Internet search leader Google is trying to convince federal and state authorities that Microsoft’s Vista operating system is stifling competition as the high-tech heavyweights wrestle for the allegiance of personal computer users. In a 49-page document filed April 18 with the U.S. Justice Department and state attorneys general, Google alleged that the latest version of Microsoft’s Windows operating system impairs the performance of ‘desktop search’ programs that find data stored on a computer’s hard drive. Besides bogging down competing programs, Google alleged Microsoft had made it too complicated to turn off the desktop search feature built into Vista.
Why won’t Casio sue MS for integrating clock into Windows?
It’s installed by default and it is hard or even impossible to uninstall or disable. I guess that’s enough.
Edited 2007-06-12 20:08
Did you even read the article?
I took _very_ quick look, the thing is that each time I see other companies complaining about MS products I see people who are talking about poor users who are forced by MS to use IE / WMP and stuff like that, I believe that MS has right to make Windows or anything else the way they like, You can love or hate Windows but no one forces You to buy or use it. If MS can’t make Windows the way they like than where is the freedom? Each time I see slogan “MS is bad because it forces users to [random stuff]” and scratch my head and think that people got the wrong end of the problem, the problem is not in MS doing things the way they like because MS is a company and each and every company (including google) will try to squeeze every $ out of You, when there are few companies trying to sell You the same thing they must try real hard so You will but it, that is quite simple, but people are complaining to MS that Windows does this or that, don’t like it? Don’t buy it. And if You need windows because Your software can’t run on anything else than Windows than complain to the one who made that software so that they port it to other OS. As long as MS is the only one to complain to we all prove that Windows is the only OS out there that should be used.
I’m talking about perfect world, I know, I’m just curious how far from it are we now.
Edited 2007-06-12 21:05
Man, you should learn to use proper punctuation…
Anyway, the thing is that MS is in a near-monopoly position, and that means that they *can’t* do anything they please.
With the amount of literature available on the subject, this notion should be self-evident by now…
So if You are small company You can do software they way You want, but if You will succeed and most of users will run it the rules changes? Why? Because You are a bad guy now? Who judges that?
The rules *do* change when you find yourself in a near-monopoly siutation. Read up on the Serman Antitrust Act for more details.
In any case, you don’t need 90% of the market to “succeed.” You just need to be profitable. That’s what defines success in a market economy, *not* achieving monopoly. Monopolies are actually bad for free markets, because they skew the “level playing field” which is at the base of a market economy.
So I should make my software not too good, because if too many people will use it, someone will start to tell me how I should write it?
No, you should just accept that if you control upwards of 90% of a market, there might be restrictions to what you can do.
In the meantime, you should look up the meaning of “Strawman Argument”, because your latest post is an excellent example of this (in addition to being off-topic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Yes, because intentionally or otherwise the big monopolist stifles the market and erects barriers to entry which is ultimately a bad thing for everyone.
Think rabbits. Cute, cuddly and harmless, right ? Except when they have a monopoly position in their niche and become a major pest and a hazard completely destroying a viabable ecology : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia
The fact that each and every company out there can complain to government and sometimes win, because I added feature X to my software and now I need to remove or change it, just doesn’t fit well with my understanding of freedom, with freedom You can write any software the way You like it.
But You are right that there should be _some_ amount of control on the market so no company can take over the world
The problem is that many thing I see with MS is little crazy, like WMP in EU, there is Windows XP N (if I’m right about the name) without WMP, did anyone here bought it? I don’t use it but I don’t think that including it makes the world darker place.
Yes.
I’d suggest you do some reading on anti-monopoly rules.
– Gilboa
Edited 2007-06-14 14:23
[QUOTE]
You can love or hate Windows but no one forces You to buy or use it
[/QUOTE]
I can agree with the first part of this sentence, but the second is not true.
Edited 2007-06-12 21:14
If You feel that You are forced complain to the one who forces You, don’t complain to MS that they limit possibility to change small part of Windows, complain to others why they force You to use Windows at all.
Format your comp and put something else on it, and if you build your own, or order a computer with no OS on it, then you don’t have to buy it either.
Thank you, done yet. Since 1995.
Anyway if I would like to buy a laptop I’m almost forced to buy a ms os.
Edited 2007-06-12 23:11
or OS X
With the difference that OS X could be a choice, while vista/xp isn’t.
I agree on this: “As long as MS is the only one to complain to we all prove that Windows is the only OS out there that should be used.”
My take is:
1) Antitrust legislation is broken. It shouldn’t be needed. Monopolies don’t rise because of lack of antitrust legislation. They rise because of monopoly-friendly legislation, which takes us to..
2) IP law is equally broken. Especially (but not exclusively) copyright law and software patents. They are a major instrument of vendor lock-in and subsequent monopoly.
Now, they say “two wrongs don’t make a right” but I prefer a doubly-broken, evenly crappy legal system rather than a singly-broken, unbalanced legal system which is a monopolist’s dream. Frankly, I don’t care much whether Google or Microsoft is in the right under this dumb legislation.
BTW, I’m glad we have no software patent laws in Europe for the moment.
Do you use your watch to access, view or search data on your computer’s hard drive? In fact, do you connect your watch to your PC *at all*? Didn’t think so.
Rick-click on taskbar, select Properties, Uncheck “Show the Clock” click OK. What’s so hard about that?
