Microsoft says it won't bundle Desktop search
Eweek has a twilight-zone-esque article up which is well worth a read as it's just chock full of interesting quotes. One of the really juicy bits comes straight from Microsoft...
Speaking on a panel on search technology at the Harvard Business School's Cyberposium, Mark Kroese, general manager of information services and merchant platform product marketing for MSN, said the federal antitrust battle Microsoft waged with the government has made the company think twice about what technologies it can add to the operating system.
"Working at Microsoft today vs. five years ago is different," Kroese said. "If anyone thinks the antitrust case hasn't slowed us down, you're wrong. If I want to meet with a products manager for Windows there needs to be three lawyers in the room. We have to be so careful, we err on the side of caution. We are on such a fine line of conduct."
Now this doesn't mean that there won't be an MSN Desktop search tool, it just means that it won't be integrated and bundled into the OS... at least for now. I don't really have a problem believing the quote either, it jives with other things I've heard. Personally, it kind of pisses me the hell off.
The first thing that probably popped into your head while reading the quote was Netscape versus Internet Explorer. Quite frankly, while this became a huge focus of the anti-trust case, it was actually one of the weakest arguments. I followed the trial avidly, and remember being livid at some of the stuff Microsoft tried to pull. I consider myself to be heavily pro-consumer, and there are things Microsoft should have been nailed on, some of which they were, but the Netscape thing always just left me sour.
I never really had a problem with Microsoft integrating a browser engine, just like I never had a problem with them integrating a TCP/IP stack into the OS, or now integrating anti-SpyWare software. It's stupid, and integrating it just made sense, just like it made sense for Apple to do so and it makes sense for the Linux distros to do so. Ignoring things like implementation, where you had the real problem was Microsoft's incredibly brutish tactics against competitors via vendors. That stuff was just asinine, and they probably should have been broken up for it.
To make it clear: I'm not pro-MS. Microsoft needs to be watched closely, and if there was even a hint that they were blocking vendors from choosing to install Google Desktop Search, or Yahoo Desktop Search, or even Amazon Desktop Search, they should be just raked over the coals. Likewise if there's any hint of them intentionally making things difficult for the other products to work in Windows in order to favor their own software.
However, Desktop searching is just very basic stuff, and the kind of thing that all users are going to need to do, and it really does seem stupid to make someone have to go out and download a tool to do it. Consumers just expect to have this functionality out of the box.
If it's included, it basically just means that others who are making their own tools are just going to have to make it better than what is built-in, same as Google would have to do if they shipped their own tool for Mac OS X. They're going to have to do better than Microsoft in terms of technology and services, which is a win for consumers. Artificial markets are not.
Now, it's easy to have a soft spot for Google and a hard spot for Microsoft, and therefore anything that benefits Google goes into the green column. The problem with that type of thinking is that no matter how much you hate Microsoft, artificially creating markets is like tariffs and subsidies: over time it ends up retarding what you are trying to protect.
Posted by drunkenbatmanJanuary 31, 2005, at 08:16 AM
Comments (13)
Posted by: Carl at January 31, 2005 08:30 AM
Hmm, MT didn't convert my bracket into a display entity. How odd.
Well, everyone pretend like there was l33t speak in my last comment and move on, I guess.
Posted by: Oliver at January 31, 2005 10:39 AM
I can't agree with you Carl, up until version 5 IE was absolute pants compared to NS. In fact I'd even go so far as to say that NS4.7 was better than IE5. Based on features NS should never have gone from 90+ percent market share to 2 or 3 percent - it only happened b/c of M$ bundling.
Posted by: Jon Henshaw at January 31, 2005 11:10 AM
It may also have something to do with the patent Apple was recently awarded for Spotlight. That, along with your other arguments, may have been too much for Microsoft's legal department to stomach.
Posted by: Sunny at January 31, 2005 08:45 PM
Yes the Netscape argument was probably the weakest argument and in the long run, the implications are probably worse for the consumers.
And that same argument can be used again Apple for bundling iTunes, iPhoto, Safari etc with OSX because it puts competitors at a disadvantage and restricts consumer choice (btw antitrust law has nothing to do with marketshare (read the law); its about whether the actions of a firm are anti-competitive and hurting the consumers). Borrowing a phrase from Lessig, "Common sense revolts this idea".
