homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.219.178
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 159 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 159 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 > >     
Google searches for Microsoft limit on the IE7 search box
expressed concerns about competition from Microsoft in the Web search biz.
bobothecat




msg:709869
 12:45 pm on May 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

The New York Times reports that Microsoft's new Internet 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.

[money.cnn.com...]

 

catch2948




msg:709989
 1:39 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

This whole issue is going to flush out something that Iím sure many of us have thought about many times before.

Everyone is pretty much familiar with the case Kindercare has against Google, its claims, etc. There have been numerous posts with the obligatory "Google can do what they want with their search engine". Well, didn't Microsoft have basically the same thoughts about Windows a short while ago? Look what eventually happened there, with government anti-trust lawsuits in both the US & EU. It could be said that these are 2 completely different scenarios, but in reality, they are quite similar.

IMO, both Microsoft and Google do have the right to do what they want with their respective offerings. But as history has already shown (with Microsoft), when one company controls something that is such an integral part of everyday life (and thus many billions of $$, Euro, etc), government (anywhere in the world) is not going to stand for it. While the argument is there that since the internet is multi-national, the same rules donít apply. Well, if that were the case, how did Google manage to come up with a system to satisfy the requirements of Chinese officials?

I believe what we are going to see in the not so distant future is Google contending with the same type of anti-trust lawsuits. The same governmental organizations that originally sued Microsoft to get them to release Windows source code to competitors are going to be suing Google to get them to release more information about how their search algorithms are determined. The whole process is going to be the forerunner of governments bringing some sort of regulation to the internet. Like it or not, itís eventually coming. And anti-trust proceedings against an internet based company as large as Google will provide the perfect setting.

MichaelEng




msg:709990
 1:42 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

MSN Search seems to be pretty good. Well, they delivered relevant results for what I was searching for.

I use my Google Toolbar alot, I wonder how many people have it installed and will IE7 retain the toolbar when installed?

europeforvisitors




msg:709991
 2:12 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Who am I to argue with the U.S. court system but I don't see...

Fortunately, we have highly paid federal judges who have been trained to know and interpret the law. :-)

I honestly believe if Google has an achillees heel it is their belief that everything is better when an algo is used instead of human decisions

I'm not aware of any search engine that uses humans to index or rank pages in keyword searches. Doing so would be impractical if not impossible.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the issue being discussed in this thread?

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:709992
 2:18 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

The same governmental organizations that originally sued Microsoft to get them to release Windows source code to competitors are going to be suing Google to get them to release more information about how their search algorithms are determined.

We're getting a bif off topic but I can see this happening too. I can also see governments eventually forcing the search engines (not just Google) to stop (knowingly) being vehicles for the provision of the hard porn, paedophilia, sleaze and general criminal stuff that is out there on the Internet.

... stands back and takes cover from the impending liberal onslaught ;)

europeforvisitors




msg:709993
 2:50 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

The same governmental organizations that originally sued Microsoft to get them to release Windows source code to competitors are going to be suing Google to get them to release more information about how their search algorithms are determined.

Apples and oranges.

Microsoft sells both an operating system (Windows) and application software (such as Office), which means Microsoft has an advantage over competitors when it comes to developing applications that are compatible with (and which take advantage of) Windows. That fact--combined with the court finding that Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems--is why the U.S. and the EU have demanded that Microsoft make Windows source code available to competitors.

TypicalSurfer




msg:709994
 3:10 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

G$ will never win in the court room, MS plays that game way too well. The only line of defense that they ever HAD was a robust base of webmaster support, they blew that a long time ago.

I actually tell people to use MSN :0

steve40




msg:709995
 3:18 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors

A Fully automated Algo can and does cause collateral damage to innocents

I was not suggesting all pages and sites need to be human rated only that Google could clean up SERPS by using Humans to filter a higher percentage of the dross and spam and not have such heavy handed algo changes.

