They didn't grok my privacy issue. Maybe they were deliberately misunderstanding me. Doesn't matter either way. Now I use Firefox.
Turned out, there was a 2 year old open bug on the missing feature, in which Google UX engineers repeatedly argued allowing the save location to be changed was counter to the desired user experience.
I switched to Firefox the next day and haven't touched Chrome since.
There are a lot of different bug reports out there asking for a flag, and apparently the Chrome team added one, then disabled it a few patches latter.
I forget what I was doing at the time (downloading PDFs for a uni course?). But it was a pain in the ass, of dubious utility anyway, and the cavalier UX attitude of "father knows best" left a really bad taste.
I could imagine a high-flying company having entitled employees, I just don't see the qualitative difference between this or that company. Please enlighten me if I'm missing the point.
And lest I sound arrogant myself: I once worked in Pharma and made my peace with the price vs R&D logic.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/12/non-profits-...
Centrist average Joes usually don't care about such things, and right wingers applaud them to help the police and such.
As for libertarians they are against them when it's by the government, but fine with them when a private company (even one the size of a small nation) does it as part of a "voluntary" employment contract.
Corporations of all stripes tend towards authoritarianism though, in my view. It is a natural structure when you have agents using someone else's capital.
Us complaining to google about poor treatment is like sheep complaining to shepherds or vegetables complaining to the farmer about poor treatment. Nobody would care. But if the shepherd or farmer's customers complained, they would listen very closely because it affects their bottom line.
Especially now that google has a monopoly position on search and online videos, they have even less reason to care about what the products ( you and me ) say.
The thing is, as a developer without having access to user research, all I know is what I want, and as a developer I assume I'm atypical. Whether it corresponds to what anyone else wants is questionable.
The opposite of this is people who assume that whatever they personally want is Obviously the Right Thing For All Users. You will find that attitude everywhere on the Internet. And that has its own flaws.
-- Upton Sinclair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair)
[0] https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1043505744144826369?s=21
I imagine they don’t care one way or the other.
Edit: To clarify, I care about whether Google knows where I've been online. That's why I don't use Chrome. I just don't think most people care.
Now that Google knows, who else can find out? Someone Google trusts? Someone that pays Google enough money?
Lets sell your browsing data to whoever wants to buy it. What kind of risks would that create for you and your family?
Every single person I've explained how much data Google et al's regularly collect has cared a lot. My mother's first comment after hearing what Android and Chrome collect was, "Why aren't the in jail?"
Unfortunately, most of these people continue to use Google's services because they often don't have a choice or are not aware of alternatives. Please, actually talk to people outside your bubble and get their actual opinion (which might require educating them about the specifics of what the tech is doing).
If he came across this, I expect that he would definitely notice that something seemed unusual. Once it became clear what was happening, I expect he would switch away from Chrome.
After a bit of back and forth, I asked for a screenshot. They sent me a photo of the screen and it became apparent that they were clicking on this new avatar embedded in the browser chrome rather than the gmail app avatar below it.
But if these things are unrelated, I guess we'll just have to chalk that up to Google's famously shitty product management and design skills.
You could always be logged in and not sync. You just had previously chosen to be logged in and synced.
By disabling syncing, you turned off a feature that you previously had to have opted in to.
> This will sign you out of your Google accounts.
And sure enough, it signs you out of gmail and the browser. So it's sign in to the browser, or no gmail for you.
I remember because it bothered me to have to wipe my passwords from some random pc I was using just because I wanted my bookmarks.
I know what I saw. I was logged in, then I wasn't after I turned off Sync. They may not be related technically, but in the UI they are part and parcel.
Thanks for correcting me!
The main thrust though, is that this doesn't actually solve anything for end users that the Google Chrome team says it does. There appears to be absolutely no benefit in turning this on.
Over the last year or so, it feels more and more like Google, as a company, is getting desperate. Like it feels the external tide of popular opinion turning against it. But rather than mend its ways, a decision has been made somewhere to slurp up as much information as possible as quickly and quietly as possible, before it all comes tumbling down around it.
I wonder if GDPR was the turning point. Even my boss, who on a computer literacy scale of Linda Lovelace to Ada Lovelace ranks near the bottom of the scale, asked me to explain GDPR to her.
This ultimately affects Google's future growth and it's why you'll see Google do more such "desperate" moves like trying to become a military contractor, building its own iPhone-like phones, tracking users more aggressively, and I imagine android users will soon see os-wide ads, too.
Except they won't be OS-wide, they'll be Play Services wide and mandatory if you're an vendor including Play Services.
If you don't want Google's ads, you can go do your own thing on AOSP like Amazon and other largely-flopped attempts.
I think the change happened shortly after Ruth Porat was brought on and the Alphabet reorganization was announced (Larry Page wanted to retire without having that be the headline). There was clearly a change in mandate to start monetizing more aggressively and you started seeing the ad load increase across all their properties. That all happened during a lull in Google's stock price. It started trending upwards after Porat signaled to investors that all the money pits would be cut back.
It's not hard to imagine that this could be their reasoning around the change in the future.
Yes it does, it solves the exact problem described right in the article. Before this change, there would be a seperate log-in process for Chrome versus every other google service (which normally all share your current login status). Now, your login status is shared between every google service including Chrome, as a layperson would expect. Previously people who wanted to be logged into Chrome AND other google services would have to complete the login process twice which could be confusing for novice users.
I also just tried signing in to chrome (69.0.3497.100), and it tried to sync immediately again, so I'm not sure where the "sync is optional" idea comes from?
Sorry, not much of a Chrome user here. Why would I want to “sign in” to a web browser? I’ve been browsing the web successfully for decades without doing so. I don’t sign in to my text editor either.
Chrome is not a Google service. It is a web browser. It should act like one.
If they looked at a slightly risque URL on their phone, would the average user expect Chrome on their laptop to autocomplete that URL?
His response ("syncing is expected") is completely on-point when talking about the PoLS. I disagree, obviously, and think syncing is scary voodoo magic. I don't see how you can say "users are unsophisticated and don't understand the difference between web sites and web browsers" and also say "users are sophisticated and expected config syncing".
Unfortunately, to get any further we have to test users.
So in theory your data should remain local
That doesn't sound very reassuring to me. Especially long term.
tbf, this is followed by
> This is my paraphrase
(Side note sort of related from another related article - apparently you can opt-out of the unified login, but the flag that lets you opt-out is broken as of chrome canary 71)