Microsoft to force Chrome default search to Bing via Office365 ProPlus installer
theverge.com
theverge.com
So it's not just a way to force users to use bing, it's also a way to push this feature in front of them.
> By making Bing the default search engine, users in your organization with Google Chrome will be able to take advantage of Microsoft Search, including being able to access relevant workplace information directly from the browser address bar. Microsoft Search is part of Microsoft 365 and is turned on by default for all Microsoft apps that support it.
[1] https://support.office.com/en-us/article/find-what-you-need-...
[2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-sear...
It's also not mixed in, last I remember using this feature it was displayed in a banner section and made it really obvious these results came from a different sources.
1. TAM for this may be on the order of triple digits only for all I know, but if you work in a 50k+ knowledge worker org it's great.
Now, not only is Microsoft weaponizing windows updates... they are weaponizing Office to push services without being asked?
I detest these dark patterns and decisions.
It's amazing how a company can make so many good decisions (IE: Open Source direction of .net) while also making such detestable decisions.
A feature that's MAYBE useful in a corporate setting to a hand full of people should not be a default defacto setting forced upon EVERYONE.
The issue isn't the feature... it's the default settings that enable invasive features.
It was so great in search quality, number of formats it could index and performance that at one day I index the whole company file share. People showed up next to me and I rediscovered files which would have been lost otherwise.
This tool also integrated after configuration with the browser which issued an invocation to localhost to integrate local search results. As this was widely regarded as a terrible security feature to potentially tell google all about local files, reception of that feature was poor. This feature was the only incentive for google to provide the tool and therefore the tool got quickly axed.
They had a similar tool to make some sites load faster. I suspect they embedded some of that to Chrome at some point.
Edit:
It was Google Web Accelerator.
Most of the time I knew exactly where the file was saved, but it provided an extremely quick way to open it without navigating folders
Microsoft needs to really do a better job with these sort of decisions to make sure they arent stepping on a landmine.
0: https://9to5google.com/2019/12/02/chrome-google-drive-search...
If Microsoft was adding Bing as a search provider this wouldn't be nearly as controversial. Instead they're removing the user's preference and replacing it with their own, without consent, during a regular update of an unrelated product.
It is basically adware behaviour. Microsoft's self-rationalisation isn't relevant.
The issue here is that the install is not optional when it should be: admins should have the choice. But IMO it's debatable whether end users (of their corporate machines) should.
Microsoft's is Edge.
It's vaguely reminiscent of browsers in the early 2000s, it just needs Gator.
[1] Assuming it provides legitimate business value in the first case
Also, if you are not doing that, they will still be able to, just not directly from the browser address bar.
Searching 0365 when I try to do a search in the browser.
Searching with Bing when I want to search the web.
Searching in 0365 is useful; but this particular move is a doubly-negative way of surfacing the feature.
Shit like this literally undoes every bit of goodwill you earn. Much like replacing user's wallpaper for Win7 EOL (why you didn't just put notification text like "Windows $VERSION - End Of Life - Unsupported" in the bottom corner instead is beyond me).
I mean, I WANT to see the new MS, which is really present on the developer tools and azure side of the business. Windows and Office teams seem to be bent on destroying that at every chance... it's time to fire some upper and mid-level managers that have these attitudes and make these decisions.
Things like Visual Studio Online, GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, etc. worry me. Once everything's a subscription and you're paying to spin your mouse wheel, you lose the ability to spend time in lieu of spending money.
I think it'll happen slowly, but it'll happen. Eventually they'll have a complete, online only development solution that's charged based on usage. Development on local tools will get de-emphasized so they lag behind and suck by comparison and there will be "donations" of subscriptions to educational institutions to ensure no one ever learns to deal with, or even think of, a local development environment.
I think it's ok to have ongoing costs like IntelliJ's products. I don't like the way they screw you with an outdated perpetual license if you drop your subscription, but it's a hell of a lot better than something like Visual Studio Online which is literally pay per hour.
Based on the willingness to pay astronomical markup on CI minutes, I wouldn't be shocked to see people paying $1000 / year (no joke) to use VSO.
Aside: I actually do appreciate some of MS's efforts regarding open source, devtools, .Net Core, VS Code and even most of what Azure does.
Believe it or not, many of us techies really like our windows desktops along with other machines.
Third party tools have fixes for all this, and more.
These all seem like pre-1.0 issues to me.
