Scobleizer - Latest Comments in IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Rob Oresteen — Tue, 09 May 2006 08:42:28 -0000

Gawd Kids, lets all grow up and get lives shall we?

IE7 or 6 & Firefox are just silly stupid browsers. Use what you want and configure it to what you need.

Everyone acts like they don't have choices.....I mean, if you are Microsoft, are you suppose to pre-select Yahoo as the default search engine in IE? And if Google and Firefox have a "thing" going, so what?

Sure beats someone like a federal government dictating what we use and how we use it...

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Methuss — Wed, 03 May 2006 18:50:35 -0000

I'm not seeing why Google is in a tiff. Three mouse clicks is all it takes to add their search engine to the toolbar and make it the default. Are they making noise because their engine is not distributed as part of the package and needs to be added by the user? That's just a childish tantrum.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Brent — Wed, 03 May 2006 16:12:53 -0000

I don't know if I see the colossus of software putting its search as being default a surprise in any way. Really I couldn't care one way or the other, but the arguments made here are really good. Firefox can use MSN search according to like, 3 guys on this blog comment list. But ppl keep saying that it isn't possible.

To say google is having a double standard is rediculous and unintelligent. Google has no OS, to populate the world, nor does it therefore control the desktop of all new to computer folk in existance, as MS does. Google is the search on Firefox (lets just say that they are the only game FF allows). What are the usage statistics for IE vs FF? You guys argue over default=good/bad.. whatever. The point is that it is easily forseeable that this default search issue could topple a better search just in its "convenience" to novices.

I don't use MSN search, and haven't since Google started (or was it webcrawler.. hmm.). Scoble's buddy Chris Pirillo practically went on detox not using google for a period of time. And his frustrations are apparent and listed plainly as a user that WOULD use good search terms (as he's in industry, I would assume he would know how to do this) and still could not get good results for.. well most anything using.. well everything BUT google.

Google is better, duh. MSN wants to bring it all in house.. duh.
I really don't see that being a problem if they could provide the product of quality that even could stand next to google. As of now, its not there. I wonder if MS has considered "upgrading features" in vista so that google couldn't get its google desktop to work on there. (thats just a question really, not an accusation.. but we all know its been done and is done regularly)

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Joseph Becher — Wed, 03 May 2006 14:41:40 -0000

Regarding the opening of the Good page: In FireFox at least so far, you can use the http://www.customizegoogle.... extension to add results from the main search engines to Google search results. MSN is included.

Screen Clip: http://www.jwebnet.net/pers...

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Vadivel — Wed, 03 May 2006 03:01:38 -0000

Hmm i am really pissed off on seeing Google's reaction. Why? Because just couple of weeks back I bought a new Dell Inspiron 1505 notebook. I was really shocked to see that Google search box was by DEFAULT added to the Internet Explorer.

Now if the same thing is done by Microsoft on its (IE 7) own Browser to set MSN as their default search engine (that too configurable) google is getting paranoid .. really funny. Don't a company have an option to popularize their product?

Ed Bott in his article http://www.edbott.com/weblo... has explained with screenshots on how changing providers in IE7 is about the same as changing in Firefox. An interesting point which he has added is "MSN Search is NOT an option in Firefox while Google IS an option in IE7"!!!

Now, will Google put real pressure on Firefox to let Microsoft Search in their existing list?

That said, So I don't think people would really take seriously as everyone by now would have known that "Google follow double standards" :)

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Kamal Jain — Wed, 03 May 2006 00:34:44 -0000

Eric Nordberg, you missed the point. Google search page has two parts. Main search result which Google chooses, sort of default. And if you do not like default then you could pay to Google to be shown on the side.

Not setting the default for the search box is also default. In this case, Microsoft runs a risk that it is giving a functionality which does not work at the beginning.

As such whatever default Microsoft choose, its only obligation is to allow others to change that default. Anybody who is on the chain from Microsoft to consumers could change the default. It is bad for Google it is not in the chain. Well, sometimes you are not given the opportunity naturally but have to buy it.

In this case, it is good for consumers. Because that way search engines compete for getting users just like any business. Why do you want to treat search engine business from any other. Any other business buys customer. Either by making right partnership or by aggresive marketing. Both of these choices are open to Google.

If Google tries to be frugal and does not want to spend money on advertising then it is not Microsoft's fault. If Google tries to be selfish and does not want to share its revenue via OEMs then it is again not Microsoft's fault. If Google wants to compete only on quality and not on value then again it is not Microsoft's fault. Microsoft is playing fair and protecting consumer here. Microsoft is giving customers the most important tool called "bargaining". Customers will need this tool for a lot of other online services.

PS: The commentator is a Microsoft employee. This is his opinion only.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

anon — Tue, 02 May 2006 16:07:42 -0000

Microsoft Corp.'s long- awaited release of the upgrade to its flagship Windows operating system will likely be delayed again by at least three months, research group Gartner Inc. said on Tuesday.

Something is screwy with your testbed.

Typing "test" in firefox on Windows XP makes the browser attempt a connection to http://test.yourdnsdomain.whatever . If that computer is not found or does not have a web browser enabled, the browser attempts a connection to http://www.test.com .

