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.
Permalink for comment 490496
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4