Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 15:45 UTC
Internet & Networking It might be common, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to wail against it - especially since I was not familiar with this particular case. As it turns out, several of Adobe products' download pages have opt-out checkboxes to also install Google Chrome. This was spyware-like behaviour when Apple did it with Safari and the iPhone Configuration Utility, and it is still spyware-like behaviour when Adobe and Google do it with Chrome.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 15:55 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

To be honest this is a bit late to be posting this article, they’ve been doing this for a long time already.

Google are simply not interested in competing based on promoting an open and fair Internet. They want eyeballs for ads and they will force Chrome on people by any means. I’ve seen Chrome bundled with:

* Flash Player
* Adobe Reader
* CCleaner
* Skype
* Picasa
* Google Earth
* Java

All with the box ticked on by default.

This is completely irresponsible behaviour and almost sad that the only thing that will kill bundling is closed and restricted app stores ;)

Reply Score: 11

RE: Comment by Kroc
by senshikaze on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

But alot of those programs did the same with other products (java and ccleaner used to bundle yahoo toolbar, if i am not mistaken). This is just another bundle in a long string of bundles.

I do agree that should be opt-in only, but try to convince a middle management type who just sees the $$ for the bundle contract.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Soulbender on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They want eyeballs for ads


Of course, that's their biggest revenue stream. It would be irresponsible not to want to maximize it.

I’ve seen Chrome bundled with:

TO be honest, I have never seen chrome bundled with anything but I dont do much work in Windows so that's probably why.
I've seen all kinds of toolbars (including the Google toolbar) and crap bundled though and this is no different.
It's the bundling company's responsibility to handle this properly. I don't know how this stuff gets bundled though, if it's from deals with the bundled apps company or on the initiative of the bundling company.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

You go to chrome download page, and download Chrome. It comes with nothing. Same goes for Picasa. You use the "I've this" (yeah, i've seen a lot of things too) to come up with this nonsense: "Google are simply not interested in competing based on promoting an open and fair Internet."

As opposed to whom??

Which major tech company is more interested in an open and fair Internet? Apple? Microsoft? Yahoo? Please.

I've never seen the bundle you mention. Come to think of it, Google is a major rival to Skype, especially with their latest hangout feature on + (free 10-way video teleconferening). It was certainly not Google who bundled Skype with Chrome.

Edited 2011-09-23 16:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10
RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10



Fantastic. You're comparing Google to Mozilla. Bravo.

Clue: they provide vastly different services (the only overlap is Chrome, which is based on Chromium, that Google provides as open source software). Google provides the only viable non-encumbered video codec. Or where is Mozilla's mapping software? Telephony? Email service. Picasa? Video sharing site? Social network? I could mention countless others. Now some of these are ad supported (and some completely ad free, supported by ad revenue indirectly). How do you propose Google provided all this essentially free services? By taking donations? Lol. A small project like Mozilla can survive on a different model than Google's, but come one, how can you compare the two?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Which major tech company is more interested in an open and fair Internet?


That's the question that was asked. Its not fair to automatically assume that Mozilla is excluded from that group, just because it runs against your argument.

Its quite childish to ask an open question with an then start dismissing the obvious answers to the question by introducing new conditions on the question.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Sat 24th Sep 2011 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

"Which major tech company is more interested in an open and fair Internet?


That's the question that was asked. Its not fair to automatically assume that Mozilla is excluded from that group, just because it runs against your argument.

Its quite childish to ask an open question with an then start dismissing the obvious answers to the question by introducing new conditions on the question.
"
I don't consider Mozilla in the same league as Google, and I explained why. My argument was that I'm not aware of any major tech company that has an open and fair Internet in its interest more than Google. I'm talking about companies where you can match and compare Google services feature to feature (not all, but more than just a browser obviously). I didn't discard mozilla because it doesn't fit my argument. I discarded it as an example because it's in an entirely different ballpark.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 24th Sep 2011 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You question didn't come with a defintion of "Major". If you had said,

"Well, yes Mozilla does do a good job, but they aren't subject to the same financial pressures that google is becuase of the nature of the services they provide "

That's a very mature way of saying it. As opposed to

Fantastic. You're comparing Google to Mozilla. Bravo.

