They want eyeballs for ads

I’ve seen Chrome bundled with:

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

Mozilla: http://paulrouget.com/e/openness/

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".

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

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

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 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. ...

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

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

"Mozilla: http://paulrouget.com/e/openness/

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Clue: ..."

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

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: ..."

"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.

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

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.