I love the top comment and I’m taking Microsoft’s side on this one. Apple has spotlight and Microsoft has every right to release a product that competes in features. It’s alright if one operating system releases a search tool, but soon as the giant does it, it becomes illegal? It seems like Apple will be at an operating system advantage because they’ll be allowed to include features that Microsoft would be sued for.
People always question why Microsoft releases take so long and there really aren’t a ton of features. You want to know why? Each new feature prompts company X to sue Microsoft for anticompetitive practices. I think Microsoft is in a hard position because of this, either release a similar, but prettier version of an existing operating system or get sued for making improvements.
Also does Microsoft’s search tool upload the contents of your hard drive to Live “in order to optimize your search experience?” I hope not
.
I have to disagree. While the clock argument is provocative and humorous, it’s not a valid comparison. Google search is one of many high-powered utilities that competes with the integrated functionality provided by MS in Vista (and as a download for XP). By deliberately making it difficult for competing products to leverage the same functionality and enjoy the same degree of integration with the OS that MS itself has, it is once again employing unethical tactics to provide and sustain an unfair advantage.
Google is one of the few who can stand up to MS. It amazes me that they continue to employ the same tactics despite a history and increasingly bad reputation for poor products and loss of innovation.
Hey, maybe its desperation. I wish Google the best in its argument.
Google search is one of many high-powered utilities that competes with the integrated functionality provided by MS in Vista (and as a download for XP).
So if in your argument Google is making operating system components, why don’t they just make their own operating system? I’m sure a lot of people would go for Google BSD.
Exactly. Next they’ll make an explorer shell replacement and cry because Windows Vista ships with explorer.exe
Let’s not mention how hard Google Desktop Search sucks.. discounting the security issues it’s just too damn CPU intensive.
“Deliberately”??
GDS still runs just fine on Vista, according to reports. (If you wish to deny this, then we can both install and test it before continuing an argument).
They added some additional load to the machine… almost anything could have broken GDS for the same reason. They added a couple text boxes to interface into the search system. As a side effect, this makes GDS less desirable. I wouldn’t call this deliberate. What’s your definition of deliberate?
Desktop search is a feature best provided by the operating system itself – and for Google to complain about that is pretty lame. I would be up in arms if Google tried to hack into Spotlight on my Mac!
Their (Googles) claim would be that the line between desktop and online searching is beginning to become more blurred; that with the Windows Vista search, it is heavily integrated with Windows Live.
What this will mean is when you search for something on your desktop using Microsoft’s own search tool, you might find that there will be online results coming back from Microsofts own search engine – which will effectively deminish Google’s presence. Why go off to use Google when the tools are already on the operating system and integrated.
I’m not trying to justify Google’s stance, just explaining why they’ve gone about the action they have. I can understand their concern about the integration between the search engine and the operating system, but at the same time, I find it rather silly they’re going to blame Microsoft for trying to make their customers life easier.
As for searching, they’re (Google) aren’t going to lose their market position anytime soon, Live is absolutely terrible in terms of seach results. Google think that they’ll lose marketshare by virtue of integration. Netscape lost its marketshare not because of integration but because of the lack of care of their application. Their application went from bad to worse; rather than stepping up to the challenge and improve their product, they allowed it to go unmaintained – anyone remember the coined name ‘Nutscrape’.
Too bad many youngsters here forget just how bad Netscape was – it was terrible on every platform it ran on. Ever wonder why there was celebration when IE made its way onto MacOS X? that Netscape finally opensourced meant that issues could finally be resolved.
Google needs to realise, keep the quality high and you’ll maintain your marketshare.
One comment I would like to make is about Windows Live search in Vista if you change your default search provider (Which IE asks you when you start it up for the first time) or at any other time in IE the only place in Vista that ties anything to internet serach is the “Search the Internet” from the start menu which works with all search providers including Google. Microsoft went to major extents to make sure the Justice Department wouldn’t be crashing Vista’s Launch.
True. Which brings to question (which is what I wondered as well), where is their case? it isn’t as though Microsoft is doing anything to block Google from the desktop.
For me, I don’t understand *why* google needs to replace the native search system with their own – given the security issues with their own desktop products, I’d suggest Google to focus on their own backyard before starting to attack Microsoft.
If you read the article, their complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they implemented a search feature into the OS, its that there is no way to disable or replace it, and a competing product is still going to have the overhead of the Windows Vista search indexing everything in addition to the search engine you’re actually using, making it seem like you’re not getting any benefit out of using any 3rd party search system for the OS.
Google is saying this would be more along the lines of requiring a user to leave Internet Explorer open at all times in order to open and use any other web browser, then competing browsers are going to have a hard time. It seems like a pretty reasonable case to me. Unfortunately, there not even being given a chance to fight their case, which isn’t how the legal system is supposed to work. I find this to be disappointing. Hopefully the next administration will be more willing to let something happen to Microsoft to increase competition in the market, instead of dropping everything like the Bush administration did.
Yes, you can disable; it is a service on Windows, there is nothing stopping Google from doing that, and creating their own service to run in the background and integrated into the operating system.
Please, there is already competition; if you want to blame someone for the lack of competition in the operating system market; blame the Adobes, Corel’s, Symantecs and Quickens of the world who refuse to support alternative operating systems. Blame hardware vendors who refuse to provide quality drivers and/or specifications for their hardware.
