7 ms·

The year is 2023. Everyone who believes either Microsoft or Google are the good guys here is either not paying attention, or works for either of the companies (

The year is 2023. Everyone who believes either Microsoft or Google are the good guys here is either not paying attention, or works for either of the companies (not so unlikely on Hacker News). Both companies use every imaginable dark pattern to trick users into agreeing to whatever tracking bullshit they added last week. With one company controlling the OS and the other the browser, the question is just which dark patterns preempt the other company's dark patterns in the battle for user attention and data in the advertisement wars. I long for the days where I was able to pay for a piece of software. The nature of the transaction ensured that the software did what I as a user wanted it to do, and served no hidden agenda. But those days are gone, possibly forever.

davey48016 3y ago
The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration for years always seemed like a way to get developers to break their sites in non-Chrome browsers as much or more than a way to test features. I assume that Google's takeaway from the Internet Explorer anti-trust case was that they needed plausible deniability for their non-standard browser features.
- waboremo 3y ago
  Judging by Google's sloppy handling of evidence related to their antitrust suit, it seems your assumption is entirely on the money.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration for years always seemed like a way to get developers to break their sites in non-Chrome browsers as much or more than a way to test features. Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, and Opera all were doing that before Google even had a browser; there never even was a Chrome-specific prefix, all of the features included in Chrome this way were -webkit- prefix and, IIRC, implemented in the WebKit shared codebase.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  > The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration This was not a "Google" thing - vendor prefixes were a common practice in the industry. Webkit was using -webkit- prefix before Google was using it. Many years ago the harm of this was recognised and browsers did move these to configuration/feature flags instead. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Vendor_Prefix https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Vendor_Pre...
- gondaloof 3y ago
  Historic tidbit: Mozilla had a slew of "internal" prefixes to be used in their UI and extensions, but Apple really broke new ground and made them mainstream when the iPhone came out and really needed CSS to be useful. That's when stuff like -webkit-transition` and the fabulous `-webkit-box-reflect` were pushed out without waiting for anyone. -ms- wasn't really a thing until IE10 if I remember correctly, when they started prefixing their own IE5-era properties like the DirectX-based `filter` [citation needed]
fwlr 3y ago
I have no illusions about Apple being “good guys”, but this is why I use MacOS and Safari - both of those exist to sell Apple hardware, which is at least a little better than existing to sell my eyeballs. Not great, but not Microsoft or Google bad (yet). Basically, I am paying the Apple tax because I get to be a few cycles behind the state of the art in software commoditizing their users.
- ladyanita22 3y ago
  Yeah well I just use Firefox on Linux
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    What do you use for a mobile phone?
    - SXX 3y ago
      For last 3 years Firefox works great on Android and does have working ad-blokers.
      - lockhouse 3y ago
        Are you using one of those de-Googled custom Android ROMs or stock?
        SXX 3y ago
        Honestly nope. I mostly need phone for banking apps that thanks to Google DRM (SafetyNet) dont play too well with custom ROMs. Yet Firefox work quite well across Windows, macOS, Linux and Android and it has huge advantage of having proper adblocking. So it's mostly no brainer which browser to use.
        miloignis 3y ago
        I am - GrapheneOS is excellent. I do unfortunately run sandboxed Google Play Services for access to Google Maps & Google Play through which I get my banking app. Pretty much everything else (launcher, podcasts, VLC, Firefox, FluffyChat&Element for Matrix messaging, ntfy.sh/UnifiedPush) is via f-droid, and works great.
Root_Denied 3y ago
I don't think people are rooting for Google here, it's more of the "I don't want X (Google) to win I just want Y (Microsoft) to lose" mentality. Neither are the "good" guy here, but in this specific interaction there's definitely one party at fault who should be punished/prevented.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  The definite party is almost certainly Google, who probably implemented an unsupported API to hack this feature, and then are expecting people to blame Microsoft when it inevitably changes. (News about Microsoft adjusting how default apps are set went out like two months ago.) Microsoft has, whether you like it or not, a documented and official way to set your app as a default app. And apps which growth hack around that will probably have problems.
timmaxw 3y ago
Yep. I use GMail and Safari on iOS. When I open links from GMail, every so often it shows a popup saying "would you like to install Chrome and open this link with Chrome instead of Safari"? It only appears intermittently, not on every link (fortunately), but there's no way to disable it.
- arepublicadoceu 3y ago
  Have you tried: settings > default apps > disable ask me each time?
  - timmaxw 3y ago
    Yes, it's disabled. Evidently the two options are "ask me each time" and "ask me intermittently"; there doesn't seem to be an option for "don't ask again".
zubiaur 3y ago
Absolutely. The moment it became clear to me was back when Google completely broke gmail and search for WebOS devices. It served the most rudimentary, broken WAP like version of Gmail and a stripped down version of search. Gmail was basically unusable. The fix? as simple as changing the browser's user agent to look like Android/Chrome.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  They did the same multiple times for Windows Mobile. They support iOS because iOS only ships for Apple devices, it isn't really a competitor in the OS space. But they are absolutely brutal towards any company which might offer a way out for OEMs from the Google prison.
- simplotek 3y ago
  > The fix? as simple as changing the browser's user agent to look like Android/Chrome. I'm not defending Google here, but once I worked for a company whose web support strategy consisted of explicitly supporting a specific subset of browsers, and have a user-agent allowlist to pick if a request loaded the current version of the page or a legacy, feature incomplete but broadly supported version. The guiding principle was that we would have to draw the line in the sand regarding which browsers we'd cover in our test matrix, and instead of risking subjecting users who used unsupported browser to broken experiences then it was preferable that we assured they would experience an old but bulletproof version of it. We started off by showing a "this browser is not supported, please upgrade" page, until some other department in our company complained up and down the org tree because they used thin clients with outdated browsers. Thus instead of showing a "please upgrade" page we fed the old version, and everyone was happy. I see how this looks like intentionally feeding a degraded experience to subsets of users, but having been in a decision-making process that led to the same outcome, let me assure you there are real-world scenarios where this outcome does not originate in malice or any ulterior motive.
  - az226 3y ago
    Why not give the user the option? If it then looks fine, they can keep the newer website, and if it doesn’t they can switch to classic.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
soraminazuki 3y ago
> I long for the days where I was able to pay for a piece of software. You can pay for software, but you'll still be the product. Just like how it's the case here with Windows. It's ironic how the best software are often made by unpaid volunteers. Compare that with commercial software. Most of them are bloated and user-hostile.

