Slashdot Log In
Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jun 21, 2007 07:40 PM
from the meeting-demands dept.
from the meeting-demands dept.
akkarin writes "Following Google's complaint to Microsoft regarding Vista's 'desktop search,'
Google claims that Vista's search has not changed enough: 'Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."'"
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint 286 comments
Raver32 writes to tell us that Microsoft will be making changes to their desktop search tool in Vista after a 49-page antitrust complaint was filed by Google. "Microsoft initially dismissed the allegations, saying regulators had reviewed the program before Vista launched. However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
not component based? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:not component based? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:not component based? (Score:4, Insightful)
The monopoly they have has made them incredibly, incredibly rich. With it comes a cost. Things like this.
In my opinion, de facto-standard operating systems are no different than phone companies -- they tend to be natural network monopolies. It is in everyone's interest to have them open and modular so that there is competition for everything practicable. Web browsers, media players, search utilities. Just about everything but the kernel.
I guess I am the only one here wishing the government was even more aggressively leveling the playing field.
Google may be big and powerful, but they don't have a network monopoly....in almost everything they do, they compete on their merits, not on their network advantage. That is a very important difference.
Parent
Re:not component based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:not component based? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I install Opera, fine, now how do I remove Internet Explorer? I don't watch DVD's or listen to Music at work so how do I remove Media Player to free up some HDD space?
I can't! That's the problem, all the bundled shit (yes that's the quality too) should be optional AND removable.
Parent
Re:not component based? (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that Google is still an underdog to MS is pure fantasy. But Google's gonna milk the perception for all it's worth.
Parent
Re:not component based? (Score:5, Informative)
Well they do have an API that lets you run programs on their OS, so I guess they do. Their OS isn't "open source," though their kernel is and a bunch of the underlying services are.
And FWIW, Mac OS X has an extensible public API for File Search [apple.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's API lets you USE their search feature programatically, not replace it. I think you missed the point.
They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:4, Informative)
Where were they during the 5 years of Vista's development? Microsoft was touting the integrated, universal search abilities pretty much since day 1 of Vista development. There's no excuse for Google not to know about this, since there were preview and beta builds of Vista available for nearly two years prior to release. If they had a problem with this feature, they should've brought it up then, not 5 months after Vista shipped.
Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is a web search engines, that keeps track of your searches, it is an email service that data mines your email, it is a micropayment service that tracks your payments, it is an advertisin
Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for integrating 3rd party program into the `os search' feature, that's not MS's responsibility---Google isn't paying Microsoft's developers to make such integration possible.
Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, it would be rather simple for Microsoft to say that every feature in Vista was subject to change (which they did say, and did change many features, I might add). Then, after the issue had been dismissed once, Google would have had an even harder time bringing it up again. Now, as to whether or not this is a good move, I'm somewhat split.
I suspect that Google doesn't want to be the next Netscape and give up their leadership position due to, well, a combination of things, one of which was Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position. I don't necessarily agree with the way they're handling it, but I suppose they've got to spend their lawyer dollars somewhere--at least they're not attacking a random open source project for infringement of some sort.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The cynic in me says that it's much more expensive for MS to change the feature now, than it would have been had Google persuaded them to change it while it was still in development.
I agree with the OP - if you have a problem with a planned software feature, the tim
Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The work with desktop search is non-trivial, however. The options aren't the same, the results aren't presented in the same way. GDS uses a web interface, MS search uses an Explorer interface. Sure, it *can* possibly be done, but I can't see
Stop crying about it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place. Now they're just whining like babies. It's an operating system. I can understand concerns over Windows Media Player but the file searching mechanism in Vista is almost a necessity when it comes to finding your files. Since when was including a file finder an antitrust violation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
And doing that will let any other third party considering adding value to the Windows platform know exactly where they stand.
Any investments you make on Windows will be wasted if Microsoft decides they want to "fucking kill" your company.
God damn it. (Score:4, Interesting)
YOU CAN.
I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE
I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS.
Parent
Come on... (Score:5, Interesting)
crybaby? (Score:3, Interesting)
For a while there, the tags almost meant something.
