Ironically, I’m on your side. Google needs to sweat. But I’d eat worms before using MSN.

Many people asked me that other search engines have to pay to the OEMs to get themselves as initial default whereas MSN does not have to.

If you analyze this, this is effectively not the case. This is because OEMs are free to change to whatever initial default they want to offer. You could think of it in one of the following two ways.

1. Microsoft conveys to an OEM. “You could set it to any default but in our opinion MSN search is the best. If you do not agree please feel free to change it.”

2. An OEM runs an auction to set the initial default. Microsoft “bid” for making MSN as initial default is included in the price of the Windows. Let us say that it is zero cent and by being the first bidder gets to be the initial default unless somebody beats it. Another search engine could easily beat that bid and get itself as the initial default. If MSN wants to remain as the initial default then it has to bid higher in the future and compete just like other search engines. Fair enough. In other words, MSN has slight advantage only when other search engines do not care of being the initial default. As soon as they start caring about the initial default, MSN slight advantage goes away.

You do not see MSN’s bid for being the initial default. This is very similar to the fact that when Google advertises on its own AdWords program, you do not see Google’s bid. Although there it might be unfair to advertisers because Google gets the top position and loses the revenue of the last position. (This last sentence is for people who understand auction theory. I must add that it is not difficult to learn its basics.)

Note that Microsoft could have run this auction itself. This way Microsoft would have benefitted from the bids of other search engines and still have played fairly. I think letting OEMs run this auction is a consumer empowering move. If OEMs want they could even be more explicit in passing the monetary benefit of search engine box to consumers. For an example, on the Dell computer ordering page, Dell could show the bids from other search engines. Choose Yahoo [-$50], choose Google [-$100], and choose MSN [$0, the current choice]. What will a rational user choose? Which search engine could afford the highest bid?

Note that buying initial default setting is like buying customers. All other businesses buy customers. Google is in the business of selling customers. When businesses try to buy customers, customers win by getting great benefits, e.g., free web-search!

When it is Google’s turn to buy customers, Google should just do that instead of complaining to malign Microsoft’s name. If it does not choose to buy customers then later on it should not blame Microsoft for its own failures. Besides buying customers from OEM, Google could also choose to advertise. Advertising on TV means buying customers from TV channels instead of OEMs. This way Google could keep in check the amount OEMs demand for selling customers.

If Google thinks, people won’t be inclined to change the initial default then it should try to convince people by marketing its search engine. Google could show TV ads, newspaper ads, MSN-search ads to tell how great its search engine is and how easy it is to change the search-box default – that is visiting google.com and pressing a button.

I respect Google’s choice to remain a company which likes to do things differently than ordinarily done. But sometimes, the ordinary method is tried and tested. Winning customers by marketing and advertising is one such method!

Note: The commentator is a Microsoft employee employee. This comment is his own personal opinion.

Firefox’s default search engine is google , is Big G trying to get a monopoly ?
Microsoft is #1 in Browser/OS – Google is #1 in Searcheingines so what`s the matter ?

Anti-trust law forbids using your monopoly in one market to gain market share in another market. That is exactly what Microsoft is trying to do.

On the other hand, it is perfectly legal for Google to do deals with browser makers to be the default home page or search engine for that browser. Google doesn’t have a monopoly on anything. Neither do the browser makers.

For years now, MSN has said ‘quality search just around the corner.’ Where are they? At Web Master World’s Pub Con in Boston two weeks ago there was much talk of how easy it is to spam MSN. Distribution is important, but it’s not the only part of the equation.

Microsoft has never been a fan of being OPEN in the past and they are still doing the same control of their operating system, (same old same old).

Now it their product, they paid the R&D, cannot make it how they want. They are not forcing you to buy it.

What is an alternative operating system to compete with windows???