davey48016 3y ago

The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration for years always seemed like a way to get developers to break their sites in non-Chrome browsers as much or more than a way to test features. I assume that Google's takeaway from the Internet Explorer anti-trust case was that they needed plausible deniability for their non-standard browser features.

waboremo 3y ago
Judging by Google's sloppy handling of evidence related to their antitrust suit, it seems your assumption is entirely on the money.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration for years always seemed like a way to get developers to break their sites in non-Chrome browsers as much or more than a way to test features. Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, and Opera all were doing that before Google even had a browser; there never even was a Chrome-specific prefix, all of the features included in Chrome this way were -webkit- prefix and, IIRC, implemented in the WebKit shared codebase.
madeofpalk 3y ago
> The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration This was not a "Google" thing - vendor prefixes were a common practice in the industry. Webkit was using -webkit- prefix before Google was using it. Many years ago the harm of this was recognised and browsers did move these to configuration/feature flags instead. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Vendor_Prefix https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Vendor_Pre...
gondaloof 3y ago
Historic tidbit: Mozilla had a slew of "internal" prefixes to be used in their UI and extensions, but Apple really broke new ground and made them mainstream when the iPhone came out and really needed CSS to be useful. That's when stuff like -webkit-transition` and the fabulous `-webkit-box-reflect` were pushed out without waiting for anyone. -ms- wasn't really a thing until IE10 if I remember correctly, when they started prefixing their own IE5-era properties like the DirectX-based `filter` [citation needed]

fwlr 3y ago

I have no illusions about Apple being “good guys”, but this is why I use MacOS and Safari - both of those exist to sell Apple hardware, which is at least a little better than existing to sell my eyeballs. Not great, but not Microsoft or Google bad (yet). Basically, I am paying the Apple tax because I get to be a few cycles behind the state of the art in software commoditizing their users.

