• Google 61.6 percent
• Yahoo! 20.4 percent
• Microsoft 9.1 percent
• AOL 4.6 percent
• Ask 4.7 percent

Examples would be Microsoft pushing Internet Explorer 7 on Windows users that have automatic updates on or when they do a Windows update. Well you might think that this is OK because IE 7 is an update to IE 6, but I will point out at the large company I work for this ended up with loads of issues when Microsoft pushed out IE 7 as it broke many important Intranet sites the company relies on with no easy way to revert back. Lots of users felt this pain.

The users did nothing wrong as the company had instructed them to keep automatic update on to try to stop the seemly never-ending security problems with Windows. Shouldn't the user have been given a choice? Or an easy way to revert back? At least Apple's software updated showed exactly what it was about to install with Safari 3.1 shown with its box checked and waited for the user to OK the update.

Microsoft has controlled the browser market for years with IE, that has pretty much ignored web standards. This has lead many web sites to work only with a Microsoft browser and makes much more work for web designers to make sites complainant with all browsers. The result of a huge market share can do this for you to keep out competitors.

Sure Apple wants to push Safari, as all companies want to push their products. Sure Apple wants to push Safari, as all companies want to push their products. Mozilla made deals with Google to push Firefox. In the case of Silverlight, Microsoft is pushing their Adobe Flash competitor down all users throats by doing want Microsoft does best, "bundling" Silverlight into other Microsoft products and putting them on as many machines as they can with or without users realizing it.

Microsoft avoids the use of the word "bundling" however. They say in their usual biz speak, that "they are actively trying to get other product groups within the company to adopt Silverlight in some way and then distribute it as part of their product," to paraphrase. They are trying to push Silverlight, no matter what to everyone.

Makes no difference if you think Silverlight is better than Flash or vice versa. Same argument can be made that Safari 3.1 may a great browser or not. It is really all about trust and making users aware of what they are installing and why.

In the case of Office 2008 for Mac, most users have no idea they are installing Silverlight by default. Office itself doesn't use Silverlight at all. Although the highest-end version of Office comes with a product called Expression Media, that does make use of Silverlight, the standard version of Office for Mac does not use Silverlight installing it anyway. If you have installed any version of Office 2008 for Mac, you have most probably installed Silverlight as well as MSN Messenger that Microsoft has pushed on us Mac users for years. Just check Applications -> Microsoft Office 2008 -> Additional Tools -> and see Microsoft® Silverlight™ folder!

Microsoft adds Silverlight as part of the latest version of the MSN Toolbar, using it to offer display dynamic content, such as RSS feeds. So when you install the toolbar, Silverlight you get. Microsoft is talking with leading PC makers to preinstall Silverlight on new machines. This along with much of the "crapware" installed on most of these PCs is one big way PC makers like Dell, HP, and others make money. Of course Microsoft is cutting deals to push their products and money is changing hands. OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) will preinstall just about anything if you pay them. Most Windows PC buyers are aware of this as their new machines come crammed with useless "crapware." Apple has even poked fun at this in Mac vs. PC ads.

Sony was even charging $150 to get your Windows machine free of unwanted software - $50 fee for not installing the "extras" (crapware), and $100 for an upgrade to Microsoft Vista Business Edition. Wired is now reported that said Sony has removed the $50 "Fresh Start" fee (after considerable outcry), making users only pay $100 to upgrade to Vista Business to get a PC free of crapware. Sony knows removing these unwanted apps from a Windows machine is no fun and users may actually "pay" not to have them installed in the first place. New Macs do not include this junk, no charge.

From Wired: Fresh Start will now be a no-cost option on Sony's slick subnotebooks, but only for those who opt for Windows Vista Business Edition, a $100 upgrade. Most sites covering the $50 Fresh Start charge were incensed at the idea of being charged to leave malfunctioning and unwanted software off—and Sony has responded with a speed unusual for the international giant.

Microsoft has recently signed a deal with Nokia to distribute a version of Silverlight for mobile phones and I know they are paying several "start-ups" to push Silverlight.

Microsoft needs to get Silverlight on 80 percent of Web-connected computers to really get mainstream developers attention. With Flash having about 98 percent, Microsoft will use all the power of their installed base and monopoly position to push Silverlight. By bundling it into every product they can think of this strategy is a sound one. Microsoft has had it work before. With Silverlight they need to get developers on board and will be "pushing" hard to users on all platforms.

Microsoft in past deals with OEMs had installed Microsoft Works to push Word on the world for years and it worked as Office has killed off most of the major competition as users found themselves tied to the .doc format that Redmond owned. As I have said many times before having a lot of something does not really make a standard, especially since it is controlled by one company. For years Microsoft kept the Word format a secret making it difficult for competitors, just ask the WordPerfect crowd.

By the way I am not just picking on Microsoft, Adobe and others have also "pushed" their wares on users. When ever you install an Adobe suite it almost always installs a PDF plug-in that shows up in other apps like Microsoft Office. This is particularly a pain on a Mac as PDF is already built-in and the plug-in is not really needed. If you uninstall the Adobe PDF plug-in, the next time you launch Acrobat it will cryptically informs you it needs to install a component and re-installs the PDF plug-in!

