Is it unethical of Google to include the Google Search on the new tab page with the latest Chrome update?

I don't think so. You are using a product you paid zero point zero cents for and (I think) it is a pretty good one at that.  Nothing is preventing anyone from using another search engine.

, I don't look it that way. When I want a new tab in Chrome, I see the Chrome Icons I use the most. This saves me time. Thank you Google. Thank you Chrome.

"If the new tab page opens up Google search every time, users are being forced to visit http://google.com/, even if they do not want or do not use Google search" I mean, how many people use a search engine other than Google?? The only downside of this new homepage, according to me is, it has made the thumbnails tiny and also that this change is unnecessary! I say it is unnecessary because, Google Chrome already has the Google search incorporated on its address tab. Ever since Google chrome came into existence, I've never visited the Google homepage for searching. I always use the Google chrome address bar. However, I also noticed that quite a lot of people didn't know about this address bar thing. So probably, it is a move by Google to make it easier for those people by bringing the home page to the new tab page. So I personally don't feel that they would be "driving more traffic to their website" because of this change.

There are two parts to the question and the answers seem to focus on the ethics (which is absolutely justified given the phrasing that was used for the question). However, the comparison made to the Microsoft suit is an interesting aspect that has not been discussed in the answers. I believe that you are referring to the case brought against Microsoft by the United States under the Anti-Trust/Monopoly laws about its bundling of Internet Explorer along with its Operating System. Similar cases were brought against Microsoft by the European Commission but they were focussed more generally on the company's anti-competitive practices. The case against Microsoft was that the company was restricting competition in the web-browser market and was effectively creating a monopoly by using the market dominance it had in the Operating System market. Every computer with windows on it had a copy of Internet Explorer whether the consumer had chosen it or not and the argument was that this was a disruptive trading practice that increased the barrier for entry and restricted competitors. Keep in mind that this was a time (2001) when to get an alternative web browser, one had to either purchase a CD with the browser on it or pay for the expensive bandwidth to download it, a choice that they did not have to make with IE. Lastly, (and this somewhat comes back to the business ethics) having a monopoly is not illegal, but engaging in anticompetitive trade practices to maintain a monopoly is. So is google engaging in anticompetitive practices by bundling google search with the new tab option on chrome? Maybe. Let's look at the arguments that defend this action first. The first thing is that google is displaying that page to you without advertisements or charging you any money - so it is not forcing you to directly or indirectly pay for the search. Merely offering a convenience to consumers that then leads to increased usage of your product does not constitute an anti-competitive trade practice. The second thing is that the presence of the google search bar on the new tab does not prevent the consumer from choosing which search engine they want to use primarily because you are allowed to make the choice of going to another website to search or change the default search engine from within Chrome's settings. As such the barrier for entry for other search companies is low and the choice of browser does not restrict competition between search engines. It seems then that there is no provable engagement in anti-competitive practices. The reason I said maybe was because Microsoft made similar arguments in the case brought against it. However, the rebuttal to Microsoft's argument seems more convincing than the possible rebuttals to the above points in this case. All in all, it is definitely a questionable practice with regards to business ethics and anti-trust laws but in my opinion Google is on the right side of the line between what is legal/ethically valid and what constitutes disruptive anti-competitive trade even if it is by the smallest margin.