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.
Thread beginning with comment 490574
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Google and Flash Player
by J. M. on Sat 24th Sep 2011 16:24 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 Parent Score: 2