11 ms·

By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? They use their browser's popularity for a competitive advantage and that's legal. Now, your comm

By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? They use their browser's popularity for a competitive advantage and that's legal. 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.

Longhanks 7y ago
Of course this is also true. Chrome should be forced to offer a selection of search engines when it first runs. This is something for example Android is now forced to do (in the EU). 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.)
- badrabbit 7y ago
  So, even with my permission, a program shouldn't be allowed to manipulate other programs? So debuggers that modify a program's memory should be disallowed? security products shouldn't scan for insecure/bad settings/bugs and fix them? Adblockers shouldn't mess with ads in a different application? 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
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Adblockers shouldn't mess with ads in a different application? Apple designed a content blocking system years ago that doesn't allow the ad blocker to intercept all of your browser traffic.....
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  It would be my personal nightmare if desktop OS' adapt this practice, although I fear at least Windows will do so in incremental steps. I think this will be the end of its dominance on desktops, but I have no doubts management at MS will try. So this would be a good and a bad thing. 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.
  - cmcd 7y ago
    > And do you honestly believe a sandbox would have stopped MS changing the page? That is how a sandbox works, Microsoft's installer would not be able to access configuration files for Chrome to change the settings.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > And do you honestly believe a sandbox would have stopped MS changing the page? 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.
simion314 7y ago
>By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? 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.
tinus_hn 7y ago
So the maker of the software doesn’t get to set the defaults? Then who does?
mtgx 7y ago
Microsoft is exploiting another developer's software to install its monopolist office software inside it. That's quite different from Google "installing" a search engine inside its own browser. Do you see the difference? That said, I do agree Google shouldn't be allowed to set its own search engine as the default, either.
diffeomorphism 7y ago
> Anyone has the right to bundle 3rd party software and make n installer that configures their software a certain way,even if the config gives them a competitive advantage. 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.
- jevgeni 7y ago
  So, any modification of the OS environment would be illegal. Like, say, updating the PATH.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    Sure, if you suddenly overwrite the default version of python you break lots of stuff. Adding onto PATH at the end in contrast does not break anything and is totally fine. See the difference? Similarly for bundling your own libc vs replacing the system one. 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".
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system. It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending. And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        > the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system 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".
LeonM 7y ago
> By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? They use their browser's popularity for a competitive advantage and that's legal. 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. [0] https://www.google.com/chrome/ https://www.google.com/chrome/
- wdobbels 7y ago
  Exactly. The browser provides a URL bar that is coupled to a search engine. It makes sense for the browser to provide you with a default option for that search engine. A web browser is something that needs to be on every computer; so it makes sense that the OS installs a default web browser. 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.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Do you know how many years and millions of dollars the US government spent prosecuting Microsoft for their belief that " web browser is something that needs to be on every computer"?
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      Inaccurate. Microsoft was not prosecuted for merely including IE, they were prosecuted for forcing OEMs to not include anything else (Netscape).
    - jchw 7y ago
      That’s, to my knowledge, a pretty big misrepresentation of the case, that from my understanding has quite a few facets. > 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.
Spooky23 7y ago
The difference here is that Microsoft is bypassing existing user consent mechanisms of their own making, and repeatedly disrespecting user choice. 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.
- bishalb 7y ago
  Does a user who installs Chrome provide consent for Google to be their default search engine?
  - silicon2401 7y ago
    if you don't consent, don't download
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Yes. 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.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  > If as a user, you change back to DuckDuckGo, your next Office patch cycle will “re-Bing” you in a month. Is this verified?
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It’s in Microsoft’s documentation as of right now. You don’t really know until they do it, as Microsoft doesn’t necessarily do what they document. > 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-search-bing#when-will-the-extension-for-microsoft-search-in-bing-be-added-to-office-365-proplus https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-sear...
mavhc 7y ago
Why is their browser popular? Because it's better.
nimbius 7y ago
I dont mind this feature in Firefox and Chrome, as it only happens once, and only out of the box. 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.
- kop316 7y ago
  To tack on, they also have a very annoying penchant for changing my boot order on major updates. I dual boot Windows and Linux and default to Linux. Every major update, it defaults to Windows first.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Firefox did the same recently with eg Pocket, if you'd removed it from your toolbar they added it back (and they made the plugin unremovable). Very similar behaviour IMO.
Spooky23 7y ago
The established norm is for the browser to ship a default and allow users to change it. 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.
teddyuk 7y ago
If I install a new browser I don’t care what default search it has, I can change it. 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.
danShumway 7y ago
> but nobody complains when a linux distro has a non-google default search for chrome or firefox. 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.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Agreed, respect the user.
ajross 7y ago
> By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? They use their browser's popularity for a competitive advantage and that's legal. 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.

