• TarassisDeray62
  • http://www.tylerherrick.com Tyler Herrick

    The ineptitude of that woman maddens me, she may be a whiz at economics, but clearly has no idea how OPEN-SOURCE Android works. Sure, lying to people 15 years ago was easier; in today’s age though? Rhetoric propaganda. As long as I can type a URL to any search engine in an address bar on the neutral web, fair competition is afoot.
    “Google pays for default search” said Susan Athey. Don’t singers sign exclusive contracts with recording companies? Don’t distributors sign exclusive deals with suppliers? IF you want to use THIS browser, by DEFAULT we use Google search, however, here is a setting that allows you to customize it to whatever you want.
    Blame the stupid user that doesn’t know how to use a computer, not the companies that provide choices…
    “So if you’re looking ahead and worrying about that, you realize this is an opportunity to have your position disrupted.” (@32:20~) Wow, what a statement that was. That’s like saying, if you’re not looking forward, you’re going to trip. Well thank you captain obvious. What company doesn’t evolve with the times? Oh wait, the failed ones.

  • cooldoods

    Does Windows Phone allow Google to be selected as the default search engine?

  • http://twitter.com/SuccessSectets Carl Clay

    For Microsoft something is fair only if it services their interests.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    On my Lumia 900, I don’t see an option for this within Internet Explorer or in settings in general. On my Verizon Galaxy Nexus, I can shift to Yahoo or Bing in addition to Google, which is the default.

  • cooldoods

    If it’s not possible, then I don’t see that Microsoft has anything to complain about

  • Ittiam

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. Heights of absurdity

    If fully open source and free Android cannot satisfy MS and its dogs, I dont know what will… Making bing default in Android?

  • atatata

    I do not get it. I have a big Samsung Galaxy from Google and I can not change default search engine which is obviously pre-installed Google search bar.
    From another point of view, even if it is possible to change default search engine, it means a little since studies were published that less 20percent of users change default setting. The fair setting would be like those established by European Comissioners to prevent monopoly of Microsoft in browsers, BEFORE installation users are asked what browser they want. The same must for mobile phone during activations users must be ask if they want Google, Bing, Ask, Yelp Whatever

  • http://searchmonkeys.us/ Karthik kumar

    Love the humor at your end note, Danny. May be Google should go ahead and do it. :D I just wonder what the diplomatic reason for the rejection would be..

  • http://profile.rhamzeh.com Raghd Hamzeh

    That has already been done.

  • http://profile.rhamzeh.com Raghd Hamzeh

    They would probably require Google to send search results to Bing. You search “HP Laptop”, first result would be “Search for *HP Laptop* on Bing!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lily-Weng/100004189332044 Lily Weng
  • http://www.facebook.com/the.nathaniel.bailey Nathaniel Bailey

    Yeah I don’t think they would let Google in Danny, not with so many
    members being involved with MS (they will like vote not to accept
    googles membership).

    Why would MS want bing to be the default on
    android anyway? A. They already have bing as the default on windows
    phones, B. The large percentage of android users would simply change
    back to google as default anyway because they are much better!

    Side note, Danny I think you missed out change Asus to Acer in the title for that section of the article ;)

    P.S. FairSearch my ass!!! They should simply change the name for MSFavouredSearch and be done with it!!

  • jnffarrell1

    Brought to you by the people who hired a camera man to simulate the focus of Nokia.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    No, the Google search widget can’t be changed. It can be removed. I think it would require Samsung to create or work with Bing to have a similar Bing widget. You can, however, change the default search within the browser to Bing.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Thanks, got it fixed, Nathaniel.

    Microsoft would love to be the default because of the extra traffic. But as you say, people might change. In fact, after Microsoft was made the default search on Verizon BlackBerries, a little uprising started with people demanding to know how to get Google back. Verizon even had to do a blog post about it.

  • http://twitter.com/BIGELLOW Bob Bigellow

    If it’s not possible, I will never get a Windows Phone.

  • Knowles2

    That never stop Microsoft from complaining in the past. I do not see it stopping them now.

