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 490632
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by _xmv on Sat 24th Sep 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
Member since:

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