Microsoft has nothing to do with the problems – sure, they make Microsoft, which is fairly important, but by inlarge, most end users can do without Office, what they can’t do without is hardware support and software from their favourite vendors.
I believe a useful search functionality should be included with the OS. If google wants to get theirs on people’s computers, then let them negotiate with some large OEM’s to do that. Crying to the government over this is pretty lame. (not that MS is not guilty of other crimes…)
So much for not being evil.
Edited 2007-06-12 20:46
…but it does seem that this little tidbit, if true, would be a valid cause for concern:
I don’t have anything against Windows offering a Desktop Search…however, if they are wilfully reducing the performance of similar programs, then that is a valid complaint on Google’s part.
And the chances of them actually doing this, knowing the consequences, are quite slim. It’s basically a conspiracy theory that involves developers, managers and executives.
Yeah, because they’ve never done it before…
Look, I’m not saying Google has a case or not, but to dismiss it off-hand sounds, well, a little biased, don’t you think?
First, I said the chances are slim. I didn’t say it’s not possible.
Second, when have they purposefully hampered performance of features used by competitions solely to hurt the competitior?
See the whole DR-DOS saga. I trust you are familiar with it? It’s not exactly the same thing, but it’s an example of Microsoft wilfully hampering competition through technical means.
Again, I’m not saying that Google has a case or not. Unlike you, though, I’m not automatically assuming that Microsoft is probably in the right. In my opinion, there is not enough data right now to say that Google’s chances of having a case are good, even or slim.
I’m guessing that Microsoft is “in the right” based on a few things:
1) Conspiracy factor
2) Them understanding the consequences based on history.
3) The internet factor making it harder to subdue such information
4) The shared-source initiative
5) Many more people would be in the know of this (related to point 1 really) making it harder to keep secret
Signs point to it being quite unlikely, not impossible.
Well, point number 1 really isn’t something that makes it more or less likely. Conspiracies do exist, even if they are not as common as some would believe. But you can’t say that something would be less likely to happen *because* it would be a conspiracy. That doesn’t make any logical sense.
Point #2 makes more sense…although one can’t exactly say that MS has shown a propension to learn from its mistakes in the past. On the contrary, it has often been able to get away with some pretty serious anti-competitive behavior with not much more than a slap on the wrist (especially in the U.S.).
Point #3 seems to be the same as #1 and #5, i.e. they can’t do this and expect to get away with it. Again, precedent shows that MS isn’t above taking this kind of risk, and being bad-mouthed on the Internet is probably the least of their concern (really, how much worse could it get…)
Point #4 is irrelevant if the code in question is not part of the shared source initiative. Since we don’t have enough details yet, it’s premature for you to bring this up.
I also disagree with point #5. It’s possible to have secret “task forces” within a company, and it’s possible to keep a secret with NDAs that are threatening enough. Apple managed to keep the lid on the iPhone for months, what makes you think a company such as MS, with much more resources, couldn’t include a bit of code to degrade performance of other desktop search apps?
I still think it’s premature to qualify Google’s case, and that opinionating on either side right now simply highlights one’s bias.
Regarding conspiracies: I don’t think it makes it more or less likely, but it makes me less likely to believe it when it sounds like a conspiracy theory — i.e. involves many people to cooperate in covering something up.
Regarding point #3: No they don’t care about getting badmouthed. But they do care about doing something that they know WILL get them in legal trouble. There is a difference in the amount of hesistance it will cause.
Regarding #4: Fair enough
Regarding #5: It’s easier to keep something a secret when it’s something good and leaking will cost you your job, reputation and possibly put you into much legal trouble. When it involves keeping illegal practices quiet, it’s harder. See the term “whistleblower”.
It’s a matter of risk assessment, I suppose, i.e. “what’s the chance we have of getting caught, how much would it cost if we did, and how does this compare to the value (monetary and strategic) this has for us.”
Right, although it’s not that clear-cut in this case. Would you risk your career on something which is not guaranteed to be declared illegal? Whistleblowers do exist, but they’re (unfortunately) few and far between. Most people would rather close their eyes, especially on something as relatively innocuous as this (compared to, say, what was happening with the tobacco industry).
I certainly hope that Microsoft has changed its ways enough to refrain from these types of dirty tricks, and I’ll wait until more information is available before making my mind about the case. However, my original point still stands: it’s much too early to dismiss the case off-hand.
(As a side note, this particular criticism was not aimed at you, but rather at the first few posters in this thread.)
The “DR-DOS saga” occurred 14 years ago (and involved code in a beta version of Win3.1, code that was removed for RTM). Can we please stick to this millenium?
Why? Did MS undergo a profound change in attitude due to the Y2K bug?
Look, I’m not saying that Google’s case is solid or not. I’m merely reflecting on the fact that it’s rather amusing to see the Microsoft Defense Brigade pre-emptively try to declare the case as invalid, to say the least. An unbiased observer would wait until more information was available to pass judgement.
Edited 2007-06-12 23:33
“Why? Did MS undergo a profound change in attitude due to the Y2K bug?”
You’re right. Let’s talk about an issue that occurred in non-production beta code, happened 14 years ago, happened before anyone declared Microsoft to have a monopoly on anything, and therefore occurred before they had to get everything they do OK’ed by their compliance committee. Yep, that’ll lead to fruitful discussion.
Even slashdot is by and large siding with Microsoft on this one (see the two slashdot threads on this issue). When even Microsoft-hating Google-worshipping slashdot says Google is full of it, then that’s got to tell you something.