Clue: ..."


That's childish. That's why you were modded down. Bad form.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

You question didn't come with a defintion of "Major". If you had said,

"Well, yes Mozilla does do a good job, but they aren't subject to the same financial pressures that google is becuase of the nature of the services they provide "

That's a very mature way of saying it. As opposed to


actually, the difference, for the financial stuff is not exactly that. the different is that mozilla is non-profit, and thus, has no share holders, and thus, does whatever it wants to do (in our case, being good for the web and do only fair and righteous stuff - which is quite a mission if you ask me)

Google has share holders and is required to get as much money as it can, even thus it has no money issues/pressure right now, and probably not for a very, very long time.

Then again, Google did its choice, Mozilla did its choice too. And very, very very few make the choice Mozilla has made, because its a lot harder and brings less financial benefits.

So I'm not quite sure the real, global pressure is on Google.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Sat 24th Sep 2011 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

You question didn't come with a defintion of "Major". If you had said,

"Well, yes Mozilla does do a good job, but they aren't subject to the same financial pressures that google is becuase of the nature of the services they provide "

That's a very mature way of saying it. As opposed to

"Fantastic. You're comparing Google to Mozilla. Bravo.

Clue: ..."


That's childish. That's why you were modded down. Bad form.
"
That comment wasn't even modded down - it was my first one. Look, the parent I replied to gave us an example of bundling Chrome that is simply non-existent, then went on to conclude that Google is the enemy of the free and fair internet. What? And you call me childish? Then he gave mozilla as an example that is not even in the same league as Google. I didn't define major because I didn't think I have to... I thought it was obvious. Not to mention the irony of coming up Mozilla as a counter example. Who was the most important revenue source for Mozilla in their growth period? Google!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Sat 24th Sep 2011 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Its quite childish to ask an open question with an then start dismissing the obvious answers to the question by introducing new conditions on the question.


And one more thing... I used reasoning to explain why I can't accept Mozilla as an example. Someone, however, used mod points to suppress my opinion. Now that's childish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09



Fantastic. You're comparing Google to Mozilla. Bravo.

Clue: they provide vastly different services (the only overlap is Chrome, which is based on Chromium, that Google provides as open source software)
"

Congratulation, you missed that the article talks about Chrome being bundled and nothing else. That's right. Blind much. Very. Very. Much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

[q] "Google are simply not interested in competing based on promoting an open and fair Internet."

As opposed to whom??

Which major tech company is more interested in an open and fair Internet? Apple? Microsoft? Yahoo? Please.
/q]
Have you not heard of Mozilla? They have a pretty big market share, the biggest in some countries.

And what's Mozilla? Well that's the *only* company that I know of which is promoting an open and fair internet. In fact, that actually makes it mission to fight for the user - regardless of the recent anti-Mozilla FUD - and is a not-for-profit company (that's right, they've zero other interest than making it better for everyone)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by tomcat on Sun 25th Sep 2011 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Which major tech company is more interested in an open and fair Internet? Apple? Microsoft? Yahoo? Please.


Canard. The reason this issue is controversial is that Google likes to wrap itself in the false premise that it favors an open and fair Internet. Google only cares about openness to the extent that the perception helps Google in pushing for tighter control over all advertising revenue streams. Microsoft, Apple, and Yahoo never claimed to be proponents of an open and fair Internet. So, thanks for the strawman argument.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by haakin on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
haakin Member since:
2008-12-18

Google are simply not interested in competing based on promoting an open and fair Internet.


I can't see the relation between "an open and fair Internet" and the fact that you can get Chrome bundled with other programs. It would be different if your browser were uninstalled and replaced by Chrome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by righard on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Isn't that toy animal still a green crocodile?

Edited 2011-09-23 19:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by vodoomoth on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I didn't realize Chrome was bundled with so much crap, including Java! Wow, I just hope for Google that Chrome doesn't reach a high penetration rate quickly. Otherwise I wonder how they'll be able to chase the Holy Grail that market share growth is to them.

