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 490617
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 18:55 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by molnarcs on Sat 24th Sep 2011 19:02 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 Parent Score: 2