Aside: I may be able to switch in a couple months... I'm literally working on isolating a windows tether in the primary app I'm working on into an isolated service. After that, it'll be separated enough that I won't have to support it. We also have some other projects that are k8s/docker/linux as the target, and some of the contractors are using macs. So may be able to make a case for a switch.
edit: My experience (elearning, banking, govt) has been no companies supporting desktop users on linux. Though some VM deskop use for software on non-windows servers.
So, the monoculture was there when the new projects started.. the majority of developers and staff are from/in a windows and microsoft centric world view.
Moving stuff away from that has been very hard, and something I've worked hard to make an effort on... I'm not sure where your dogma comes from, but Linux 20 years ago was not what it's been for the last decade even.
It could partially be to maintaining a desktop OS. GPO / SCCM helps manage computers with scale. I'm sure there are Linux tools, but suddenly you have 2x more work to secure, patch and keep up with the best practices for your workstations. Moreover GPO and SCCM is IT friendly way of managing computers.
I happen to support a few legacy applications that are tethered to windows server deployments. Not every workplace can just replace working systems with software that tool literally years for many people to write.
Beyond this, I work in a very security conscious environment (election services) and there is security software at several levels that if I'm not running in the office, I wouldn't be able to connect to the network. When you work in an environment that works for various state and county agencies with sensitive data, there are restrictions that come with the job. I've also worked in banking and that has similar or even greater access. I've worked some security tools/software in banking.
I do more card/board/table games now, and wouldn't mind doing more of that... don't get the same enjoyment online from that though.
If you're a team in a big company and you're trying to optimize for long-term success, you better have the power to stop other teams that try to drive short-term success with campaigns that hurt you.
https://bonkersworld.net/img/2011.06.27_organizational_chart...
https://www.labnol.org/software/chrome-with-adobe-reader/201...
Microsoft pulls a consumer-hostile move, and the first thought of a lot of commenters on here (not just you) is, "what is the impact on Google?"
Who cares about the company? Stop messing with my computer behind my back.
200 years from now, someone on Mars will be reading the headline "Google Drones Lethally Injecting iPhone Owners On Sight", and there'll still be people on HN who's first reaction is to wonder whether or not that counts as anti-competitive towards Apple.
Ploys like these tend to be a symptom from companies about to become obsoleted by innovators who actually understand and give a shit about their target audience.
What eventually hurt their market space wasn't some trendy hippie customer oriented startup but other "lesser evil" big companies with bigger pockets.
The stuff that many people find perfectly acceptable today would have been absolutely outrageous 10-15 years ago.
In some ways Google is just as sinister as Microsoft ever was. It's not any sort of intentional master plan, it's simply what happens when you lose sight of the user. Some of the crap being pulled by today's incumbents... They might as well put a little imp in the box that beats you with a whip to drive the behavior they want from you.
All of them began as tiny startups with a couple of smart people and disruptive tech... take a long enough view and I'm still optimistic the cycle will continue.
It's shame how Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, et al have behaved in recent years, patronizing and manipulating users on a mass scale with a brazenness and near impunity. (OK, Microsoft deserves some love with VS Code, TypeScript, and other open source goodness, but..)
I'm with your optimistic comment that the pendulum is swinging back. These companies have lost sight of users, what "customer care" means, and they're leaving an increasing gap in the market for more humane service and technology.
A caring innovator is very easily crushed by a platform monopolist. And building your own platform and securing mass adoption is incredibly hard. Microsoft didn't manage it in phones.
That's been a common suggestion in tech for years, but I'm not sure it stands up to scrutiny.
Right now, we do most of our graphics work with "young upstarts" like the Affinity suite, because Adobe went all user-hostile and subscription-based. Previously we'd been Creative Suite users.
Every service used to collect payments by every business I have is from the newer generation, not the big banks or PayPals of the world.
We didn't move to Windows 10 but instead we've been experimenting with various other desktop platforms and other devices according to our needs. Previously we were mostly using Windows 7 PCs.
We don't do a lot of "traditional" office document preparation ourselves any more, and the various OSS packages are fine for the occasional spreadsheet or whatever. But among our professional network, there is a lot of use of online collaboration and documentation tools now, and I can hardly think of anyone we work with regularly who is still using MS Office as their main tool for this kind of work.
Basically, at this point, we typically keep a single machine around with a genuine copy of whatever big name software we used to use, for guaranteed compatibility and/or testing purposes, but the 800lb gorillas of the software world have mostly been eliminated from our day-to-day workflows now. Smaller, more flexible businesses like ours certainly are moving away from the traditional monopolies, even if the huge enterprise deployments are slower to do so.