Off-topic: too bad the green crocodile is no longer your avatar.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Chrome is not bundled with anything. He's pulling things out of his ass. See for yourself.

http://www.google.com/chrome?hl=en-GB

Third parties might distribute Chrome with other shit, but that's what they do, and have been doing for ages (those "essential" bundles from obscure sites) with everything.

Edited 2011-09-23 17:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

My bad with the wording, when I said bundled *with*, I meant that each of those programs has at one point included Chrome, rather than Chrome itself including *all* of those things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by vodoomoth on Sat 24th Sep 2011 08:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

That's indeed what I originally understood.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by auouymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
auouymous Member since:
2011-09-23

They want eyeballs for ads and they will force Chrome on people by any means.


Google wants Chrome to be the number one browser because it is the only browser that makes it difficult to block third-party cookies. The other browsers don't require a command line switch to see the checkbox. Then Google went and changed blogger to use third-party cookies so people wouldn't disable them. Can't make money without those tracking cookies.

Google's biggest problem is Windows 8 and they need to make as much money as possible before it ships. The Metro app store will be like Apple's app store and prohibit apps that duplicate system apps, such as IE10. Yup, no more Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Opera in your Metro. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by n4cer on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

The Windows Phone Marketplace has no such rules against duplication of existing functionality. It's highly unlikely the Windows 8 Store will contain such restrictions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

The Windows Phone Marketplace has no such rules against duplication of existing functionality. It's highly unlikely the Windows 8 Store will contain such restrictions.

Correct. Firefox and Chrome run on W8, but not in Metro mode.
Eventually however, they could be phased out (or Windows/OSX phased out by Chrome OS, etc).

The deal here is that the one who has the major HTML engine, being Metro, Chrome, or Firefox (taking the biggest guys only here), will control the web standards.
Like MS did with IE. And if Google or MS control the web standards, it will go on a path that is going to be incompatible and drive their own unique interest. (I doubt Mozilla can win that, they just want a share of it so that the web doesnt fall under corporations control)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by n4cer on Sun 25th Sep 2011 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

"The Windows Phone Marketplace has no such rules against duplication of existing functionality. It's highly unlikely the Windows 8 Store will contain such restrictions.

Correct. Firefox and Chrome run on W8, but not in Metro mode.
Eventually however, they could be phased out (or Windows/OSX phased out by Chrome OS, etc).

The deal here is that the one who has the major HTML engine, being Metro, Chrome, or Firefox (taking the biggest guys only here), will control the web standards.
Like MS did with IE. And if Google or MS control the web standards, it will go on a path that is going to be incompatible and drive their own unique interest. (I doubt Mozilla can win that, they just want a share of it so that the web doesnt fall under corporations control)
"

Metro isn't an HTML engine. If you're talking about the Metro version of IE, it's just IE 10 with Metro chrome and fewer features exposed (e.g., no plugin support).

Chrome and Firefox don't run in the Metro environment because they haven't been coded to integrate with it yet. Google, Mozilla, et al., are free to build a Metro-style interface for their browser engines as MS has done for IE. In Mozilla's case, there is already an investigation as to the best approach.
http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/tagged/windows8/

Reply Score: 2

Comment by bolomkxxviii
by bolomkxxviii on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 15:58 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Why would you install Flash as a stand alone product? Don't most people just use the browser plugin? With both Apple and Microsoft moving away from Flash and towards HTML5 Adobe will eventually be a one trick pony (Creative Suite).

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Alex Hitech
by Alex Hitech on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:04 UTC
Alex Hitech
Member since:
2005-12-29

Well, that just means the users should learn to read carefully and to understand what they're doing. In fact, it's good and beneficial for the users who are finally forced to read and to take responsibility for their choices. In particular, I don't see anything bad in bundling, at least while there exists an option to deselect the unwanted software.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Alex Hitech
by vodoomoth on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by Alex Hitech"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Come on! Why would the user need to deselect anything? When you order something, you don't want anything extra to be included in the check. There's an adjective for that: "unwanted". At least, that how I see it, even when factoring in the fact that Chrome is free.

Your reasoning seems to be along the lines of "malware will teach users not to click links in messages from people they don't know." No.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by Alex Hitech
by WorknMan on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Alex Hitech"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Come on! Why would the user need to deselect anything? When you order something, you don't want anything extra to be included in the check. There's an adjective for that: "unwanted".