And yes for the Netscape fanboys out there, IE4 was handsdown a superior browser than the Netscape 4 series. Check the reviews from that time and it will coincide with the rise of IE's market-share. And keep in mind that the market we are talking here is very different from traditional markets. The market (or folks using the internet) was exploding and growing at unforseen and unchecked pace. Microsoft was just plain lucky that they entered the market at such as stage and reaped the benefits of the prevailing conditions. So all the talk of how Netscape's share vaporizing "overnight" may have a lot to do with the fact that the market exploded overnight. Of course, whether this was business acumen or the 'hand of god' is open for discussion. What isn't is the fact that this was beneficial for consumers in general. It was competition for Netscape and choice for consumers.
Of course I am not absolving Microsoft of other misdeeds. Its scare tactics against computer manufacturers, threats of dropping Windows, etc were rightfully criminal and hurtful. But the whole Netscape argument was laughable. More so, from tech reporters who still drop the line, even now! No other dead company in history has Netscape's mindshare.
But atleast these were standalone apps. Desktop Search on the other hand is an improvement over the built-in search. Surely there is a distinction here? How is this beneficial for consumers?
Posted by: Dave at January 31, 2005 11:38 PM
Since I didn't follow the antitrust suit as closely I must be missing something. You see, I thought the whole thing WAS about how MSIE was bundled.
MS went so far as to give a silly demo on how impossible it was to unbundle it, right? I think I recall someone in Australia quickly showing how blatently false their claims were.
Anyways, if this was the case, then there's a world of difference with how Apple bundles iLife with OS X. Want it off your desktop? Simply drag it off your dock. Want it off your computer entirely? Simply drag the app into the trash.
Makes me curious... if not MSIE, then exactly what WAS the DOJ fired up over? Surely you aren't going to implicate Sun instead of Netscape....
Posted by: Sunny at February 1, 2005 01:29 AM
Are you just suggesting that removing IE from Windows is easy? Than how is that different from OSX? The definition of bundling is still the same. Bundling is what matters; how easy it is uninstall does not matter.
Of course the suit was about IE. What we are saying here is that it was a mistake. That certain bundling is desirable for the user. That the integration of IE with Windows was a consumer benefit as it removed a barrier of entry.
Being a monopoly doesn't make you criminal. Its when you abuse monopoly power to hurt consumers. Nowhere in the case was it ever discussed whether common Joes actually were hurt by IE. In sharp contrast it brought much needed competition and innovation in the market, nevermind that it was much better then the existing product.
And now the consequences are clear to see: consumers will be hurt with the lack of integration. Integration works, its common sense. That is what software is all about.
Basically you have short-sighted bureacrats and judges who understand very little about the digital world or how it works, or how the dynamics are different from the past, out there regulating the digital age. I mean, a law made specifically for the railways industry in the late 1800's is used to prosecute a company in the digital age? Something is wrong.
But Microsoft did a lot of other things which were criminal, but never get any attention. Shady deals with OEMs, pressure, scare tactics forced computer manufacturers to have only Windows lines. Did this hurt consumers? Yes. Did browser hurt consumers? No.
So the one thing that Microsoft actually did right from a consumer standpoint (making the browser free; entry to Internet = zero costs), was turned into a sensational lawsuit.
So ironically what is supposed to be beneficial for consumers is prohibited by law. But its only for Microsoft and not for Apple or Linux distros. Now how is that fair?
Posted by: Carl at February 1, 2005 02:08 AM
I'm no legal expert, but here's my vote:
Including IE with Windows: Good
Making IE impossible to remove: Pretty Bad
Threatening companies that included NS: Evil
which resulted in,
There no longer being competition in the Windows browser market: Bad
which resulted in
IE never getting decent CSS support: Awful
and on a general note of MS's incompetence
IE's security holes (aka. Active X): Awful
So, MS did one thing right, and a lot of things wrong.
Posted by: Sunny at February 1, 2005 06:07 AM
Carl, you are making some observations here that didn't pan out in the trial.
