Okay, there's been too much written about this already, so I'll try to keep my 2 cents short.

Concerned about Microsoft's decision to make MSN Search the default search engine in Internet Explorer 7 (earth shattering, isn't it?), Marissa Mayer said:

"The market favors open choice for search, and companies should compete for users based on the quality of their search services," said Marissa Mayer, the vice president for search products at Google. "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose."

Here are both of my cents:

First off, I agree that companies should compete based on quality. But Microsoft and McDonald's are both shining examples of how that's not necessarily the way it works when "the market" is involved in the decision making. Price and convenience tend to trump quality.

However, if that's what Google or Marissa really believe, why did they enter into an agreement that'd result in paying $1 billion to Dell Computer in exchange for a Googlized web browser on the computers they ship?

Right! Because many users don't choose. And Google decided to take advantage of that fact.

Now that Microsoft is doing the same, it's suddenly a big deal.

Cry me a river...

Google has been pushing their toolbar for Internet Explorer very aggressively ever since information about Internet Explorer 7 was first available several months ago. The writing was on the wall and they could see it as well as anyone.

If Google actually cared about user choice, they'd have asked the Mozilla Foundation to configure Firefox to prompt you to choose your favorite search engine the first time you ran it. You know, a level playing field.

Did they do that?


Instead they bought their way into the default position with a revenue sharing deal. And now they're upset because they can't do the same with Internet Explorer. Well, they can but they're gonna have to pay OEMs like Dell, Gateway, HP, and so on. That's a lot of deal making and a lot more money that'll hit their earnings in the form of TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs).

And let's not forget about Safari, where Google is the default and it's very hard for normal people to change that.

I don't know about you, but this whole "user choice" argument smells like a double standard to me. Don seems to think so.

Did they think we weren't paying attention?

Posted by jzawodn at May 01, 2006 10:31 PM

Reader Comments
# Jeffrey Friedl said:

I don't see where they have a right to complain. Does anyone complain that, say, Google Earth might point to Google's web site? IE7 is Microsoft's product, and they can do whatever they want with it. When Google makes their own crappy OS and browser and once it becomes the default world standard, they'll be able to set the search link to Google. Then Microsoft can complain.

Until then, I'll use Firefox and Yahoo! Search.

on May 1, 2006 10:58 PM
# Yoda said:

If you know any thing about monopoly and anti-trust laws, you will be probably see why there is a problem with IE+MSN-search.

A *convicted* monopolist cannot use a monopoly in one product to push an inferior product. Is that so difficult for people to understand?

Google is just reminding MS to not use the same tactic that they used to shove IE to users.

on May 2, 2006 12:04 AM
# TechnoHmmmm said:

I can name at least 20 products (like Nero) who install Yahoo toolbar even without prompting me... worst of all I have found my bookmarks public on the web and I do not remember when I allow that!!! Not to mention that I would never allow that.

Since that time I do not use Y! messenger but Miranda and uninstall all apps that start with Y. And yes, I use Yahoo mails only when subscribing to public things like download to avoid spamming of my real inbox.

on May 2, 2006 01:42 AM
# Detlev Johnson said:

My problem with Microsoft, is regardless what I choose as default, other Microsoft software opens IE when it needs it - and sometimes when it doesn't! I am sure you have experienced that.

I neglect IE when I am using other browsers, (I like Opera and FF), so I worry that my copy of IE is crash-worthy and insecure at these times. The latest WinUpdates allays this fear a bit for me now, but it used to cause me a lot of anxiety that Micrososft did this to me.

They take my choice away.

I think Google has a right to complain, (although I see the double standard). I do prefer the way Y! and Ask just quietly focuses on improving things.


on May 2, 2006 04:09 AM
# Don Dodge said:

Jeremy ,excellent points. Your point on Google paying Dell to be the default on all Dell PCs is a good one. They could do the same with a couple other PC manufacturers and completely cover the market.

Google is already the default search service on Safari, Firefox, Opera, and others. Google "controls" Firefox since most of the core developers and leaders are Google employees. Safari is nearly impossible to change search services.

