Judge favors Microsoft over Google in search polemic

While it'd be easy for Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's deferment to be an end-all solution to the recent Google vs. Microsoft spat, we're inclined to believe that Google hasn't had its last word just yet. As it stands, the judge in charge has reportedly said that "she will likely defer to an agreement on desktop search forged between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the US government's antitrust lawsuit against the software vendor instead of responding to a complaint from rival Google," and further explained that she didn't consider Google to "be a party in this case." Unfortunately, that's about all we've heard at the moment-- but stay tuned, this one's bound to go a few more rounds before the dust settles.

[Evan @ Jun 26th 2007 3:11PM]

I am still confused on why Google is so worried about their desktop search feature. Are they trying to get their logo on my start menu?

[Spyvie @ Jun 26th 2007 3:17PM]

I’m with you on that Evan.

The nerve of MS to include a desktop search feature in their OS!

[Mike @ Jun 26th 2007 9:28PM]

The issue isn't that Windows Vista shouldn't have a hard disk search function, but Google claims that the hard disk search function built into Vista is somehow prohibiting other search programs (like Google Desktop) from functioning properly. They're essentially claiming Vista has a "monopoly" if you will on the hard disk search function. Seems typical of Microsoft to do that. Or Google could just be whining that they want to force their way into Vista machines, though I suppose you can't blame them for doing so- it is a huge part of their business, and being locked out of an entire OS that most people in the world are/will be in the future using can't be too good for them. Poor showmanship, though.

[blaQ @ Jun 26th 2007 3:16PM]

too late already boycotted Google search. All Windows users boycott Google search, use Live....there was a petition floating around somewhere.

[Jon @ Jun 26th 2007 3:28PM]

Too bad Live sucks. Google = A 1990s Microsoft

[Evan @ Jun 26th 2007 3:35PM]

I disagree with saying Google is a terrible corporation or anything like that. I just think this desktop search tiff is pointless attempt at advertising; just like that gosh darn Google Toolbar that is bundled with virtually every web-based install program.

Google does do all kinds of really cool stuff, check Google Labs for some stuff. Their Google Apps product has really given me the opportunity to ramp up my website like I wouldn't have thought possible.

[Spyvie @ Jun 26th 2007 3:20PM]

The problem is, Windows Live web search kinda sucks, I get much more relevant results from Google.

This coming from an apparent MS fanboy and longtime Hotmail user, who's purchased 2 copies of Vista.

[joe e @ Jun 26th 2007 3:22PM]

Google is a whiney brat of a company who I despise.

Google = Satan

[Ken @ Jun 26th 2007 3:39PM]

Google is a mighty fine company to work for, however, no matter how Satanic they may seem.

[Douglas A. Brace @ Jun 26th 2007 3:33PM]

The main idea behind this posting isn't about Google search (http://www.google.com) being the default search engine in your browser(s). It's about the indexing feature that Windows Vista uses and Google Desktop (the 3rd-party add-in available at http://desktop.google.com/).

I love Google's on-line applications (Gmail, Docs & Spreadsheets, Maps, Earth ect...) but I hate "Google Toolbar" and "Google Desktop Search." I'm a computing consultant that sets up about 15-20 new machines on a corporate network because of Dell and Google being in bed with each other, I have to uninstall "Google Toolbar" and "Google Desktop Search" each and every time because we don't like have to "officially" support those products.

Google is the only major company that survived the original .com era and I applaud them for their work.

[Jon @ Jun 26th 2007 3:43PM]

Er, and Yahoo! didn't survive? Sure they are behind Google, but they are hardly struggling.

[Miguel @ Jun 27th 2007 3:23AM]

Call me crazy, but what of Amazon, Netflix and Yahoo!. Pretty sure all of them are major .com-era ventures. None of them were dedicated search engines (Yahoo! is actually marketed as a web portal with search capacity). Google is the only dedicated search engine to survive the .com burst and diversify its business, but it's not the only surviving .com.

[Striker @ Jun 26th 2007 3:59PM]

I feel that Google did not even have the right to do this in the first place, it is Microsoft's OS, not Google's. It is different that Microsoft wants to have Vista users use their Desktop Search by setting up Windows so it is the default search engine, than Microsoft creating an open source OS for free and locking GDS out of it. Microsoft has every right to make their product the way they want it.

[C @ Jun 26th 2007 4:12PM]

Screw google. If google wants thier search feature in an os then they need to make thier own.

[Che @ Jun 26th 2007 5:39PM]

At the risk of repeating myself from a prior post, here's my explanation of what Google's complaint is. I'm not sure why anybody is offended by Google's position. They want people to be able to use their indexing and search application instead of MS's, not to make it impossible for consumers to choose to use MS's app.

Windows Explorer has had essentially useless search capabilities for many years (slow and error-prone). Google and others developed useful desktop search applications that rely on advance indexing of the content on your hard drive. These systems are quick and reliable once the content on your computer is indexed. The main problem with them (and a principal area of competition between them) is that they somewhat lower system performance by forcing the computer to index content even when the search function is not being used.

By adding its own desktop indexing search function to Vista and making it essentially, if not completely, impossible to turn off the indexing MS has made it impossible for others to compete on performance. A Vista user has two choices, use Vista's desktop search and suffer the performance hit its indexing causes or use a competitor and suffer the performance hit that Vista's (unused) desktop indexing and search application causes AND the performance hit that the alternative desktop indexing and search application causes.

