Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jun 2007 19:46 UTC, submitted by Dale Smoker
Legal Internet search leader Google is trying to convince federal and state authorities that Microsoft's Vista operating system is stifling competition as the high-tech heavyweights wrestle for the allegiance of personal computer users. In a 49-page document filed April 18 with the U.S. Justice Department and state attorneys general, Google alleged that the latest version of Microsoft's Windows operating system impairs the performance of 'desktop search' programs that find data stored on a computer's hard drive. Besides bogging down competing programs, Google alleged Microsoft had made it too complicated to turn off the desktop search feature built into Vista.
Thread beginning with comment 247722
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Disreputable
by tomcat on Wed 13th Jun 2007 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Disreputable"
Member since:

One report from a Privacy Watchdog group does not a boogeyman make. Especially not when you consider that Google has said that they would try to address some of the issues raised.

Open your eyes. Google isn't addressing any of these issues; in fact, they're getting more pervasive day by day. (DoubleClick) (GMail) (public data)

That's a far cry from the years upon years of dirty tricks Microsoft has accustomed us to - though I don't expect Microsoft apologists to acknowledge this point.

You're talking about ancient history. Microsoft has a government-sponsored compliance committee on its back that evaluates all of its deals, contracts, mergers/acquisitions, APIs, integrations, etc. Try coming up with something from this millenium.

Again, who cares what the people in the Slashdot echo chamber say?

Ordinarily, I'd say nobody. But since Slashdot is essentially a house organ for Google most of the time, it's rather telling in what it reveals. Technical opinion is that Google is blowing smoke here; that it has a means of turning off the Windows Search service, and it has the ability to provide its own UI.

I'm waiting for more information instead of going for the knee-jerk reactions you and others have displayed here.

Oh, puh-lease. You've already exonerated Google, based on your current attitude.

I'd rather have two separate monopolies than a single, bigger one, but maybe that's just me.

Not at the expense of free commerce. I don't want Google Desktop. I don't really care about Windows Search, either. So, consequently, I don't want some government bureaucrat telling software companies how to design software.

I know you, and other, would rather have Microsoft dominate *every* part of the computer industry...

No, wrong. I would prefer that there were more balance between competitors. But this complaint by Google is going a little too far.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: Disreputable
by archiesteel on Thu 14th Jun 2007 00:08 in reply to "RE[7]: Disreputable"
archiesteel Member since:

Open your eyes. Google isn't addressing any of these issues

Open *your* eyes. Monday, Google announced the first of its measures to alleviate privacy concerns:

It's not as if Microsoft didn't collect user data too - or perhaps you don't remember all the hoopla about Passport?

So, Google wants to buy DoubleClick. Big freakin' deal. That doesn't make them evil - well, except to the Microsoft shills who desperately want to find an angle to attack their biggest competitors.

In any case, a complaint has been filed. We'll see what comes out of it. I won't casually dismiss it until we know more about it (you know, unlike the way you're dismissing Google's complaint about Microsoft - double standards, again...)

Link doesn't work.

What part of "public" don't you understand? They're helping state governments access data that is *already* public, so that these governments can better serve their citizens, and that makes them evil?

Oh, puh-lease. You've already exonerated Google, based on your current attitude.

Uh, not to burst your bubble, but this article is about a complaint filed *by* Google, *against* Microsoft.

I don't want some government bureaucrat telling software companies how to design software.

I want governments to regulate monopolies, because they are harmful to a free market and to consumer choice. Despite what you may think, these types of regulation are *essential* to maintain free commerce. Monopolies are aberrations of market economies, and must be kept in check, otherwise they threaten the entire system.

No, wrong. I would prefer that there were more balance between competitors.

Yeah, right. Nevermind that you *always* side with Microsoft...

Here's a clue: that "balance between competitors" doesn't happen on its own. Unregulated markets are unstable, because as soon as one company gains too much market share, it gains an unfair advantage on others, which helps it further its dominance.

So you say you want more balance, and yet you are against regulations. Talk about a mental disconnect...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Disreputable
by google_ninja on Thu 14th Jun 2007 04:56 in reply to "RE[8]: Disreputable"
google_ninja Member since:

I agree with regulating markets, but the only reason google search existed in the first place was because of a lack of the functionality in windows. Now that the functionality is there, there is no need to use what was quite honestly, a pretty shoddy product that cause alot more problems then it solved.

Google is probably starting to wake up and realise that even with OEM bundling, they are still having a hard time getting their software on peoples machines. Now they want to pass the buck to MS by blaming the big bad monopoly for their lack of marketshare.

Removing all indexed locations is quite easily done from the control panel if users dont want to use MS search. While this does leave the process in ram, it weighs in at 4.8 megs, and it doesnt do anything if there is nothing to index.

Not only that, if google seriously wanted to compete, all they would have to do is disable the Windows Search process, that is very clearly named and not artificially embedded into the OS (like IE was).

On mac, pre spotlight there was a product called quicksilver that did part of what spotlight does now. Instead of sueing apple, quickilver instead changed their focus to augmenting spotlight, and providing a quality product. I agree that MS should not be allowed to leverage their monopoly to gain an unfair advantage, through access to undocumented APIs like in office, or through deliberate obfuscation of their standards to prevent inter-operability. However, offering a half assed search that makes the quarted assed search providers obsolete is not that. There is so much room for improvement on Windows Search, if Google even gave us something as simple as tagging im sure most vista users would have it installed in a heartbeat. But instead they sue.

Reply Parent Score: 1