Discussion on:

Google's sneaky Adobe partnership

...when it [Chrome] offers no advantages over Internet Explorer.

My opinion is somewhat irrelevant to your article, but I guess if you don't see the advantages of extensions or being able to sync your browser settings across multiple computers, and so on, it doesn't have any advantages. Personally, I use those features all too often.

As far as Google partnering up with Adobe and including Chrome in the installation process, I think all users should be aware of what they're installing on their computer. Sponsored software included along with free software installation is fine it's what makes it free. As long as it's not installing it on its own and giving me permission to do so first, I have no problem with it.

Gargoyle tool bar off a number of systems due to them being preselected to screw you over. Another thing that got me about nasty Adobe behaviour is they recently got very up tight about people using non-Adobe flash plug-ins for their browsers and operating systems. I find it a bad attitude by Adobe since they have made it clear they will not support Flash updates for Linux and thus are forcing the Linux community to create the non Adobe flash players and plug-ins.

Mind you, Adobe is NOT the only proprietary company doing this - there are a LOT of updates etc where you have to deselect the pre-selected extras for Gargoyle tool-bar, Chrome, and certain anti-virus programs too.

"It also made me consider how Chrome appears to be such a popular browser, when it offers no advantages over Internet Explorer." haha seriously? I almost was with you until then! Chrome and Firefox are both faster, more secure than IE. And yes it's bad practice to have the checkbox already ticked but if you stopped using apps that did that you would be missing out on some great apps, and really you should pay attention during all installs.

it or not. I don't use either, so it matter not to me.

As I said, I see no advantages to Chrome over IE and FF or even Safari. In fact, they all work fine. I also have to support them all with our software. It's like the old discussion about Ford and Holden - it really doesn't matter.

If you want to fiddle and download another browser over a perfectly good one, it's your choice and it's easy to do.

Everyone seems to be avoiding the obvious. All Adobe and Google need to do is remove the tick.

http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-394241

This type of bundling stuff is tatamount to malware! I've limited my use of
Google services, I no longer use their search, I don't use gmail, I don't use
g+, and after these shenanigans, they can take their Chrome browser and
insert it into the nether regions of their posterior, if they can fit it beside their
heads! As I mentioned, this type of sneaky installation should not count as
a Chrome user...I much prefer Opera for my browsing, and I've supported
Opera for some 17 years now. The last update I was presented with for
Java from Oracle was bundling McAfee Security Suite...I don't have to tell
you how I feel about McAfee. So for those of you that are defending Google
and Adobe with this, why don't you install McAfee as well? Must be a good
product, it is included for free?
My computers are just that...MINE! I decide what I want on them. Naive users
should not have their systems gunked up with something they didn't want,
irregardless how others may view the product.
Sneaky, underhanded installation == spyware, malware and trojans!

Dam, when I signed up for this website to comment on your article I had all these things pre-checked for me regarding newsletters and "Special offers from our premier sponsors"... I don't need that spam being sent to my email address. Perhaps you should consider your own companies, techrepublic, as malisius trying to spam our inbox's with this 'junk'. Luckily I was able to unchecked that sneaky little box before it was capable of sending me all this crap I don't want sent to me.

This is the same type of argument you are presenting with having Google Chrome pre checked for installation along side your adobe flash. These pre-checked "Special offers from our premier sponsors" is what pays bills, and for Adobe... Google is willing to pay money to have that option there. It is up to the user to unchecked the box without blindly hitting the install button.

What is sneaky is how Internet Explorer is a integrated product into Windows. I am not sure if it is still as such, but it was once required to have it installed in order to authenticate your installation of windows, to update your operating system, or even to visit the Microsoft website.

As for your article saying that Google Chrome does not offer any features over Internet Explore, then I would like to you consider that Chrome offers sync, extensions, improved security, self updating client, and then there is the improved release cycle.

Chrome Sync allows me to have my extensions, open browser tabs, bookmarks, and other information I chose to sync across all my chrome browsers on all my devices. This means I am able to search for something on my computer at home, and on my way out the door continue browsing on that same page on my tablet or phone.

If that was not big enough of a feature, then you include extensions into the mix and you have a browser that you can make your own. I have an extension with gives me the ability to double click on a word on a website, and it will provide me with the definition of that word. Then there is my Translator extension that enables me to translate websites automatically when I visit one that is not in English. Another Extension I have is my ad blocker, which stops advertisement from being presented to me. A lot of times viruses like to propagate though advertisements, so this also improves security. All of these and countless more extensions are available for browsers like Chrome and Firefox, but with Internet Explorer the closet you get is toolbars.

Some people might be turned off by auto updating, but when it comes to a browser it makes a lot of since. My browser, being chrome, does not require me to go out to Google's website to install the latest version of the browser like one would have to do with IE. This means that I am getting security fixes as soon as they are released, and being that Google thought of there user interface before releasing it... the interface does not change drastically from update to update like Microsoft's IE (they are still trying to figure out what they want to have it look like).

