OSNews

This week, search giant Google made a lot of fuss about Internet Explorer 7's search field. You see, that search field defaulted to Microsoft's search engine, and not to Google's. Oh yes, that's really something to dust off your pitchforks for and go angry mobbing. If that isn't, what is? The fact that clicking a little arrow next to the search field gives you a drop-down menu where you can select different search engines apparently slipped Google's watchful eye.

No, they complained about the fact that it defaults to MSN. And, if I'm not mistaken, returns to the default when the browser is restarted unless settings are explicitly changed (I haven't checked this myself, but seem to remember reading it). Unlike Firefox, for example, where once the engine has been changed the new one is the default until its changed again.

Now, this is only a minor incident, part of a much bigger problem Microsoft has to overcome: because of Windows' 90-95% market share, anything Microsoft does will be seen as anti-competitive behaviour. Microsoft can't include program Xyz without Program Xyz Inc. going mental, squealing illegal bundling and what not.

This is to some extend true and something I struggle with in my opinion of microsoft. I find myself in danger of simultaneously blaming them for doing nothing about spyware, and for being anti-competitive when they do try to include anti-spyware in their system. This however doesn't change Xyz Inc.'s problem. Because of Microsoft's market share a lot of Microsoft behaviour is, de facto, anti-competitive. Whether this is intentional or not, once Microsoft decides to include Xyz, Xyz Inc. knows it almost certainly has to either find a new product, or go out of business. If you can't blame Microsoft for trying to make a better operating system you can hardly blame Xyz Inc. for trying to stay in business.

From my tone, you probably already figured my position on this: exactly, I find this pointless and overdone bickering over nothing. I am of the opinion that as long as a certain piece of software can be removed from Windows, and thus replaced, Microsoft can include it. And even if it cannot be removed from the system (i.e. Internet Explorer), I have this big "so what" feeling. It's not like you cannot easily install another browser and not use Internet Explorer anymore (I do agree MS needs to open up Windows Update to other browsers).

You are of course free to think so, but Microsoft doesn't. The evidence is pretty clear that they bundled IE because it would make the track for any other browser (Netscape) an uphill struggle. The same with the media player, internal Microsoft documents recently in the news show this was bundled in the hopes of killing off the Realplayer. If Microsoft assumes this will kill competition, why shouldn't the competition act as though it will?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6064441.html

Microsoft is in a really difficult position-- a position they may have maneuvered into because of their own actions-- but a difficult position nonetheless. When they announced they were going to include antivirus/spyware/malware applications in Windows Vista, many (including major antivirus companies) were quick to play the illegal bundling card. However, how surreal is it that Microsoft cannot improve their product and make their users safer by including these applications?

Like I said above I can feel the dilemma here. On the other hand it's not very much like your main point, Google and the search window. Defaulting to MSN is not about making the OS safer or even significantly improving the browser. Defaulting to MSN is about trying to boost MSN's search engine and its foolish to pretend otherwise. SImilarly the media player, though arguably about making a better complete package for the user, wasn't directly security related or an improvement to the core OS. The line is thinner here though, I'm prepared to admit I'd think a modern OS incomplete if it shipped without a web-browser and some media functionality is similarly becoming a standard.

It is also wise to think twice about the intentions of companies such as Google and McAfee. Do they really care about choice? Do they play the illegal bundling card because they care about your ability to choose? Of course not. They care about themselves, and themselves alone. There is nothing at all noble about their actions.

Likewise it's good to think twice (or more) about Microsoft's intentions. There is nothing noble about Microsoft's actions either. They didn't choose MSN on its merits for the user, they chose is because it makes money for Microsoft. And whether or not Google's motivation is noble, the result of their actions is that they are defending the right to choose. Their motivation, though relevant in an ethical debate about their behaviour, hardly enters into the most desirable result for the user.

But it's not only companies that are playing this game. Even governments, in the form of the European Union, want to join this card game. After much litigation, they forced Microsoft to sell a version of Windows XP without Windows Media Player, in order to create a level playing field for competitors such as Real. Did it work? Of course not. The new WMP-less version of Windows XP sold like a Playboy without nude pictures. Meanwhile, Neelie Kroes had spent a lot of tax money I supply her with on pointless litigation-- money that was much better spent on fighting poverty or hunger or whatever.

Now we're really getting on a slippery slope. I agree that Windows XP N was a failure. It was however only part of the EU's sanctions, some hefty fines were also included (which made the EU more money than was probably spent on fighting Microsoft, and more than either of us is likely to contribute in taxes to the EU during our lives). More to the point if we accept this argument no-one should be doing anything about anti-competitive practices. If no-one were doing anything about this chances are we'd all be paying several times what we are now for electricity because all the major suppliers, who own the actual cables, would make a deal to make more profit. If you want to live in that world go ahead, I'd prefer to stay in this one thank you very much.

I highly suggest these companies try to beat Microsoft and its products by relying on their own merits, instead of relying on a Dutch woman with a shady past. Doesn't a football victory made by playing better than the competing team feel a lot better than winning by getting a false penalty?

While these companies should absolutely compete on merits that isn't really the problem. They are afraid that merits are being snowed under by Microsoft's practices. After all no-one is suggesting Microsoft be prohibited from offering a media player at all, or from making it possible to use MSN as the search engine for the search field. Microsoft is therefor free to compete on merit along with the others. They just want a level playing field to play on. Or to stick more closely to your football metaphor they're asking the referee to make sure the goals either side of the pitch are the same size, rather than having Microsoft board up large parts of the goal it's defending.