Making IE impossible to remove.
I think it was proven that it is fairly easy to remove.
There no longer being competition in the Windows browser market: Bad
Really thats a bit far-fetched. There were now two legitimate contenders instead of one. How is that less competition?
IE never getting decent CSS support.
And Navigator did? How is this even relevant to the case?
But I will entertain all your points again. Let's for a second admit that consumers were actually hurt, then why didn't all of this come up in the case? The case was still just about bundling. And now consumers will pay for it.
IE's security problems have a lot to do with the competition and innovation as well. Active X was a value added feature. Thanks to these features, I evangelize Firefox nowadays.
Posted by: Carl at February 1, 2005 06:28 AM
I wasn't talking about the case; I was talking about in general.
When I said, "Making IE impossible to remove," I should have said, "pretending that IE was impossible to remove." Or "lying and saying that IE is impossible to remove."
(Safari may have problems, but at least it can be dropped in the trash without difficulty.)
As to competition in the browser market place: Yes, Microsoft joining the fray was good, at first. But when Microsoft finally won the browser wars and Netscape stopped releasing a competitive product (after Netscape 4), it really hurt the market.
A comparison to Safari is once again helpful: When Safari came out, it killed Camino, no questions asked. See DBs old rant on this for more info. BUT browser competition on the Mac side is not dead yet. FireFox is still alive and making good strides on the Mac. In fact, I'm not even sure if there was a FireFox for Mac when Safari came out. Anyway, the point is that the Mac browser market, though dominated by Safari, remains diverse and thus competitive. As a result, Apple still feels obliged to improve its product, which is why 10.4's Safari will have RSS and Safari 1.3 will be released for 10.3.
IE6, on the other hand, was released with XP, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and has buggy CSS support. I brought up and am bringing up CSS, not to say that Netscape had good CSS (it never did) but to say that MS let their CSS support stagnate once they had killed Netscape.
In review, I had/have no problem with Microsoft when they were competing with Netscape on merit. The problem was that they won the browser wars too decisively, allowing them to rest on their laurels, which in turn has set web design back by 5 years.
Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with the merits of the lawsuit. I don't really know anything about the law, so I can't really comment on it other than by giving my general impressions of how things turned out.
Posted by: wessup at February 1, 2005 11:01 AM
You can just drag safari to the trash, but what about webcore? I can use firefox for when i browse the web but webcore is still there and rendering the help system and email and others. I can't tell it to use the gecko engine. It's the same issue it is just Apple. And yes I can find webcore and delete it but if i do a bunch of features in the OS break.
Posted by: stripes at February 2, 2005 09:39 PM
You can just drag safari to the trash, but what about webcore? I can use firefox for when i browse the web but webcore is still there and rendering the help system and email and others. I can't tell it to use the gecko engine.
So drag /System/Library/Frameworks/WebKit.framework to the trash, and then drag a gecko based replacement there. Now as far as I know there is no gecko based replacement, but there is nothing technical or legal (again, as far as I know) that prevents you from implementing WebKit's API using another rendering engine. Then once you stash it there most things will start using it (OmniWeb packages their own version, but that is because they alter theirs a bit).
That's not facetious. Replacing an application means you need to make something roughly compatible that has a user interface close enough that people won't care that it isn't the same as the old one. Replacing a shared library requires that you make something a lot more then roughly compatible with a programming interface really really close to identical (sometimes it has to be totally identical, sometimes some bits can change and nothing will care). It is harder then changing an app, but it can be done.
Posted by: Phoenix at February 4, 2005 02:27 AM
Nowadays FireFox, Opera, and the likes are more innovative, more secure. Check the reviews. :-)
How come their market share is so tiny ?
Yeah, I think one think that was lost in the whole anti-trust trial was the fact that if IE 4 and NN 4 had competed on merits, IE would have won anyway, since NN 4 was balls.
And, I agree that search does seem like the sort of thing that people are going to want out of the box, like web browsing and all the rest.
But, on the other hand, M$ suX0rz!!11! Ball Gatez bl0wx mon|
I think that's another point that we have to consider carefully when weighing these arguments.