Why Google is right to complain about Microsoft Vista’s search functionality
Google, Random June 26th, 2007 - 5,135 views
Google and Microsoft have been trading antitrust complaints over the past few months. Most recently, Google filed a confidential complaint with the Justice Department asking that Microsoft be forced to alter the desktop search functionality in Vista to better accommodate third-party search applications. Surprisingly, Microsoft quickly acquiesced to Google’s request, agreeing to modify Vista to address the concerns in a service pack scheduled for release at the end of this year.
An increasingly wary tech-community seems to be (surprise) upset with Google, for “bullying Microsoft.” Perhaps Microsoft’s quick response to the initial filing threw some people off. But, as usual, Microsoft seems to have an ulterior motive. The 2002 consent decree from Microsoft’s dotcom-era tryst with the Justice department is set to expire in November. Anticipating a return to freedom, Microsoft is simply being prudent — the last thing they want to do is give the DOJ a reason to extend the decree.
Microsoft seems to have won a few sympathetic supporters who feel that these “free additions” to the new Vista operating system are beneficial to consumers, whether or not they stifle competition. Just look at all the great stuff Microsoft has bundled with their operating system in recent years (antivirus, browser, firewall, and now search). Bundled software is saving consumers hundreds of dollars, right? Well, not quite.
First of all, are the new bundled features in Vista really free? If your new car comes standard with a CD player, do you consider the CD player free? Of course not, it’s part of the price of the car. The same can be said for the added features in Vista: they’re part of the price consumers pay for the Operating System. And by tying these components together and offering them exclusively as a package, Microsoft can charge more for its products than it would otherwise be able to.
A simple example should make things a bit clearer. Suppose there are two products in the economy: apples and PCs. I’m an apple fanboy, so I’m willing to pay $2.50 for an apple and only $2 for a PC. Your situation is reversed, you’ll pay $2.50 for a PC and only $2 for an apple. The Company (who produces both apples and PCs) has a fixed marginal cost of $1 per unit to build either apples or PCs, so selling both products at $2 per unit will maximize their profits. Thus, you and I both buy an apple and a PC for a total of $4 each, and The Company makes $4 profit.
Now suppose that The Company decides to stop selling apples and PCs individually, and instead offers both products together in one bundle. You and I would both be willing to pay $4.50 for the bundle ($2.50 for the apple + $2 for the PC = $4.50 for me; $2 for the apple + $2.50 for the PC = $4.50 for you). If The Company offered the bundle for sale at $4.50 we’d both end up with the same two products as before, but we’d end up paying more. In this situation The Company makes $5 in profit, converting some of our “consumer surplus” into profit for itself.
This sort of bundling, or product tying is considered monopolistic, and is prohibited under the Sherman Antitrust Act. While Google may have had their own reasons in mind when they complained to the DOJ about Vista’s search functionality, they were certainly justified in doing so.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Both companies are bullies. The analogy with apples (whether or not you were talking about the iPod manufacturer) reminds me of the fact that Apple Computer bundles everything under the sun (including desktop search, of course) with their OS without almost any complaint. IMO, preventing Microsoft from including desktop search with their OS while ignoring Apple would be anti-competitive. Granted, Google is not asking for them to remove it entirely (as far as I know), but if we consider that point the comparisons to other products become less applicable.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I thought about mentioning Spotlight (Apple’s desktop search feature), but decided the post was already long enough. I think there are two differences between what Apple did with search and what Microsoft did, one technical and one more political/pragmatic.
First, the technical difference. Because of the way Apple’s search functionality was designed, it’s actually fairly trivial to integrate a third-party app that provides similar functionality. Any application can dock itself in the menu bar, like Spotlight, and the command+space quick-launch option can be used to launch a third-party app if you change your system preferences to keep it from launching Spotlight (I use it for QuickSilver). You can even leverage some of Spotlight’s components to make developing a third-party search app easier (by using the attribute importer components, for example).