It's actually called 'bundleware'. If they were bundling some sort of ad toolbar or something, most would consider it a nuisance and/or unwanted crap. But since it's Chrome they're bundling instead of adware, then apparently that's ok.

Having said that, I don't find this quite as offensive as Apple installing bundleware as part of their update software. For better or worse, bundleware in installers is pretty common practice these days, but you don't really expect that from an updater.

Reply Score: 2

Further DuckDuckGoing....
by qroon on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 16:30 UTC
qroon
Member since:
2005-10-21

I see what you did there Thom ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Further DuckDuckGoing....
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:21 UTC in reply to "Further DuckDuckGoing...."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I strangely read it and thought, oh, he must have just abbreviated DuckDuckGoogling ...

Reply Score: 2

Whats the point....
by dynamicj on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 17:15 UTC
dynamicj
Member since:
2011-09-23

You know this is the first post here and I'm still wondering why you consider this "spyware" like behavior. To be perfectly honest all company's try to support others with the bundling. Its been happening for years and is nothing new. But calling out Google on this is beyond me. At least Adobe is promoting a safer web browser and not the likes of IE upgrades or S*itfox as far as I'm concerned. Its still the fastest imo and safest web browser I have seen and recommend it everyday. As a side not didn't Google actually fix a Adobe security issue before Adobe did. I see nothing wrong with this ...
If you do not want this uncheck the box its simple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whats the point....
by galvanash on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "Whats the point...."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

If you do not want this uncheck the box its simple.


How about "If you do want this check the box its simple"... Opt-outs for virtually anything by anyone for any reason are simply taking advantage of a person not paying attention - it is a form of trickery.

Would you like military service to be opt-out? How about organ donation? Think about it...

Reply Score: 7

v Not a problem
by pupdawg on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 17:47 UTC
RE: Not a problem
by galvanash on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 21:10 UTC in reply to "Not a problem"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I see this as an exercise to stop aimlessly clicking the "next" & " I Agree" buttons without looking at the screen.


Have to admit... I still think vendors that do this should be called on it, but you do have a point there.

Edited 2011-09-23 21:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Important!
by fretinator on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 18:36 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

No problem. If after reading this comment, you decide that do not want to read it, then just check the box below:

[]

Reply Score: 8

Why is this spyware?
by Nth_Man on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 18:40 UTC
Nth_Man
Member since:
2010-05-16

Don't think that I like this behaviour. I don't want software that wasn't necessary!

But, apart from that, why is this spyware-like? It gives the impression of Chrome being spyware. If someone thinks that Chrome is spyware, does he think the same about every Internet navigator? What about using another word instead of "spyware-like"?

Edited 2011-09-23 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

As me pa always used to say ...
by MacTO on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 18:59 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

As me pa always used to say: 'always read the fine print.' If you do, you'd see the opt-out check box and you'd opt-out before ever contemplating that these practices are a problem.

Now if they were bundling it with no option to opt out, burying the opt-out option so that it is hard to find, or forcing you to accept a 'free trial' then opt out at a later date, then I could see it being something to gripe about. But that isn't the case with Adobe and Google right now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: As me pa always used to say ...
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 02:48 UTC in reply to "As me pa always used to say ..."
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Now if they were bundling it with no option to opt out, burying the opt-out option so that it is hard to find, or forcing you to accept a 'free trial' then opt out at a later date, then I could see it being something to gripe about. But that isn't the case with Adobe and Google right now.

To be honest its already pretty hard to find.
You expect the boxes to be in the installer, and thats *the* trick. They're not. They're on the webpage (and not always really with a big shiny visible button).

So you just click the enormous download button and don't expect to get chrome installed and started right away after you install Acrobat. But you do. And then you're like, wtf, annoying Google, I didn't agree to that!

Reply Score: 3

MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

I understand what you're talking about from the perspective of, 'this is what other applications do,' but I have a hard time describing their actions as devious because the page is very clear about the opt-out if you take the time to read it.

And the reality is that a lot of programs don't reveal the third party extensions that they are installing. Some programs don't even remove those extension when you uninstall the application. The companies that do that, well, they are the devious ones that we should focus on.

