Being the default out-of-the-box browser on Windows 10 and 11 makes Microsoft Edge a go-to utility for downloading Chrome or another browser. That upsets Microsoft so much that it constantly comes with more aggressive and user-hostile methods to make customers stay on Edge. An attempt to install Chrome using Edge Canary now results in the browser displaying two ads: the first (tiny one) will pop on the screen when the Chrome website loads, and the second, a humongous full-size banner, will appear once the download starts. Yikes!
Yikes indeed. Probably s suggestion by their glorified autocomplete.
I tell people that Microsoft is just saving them the trouble of having to download and run malware to get that authentic Windows experience, because the intrusive and abusive features come baked in now! And just like the cream of the crop malware, if you remove them, they even automatically come back!
Actually, Windows was pretty good about not mistreating the user up until the days of XP; that was when it (started) to gradually go wrong. Windows 95 checked two of the three boxes as far as what I expect from software and computers. It served the end-user, and it left me alone. The final one, being reliability, Windows 95 wasn’t so hot at. But today, the software industry (and not just Microsoft), is batting zero on all three counts. Therefor my perspective is that we have actually moved backwards. We’ve lost control of what our machines do, and we have been programmed to accept it when they abuse us, and all we have to show for it is a slight, maybe 40% increase in reliability. At least until the latest untested automatic updates install themselves. lol
But Google is doing the same. They promote Chrome wherever they can. E.g. when you try to open link in YouTube App on iOS it shows the panel to choose whic browser to use. First two items are Chrome and Google (even if you don’t have Chrome installed). The third one is Safari and the last is your default browser. And nobody complains about Google.
There is a massive difference between a website and my personal space, which is what the computer on my desk is. None of the big companies seem to respect this, and they are working very hard to blur that line and eventually remove it altogether.
On the subject of what Microsoft is doing here, back in my day, we referred to software on the client that takes control of a user’s web browser and makes it do things the user does not approve of, as “browser hijacking”.
I had the same reaction., If my current reading is correct though, they are only targeting a website ( the Chrome website ). I do not consider Google web properties to be my personal space.
This is not happening “on Windows” I don’t think.
I use Linux myself but do use Edge surprisingly often ( on Linux ) especially with other stuff like Outlook and Teams. It is my second browser after Firefox as I consider Chrome a bigger industry problem than MS at this point. What I am wondering now is if Linux users got these same ads. If they are just targeting versions of Edge that visit the Chrome website, I do not see why Mac and Linux users would not have seen it too. I suppose one reason might be that there are only a dozen of us.
As an aside, I run Linux on an older MacBook and use it for Teams meetings fairly regularly. Something that I always get a slightly immature chuckle out of is that I have a couple regular Teams meetings with Microsoft folks and they know my setup. I wonder how many other people they are connecting with that are using Edge on Linux on a Mac.
It’s still browser hijacking though. If I go to the website of my favorite independently developed game, but then the web browser software that is _running on my computer_ detects this and abuses it’s position in the middle to display overlays telling me to buy a similar game from Microsoft, that is creepy, intrusive, unwelcome and over the line.
If you consider showing an ad (the exact same thing Chrome does when you go to Google using Firefox or Edge BTW) then you might as well follow RMS’ example and use get to fetch webpages through the command line as according to your definition every ad supported site on the planet is “hijacking” your browser.
Didn’t Google showed you a banner to switch to chrome when you opened google.com using firefox?
Not at all the same thing since Google.com is Google’s website. People aren’t complaining about Microsoft telling you to switch to Edge when you visit the Microsoft website using Chrome, for example, because that’s fair game – Microsoft can put whatever they want on their own webpage.
Well, they are probably thinking is they browser, and they can do whatever they want. I really don’t see the big issue. I just ignore and install Firefox.
daedalus,
I’ve been seeing tons of google spam on 3rd party websites that offer google authentication as a login option. This used to just be an API allowing users to login using their google credentials, but google took advantage of the fact that millions of 3rd party sites are loading google javascripts to show their pop ads, and I doubt that’s what most websites signed up for when they decided to support google’s authentication API.