To top that all off, Microsoft has never been known for their development cycle. They are often slow to pumping out the next release or security updates for there products. Then you add the amount of time it takes the normal user to update there browser... which is on average... never.

Coming from a web developer's perspective I do have a rather distaste for Microsoft's IE, mainly because how they have handled web standards. Thanks to releases like IE6, We have a internet with multiple versions of the same website... just so it will load properly in that dam browser.

are guest writers and NOT employees, thus what they have to say does NOT always match what the management want or do - this is one of those cases.

I agree bundling schemes are asinine, wait a minute IE *IS* a bundling scheme. Furthermore the claims that Chrom(ium) cannot read websites (HTML/CSS/JS) offline is beyond idiotic. I've proved it on my GNU/Linux system, and I've proved on my Window$ system. I would be happy to make a video illustrating this.

I could spend several more pages explaining all of the OBVIOUS shortcomings of Internet Explorer, up to, and including IE9.

Please stop lying to your readers Tony McSherry

nt

My fault for dumbing it down

Yes Chrome will run HTML locally, but it will not load an XML file from local file storage (HTTPRequest) and the content of our eLearning modules is stored in (you guessed it) an XML file. So my fault, should have been more detailed.

As to shortcomings, I notice you avoid IE10 X86 and its sandboxed companion and I've had no problems with IE9. As I've said before, there isn't enough difference between any of the browsers to really care about. In the end, I'll take the browser that comes with the OS created by a software development company, rather than an advertising one - my choice

agree that piggy backing gunk onto our computers is problematic but a little necessary due to them being free and all that....

If you think we can survive on ms only then go for it. BTW take this article and rewrite it as you should have in the first place. I, and many others I suspect, want factual info not personal shite..

given to us free, but we don't want them. This process is much the same.

Thought we were talking about free stuff *WE* did want..

man I avoid some free stuff and even some paid stuff with a passion...

where they throw in extra free stuff in a way designed to make us overlook the fact they've put it in there.

The entire act of purchasing a PC for me generally involves jumping through hoops so I do not have to unwittingly purchase an OS I do not want bundled with my computer. The OS which in turn is typically bundled with loads of advertising. Fortunately MS will let you pay them for a clean "signature" edition.

People who live in Microsoft houses shouldn't throw blue screens.

so I buy the bits and pieces to put a system of my own together and load it up with Zorin OS Linux. That allows me to get better hardware for the same money and no bundled garbage. However, that's NOT possible with laptops, so I get stuck there. Which is why I tend to keep away from them when I can.

Is the aggravation & hours lost in removing crapware or replacing unwanted OS's worth the subsidy paid to the OEM's, so they can compete on price,(reason for Linux loaded Pc's not being any cheaper than windows (ignoring MS coersion & high unit costs for lower demand?))

Saddly most people look at price, not the true cost, often not knowing, caring & just accepting this status quo.
This also goes for free downloads, just looking at the number of toolbars & junk on my wifes & kids laptops that I continally remove (they blame the machine because its old, so crapware an instrument of planned obsolescence?)

Education is the answer.
There is no such thing as a free lunch & if it looks too good to be true, beware.

The idea that I should accept their repeated attempts to sneak crapware onto my computers as the necessary price of their product and blame only myself if they succeed is obnoxious too.

I'd be perfectly happy if Flash didn't exist since practically everything it is used for makes my browsing experience worse. But I want the websites that demand it to be functional and the course of least resistance is to keep updating it... though I'm considering cancelling that and seeing how long I can get away with an unupdated product. But Adobe always claims to be addressing a security issue that they've previously introduced. In any case, the idea that it's some free goodie that I should be willing to pay a considerable price in inconvenience and vigilance for is insane.

I'm here because I was looking for some way to diable the Google toolbar rather than uninstall it. I've many times before declined to accept it, but this time it slipped through. Why anyone could think this malware behaviour is ok is completely beyond me. Adobe is slime, and if you think what they do is ok then you're probably pretty slimy too, whether you realize it or not.

No! I've been slimed, who I'm going to call, Google busters!
To clarify, I hate, object to crapware, sneaky updates toolbar installs & having to waste my time removing them, when I missed that box conveniently positioned, coloured, sized ect & already ticked for me. I do not delegate all blame to those caught out, assuming reasonable caution had been taken, ( note there has rarely if ever been an action between parties where responsibility for the outcome is totally one sided!), but look for solutions, of which the first step is trying to understand the why, the how Adobe & others do it, such as for subsidies for example ( sorry if it wasn't clear).

As previously stated I spend time advising family, friends & even enemies how to avoid, remove it, performing such tasks if asked, (except for enemies who can wipe their own crap off!)