In effect, as long as Vista's desktop search application is not completely useless, no rational Vista user would use Google's (or any other) desktop search application because they all lower performance relative to just using Vista's application. This is not because Vista's search application is more efficient, it is because MS does not allow/make it easy for users to run Vista without also running the search indexing.

Result: Because of the way MS has used its monopoly OS to force its desktop search application on the market, almost every Vista user will use Vista's built-in application. MS then uses the close integration between its desktop search and its internet search to direct more traffic to its internet search engine, taking business (and ad revenue) away from Google's search site.

This seems like a legitimate subject for Google to complain about. Am I missing something? If so, explain why, instead of just ranting that you love MS and Google is evil.

[Dan @ Jun 26th 2007 7:25PM]

Ummm, you CAN disable the Vista Search Indexing. You might want to check into things like this before posting such a long and well thought out (albeit incorrect) post.

[Seni @ Jun 26th 2007 7:30PM]

"By adding its own desktop indexing search function to Vista and making it essentially, if not completely, impossible to turn off the indexing"

Three ways to disable Microsoft desktop search indexing:
1. Navigate to Control Panel, Indexing Options. There you can remove all locations or only those you use rarely.
2. It is also possible to disable indexing for a certain drive or enable it only for selected folders. You can do this by changing the Properties of a drive or folder (right click on drive letter in Windows Explorer).
3. The fasted way is to simply disable the Windows Search service. Run Services (just type “Services” at the Start Search bar), right click on the Windows Search service and select “Properties”. Then choose “Disabled” for the start type. Afterwards, you have to stop this service by right clicking on it and selecting “Stop”.

Anyone with enough knowledge to want to change their desktop search provider should be able to perform the 5 clicks in one of these options. Really.


Also, it appears (I honestly see no reason why they couldn't) google could have just taken 5 minutes to add 2 lines into the installer script in order to disable Microsoft's search upon installation. As someone said on dailytech "I don't really see what the problem is with this, Google being lazy doesnt constitute an anti-trust violation." There are other ways around this.

[Che @ Jun 26th 2007 8:00PM]

Thank you both for providing considered responses. I did read the linked article before posting and I don't think it provides the information that you do.

My post was poor because I didn't know that Vista's indexing (as opposed to just the search feature) could be completely turned off. The few details I've seen about the plaintiffs' agreement with MS does not suggest that is part of the agreement, but maybe that's because it was possible all along.

Even if it can be completely turned off, I still have a concern. Maybe I'm being stupid, but my assumption is that if Google's installer could turn off Vista's indexing, it probably would do that and people wouldn't need to be discussing the ways for users to do it themselves (except for those of us who'd rather not have any indexer hogging our resources). I doubt that there is an easy way for Google to do this. If the installer can't do it, I think it's not fair to assume that anyone who wants to install a desktop indexing and search application will know how to turn off Vista's indexing. A lot of people install applications like this and not all of them are technically sophisticated.

Maybe I'm overestimating Google, but the linked article doesn't provide enough information about Google's objection to the proposed agreement for me to know.

If it's really true that an end user or an OEM can simply install Google's desktop search app and in the same process disable Vista's indexing, without the user having to go through the 5-click process described by Seni, then I guess I might agree that Google's gripe was pretty trivial: essentially that MS bundles its application with its monopoly OS and doesn't bundle its competitor's applications. Whether that's OK for MS to do may be a legitimate antitrust question, but it's not one that makes my blood boil.

[Avatr @ Jun 26th 2007 7:13PM]

Valid point but surely the reason that you can't deactivate the vista search is because they have built it to be an integral part of the system which they are paerfectly entitled to do and in effect by buying the Vista OS you are accepting this.

That aside the most important point is that whilst you may end up running both MS have not actually prohibited you from using third party desktops search systems. If they had actually built their system so that the google apps were locked out then they may have grounds for complaint but as it is I can't see that they have a leg to stand on...

NB. Has anyone actually run benchmark tests to see what kind of effect running both the Vista an Google search has? I'm sure there is a measurable drop in performance but is it really noticable in comparison to the effect of say itunes?

[Che @ Jun 26th 2007 8:02PM]

I doubt it's as bad as iTunes.

[burnblue @ Jun 26th 2007 8:19PM]

This issue has been written about for a long time. Why are there still people who think there's even the slightest difficulty in turning off Vista's indexing? A couple of clicks in the OS, or 2 lines of code in an installer, is all it takes.
Microsoft agreed to let users select a default desktop search (why?), and Google still whined that they want MSFT to give them the search boxes in Explorer Windows. Get outta here!

[WL @ Jun 28th 2007 12:52PM]

I have some system icons that I think everyone should be using but dammit Windows already has system icons in place. Antitrust! Antitrust!

[WL @ Jun 28th 2007 9:10PM]

I have some system icons that I think everyone should be using but dammit Windows already has system icons in place. Antitrust! Antitrust!

[Sapibobo @ Jul 6th 2007 1:09PM]

I think desktop search is on of the key component of Vista. Will it reduce Vista stability by making it separate from the core OS?