Google has nothing to do with it and is never polled in the process.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Pusher Robot — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:35:34 -0000

With a fresh install of Firefox under OSX or WinXP (Wheee for Parallels), typing “test” into the address bar results in a page telling me that http://test/ could not be found. What do you see?Something is screwy with your testbed then. I've installed firefox on at least dozens of computers, and they have always done an "I'm feeling Lucky" google search of unidentified words in the address bar - unless it contains a period, in which case it assumes a TLD.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

anon — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:35:15 -0000

What's happening here is really obvious.

Microsoft is attempting to leverage the same Windows bundling techniques with search that it used to gain share in web browsers, media players and instant messengers.

It might only mean fines in Europe and the Far East, but a Sherman Antitrust conviction in the United States means your stock price drops in half again.

Hey, it's your money.

And consider all that stock benefit you softie employees got by killing off Netscape... Where's your stock today in comparison with when Netscape was at it's peak? Surely, you don't believe if Microsoft kills off Google it will add $100 billion in market cap to itself?

At some point, the Microsoft "geeks" need to start thinking about other "geeks" at other companies - and whether trumping antitrust law, cheating for marketshare, or buying up customers (ala A9/live.com) benefits software engineers as much as it benefits the pointy-headed bosses, the powerpoint wranglers and the beancounters at your expense.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Eric Nordberg — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:22:54 -0000

Hey,

To the confused reader above (re: configuring firefox), type "about:config" in the address bar. Adjust search as desired.

To the google-detractor above you are correct "flower" doesn't return 1800Flowers or ftd.com. Search for "flowers" however and you do get those results. I believe this is just more intelligent search (and I work at msft for goodness sake!)

I agree with many other folks on this page - IE must represent msft's commitment to openness and fairness by allowing the user to choose (preferably during install) their default search. If that's google then so be it. Our search (Windows Live) should win on its own merits - not b/c it's a default in a browser included w/ the most common OS on the planet. We no longer have the benefit of the doubt as a company. We must earn back our user's trust. I think our products and services are good enough to win on their own merit. Let the user choose and let them choose in a manner that reflects the openness, fairness and honesty of our company.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Markus — Tue, 02 May 2006 12:38:47 -0000

Only 30% or so of users will change the default... The power of being default trumps nearly everything.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Yandel — Tue, 02 May 2006 12:28:09 -0000

I think that Microsoft could do what they want with there browser and Google shouldn't give opinions on how they do there stuff. Google should have more confidents in then selves and stop worrying about Microsoft. May i say "Scary Cat".

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Super2online — Tue, 02 May 2006 10:09:08 -0000

I have to laugh at everyone advocating that features of an application be disabled until choices are made. There are millions of computer users that are relatively new to computers whom would be frustrated and lost trying to figure out how to make the change.

I work with hundreds of individuals on a daily basis that fall into this catagory. These are folks that are confused just looking at the array of choices that are on start menu! Software should ALWAYS have a default set so that EVERY function works WITHOUT having to tweak settings.

Let's not forget that computers are quickly becoming a neccessity, not an option, to function in todays society. There is no need to make things more difficult for novice users, and older folks that have trouble just looking at the screen to see it and who typically peck at the keys just to make ANYTHING happen!

Society is made up of many more catalogies of users than the power users who typically freqent these pages making comments about what should be done without considering everyone as a whole.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Brian Turner — Tue, 02 May 2006 09:46:42 -0000

"Some people though mistake Google for a monopoly, they are not. Yes they are the dominant search provider, but that does not make them a monolopy by federal standards."

Google owns more than 75% of the UK search market. The next nearest competitor has 7.4%:
http://www.britecorp.co.uk/...

In the UK at least, Google is an effective monopoly.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Kevin M — Tue, 02 May 2006 08:38:02 -0000

Wow, some interesting arguments. Some people though mistake Google for a monopoly, they are not. Yes they are the dominant search provider, but that does not make them a monolopy by federal standards. If Google was required to browse the internet on say 60% of all PCs then yes, they would probably be considered a monopoly.

Yes, Google is grousing, but as I said before Microsoft is an acknowledged monopoly and thus has different rules. That said people will be able to change IE7 search just as easily as IE6 or Firefox, so probably not a real issue.

As several have stated, maybe Google realizes Microsoft has genuine hit with their "new" search. Heck, will all that is being said, I am going spend sometime using it, just to see and I haven't used MSFT search (other than what is built into their apps) in well over a year.

Competition is good, and Microsoft is really starting to work on the quality of their apps and such. I support that effort wholeheartedly so long as competition is based on quality and not one's ability to predetermine or bundle applications.

If you feel strongly about the issues surrounding IE Search then vote with your queries, because that will be good for all of us (unless of course the government forces ISPs and vendors to keep logs of everything, that is a waaaay more important debate)

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

odarky — Tue, 02 May 2006 08:18:16 -0000

Google = "Cry Baby"

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Detlev Johnson — Tue, 02 May 2006 06:26:39 -0000

The thing that lacks the most competitive fairness about Microsoft, is that regardless what I set for my default, IE opens when other Microsoft software requires something like ActiveX. Since MS Show requires IE, users are not allowed a choice in that case. There are many examples, but a webinar reaches more than just one user at a time.