Thanks for the link to my blog, Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing. This is more than just whinning. Lawyers submitting complaints to the US Justice Department and the European Commission is VERY serious. More than just whining.

on May 2, 2006 04:10 AM
# Martin Gallagher said:

Jeremy has hit the nail on the head with his comments about Google paying Dell, and the fact that a selection choice doesn’t appear on the installation of either Firefox or Opera (which is what Google is proposing should happen on the installation of IE7).

Google can't have it both ways.

on May 2, 2006 04:16 AM
# Loren Baker said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Google the default search engine for Mozilla Firefox? Which is distributed by Google.

Looks like someone is standing in a glass house with a handfull of rocks.

on May 2, 2006 04:47 AM
# Thomas Schulz said:

If I were Microsoft I would do the
exact same... And if I were Google... :-)

There is really little double standard
in it though. It is clear Google will
try prevent being "killed" like Netscape
was killed (Browser with OS instead of Search
with Browser). It is the same problem AFAICS.

However, it is also clear that normal
everyday business logic (and fairness...
at least if Microsoft wasn't a monopoly)
compells Microsoft to at least default
to their own search engine :-)

Luckily I am not a judge :-)

on May 2, 2006 04:48 AM
# Loren Baker said:

Well, distributed by Google in the US ;)

on May 2, 2006 04:48 AM
# Stephen Pierzchala said:

I agree with wholeheartedly.


Microsoft has every right to do this.

The only thing that will prevent IE7 adoption: the fact that it crashes every time I try to open a new tab.


on May 2, 2006 04:59 AM
# Michael Conlen said:

Monopolies (or near monopolies) have always had to play under different rules. This was the case with Windows and the rules by which Microsoft was allowed to get it on machines by default. It's going to be the case with Internet Explorer.

I don't think that Microsoft is doing anything wrong per say, but Google is just saying "woah there, your software is installed on virtually every desktop computer and virtually all the users of those desktops use your browser and you're going to leverage that advantage to make your search engine the default one used by everyone."

The difference between what Google does and what Microsoft is doing is that Google isn't Dell and Google isn't the Firefox Foundation. Microsoft is, on the other hand, Microsoft, and oddly enough they are also Microsoft (Operating system, browser, search engine).

Leveraging a monopoly to take over another market is illegal. When Google's in that enviable position it will be their turn to play by different rules. The rhetoric may be illogical but I don't believe the action is.

on May 2, 2006 05:29 AM
# Brian Duffy said:

You totally miss the point. Dell is a hardware maker, Firefox a browser maker -- nobody is forced to buy a Dell computer or use firefox.

Even companies that buy Dell hardware generally customize an image of it... overwriting whatever Dell ships with the corporate or OS standard (ie. MSN).

Microsoft is a monopoly with over 95% of the market and the ability to tweak licensing agreements to make the Dell/Google deal impossible.

on May 2, 2006 05:29 AM
# Jonathan Jesse said:

Don't forget Safari's default search engine is Google, along with Konqueror's default search engine is Google. In fact open up Konqueroro and type google:/ and then your term. There isn't even a msn:/ ioslave that I am aware of. Quit crying.

on May 2, 2006 05:49 AM
# Dominic Jones said:

Has the tide of sentiment turned so much against Google that people like yourself are quick to want to gloss over Microsoft's behavior.

Are you saying Microsoft is right? It is doing nothing wrong?

Or are you just taking it for granted that Microsoft is bad and so it's not sexy to write about it?

That to me is the most interesting aspect of this story; how it got turned into a Google bashing event. Spontaneously, it seems.