Remember to choose your battles, because two front wars are nearly impossible to win.

Reply Score: 2

Avast Antivirus...
by leech on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 19:12 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Avast has been doing this for a while now as well.

Now here's my issue, I don't exactly like Chrome. But worse of it is, even if you tell it not to install... the "Safe Zone" browser that they use IS Chrome.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by another_sam
by another_sam on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 19:28 UTC
another_sam
Member since:
2009-08-19

Thom you find the right words for just what I think so often!

Reply Score: 2

What I did
by izomiac on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 19:51 UTC
izomiac
Member since:
2006-07-26

That sort of behavior irritates me to no end, hence why I check NoNags for Windows software first (freeware only, no 'lite', 'trial', bundles, adware, etc.). For Flash, I installed it using Symantec Workspace Virtualization (very useful program BTW), copied NPSWF64_11_0_1.dll (x64) out of the C:\Windows\Macromedia (IIRC) directory, and into my Firefox profile's plugin directory, then deleted the Flash layer from SWV. It works great and behaves like a plugin should. If Adobe didn't want to bundle stuff, then they'd likely allow Firefox to download the Flash plugin to that directory automatically.

Reply Score: 2

Pr0n
by twitterfire on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 20:06 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Well, I would be much happier if they try to trick me into downloading some pr0n movies along flash. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Bravo
by galvanash on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 21:08 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

It doesn't matter who does this type of thing or why. Vendors who "Bundle" with an opt-out instead of an opt-in should be treated with utter contempt until they get a clue...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Bravo
by molnarcs on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 21:46 UTC in reply to "Bravo"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

It doesn't matter who does this type of thing or why. Vendors who "Bundle" with an opt-out instead of an opt-in should be treated with utter contempt until they get a clue...

I agree... problem is, Adobe is completely unavoidable for anyone doing any serious photography. And their stuff is expensive!

Reply Score: 3

Google and Flash Player
by J. M. on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 21:14 UTC
J. M.
Member since:
2005-07-24

I have always wondered why Google changed their opinion on Flash overnight a year or two ago, why they started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome, with Chrome OS, why they reviewed their HTML5 plans for YouTube and the Internet in general, why they suddenly started saying that they still need Flash because there are things that HTML5 cannot offer... Now I understand. But at least they could have been honest about it. Professional liars have to be expected everywhere these days, but Google was a company that in my (naive?) view was less likely to have them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Google and Flash Player
by molnarcs on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 21:51 UTC in reply to "Google and Flash Player"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I have always wondered why Google changed their opinion on Flash overnight a year or two ago, why they started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome, with Chrome OS, why they reviewed their HTML5 plans for YouTube and the Internet in general, why they suddenly started saying that they still need Flash because there are things that HTML5 cannot offer... Now I understand. ...


So can you share your understanding with us? I still don't get it. I suspect there were some technical reasons, but have no clue. Another guess is that flash is ubiquitous and works across different browsers and platforms. Adobe declared VP8 support, so I thought Google might need Adobe to deliver their royalty-free video codec to as many desktops as possible via flash. But that's just a guess. So what's your understanding of the Adobe-Google relationship? You didn't elaborate on that part...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Google and Flash Player
by J. M. on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Google and Flash Player"
J. M. Member since:
2005-07-24

Google and Adobe signed a deal last year. Google agreed to help Adobe bring Flash to Android, among other things (http://www.osnews.com/story/23193/Google_Adobe_Partner_on_Bringing_...). They also started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome etc., said YouTube would still use Flash, even though there were speculations they wanted to get rid of Flash before.

Now, this was all good for Adobe. The Flash-free iPhone was a big threat to them, just like the Flash-free Metro IE in W8 is. If Google products were Flash-free, too, it could have been a nail in Flash's coffin. Adobe needed to do something to stop its decline.

But why did Google sign the agreement? Well, at least now we see something in it for Google, too: Google helps Adobe spread Flash, Adobe helps Google spread Chrome.