I see ActiveX as a child of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish technology. It's sooo obvious that it hides in plain sight. I think serious concerns have merit, and Google is a day late in lodging them.

-detlev

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Marthinus Swart — Tue, 02 May 2006 06:24:14 -0000

I rather like Google and all it's tools. I am actually a Google freak and when it comes to browsers I must admit I am a Firefox user and will never ever use a different browser except if it is much better than Firefox.

I must admit that this new MS options sounds all too innocent to me and unforetunately MS also knows that 80% of the market out there does not really care which search engine they use whether MSN or Google, so they will most probably stick with whatever the default is.

The positive side will be that it will force more and better innovation from the competition. Case in point is Netscape, their browser to me just plain sucked and now with Firefox I am all Mozilla again. Unfortunately it was a little too late for Netscape.

I also feel the Google experience is better than the MSN one, I like the way Google changes the Google image ever so often depending on current events etc. Small things that will keep me on Google, and ultimately the term "Just Google it" sounds better than "Just MSN it" to me personally.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Budda-budda — Tue, 02 May 2006 01:31:17 -0000

Boooooring... J, the girl (I presume) has a point and you buddy cannot read.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Tue, 02 May 2006 00:53:03 -0000

Saying IE7 is an optional download is disingenous. Saying Vista has 0% market share is disingenous.

Vista gets released, market share is going to climb steadily, through the next cycle of replacement.

Don't forget most of the new Vista installs will be new PCs, so there's no previous user preferences, and now, we're back to the default of MSN.

It's glaringly obvious Microsoft is playing the long game here. The user may be in control for the short term, that stops when a new version of Vista is received, on a new machine, and what do you know, Google isn't even in the list of search engine options, you have to go to a seperate web page to add them in.

Yeah. New spin, same Microsoft, same tricks. Can't compete on a level playing field.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

met — Tue, 02 May 2006 00:17:12 -0000

So if Live search decides to promote Da Vinci Code, should Vatican complain that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly? :D

you know - Windows monopoly > Vista monopoly > MSN search Monopoly > Da Vinci Code monopoly

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

kloto — Mon, 01 May 2006 23:38:16 -0000

Scott, I'm afraid you missed my Vista argument: Microsoft is not pressing you to use IE7. You will have to decide either to buy Vista retail box or to download it [free] from their page. And most certainly when you get preinstalled OEM copy of Vista it will point to whichever home page and search engine were chosen by the assembler, again, of your choice.

Now to your suggestion of the start page: I respectfully disagree. For me it's all or nothing decision, and if you include 5 search engines, you must include all! Frankly, how do you decide which ones are top 5? In which field? Say, if you include Google, but exclude PriceGrabber, MySimon or maybe CampusI, then Google's inferior Froogle sidekick gets unfair advantage over these specialized searches.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

Scott Frazer — Mon, 01 May 2006 23:10:17 -0000

Kloto, a good market citizen would make the default on first run display a page that something like the following:

"Microsoft recognizes that search is an important feature of web browsers and has a large impact on your web browsing experience. Because user choice is important to us, here's a list of the 5 most used search engines as of the writing of this software. We've pre-selected Windows Live Search because we think it's just spiffy. Also, we get the ad revenue it generates."

The fact that Firefox or Safari or Camino or whatever other browser you can cite doesn't do this is mitigated by one very important factor. Two browsers are shipped with current computers (IE and Safari -- Linux rarely ships with a computer, so I'll ignore it for now) and only one of those browsers defaults to using a search engine that generates a per-click profit for the company that ships the OS.

Firefox ships with a default of Google because Firefox makes money on a per-click basis from Google. Good for them. No one is being forced to use Firefox. We're being forced to use IE and Safari, at the very least to go and download the browser of our choice.

Finally: Yes, Microsoft is being pressured into playing by rules different from their competitors. This is fair and just _because they have been convicted of anti-trust violations_. When you've been found to use anti-competitive practices in the past, _every_ move made should be subject careful scrutiny to confirm that it isn't happening again.

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

kloto — Mon, 01 May 2006 22:50:39 -0000

I don't understand that monopoly argument at all. Currently IE7 is free download, so you must decide to install it to, well, install it. This will continue being true for all Windows versions except Vista. Microsoft Vista OS has 0% market share at the moment, so again you must decide to buy it to run it. There is zero monopolistic pressure - getting IE7 or not is completely elective process.

Plus IE7 respects your settings upon installation. And lets you easily switch to a different search engine. And lets you to switch to google as soon as you visit their page. How is that for being a good market citizen?

Re: IE team responds to NYT article about Google’s hackles’ being raised

anon — Mon, 01 May 2006 22:45:21 -0000

Google apparently sees no problem with its monopoly on searching in the Mac OS. Mac’s default browser Safari is *hard-wired* to use Google and nothing else. Google is being very hypocritical.

That's Apple's choice, not a result of some nefarious partnership with Google.