What has got people like you so angry at Google that it is the worser of the two evils?

on May 2, 2006 06:06 AM
# Kirby Witmer said:

Google has a double standard?? I agree.

on May 2, 2006 06:30 AM
# said:

My question is what's the difference from IE6 defaulting to MSN for years already? They put a little box in the corner and suddenly the world will come crashing down from monopoly?

on May 2, 2006 06:37 AM
# Grace Smith said:

Paying $1 billion to Dell Computer? This is a lot of money :-o

on May 2, 2006 06:43 AM
# Rob said:

Google is undeniably hypocritical here given that the Google IE Toolbar *HIJACKS* IE autosearch (in the clever guise of the Browse-By-Name "feature" which would more accurately called the "Autosearch Hijacking" feature). IE has an open mechanism for changing the autosearch provider, and Google *shuts down* this mechanism: the user can NOT change their autosearch provider once GTB is installed. Google is far more egregious in this area than MS has ever been.

on May 2, 2006 07:02 AM
# Ben said:

Don't you work for Yahoo? It doesn't say so anywhere on your blog I can find easily or in your but I think I remember this. Do you purposely not associate yourself when you attack rivals of your company since disclosing openly your conflict of interest may dilute your message? Just wondering.

on May 2, 2006 07:15 AM
# Abu Hurayrah said:

Ben: Right here, in the text right below the comment box:

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current or past employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist.

The text "My current" links to the Yahoo! webpage.

on May 2, 2006 08:01 AM
# alek said:

Ditto what Abu said - note also that if you hit the Jeremey's main page at http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ it says Yahoo. So it's pretty clear who he works for ... and pretty clear that his opinions are his ... and pretty clear that they are darn refreshing IMHO.

BTW, lets not forget that Google Adsense has been running a program for a while that pays publishers when they click on a link and install Firefox with the Google Toolbar.

I don't fault Google for any of this - they are trying to dominate the market ... and I'm an avid user of their technology/services and surf with Firefox.

But talk about calling the kettle black!

on May 2, 2006 09:40 AM
# iloveGoogle said:

I agree with your comment. You are spot on with your observations. Please keep up the excellent writing.

on May 2, 2006 10:15 AM
# Cahit said:

Google is definitely learning how to work Washington; as soon as a company gets more disposable income than it can reasonably invest to grow their business, they start hiring lobbyists and start PACs to hand that money to lawmakers. Google has been aggressively advertising Firefox on its home page and giving software away as part of GooglePack to attract users and keep them hanging around so they use at least one Google service. Microsoft has a right to do the same using their own assets...

on May 2, 2006 10:24 AM
# iguy said:

What happens in Firefox IS NOT THE SAME as what happens in IE7b2. In IE you have to add Google and then choose Google. Choosing Google is not enough, the next time you start IE7, it will revert back to MS search. The news has not conveyed this properly and everyone seems to be jumping on the google-bashing wagon these days without giving it much thought.

If Firefox, the search engine you choose is the search engine that will come up. In IE7 this is not the case, it will always revert to MS search unless you change the default settings. This is different than just changing the desired search engine and is not expected behavior.

on May 2, 2006 10:58 AM
# TechMBA said:

You cannot compare what GOOG is doing with what MS is doing in this context! it is purely a case of anti-trust law- MS has a monopoly, so it is (probably) unfair to bundle/integrate its own products in other markets along with the OS. If MS had not been an OS monopoly, they would be free to do as they please. Heck- bundling is one of the most common themes you see in software- whether it be Apple or GOOG or Dell.

The question is unfair trade practices of MS- not what GOOG is doing or what is acceptable to users.

on May 2, 2006 11:02 AM
# Joshua Allen said:

I hope you see Dean's rebuttal on IEBlog. The criticism is simply not factual. IE7 keeps Google as the default if the user (or OEM) has previously set Google as default in IE6. This protects Google's past investment in OEM deals and toolbar promotion, rather nice for them. For users who have set their default to Yahoo, how would it not be rude to pop in their face and say "Would you like to switch to Google" when they install IE? That doesn't sound like a level playing field to me.

on May 2, 2006 11:11 AM
# Cooper said:

>>However, if that's what Google or Marissa really believe, why did they enter into an agreement that'd result in paying $1 billion to Dell Computer in exchange for a Googlized web browser on the computers they ship?

Right! Because many users don't choose. And Google decided to take advantage of that fact.

Now that Microsoft is doing the same, it's suddenly a big deal.


