Feds clear Microsoft's browser
May 13, 2006
Despite Google's behind-the-scenes lobbying, the US Justice Department has formally okayed the design of the web-search feature built into the new version of Microsoft's still-dominant Internet Explorer browser, reports the New York Times this morning. Google is worried - for good reason - that the IE search box will lead PC users to use Microsoft's MSN/Live search engine rather than Google's. But the government found that the default setting for the IE search box is sufficiently open and easy to change that it doesn't represent an unfair advantage:
The Justice Department and 17 states, who monitor Microsoft under an antitrust consent decree, studied the feature for months and were regularly briefed by Microsoft, according to the [government's] court filing. The court document noted that personal computer makers are free to set the default search engine to any service they choose. And the Microsoft browser, the filing said, included "a relatively straightforward method for the user to select a different search engine from the initial default."
But Google continues to complain about its rival's tactics. In a statement released after the government's decision, the company said: "Changing the search engine may be simple by Microsoft's standards. But if it were truly simple, users would be able to change the default with one click. Microsoft could have easily designed it that way. Instead, they've built it so users have to go through multiple steps to choose a search engine."
This seems more like corporate whining than anything else. The power of the default lies in the fact that most people are not geeks. They have better things to do than to fiddle with their computer's settings, whether the fiddling involves "one click" or "multiple steps." They'll stick with the default as long as it serves their needs - and as long as, in their perception, no clearly superior alternative exists. If Google wants to override the default instinct, in other words, it's going to have to rely on its ability to produce what customers see as a clearly superior search engine. The Feds aren't going to step in to protect its semi-monopoly on internet searches.
I wonder why is Google still considered as a search engine. See my post Google: Search Engine or Advertisement Delivery Mechanism?
If they are *not* just a search engine, I wonder if they have just this default thing to worry about. There are tons of other ways they can get slaughtered.
Posted by: Nitin Goyal at May 13, 2006 11:55 AM
This is too self-fulfilling. It's possible for Google to produce clearly superior results, but users not change anyway, because they don't know about how to change, or are intimidated about it. That is, you've set up an unfalsifiable argument - you can always reply "Obviously, it wasn't *superior enough*, because it was *possible* to change, and if users didn't do so, then by definition they didn't consider it worthwhile". It's underestimating the extent of a very real barrier.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at May 14, 2006 01:04 AM
Seth, out here in the real world, Google already has the biggest share of Internet search, despite the fact that IE6 already defaults to MSN. And if users cannot change the default (which I doubt) they can still go to Google and Google can change it for them.....
At the very worst, it doesn't take a huge amount of skill or effort to type "Google" into MSN Search. It's not the slightest bit intimidating, and once there, it's dead easy to set Google as your home page.
Google is a $100 billion capitalist company with huge piles of cash in the bank and more than enough brains to look after itself. Political lobbying is now just another weapon in its armoury. Next time it might get lucky. ;-)
Posted by: Jack at May 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Did you hear about Microsoft's plan to build a blogging client into Word? They are taking aim at both, adwords and adsense. I have a feeling they will only be moderately successful at both, but enough to slow Google down.
Posted by: Kingsley Joseph at May 14, 2006 04:58 PM
What is Microsoft paying you?
Posted by: marianne at May 14, 2006 07:40 PM
Right. Anyone who doesn't bag on MS must be in their pocket. Great analysis.
Posted by: Ron at May 15, 2006 03:03 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
"Riveting" -San Francisco Chronicle
"Rewarding" -Financial Times
"Ominously prescient" -Kirkus Reviews
"Riveting stuff" -New York Post