Longhanks 7y ago

Of course this is also true. Chrome should be forced to offer a selection of search engines when it first runs. This is something for example Android is now forced to do (in the EU). 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.)

badrabbit 7y ago
So, even with my permission, a program shouldn't be allowed to manipulate other programs? So debuggers that modify a program's memory should be disallowed? security products shouldn't scan for insecure/bad settings/bugs and fix them? Adblockers shouldn't mess with ads in a different application? 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
- scarface74 7y ago
  Adblockers shouldn't mess with ads in a different application? Apple designed a content blocking system years ago that doesn't allow the ad blocker to intercept all of your browser traffic.....
raxxorrax 7y ago
It would be my personal nightmare if desktop OS' adapt this practice, although I fear at least Windows will do so in incremental steps. I think this will be the end of its dominance on desktops, but I have no doubts management at MS will try. So this would be a good and a bad thing. 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.
- cmcd 7y ago
  > And do you honestly believe a sandbox would have stopped MS changing the page? That is how a sandbox works, Microsoft's installer would not be able to access configuration files for Chrome to change the settings.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > And do you honestly believe a sandbox would have stopped MS changing the page? 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.

simion314 7y ago

>By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? 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.

tinus_hn 7y ago

So the maker of the software doesn’t get to set the defaults? Then who does?

mtgx 7y ago

Microsoft is exploiting another developer's software to install its monopolist office software inside it. That's quite different from Google "installing" a search engine inside its own browser. Do you see the difference? That said, I do agree Google shouldn't be allowed to set its own search engine as the default, either.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

> Anyone has the right to bundle 3rd party software and make n installer that configures their software a certain way,even if the config gives them a competitive advantage. 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.

jevgeni 7y ago
So, any modification of the OS environment would be illegal. Like, say, updating the PATH.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  Sure, if you suddenly overwrite the default version of python you break lots of stuff. Adding onto PATH at the end in contrast does not break anything and is totally fine. See the difference? Similarly for bundling your own libc vs replacing the system one. 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".
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system. It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending. And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system 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".

LeonM 7y ago

> By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? They use their browser's popularity for a competitive advantage and that's legal. 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. [0] https://www.google.com/chrome/ https://www.google.com/chrome/

wdobbels 7y ago
Exactly. The browser provides a URL bar that is coupled to a search engine. It makes sense for the browser to provide you with a default option for that search engine. A web browser is something that needs to be on every computer; so it makes sense that the OS installs a default web browser. 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.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Do you know how many years and millions of dollars the US government spent prosecuting Microsoft for their belief that " web browser is something that needs to be on every computer"?
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Inaccurate. Microsoft was not prosecuted for merely including IE, they were prosecuted for forcing OEMs to not include anything else (Netscape).
  - jchw 7y ago
    That’s, to my knowledge, a pretty big misrepresentation of the case, that from my understanding has quite a few facets. > 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.

Spooky23 7y ago

The difference here is that Microsoft is bypassing existing user consent mechanisms of their own making, and repeatedly disrespecting user choice. 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.

bishalb 7y ago
Does a user who installs Chrome provide consent for Google to be their default search engine?
- silicon2401 7y ago
  if you don't consent, don't download
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Yes. 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.
lonelappde 7y ago
> If as a user, you change back to DuckDuckGo, your next Office patch cycle will “re-Bing” you in a month. Is this verified?
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It’s in Microsoft’s documentation as of right now. You don’t really know until they do it, as Microsoft doesn’t necessarily do what they document. > 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-search-bing#when-will-the-extension-for-microsoft-search-in-bing-be-added-to-office-365-proplus https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-sear...

mavhc 7y ago

Why is their browser popular? Because it's better.

nimbius 7y ago

I dont mind this feature in Firefox and Chrome, as it only happens once, and only out of the box. 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.

kop316 7y ago
To tack on, they also have a very annoying penchant for changing my boot order on major updates. I dual boot Windows and Linux and default to Linux. Every major update, it defaults to Windows first.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Firefox did the same recently with eg Pocket, if you'd removed it from your toolbar they added it back (and they made the plugin unremovable). Very similar behaviour IMO.

Spooky23 7y ago

The established norm is for the browser to ship a default and allow users to change it. 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.

teddyuk 7y ago

If I install a new browser I don’t care what default search it has, I can change it. 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.

danShumway 7y ago

> but nobody complains when a linux distro has a non-google default search for chrome or firefox. 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.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Agreed, respect the user.

ajross 7y ago

> By what right does google set the search engine to begin with? They use their browser's popularity for a competitive advantage and that's legal. 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.