Respectfully, it is a double standard for a reason. Microsoft is a thrice convicted monopolist, and, therefore carries the burden of proof that their behavior is not anticompetitive. Even Google's relationship with Dell doesn't affect 85% of all computers sold. Moreover, they haven't been convicted repeatedly of anticompetitive behavior.

on May 2, 2006 11:16 AM
# Mike said:

Google is absolutely hypocritical, but they have to be. They are competing with Microsoft. Thus they are obligated to press every (legal) advantage they have.

Microsoft has a lot of bad karma. Part of that bad karma materialized in the anti-trust conviction. That bad karma makes them vulnerable to attacks that they should not be vulnerable to. Nobody is going to complain if Yahoo is the default search engine on Konqueror, etc. But Microsoft's sordid past makes them vulnerable to such things and Google is obligated to take advantage (or at least try) of such weaknesses in their opponent.

on May 2, 2006 11:18 AM
# said:

You explain in the second or third sentence why Google isn't being hypocritical in complaining. They had to pay $1,000,000,000 to get firefox with google as the default search on new Dell computers where as Microsoft is using the unfair advantage it gains from its operating system monopoly to achieve the same thing for FREE. Lock em up and throw away the key. Split the company up they will never stop. This is exactly how they killed netscape when it was a superior browser.

on May 2, 2006 11:48 AM
# Nate said:

Sigh. This is Google's sly way of using the press to convey the following to users: "Don't forget to make your favorite search engine the default when you download Internet Explorer."

on May 2, 2006 12:45 PM
# Dean said:

It's not a double standard.

If I'm like 85% of the market and I have Windows installed on my PC, I have NO choice but to install IE. And NO choice but to have MSN Search as my default search service in the browser. And if I'm the average user, I'll most likely never change it. Why is this? Why should my default search service be MSN Search just because I use Windows? Why is my OS provider allowed to control my gateway to the internet?

It's obvious to me that Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly in the OS. If IE was from an independent software vendor, this would not be a problem.

And Google doesn't own Firefox or any other browser. And the only reason those browser makers chose Google as their default search engine is because Google is the best search engine.

And another thing, if Google wants to pay Dell a billion dollars to Googlize the web browser on the machines they sell, then fine. Why should Microsoft get that for nothing just because they sell the OS?

This is exactly the sort of anti-trust behavior Microsoft should be slapped for. And ALL the search engines should be up-in-arms over this. Yahoo included.

on May 2, 2006 12:55 PM
# Luis Bruno said:

Microsoft, to make MSN Search IE7's default, has no need to pay for that.

I guess that's what the crying is about.

on May 2, 2006 01:05 PM
# ct said:

"And another thing, if Google wants to pay Dell a billion dollars to Googlize the web browser on the machines they sell, then fine. Why should Microsoft get that for nothing just because they sell the OS?"

So Microsoft's billions upon billions upon billions spent in promoting its OS and getting the marketshare it has doesnt count towards the cost of it putting its own product in its OS? Remind me again how that was "free"....

on May 2, 2006 01:38 PM
# Molly C said:

iguy, you said, "If Firefox, the search engine you choose is the search engine that will come up. In IE7 this is not the case, it will always revert to MS search unless you change the default settings. This is different than just changing the desired search engine and is not expected behavior."

First, Firefox isn't the browsing "standard" (no browser is), so what Firefox does is irrelevant. IE7's behavior is fine, it allows you to temporarily set the search to whatever you want, while retaining the default search setting for when you start a new browsing session, or you can change the default setting itself. This allows one to switch the search provider to say, IMDB, to do a series of movie searches, and still revert to the more general web search (assuming that's what you have as the default) when you start a new browsing session. Most wouldn't want IMDB to be the search engine that would be used when starting a new browsing session.

Second, MSN is not the always the "default". The "default" is whatever it was in IE6's settings. When upgrading to IE7 retains the search engine, home page, favorites, etc that IE6 had, which is what you would expect. If one had previously set Google or Yahoo (or others) as the default in IE6, either explicitly or implicitlty (by installing the Google toolbar or desktop, or Yahoo's toolbar), then IE7 will use that same engine as its default search provider.