  • Knowles2

    Cant you download new widgets of Google Play?, if you can, then it surely it up to Microsoft to release a Bing Widget.

  • Knowles2

    So this is all about fair search, which I take to mean fair as in unbiased an accurate, now if Microsoft cant get it facts straight about one of it rivals, a relatively little thing called research should be able to solve, which a academic should be pretty good at doing, then how can we trust Bing to be fair, unbiased and accurate?

    Microsoft have tried everything to avoid a direct open confrontation with Google, you would think Microsoft is scared of Google.

  • Kaushalya Madhawa

    Still they are the cry babies lagging behind Android and iOS.
    First give a reason why one should switch to bing?

  • jnffarrell1

    Another misinfomercial from MSs old style PR team. I am neither surprised or delighted.

  • http://twitter.com/nelsond25 Nelson D

    Danny, carrying the water once again for his overlords, forgets about the what it appears and what it is in reality. Android appears open source and manufacturers can do what they want but in reality Google will cut off anyone that doesn’t use Google tool. Just ask Skyhook about using non-Google tech on Android. Or Acer that was threatened this week by Google over Alibaba’s Mobile OS.

    On paper and according to his proclamations Danny Sullivan is actually a journalist. In reality however he is a just another Matt Cutts (This is not meant as a compliment, although Danny is awed by Matt and his ability to lie through his teeth)

  • http://twitter.com/nelsond25 Nelson D

    Poor Danny, he is a kamikaze for Google, burning his credibility one blog post at a time:

    “Android phones must adhere to a “compatibility” standard determined by
    Google. In an e-mail on Aug. 6, 2010, Dan Morrill, a manager in the
    Android group, noted in passing that it was obvious to the phone makers
    that “we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we
    want.””

    “After we announced our deal with Motorola, Google went crazy,” said Ted
    Morgan, Skyhook’s chief executive. “That’s when Google went looking for
    compatibility compliance issues.”

    “Are there any seeds we can plant with Motorola’s P.R. team to that
    effect?” wrote Andy Mathis, a Google manager. “Perhaps there is language
    we can plant with them for a blog post?”

    More here “Google is allegedly playing hardball with its
    Android partners.

    The company forced Acer to drop its support of Alibaba’s new mobile
    operating system, Aliyun, threatening to pull its Android-related
    cooperation and support if Acer didn’t, according to a report from the Dow Jones Newswires.

    Acer was originally scheduled to hold a press conference today to show
    off a smartphone running on Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba’s Aliyun
    platform, but it cancelled the event. Acer told Dow Jones that it will
    continue to talk with Google and hopes to still use Aliyun.”

    Take a hike Danny Sullivan! Go tell those Google PR lies to others.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    I mentioned exactly that about Skyhook. It’s right there at the end, which you probably blew past.

    And the Kindle Fire alone actually demonstrates that no, you can use non-Google tech on a device. If you’ve actually used one (I have), this is self-evident.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    It’s right there in my story:

    “Google can be influential in helping to certify products as being Android-compatible (an issue with Skyhook, and something that should raise concerns about Google)”

    Did you just completely miss that part?

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Widgets don’t get listed in Google Play that I can see. They seem to be a device specific option, as best I can tell.

  • IamTheFij

    Quote 1: Yes, for Co-Branding. Google won’t let you use their NAME if you don’t. You can still use the software. It’s public. I have seen Android running on many devices that aren’t even phones and have nothing to do with Google.

    Also, Google is free to decide not to partner with someone for any reason at all. That is could be arbitrary. Acer could still say, “That’s fine, we’ll build our own device like Amazon did.” But I think they wan’t Google because consumers want Google.

    You even quoted it there. They threatened to pull their “cooperation and support”. That doesn’t stop them from doing whatever they want with the software on their own.

  • IamTheFij
  • IamTheFij

    “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”

    Boom. Now you have Android. You have the full source code. You can customize it however you want and release it on any device you want.

    Best part is… you don’t even have to tell Google you are doing it! How cool is that!?