I did that, but now there is no simple way anymore to have compartmentalized logins with different licenses on the same system. At least I didn't find one. I'm used to setup directories, servers etc. but this kind of bullshit is extremely off-putting to me.
Honestly the worst part about Bing is coworkers seeing I use it. It's kind of embarrasing, but it's stupid that it is because it's actually a good search engine.
I use Bing Images (because I don't like DuckDuckGo's image search) and link people there sometimes, and I used to have a Bing-branded wallpaper just to call attention to that there is a choice. Didn't even work, nobody around me finds that weird, many already use DDG or chose to remain with Google.
Bing seems to have switched away from branding a Bing logo onto their wallpapers, though, so that's no longer a thing.
I use Firefox with duckduckgo search engine, no pages full of ad results like with google nowadays. I cannot think of 1 single reason to install Windows 10 and use Chrome browser, you just bite yourself with that choice.
It's really a shame, because the core OS underneath Windows 10 is fairly solid. It's specifically the user interface and Microsoft's behavior around telemetry and advertising their own products at the expense of the end user that turns me off Windows as a platform. Like, I feel like if they focused on making Windows a solid and boring OS that was so stable and reliable that no other choice made sense, their overall brand image would improve so much. Experiment elsewhere, the OS is not the place to tarnish your users' good will.
I hope the EU fines them and forces Microsoft to stop such actions (as they forced them to stop bundling IE with Windows a couple of years ago).
It's time these big corporations get broken up. It really is. Stop f*cking with my hardware and the web.
Now, your comment is popular because of the hype train but nobody complains when a linux distro has a non-google default search for chrome or firefox. Microsoft(or any OS maker) has a competitive advantage also by dominating the desktop OS market like Chrome dominates the browser market,the installer gets to configure the browser.
Anyone has the right to bundle 3rd party software and make n installer that configures the software a certain way,even if the config gives them a competitive advantage.
I don't disagree with your comment about corps getting broken up but I disagree with this being your reason. Think of it the other way "It is now illegal to make installers that change default settings of the publisher" that would sound as more of a reason to get worked up over to me.
I'd say it's customer expectation. The slogan in the Chrome website is: Now more simple, secure, and faster than ever - with help from Google built‑in [0]
So, if I install Chrome I expect Google search to be built-in, and I am okay with that because it was clearly stated on the product page.
Now, when I install Office, which is not a browser to begin with, I don't expect it to change my default search provider.
What doesn't make sense is that some software (office) tampers with your preferences for a (mostly) unrelated piece of software (chrome). That is not office's responsibility.
> Microsoft would terminate Compaq's licence if it removed IE and substituted Netscape, or even if it put the Netscape icon alongside the Explorer one.
Nobody complains when a Linux distro bundles a browser with a default search engine set. People would 100% complain if the next Ubuntu update changed the default search engine on an already installed browser from a 3rd-party source. That would not be OK.
You're looking at this from a pure business perspective and skipping over the more basic problems, which are:
- Software in general shouldn't change/reset user preferences without permission.
- Software updates should be consistent and predictable. Updating one program should not change settings in an unrelated program. Updates should not conditionally decide whether or not to install unrelated programs based on non-transparent reasoning.[0]
- Browser extensions should not sneakily change the mechanisms for how preferences are set.[1] Sneakily forcing the user to know that they need to update the extension settings instead of their browser settings is a user-hostile UX antipattern.
It's not about Microsoft or Google's rights, it's about the users' rights, and about building a sensible UX that works for real users. As a user, I believe strongly that my word processor should not be messing with my browser settings. I would feel the exact same way if a Linux install of LibreOffice changed my default search in Chrome to DuckDuckGo.
[0]: > New installations of Office 365 ProPlus and updated installs will include the extension, as long as the default search engine in Chrome is not set to Bing.
[1]: > Office users will also be able to disable Bing as the default search engine through the extension’s settings.
If as a user, you change back to DuckDuckGo, your next Office patch cycle will “re-Bing” you in a month.
Google Chrome does not do that. If you express your intent to use another search provider, it sticks. Likewise, there is a clear and reliable way to make that choice via policy. This Bing thing has a convoluted and unreliable workaround.
Is this verified?
> Version 2002 is the first version of Office 365 ProPlus that will install this extension. Version 2002 is expected to be released in Monthly Channel in early March 2020 and will be available in Monthly Channel (Targeted) shortly before then. After that, the extension will then be included in releases of Semi-Annual (Targeted) and Semi-Annual Channel.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-sear...