Lastly, since IE4, IE has had the search "pane" that defaulted to MSN. Why is it such a big deal now that the search pane is being replaced with a search text box that every other of today's browsers have?

on May 2, 2006 02:00 PM
# Molly C said:

Let's also not forget that Google and Apple have colluded to essentially block competing search providers from the Mac market. OSX's default browser Safari essentially hardwires support for Google, not allowing any other search provider to be used at all, let alone as the default(there's some esoteric text files somewhere to change this, 99.9999% of Mac users have no idea how to do it).

on May 2, 2006 02:05 PM
# Con Zymaris said:

Jeremy, you forget that Microsoft wields a 90%+ monopoly in both browser and desktop markets. This gives it an unholy degree of power and influence over computer users.

Google would only be playing by double-standards if it's own web-browser and desktop OS had at least 30% of the market.

on May 2, 2006 02:15 PM
# Vijay said:

Well said jeremy. You have this funny way of presenting things which are really serious.

on May 2, 2006 03:10 PM
# Ryan Adami said:

Short sweet and to the point. Very nice! As for the people posting in the comments here, I wondered when the whole anti-trust issue would be brought up. I posted on the topic here as well: http://www.nonbot.com/seo-blog/google-post/googles-double-standard/12/

on May 2, 2006 03:46 PM
# RIchard said:

"If Google actually cared about user choice, they'd have asked the Mozilla Foundation to configure Firefox to prompt you to choose your favorite search engine the first time you ran it. You know, a level playing field."

If Yahoo! actually cared about user choice, they'd have asked the Flockstars to configure Flock to prompt you to choose your favorite search engine the first time you ran it. You know, a level playing field.

on May 2, 2006 03:55 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

I don't believe Marissa made any claims about what Yahoo cares about...

on May 2, 2006 03:58 PM
# Richard said:


on May 2, 2006 04:46 PM
# Kevin Burton said:

This just in! Big companies make decisions to maximize shareholder value even if they sometimes look like hypocrites.

News at 11 !

on May 2, 2006 05:01 PM
# Dave McClure said:

now that's why i read tailrank... the Burtonator, once again demonstrating why he's MOTO (Master of the Obvious ;)

yeah, google is looking more & more microsoftish every day. and that's both a compliment and a criticism at the same time.

but at least there's *two* of them this time. so much better for us with 2 or 3 monopolists competing for my dollars and attention!

on May 2, 2006 05:26 PM
# Elmo said:

Ah Google, the smell, the stank. The hubris of savant billionaires. Cry me a river ......

on May 2, 2006 05:31 PM
# China Law Blog said:

I agree. I have no problem with letting Microsoft and Google fight it out as they are both big boys, but I too resent it when they implore us for sympathy.

on May 2, 2006 05:36 PM
# michel said:

you forgot microsoft own mostly all the market of desktop computers

it's the main difference
US laws are differents when en enterprise can affect the whole market.

safari's google use is not enought to destroy microsoft, so it's become a moo point.

when firefox wil be so used it can prevent microsoft operations, yes, justice will force mozilla firefox to promote several search engine

it's simply that

because microsoft can put ie 7 in mostly all people's computer , google MAY have a point in the U.S legal system.

the fact _is_, an enterprise cannot do whatever they want, even in america.
and , if a judge consider an enterprise is in an illegal monopoly, he even can force the enterprise to change contracts or products.
they did that to IBM and AT&T.

the size of the market IS one of the element a judge and experts can estimate before a judgement.

google may have a point, you have to let the justice do its work. maybe they will quickly reject google,; maybe they will consider the whole windows market and how microsoft can eject google.

on May 2, 2006 06:47 PM
# sr said:

Beware of anyone preaching "do no evil", or trying to be holier than thou

on May 2, 2006 06:54 PM
# said:

Yawn. If the search engines weren't viewed as a commodity, then common end users (Jane Does) would pick there own 'free' product to use. Apparently my grandmother, like many users, will use any search engine....I assume because they can't really tell the difference.

