Google's attempt to use the US and European legal systems for competitive advantage -- a trick also used by the failing Netscape -- seems to have attracted more than a little derision. Many comments suggest Google is using double standards, epecially since it uses its own browser -- since that's basically what Firefox is, now -- in the same way. Valleywag summed up the whole story in one sentence: "Let's clarify: Google's Marissa Mayer takes a stand against default search engines other than Google in browsers."
Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Watch explained:
Sure, I can get behind the "give people a choice from the beginning" idea. But if Google wants Microsoft to do that, then Google should make it happen right now in Firefox, which pretty much is Google's surrogate browser. If this is the best way for a browser to behave, then Google should be putting its weight on Firefox to make it happen. And Google should also ensure it does the same with Dell, where it has a partnership that I believe makes it the default search engine on new Dell computers.
There was also some amusing abuse, like this example from Raving Lunacy: "Really Marissa, you need either adult supervision, or a dose of reality. Microsoft has had MSN as it's default search engine for years. Did you just fall off the turnip truck? You would be much better served evangelizing FireFox than becoming the internet idiot of the day."
Meanwhile Nicholas Carr tucked his tongue firmly in his cheek and pointed out that:
As "Google" has become synonymous with "search," people head to its home page as much out of habit as anything else. It is, quite simply, where you go to search the web. But Google doesn't give you any choices when you arrive at its home page. There's a default engine - Google's - and it's a default that you can't change. There's no choice.
If Google wants to fully live up to its ideals - to really give primacy to the goal of user choice in search - it should open up its home page to other search engines. That would be easy to do without mucking up the page or the "user experience." You could just add a simple drop down menu that would allow users to choose whether to do a search with Google's engine, or Microsoft's, or Yahoo's, or one of the other, less-well-known engines that now exist. The result would be that users get more choice as well as fuller access to the wealth of information on the web (another of Google's goals). By enabling broader competition in search, right at the point of user access, Google would also promote innovation in search technology, again benefiting the user.
Indeed, it may be worth asking whether Google does not already have such a grip on the search market that it is bad for competition, and could ultimately be bad for consumers. It's not so much Google's search engine as Google's advertising business, on which many small firms are now more or less dependent -- and all too aware that Google can simply cut them out of its index without telling them and without giving them an explanation. (And if you ask about this -- which I did -- Google just ignores you.)
Google is also using its power in the search market to diversify into many other areas, to the point where some people now see it as a potential threat to Craigslist, eBay, Amazon and other major Web sites. The plea that you're about to be devoured by a monster doesn't cut much ice when you look like the biggest monster on the block. [blogs.guardian.co.uk]
Comments