4 ms·

>In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. Where "did some marketing" equals "unethically

by dTal 7y ago

>In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. Where "did some marketing" equals "unethically abused monopoly position to aggressively push through dark patterns", sure. I think I can still blame them for that.

bad_user 7y ago
I've seen dark patterns from Google, but in the case of Chrome I have a hard time remembering any. Do you mean that they advertised for Chrome on their properties? Advertising on your own property is legitimate in my book. And simple advertising isn't a "dark pattern". Or do you mean something else?
- syshum 7y ago
  I know many many people that had chrome installed with out them activlity seeking it out, and had their default browser changed with out their permission So much so that many many people I know that worked on helpdesk;s at the time where getting lots of complaints about "the internet is missing" meaning their Icons changed from the IE logo to the Chrome logo because chrome was changed to the default browser with out them understanding what happened. Add to the fact that Chrome would also install in AppData to avoid having to have Admin rights to install so it could be install on corporate/enterprise systems by normal users...
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  What's fine for a small business, isn't necessarily fine for a monopoly.
- replax 7y ago
  For example it used to be the case that whatever you downloaded from google or 3rd parties (google earth, picasa, oracle java etc.) automatically installed google chrome by default and set it as your default browser. This is on par with IE toolbar spamming in installers.
- glandium 7y ago
  Many app installers, including Adobe Flash, would install Chrome along whatever they install. In the case of Flash, there was a checkbox to disable it, but if you don't pay attention, you don't see it. And I think in that case, you might even end up with Chrome as your default browser. The most interesting part in all this is that the Adobe Flash you just downloaded and installed is not even used by Chrome, which ships its own.
- fouc 7y ago
  I would argue the 'auto update' feature is actually a bit of a dark pattern. (I believe chrome was the first major browser to start this trend?) It is ostensibly for security and benefits developers because of less fragmentation. But it actually hurts users in the long run because of the centralizing effect. It also enables chrome to sneak in features that users wouldn't necessarily accept.
- dTal 7y ago
  That, and they paid money to surreptitiously bundle it with other software. Chrome is notorious for suddenly being mysteriously installed on relatives' computers: https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd And advertising something on your own property sure sounds reasonable, but I think it's a slightly different story when "your own property" is "the de facto homepage of the internet". That's what I meant by "abusing monopoly position".
  - tenpaiyomi 7y ago
    That's not a dark pattern though. Potentially poor behavior, sure, but dark pattern, no.
    - afandian 7y ago
      "Complete your antivirus" has a pre-checked tickbox for a totally irrelevant product. And in the process agreeing to a license. That's pretty dark. Maybe as someone with above-average technical ability this looks obvious to you. To a lot of people, it isn't. And this pattern is aimed at fooling the less technically literate.
      - xxs 7y ago
        Agreeing to a license in the EU requires an affirmative action (i.e. pre-ticked checkboxes are automatically a fail to comply) The requirements to have unticked checkboxes predates GDPR.
    - propertymagnate 7y ago
      It's example number two on the wikipedia page for dark patterns, Misdirection.
    - legacynl 7y ago
      yes it is, dark patterns refer to user-design decissions that arguably exploit human-weaknesses. In this case human-attention span (not noticing that you have to disable this option), lazyness(it costs effor to opt-out) and human confidence in authority (I trust avast with my AV, so I trust avast not to exploit my trust (but they do)).
- stephenr 7y ago
  A big "works better in Chrome" button/banner is not legitimate advertising.
  - efdee 7y ago
    But it's the only way we marketed browsers back in '95!
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  The most recent thing I've seen is where the boundaries of the browser and Google's web properties start to get blurred. For example, signing into a Google site from Chrome also signs you into the browser; it's unclear how this happens, what personal information it compromises, and more than that it's an unexpected and unwelcome surprise when it happens. Clearing Google cookies in Chrome also doesn't work, for related reasons. Try deleting all cookies in Chrome the immediately refreshing the list: Google cookies immediately re-appear. It's not that these things are necessarily actually dangerous. But the blurring of the line between service and user agent scares me.