I remember a day at BGSU in college when Yahoo.com was the best game in town... seems like the the majority of yahoo resources are allocated to non-search specific projects these days?

Say....I was reading in the NYTimes that Yahoo made the exact same complaint well in advance of Google:

Yahoo raised similar objections in a meeting with Microsoft last year, according to a Yahoo employee who was briefed on the conversation. Yahoo declined to comment last week beyond a statement: "We would be concerned about any company's attempts to limit user choice or change user preferences without their knowledge, and believe others would share that concern."

on May 2, 2006 07:47 PM
# Dossy Shiobara said:

The irony is, to Marisa/Google's point -- the users *did* choose. By choosing to use IE7, they're choosing to accept MSN Search as the default. Suggesting that the user be *prompted* to select what search service to use is as preposterous as suggesting that upon installing the Google Toolbar, it should prompt the user to select what search service to use (instead of using Google).

Perhaps Google should consider changing their mantra from "don't be evil" to "don't be stupid."

on May 2, 2006 08:01 PM
# Geez said:

None of you seem to get it; MSN makes money for MS. They are leveraging their monopoly in an unfair way.

on May 2, 2006 08:24 PM
# anand said:

Okay google good job. Now can someone from yahoo/msn do a search in google.com for the word "mail". The results

1) Gmail (with emphasis on 2gb)
2) mail.com
3) Theglobeandmail ?????????????
4) Yahoo email (emphasis on 1gb)
5) hotmail (emphasis on 2MB)

Now does google want me to believe that globeandmail gets more hits than yahoo and hotmail?? I seriously doubt that gmail might even be below hotmail and yahoo. Now gmail is using its search monopoly to advance its own email system. Google is INDEED evil and is turning out to be cheap. Crying and complaining like a child. Microsoft alteast tries to fight by getting either superior software or marketing tactics. WIll some challenge google in the court of justice for anti-trust??

on May 2, 2006 09:20 PM
# Nitefall said:

Hmm... I think what you are saying here makes a lot of sense. Google really ought to support the choice that they keep holding up as the holy grail

on May 2, 2006 09:38 PM
# James Hodge said:

It seems your missing the point here completly,

Microsoft are not paying for MSN to be the default search in IE7 microsoft have simply made it the default search in IE7

if msn have paid money to the ie group they are the same company and such a deal would simply be an exchange of money on balance sheets.


the facy that google have paid to be the default search is yes a little like the pot calling the kettle back, but remember guys firefox/mozilla has what under 20% of the market, leaving 80% left to msn, --

so it would be looking at it like this.

ive paid 1$ million for 20% msn has paid 0, for 80% little unfair don't you think.

on May 3, 2006 04:02 AM
# Arun Poondi said:

Hey, talking about the A9 and IE7 story, I have a post at my blog - "OpenSearch: A potential to break the Empire - GOOG" and wanted to know what you thought about it.... You think there is any juice to it at all or just another enthusiastic suggestion.
Personally though, I think it would be a great idea....

on May 3, 2006 04:25 AM
# Con Zymaris said:

Ahh, Jeremy. I was slow off the mark. I just realised you work for Yahoo!, a Google competitor. Say no more ;-)

on May 3, 2006 04:31 AM
# Adrian Lee said:

I like Google, and I use Opera and Firefox as my main browsers, both of which have Google as default (and at least till version 9's released, Opera's search options aren't that easy to change, and get overwritten by default when you upgrade....) but I completely agree about these double standards, and I've never liked Marissa Mayer. She's a typical bullshitting marketer to me. Matt's a much better public voice for the company, at least when he bullshits, it's not so obvious and ridiculous.

on May 3, 2006 05:56 AM
# Pilky said:

In all fairness, Google has a very, very good point. This is why:

1. Neither Apple or Mozilla have their own search engine therefore they wouldn't have a vested interest. They could easily link to Yahoo or MSN but they choose Google instead. Microsoft does have it's own search engine and does want to promote it so it does have a vested interest

2. Yes you can change the search engine but how many people would do that? Most people don't even know that IE is a browser and they think of IE as the internet. They aren't going to bother switching to another search engine. And those that will are probably going to switch to a better browser anyway.