“An unbiased observer would wait until more information was available to pass judgement.”
I don’t think you, I, or 90% of OSAlert posters qualify as “unbiased observers” on any given topic, and everyone “waiting for more information” before posting on a topic would kill his site off.
Edited 2007-06-13 00:49
Okay, so this happened a while ago, and Microsoft has not pulled a single dirty trick since then, right?
Microsoft has made it hard for people to trust it. It’s only got itself to blame for that.
Well, I don’t go to that site anymore, and I really don’t care what its readers say. As I said before, I’m waiting for more info to come out.
One can never be totall unbiased, but that doesn’t mean that some aren’t more biased than others.
Too bad the DR-DOS “saga” happened 15 years ago and it was added to a beta version of Windows 3.x that never shipped. It was removed without threats of legal action or antitrust actions. They got rid of it before Windows shipped.
But hey, FUD is so much more fun, isn’t it?
Read up on the whole DR-DOS saga. It wasn’t just an isolated incident – Microsoft actively tried to make it harder for this competitor.
There are similar stories floating around about ACPI, and how that has made it harder for other OSes to run correctly on laptops. But, hey, Microsoft can do no wrong, right?
/ Read up on the whole DR-DOS saga. /
Yes, I did. Do you have something that contradicts what I said about it?
/There are similar stories floating around about ACPI/
Oooohh, stories are floating around. Very good. Let me guess, it’s that email from the 90s from Bill Gates, right? Too bad ACPI is an open standard that Linux also implements with about the same degree of success as Windows in different hardware.
/But, hey, Microsoft can do no wrong, right?/
That Microsoft can do no wrong is irrelevant – FUD in the form of uninformed meme “let me tell you about X and Y” soundbites is the problem.
Well, you must have been only skimming, because the whole affair with the beta version of Windows 3.1 was only one of such “incidents”. Microsoft made many efforts to break compatibility. The Windows 3.1 beta story was the last of that particular anti-competitive maneuver.
However, Microsoft did the same thing against for PC-DOS years later (for Microsoft 95, in fact). Microsoft was sued about this by Caldera, and despite its numerous (and unsuccessful) attempts to get the case dismissed, it eventually settled out of court.
Right. But perhaps you don’t consider Bill Gates a reliable source…personally, I do. And in this case, it’s quite clear what the intention is: make ACPI harder to work under Linux (and other alternative OSes).
Fortunately, ACPI support on Linux is finally catching up, thanks to the dedicated work of the FOSS community.
FUD? It’s not FUD, it’s the truth. I gave the DR-DOS as an example that MS has in fact done these types of things before while responding to someone who claimed that MS wouldn’t do such a thing. Well, it did. I’m not saying that it is doing now, I’m simply stating what is *known* to be true, i.e. that they have not been above this type of dirty trick in the past.
MS can’t act in such ways and then expect people to automatically give them the benefit of the doubt. When you’re shifty and underhanded, that reputation follows you – and no amount of shilling by the Microsoft Defense Brigade is going to change this perception.
This is not a PR problem for MS to solve. Rather it must truly change its ways, and be patient about regaining the trust it once enjoyed.
Not exactly performance related, but there’s that rumor that Microsoft took steps to make ACPI flaky in other operating systems. http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17689/Bill-Gates-on-Making-ACPI-Not…
How? With the new background IO feature? What a bs complaint. Yeah, background indexing will be slower, but I can still open windows and not have that indexer bog me down…
Wait, I thought the whole reason Vista came out was to reduce the performance of everyone’s perfectly working computers so that everyone had to upgrade their hardware anyhow? I mean from everything I’ve read, every game developer should sue them as well for reducing the performance of all the games they make, since Solitaire seems to run well enough on Vista (in my personal opinion, the new version of Solitaire is the ONLY feature in it I like.)
The pot calls the kettle black.
Next Cars won’t be permitted to be sold with wheels anymore either. You’ll have to go purchase them from a third party vendor.
What a ridiculous claim. Vista’s search can be disabled either by turning off the required services, or by programatically turning it off using APIs.
If Google were truly serious, it’d just have this happen in an installer.
Cry more Google, cry more.
I would mod you up more if OSAlert would allow me, but for some reason, it won’t.
That’s the gist of the whole thing: Vista has just enhanced a feature that’s existed since Windows 2000, and you can turn it off, and I’d be amazed if it isn’t fairly easy to turn off programmatically: after all, it’s just another one of many services, controlled in the same way other services are in NT mutations.
Google’s whine is the exact equivalent of Symantec whining that another bit of anti-virus software is slowing theirs down: having more than one of the certain types of services will cause conflicts, and the way around that is to not have more than one installed, and that can be done (if nothing else) by asking and directing the user to uninstall/turn off something. I believe that it’s far wiser in this case to have it explicitly stated what must be done, and why, and the ramifications: what if users have become attached to what the Vista indexing does for them?
JT, you and the parent post missed the point of this filing.
If Vista, in a future update couples Windows Live (I wouldn’t know if it does this now, I haven’t got Vista) searches into the desktop search tool, how is this not abusing/leveraging Microsoft’s monopoly to gain market share in a different sector ?
Users aren’t going to want to disable their desktop search! Most wont go to the effort to change to Google (even if they can), so Google have a valid complaint.
