whose name has become a verb (cf. Xerox) is complaining that Microsoft's new IE7 has a search engine box in the the command line that defaults to Microsoft's search engine. They complain that users ought to be able to choose their search engine rather than have a default search engine.
Google vice-president Marissa Mayer says, "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose."
Of course not. It's only right to default if you default to Google.
My mind went back to the time when I first downloaded Firefox, the browser that I use. It, like IE7, has a search engine box in the upper right hand corner. That search engine has a default setting to ... wait for it ... you guessed it ... Google.
So let me lay this out for you. Google (the company whose name has become a verb) is complaining that M$ IE7 does what Google has been doing for a long time. It appears that Google's main complaint is, "We were doing this first, but ignore that, because M$ might cut into our profits."
Google is concerned about "preserving competition in the search market" in which they have 49% share, to Yahoo's 22%. M$ has 11%. Sounds like Google is all about competition in the search market.
How hypocritical. I can't help but notice that Google wasn't whining when they were the default search engine. I guess they were saving all that whine to complain when someone else decided to do what Google had been doing. Somebody bring some cheese and crackers to go with the whine.
Here's the bottom line. If you don't like the default search engine on your browser, then change it. How simple is that? Why do we need to tie up the Justice Department over this? Don't they have more important matters to deal with?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree; Google shouldn't complain.
However, I understand why they are complaining. They don't want to become the next Netscape. I'm sure their argument is that the government already found Microsoft guilty of monopolistic practices (more than once, actually). And that by defaulting to their own search engine, Micro$oft is acting similarly to when they bundled IE with Windows.
Your Firefox argument is not persuasive, though. Firefox is open source software, uncontrolled by Google. The fact that the mozilla.org chose to make Google the default for Firefox does not make Google hypocritical at all, because they do not own or distribute the Firefox browser. And, if the folks behind Firefox chose to make, say Yahoo!, the default search engine, they could do it tomorrow and Google could not stop them.
So, while I get your point and agree that Google is making themselves look bad by complaining, I don't think you have a really strong case for Google hypocrisy.
BTW: Apple does this all the time. If you use iPhoto, iSync, iWeb and of course, iTunes are all defaulted to use Apple's propritary web services. So if you want to easily make your pictures available on the web, you can generate a static html page, but if you are a $99 annual subscriber to .Mac, you can share them online easily and elegantly with one click. (There are ways around this for all these products except iSync.) Personally, I think vertical integration (one company makes the whole widget) is the best way, which is why I use a mac to begin with. Microsoft doesn't sell PC hardware, so they cannot really make the whole widget. But if they want to bundle in more usability to their products for free that puts their competitors at a disadvantage, they have that right, IMO.
Isn't Google and Firefox in cahoots together? I thought that was a little more intentional than merely an uninfluenced choice by Mozilla.
I was never persuaded by the original case against Windows. Even in the old versions, you could still use a different browser. The fact that one was installed was not a hindrance to using another browser so long as you didn't mind installing another one, just as you would with any piece of software. To me, Microsoft should be able to package whatever they want. If Netscape didn't like it, go create your own OS the way that MS did. If Google doesn't like it, make your own browser. Gates took a flyer 25 years ago and earned what he has.
But in any case, even if M$ defaults to M$ Search (and why wouldn't they?), it is fairly easy to change with four keystrokes according to the article. Make the keystrokes if you want a different default.
To me a company with 49% of the market shouldn't really complain about a company with 11%. Of course, they probably know the power of M$ and are trying to head it off early.
I think your illustration with Apple is Apple's biggest "problem." Apple has kept virtually everything "in house" and has shut out any competition or collaboration. There are not "Apple compatibles" like there were "IBM compatibles" that later became "PCs." One reason for the rise of the PC over the Mac was availability and affordability. They both became popular around the same time (early 80s, give or take), but PCs took off and Macs did not. And I think that is why Apple has such a low percentage of the market. They ruled out any competition, while the IBM did not. The lack of
Post a Comment