I'm still kind of bitter with the way they did that. A lot of windows installers, which usually installed you toolbars if you forgot to uncheck a box, started installing chrome as your default browser if you forgot to uncheck a box.
I've seen a lot of non-technical people using chrome who have no idea what chrome is or remembering giving consent to installing chrome.
For context, a payout of $0.10 for a bundled install would have been considered really good back then; a payout 10x that amount meant you'd pull every dirty trick in the book to get as many installs as possible.
In the case of Chrome and Firefox, they're competitive enough that you really need to say both what you're measuring and how you measured it. People tend to say one is faster than the other when they most commonly mean “the set of extensions I installed in A slowed it down more than B”.
In Chrome when you load a JS-intensive website (ex. Facebook) you can switch to a different tab while the website finishes doing that JS-intensive task (ex. loading), but in Firefox the opposite happens, the entire browser freezes so you are forced to wait until the browser becomes responsive again.
We are talking in the order of magnitude of milliseconds, but unfortunately it is enough to be perceptible (and annoying).
Fortunately for FF, e10s[1] is almost baked, it still doesn't feel as responsive as Chrome BUT it feels significantly better so you can easily neglect the difference until it matures or something better (Servo[2]) gets baked.
My point was simply that without providing more detail, those comments are so vague to be useless.
Other times, FF is lightning quick - near instantaneous loads - only other thing I can think of is that I'm running FF on Fedora?
I had higher hopes for FF android, as it allows plugins (adblock), but the browser is so horrible on the platform, I wound up switching back... I also tried dolphin for a while. Neither was satisfactory.
I just like chrome better...
Unfortunately outside America the mobile web is a malvertising minefield, and the malvertisers target the carriers directly, so there is no way to expect ad networks (ex. AdSense) to proactively hunt for them.
A browser with integrated AdBlock is the most sensible option you can have in a non-rooted device, and the easiest one you can recommend to friends and colleagues.
I know that is a separate issue... would really like my password manager & adblock & the app window/tabs where each "tab" is a separate window instead of integrated tab-bar, which isn't very nice at all on a phone.
thats quite a lot of powerful advertisement, on the sites people browse every day. its not too different than being part of the default install IMO ;-)
and of course - chrome is a pretty good browser (though edge is actually quite good and firefox is pretty much ok as well despite not yet doing sandboxing)
It's terrifying.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=436489
"The popup is anchored to the extension icon, which might be in overflow or not even exist, in which case it is anchored to the Wrench menu. That kind of anchoring would make the message in the popup to appear to be from the Chrome browser (since it points to the chrome UI) and would present a vector for tricking users into thinking the message is from a trusted source.
Since this is not safe to allow all extensions to do we'd need a lot better reasoning than "I'd like to use this in my extension" before allowing widespread use of this API."
"While the Philips Hue system is based on open technologies we are not able to ensure all products from other brands are tested and fully interoperable with all of our software updates. For guaranteed compatibility you need to use Philips Hue or certified Friends of Hue products."
After all, it'd just be downright unthinkable that any non-Philips lightbulb should be compatible with our light sockets, that any brand of plug should fit into our wall sockets, or that non-Google-branded plug-in should be able to use a web browser's APIs... I mean, goodness, next we'll be thinking that the term "plug-in API" suggests its supposed to allow things that other people created to interoperate...
Nobody other than Google (or your OEM) is allowed to build complete screen casting apps on Android. All third party solutions require you to output your audio through your speaker and capture it with your microphone, which is much worse quality, single-channel, and makes sound (I want to hear my device audio through the speakers of the device I'm casting it to).
It makes no sense, especially when any device on your network can emulate being a Miracast receiver and get access to the same audio data that you aren't allowed to access on your own device. In fact, Windows 10 insider preview currently includes a Miracast emulator just for this purpose of Android screen sharing.
And they told OEMs they wouldn't sell them Windows at all if they preinstalled Netscape or uninstalled IE.
Which is why they got sued by the government and lost the trial.
Kind of different if you ask me.
It was found guilty in the larger anti-trust case, but not in the browser case.
See Microsoft Wins In Appeals Court -- It Gets OK To Require Use Of Its Internet Browser; Special Master Booted http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...
Microsoft Wins Key Ruling An Appeals Court Said The Company's Browser Can Be Integrated Into Windows 95. The U.s. Had Sued To Stop It. http://articles.philly.com/1998-06-24/news/25728049_1_window...
etc
The most valuable advertising space in the world?
Do you have any specific examples?
Java - When updating, Java on Windows would often trick you into installing Chrome as your default browser unless you noticed and unchecked a box
Avast, AntiVir, etc - Nearly every free antivirus on Windows was paid by Google to install Chrome. The free antivirus would notify you there was a new version and if you clicked the UPDATE or CONTINUE button without noticing and unchecking the box, you'd wind up with Chrome installed and set as your default browser: http://i.imgur.com/hNZLbmL.jpg
The majority of the non-techies I know and had set up with Firefox have no idea how Chrome got on their machines and became their default browser. I'd wager a lot of Chrome's desktop userbase on Windows is due to shady bundleware arrangements.
Chrome was still engaged in the above behavior the last time I checked.
Impressive :)
As I said, people shouldn't be upset at Google, installing Chrome was a significant improvement, or would you rather see IE8 still as the dominant browser?
I blame Adobe, Oracle, etc. because they have the trust of the users and a piece of software considered essential by many people, yet they decide to use the shady practices that cheapskates use.
If it weren't Chrome it would be the dreaded Ask Toolbar or something even worse, so it's not the fault of Google, quite the contrary, installing Chrome as a byproduct is possibly the least negative outcome.
EDIT: I checked it right now, and it also targets IE, unlike what you suggest: http://i.imgur.com/XuwHs7G.png
That's a question for our best second tier psychologists and UX researchers (the first tier being too busy developing the aforesaid mind-fucks).
Is it? Across the board they are entitled to make that decision for every user?
it is absolutely as bad as any of the crapware vendors who do this. Google is just as bad as the ask toolbar people.
If you suggest the opposite, you don't do web development or live in the early 2000's.
> Across the board they are entitled to make that decision for every user?
Saying "every" is an exaggeration, since several users would opt-out. Installing a better (yes, better) browser to technically-impaired people who don't even know what a browser is looks like a good trade off to me.
> it is absolutely as bad as any of the crapware vendors who do this. Google is just as bad as the ask toolbar people.
Ask is a dying company doing questionable last ditch efforts. Google is a healthy company deliberately tweaking tech-impaired user's defaults, there is a difference whether you like it or not.
I'm a developer and growth hacking is a mystery to me, I'm always impressed to see which "moves" are able to increase the user-base.
Oh, and the text for disabling the Google Chrome install-and-make-default was tiny... on a low-DPI screen.
I was never aware this was even a problem because all my software came in through one or two trusted sources.
Especially considering Chrome is currently on track to kill Flash by a click-to-start policy for the majority users. Much irony.
The checkbox is pre-selected.
For those looking for an alternative, try Bleachbit [1] (works great on Linux/Windows, open-source).