Sorry, Beta, but… no. You can’t whine about what a company may do in the future that you think will be anti-competitive, but only what it is doing in the here and now as that’s what can be proven, whereas being afraid that they might add that feature and filing a lawsuit over that just doesn’t fly.
As to Google’s complaints (the 49 page diatribe isn’t linked by that article, so I can’t read it in detail from there) about Microsoft not making it easy to add in their search engine features to Microsoft’s search dialogs (which, if I’m not mistaken, are part of Vista Explorer, which is the same thing as BeOS’s Tracker with the closest equivalent being queries and their dialogs) as stated by that article.
Well, if Google really wants to provide something they think is improved over what Vista provides, consider this: Windows NT derivatives have always allowed you to create your own GUI shell (Explorer) to replace whatever Microsoft provides, and that’s fully documented, including how to create a new login method. I know, because I’ve done that at my last employer in Indianapolis, and I studied that.
If Google’s “All that, and a bag of microchips” and they’ve truly got something superior for a user experience, it’s not justice for them to expect to have someone else provide all the engineering time and money to provide them that platform to build from, when they can build their own. If they provided a “Google Explorer” they then have full control from top-bottom for results the user sees and experiences.
Besides, from a personal perspective, I’ve not seen any ISP software that’s added to a system ever be worth as much hassle as it causes, as it often isn’t as stable as the standard OS provides. The less software you have between you and your data, the better off you will be, all other things being equal.
Let me get this straight..they’re complaining on something that could hypothetically happen?
If/When that happens is the time to complain, until then it’s google spreading fud.
“Besides bogging down competing programs, Google alleged Microsoft had made it too complicated to turn off the desktop search feature built into Vista.”
MS must use sleazy tactics because they cannot compete on quality. MS is a contemptibly repugnant company, their products should be avoided.
MS must use sleazy tactics because they cannot compete on quality.
According to who? A competitor which isn’t exactly an objective source of information. I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence that MS’s code is sandbagging Google Desktop.
MS is a contemptibly repugnant company, their products should be avoided.
Just as your posts should be avoided.
“A competitor which isn’t exactly an objective source of information. I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence that MS’s code is sandbagging Google Desktop.”
Considering MS’s consistent anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior, it would not be surprising if the Google allegations were proven true. The MS software dictatorship should never be trusted.
“The MS software dictatorship should never be trusted.”
So instead we should of course trust Google, another gigantic corporation who’s primary goal is making money.
Oh, I forgot. They have “Don’t be evil” in their corporate philosophy. That makes all the difference, I guess.
Edited 2007-06-13 03:30
No, we should trust the legal system. If Google has a case, then they’ll settle this in or out of court. If they don’t, well, then that will be that.
That said, while it may be tempting from Microsoft apologists to try to turn Google into the next boogieman (and therefore shift attention away from their beloved monopolist), for that Google would need to display the same predatory, anti-competitive behavior that has characterized Microsoft’s history over the past 15 years. So far, that hasn’t happened, and therefore it’s hard to take these efforts seriously.
That said, while it may be tempting from Microsoft apologists to try to turn Google into the next boogieman (and therefore shift attention away from their beloved monopolist), for that Google would need to display the same predatory, anti-competitive behavior that has characterized Microsoft’s history over the past 15 years. So far, that hasn’t happened, and therefore it’s hard to take these efforts seriously.
There’s no need to “try” to turn Google into the next boogeyman: It’s doing that all by itself. Read the latest news. Google has one of the worst records on consumer privacy than any other tech company, and it’s in the process of trying to acquire DoubleClick, a company that has long been criticized for privacy violations (See http://news.com.com/FTC+investigates+DoubleClicks+data-collection+p…).
Now, we see Google lodging a weak complaint against Microsoft in its bid to force MS to offer GDS real estate on the desktop. Heck, even Google-supporting Slashdot readers agree that Google is full of cr*p on this issue. Face it: Google is overreaching because it wants to own everything related to search, and it doesn’t care whether its complaint is legitimate or not. It wants to force MS out of that space through litigation, since it obviously can’t do it on technical merit. They turned to the same publicity-pimping state AGs to beat the drum against “big bad Microsoft” again, but this time it ain’t gonna play. Technically, Google is just plain wrong.
One report from a Privacy Watchdog group does not a boogeyman make. Especially not when you consider that Google has said that they would try to address some of the issues raised.
That’s a far cry from the years upon years of dirty tricks Microsoft has accustomed us to – though I don’t expect Microsoft apologists to acknowledge this point.
Again, who cares what the people in the Slashdot echo chamber say? I’m waiting for more information instead of going for the knee-jerk reactions you and others have displayed here.
I’d rather have two separate monopolies than a single, bigger one, but maybe that’s just me. I know you, and other, would rather have Microsoft dominate *every* part of the computer industry…
One report from a Privacy Watchdog group does not a boogeyman make. Especially not when you consider that Google has said that they would try to address some of the issues raised.
Open your eyes. Google isn’t addressing any of these issues; in fact, they’re getting more pervasive day by day.
http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-6177819.html (DoubleClick)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040405/80/eqcm0.html (GMail)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18393468/ (public data)
That’s a far cry from the years upon years of dirty tricks Microsoft has accustomed us to – though I don’t expect Microsoft apologists to acknowledge this point.
