« Repeated Searches as Social Bookmark Application | Main | Another Brand Bites the Dust »
An Objective Look at Google vs. Microsoft
May 02, 2006
Just a few counterpoints about the current spate of Google/MSN craziness floating around:
Steve Lohr kicks off the hoopla in a NY Times article that states, regarding Microsoft's long-awaited release of IE 7, that
The new browser includes a search box in the upper-right corner that is typically set up to send users to Microsoft's MSN search service. Google contends that this puts Microsoft in a position to unfairly grab Web traffic and advertising dollars from its competitors.
Reaction, predictably, was polarized, with many people wondering what Google is thinking, since
- The current search engine market share numbers favor Google over MSN at a ratio of roughly 4:1, and
- Google has similar arrangements (that is, to be the default search engine) for Firefox and Opera browsers
I'll address the second point first. It basically boils down to the fact that IE 7, as well as Windows, the platform it runs on, are software, not a web site. And in terms of anti-trust, Windows is already tainted goods.
In 1998, the government made the connection between platform ownership and its ability to unfairly influence browser adoption - especially when choosing another browser was difficult or impossible: "The thing about browsers that's different from a lot of software is this is potentially an alternative platform," said Joel Klein, then Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust.
Google is counting on the government to make the same "alternative platform" connection between a browser and a search engine that it made between the OS and the browser in the late '90s. With MS holding roughly 80% of the market share with Internet Explorer, it seems like a plausible argument. Now if Opera or Firefox were to suddenly run on 80% of machines, Google might still not find the tables turned, because the arrangements between Google and those browsers are deals between different companies - not one company using its standing to push another of its products.
As for Google crying foul before a foul has been committed, that's possible. Yahoo's Jeremy Zawodney claims "double standard," noting Google's $1 billion deal with Dell to tweak browsers on Dell PCs in Google's favor. Danny Sullivan asks, "what advantage?" when he says
I am nauseatingly exhausted by idea that Microsoft will conjure up some magical method of yanking people into its MSN Windows Live Whatever You Want To Call It search service via the Windows operating system or the Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft has failed for years to be successful in this, which is why it's amazing anyone would still believe it.
I submit that Danny's nauseated exhaustion is premature. Google is smart to point out a potential advantage in Microsoft's setup before that advantage is illustrated in the marketplace. Should Google wait until MSN controls 80% of the search market before it claims that Microsoft unfairly used its advantage of platform and browser control to influence search?
It'll never happen, you say? Maybe not. Google certainly hopes not. But Google would be foolish to simply sit around idly and not use the Justice Department's precedent in this case.
The path of computing and Internet history is littered with the carcasses of companies who underestimated Microsoft or never thought Microsoft's ownership of the OS would pose a serious threat to their vertical. Ask Digital Research. Or WordPerfect. Or Lotus. Or Netscape.
Does Microsoft's ownership of desktops and the browser market create an unfair situation for other search engines? The answer, as determined by a court, may well be "no." But Google is not foolish or hypocritical for asking the question.
All posts by Erik Dafforn
posted by Erik Dafforn at May 2, 2006 11:14 PM
Intrapromote: [ Case studies | SEO services | Bios ]
Trackback Pings
To TrackBack this entry, use the following URL:
http://seoblog.intrapromote.com/mt-tb.cgi/211