Google says Vista search changes not enough!


Recommended Posts

As we reported yesterday, Microsoft's "capitulation" to Google's antitrust complaint isn't as much a capitulation as the mainstream media was reporting. We inspected Microsoft's joint filing and found that Microsoft is not going to allow a complete override of the default search service in all Explorer windows, and that the company also rejects Google's concerns about performance.

In response, Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."

Nevertheless, Drummond said that "Microsoft's current approach to Vista desktop search clearly violates the consent decree and limits consumer choice," and the proposed remedies "are a step in the right direction, but they should be improved further to give consumers greater access to alternate desktop search providers."

Google did not elaborate on its expectations, although they are not difficult to piece together. Google had argued that it should be possible to disable Vista's search entirely, and Microsoft has not accommodated this demand. Search still runs, and OEMs and third-party software companies have not been given a way to schedule or disable it.

Furthermore, Microsoft did not make it possible to change the search defaults in a universal way, instead keeping its search system as the default throughout most of Windows Explorer. In short, Vista's search boxes will by and large return Vista's own search results if you type text into them and hit return. Microsoft's changes appear to mostly involve links to the "default" third party program, not a drop-in replacement.

Google's disappointment was only partly echoed by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who called the remedy a step in the right direction. "This agreement?while not perfect?is a positive step towards greater competition in the software industry. It will enhance the ability of consumers to select the desktop search tool of their choice," he said.

At this stage, it's unclear what recourse either Brown or Google has to change Microsoft's plan. Thomas O. Barnett, assistant Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, said in a statement that the agreement reached between Microsoft and the DOJ "resolve[d] any issues about desktop search under the final judgments."

The DOJ and all 17 state attorneys general agreed with Microsoft's proposal. "Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as promised," according to the joint filing.

Source: arstechnica

To a degree they are right.. Microsoft should put hooks into the Operating System to allow full drop in replacement. I think that the drop in replacement should be branded in such a way that it is very clear that it is not Microsoft's responsibility if they completely suck... and if anything break warranty on the Operating System if they are replaced - kind of like buying an off the shelf computer with a 'warranty void if seal broken' sticker on the back, you break that seal and on your head be it.

I just hope that should Google release an O/S (which I am sure they eventually will), that they are consistant to this request...

Why is Google not going after Apple? Dosn't Apple only allow SPOTLIGHT to search the computer? I don't remember being able to change the default in Mac OS ... and crap, I don't know, but can you install GoogleDesktop in Tiger/Leapord?

because the Apple population is so insignificant it makes virtually no difference to Google's revenue streams?

no offence to Apple users - I meant insignificant in numbers...

I swear google. Go Away.

They want Microsoft to cripple their search so that they can come in as saviors to Windows Users, and offer a nice solution to a problem that they themselves (unknownst to the users, of course) created.

Google Desktop Search is akin to spyware. You find it sleezily attached to every damned installer software out there. Google is just ****ed that they can't slide their crappy toolbar onto your computer anymore, and plaster you with links to google.com, because the software that they used to do it is now obsolete.

Why is Google not going after Apple? Dosn't Apple only allow SPOTLIGHT to search the computer? I don't remember being able to change the default in Mac OS ... and crap, I don't know, but can you install GoogleDesktop in Tiger/Leapord?

Because Apple and Google have an "understanding".

That's it. Screw google. I'm switching my homepage to live.com. I guess I'll have to write a decent digg.com gadget for it, since there isn't one.

Edited by MioTheGreat

I agree in this instance, Google should back off.

because the Apple population is so insignificant it makes virtually no difference to Google's revenue streams?

no offence to Apple users - I meant insignificant in numbers...

That's probably the reason why Apple and Google are working so closely together lately, because the company is so insignificant. (Y)

The reason why Google isn't going after Apple is probably because Mac OS X allows 3rd party vendors make input managers for Spotlight. Not sure if that's the exact reason though, and if Windows Vista allows this as well.

I did read something about Apple working with Google to give Spotlight Google Search capabilities, but from what I understand those will be online oriented only. Not for searching within the OS itself.

I seem to lose respect for Google more and more, with each passing day. :( A lot of their operations and actions seem to be getting way out of control, lately.

I still like their products, but this is too much. Hampering Microsoft to make a better OS? System search isn't the same as a Media Player or Web Browser...

Microsoft: Just make a small options at first startup to select search engine.

