Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough

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."'"

not component based?

[flukus]

Is it really that hard to make an open api with replaceable components. That way google could just plug in their search and have it open to the whole os. MS still seems to be stuck in the monolithic, tightly coupled programming era.

Re:not component based?

[Shippy]

Yes, actually it is really hard if you want it to be reliable, well documented, etc. Usually why APIs stay closed is because they don't meet the bar of documentation quality and in order to use it you have to overcome several idiosyncracies and have tight communication with the team that wrote the API. Probably MS didn't have enough time to make it as extensible and documented as they would've liked and maybe they figured it's just file search so keep it closed and avoid the support can of worms you would have to deal with when you open an API that isn't ready for the increased traffic.

Re:not component based?

[catbutt]

Well, it sucks to be them.

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.

Re:not component based?

[catbutt]

If you don't remember, there was a trial that forced microsoft to open up and play more fairly in those other things you mention. If the governments, as well as "whiney little bitches" weren't keeping microsoft in check, things would be a lot worse.

Re:not component based?

[Kangburra]

Remind me again how MS has actively blocked other companies from writing software that competes with their own? They haven't? Oh...so Google's just being a whiny little bitch here? Thought so.

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.

the bundled s**t should be optional AND removable

[pbhj]

Well, come now. Tell me you didn't expect - "install linux" as a response to this?!

Optional - check, you don't have to buy a MS OS.
Removable - check, logically and physically removable.

So I'm also going to go with a car analogy just to finish off nicely (incidentally in Soviet Russia your posts finish you off with some hot grits ... or something): If you buy a car with 4 seats and only use 2 do you complain that the company welded the seat stanchions in?

Re:not component based?

[EraserMouseMan]

No. Google is stuck in the, "We can force MS to ask their users to install our software in place of theirs because MS is still percieved as a monopoly" mode. Let's see Adobe publish open APIs for their entire Creative Suite. Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

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.

Re:not component based?

[iluvcapra]

Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

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].

Re:

[dabraun]

And FWIW, Mac OS X has an extensible public API for File Search.

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*?

[Osty]

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*?

[Frosty Piss]

Of course they knew about it, everyone did. This is nothing more than free PR at Microsoft's expense, which isn't hard. It may be true that Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves, but this is just two mega-huge faceless corporations working the press.

Re:

[rtb61]

To be more accurate this free PR at M$'s expense seems to have turned around and bitten goggle on the arse, hard disk search, and file indexing is seen pretty much as normal part of an OS, if you do a lot of disk searching you enable it, if you don't you disable it and you use those resources for other applications.

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*?

[MMC Monster]

In google's defense, they had no idea that Vista would actually be released in '06.

Re:

[Prof.Phreak]

Why is this such a big deal? Does Vista prevent 3rd party apps from opening files and reading contents? Or start/stop system services? I really don't see what the big deal is.

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:

[75th Trombone]

As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

But I may just be getting that from random ignorant Slashdot comments that don't know what they're talking about, so y'know.

(captcha: "proviso")

Re:

[Zak3056]

As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

With two years worth of betas and previews, it's rather difficult to claim that "we didn't know it was going to worth that way."

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Darkforge]

Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)

No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.

Internet Explorer 7 already supports using Google as the search engine for its search box; it's not so weird to think that regular Explorer would allow you to swap in other search engines as well. More to the point, it's not too much to expect for M

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[KlomDark]

> Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable

Hey, I think you're on to something there! Wouldn't that be cool if we wouldn't have to be forced to use Microsoft's TCP/IP stack? We could replace it with the BSD TCP/IP stack! Oh, wait...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Justus]

My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

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.

Re:

[Tim C]

My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

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:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Not only that... but file searching has been a part of windows since the beginning. It has also been a very basic part of all OS's.

Just because now, search engines are trying to take over the desktop... doesnt mean MS has done anything wrong.

Google's completely wrong on this, and google's desktop search sucks period. Who the fuck wants to search for files on their pc with that google web ui? Its terrible. MS desktop search is better on XP and Vista.

Google's not bitching about Apple's search either... so.. F

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[tapo]

Supposedly Google suddenly started complaining about Vista's integrated search four days after Microsoft complained to the FTC about Google's acquisition of Doubleclick. It seems to be a "Oh yeah? Well fuck you!" move.

But how many 'features' were stripped out?

[r_jensen11]

If you look at the original lists of what Vista was supposed to come shipped with and compare that list to what it was actually shipped with, I think you'll see how worthless 'day 1' development features are. One of the major motivators to switch to Vista was their new file system, but as it is we're stuck with NTFS for Windows and a plethora for *NIX.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[lakeland]

And, if you'd bothered to read TFA, you'd find Google complained about it more than a year before the release of Vista but was told repeatedly 'that isn't how the final version will be'.