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?
Parent
Re:huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further? I don't like Microsoft's business practices, but I don't see how google is all that much better as of late.
Parent
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:huh (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're jumping the gun here. Microsoft is like a fool with a rope; Give 'em enough, and next thing you know they want to be Cowboy Neal. Microsoft has enough money to buy just about any legal outcome they want - and don't fool yourself, they do. Google knows this and is nipping the problem in the bud right now. If they don't, before you know it, you won't even be able to use Google with Vista. Clippy will pop up and direct you to Vista Search instead (or some other such idiotic nonsense that the population seems to lap up). Being that Baldy is going to "Fucking kill Google"* I would be handling this with a wary eye as well. Google is playing it smart.
[*] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chu
Parent
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Would I personally be annoyed by their search feature if I was a Vista user? Maybe, maybe not, but they're not obligated to give me exactly what I want, just like I'm not obligated to buy their product. I happen to have switched over to using a Mac recently (I was previously a hardcore Linux zealot and I still like Linux, but I decided that OS X would fit my needs better for general-purpose use a few months ago, and so far I've been happy with that decision). OS X has its own hardwired-in search feature. I'm free to whine at Apple if I don't like it, they're free to ignore me if they want to, and I'm free to vote with my wallet if I don't like their response. That's the way I think it ought to be, and I don't see why it should be any different with Microsoft/Vista.
If Microsoft does Bad Stuff in their business practices then go after 'em, but I've never seen the logic in forcing them to change their operating system (even back in the old browser war days). I'll accept that using pricing and contracts to try to force their OEM customers to stay away from any other OS vendors may be illegal, anti-competitive and just downright mean, but I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft designing their operating system to not play well with others. I think that hurts them more than anybody else, because it makes folks like me get fed up, wipe their hard drives and install Linux instead, or even go buy Macs rather than facing the prospect of using their next OS release.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:huh (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:here's why google is doing it, guys: (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista Search (which is about 100 times better than Google's Desktop Search) is only one step away from searching ON THE INTERNET, just as it searches on the desktop now.
If Microsoft gets users used to Vista Search, and then makes it easy for people to use that same GUI to search the internet, Google is suddenly out of business overnight.
Google's popularity right now is based largely on momentum and the "fad" of using its name as a verb. Yahoo's search, for example, is pretty damn near as good as Google's. Since Google's entire business model of search supremecy relies on user laziness and momentum (like most monopolies that aren't enforced by governments like utilities, etc) then their ultimate worry is that Microsoft will incorporate search directly into the OS which will be the ultimate "lazy" option for users.
Why do you think Google pays Adobe $1.25 for each download of Flash or Acrobat which default installs their search toolbar? Why do you think Google pays dell 5 dollars for each install of Google toolbar that ships with all Dell computers? Because Google knows that the way to keep their search monopoly is to make it so the user doesn't even HAVE to make a choice of search engine- it will be there in their face when they update Acrobat or buy a new Dell or download Firefox.
But if Microsoft can make it even EASIER for people not to even need a concept of a third party search engine, then Google is finished.
This is why Google will fight this battle to the very end- they will spend every penny in their coffers to try and stop microsoft from getting users to stop thinking of search as a "site you go to" rather than something that is just built into the OS. I mean literally- Google has absolutely nothing to lose by spending every penny they have to fight this- because if they lose, then the company might as well fold up shop and go home.
Parent
This is why Microsoft's OSes suck (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to take sides in the OS wars, but I'm really getting sick of the government bullying Microsoft. If there's anything worse than a company bullying someone, it's the government bullying someone, regardless of who they are.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vanquish? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Because to vanquish would be merciful, and Redmond deserves to wallow in the wreckage of its APIs for as long as possible.
Parent
Re:blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer. Since it is bundled with every single copy of windows since I think 95. To Joe Average user seeing a little 'e' icon on the desktop and equating that with the internet is all you need to do in order to gain an unfair advantage over other web browser companies. Since IE doesnt typically catastrophically fail (it only allows every tom, dick and harry spyware maker to put their crap on your machine) most users never see a need to change.
Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading. It's also the reason that Microsoft didnt automatically push Windows Defender onto XP machines. Even though Norton, Avast! or Kapersky is better most people will refuse to use them because they'll see the little windows defender icon and go 'cool theres my anti-virus'.
Parent
A little more specific (Score:4, Insightful)
They basically said, "Sorry but you can only get support for our OS if you use our browser..." Now how did that get past the DOJ and why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?
Parent
Re:blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always thought the "browser war" thing was a bad example.
(Before you suggest "have a repository like Synaptic or Yum with all third party browsers and even IE so people have a choice" let me mention three words that'll shoot that down: InstallShield Corporation. Lawsuit)
Parent
Re:blah blah blah (Score:4, Informative)
(1) The browser could not be reasonably uninstalled (perhaps minor complaint, although it was always running, and sucking resources even when not in use)
(2) Microsoft leveraged its monopoly position to create deals with OEMs such that they could not have Windows licenses unless they agreed NOT to bundle Netscape or other competing browsers in the default install. (the more major complaint, IMO, since it's a pretty clear example of leveraging a monopoly position to prevent competition)
In this situation, I would absolutely argue that an operating system should include robust search (it's perhaps more pertinent to the core function than a web browser); just that Microsoft ought not to put in any booby traps that prevent Google's thing from running, and not try to prevent OEMs from installing it if they want to.
Therefore, personally, I'm of the opinion of many here...I can't entirely agree with Google, but what goes around comes around. Microsoft stuck it to Netscape in kind of a bad way, and they deserve some payback, eventually (especially as the whole DOJ thing was kind of a farce).
Parent
Re:blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. F*ck M$ for bundling IE. I use their bundled FTP client...
I'm not pro-M$, I'm anti-hypocrite.
Parent
Re:blah blah blah (Score:5, Informative)
I'm blowing moderator points to be able to respond to this, but why not?
What I don't understand, and of course IANAL so I shouldn't understand this, is where do we draw the line on the anti-monopoly power plays? Look, I can buy the argument that Microsoft went monopolistic all over the Internet Explorer saga. You are completely and entirely correct. The entire thrust of the case, as I understood it at the time, was that Microsoft was abusing it's basis as an operating system by bundling in software, not required in an operating system, so that it could grow market presence.
So, Microsoft puts IE into Windows, which isn't technically required for an operating system (despite Microsoft's attempts to claim it needed IE for it's Explorer subsystem, which was nicely debunked by experts) in order to snare the entire browser market. I read you on that one. I'll even grant your reasoning regarding Windows Defender, since I again don't think that's a core component of an OS.
But I draw the line with this search functionality. In my mind, being able to search your "desktop" (ie, the entire hard drive) for a file or document is something I expect, if not demand, in an operating system. If the filesystem doesn't support indexing and helping me to find a file based on a variety of criteria, I'm looking elsewhere. I know, technically, that searching is also not required for an OS, but the distinction is getting finer and finer. To me, Google is just being sour-grapes about this one. If they can prove Microsoft stole their code, abused their copyright, etc, I agree with them. If they can somehow prove Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging competing searches in the source code so they run abnormally slower compared to the native search, I would probably still side with Google (but my resolve gets much thinner).
But just because they are trying to provide a product that performs the same task as something which likely should be a part of the OS doesn't give them (in my mind) the license to demand Microsoft make changes. Why should Microsoft be forced to completely expose (or disable) their own, internal search subsystem in the OS? If you would rather use Google's search, download the blasted thing and "Just say no" to Microsoft's box on the Start Menu. (The irony, of course, is I recall tons of complaints/flamewars on /. in the past over how OS X was so superior for Spotlight than Windows, and then complaints of how Microsoft "ripped off" Spotlight, etc.)
I just don't see how this is the same as Microsoft defaulting the email program to Outlook Express, or the browser to Internet Explorer. Those are separate programs that aren't related to the OS itself, and Microsoft pushed it past the limit by bundling that sort of software and promoting it within Windows. Searching for files, though, should be something that is integral to the OS's file system - and competitors should be welcome to compete, but not get special privileges for doing so.