ladyanita22 3y ago
Yeah well I just use Firefox on Linux
- lockhouse 3y ago
  What do you use for a mobile phone?
  - SXX 3y ago
    For last 3 years Firefox works great on Android and does have working ad-blokers.
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      Are you using one of those de-Googled custom Android ROMs or stock?
      - SXX 3y ago
        Honestly nope. I mostly need phone for banking apps that thanks to Google DRM (SafetyNet) dont play too well with custom ROMs. Yet Firefox work quite well across Windows, macOS, Linux and Android and it has huge advantage of having proper adblocking. So it's mostly no brainer which browser to use.
      - miloignis 3y ago
        I am - GrapheneOS is excellent. I do unfortunately run sandboxed Google Play Services for access to Google Maps & Google Play through which I get my banking app. Pretty much everything else (launcher, podcasts, VLC, Firefox, FluffyChat&Element for Matrix messaging, ntfy.sh/UnifiedPush) is via f-droid, and works great.

Root_Denied 3y ago

I don't think people are rooting for Google here, it's more of the "I don't want X (Google) to win I just want Y (Microsoft) to lose" mentality. Neither are the "good" guy here, but in this specific interaction there's definitely one party at fault who should be punished/prevented.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
The definite party is almost certainly Google, who probably implemented an unsupported API to hack this feature, and then are expecting people to blame Microsoft when it inevitably changes. (News about Microsoft adjusting how default apps are set went out like two months ago.) Microsoft has, whether you like it or not, a documented and official way to set your app as a default app. And apps which growth hack around that will probably have problems.

timmaxw 3y ago

Yep. I use GMail and Safari on iOS. When I open links from GMail, every so often it shows a popup saying "would you like to install Chrome and open this link with Chrome instead of Safari"? It only appears intermittently, not on every link (fortunately), but there's no way to disable it.

arepublicadoceu 3y ago
Have you tried: settings > default apps > disable ask me each time?
- timmaxw 3y ago
  Yes, it's disabled. Evidently the two options are "ask me each time" and "ask me intermittently"; there doesn't seem to be an option for "don't ask again".

zubiaur 3y ago

Absolutely. The moment it became clear to me was back when Google completely broke gmail and search for WebOS devices. It served the most rudimentary, broken WAP like version of Gmail and a stripped down version of search. Gmail was basically unusable. The fix? as simple as changing the browser's user agent to look like Android/Chrome.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
They did the same multiple times for Windows Mobile. They support iOS because iOS only ships for Apple devices, it isn't really a competitor in the OS space. But they are absolutely brutal towards any company which might offer a way out for OEMs from the Google prison.
simplotek 3y ago
> The fix? as simple as changing the browser's user agent to look like Android/Chrome. I'm not defending Google here, but once I worked for a company whose web support strategy consisted of explicitly supporting a specific subset of browsers, and have a user-agent allowlist to pick if a request loaded the current version of the page or a legacy, feature incomplete but broadly supported version. The guiding principle was that we would have to draw the line in the sand regarding which browsers we'd cover in our test matrix, and instead of risking subjecting users who used unsupported browser to broken experiences then it was preferable that we assured they would experience an old but bulletproof version of it. We started off by showing a "this browser is not supported, please upgrade" page, until some other department in our company complained up and down the org tree because they used thin clients with outdated browsers. Thus instead of showing a "please upgrade" page we fed the old version, and everyone was happy. I see how this looks like intentionally feeding a degraded experience to subsets of users, but having been in a decision-making process that led to the same outcome, let me assure you there are real-world scenarios where this outcome does not originate in malice or any ulterior motive.
- az226 3y ago
  Why not give the user the option? If it then looks fine, they can keep the newer website, and if it doesn’t they can switch to classic.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

soraminazuki 3y ago

> I long for the days where I was able to pay for a piece of software. You can pay for software, but you'll still be the product. Just like how it's the case here with Windows. It's ironic how the best software are often made by unpaid volunteers. Compare that with commercial software. Most of them are bloated and user-hostile.