You’re talking about ancient history. Microsoft has a government-sponsored compliance committee on its back that evaluates all of its deals, contracts, mergers/acquisitions, APIs, integrations, etc. Try coming up with something from this millenium.
Again, who cares what the people in the Slashdot echo chamber say?
Ordinarily, I’d say nobody. But since Slashdot is essentially a house organ for Google most of the time, it’s rather telling in what it reveals. Technical opinion is that Google is blowing smoke here; that it has a means of turning off the Windows Search service, and it has the ability to provide its own UI.
I’m waiting for more information instead of going for the knee-jerk reactions you and others have displayed here.
Oh, puh-lease. You’ve already exonerated Google, based on your current attitude.
I’d rather have two separate monopolies than a single, bigger one, but maybe that’s just me.
Not at the expense of free commerce. I don’t want Google Desktop. I don’t really care about Windows Search, either. So, consequently, I don’t want some government bureaucrat telling software companies how to design software.
I know you, and other, would rather have Microsoft dominate *every* part of the computer industry…
No, wrong. I would prefer that there were more balance between competitors. But this complaint by Google is going a little too far.
Open *your* eyes. Monday, Google announced the first of its measures to alleviate privacy concerns:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/security/google-to-dump-user-data-aft…
It’s not as if Microsoft didn’t collect user data too – or perhaps you don’t remember all the hoopla about Passport?
So, Google wants to buy DoubleClick. Big freakin’ deal. That doesn’t make them evil – well, except to the Microsoft shills who desperately want to find an angle to attack their biggest competitors.
In any case, a complaint has been filed. We’ll see what comes out of it. I won’t casually dismiss it until we know more about it (you know, unlike the way you’re dismissing Google’s complaint about Microsoft – double standards, again…)
Link doesn’t work.
What part of “public” don’t you understand? They’re helping state governments access data that is *already* public, so that these governments can better serve their citizens, and that makes them evil?
Uh, not to burst your bubble, but this article is about a complaint filed *by* Google, *against* Microsoft.
I want governments to regulate monopolies, because they are harmful to a free market and to consumer choice. Despite what you may think, these types of regulation are *essential* to maintain free commerce. Monopolies are aberrations of market economies, and must be kept in check, otherwise they threaten the entire system.
Yeah, right. Nevermind that you *always* side with Microsoft…
Here’s a clue: that “balance between competitors” doesn’t happen on its own. Unregulated markets are unstable, because as soon as one company gains too much market share, it gains an unfair advantage on others, which helps it further its dominance.
So you say you want more balance, and yet you are against regulations. Talk about a mental disconnect…
I agree with regulating markets, but the only reason google search existed in the first place was because of a lack of the functionality in windows. Now that the functionality is there, there is no need to use what was quite honestly, a pretty shoddy product that cause alot more problems then it solved.
Google is probably starting to wake up and realise that even with OEM bundling, they are still having a hard time getting their software on peoples machines. Now they want to pass the buck to MS by blaming the big bad monopoly for their lack of marketshare.
Removing all indexed locations is quite easily done from the control panel if users dont want to use MS search. While this does leave the process in ram, it weighs in at 4.8 megs, and it doesnt do anything if there is nothing to index.
Not only that, if google seriously wanted to compete, all they would have to do is disable the Windows Search process, that is very clearly named and not artificially embedded into the OS (like IE was).
On mac, pre spotlight there was a product called quicksilver that did part of what spotlight does now. Instead of sueing apple, quickilver instead changed their focus to augmenting spotlight, and providing a quality product. I agree that MS should not be allowed to leverage their monopoly to gain an unfair advantage, through access to undocumented APIs like in office, or through deliberate obfuscation of their standards to prevent inter-operability. However, offering a half assed search that makes the quarted assed search providers obsolete is not that. There is so much room for improvement on Windows Search, if Google even gave us something as simple as tagging im sure most vista users would have it installed in a heartbeat. But instead they sue.
You raise some good points. I myself do not use GDS, so I cannot comment on its quality. As I’ve said before, I’m not convinced Google has a case, but I do think it’s premature to dismiss it off-hand.
Frankly, I did not expect that such a neutral, reasonable position would draw so much fire from the usual suspects…it almost feel like a concerted effort. Almost.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. The only place where I might disagree is when you say “But instead they sue.” The fact that they’re suing doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t plan on improving GDS. There’s no reason they shouldn’t do both, if they do feel like they have a case *and* want to offer a better product.
“No, we should trust the legal system.”
Hmmmm…was my sarcasm not obvious enough? Of course we shouldn’t trust neither.
I guess the scale of innovation aren’t scaling much… LOL
I’ve never met a Windows user that has Google’s stuff installed like Gadgets, Talk or Desktop software. Their popular toolbar was made useless when FF and IE added an integrated search box. Those Google branded software don’t do anything the average Windows user needs. Even local searching was more hype than an actual needed.
If they don’t succeed in the US, Google should ask the European Supreme Council for help. They love those “it’s not fair” trials over there.
“I’ve never met a Windows user that has Google’s stuff installed like Gadgets, Talk or Desktop software.”
You almost nailed it: A lot of folks used to have a lot of Google software installed, but over time the majority of the concepts have either been absorbed into standard application fare (integrated search notably), or didn’t become popular (GTalk).
IMO Google needs to stick to what they do best, which is providing amazing web based services to their users. They are a web company, and have almost reinvented how to make money via the internet. Desktop apps are not their forte.