Edited 2011-09-23 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Google and Flash Player
by molnarcs on Sat 24th Sep 2011 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Google and Flash Player"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Google and Adobe signed a deal last year. Google agreed to help Adobe bring Flash to Android, among other things (http://www.osnews.com/story/23193/Google_Adobe_Partner_on_Bringing_...). They also started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome etc., said YouTube would still use Flash, even though there were speculations they wanted to get rid of Flash before.

Now, this was all good for Adobe. The Flash-free iPhone was a big threat to them, just like the Flash-free Metro IE in W8 is. If Google products were Flash-free, too, it could have been a nail in Flash's coffin. Adobe needed to do something to stop its decline.

But why did Google sign the agreement? Well, at least now we see something in it for Google, too: Google helps Adobe spread Flash, Adobe helps Google spread Chrome.

Thanks. Now just dunno why you scream liaaar at Google for that - seems to be a fair deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Google and Flash Player
by J. M. on Sat 24th Sep 2011 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Google and Flash Player"
J. M. Member since:
2005-07-24

Because they were not honest about it and keep saying that they suddenly, out of nowhere, started supporting Flash because it is good for the web and for their customers and that the decision was driven by technical reasons (even though they appeared to be anti-Flash and pro-HTML5 before). They never said they started supporting Flash because they signed a deal with Adobe (and as far as I know, they never said that they signed the deal because Adobe promised to help them promote Chrome, they said they signed it because Flash would improve their products).

Whenever any company makes a press release, an announcement or a statement and explains their motivations for anything (and this includes purely technical discussion), you know it's a lie.

Edited 2011-09-24 16:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Google and Flash Player
by DigDug2k on Mon 26th Sep 2011 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Google and Flash Player"
DigDug2k Member since:
2011-09-26

Word on the street from random Adobe employees is that Google pays for every Chrome download that comes through the Adobe site. I don't think this has anything to do with the Chrome or Android deals going on (which rummer has Google also essentially funds entirely).

I'm not sure how you could really claim that Flash on Android only helps Adobe though. A lot of Android phones are attempting to sell themselves entirely on the fact they support Flash.

I also find it really funny that people want to claim this is ok because its standard industry practice right now, or because there's a freaking checkbox? I know Google's motto is "don't be evil" and not "be good", but I don't think that somehow means they're free from taking criticism when they aren't doing the good thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Google and Flash Player
by tomcat on Sun 25th Sep 2011 18:26 UTC in reply to "Google and Flash Player"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Professional liars have to be expected everywhere these days, but Google was a company that in my (naive?) view was less likely to have them.


Naivete. Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress this past week, and made the claim that he "didn't know" whether Google search results to favor its own properties and preferred advertisers -- while punishing competitors. He simply was not credible.

Google is in for a rough ride over the next few years. They're spreading lots of money around DC, and trying to force themselves into as many markets as possible, but it's not going to help them, ultimately. They have a monopoly on search, the FTC/DOJ Antitrust Division will eventually file suit, and Google will be forced to accept and sign a consent decree banning certain practices.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 24th Sep 2011 03:36 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

What kind of idiot thinks the

"Free! Google Chrome a fast web browser with optimized
Adobe Flash Player integration

[x] Yes, install Google Chrome - optional (22.16 MB)
"

text and graphic in the middle of the screen is spyware-like? And why are people even crying about this at all? Are we seriously supposed to be in shock a user may have to uncheck a checkbox?

In the future don't even bother linking stupid sh*t like this... It's a pure waste of time, and whoever is the original author of this "article" needs to go sit in the corner for a while.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Sat 24th Sep 2011 08:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Agreed.

I find "opt-out" being far more irritating on websites I shop on ...

Than the odd time I have to install a new version of Flash or Java

Also it been like this for quite a while.

Thom is getting his knickers in a twist over nothing.

Reply Score: 2

v chrome is spyware
by soulrebel123 on Sat 24th Sep 2011 09:54 UTC
Comment by FadeFx
by FadeFx on Tue 27th Sep 2011 08:34 UTC
FadeFx
Member since:
2011-08-01

The actual trick adobe uses, that is anoying me, is that they show the download button for their software, then it takes a moment (usually the time one needs to find the download button with the mouse) and then the opt out for the additional package apears, so many users just click the download button in that very moment. This has been this way for years now...

Reply Score: 1