Now for the pragmatic reason that might piss some people off: Apple isn’t a monopoly. Because Microsoft has so much market power, it’s essential that the Government keep close tabs on the business to keep them from being anticompetitive. What Apple does, on the other hand, is pretty much inconsequential (at least for now *wishful thoughts*). While this might offend some people sense of fairness/justice, you can hardly feel bad for companies that are in Microsoft’s position… it’s perfectly reasonable & rational for Microsoft, or any other monopolist, to behave in a way that is anti-competitive. And it’s perfectly reasonable/rational (in fact it’s essential) for the Government to step in to prevent Microsoft from doing so.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:53 am
@Mike
Almost everything you said about Apple in the second paragraph could also be said about Windows. Any application can dock itself into the taskbar (Google’s search already does this. There are also third party apps that leverage Vista’s search (look at Start++ if you want a good example of this).
June 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
So, when Apple bundles photo software with OSX, that’s fair? How about Garage Band? How do companies who make photo or music software feel? OSX comes with a browser too? Even a pretty decent desktop search. I don’t hear Google complaining about that!
btw, antivirus does not come with Vista.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Third party developers can create photo software, etc. for OS X and users can easily uninstall iPhoto and Garage Band. There’s really no comparison there. I addressed the differences between OS X and Vista search above.
All else aside, one thing remains the same: Apple is not a monopoly. Microsoft is. That changes the game from an economic, legal, and moral perspective.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sorry, but I don’t buy your argument. You can even use past art to justify it. Linux Distributions, OSX, etc all come with Firewalls, so you justify it by saying its something that is expected in a OS.
Search is a vital function in an OS.
A Browser is a vital function in an OS.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Actually, on Linux search, browser, and firewall functionality is all taken care of by userspace applications. Individual distributions do package these applications and distribute them as a bundle, but there is competition amongst distributions. Once again, the point is not that the functionality is built into the operating system, but that it’s impossible to disable or replace.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I have to agree with the dissenting opinions. There’s really nothing anti-trust about Vista’s search options and architecture and it was so abundantly clear that the legal ruling came down almost immediately even though Google tried sidestepping normal judicial procedure.
You basically blew your own argument out of the water with your first response where you compared Apple to Microsoft. The anti-trust claims against MSFT never came at the high, OS level, but at the lower packaged software level. In fact, the fact that Microsoft has such a dominant OS market share is more a commentary on Apple’s failures over the last 25 YEARS and has even been surpassed by Linux (which has almost surpassed Windows as well) in the server arena. The fact you brought this up really exposed your anti-MSFT/pro-Apple bias to me (a first time visitor from Dzone).
The third reply was dead on - everything you said can be done with Apple search options can also be done in Vista and you are also prompted on first use which search product you want to use - a choice not presented to Apple users. It’s these facts in the the search arena that made Google’s additional claims frivilous and were thrown out almost immediately.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The judge didn’t throw out Google’s initial petition, she concluded that Microsoft’s initial settlement was sufficient and an extention of Microsoft’s antitrust oversight was unnecessary. Since both of Google’s complaints were private I can’t really argue the judge’s findings.
Though I’m partial to Apple products, it’s for technical rather than philosophical or moralistic reasons. I work mostly on linux and other Unix-like systems. My primary desktop system is a Sun Ultra20 running Debian Linux. The BSD heritage of the Darwin core underlying OS X is what initially attracted me. It’s a POSIX standard operating system with an attractive, modern UI. After working with OS X for some time I began to appreciate the improved usability. I still have several Windows boxes, running XP, Vista, 2000, and even more outdated MS offerings, but I’ve gotten to the point where I use them primarily for testing purposes (i.e., testing cross-platform portability and cross-browser portability of code). I’ve also worked extensively with Microsoft’s development tools, and have built a number of .Net applications.
Re: my apparent pro-apple stance — there is a lot that I don’t like about Apple. In particular, I think that the government intervention (in the EU) related to iTunes/iPod was appropriate and necessary. Google also does things I don’t like (allowing the Chinese government to censor search results comes to mind). But this post was about Microsoft and, in my opinion, Google’s complaint was justified because of Microsoft’s enormous market power. I’ve always been interested in economics, and one things most economists (insufferable as they may be) will agree with is that monopolies are bad.