If this is what I think it’s about, this is about I/O prioritization.
Just like processes, some I/O reads are more important than others — a file the user wants to open and view right now, important; a background process that the disk accesses, not so important. Vista allowed I/O processes to change their priority; the five priorities are Critical (which can only used by the memory manager for virtual memory), High (not implemented, but set aside for future use), Normal (the standard rating if not given any other rating), Low (some processes that need to finish quickly but aren’t critical to application use, like autosaving or some pre-loading), and Very Low (most background processes, like defragging and indexing services). If your process is running at Very Low I/O priority, you have to have registered it as a Very Low I/O process.
And Vista’s indexing service itself uses Very Low I/O. With all that in mind, I’m not sure what Google is asking the courts to do.
Sure, they want to put their engine in there… I can see why they’d want to do this. If I were in their position, I’d have first asked Microsoft ‘nicely’ (via an open letter covered in the tech press) to offer APIs to their search boxes. Then when (if) they refuse, go to the DOJ. Make it seem like Google took every reasonable effort before involving the Feds.
Microsoft could offer extensibility APIs to their search boxes in the start menu and explorer. There is really no alternative to this, because Google will need to turn off the Windows Indexer in favor of theirs (because, even with I/O priorities, two indexers really will step all over each other). Users won’t like it when the start menu search tool stops working.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a legitimate fear that Google will not properly use I/O priorities and idle-sensing because they are not so interested in maintaining the overall performance of Windows as Microsoft is. And another extensibility point is just another opportunity for spyware to jam its way in or for components to cause instability.
It’s doesn’t look like a major technical challenge for Microsoft to allow Google to hook into the search box… it’s just a matter of testing and creating some sort of policy for just who is allowed to extend that piece (code signing will probably be requried).
“Microsoft could offer extensibility APIs to their search boxes in the start menu and explorer. “
It takes quite a bit of gall for Google to demand stuff like that after colluding with Apple to lock Safari’s search box into using Google and no alternative search engine (not even as secondary search engines, let alone the default). And Safari is moving to Windows, still locked into Google, I assume.
Edited 2007-06-12 23:22
I’m just posting a hypothetical here. I consider Google’s wares to be unnecessary risks to computer stability. In fact, I’ve cured a couple of computer problems brought to me by fellow-students simply by removing Google Desktop (installed by default at Dell) and the Google toolbar.
But you have to admit that having search integrated with Windows Vista absolutely kills the market for Google Desktop Search. I’m just acknowledging that Google will have to concede desktop search on Vista unless they can get this change (and I don’t necessarily think Microsoft should automatically give it to them).
I personally hold little stock in antitrust doctrine in the computer software sector. Like patents, antitrust regulations simply do not apply to a field which is changing so rapidly and which is built, quite literally, on pure ideas. Software markets are formed and destroyed with too much speed for there to be a good regulatory presence there. I spent time doing research on the 1998-2001 US v. Microsoft cases, and the sheer level of persecution on the part of the government and idiocy on the part of all involved (esp. the defense and the Judge) made a mockery of justice. Milton Friedman was right when he said that computer companies would “rue the day” they brought government to bear on Microsoft.
This is absolutely comical… if as much effort was put into development and marketing of alternatives through MORAL means, rather than just disparaging honest companies such as Microsoft, perhaps more progress would be made on the front of alternatives.
Why didnt they bother with making a 50 mb slim vista distribution? Linux people already made Damn Small linux what stops MS?
Some people like to have less stuff inside so to say…
Why didnt they bother with making a 50 mb slim vista distribution?
Um, perhaps because their customers aren’t asking for one.
Windows Fundamentals for Legacy Computers is pretty much what you describe as not existing. The thing is, there’s very little demand for it.
“Why didnt they bother with making a 50 mb slim vista distribution?”
Because MS wants people to use a bloated DRM infected OS.
Netscape decides to rather than fix the constant crashing of its Netscape Navigator, it would rather sue Microsoft. Value of the company goes down the drain.
Sun, rather than taking its fight to Microsoft on a technical merit, decides to sue Microsoft for Java. Value of the company goes down the drain.
Real, rather than fixing all its crapware and giving a decent media player, decides to sue Microsoft. Its value of rm goes down the drain.
Intuit, rather than fighting battles in the court, focuses on its Quicken utility and expands its portfolio and profit surge accordingly.
Hmmmm, I think its time to short Google.
“Netscape decides to rather than fix the constant crashing of its Netscape Navigator, it would rather sue Microsoft. Value of the company goes down the drain.
Sun, rather than taking its fight to Microsoft on a technical merit, decides to sue Microsoft for Java. Value of the company goes down the drain.
Real, rather than fixing all its crapware and giving a decent media player, decides to sue Microsoft. Its value of rm goes down the drain.
Hmmmm, I think its time to short Google.”
What version of History are you on. There have been poor versions of most products, Microsoft ME & DOS 4 & Vista to name a few. Although most of your have been destroyed by Microsoft’s bundling; perverting of standards.
What is interesting is all of these products are better mow in every way. Have you even tried realplayer on Linux? How is Java today? How about Firefox? What is interesting is all these products have had their revenue stream cut; Have gone open-source.
Vista is such an entrenched Monopoly it can stop producing an OS for 5 years produce a minor upgrade most of it being about controlling new markets with its monopoly on the Desktop chat;parental control; dvd writing; IE; Virus checking; Media Center etc etc and carry on. The funny thing is competition benefits those who use Microsoft products not those who don’t.