Why should they? Its their operating system. Its not like they are not allowing any third party desktop search systems on there. Google needs to chill out and try not to push crap like google desktop search. Their web search is revolutionary, I will agree with that all the way, but that doesn't mean that they should force their products into operating systems and make the OS crappier.

I did read something about Apple working with Google to give Spotlight Google Search capabilities, but from what I understand those will be online oriented only. Not for searching within the OS itself.

Ah. Now it makes sense.

Google can do this on OSX because they're working with Apple. They can't do that on Windows, and they're afraid that if Microsoft starts to close the gap between web and desktop searching, Google will take a rather steep plunge in market share.

EDIT: Anyone know if www.live.com is a decent search engine. I'm in the mood to turn my back on Google for good.

I just started using it a few minutes ago. Thus far, it seems good. The image search, at the very least, is much nicer than Google's. Overall the entire thing is much more AJAXy, but in a good way.

It's about time for a class-action counter-suit against Google for not allowing other search engines' results to be returned on google.com.

It's completely unfair that I cannot get live or yahoo results on google's page. That is noncompetitive behavior.

Ah. Now it makes sense.

Google can do this on OSX because they're working with Apple. They can't do that on Windows, and they're afraid that if Microsoft starts to close the gap between web and desktop searching, Google will take a rather steep plunge in market share.

Probably. But even on Mac OS X searching for local and network files will still run through Spotlight's own engine. Not one provided by Google. Plus I'm not entirely sure if it will make it into the OS, the article I read stated that "Apple's looking into it".

The reason why Google isn't going after Apple is probably because Mac OS X allows 3rd party vendors make input managers for Spotlight. Not sure if that's the exact reason though, and if Windows Vista allows this as well.

Input Managers in OS/X are the same as IFilters in the Windows Desktop Search solution - and that's a completely open interface, guess who makes the PDF filter for WDS (let me give you a clue: it isn't Microsoft). We are talking about for example, Apple letting Google replace the entire engine of spotlight, something which is not open to my understanding.

You misunderstood my comment on the insignificance (or twisted it around), I meant the cost of the battle to replace the engine behind the desktop solution is probably easier with Microsoft (given their DOJ history), probably cheaper with Microsoft (as it would invove an Antitrust suit against Apple), the number of users they stand to gain is many times smaller than going after Microsoft - it just doesn't make sound economic sense to go after Apple.

This has nothing to do with 'openness' or 'user freedom', this is all about the bottom line - and Google are showing they are as evil as any company in that respect...

That's probably the reason why Apple and Google are working so closely together lately, because the company is so insignificant. (Y)

quote]

That Google's company is so insignificant? ...Right.

Well back to the subject:

It's like always, the Bigger one has to be attacked for every little thing... When in the heck, did Microsoft announced Windows as an Open Source OS? What they have to do at Google, Inc. is shut the heck up and keep doing their jobs with zero complaints...

google will you please just shut the f*ck up!!!!!

i see nothing worng with vista's search.sure some improvements can be made, but nothing like this :angry:

I see these angry faces and angry rhetoric posted here all the time. The problem is that if a user prefers the Google search engine, and want to use that instead of Microsoft's search, they cannot shut off or reschedule the built-in Microsoft engine that does the same task. So, users pay double the computing resources for a single task if they choose a competing product, and they don't pay double by keeping Microsoft's.

Or, we can just eloquently state "shut the f*ck up!!!!!" in a mature and reasonable fashion.

Why is Google not going after Apple? Dosn't Apple only allow SPOTLIGHT to search the computer? I don't remember being able to change the default in Mac OS ... and crap, I don't know, but can you install GoogleDesktop in Tiger/Leapord?
Despite the mis-informed opinions of people who didn't even read the summary in the first post, this isn't because "Apple is insignificant in marketshare". The Google request is aimed directly at compliance with the US DoJ Concent Decree which is a result of a legal process. Apple has no such Consent Decree, as they weren't the subject of an anti-trust trial. That's all.
Despite the mis-informed opinions of people who didn't even read the summary in the first post, this isn't because "Apple is insignificant in marketshare". The Google request is aimed directly at compliance with the US DoJ Concent Decree which is a result of a legal process. Apple has no such Consent Decree, as they weren't the subject of an anti-trust trial. That's all.

As much as I hate quoting myself, but here goes. Just to explain that is what I meant with the insignificant marketshare.