I was using the above as a reason so many webmasters are bashing Google , both black / grey hats and also the innocents who just create content websites and are also affected by an automated algo that does not care if innocents are also affected
Search is an integral part of internet access and webmasters are the providers of content. SE's just organise and display results that they believe are the best results,
If MS can use IE7 to get searchers to at least test their results ( and if the results are any good )they will gain market share, and if enough innocent webmasters are affected by Google Algos wether due to not including fresh data or through an algo that drops their sites for no obviouse reason they do have cause to feel let down and will push other products.
Some may well believe that Google should remain as dominent on the internet because they provide many webmasters with a living but to believe Google can do no wrong and is perfect does not seem realistic to many who are not perfect just mortals

steve

europeforvisitors




msg:709996
 3:33 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some may well believe that Google should remain as dominent on the internet because they provide many webmasters with a living but to believe Google can do no wrong and is perfect does not seem realistic to many who are not perfect just mortals

I don't know of anyone here who thinks that Google can do no wrong and is perfect. But the issue here isn't whether Google is perfect (or whether Webmasters can make a living from Google); it's whether Microsoft is illegally leveraging its monopoly in PC operating systems to promote its own product at the expense of free competition. Contrary to what some people here may think, that's a legitimate question, because it's rooted in past court decisions and Microsoft's history of antitrust issues in the U.S. and the EU.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:709997
 3:38 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

But the issue here isn't whether Google is perfect (or whether Webmasters can make a living from Google)

If Google was not around for webmasters to make money someone else would fill the gap as soon as you could say "advertising money".

See [webmasterworld.com...]

TypicalSurfer




msg:709998
 3:43 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

But the issue here isn't whether Google is perfect (or whether Webmasters can make a living from Google); it's whether Microsoft is illegally leveraging its monopoly in PC operating systems to promote its own product at the expense of free competition

Illegal?

I guess MS should link to every web site, why does google think they are special? Google has always been a WEB SITE that you can freely reach with any browser, maybe they shouldn't have put all their eggs in one basket, now they are just whiners.

BTW, ie7 is pretty slick for an MS product.

walkman




msg:709999
 4:03 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> whether Microsoft is illegally leveraging its monopoly in PC operating systems

so, what should MS do, after spending billions in developing that techonlogy, when you search? Display a: "Sorry but your search was not completed because you need to select a search engine first. Click here to search from 5412 search engines, and 5874536 directories. (Webmasters read this on how to include your search engine here)" message?

europeforvisitors




msg:710000
 4:14 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

llegal? I guess MS should link to every web site, why does google think they are special?

Google doesn't think it's special. It just doesn't think MSN Search should receive special treatment that may well violate antitrust law.

Again, this is a legal question that stems from earlier court decisions. It isn't just a matter of what you or I think, or whether John Doe's site got whacked by Florida or Allegra or Big Daddy. (And BTW, I haven't personally taken a position on whether Google is right or wrong; I just think it's foolish to draw conclusions about the issue without knowing and recognizing the legal history behind it.)

pincher34




msg:710001
 4:23 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just installed IE7, and when visiting Google for the first time after install, I got a pop up that asked if I wanted to make G the default engine for browser search.

arubicus




msg:710002
 4:27 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> whether Microsoft is illegally leveraging its monopoly in PC operating systems

Microsoft is leveraging for sure but how is it illegal? I don't see it. If Microsoft were to not allow any compeditor toolbar or any customization...maybe. But toolbars can be installed. People don't HAVE to use the pre-istalled search box - as far as that it is customizable. People can type in google.com in the address bar at any time. Other browers can be installed...

Nice to see the shoe on the other foot now. Wondering how will it feel for google to loose their "visitors" to the whim of a "monopolistic" company. LOL.

TypicalSurfer




msg:710003
 4:33 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

google gets special attention with firefox, it is default search and not easy to change. At the end of the day the MSN search box availablity will probably go to high bidder with rev share and everything else ($), I would look at how the G/firefox deal is written to get a precedent.

MS might share but I don't think for FREE.

europeforvisitors




msg:710004
 4:38 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Microsoft is leveraging for sure but how is it illegal? I don't see it. If Microsoft were to not allow any compeditor toolbar or any customization...maybe

That was the argument back in 1995 and 1998, when Windows 95 and 98 were released and MSN was promoted on the Windows desktop. In response to antritust pressures, Microsoft added an "online services" folder to the desktop even though users could have added those online services without Windows providing the means of doing so. When Windows XP was released, Microsoft and AOL negotiated an arrangement. Who knows--it's possible that similar negotiations will lead to a solution that's acceptable to Google and Yahoo. We'll see.

Side note: In the EU, Microsoft has been forced to remove Windows Media Player from the Windows OS even though there's nothing to keep users from installing RealPlayer on a version of Windows that has WMP. So there's definitely a historical precedent for Google's position in both the U.S. and the EU, whether or not you, I, and the guy next door agree with Google's position.

arubicus




msg:710005
 5:44 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

The precedent in the antitrust case was not that they pre-installed software but that they were using PREVENTIVE TACTICS which kept other companies from getting into/staying in the game (such as discounts, strong handing manufacturers, etc.)

europeforvisitors




msg:710006
 5:59 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

That was only part of it, Arabicus. See my earlier posts.