  - r721 7y ago
    >signing into a Google site from Chrome also signs you into the browser They eventually created an option to disable that behaviour after a lot of user complaints: "While we think sign-in consistency will help many of our users, we’re adding a control that allows users to turn off linking web-based sign-in with browser-based sign-in—that way users have more control over their experience. For users that disable this feature, signing into a Google website will not sign them into Chrome." https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-based-your-feedback/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-base...
- xxs 7y ago
  Seriously, every time you used to open google docs with firefox, they asked to "try&download chrome" as it was faster (or whatever). I don't have the screenshots any longer but it was so bad I added to grease monkey. Another example: Windows: Chrome, installation being under user profile to bypass any system checks during installation process itself and further updates.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kerng 7y ago
  You might not have seen the dark patterns if you always used Chrome. If you browse with another browser you can observe their dark patterns daily...
- apetrovic 7y ago
  Like when they deliberately cripple one of the most popular web sites for any other browser? https://twitter.com/cpeterso/status/1021626510296285185 https://twitter.com/cpeterso/status/1021626510296285185
amelius 7y ago
Yes, also see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- grenoire 7y ago
  Err... I don't see either of these are relevant to the Chrome situation, given that the competitors are (and have been) also free. These aren't applicable for markets of free goods and services.
  - amelius 7y ago
    Opera wasn't always free.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      It became free (without ads) three years before Chrome was first released.
  - ascagnel_ 7y ago
    > that the competitors are (and have been) also free IE was free when Netscape Navigator was a paid product. Chrome was free when Opera was a paid product.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > Chrome was free when Opera was a paid product. Chrome didn't exist when Opera was a paid product.
CaptainZapp 7y ago
Google invested a shit ton into marketing when they launched Chrome. I have pictures from 2012 (I think) when they had the entire grand hall of Paris' Gare de Lyon hung with dozens of huge Chrome banners. That alone must have cost them tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Euros. That said I think the web's under Google's thumb screws (AMP, mail, DNS, browser-almost monopoly, etc) is in a bad place. But they did invest a hell of a lot in pushing Chrome.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Technically you are just stating facts, and I do not wish to put words into your mouth, so I am saying this with caution: if you mean to imply that "investing a shit ton into marketing" legitimizes their dominance, then I have to respectfully disagree. Economic might does not make right.
- dTal 7y ago
  Your comment reads strangely and I can't tell what you're trying to say. I'm not sure why you frame these things as being at odds ("That said... But...). They were willing to pay to bundle Chrome with installers - it's not surprising they also invested in "conventional" marketing. And it directly led to the browser-almost-monopoly you cite.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    Summarized : They spent a ton of money on promoting Chrome But essentially defending them on that specific issue doesn't make it a nice, or admirable company in my book. Edit, to clarify some more: I was "defending" them on some accusations that they promoted Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns. Initially, I'd wager, they didn't. Does that clarify it?
    - dTal 7y ago
      Ah, I see. You were saying that because they marketed Chrome "legitimately", they probably didn't market Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns "at first", am I right? But I don't really think that's how it went - I think they used every trick in the book, as early and as often as possible. If that's not true, and some marketroid in Google woke up one day and thought "hey, we could get a lot more bang for our buck by being super scummy!", then that would be an interesting tale. But it seems more likely that what happened was that Google just pulled out all the stops. At any rate it's not much of a defense. Their "legitimate" marketing in no way absolves them for their "illegitimate" marketing.