    Let me try this one:
    mkdir winphone ; cd winphone ; repo init -u git://winphone.git.microsoft.com

    No luck. So what were you saying about open?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dare-Obasanjo/500050028 Dare Obasanjo

    This article is disappointing because it is an example of the new age of rushing to publish news instead of doing actual journalism by getting the facts.

    The statements by Susan Athey are generally that lots of people use mobile search via the default search engines on their devices and in Microsoft’s experience OEMs and carriers with Google deals (e.g. anyone who is in the inner circle that can get pre-release builds of Android during development versus waiting for AOSP to be updated with the latest bits) have had exclusive deals with Google that require that Google search is the default.

    Nothing in the claimed “debunking” in this article actually contradicts here statements. This is sad since it is straightforward for Danny to have reached out to Google, key Android OEMs or key carriers to get this question answered. Instead Danny references the Amazon Kindle Fire which is a fork of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) which by definition doesn’t have an exclusive deal with Google. As for the two branded Android phones referenced in this article, the Motorola Backflip was a Motoblur device from Motorola’s era of ‘customizing Android’. The question is whether today, Motorola can make a deal to switch the default search engine to Bing now that they are a Google division? The same goes for the Verizon Fascinate (also known as the Samsung Galaxy s in other markets). Does or can Verizon today replace the search engine on Android devices from Google to Bing?

    The questions above would be what would be considered a debunking of the statements by Susan Athey. This article as it stands is an example of “rushed”, gotcha journalism that subtracts instead of adds to the dialog.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Dare, what’s sad to me is that Athey — your chief economist at Microsoft — made an unqualified statement that Microsoft was blocked from doing search deals on Android when that was clearly not the case.

    The Backflip was an Android device without Google Search. Fact.

    The Samsung Fascinate was an Android device without Google Search. Fact.

    Both of those alone counter what she said. I don’t know how you get around this. What she said was wrong. In fact, she — when actually called on it by Google — said it was wrong.

    Despite that, FairSearch — which Microsoft backs — chose not to include her denial. If I hadn’t written this article, then FairSearch would likely have kept pointing to that statement to build this idea that Google insists on search in all Android devices, when it doesn’t.

    It’s similar to how people often say that Bing is the default in IE, when that’s not the case. I’m sure you know this. The default will usually depend on what deal has been cut with what OEM.

    When I see people incorrectly saying (usually with some hostility) that Microsoft forces Bing on people in IE, I correct that. I correct it, because it’s wrong. And what Athey said was wrong, as well. That’s why she corrected herself. You just wouldn’t know that if you read the FairSearch summary — which is also wrong.

    I am, however, checking specifically on the current situation with both Google and Microsoft. Google already said — as I explained — that they don’t insist on Google search in Android devices. But sure, I’ll ask a second time. I’m also asking Microsoft if they’ve actually been told this and stand by Athey’s original statement, plus what’s the current situation with its deal with Verizon (it has another year or two to run, and it can cover some Android phones, to my understanding — as it did before).

  • http://twitter.com/nelsond25 Nelson D

    “Google Doesn’t Require Google Search On Android, Despite What FairSearch & Microsoft Want You To Believe”

    No but read your headline and the purpose of the article, not a sentence buried deep. That’s you MO as a Google kamikaze blogger, insert a sentence here and there and then claim to be impartial based on that. So what is “require” and what is “can be influential” ?

    If they threaten you with excommunication from the Android community and major loss of revenue, is that “can be influential,” or “require” ? The mafia doesn’t require you to do what they say, but they break your legs unless you do what they say.

  • http://www.stevetrefethen.com/blog/ stref

    Dare, I follow/respect your writings (have for a long time) and simply have to admit it’s disingenuous at best to read about MS complaining of being locked out. Especially after reading Danny’s follow-up comment calling out what he’s found and offering to double check his work. Having worked on Dev tools at Borland and competing directly with MS VS for years I know first hand the advantages MS offers it’s own tools but those issues impact too few people for anyone to notice/care. Btw, the timing of this piece by Dvorak couldn’t be better: “Microsoft does the Silicon Valley Shuffle” http://noagendashow.visibli.com/share/8hTkW6

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    The headline is fine. Microsoft’s chief economist made that statement. FairSearch, which is backed by Microsoft, reported it without noting the error. The purpose of my article was to correct that error.