In any case, my point here is that this is a legal issue, and it's more complicated than "It's about time Google got their comeuppance" or "The pot is calling the kettle black," which seems to be the prevailing sentiment among those who dislike Google or have experienced a deathbed conversion to Microsoftism. :-)

Gimp




msg:710007
 6:31 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

The issue of the Media player in the EU is not yet resolved. If the questioning by the judges this past week is any indication of their thoughts on the matter, Microsoft may yet prevail.

arubicus




msg:710008
 6:36 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

"That was only part of it"

Yes but A MAJOR PART OF IT. Actually this is mainly what lost them the original case.

"In any case, my point here is that this is a legal issue, and it's more complicated than "It's about time Google got their comeuppance" or "The pot is calling the kettle black," which seems to be the prevailing sentiment among those who dislike Google or have experienced a deathbed conversion to Microsoftism. :-) "

I believe we all understand that. Right now this is not a court of law. This is a place of opinion. In my opinion I don't see Microsoft doing anything to PREVENT competition. Users are still given a choice. They have a choice. They are free to make the choice. It isn't that complicated.

incrediBILL




msg:710009
 7:42 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Here we go, a perfect example of MS trying to dominate:

Software giant considering major purchase of Yahoo! stock in effort to keep up with steamrolling industry leader Google, newspaper reports.

[money.cnn.com...]

Tried to warn everyone but you said I was wrong, well this proves I'm not.

Google should be trying to dominate as fast as possible because Google is a one-trick pony and if they lose the search market then kiss AdWords/AdSense bye bye as well. MS can afford to virtually give away anything Yahoo is selling for a discount, drop minimum ad rates, anything to hurt Googles bottom line and then jack the prices back up when Google dries up and blows away.

It's also a sign that MSN finally realizes their search is crap.

Been there, seen MS do this many times before, hopefully the feds will step in and stop MS from actually buying Yahoo as that would be a tragedy.

Swanson




msg:710010
 8:06 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

incrediBILL, I don't think anyone would debate the issue that Microsoft is "trying to dominate" - that is what each and every successful business tries to do.

But in itself, what is the problem with MS buying a major stake in Yahoo - this is not agressive takeover tactics or anything remotely in that mould. This is the third player speaking to the second player about taking on the market leader - Yahoo need MS just as much. And if Yahoo don't like it they will reject it.

This is just an example of how businesses achieve scale - exactly how most businesses in the world do it (including Google and especially yahoo - who bought Overture, Altavista, FAST). At a certain point you make the decision to build or buy and balance the pros and cons of losing individuality versus creating a better hybrid product to take you to the next level.

jtoddv




msg:710011
 8:30 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google can create their own operating system or browser just as well as the next guy. As far as I am concerned, it is a Microsoft product and they can do what ever they want to it. If they want to lock down that search box then so be it. It is their browser code and no one else has any right to be po'ed about it.

incrediBILL




msg:710012
 8:40 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

what is the problem with MS buying a major stake in Yahoo

Gee, no problem with MS trying to kill of a competitor, nope, none.

Did you skip the part about possibly "MERGING" with Yahoo?

That's way more than investing a few bucks.

If you want to live in an MS world just move to Redmond and get a head start.

Just wait, maybe next they'll turn Encarta into a FREE website just to kill the Wikipedia as anything popular that isn't making a profit and they can't buy it must be destroyed, like OpenSource software and MS has tried a few times to whack some free products.

I'm happy to see them struggling for a change.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:710013
 9:53 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm happy to see them struggling for a change.

Struggling? Are they struggling?

Swanson




msg:710014
 10:48 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

incrediBILL, eh? Are you implying that Yahoo are turning around and saying "please take us we are helpless"?

Microsoft are not killing the competition, they are trying to buy them - like I said that is the way it works, it aint just the internet. Yahoo have a choice, I do believe there are one or two people that work there that run it - merger, purchase, whatever - it's up to them and their shareholders, again thats how business works is it not?

If you are anti-Microsoft, fair enough - I am anti-lots of things, but don't confuse it with Microsoft "taking over the world because everyone can't stop them taking them over they are all so helpless to it when the decide to sell for lots of hard earned cash"

Were the last 3 purchases by Google part of Google trying to kill the competition - or Google's deal with AOL for 1 billion an attempt at killing the competition. Erm, yes.