Microsoft is threatening Linux over patents, is time short for Microsoft?
“What version of History are you on. There have been poor versions of most products, Microsoft ME & DOS 4 & Vista to name a few. Although most of your have been destroyed by Microsoft’s bundling; perverting of standards. ”
I am on the real version of history. Regarding Netscape, back in the days, it owned 99% of the market. Even though Internet Explorer 2 and 3 came prebundled on all Windows machines, the majority of people did not even know what it does nor even bothered to load it up. It was very standard to download it and use it. That’s what I always did. However, having it randomly crash really crashed the parade and made people actively look for an alternative. After dealing with it crashing so much, I actually went out looking for the alternative. And the simple fact is that Internet Explorer 4 was light years ahead of Netscape in usability and stability. That is why people switched and that is why Netscape died.
Regarding Java, Sun was so busy bashing and suing Microsoft, they weren’t paying much attention to what they were doing with their business. The simple truth is that instead of paying attention to what Microsoft was doing, they really could have been the company that ran the internet. If they had the vision and had opensourced Solaris and Java back in ’98, 99% of the servers on the internet will be running Java. The community would have hacked Java and had made it do all the interesting things that languages like Ruby, PHP, Perl, and Python are doing today. Furtheremore, the community would have hacked Solaris into a far more powerful and useful OS. Heck, all the big name internet companies you hear nowadays about would have been running Solaris rather than FreeBSD or Linux. And the saddest thing is that most likely we would even have had a much more interesting internet experience rather than one of mostly static web experience we get nowadays.
Don’t even get me started on the REAL Player. The market was so desperate for a good media player, they actually ran to this crappy player. And what did the market get? Nothing but even crappier versions with tons of spam advertisement. The company lacked any type of taste and would have done a whole lot better if they had come up with a business model similar to Google and Itunes.
“Change how Windows searches” is under System and Maintenance. How is it difficult to find? Granted, disabling the cryptically named “Windows Search” process is slightly more involved, but if you clear out all the indexed locations, is the extra 4.8 megs of ram really that big a deal?
This is really turning into quite the pissing contest.
Microsoft is a monopoly and thus certain rules do apply. For example – you must not force ISP-s to sell PC-s with windows only (I’m quite ammaized that no one has brought that to court yet…), you must adhere to standards (hopefully IE8 will get us there), you must not under price your products, you must not fully integrate function X with product Y (for example WinXP -> remove Windows Messenger and you can’t use Remote Assistance any more) etc.
But forcing Microsoft to drop their Media Player or Windows Messenger, forcing default behaviour (for example IE7 “MUST” ask which search engine do you want to use, although nice, but the fact that it’s forced upon MS is insane) or open up their product protocols (Outlook-Exchange) is just ridiculous.
In any case, people also need to understand that MS is pretty much a monopoly of choice. People choose to buy MS products, they can choose alternatives. Thus certain rules which apply to other types of monopolies do not apply to MS (I’m talking about EU dictating the price for MS protocols)…
Now about the current thread. The only valid issue google might have is that which search engine returns results for the start menu and explorer text-boxes. But I was under the imperssion that MS does have API-s for that, I mean if you can turn off windows indexing via an API you should also be able to provide a complete substitute for that service, right?
In my mind google has lost all it’s credibility as an honest company. But hey, that’s life, money changes people. The moment you actually have enough money, it seems that you never have “enough” of it, always need to make more and more. But there is a ceiling to the amount of money one can aquire!!
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Or in this case poor programming.
And of course Mike Albaugh’s corollary explains why MS keeps getting in trouble time after time : “Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.”
Anyway, luckily stupidity never has been a valid argument in a court of law.
Two monopolies fighting for the other one’s cake?
Nothing new under the sun.
“Why can’t we all just.. get along?”
Nanobots will turn both of them to fungus.
i cant uninstall konqueror or pidgin without severely breaking system
i can’t uninstall GDS completely….that stupid cookie/registry still remains on my computer
MS can sue Google for copycating Word and Excel into their documentation..
MS can demand google to release their magic search engine code
If google is so much worried why cant they make their products suitable for linux or BSD? Almost all their products breaks down on linux/bsd systems.
Google wnats piggybacking on already matured windows system..
They are like parasites
That statement is false. You can easily remove Konqueror without breaking your system.
The rest of your rant is invalidated by the fact that Microsoft holds a near-monopoly position as far as Desktop OSes are concerned. Rules change when you’ve got 90%+ of a market.
Again with false statements. Google Earth and Picasa work very well on Linux.
No wonder you’ve got such a low Trust rating…
It forces me to open a new browser window for results, which may be slow, and then it just shows a heap of files without any filtering or whatnot. Vista integrated search is WAY better (i think it’s even better than Spotlight, because Start-search resuls works as a regular system files – you can drag-n-drop them right from there, which Spotlight cannot.
This whiny little lawsuit is another example of Google really wanting a platform of their own. Google sees the day when their web search hegemony will be over.
But Google won’t take the major step that it takes to do it, and that’s to put out a desktop (BSD or Linux based) of their own. Not that they probably don’t have valid reasons for doing so. They probably don’t think they can compete with Microsoft or even Apple, but they need a desktop presence, so GDS is what they do.
Why do you need to go through the complicated steps to turn it off when you can choose not to use it??