Stop crying about it.

[gcnaddict]

"Google says Vista Search Changes not Enough"

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:

[ozmanjusri]

Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No. The indexing *service* is off. WDS (now read carefully) DOES NOT USE THE INDEXING SERVICE. It uses a different service, and that service cannot be turned off.

If WDS used the indexing service, you'd be completely correct. that's the problem -- it doesn't.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Kalriath]

Then disable the indexing service: http://4sysops.com/?p=457 [4sysops.com]

IS THAT REALLY HARD? Yes, it's confusing that they renamed the search service. BOO FSCKING HOO!

Come on...

[Frosty Piss]

Look, Google, release your own OS already, and shut up. We know you've been working on one.

Addendum

[mushupork]

Sec 12 Para 2: "Vista startup sound must now be sound of someone getting spanked."

crybaby?

[dwater]

Has this tagging thing been opened up again?
For a while there, the tags almost meant something.

Crybaby!

[gcnaddict]

Stop crying about the tags.

Re:

[jZnat]

It's lame tags like these which make it so the useful tags that aren't covered already by the topics (e.g., I don't think there is a PS3 topic yet, so articles about PS3 get tagged PS2 by default which doesn't make sense) don't show up anymore. :(

Are the Do No Evil days dead and gone?

[grapeape]

something in the news that Google is doing that is just plain stupid, ethically questionable or outright wrong. From the jacked up toolbar installs, recent privacy concerns, the bush league promotional attempts at EBay's conference, to whining about MS features that were part of the OS's plans since day one. How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin? Surprise Google wants your desktop, they want your eyeballs, they want to pummel you with ads, they want

Re:

[EraserMouseMan]

How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin?

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.

reactionary MS

[fermion]

I am ever so slightly on Google side of this, even though I think installing google is a bad idea, simply because this is another case of MS not providing basic services.

On Apple, the google toolbar is nothing more than a security and privacy risk, with little extra value. Pop up blocking, ad blocking, search engine choice, system search, are all available on the standard browsers. This situation was only improved when MS let IE lapse and Safari took over the default Mac browser.

OTOH, MS left basic fu

Battle of the evil titans, part 73

[swordgeek]

Once again, we have a battle of the titans. Huge monolithic company against huge monolithic company. All altruism aside, the only goal is who can squeeze more out of the customer at the end of the day.

The one thing I've found fascinating about all of these battles is that for about 15 years now, Microsoft has been one of the titans. Even when they lose, they don't die, which makes me think that damage control is as good as a win, as far as MS is concerned.

There is no difference, you and I....

[AP2k]

I am someone appauled that some of you still dont get it. Google's bitching to Redmond is the exact same thing as if they went to Torvalds say "We want in or we cry to Mommy". If you code your own OS, but by George you better not have an integrated file search program or you might find Google knocking down your door. Are YOU obligated to provide Google anything? Of course you are not, and neither should Microsoft.

Google capitalized on some areas where Microsoft's offerings were lackluster or nonexistent. Th

jeez

[VariableGHz]

Google had argued that it should be possible to disable Vista's search entirely

I get that Google's peeved and everything -- but since when did it become improper for an OS to index the harddrive? Why should Microsoft allow that to be disabled?! What, then, if GDS is uninstalled later on and Vista search doesn't start back up, for example? It just seems like a basic thing that should be part of an OS.

Re:

[Prof.Phreak]

I don't understand why they have to do this though.

Wait till they become a patent troll...

Re:

[rwven]

While I agree with your sentiment, I do have a problem with grown-up software companies walking around acting whiny spoiled children. As much as Microsoft may deserve a "jab in the heart" on some level, Google needs to get over their emotion driven "issues" and move on to more, truly important, things.

Re:

[alisson]

But on another level, microsoft should be kept in check. Why should their patent violations go unnoticed, when they're such patent-hounds. I don't mind following the rules, as long as you have to as well :)

Re:

[MontyApollo]

They want to "upgrade" the operating system. You know like Norton and AOL.

Re:huh

[Rakishi]

You don't understand why they are doing this from a logical perspective or from their "do no evil" perspective? Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Seems easy enough to understand although of course it is pretty evil, abusive and all that. So I guess their new motto is "Do no evil unless it gives us money."

Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?

Re:huh

[laffer1]

I don't understand why this was moderated flamebait. I suppose it could have been worded differently, but there is a valid point. Some people loved Microsoft in the late 80s and early 90s. Microsoft provided the software that was an alternative to Mac OS. People who hated Apple loved it.

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.

Re:

[hxnwix]

Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further?

Because whenever Microsoft is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they offer to "punish" themselves by taking some more cookies.