by dTal 7y ago

bad_user 7y ago

I've seen dark patterns from Google, but in the case of Chrome I have a hard time remembering any. Do you mean that they advertised for Chrome on their properties? Advertising on your own property is legitimate in my book. And simple advertising isn't a "dark pattern". Or do you mean something else?

syshum 7y ago
I know many many people that had chrome installed with out them activlity seeking it out, and had their default browser changed with out their permission So much so that many many people I know that worked on helpdesk;s at the time where getting lots of complaints about "the internet is missing" meaning their Icons changed from the IE logo to the Chrome logo because chrome was changed to the default browser with out them understanding what happened. Add to the fact that Chrome would also install in AppData to avoid having to have Admin rights to install so it could be install on corporate/enterprise systems by normal users...
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
What's fine for a small business, isn't necessarily fine for a monopoly.
replax 7y ago
For example it used to be the case that whatever you downloaded from google or 3rd parties (google earth, picasa, oracle java etc.) automatically installed google chrome by default and set it as your default browser. This is on par with IE toolbar spamming in installers.
glandium 7y ago
Many app installers, including Adobe Flash, would install Chrome along whatever they install. In the case of Flash, there was a checkbox to disable it, but if you don't pay attention, you don't see it. And I think in that case, you might even end up with Chrome as your default browser. The most interesting part in all this is that the Adobe Flash you just downloaded and installed is not even used by Chrome, which ships its own.
fouc 7y ago
I would argue the 'auto update' feature is actually a bit of a dark pattern. (I believe chrome was the first major browser to start this trend?) It is ostensibly for security and benefits developers because of less fragmentation. But it actually hurts users in the long run because of the centralizing effect. It also enables chrome to sneak in features that users wouldn't necessarily accept.
dTal 7y ago
That, and they paid money to surreptitiously bundle it with other software. Chrome is notorious for suddenly being mysteriously installed on relatives' computers: https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd And advertising something on your own property sure sounds reasonable, but I think it's a slightly different story when "your own property" is "the de facto homepage of the internet". That's what I meant by "abusing monopoly position".
- tenpaiyomi 7y ago
  That's not a dark pattern though. Potentially poor behavior, sure, but dark pattern, no.
  - afandian 7y ago
    "Complete your antivirus" has a pre-checked tickbox for a totally irrelevant product. And in the process agreeing to a license. That's pretty dark. Maybe as someone with above-average technical ability this looks obvious to you. To a lot of people, it isn't. And this pattern is aimed at fooling the less technically literate.
    - xxs 7y ago
      Agreeing to a license in the EU requires an affirmative action (i.e. pre-ticked checkboxes are automatically a fail to comply) The requirements to have unticked checkboxes predates GDPR.
  - propertymagnate 7y ago
    It's example number two on the wikipedia page for dark patterns, Misdirection.
  - legacynl 7y ago
    yes it is, dark patterns refer to user-design decissions that arguably exploit human-weaknesses. In this case human-attention span (not noticing that you have to disable this option), lazyness(it costs effor to opt-out) and human confidence in authority (I trust avast with my AV, so I trust avast not to exploit my trust (but they do)).
stephenr 7y ago
A big "works better in Chrome" button/banner is not legitimate advertising.
- efdee 7y ago
  But it's the only way we marketed browsers back in '95!
matthewmacleod 7y ago
The most recent thing I've seen is where the boundaries of the browser and Google's web properties start to get blurred. For example, signing into a Google site from Chrome also signs you into the browser; it's unclear how this happens, what personal information it compromises, and more than that it's an unexpected and unwelcome surprise when it happens. Clearing Google cookies in Chrome also doesn't work, for related reasons. Try deleting all cookies in Chrome the immediately refreshing the list: Google cookies immediately re-appear. It's not that these things are necessarily actually dangerous. But the blurring of the line between service and user agent scares me.
- r721 7y ago
  >signing into a Google site from Chrome also signs you into the browser They eventually created an option to disable that behaviour after a lot of user complaints: "While we think sign-in consistency will help many of our users, we’re adding a control that allows users to turn off linking web-based sign-in with browser-based sign-in—that way users have more control over their experience. For users that disable this feature, signing into a Google website will not sign them into Chrome." https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-based-your-feedback/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-base...
xxs 7y ago
Seriously, every time you used to open google docs with firefox, they asked to "try&download chrome" as it was faster (or whatever). I don't have the screenshots any longer but it was so bad I added to grease monkey. Another example: Windows: Chrome, installation being under user profile to bypass any system checks during installation process itself and further updates.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kerng 7y ago
You might not have seen the dark patterns if you always used Chrome. If you browse with another browser you can observe their dark patterns daily...
apetrovic 7y ago
Like when they deliberately cripple one of the most popular web sites for any other browser? https://twitter.com/cpeterso/status/1021626510296285185 https://twitter.com/cpeterso/status/1021626510296285185

amelius 7y ago

Yes, also see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

grenoire 7y ago
Err... I don't see either of these are relevant to the Chrome situation, given that the competitors are (and have been) also free. These aren't applicable for markets of free goods and services.
- amelius 7y ago
  Opera wasn't always free.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    It became free (without ads) three years before Chrome was first released.
- ascagnel_ 7y ago
  > that the competitors are (and have been) also free IE was free when Netscape Navigator was a paid product. Chrome was free when Opera was a paid product.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > Chrome was free when Opera was a paid product. Chrome didn't exist when Opera was a paid product.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

Google invested a shit ton into marketing when they launched Chrome. I have pictures from 2012 (I think) when they had the entire grand hall of Paris' Gare de Lyon hung with dozens of huge Chrome banners. That alone must have cost them tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Euros. That said I think the web's under Google's thumb screws (AMP, mail, DNS, browser-almost monopoly, etc) is in a bad place. But they did invest a hell of a lot in pushing Chrome.

vanderZwan 7y ago
Technically you are just stating facts, and I do not wish to put words into your mouth, so I am saying this with caution: if you mean to imply that "investing a shit ton into marketing" legitimizes their dominance, then I have to respectfully disagree. Economic might does not make right.
dTal 7y ago
Your comment reads strangely and I can't tell what you're trying to say. I'm not sure why you frame these things as being at odds ("That said... But...). They were willing to pay to bundle Chrome with installers - it's not surprising they also invested in "conventional" marketing. And it directly led to the browser-almost-monopoly you cite.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Summarized : They spent a ton of money on promoting Chrome But essentially defending them on that specific issue doesn't make it a nice, or admirable company in my book. Edit, to clarify some more: I was "defending" them on some accusations that they promoted Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns. Initially, I'd wager, they didn't. Does that clarify it?
  - dTal 7y ago
    Ah, I see. You were saying that because they marketed Chrome "legitimately", they probably didn't market Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns "at first", am I right? But I don't really think that's how it went - I think they used every trick in the book, as early and as often as possible. If that's not true, and some marketroid in Google woke up one day and thought "hey, we could get a lot more bang for our buck by being super scummy!", then that would be an interesting tale. But it seems more likely that what happened was that Google just pulled out all the stops. At any rate it's not much of a defense. Their "legitimate" marketing in no way absolves them for their "illegitimate" marketing.