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.