But that’s what the websites hosting the Google login agreed to when they allowed Google to connect to their website – running Google code within their site. It’s one of the reasons I don’t use the Google linked logins on any sites except Google’s own. And if they didn’t want that content there, they could easily drop support for the API.
I’m not saying Google are good guys, but until Chrome starts injecting content into sites that aren’t linked with Google that try to pull users away from that site, there’s no equivalence. Imagine if going to proton.me in Chrome popped up a big banner that said “Don’t use this email service – GMail is faster/better/more fun”. That’s what we’re talking about here.
daedalus,
That’s the way javascript APIs have worked since the 90s. It;s a bad security model, but it’s the one the industry has evolved around. That’s not to say owners using APIs agreed for google to display ads. That is manipulative, however there was probably a generic “We can do anything including update this agreement”, which is effectively lets them do anything at all without any explicit agreement up front to do so.
I personally find this as obnoxious as microsoft showing ads inside their own properties. Oh well, we all have to accept that this is the future of tech whether we collectively agree with it or not.
Tell me how heavy was that goalpost when you moved it? BOTH COMPANIES show you ads trying to get use to use their products, PERIOD, hell if anything Google is worse because at least you CAN use Chrome on Windows, try uninstalling chrome on your android phone? Oh thats right you can’t, as Google owns your phone.
Scream about “da Evil M$” all ya want but I can take a brand-new Windows PC and in less than 5 minutes using nothing but free tools like Shutup 10 and Firefox I can have a 100% Microsoft service free OS, with third party browser, mail, calendar, online backups, and not a single byte of data going to Redmond…when I can do the same with Android? THEN you will have a point, until then I’m sorry but Google is clearly the worst of the two.
bassbeast,
I kind of feel this is a “my dictator’s better than yours” moment. We can nitpick over the details, but regardless I think all but the most defiant consumers are ending up in very similar boats. All mainstream platforms are going in the same direction and for the same reason: corporations place their profits above all else.
I am old and remember Microsoft from the 90s and 2000s, so this doesn’t really surprises me. They have always been determined to win and playing very hard to the point of stepping over the edge at times.
Chrome is a genuine threat. It is the gateway away from Microsoft’s control.
I don’t like this type of behaviour and will never reward it. It is insulting. I know what I am doing and don’t need or want Microsoft’s interference with my decision. I am not sure how successful it will be. They most probably win a few customers but piss a lot more off in the process.
This was interesting for me.
When I first read the summary, I thought this was Microsoft using Windows to show ads that interfere with downloading Chrome and I was enraged ( ok, not quite–enraged ). This is the real anti-competitive behaviour I thought. Something needs to be done.
Then I realized that it was just them paying for ads on a third-party website just like anybody can do. My reaction went from “foul play!” to “ok, fair enough”. I wondered if it would have the results they wanted but instead of being offended, I thought that it could be something I might try if Edge popularity and customer education was my responsibility. Again though, I thought that perhaps it could backfire on them.
Then I realized that it was only targeting pre-release versions of Edge. In other words, it is an experiment. If you wanted to do something like this, the first thing you would want to know is how effective it would be and what kind of possible negative outcomes you might be risking. The professional and reasonable thing to do would be to do an experiment. In general, I think we should all experiment more and be less afraid of those experiments. Let the evidence drive our decisions.
So, in the space of probably less than a minute I went from “somebody stop them!” to “not only am I fine with this but it is a reasonable and perhaps even clever experiment that shows competence”. At the time of this sentence, my sense is that we are probably making too much of this and allowing reactions like my initial one to overtake our more rational thinking.
Anyway, I am still only a minute or two into being exposed to this and could learn more and change my mind again. I just found my own mental journey interesting and thought others might too,.