You misunderstood my comment on the insignificance (or twisted it around), I meant the cost of the battle to replace the engine behind the desktop solution is probably easier with Microsoft (given their DOJ history), probably cheaper with Microsoft (as it would invove an Antitrust suit against Apple), the number of users they stand to gain is many times smaller than going after Microsoft - it just doesn't make sound economic sense to go after Apple.

If you think this is all about making Microsoft comply with the DoJ, then you are deluded. Lawyer and legal encounters cost money, and therefore are never made without something to gain. The Antitrust ruling may have been used as a vehicle to take action, but to think it was the reason action was taken at all is naive.

Input Managers in OS/X are the same as IFilters in the Windows Desktop Search solution - and that's a completely open interface, guess who makes the PDF filter for WDS (let me give you a clue: it isn't Microsoft). We are talking about for example, Apple letting Google replace the entire engine of spotlight, something which is not open to my understanding.

Nope that's outrageous. I seriously doubt Apple, like Microsoft, would allow Google and other 3rd party vendors to completely replace Spotlight either.

You misunderstood my comment on the insignificance (or twisted it around), I meant the cost of the battle to replace the engine behind the desktop solution is probably easier with Microsoft (given their DOJ history), probably cheaper with Microsoft (as it would invove an Antitrust suit against Apple), the number of users they stand to gain is many times smaller than going after Microsoft - it just doesn't make sound economic sense to go after Apple.

I still think it has more to do with the fact that Apple and Google are working so closely together nowadays. Plus Apple isn't trying to make it's own web search engine, like Microsoft does, thus they're not cutting into Google's market share. In both cases they're no competition.

That Google's company is so insignificant? ...Right.

??

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The Trump administration doesn't want you to use OpenAI's GPT-5.6 without its approval by David Uzondu Image via @realDonalTrump (X) As OpenAI prepares the release of its next model, GPT 5.6, the White House has instructed the company to limit the distribution of the software to a small group of government-approved partners instead of the general public, as it has done with previous releases. According to The Information, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman sent an internal memo to staff on Thursday explaining that the federal government will approve access "customer by customer" during an initial preview phase. Altman noted in the communication that this restrictive rollout is "not [their] long-term model" for software deployment, and the company plans to work toward a "more sustainable" distribution method later. CNN said that both OpenAI and the Trump administration view the capabilities of GPT 5.6 on the same level as Anthropic's Mythos and that government officials intend to "collaborate with frontier AI labs to develop shared approaches for addressing the challenges of scaling this technology." The latest restriction comes just weeks after the US Commerce Department decided to restrict Fable, a version of Mythos with extra safety "guardrails" to prevent users from exploiting software vulnerabilities. Not long after the release, though, researchers at Amazon found a way to bypass these restrictions, prompting an aggressive response from federal authorities. The government ordered Anthropic to cut off access for non-US citizens located outside the US, non-US citizens living inside the US, and incredibly, even Anthropic's own foreign-born employees. Anthropic now appears to be building a workaround to resolve this compliance block with an update to its Privacy Policy that introduces a category called "Verification Data" to handle KYC and Digital IDs. This setup could mandate digital identity checks to filter users by nationality, requiring a government-issued ID and facial biometric data. Who knows? Maybe in the future, you would have to scan your US Passport or State ID to prove your citizenship before you are allowed to chat with Fable 5 (or any other model).
    • When Windows 7 was released I created an AutoHotkey script that uses Alt+` as a keyboard shortcut to move a window across monitors. I have been using that script for over 15 years and this is the first time I have come across another app that uses the same shortcut!
    • I called it last year that they wouldn't end support when they said there would. There are too many people still on Windows 10 waiting for something better to upgrade to and 11 ain't it! The recent promises of fixing Windows 11's many problems is nice, but unless they deliver on those promises in a big way then I expect customers will still want to stick with 10.
    • Full ACK. I went too far adressing your post specifically. And as you said, it up to us customers as participant of the market dynamic as it happens to decide whether we spend our money on a product or not. The responsibility is to the company. In case of this price hike one could assume that MS is expecting or even starting to see a new interest in XBox hardware so they want to avoid losses per unit sold. I find it fair enough that they granted a period in which everyone interested could grab a unit for the current price (Amazon.de has a reliable stock of XBox Series X digital, which I bought last December after having sold my day one Series X a year ago). It is not that they cash up their customers starting on Monday. Cheers and let's cling to our perfectly fine hardware as long as we deem it worthy in relation to purchasing something new!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      414
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      129
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!