The majority of people have interests other than technology, & it is to this significantly larger market that manufactures address, competing on price, which crapware lowers through subsidy (as customers often only look to specs & price for value judgments).

These people also fall prey to the download traps, such as Adobe's so how to stop it?

1. Education, advise use of alternatives & warn of sneaky download techniques. Adobe's Flash Player is hard to avoid as past popularity has produced lock in on the Web & they've also appeared to make it difficult for other flash players to develop. Any one know of another player/plug in?
2. Do not use flash, use HTML5, flash blockers ect, the Steve Jobs solution, wasn't there a big argument against him doing this, from Techrepublic, ZDnet & others?
3. Legislate to ensure there are alternative flash players in competition. Introduce regulations that make disguised concealed download approval illegal. If people had to tick the box to load rather than having it pre ticked as now.
This has to be the last one to try If all else fails, as it has the least chance of success due to powerful political lobbies, international boundaries and an admission of the failure of a free open market.

I'm afraid discussing, calling Adobe & each other names here will not stop these obnoxious practices. To understand the problem is essential, but to change it is the point.
That first change being with ones own habits, then convince those close to you, and so change cascades out as they do the same, and the power of organic growth does the rest.

I will leave the opportunity to reply open (assuming the web page allows), I value interest, criticism (thank you andyvphil), alternative opinions & offer solutions.

won't stop it. What needs to happen is to hit them in the hip pocket. Don't buy their software, don't use their software, complain to sites that require you to use their software; and explain to all involved why you're so against them. Get a big enough grass roots movement going to NOT use Flash or Adobe software and they will react to the loss of sales.

I am really surprised that a premier blogging platform like TechRepublic is allowing such shallow minded opinionated posts.
Seriously, here Adobe has clearly specified that Chrome download is "optional". What about all the bloatware that comes as an "integrated" part of the shoddy OS you use. Like for instance - Internet Explorer. Can you just remove it if you want to replace it with proven superior alternatives ? No you can't . It is an integral part of the OS.
Its alright that you have your preference regarding some XYZ company, but really ... does it make sense to broadcast a reference to an optional download link deliberately squeezed into this fickle-minded context to millions of TechRepublic subscribers expecting quality content ?

while the button for download now is much bigger and in a colour design to take your eye straight to it. In short, they designed the page so you won't spot the Chrome bit, then mark it is default yes. I bet if they weren't allowed to mark it as default yes the font would be way bigger and more colourful.

I understand I've obviously offended you by daring to complain about what I regard as sleazy behaviour. It appears Adobe and Google can do no wrong.

I'll make the point again. This is a Flash UPDATE. Previously you just hit Enter to install one of its many updates. Placing a ticked option on an Update screen without even proper description (the changing the default browser and installig the toolbar description were only added later) is a deliberate attempt to trick you into installing software you don't need. They only had to leave it unticked if they wanted to provide people with the option.

Both Apple and Microsoft provide default browsers with their OS and Chrome has no advantages over either and, as I pointed out for my usage, it also has limitations. If you really do feel the need to change your picture frame to yet another browser, you can do it at any number of websites.

Oh and you should really read the article first. The whole point here is Chrome can replace IE and make itself the default browser.

this is a user experience convenience. And like all computing conveniences, they need to be handled with care - both by the dev and by the user.
I can't fathom why anyone would want to suffer with IE and it's gawd-awful interface and it's history of non-standards compliance, but like you said, it works for some.

[The mere fact that the web browser most easily acquired (IE, for it comes with the most-widely installed OS on the planet) is losing market share to software given away by two other companies should give you some notion that many people DO consider IE lacking in some way. Same goes for Safari - it comes with OS X, but many choose to replace it, it seems, whatever it's advantages with application integration. People just seem to like to customize their browser experiences.]

IF you have a problem with the fact that Chrome can make itself the default browser, complain to Microsoft, and read the dialog box before you click "accept."

It seems they even had me ready to install Ask Jeeves stuff. I think the author did himself a disservice by bringing relative qualities of IE and Chrome. That's not the issue at all. The issue is these companies pushing software and configurations on users that just are not wanted. I've been slowly excluding Flash (and other Adobe products) for the last couple of years. About five years ago, I started being much more critical of Google's tool line since the search engine stopped working as well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We're not the customers. People that pay money are the ones that get the attention. Free users don't get that attention. We dug our freeware grave, the results are our collective responsibility.

for years now the Flash updater ONLY updated Flash, you had to
be watchful if you didn't want the automatic update to install
silently (I prefer to choose when to update). Oracle and its Java
had the Ask Jeeves junk. Adobe "conditioned" users into
accepting their updates almost sight unseen. To then add on
additional stuff without CLEAR indication is trickery and slight
of hand.
Would all of you that are defending Google and Adobe in this
matter be as quick to defend, let's say Microsoft and Yahoo,
if a Windows Update automatically had a check box ticked to
install the Yahoo Toolbar and make Yahoo your "home page"
and default search, web email, social platform? Of course you
wouldn't! The weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth would be
of almost biblical proportions! Quit being a hypocrite and
constantly giving Google a "free pass", just because at one time
they were a good search engine. As for Adobe...well, 'nuff said!

