Executive Summary:
Microsoft has agreed to change the Instant Search feature in Windows Vista SP1 to quell complaints from Internet search giant Google. Google believes that desktop search functionality in Windows should be treated like other middleware as defined by Microsoft's consent decree—that is, applications such as media players, email clients, Web browsers, and IM solutions. Microsoft will modify the Vista Start menu so that users who install Google Desktop Search or other solutions can access those solutions via the Search entry in the Start menu.
|
The conventional wisdom is that Microsoft's historic
antitrust battle with the US government and several
states ended with a decided victory for the software giant: The 2002 settlement seemed biased in Microsoft's
favor, and the consent decree seemed to require little of
significance from the company. However, it's now clear that
Microsoft is a changed company as a result of this battle,
and its kinder and gentler persona in recent years suggests
that the settlement has had the desired effect.
Windows Vista is an obvious and recent example: In
the months leading up to the completion of the OS in 2006,
Microsoft made numerous concessions to competitors
without being required to by the courts. What's amazing
about this trend is that Microsoft is still making Vista concessions today. Most recently, it has agreed to change the
Instant Search feature in the SP1 update to the OS to quell
complaints from Internet search giant Google. Here's what
you need to know about the changes Microsoft is making to
the Instant Search feature in Vista SP1.
Google's Complaint
Google announced the first beta release of its own desktop
search product, Google Desktop Search (GDS) in October
2004, about a year after the 2003 Professional Developer
Conference, at which Microsoft revealed its intention to
include Instant Search in Vista. Google Desktop Search was
designed to extend Google's popularity on the Internet to
the PC desktop and provide a Google Internet Search–like
experience with local files. (More recently, Google has
shipped GDS versions for both Mac OS X and Linux as well.)
Meanwhile, a number of other companies also shipped
similar desktop search products, Apple's Spotlight feature in
Mac OS X 10.4 being, perhaps, among the most well known.
Even Microsoft got into the game: With Vista delayed again
and again, the company shipped a free instant search add-on for Windows XP called Windows Desktop Search.
About a month after Microsoft finalized Vista in November 2006, Google complained to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) about the Instant Search feature. What's interesting
about this complaint is that the DOJ attempted to keep it
quiet, and—most alarmingly—tried to coerce the US states
against Microsoft in the antitrust case to ignore the complaint. Eventually, the states rebelled against this request
because they feared that the complaint had merit and that
Microsoft was once again up to its old tricks. The Google
complaint became public in mid-2006.
Why would the DOJ try to smother Google's complaint?
Remember that the DOJ of today is very different from the Clinton administration department that sued Microsoft in
the 1990s. Today, the DOJ is pro-business, and Microsoft is
seen as one of America's shining success stories, especially
given the philanthropic activities of Microsoft co-founder
Bill Gates. The states felt that the Google complaint had
merit, and some state attorneys general were ready to
move against Microsoft on their own if the DOJ didn't get
on board. Facing a mutiny, the DOJ reversed course and
pledged to work with the states to convince Microsoft to
address Google's concerns.
Google's complaint is straightforward. The company
believes that desktop search functionality in Windows should
be treated like other middleware as defined by Microsoft's
consent decree—that is, applications such as media players, email clients, Web browsers, and IM solutions. Google
argued that consumers and PC makers should be allowed
to completely swap out Microsoft's built-in applications for
third-party solutions. According to Google, the change would
create a more competitive environment that would benefit
users, PC makers, and third-party developers alike.
Google also said that Vista's Instant Search feature
had been designed so that third-party solutions, such as
Google Desktop Search, no longer worked as well as they
did in XP. The Instant Search indexer can't be turned off,
for example, and users who install Google Desktop Search
will see system performance decline because two indexers
are running simultaneously. Although it was possible to
integrate Google Desktop Search into various UI points in
XP—such as the Start Menu and Windows Explorer windows—it's not possible to do so in Vista. Microsoft, Google
said, engineered Vista specifically to harm competitors.
Microsoft's Reply
Microsoft's initial reply to these charges was predictable:
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called the complaint "baseless." But the company began working immediately with
representatives from the DOJ and several states to hammer
out a compromise. A few days after the Google complaint
was first aired publicly, Microsoft announced that it would
change the Instant Search behavior in Vista, starting with
the release of Vista SP1, which it said would ship in beta
form by the end of 2007.
Desktop search will indeed be treated like other middleware in Windows, per Google's request, allowing users and
PC makers to choose third-party solutions. In such cases,
the Instant Search indexer will still run, but at a lower priority; a higher priority will be given to whatever third-party
indexer is installed.
Microsoft will also modify the Vista Start
menu so that users who install Google Desktop Search or other solutions can access those
solutions via the Search entry in the Start menu.
In addition, Microsoft will modify Windows
Explorer so that third-party desktop search
providers can install a link to their products in
these windows. However, the Instant Search
box in Vista's Windows Explorer windows will
remain, even when third-party solutions are
installed.
The DOJ and the states immediately
accepted Microsoft's proposal and, together,
presented them to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
at a regularly scheduled June 2007 status meeting about the Microsoft antitrust case. Google,
irked that it did not get to review Microsoft's
changes before they were approved, repeatedly petitioned the court for permission to
comment. But Kollar-Kotelly noted that it was
the DOJ and states, not Google, that represented the public's interest in the case. Any
complaints would need to go through those
entities, not the court.
Google is unlikely to ever approve of Microsoft's changes, since they only partially address
Google's original complaint. For example,
Microsoft isn't providing a way to completely
replace Instant Search, nor is Microsoft giving
third-party developers access to the search
boxes that already exist in Vista's Windows
Explorer windows. This is a battle that will quite
likely extend well beyond the release of SP1.
Recommendations
To date, Microsoft has been unusually reticent
about discussing the features in Vista's first
service pack, but some alarming trends are
emerging that might threaten the long-held
belief that enterprises should upgrade to a new
Windows version only after the first service
pack ships. Here's what we know: Vista SP1 will
include a new kernel version aimed at bringing
Vista up-to-date with the kernel Microsoft will
ship in Windows 2008. The new kernel will also
include major security changes brought about
by late-2006 complaints from security vendors such as Symantec and McAfee. SP1 will
include the Instant Search changes outlined
here, as well as a host of other changes, most
of which are still in various stages of rumor
status. And that's the rub: Thanks to its newfound policy of secrecy, Microsoft has made
something that should be transparent quite the
opposite. For this reason, I recommend that
enterprises that had expected to begin deploying Vista at SP1 hold off until a future date: Too
much is unknown about SP1 at this time, and
too much is in flux, for anyone to make reliable
deployment plans.
I'm also calling on Microsoft to end the
silliness and explain both its release schedule
going forward and the exact features we can
expect in each Vista service pack and in subsequent versions of Windows. Holding back this
critical information is not in Microsoft's best
interests, and it's certainly not in its customers'
best interests. It's time to do the right thing,
Microsoft. This is information your customers
need to know.
End of Article
Register
