[flagged]
https://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pa...
https://community.adobe.com/questions-638/adobe-flash-instal...
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission
https://www.findmysoft.com/news/google-gets-pushy-with-chrom...
Etc. This stuff was very real and is a ten second search away, maybe try that before accusing parent of having a faulty memory because it doesn’t agree with yours.
It's really disgusting to see such misinformation spread because you hate what actually happened.
There are screenshots of the installers in those links.
[1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/528214/browser_speed_compari...
[2] https://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/03/google-chrome-bund...
And yes, both things can be true which is why lying about one of them is wrong.
Even if it was the most amazing browser ever written and came with a free puppy, it is shady to rely on tricking people to get your software installed, and pretending that this is just "advertising a browser" is incredibly disingenuous.
By replying to this comment you agree that I can install some of my software on whatever device you are currently using. <-- this is basically what they did.
Rewriting history is wrong
But if that is your view, you should switch to Brave. 44% less memory use, (1/3) longer battery life, no telemetry and if you block undesirables it is obviously much much faster.
> AnandTech tested median page load time across one hundred top-trafficked websites in WebPageTest using a 50 Mbps cable connection. Brave 1.69 loaded the median page in 2.1 seconds, while Chrome 147 took 6.7 seconds. The 3.2x difference is not engine speed, it is Brave Shields aborting requests for ad networks, analytics SDKs, and third-party fingerprinting scripts