I remember complaints from Windows zealots about how iTunes installed QuickTime on Windows machines a few years ago. Which by the way it actually needs to run. I thought that was funny.

So now the big story is Apple had added Safari 3.1 to software update with the user fully able to uncheck the box. I say, big deal, they learned the method from the leader. This is not anywhere as a egregious as the masters in Redmond has pushed stuff on Windows as well as Mac users for years. In the case of the Mac users, Microsoft has even left them high and dry after pushing their stuff on them, like Windows Media Player for one example. Still can not get the Zune to work on a Mac or anything else that is based on the latest Windows Media Player!

What Apple has done here is ONLY surprising because it was Apple. It certainly is not that big a deal. Most certainly, not worth the criticism and attention it is getting. Please un-check the box if you do not want Safari 3.1 installed. Only wish it was so easy with all the other stuff I am sometimes forced to install. Many times without me knowing it!

The dust is settling on Microsoft’s $31 per share offer to acquire Yahoo, and the options left open to the company are fairly well understood at this point. There will almost certainly be no White Knight or other buyout offer coming to the table - the sorry state of the debt markets is assuring that.

With Google's approximately $13 billion in cash-on-hand they are in a good position to bid in what could easily exceed the potential $4.6 billion bid on the airwaves. Of course Google can enlist partners and a variety of financing mechanisms.

Google will be bidding against one or more existing US wireless operators like AT&T or Verizon. If Google were to win the licenses it could effectively become a carrier itself or simply allow others to use the airwaves under the open network provisions that Google has proposed.

Questions to whether there really is a Gphone may be answered next year. We have already seen Google introduce Android, its mobile phone operating system with 34 high profile partners.

Let's not forget Google's several purchases of smaller start-ups like GrandCentral, Marratech, Jaiku, YouTube, Zingku, Writely (which became part of Google Docs), and others that could help position them to launch a full service mobile Internet and communications powerhouse. I also see Google VoIP as a real possibility in their future.

The 700 MHz is about 60 MHz of the former UHF TV spectrum being reclaimed by the U.S. government when TV broadcasters must do totally digital in February 2009. This spectrum is extremely valuable for wireless and broadband use due to its lower frequency compared to the current wireless mobile networks. These signals can penetrate walls and could lead to amazing devices in the future.

This auction can be called the Battle of the Titans: Infocom vs. Telecom. Not since the ordered break-up of AT&T starting in 1982 have we seen such a huge change coming in the U.S. for communications. It is t be seen if U.S. consumers end of feeling like they are in a hotel or a prison when using their mobile devices.

Due to Google's advocacy, as long as the $4.6 billion reserve price on the 22MHz of C block spectrum is met, the auction winner must support any application running on any device across the network it eventually builds. Should that reserve threshold not be met, however, the spectrum will be auctioned again, this time without the rules in place. Google's presence in the auction should ow ensure that the auction exceeds the reserve, as the company is unlikely to let the bidding remain under the reserve price unless Google is wining the auction.

So is it really a surprise that Verizon recently announced that they intend to "open-up" their current wireless network? Verizon, doing what appears to be 1 180 will allow open its network to any CDMA-compatible device, starting sometime in the second half of 2008.

"We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are," said the Google chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt. "Consumers deserve more competition and innovation than they have in today's wireless world. No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely will see more choices than ever before in how they access the Internet."

Sounds like we may be seeing a huge magnitude of mobile devices reaching consumers hands in a few years to come. These new better, faster mobile devices may be replacing many peoples desktops before you know it.

This is why the future of the wireless spectrum is so important to companies like Google. Open access to the mobile market is absolutely crucial to their growth and maybe even their survival moving forward.

So pundits claim that Google is not joining this action to win it. They feel that Google may place an opening bid that they are unlikely to raise just to ensure that the result of open access is met. It did not help in the language Google CEO Eric Schmidt used in the press release when he said: "No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely will see more choices than ever before in how they access the Internet."

I don't agree, I think Google will bid to win. Why? Well they are sitting on a lot of cash, so money is not a blockage even though the Telecoms will get aggressive in the bidding process. They have made several buy-outs that lead me to believe they have a strategy. They own data centers and loads of dark fiber and actually know quite a bit about networking. Google can also sell licenses or take on partners. I vote yes, Google is serious.

According to DesktopLinux, Everex claims the computer was "created as a conceptual Google PC with a conceptual Google OS" and it has Google's permission to use its trademarks. The g from gOS and gPC means "green", as the computer uses an energy-efficient processor, but many people will associate it with Google.

Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to those new Windows Live services. On Tuesday, the USPTO granted Microsoft a patent for privacy policy change notification, which describes how to threaten users with the loss of their accounts and access to web sites and services should they refuse to consent to changes in a privacy policy. This includes the case where a user might object to allowing personal information, collected earlier with a promise of confidentiality, to be shared in the future with third parties. Also described is a 'Never Notify Me' option so you won't have to 'worry' over privacy policy changes.