Swanson




msg:710015
 10:55 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Trying to whack free products" - Or any products?

Everything Google has released since search?

And yes, if I was Microsoft - Encarta would be a great bet to take on Wikipedia - and I would put ads on it.

Come on, you can't have a go for Microsoft taking on products that are free! Who benefits - everyone!

incrediBILL




msg:710016
 1:59 am on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

Microsoft are not killing the competition, they are trying to buy them

When they are bought, they will become Microsoft.

From 3 major search engines down to 2.

Google's deal with AOL

Sorry, other than a place to run ads, I thought it was silly as AOL isn't a hot commodity.

If Google bought Comcast, COX or Peer 1 networks, something on that scale, I'd fall over in my chair.

The best metaphor for Microsoft is the Borg, resistance is futile, your technology will be assimilated or reproduced, end of story.

Maybe a few years working in Lotus/IBM/whatever they are today would give you a different outlook on MS, and it's not sour grapges at all, they should be held at arms length at all times.

incrediBILL




msg:710017
 2:05 am on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

Come on, you can't have a go for Microsoft taking on products that are free! Who benefits - everyone!

Wrong, just because they give it away doesn't mean you benefit.

What it means is there's no money to be make therefore creativity and innovation, typically driven by corporations making MONEY, tend to evolve the products.

Case in point, just about everything Microsoft has ever added to their operating system as a
commodity has stifled as they have no value in improving upon it, and those companies that were innovating in those areas are gone.

Yup, we sure did benefit.

Not.

Swanson




msg:710018
 2:13 am on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Sorry, other than a place to run ads, I thought it was silly as AOL isn't a hot commodity"

Yes but they did it. You fit Microsoft into the role of "the borg" and Google into the role of "young upstarts". Whether you think what Google did about AOL is irrelevant, they did it for commercial reasons - just like they syndicate to Ask. Just because you don't think that is significant doesn't mean they don't have the same intentions.

If Microsoft pulled off the AOL deal (they were in negotiations) then would you have said the same thing or was that a "silly bit of fun" too. MS just did a deal with Amazon, Alexa etc. that I thought was an attempt to "dominate" as you said in message 141 - erm, isn't that small fry compared to AOL referrals from search?

"If Google bought Comcast, COX or Peer 1 networks, something on that scale, I'd fall over in my chair. "

Eh? That is diversification in it's extreme and of course you will fall of your chair - that's like saying Microsoft would buy British Telecom.

Look you twist it to be bad when MS does it and good when someone else does it - AOL + Google is "silly", MS + Amazon = "trying to dominate".

Your words, your problem.

incrediBILL




msg:710019
 3:24 am on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

AOL + Google is "silly", MS + Amazon = "trying to dominate".

Your words, your problem.

Sorry, YOUR words, I said nothing about MS + Amazon, that was you, don't confuse who said what.

If MSN + AOL had happened I think the justice dept. might've stepped in as there wouldn't be much competition left in that area, and Google was probably suckered into spending way too much for a deal they probably could've gotten a lot cheaper IMO, but that's just business and AOL has been hurting for a while so good for them.

Besides, all this twisting and contorting of what I said still doesn't change my original premise in that MS controls the OS on the commodity box everyone buys, and the more they link in their own brand, the less fair that is to everyone.

Don't get me wrong, when MS was just an OS and computer languages provider I was a HUGE supporter of MS vs Borland and their second rate compilers, just because they hands down had the better product.

However, my views of MS changed drastically when I watched them devour Stac Electronics, makers of Stacker, back in 1993 when they openly defied Stac's patents and included DoubleSpace in DOS 6.0. MS lost the lawsuit, paid Stac some crappy settlement, but by then it was too late, Stac's market was damaged [ie DESTROYED] and the company was never able to recover.

I've been watching them do this type of thing over and over ever since.

You can't compare Google, which is outside the box, to MS which is inside the box as Stacker vs DoubleSpace is prime example of how much damage being INSIDE the box can cause a company.

Yup, no harm, no foul, nice company.

Not that I'm saying Google's a saint, but Google isn't in your box when you get it, not by default anyway. MS is hell bent on making MSN a commodity, therefore making Google irrelevant, and a possible acquisition of Yahoo to consolidate Yahoo/MSN is one of the best possible scenarios to make that happen.

If I have to choose, I'll pick what I consider the lesser of 2 evils at this moment, which is Google.

Ask me next year if I still think they're lesser.

This 159 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 159 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved