Some Backlash On Google Vs. IE7
Looks like I’m not the only one to call shenanigans at Google’s hypocritical complaint against IE7’s search box, while earning millions off Firefox and Opera’s search boxes.
Philipp at Google Blogoscoped:
It’s an interesting proposal, considering Firefox itself – which Google pushes on their US front-page – comes installed with Google by default… hypocrisy on Google’s part?
… 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.
I think this complaint also says a lot about Google’s confidence in its customer/brand loyalty — if Google is worried about people dumping it for MSN Search because it’s not worth the extra effort to click twice in IE7 to change the default search setting, perhaps Google fears it really does have a one-click brand loyalty problem.
Don Dodge calls Google’s statements “PR ‘double speak’”:
Hey Google, why not let the users of FireFox, Safari, or Opera choose which search service they want? Why is Google the default choice? Have you ever tried to change the Google search service in Safari? I tried and couldn’t do it. There has been a lot of talk about Google possibly creating its own browser. I wonder what the default search service would be in such a browser? Any guesses?
WTF?! Marissa must be kidding! When I install Firefox on my computer, I get Google as the default browser search box, Google as the default home page and now Google Toolbar as the only embedded toolbar.
Google’s stance smacks of hypocrisy, though, since it sees nothing wrong with bundling its own Web-based software together and tying it into its search engine.
… they won’t be getting any sympathy from me
This argument seems flawed for several reasons. … the company is probably making a strategic mistake. Like Netflix’s suit against Blockbuster, they may legitimize MSN search, to both consumers and analysts. More importantly, a company with the market position that Google has is bound to regret any move that expands the scope of antitrust case law. Would anyone be surprised if at some point the government investigates Google’s “bundling” of search and email?
… hats off to Google for keeping a straight face while complaining about this.
Brian White at Blogging Stocks:
Well, I hate to break this to you, but IE is a Microsoft product, and they can default their search bar to anywhere they want.
Tech.memeorandum is going bonkers. And again.
I’m glad to see it. Sometimes a company puts its foot in its mouth, and this is one of the most blatant situations I’ve seen recently. Did no one at Google think of the Firefox angle before Marissa Mayer spoke to the press? Jeez, I could have seen this one a mile away. What are the odds on a Google blog post that use a form of the word “clarify” in the first two sentences, discusses technical aspects of Firefox, and conceded nothing? I’d put money down we’ll get one this week.
People are forgetting that those using firefox are also likely to be those with the know how to change a default search. You cant say the same about IE users.
Though I agree about the hypocrisy.
Comment by FofR | May 1, 2006
I agree, I bet we’ll get a clarification blog post soon.
Comment by CJ Millisock | May 1, 2006
I don’t quite agree that it’s hypocritical. Google did not create Firefox, and in fact paid ( http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm ) to have that default preference. Microsoft could have done the same. On the other hand, Microsoft is illegally leveraging their OS/browser monopoly to push their own search service. The difference lies in who owns the browser versus the search service.
Comment by Niraj | May 1, 2006
Nathan, I’m surprised you could even question why Google is opposed to this. If Microsoft is allowed to do this here is what will happen:
1. Microsoft ships Vista with IE that defaults to MSN
2. In 2 years time, Google’s search share goes from 50% to about 10 and Microsoft’s goes from 10 to 60 or 70. Why? Because people use what is put in front of them
3. Google scrambles to regain market share but is unable to. In 5 years, they’re gone.
4. Microsoft goes on to dominate search and innovation suffers.
If Microsoft is allowed to do this, the above scenario is a GIVEN. Why would anybody want this?
Comment by David | May 1, 2006
Google ain’t scare, neither Firefox or Opera is part of Google, and I am sure that Microsoft will not sue Firefox becuase it is not a competitor as Google.
Comment by Haochi | May 1, 2006
This could also be a Public Relations effort on the part of Google.
The massive publicity has the effect of informing users that the IE7 browser’s default search can be changed, and in a sense encouraging them to change it.
Comment by Search Engines WEB | May 1, 2006
its not bypocrisy, its being competitive.
MSFT can reach some 85% of the desktops very quickly. (the numbers speak for themselves, goog has a point here, don’t ignore the numbers.)
Netscape got crushed by this very issue. i’m just glad GOOG’s management looks past “the act” of hypocrisy, and acts competitively. They have teamed w/an HUGE underdog.
GOOG merely didn’t want to be in front of a speeding truck, so they beat MSFT at their own game. now GOOG is getting shit for it.
anyone who thinks goog is a hypocrite better think again because if they don’t act the way they do, they potentially become the next netscape. and everyone will be bitching about how “its a shame MSFT uses its 85% desktop leverage”.
so the the experts i say, “stop your bitching and let GOOG compete.” because if it was the other way around, the experts would be say how invincable MSFT is, and their is not a smart enough competitor out their to truly compete w/them. (fucken experts suck.)
all the engines use a default measure to get advantage… aol w/the cables, yahoo w/the telcos, msft w/their desktop leverage, and goog w/their VERY SMART underdog partnerships.
Comment by joe | May 1, 2006
I think this is one of those cases where the news doesn’t portray whats going on in context. Microsofts previous beta had no ability to change the search engine unless the user edited the registry. This beta has no alternate search engines when you first install it. You can choose find search engines which goes to a Microsoft page (i.e. Google could disappear as a choice in the future). Finally once you add Google as your search engine for the box and close IE, guess what, its not saved! The next time you open IE you have to choose Google to do the search. There is a workaround which is to go into the settings and choose what your default search should be. This is definitely different than what happens in Firefox. Whatever engine you pick is the engine that is used from then on. People who are saying Google is being hypocritical are either jumping on the Google bashing bandwagon or not understanding what MS has done.
Comment by iguy | May 1, 2006
Basically what it comes down to is that once you add Google and then choose Google as your search engine IE will go back to using MSN the next time you start the browser. You have to take the extra step after adding Google, to make it the default search engine.
Here’s a quote from a news source that partly gets it right (Forbes) “Microsoft has countered in reports that users of Internet Explorer 7 could always change the browser’s default search box from MSN to something else. But Google claims that IE7 makes it difficult for people to change the default search engine, and says it isn’t as straightforward as the drop down menu that comes with Firefox.”
Comment by iguy | May 1, 2006
Lemme get this straight. The tech world is going nuts because Google has voiced concerns that Microsoft might be leveraging its desktop monopoly into an unfair advantage in another industry (search-based advertising). And everyone is mad at Google??? Why? Because MS would never do such a thing?
And the logic of Nicholas Carr’s argument is so deliciously warped that it could only sound better coming from the mouth of Stephen Colbert.
Comment by Gerard | May 1, 2006
Ditto on Nicholas Carr’s argument. In fact, why isn’t Walmart required to sell Target’s merchandise in their stores? Shouldn’t consumers be given a CHOICE? (other than the choice they’d already made, that is, of driving to Walmart’s store in the first place). And really, if I go to the opera, why couldn’t I listen to a Broadway musical instead?
Who says the world has to use common sense, anyway?
Comment by Megan | May 2, 2006
Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Review
Internet explorer 6 was a bloated web browser. After installing beta 7 I have to give Microsoft some credit for trying. Right away I noticed how much quicker the browser is. Something familiar was the multi-tabbed browser feature which Firefox first to…
Trackback by Media UnCut | July 10, 2006