Re:huh

[enrevanche]

Why push it further? Are you kidding, They should keep pushing it. Each time Microsoft comes up with a remedy, it is so half-assed that it is usually no better than before. They will make it annoying as they can get away with to use any competitor's product. This is exactly what is wrong with a monopolistic business. Their business model has nothing to do with competing for a customer by providing a better product. They use their product to control and limit because most customers do not have another practical choice.

Re:

[hxnwix]

Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system.

Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly. Google is calling them on it. Would you care to elaborate on what aspect of this is abuse?

I'm sorry, but it looks like we're going to have to reject your biased characterization unless you can come up with, you know, a logical argument.

Re:

[h2_plus_O]

Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly

Are they? The DOJ seems satisfied with their remedy. From tfa:

The DOJ and all 17 state attorneys general agreed with Microsoft's proposal. "Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as promised," according to the joint filing.

Re:

[hxnwix]

Hello? Why was the proposal necessary?

Due to violations of the settlement.

Re:huh

[bl8n8r]

> "Do no evil unless it gives us money."

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_chuc king/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:

[zootm]

Vista searches probably feed Live with info on your interests, so it gives Live the advantage over google in search accuracy.

This is blatantly ridiculous. People are not stupid, and they'd spot this, and Microsoft are simply not dumb enough to try it. Collecting this sort of data would at least require a waiver in the OS licence, and I guarantee you that if it were there you'd have heard about it by now.

Google is probably asking microsoft to let them make a drop in replacement for vista's search, one t

Not about desktop search

[Rob Y.]

I'm not sure Google cares that much about desktop search per se. They probably think they can do a better job of it than Microsoft, but assuming Vista provided equal access to the desktop search database, I don't thing Google would care that much.

The real point, and where Vista *is* anticompetitive is that the built-in search wants to integrate Microsoft's version of Internet search into the built-in desktop search viewer. Internet search is not a feature of the OS - or any desktop OS I know of, and there

Re:huh

[__aajfby9338]

I don't get this, either. I'll openly admit to disliking Microsoft and most of their products with a passion, and I'm a happy user of various Google products and services. So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products, as long as Microsoft isn't plagiarizing other folks' stuff.

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.

Re:

[Harmonious Botch]

So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products...

How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?

Re:

[Zak3056]

How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?

Err... don't they? ie6 (I think) and ie7 (for sure) have a box in the top right corner when you visit the google home page that says "Click here to install the google toolbar" which will also make Google the default search provider.

Re:

[speaker of the truth]

It boils down to Microsoft is a monopoly and illegally abused its monopoly. It now has to operate under different rules. Sure it sucks, but that's what they get for breaking the law. Google is simply trying to force Microsoft to operate under the special rules.

Re:

[__aajfby9338]

I won't complain too loudly when one of my least favorite companies gets kicked in the corporate nuts a bit, but I don't get the rationale behind some of the different rules that they need to operate under.

I get that they're evil monopolistic bastages and have earned restrictions and punishments because of their business practices, but some of the "feature" restrictions (i.e., regarding Internet Exploder and this search feature) have never quite made sense to me. Maybe that's just because I don't have a d

Re:huh

[Ravnen]

Alan Greenspan put it rather well:

The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet "too much" competition is condemned as "cutthroat." It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as "enlightened" when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact.

Re:

[codename.matrix]

Google simply wants to be able to replace the desktop search with the google equivalent. The idea is to give the user a choice which desktop search he wants to use - this doesn't mean just MS or Google but also others like Yahoo would benefit from this. AFAIK the indexing of vista can be disabled but there is currently no way to replace the feature with another application. I personally like the way it is working right now. It's like the old story with the browser and the media player. I wonder why Microsof

Re:

[SnowZero]

I wonder why Microsoft doesn't make more of these features as seperate applications that integrate into the system using public apis.

The answer to that one would be pretty obvious. MSFT is a dominant force in large part because it keeps integrating things in ways such that they can't be replaced or removed. Remember IE being a required core part of the OS? I hate bundling with a passion, even when the cable company is doing it. That's a major reason why I use FOSS, I get choices to make, rather than restrictions and hoops to jump through if I want to make something work how I want.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is scared shitless of Vista's search capabilities, and here's why:

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.

Re:

[AHumbleOpinion]

Where are those ads you speak of? Oh that's right, next to the search results!

You are mistaken, extremely so. When you are browsing various websites the ads that you see are targeted, not everyone is getting the same ad. Basically the website pays Google to tell the website which banner ad to show you. And of course Google uses the website's query to keep track of your browsing habits and further develop their profile. You do not need to search to be profiled. And of course, Google is not alone in this

This is why Microsoft's OSes suck

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Any time they try to do something good, the government steps in and says it's anti-competitive. Meanwhile, Apple and Linux implement similar features and brag about how Windows doesn't have them.

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.

Vanquish?

