I’ve been thinking some more about Google’s attack on Microsoft for allegedly making its search engine the default engine on its new browser (see prior post). As Google’s Marissa Mayer puts it, “We don’t think it’s right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose.” That statement seems consistent with Google’s ideals, particularly its philosophy of “always placing the interests of the user first” even when that means “resist[ing] the temptation to make small sacrifices to increase shareholder value.” Google’s simply asking that Microsoft, as well, live up to Google’s ideals – that it give users the choice of which search engine to use even if that means sacrificing some shareholder value.
But what’s the most powerful and influential default setting in the search world today? It’s not – at least yet – in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. It’s on Google’s home page. I would guess that a strong plurality, if not a majority, of web searches are done through Google’s home page, at least in the United States. As “Google” has become synonymous with “search,” people head to its home page as much out of habit as anything else. It is, quite simply, where you go to search the web. But Google doesn’t give you any choices when you arrive at its home page. There’s a default engine – Google’s – and it’s a default that you can’t change. There’s no choice.
If Google wants to fully live up to its ideals – to really give primacy to the goal of user choice in search – it should open up its home page to other search engines. That would be easy to do without mucking up the page or the “user experience.” You could just add a simple drop down menu that would allow users to choose whether to do a search with Google’s engine, or Microsoft’s, or Yahoo’s, or one of the other, less-well-known engines that now exist. The result would be that users get more choice as well as fuller access to the wealth of information on the web (another of Google’s goals). By enabling broader competition in search, right at the point of user access, Google would also promote innovation in search technology, again benefiting the user.
The greatest opportunity to enhance the ability of users to freely choose how they search the net lies in Google’s own backyard. Why not take advantage of it?
I find Google’s stance even more hypocritical because they have no problem taking over the default search and home page positions in Firefox. I am fairly certain that, were Firefox to gain even more ground against IE, Google would not give up this position because it gave them an unfair advantage over other search companies.
Taking this position (and having it covered on the front of the NY Times no less) will either be seen as a sign of weakness or fodder to attack Google down the road.
Whenever companies start attacking Microsoft for being a monopoly, it seems to be the result of weak kneed executives getting nervous that the superiority of their product won’t stand up to Microsoft (Explorer beat Netscape due to functionaly superiority, Windows beat Macs due to cost/value superiority etc). For a while now, consumers had the MSN search as a default home page, but chose to go to Google as it’s superior. Is Google getting nervous that consumers will be a bit lazier since the search results are not longer as superior?
On the other hand, if Google does win out in the long run, people will use these statements to try and force it to use other search engines on it’s home page (good suggestion, Nicholas), in it’s sidebar and in other future Google applications.
If Google really wanted to attack Microsoft, it would make a one-click program on it’s home page that changes the default search engine on IE7 while also trying to cut massive deals with major PC producers (Dell etc) and pushing a consumer campaign for Google driven Windows PCs (I know a lot of consumers would go for it).
This is nonsense. It’s about choice. No one forces people to go to Google’s homepage. They choose to do it.
I.E. 7 will, except in extremely rare instances, make people use MSN search, unless they change the default setting in the built-in search box.
But most people don’t know how to change the defaults in software, and therefore their choice is taken away by I.E. 7.
Everyone who uses the web knows how to type in a URL. If they wanted something other than Google, they can just type it in.
Furthermore, Google does refer people to its competitors all the time in search results. It also does so on sites like Google Finance.
People go to Google because they choose to do so, not because they’re tricked into going there.
I must be missing something…how are these two things related?
From what I read Google’s concern is that most people don’t know enough to change their default settings. So rather than provide hard coded defaults, let the user choose when the application is first started.
This is already done the first time you load IE and need to pick what type of network will be used. Extending this to support choosing a search engine would be trivial.
On Firefox; Google doesn’t make Firefox. If Microsoft wants to negotiate a deal with the developers they can do so and Google can’t do much about it (subject to any contract that might have been signed).
Google has already stated they would have no issues with this arrangement if it were to pass. Heck, Microsoft could release their own version of Firefox that pointed back to MSN. Not likely, but they could.
Wayne
The suggestion that Google place on its own home page the ability for surfers to look for information on other search engines is so asinine that I can only assume that you are making a very subtle point about Microsoft being pressured to enable people using Windows to make their own choices about where to search.
. . .
In other words: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
If that’s what you’re intended to say, then it seems to have a little too subtle for Scoble and others to catch … but it was something fairly insightful to say.
. . .
If, on the other hand, you’re serious, then you have to start thinking about which company is on most computers by default (not Google), which company has been in legal trouble for decades for unfair competition and antitrust violations (not Google), and which company could potentially force people to use its services (not Google).
I wonder if Google’s ever been sued because a company thinks a competitor having first place in the search results is an unfair advantage.
When I go to Jiffy Lube, it bugs me when they ask me what type of engine oil to use. I don’t know! I’m not a car techie. I almost always defer to their advice. This is about all I can tolerate.
If they were to further ask me what *brand* of oil to use and force me to weigh the benefits of Penzoil vs STP vs Mobil, I’d take my business elsewhere.
The fact that Jiffy Lube went ahead and made an exclusive deal with one supplier of engine oil doesn’t bother me in the least.
If I hate having MSN as the default that much, I’d go buy a Mac. (I don’t, so I won’t.)
Next we will wonder why google should be default search engine in google toolbars.