It’s part of the as built configuration of the browser. Just like how Bing is the default for Edge, or Google for Safari.
It’s a design choice that has become a de facto standard, as nobody wants to wade through an onboarding questionnaire for your browser.
This is different, it’s modifying an as-configured configuration and linking it to the update process. It’s bad, as we should be able to trust update processes to be as minimally disruptive as possible.
Microsoft has a notorious penchant for disrespecting user preferences in favour of market share. They were known for steamrolling IE as the default after every patch of windows, so im anticipating the "bing" default to get applied every time a windows patch is rolled out as well.
Users will probably (rightly) see this behavior as an error and go back to using Chrome. Heck, it was part of a litany of chicanery that spurred the exodus from IE.
I tremendously disagree with software being allowed to modify other software installed by me. A proper app sandbox model would never ever allow this. This is one of the things I really love about iOS, no app from wherever it came from can ever modify other software on the system without my permission. (iOS is not perfect either, this is just one area where I would wish desktop OSes would catch up with.)
And do you honestly believe a sandbox would have stopped MS changing the page?
That iOS isn't perfect is an understatement in my opinion. It has a nice UI, it usually works and my pads lie in my cabinet since I cannot do anything remotely interesting and productive with it.
I got my iOS devices for free and it still somehow feels like I got cheated on. Like these devices belong to Apple, not to me.
Depends on the sandbox. A real sandbox? Yes, it should stop Microsoft from changing the page. A sandbox built by Microsoft, that they're willing to circumvent for their own advantage? No; I expect that it won't stop Microsoft. To me, that makes their sandbox less trustworthy rather than making their browser more trustworthy.
That is how a sandbox works, Microsoft's installer would not be able to access configuration files for Chrome to change the settings.
I can tell you, the last thing I want is android/ios like app sandboxing if that means I can't interfere with what apps are doing/configuring. I prefer to have control or finao say about inter-app interaction since it is my device
Apple designed a content blocking system years ago that doesn't allow the ad blocker to intercept all of your browser traffic.....
Your argument makes no sense, Chrome can set it's own default configuration and I think it asks if you want to make it the default browser. I think it is correct to call the practice of changing user or other apps configuration without asking for user permission. A prompt with a nice text and a catchy image that explains why the user should accept the change would be enough for me.
Now if you think this is fine then you would also think that would be fine that Google will do the same and change the search engine back to Google in all browser, change the windows search to Google search , maybe change the settings so your word,pdf and other files open in Chrome.
That should read their software. MS is free to set the default search in edge when I am installing edge. If I install something unrelated like office and it goes and touches my chrome config that is something else entirely. Don't touch other people's stuff without asking first.
> MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer.
That sentence makes no sense to me. The chrome installer is completely unrelated to this and MS is not shipping anything resembling a chrome installer. They are shipping their office installer (which you are kinda forced to use to install office), which unexpectedly(!) tampers with your chrome install.
> You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights
Nope.
Everything you are saying makes sense if you are talking about controlling the defaults of the software maintained/installed by the package. That's not what is happening here.
Again, simple kindergarten manners: If you think there is any reason people might object to what you want to be doing with/to their stuff, ask first and be prepared to hear "no".
Well, the point is to make an application available to the user; the changes are required by how the OS is designed. It's an accident of history that things like PATH in Windows are world-writable. Things like Metro apps have far less ability to modify the wider system.
The tech company response to this kind of application infighting is likely to be more sandboxing and lockdowns. Everything will move in the direction of an iOS like model where the platform owner can just veto apps and ban developers, as that's the only way to deal with "abuse".
Unless the adults aka the state steps in and orders them to do their jobs instead of bullying each others and the users they are supposed to serve.
You really do not want what you are asking for.
In the same way I want the police to take over the sex trafficking business from the mafia. So no.
> You really do not want what you are asking for.
I believe I know my mind better than you do.
Wanted or no, it is the end result you will get.
> I believe I know my mind better than you do.
I believe you do, too. What I am questioning is if the end result is what you think it to be.
Surely you can substantiate that claim?
Chrome is not part of the OS.
> It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending.
It's not only possible but easy to differentiate between installing software which includes registering it in the appropriate places and changing user settings for anticompetitive reasons. Unlike some corporations' customer support departments, the court system is not only staffed by actual humans with brains, they're even allowed to use them.
> And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process.
I prefer solutions that have a chance of working, but to each their own.
Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE.
> It's not only possible but easy...
Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco.
> I prefer solutions that have a chance of working
Where you can impose your wishes on other's product choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly, it's a niche product tweak.
> Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE.
I would argue that this shows that it is legally relevant. Because it is possible to say that IE is not part of the OS but an application, we can talk about “bundling” products together at all. If IE and Windows were one indecomposable unit, I don’t think the EU would have had a case.
They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.
Those devious Microsoft PR execs at the Justice Department...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] was a noted American antitrust law case in which the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.
“ The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system.”
So yeah, follow your own advise. Because if you would, you'd find gems like this in the actual court case I cited:
"After trial, the court found Microsoft had violated Section 2 by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems (“OSs”) and by unlawfully attempting to monopolize the market for internet browsers, and that it had violated Section 1 by illegally tying its Windows operating system and its Internet Explorer (“IE”) browser."
What is this, a court of law?
> Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco.
You don't get to blame the GDPR for those pointless pop-ups webmasters choose to display that are not even remotely compliant.
> Where you can impose your wishes on other's product choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly, it's a niche product tweak.
Microsoft is the one which tries to impose its choices on others. In any case it wouldn't be me but us, we live in a democracy.
MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.
You're talking about legislature (i.e. state stepping in). What did you think this was about? Crossfit?
> You don't get to blame the GDPR
Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.
> MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.
But ProPlus is. Either you are deliberately conflating the issue or you don't know what you are talking about.
What the law currently happens to be is irrelevant to the question what it should be.
> Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.
Please tell me how those pop-ups reflect a design flaw in the GDPR.
> But ProPlus is.
It's a version of Office.
I advise you to take a civics course. This is literally not true.
> Please tell me how those pop-ups reflect a design flaw in the GDPR.
In short: GDPR failed to correct the incentives and lead just to more boilerplate disclaimers. Some of GDPR is good, but this part definitely isn't.
> It's a version of Office.
Yeah... That's the definition of a niche product. Because, it's targeted at niche audience.
Honestly, I'm not interested of arguing with you anymore. When people start throwing platitudes against facts, that's the time I lose interest.
It would be easier if you explained to me how this possibly can be not true.
> In short: GDPR failed to correct the incentives and lead just to more boilerplate disclaimers. Some of GDPR is good, but this part definitely isn't.
The incentives people think the GDPR sets are obviously broken but what about the ones it actually does set as written? The law is fine, the enforcement is disappointing so far.
> Yeah... That's the definition of a niche product. Because, it's targeted at niche audience.
If Office is targeted at a niche audience then everything is a niche audience.
I'm sure someone will say you should only install applications you trust, but where does that trust come from? How can I judge the trustworthiness of an application if I can't use it first? Must I trust some third party like a community of repo maintainers --not to mention corporate run repos-- and pretend that they all must have my best interest at heart and never make mistakes? Am I required to believe in the fantasy that once trustworthy software will always be so?
The difference here is that Microsoft is overriding the user choice without consent initially AND doing it again every time to patch Office 365, which your license agreement requires you to do every 90-120 days.
As with several recent Microsoft behaviors with Windows and Office, it is fundamentally disrespectful of the customer. As someone who has run a big End User Computing organization, having Uncle Microsoft modifying other vendors software undermines my ability to do my job and hold those vendors accountable for their product.
It’s a shame because Office 365 is an incredibly positive thing. But with about a decade in, you have the next generation of managers in the company aspiring to make the 2020s equivalent of the 2000s triple play cable bundle. Unfortunately cable company aspirations nurture cable company customer focus.
Once I have changed it I don’t want something changing it without me requesting it.
This is my position, I’m unlikely to change.
Yeah, but the solution to that is regulation and not an arms race! Google should (and does) allow the user/installer/organization to change the search engine, precisely to allow for competition in the industry.
Browser vendors need to respect that choice. It would be equally bad for Google to be surreptitiously change the Chrome (or Edge) search engine to Google from Bing! It's just bad. Respect user preferences, period.
IMHO, browsers from Big Corps shouldn't be trusted at all. If someone likes to use Chrome, should try to go for Chromium or a de-Googled version of it.
About Microsoft, don't use Office then, move to something else, the world has plenty of alternatives (LibreOffice or SoftOffice are really good ones)
If Chrome did that it would be objectionable too.
Or you can create and enforce laws that apply when they abuse their monopolies. Breaking up a company because it's above an arbitrary size threshold is a dangerous precedent, and most likely it won't even address the problem at hand.
Don't get me wrong, it's trashy behavior. But it's hardly a new one.
They did a similar thing with Teams (to what seems like some success) and like Teams they are offering IT admins some tools to stop this change for their users (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-sear...).