Anyone who claims to technically savvy in the least ALWAYS looks before they leap.
IF you just blindly install things without thinking or reading the extra bits, you're a fool. You're the reason viruses proliferate so quickly.

And all of this coming from someone who writes eLearning software...sounds more like you operate by eRote instead of learning to THINK.

Nice to know you never make mistakes isn't it

Nor do I blindly install things. The point here is this is an UPDATE and previously you just hit Enter to accept the update. The change in behaviour is deliberate and designed to catch as many people as possible. I

Yes I do write eLearning software, but I'm also a developer and I was cutting code before your DNA even combined Yes, I didn't read the small description and tick. because it told me it was a Flash update and also didn't inform me that it was changing my default browser and putting that annoying toolbar in IE - they changed this after my screen cap.

BUt hey, I got scammed, so it must be my fault.

you've been coding a LO-OONG time, Grandpa...
I've owned many computers since 1982, and I've been bitten by a virus a few times...usually my own fault. I'm more conscious of things, now, and haven't had a virus (that I'm aware of, obviously) in about six years, including a six month period where, for whatever reason, I wasn't running any anti-virus app at all...

On a supportive note: this is kind of sad that Adobe is in a position where they feel the need to do this sort of thing. Like the CS isn't enough of a cashcow, and their new (scam), the subscription-based apps isn't going to win them boatloads of money...sigh...

Wow Tony, Am I the only person here that seems to be picking up on what you're actually complaining about? It's not that companies auto tick crapware when you install NEW software, it's that they're doing it now when you UPDATE software already installed on your PC.

I was just as annoyed as you were when I did my last Adobe update - in fact the last 2 times I updated, I had to abort the "auto-download for my convenience" feature they added. I agree that this was done to intentionally "trick" people into downloading the Google software.

I would guess that's because Adobe gets paid for each completed download - so who cares if the customer uninstalls it later right? I understand the business reasons for doing this and I agree you on the sleaze factor here.

Every time I update Java it helpfully pre-checks "Install the Ask toolbar and make Ask my default search engine." Annoying, yes (for what it's worth, my default engine is DuckDuckGo).

Tom,

I totally agree with you.

That is why I stopped using MS products years ago, and never been sorry.

I carefully buy MS free PCs and servers, to avoid a faulty OS that needs antivirus to work bundled together.

Ciao,
-Gian

I tend to blame Adobe for this more than Google, as Adobe has created the deal with other vendors. My big issue is that when you go to the page, the Download now/Update now button renders first and the optional checkbox screen appears a second or so later. This means if you are just expecting the Update, you may do a quick click before the optional checkbox is rendered. I believe that all these add on things should be opt-in and not opt-out as this one is. If you attempt to force something down my throat I'm prone to get defensive about it.
As for the browsers, each one has their place and each person can make make a choice of what works best for them. If you want to state pros and cons go ahead but please no holy wars, it's just a piece of software.

Do you know why Google is the preferred search box provider, why Google For Firefox is the default startup page?
Because Google funds the Mozilla Foundation to the tune of millions per year.
Yep, Google is funding a competing browser, for the price of having a foot in the search door in that browser...weird, huh?
Oh, and it would seem that indirectly, Mozilla's Boot-to-Browser approach, which mirrors Google's ChromeOS would also be funded by Google. What's Google playing at?
Maybe it's because they make about US$3B per month from advertising and they like to spread it around?

Google set SketchUp free in April, 2012, so don't punish SketchUp for the evil of Google. It is now part of Trimble and can be found at sketchup.com.

I suppose you also no longer use Java since every update to it asks to download the Ask.com toolbar, which is probably why Ask is suddenly the #1 search engine, haha. Also, while the current version of IE might be a perfectly great browser, at one point several years ago it was absolute crap that was nearly unusable. It was a bloated, ugly piece of software.

This has been done for a while now. It clearly says, "Yes, install Google Chrome".
However, it does seem suspicious that the tech giant, Google, would need to stoop to distributing their browser through this method. Chrome is a great browser and markets it's self to a certain extent. It'd be different if it was some kind of crapware.

it's not as bad as when apple was trying to install safari by default when installing itunes. And it's easy to untick a box! you can only blame yourself for not paying attention to anything.
All in all a completely useless and frustrated article.

I can't recall the software, but it had the same checkbox for installing IE and I have seen a similar setup for "make my default search Bing". No thank you, M$.