What a crazy world :)
“But most people don’t know how to change the defaults in software, and therefore their choice is taken away by I.E. 7”
Get yourself a copy of IE7 and head over to http://www.google.com with it. There will appear a large button in the top right corner and an arrow pointing right to the search box. It couldn’t be any easier to change the default and for most people this button will be very obvious.
@ Ed Bilodeau
Google has already said that they have no problem with Firefox, safari changing their defaults. PLus Google said that it would be happy that on frst search users r given a choice. and if that system is implemented on firefox and safari it has no problem with it.
Source CNET
http://news.com.com/New+Microsoft+browser+raises+Googles+hackles+-+page+2/2100-1032_3-6066759-2.html?tag=st.num
Wayne,
You can say that Google doesn’t make Firefox but they fund key Firefox developers as Google employees and pay Firefox for every copy it ships. That sounds close enough in my opinion.
Given the way Google has targeted IE7 visitors already, the average user will simply need to visit Google.com once in order to be offered the option, by Google, to change their default search provider to Google. They’ve been targetting IE7 users with IE7 specific front page changes since the IE7 Beta 1 build came out.
Microsoft supports the OpenSearch standard. There is nothing stopping Google from having an OpenSearch link right on their front page with a “Hey, IE7 user! Click here!!” as the text.
Besides, if a user has already switched, in IE6, their search provider to Google, it isn’t like Microsoft takes that away from them. IE7 simply preserves the search provider that is already in place AND gives an actual standards-based approach to changing it. Does Firefox do this with Google? No.
This is the stupidest thing I have read so far today, and I am a math professor giving/grading exams today so thats says a lot. This would be akin to saying that Best Buy should allow Circuit City to set up a shop within its stores for the purpose of choice. What microsoft is doing is giving the illusion of choice. What an idiot.
So, if I stop by Wendy’s for a burger, should I also expect them to offer me items from Subway, Arby’s, etc. menus just because their slogan is that I should have a choice?
Plus, you can already go to a site that has all of the major search engines on one page – http://dogpile.com/. So, maybe all browsers should default to Dogpile and thus avoid alienating either Google or Microsoft.
This is just sand in Microsoft’s face; Microsoft would dearly love to have a rerun of the Browser wars (they won) and treat Google as the new Netscape. Google’s advantage is going to be that they are at the point where they can offer a compelling alternative to the core lifestyle applications that does not require Windows and thus can escape from the viral swamp. IE7 will be just as vulnerable, Vista won’t save Microsoft, and MSN won’t replace Google anytime soon. Look to MSFT to lose half it’s value before the turnaround.
IE is a browser.
Google is a search engine.
I can see having a search engine choice within a browser, but to have a search engine choice on a search engine’s own web site doesn’t make sense.
I’m sorry to say this is not the stupidest idea I’ve seen today. But it is still pretty doggone stupid. When I can read the thinking of a different writer than Mr. Carr by purchasing the book which he has written, than that is precisely when I shall do so.
Dude, I want some of what you’re smoking. That’s some good, good shit.
Google is just posturing. Microsoft should be able to make MSN search the default without mucking up the user experience with a question about which search engine the user wants.
Having a search engine selector on google.com, on the other hand, is just plain stoopid.
Mike: Google isn’t a search engine, it’s an advertising distribution system. :-)
Weird though. The first search engine to come up when I google “search” from Firefox is MSN search. When I do it from IE, it is Google.
Nick you missed it by a country mile with this one.
Dominic– Talk about nonsense:
“But MOST PEOPLE DON’T KNOW HOW to change the defaults in software, and therefore their choice is taken away by I.E. 7.
EVERYONE WHO USES THE WEB KNOWS HOW to type in a URL. If they wanted something other than Google, they can just type it in.”
So if everyone knows how to type in a URL, how can Microsoft possibly take away their choice? Why couldn’t that last sentence be:
“If they wanted something other than MSN, they can just type it in.”
And why doesn’t Firefox have the choice of search engine as an option during installation?
Besides the fact that the assumption for your argument is that people are just stupid and can’t figure out what they’re doing, it just makes no sense.
Let Google give up its search monopoly on the Mac, then I’ll listen to what they have to say. Mac’s default browser is Safari, and Safari’s search field is actually *hard-coded* to use Google and nothing else. I haven’t seen Google raise any objections to that.
Molly, the Mac has 2-3% market share of the PC market (at best). A monopoly on that 2-3%, does not even begin to compare to the unfair advantage Microsoft has to force people to use its search (which Microsoft will, when you get a new copy of Vista on a new machine, with no previous preferences to migrate over).
Your comparison just seems like apples and oranges to me.
Microsoft Windows is on 97% of all computers sold. In the past, Microsoft has been tried and convicted for using this monopoly power to quash competitors.
Google has anywhere from 40-50% of the search market. Using Google is a choice, and there is absolutely no barrier to entry to switching your search engine. If you want to use a different website than google.com, you have a huge array of choices.
If you want to use something other than Microsoft Windows, you have basically two choices: One of which costs about 20-30% more and is used by 2% of the market, and another which is free, but which has a crappy user interface and is virtually unknown among normal, non-tech savvy people. In short, most people are stuck with Windows.
In the past, Microsoft has done things to slow down the software of competitors on its system, threatened to “cut of the air supply” of competitors, and drove innovation in the browser market to a standstill for years. I don’t know that the government is the best remedy for this case, but comparing the huge layers of lock-in an OS company has with a web services company just doesn’t make any sense to me.