Personally, I think the change will be positive here only because it might help introduce some people to a web that is not google.com. So many people cannot conceive of a web search or address that isn’t done through google.com that I’m continually surprised by it.
This will be a test for enterprise IT admins: can they control this change’s level of disruption for their users, will they communicate it to their users, and will they stick with Microsoft?
https://i.imgur.com/hNZLbmL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Uldw6X3.png
I've seen some installers that didn't even use a dark pattern, just installed it.
If this happens by default, in a user hostile way, Google could respond by having their installers set the default search engine in Edge to Google.
You must exclude the extension before you install or update to a version of Office 365 ProPlus that installs the extension for Microsoft Search in Bing. Implementing the exclusion after the extension has been installed will not remove the extension.
• For new installations of Office 365 ProPlus, the Office Deployment Tool may be the best method, as outlined in this support document
• For existing installations of Office 365 ProPlus, modifying the Group Policy may be best. Enable the policy setting Don't install extension for Microsoft Search in Bing, which makes Bing the default the search engine.
• If you use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (current branch), from the Features section, set Microsoft Search as default to the Off position.
• If you use Microsoft Intune to deploy Office 365 ProPlus, clear the check box Microsoft Search as default on the Configure App Suite pane.
Just to guarantee that every user has a reason to be pissed off?
Pity the poor help desks that missed this announcement and get swamped with tickets next month
I guess that Microsoft uses that method in the Office 365 ProPlus installer (also targeted at businesses).
As every HN reader knowns, there is no good technical reason for this. It's anti-competitive bullshit, pure and simple.
They talked about this in the reddit article that was linked,but I feel it warrants further discussion.
Disclaimer: I work at msft, nothing related and no knowledge of this besides the article. Opinions are my own.
"Once this feature has rolled out, your end users can change their search engine preferences only via the toggle in the extension; they cannot modify the default search engine in browser preferences."
But, it takes a fire to feed a forest sometimes. Let them
I still remember the toolbar days. They were indeed dark.
Presumably a product decision by the same people who though inserting 200% additional whitespace into Outlook would go down well.
I certainly am not shedding any tears for Google, who relentlessly funnels people into their tools, automatically logs them in in chrome, pushes their products into schools to get young people into their data-vacuum as soon as possible. Not to mention shady practices like AMP trying to force developers to use their own version of HTML & serve their content on google.com, "or else say goodbye to your search ranking."
MSFT is definitely "picking on someone their own size" and certainly not doing anything more underhanded than what google routinely engages in, so I don't see the issue.
They've both been bad actors for years now, and the excuses people come up with to keep using them anyway have worn very thin.
PS: Just for experimenting I switched to Edge (new) & Bing to see what's different. And I really liked Edge, it's faster than chrome and has some privacy controls like cross domain cookie handling. Tried firefox before edge. But did not liked it, because It's ui is crap also some functionalities may not work because devs are optimizing the websites mostly for chrome.
But Bing as a search engine is not powerful like google because of lack of data.
I think if the OS, browser and the search engine belongs to the same company, its perfectly fine to set it as the default. As long as on first launch they give a clear option to choose something else.
With that, personally I don't trust any company with a closed source OS these days and will treat all closed source programs as malware.
Because otherwise you could be like Deloitte and have some jaggoff management consultant leak all your clients' private email addresses because they didn't follow internal technology policy and used Google Docs to stow it all.
and let me just get this out of the way now by saying, no, i will not use duckduckgo as my search engine cause it has given me nothing but _the_ most irrelevant search results i have ever seen.
I'd love to see them fight it out.
Have you heard of "other browsers" on iOS and how Apple forces them to use Safari specs?
This is more of you folks having an issue with Microsoft itself, not what they have done. Because your favorite company is doing it already and you just choose to look away.
I install Office because I need it, not because I think it and everything else Microsoft has made is the best thing ever.
Software has changed the start page, search providers, and installed plugins into browsers for a very long time, this is nothing new.
"Once this feature has rolled out, your end users can change their search engine preferences only via the toggle in the extension; they cannot modify the default search engine in browser preferences."
Considering Chrome's market share, it's only a matter of time until Google will be required to show a search engine choice screen in the browser, they were already ordered by the EU to do it for the default Android browser and search engine.
Both companies behave inappropriately, but then again, actions like these are needed to highlight how choices are made for us, and to shake us out of complatence.
When you install O365 ProPlus you sure as hell don‘t expect it to change search engine parameters in separate programs.