3. Microsoft has to please the anti trust bodies in the US and the EU. They've already won the browser wars by integrating IE with Windows therefore forcing IE down everybody's throats and they could be seen as trying to win the search engine wars by forcing MSN down everybody's throats via IE.

on May 3, 2006 08:54 AM
# Hooman Radfar said:

I agree - 100%. It is clearly a double standard that is obvious to anyone that has followed Google's partnership strategy to date. Great post, Jeremy.

on May 3, 2006 11:24 AM
# Alex said:

I agree with you. Also its amazing how much support Microsoft is getting from the community.

on May 3, 2006 06:05 PM
# E. David Zotter said:

Hmmmm... Maybe you'll benefit from Microsoft forcing homepages and searches... if they end up being yahoo instead of msn/live?

The biggest news of the year and no blog post?

Will you be working at MSFT soon?

Looking forward to mysql to Msft sql 2005 migrations? :-)

on May 3, 2006 06:27 PM
# said:

>> Did they think we weren't paying attention?

Yup. Most still aren't paying attention. The degree to which MS can configure IE to their advantage may even determine the whole ballgame.

on May 3, 2006 10:34 PM
# Sean O'Donnell said:

Let me get this straight. Using their ill gotten browser monopoly (they have been found guilty under anti trust law for bundling i.e.), Microsoft should now be allowed to leverage it to attempt to get a monopoly on search? Its madness, and its a repeat of the i.e. bundling scenario all over again. If they get away with this its a mockery of anti-trust law. You have completely missed the point on this one.

on May 4, 2006 07:40 AM
# Phillip Bogle said:

In the case of a default search engine, it's a least possible for end users to detect and override the default.

A subtler but more serious double standard concerns the terms of service for Google Adwords, which ensure that consumers never even get to see competing contextual advertising services:

"We do not permit Google ads or search boxes accessing Google search services to be published on web pages that also contain what could be considered competing ads or services."

Google and other companies rightly objected when Microsoft prevented OEMs from shipping both Windows and competing operating systems, but these terms are the exact analog for advertising services.

I blogged on this in a post called Google brownie Mix.

on May 9, 2006 09:40 AM
# James said:

When Microsoft shut down Netscape, it was bad for the Internet as a whole. Now they're trying to pull the same thing with search. Maybe Google and other search engines are hypocritical to complain about Microsoft's illegal, monopolistic, and anti-competitive behavior. To be honest, the issue of Google's supposed hypocrisy doesn't interest me. What's important is the good of the industry. Winners and losers in the search market should be determined by the quality of service. Not by a company's ability to monopolize the market for operating systems and web browsers.

on May 10, 2006 09:04 PM
# Scott Beckstead said:

I think that the whole point here was to make us talk about it. google knows they have no real basis for the complaint. But given Mr. Balmer's intent I think they need to take advantage of every kodak and sound bite moment they can. I wouldn't like being buried by Microshaft any better than they would. slightly off topic - I do wish Yahoo would stop installing it's search bar with out my permision though. At least with google I have to go and get it. Last time it happened it also hijacked my default search and changed my default home page.

on May 17, 2006 02:14 PM
# anonymous said:

I see the double standard, however we have to consider that google and microsoft spend more time and money chasing Average Joe user as their customer. Advanced users (or, gasp, professionals) are hardly their target group anymore. This is why there is no choice in search engine, browser quality (IE has *numerous* hooks allowing advertisers and spammers to use it as a platform plus it has leaky code which makes is totally insecure), this is why it became "acceptable" to record and publish and index everything you do in the browser. Your PC is not really yours the entire time, considering who is wasting your CPU time on an average day.

on May 29, 2007 11:03 AM
# GTA said:

Type your comment here.

After you submit the comment, check your email. There will be
a link you need to click to make your comment visible.

Your email address WILL NOT appear on the site, so don't worry
about being anonymous, even if you think you are.

on July 8, 2008 03:02 AM
# GTA said:


on July 8, 2008 09:28 AM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.