[smittyoneeach]

Google will modify its motto to "Do no evil, but let a little justice slip out occasionally" and keep MicroSoft alive.
Why? Because to vanquish would be merciful, and Redmond deserves to wallow in the wreckage of its APIs for as long as possible.

Re:blah blah blah

[Tuoqui]

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

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'.

A little more specific

[Gription]

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the little blue 'e' was an abuse of Microsoft's total control of the OS market but I always though the clear cut, slam dunk antitrust violation in that regard was that they made it impossible to use a different browser to download updates for their OS.

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?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:blah blah blah

[Kalriath]

Actually, in all technicality, an OS should include a web browser - without IE for Windows, how do you expect to download from the website Firefox or any other browser?

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)

Re:

[AnyoneEB]

Personally, I always use FTP to download Windows Firefox builds.

Re:blah blah blah

[Kalriath]

Command Prompt FTP? Although that's certainly an option, I really don't think that would fly with Microsoft's majority target marget... If you meant Windows Explorer FTP, that's provided by IE so I wouldn't use that as an example.

Re:blah blah blah

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You're right. F*ck M$ for bundling IE. I use their bundled FTP client...

I'm not pro-M$, I'm anti-hypocrite.

Re:blah blah blah

[suzerain]

Not sure why this was modded insightful; maybe you and all the mods slept through the late '90s. Microsoft wasn't rebuked for bundling a Web browser; rather, the main complaints were:

(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).

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Sure, but we can't have it both ways, bitch that Microsoft OS doesn't even include a decent file search (what a bunch of incompetents, it must be all the free Starbucks they drink), and then bitch that they do.

Re:blah blah blah

[Londovir]

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.

Londovir

Re:

[DECS]

One could also say having a browser is a "demanded feature" of an OS. What was wrong about MS tying IE with Windows?

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, MS also added proprietary extensions to IE to distort the market of the web itself. That allowed MS to kill Netscape's revenue from servers. IE didn't compete with Netscape as a product until Netscape itself began to fail with the fiasco of Co

Re:

[drsmithy]

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:

[DECS]

You make a couple comments that are technically true, but gloss over details to an absurd degree.

"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:

[drsmithy]

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:

[DECS]

How about some facts?

Look at Wikipedia's reports of various market share stats for that period. There is no controversy that Netscape's market share plunged in 1997. Now look up the browser MS shipped in 1997. It was not a superior product competing in the market place, because nobody chose IE; they got it by default.

Sure, after MS set up a barrier to Netscape's business plan, it could then invest more into browser development. After 1997, Netscape could do very little, while MS rapidly released three major

Re:

[SnowZero]

Well, what if all image formats opened in Paint when you click on them, and there was no way to disable that? Adobe would be allowed to put a hook into Paint itself, so that after loading in Paint, it could then also pop up Photoshop. That's pretty much the equivalent situation.

Re:

[dedazo]

This is no longer a matter of partisan bickering or fanboy ranting, it's court proven fact.

It doesn't really matter how you like to paint it, or how many infantile dollar signs you use. What Microsoft did and what they are doing can in fact be two very different things - and in this case they are. The search function in Vista is superb (not even my opinion, look it up) and way beyond what Google Desktop Search does. On XP GDS was the bomb, because XP search was laughable. But now that Microsoft has actual

Re:

[Grishnakh]

Why is everyone calling Google cry-babies? Does no one remember history?

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:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

At the same time... just because a feature exists out there, doesnt mean microsoft should be barred from copying it. We wouldnt have GUI os's if that were the case.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[suv4x4]

"MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright"

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.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:

[drsmithy]

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.

Stac was killed by plummeting storage prices, incredibly fast drive size growth and fragile, easily-catastrophically-broken software. Exactly th

Re:

[Frankie70]

Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.


What about Apple & Konfabulator?

Re:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yeah cause thats what consumers want... to be spammed while using applications through out the day. No thanks. Web 2.0 sucks. Please keep the corporate logo's and spam off my computer.

Re:

[dwater]

yeah, for a while there, the tags actually were useful.

have they opened them up to abuse again?

Re:

[gcnaddict]

No, it's just that high-karma tags tend to stick because the editors approve them.

Re:

[daskinil]

I'm gonna sue cause I can't replace the window manager with fluxbox. Or maybe if i could just run X11 on top of the NT kernel. =P They are pretty much suing because they can't replace the search entry in your normal folders to be google search. Um,... i kinda agree with everyone that think WTF? It would be nice if every component had a nice API to replace parts. I'd like to replace the start menu for one. But i don't think i should be able to sue because i can't.

Re:

[hxnwix]

And let me straighten you out.

What if Google were a monopoly and therefore conceivably obligated to start sharing? Well, they fucking aren't.

Thank you, come again.