    More broadly, I write critical articles about Google all the time, including about Android. See the list of related articles at the end of my piece above.

    You seem to be under the mistaken notion that I’m somehow sitting around thinking “Oh dear, I can’t write anything negative about Google, or they won’t talk to me.”

    I’m not, and just some of the articles above that I’ve written self-evidently speak to that. It also would make no sense to do that given Microsoft runs a major search engine that I report on. Taking such an approach, just being nice to Google in hopes of some type of coverage, risks alienating Microsoft.

    More important, it risks alienating my readers and frankly just isn’t how I operate. I’m calling things as I see it, and if Google doesn’t like it, if Microsoft doesn’t like it, that’s too bad. I’m not writing stuff for their benefit. I’m writing for my readers.

  • Derek Abbring

    I spent 4 years working for that company, looks like the fails at microsux’s are at it again. I will never understand why people are loyal to a company that has a historic track record of ripping companies and people off…yet they stand by “believing” any word that comes from the top level of microsoft…

    This is just a way for them to get around slander through marketing…that’s all this is, if your the little guy (bing) you spread false word around about the top dog (google) to try and gain some buzz and some traffic. Then, since they have an unlimited advertisement budget, they are backing that up with a national TV/hulu campaign focused around “bing it on” which is just a remake of the coca-cola & Pepsi challenge.

    Unfortunately for microsux’s though, when you look at the market-share, Microsoft is not pepsi in this situation with bing, they would be more like diet rite cola.

  • Hpdirty

    And you? A M$ employee?

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    I suggest you go back and read some of the articles I listed above. I criticize Google about all types of things all the time.

    In fact, it’s been kind of laughable. I write a post defending Google, others ask why I’m all anti-Google.

    I write a post critical about Google; I get people asking why I’m all anti-Google.

    Of course, an anti-Google post spoils the whole view the “he’s pro-Google crowd” wants to have, so then you have to have an entire new biased/conspiracy line: he only occasionally writes anti-Google posts on things that don’t matter.

    Click on my name above. You’ll get a list of all the articles I’ve written. Do the same on Marketing Land. Actually go through them. There is plenty critical and on substantial topics.

    The reality is, as I explained in another comment, I’m not aiming to write either pro-Google or anti-Google pieces. I’m aiming to explain things related to search and search marketing for my readers, clarifying and calling out where it makes sense.

    That’s my business. Writing for my readers.

  • jafu888

    I download widgets from play. Go to Play and search for widgets

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Wilhelm, see the postscripts. We didn’t know the stick they were beating Acer with, and as it turns out, it wasn’t over being not able to use the Android name or logo. It was over not being part of the Open Handset Alliance, which in turn gives it a closer relationship with Google. The links in postscripts 3 and 4 go into depth about this, including the entire trademark thing.

  • Alan

    “Those two strikes alone make you question how much you can trust anything Athey says”

    How much can we trust you Danny? You are obviously to close to Matt Cutts. As videos like this go to show http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lnhK_BvrrcA. You are not exactly unbiased, even your apparent attack on Google to the FTC was spurred on by your annoyance at NexTag. Yes google will get some blowback but your motivation was not to have a go at google but at nextag. Yet then you hide behind your letter to the FTC as a shield against people who think you are Google Pawn.

    I understand you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. There is a simple way to clear the air, write a post that states your honest and personal position on Google.

  • poordann

    danny googles cherleader. Google has eliminated all it’s would be middle-class and poor internet entrepreneurs and given their share to internet giants like retailmenot and all it’s other investments

  • poordann

    I used to be able to employ 12 people, now Google has taken from small business and given more to big business, trickle down internet economics doesn’t work just like it doesnt work in brick and mortar. Google has a lot to do with are sluggish economy.
    Once a big business has so much money they don’t hire more or help grow economy, the extra money is just paid out to the people on the top who just let it sit in their banks as apposed to a small business creating jobs and expanding and spending money to grow, how could anyone support a business that has a lot to do with our countries decline.