Wouldn't this be similar to someone like Symantec threatening Microsoft with litigation because Symantec provides a file system defragmenter (in SystemWorks), and Microsoft has a button in Explorer that will start Microsoft's own built-in defragmenter? Maybe Symantec is upset that there's no way for the user to disable Microsoft's, or to make Windows use Symantec's as the default. If Google can do it - so can Symantec. And so goes the contrapositive, also.
Speaking of which, when should we be hearing Google going after Apple for Spotlight? Oh wait - Spotlight has an API that allows anyone to write software to interface with the underlying OS searching capabilities. Which brings me to my question: Would that access (as unlikely as it might be in forthcoming) to Vista searching be enough to satsify Google? If it isn't, than Google's motivations are clearly suspect.
LondovirParent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In addition to leveraging its monopoly position on 98% of the world's PCs to instantly create overwhelming market share for IE almost instantly in 1997, [...]
Except that's not what *actually* happened.
The first version of IE to really start taking marketshare off Navigator, was IE4. At the time, IE4 was only available via download (or through your ISP, magazine covers, etc - the point being it wasn't included in Windows).
IE4 surpassed Navigator in marketshare some time in 1999. *Long* before anything
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"IE4 surpassed Navigator in marketshare some time in 1999." Who cares? The real fact to consider is that IE resulted in an immediate plunge in Netscape's market share, from over 80% in 1996 to being a minority a year later. That's leverage. Part of that leverage in 1997 was MS using threats of delaying Office for Mac to get Apple to sign an exclusive deal to only put IE on the Mac desktop.
--
Mac Office, $150 Mill [roughlydrafted.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares?
Anyone who's interested in information other that parroted anti-Microsoft FUD.
The real fact to consider is that IE resulted in an immediate plunge in Netscape's market share, from over 80% in 1996 to being a minority a year later.
Rubbish. It took years for IE to displace Navigator. In 1999, the market was only just starting to see IE use exceed Navigator use. Further, Navigator's decline lines up exactly with its increasing levels of suckiness.
That's leverage.
Indeed. The "leverage" of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You kids are probably too young to remember Stacker, but basically it was a way of compressing files to increase harddrive space by compressing on-the-fly. They were doing great until Microsoft decided to include a similar product in DOS, and then they were fucked. Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.
Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, that'd be pretty bold of Microsoft, if it were true. How do you know he is right? But of course! He said "Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either"! He must be right. Let's mod him up!
Of course, actually Microsoft didn't include Stacker "itself", they licensed and included Vertisoft's DoubleDisk, a product competing with Stacker.
Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al
No, they sued for *patent* infringement on the compression algorithm. I say, however: copyright infringement, patent infringement, it's all the same, who'd notice, right. Microsoft was ordered to remove DoubleDisk, and later on they created DriveSpace, which used different compression method.
I saw, bravo, about contributing to the Microsoft FUD some more. We ought to fight them using any means at all: they're EVIL, right.
Parent
Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this case was much worse than you say here.
The irony...
MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright. Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al, and MS finally lost the court case, but it was too late for Stac, which went under. The judgment probably got split up amongst the shareholders, but in the end the company died, and MS had succeeded in putting a perceived competitor out of business as they intended, though it came at a small (to MS) monetary cost.
In actual fact, Microsoft v Stac [wikipedia.org] was a patent case and had zero to do with copyright. Software patents are bad, remember, so Stac *should* have lost the case.
Also, as I said elsewhere, what killed Stacker (along with the 3 or 4 other identical programs that were on the market at the time) was plummeting hard disk prices, massive disk growth and a fundamentally fragile-and-prone-to-catastrophic-data-loss application design. Unfortunately for Stac, their buggy whips were no longer a compelling product in the days of the horseless carriage.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if Google were a monopoly and therefore conceivably obligated to start sharing? Well, they fucking aren't.
Thank you, come again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has worn thin. We've wised up. We now realize what each and every person is to Google. People and their personal information is nothing more than a way for Google to make money.
Google uses you. Not the other way around.