9 ms·

Interesting admission: > Chrome exists to serve Google search, and if it cannot do that because it is regulated to be set by the user, the value of users using

Interesting admission: > Chrome exists to serve Google search, and if it cannot do that because it is regulated to be set by the user, the value of users using Chrome goes to almost zero (for me).

mojo74 3y ago
I wouldn't be surprised that Chrome's hook in future iterations will be that it serves like a loyalty card e.g. use Chrome and make extra savings clicking on their ads. Just don't call it a web browser.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Delete this before you give them any fresh new ideas for how to be as evil as possible.
- cpeterso 3y ago
  Like Microsoft’s Rewards points and discounts program: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rewards/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rewards/
  - mojo74 3y ago
    'Earn points for each search you make through Bing' I did not know this existed. There's something a bit sad about it.
infecto 3y ago
Not surprising at all to me. One of my issues with Google in the past couple years is their super aggressive push for me to be part of the system, I am usually unconcerned with sharing my data but their tactic has gone from gentle nudges to bothersome. 1) Using a non-chrome browser to access gmail? At least once a week get a popup telling me the experience is better in Chrome and I should switch. 2) Not logged into google in safari on my phone. During a routine google search, telling me with a modal to login to improve the search experience. Its exhausting and I started backing away from google because of it. Ok, tell me once or maybe tell me every few months thats fine...but every week the same darn message. Too much.
- rubyfan 3y ago
  The last straw for me was when Google Maps somehow logged me in on iOS. Maybe it was via gmail or some shared login like when I had to sign in to a google account to buy a Nest Protect, I don’t know. All I know is I have on purpose never signed into Google on Maps. I don’t use Google for anything I can avoid and I get nagged for it all the time. It’s exhausting and the amount of data that most websites seem to be freely sharing with Google just through analytics and those annoying sign on prompts is absurd. Why is no public interest lobbying to stop this intrusion of privacy?
  - brookst 3y ago
    The privacy issue is a fair concern, but orthogonal to the login topic. Google has enough info to connect not-logged-in Maps usage to your user account.
  - RileyJames 3y ago
    Yep their iOS cross app sharing is a privacy nightmare. Not to mention just plain annoying. The google meet app seems to include an entire gmail client for no reason and seems to show it rather than go back to your calendar / mail. Mail loads a web view, rather than the app (say slack) or even safari. Which means half in email links go nowhere, because I’m not logged in / able to access the destination via the web view. And they always want to continue linking my personal and business account within the same app, and then messing up which one should be trying to access. No matter how many times I remove my personal, it always reappears. Often via a “authorise access” pop up while logging in via a different device. Surely it’s a security issue to run 2FA via a device that has actively logged out and removed the account from it. I’m looking forward to them being broken up. It’s becomes too hostile.
  - blibble 3y ago
    this infuriates me, I have: - uninstalled all google apps from my iphone - cleared icloud for google apps - reboot - install a google app I've never installed before (say one of the 70 different chat apps) - somehow I'm logged in apparently it keeps some state in the local keychain, which can't be deleted by the end user (other than by factory resetting the phone) this is a huge privacy loophole
robertlagrant 3y ago
That's not an admission; that's their perspective based on their function in the org.
- brookst 3y ago
  “Admits” is just a cheap way to editorialize news and imply wrongdoing, just like “finally” or “openly”.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Agreed.
jeroenhd 3y ago
I doubt the core Chrome team agrees with that. This was said by someone in charge of negotiating search engine deals for Android and such, not someone in charge of Chrome. I'm sure the Chrome people see the ads people as a wallet for their development as much as the ad people see the Chrome people as a vessel for their ads. In the end the ads people bring in the money so they'll probably get their way, but last time this case came up on the front page there was an example of the quick search feature testing well with users (clearly originating from thr Chrome team) clashing with ad delivery, and only after the ad people raised an issue did Google turn back the changes. This suggests to me that the ad people have some influence on the decisions the Chrome team makes, but the two teams clearly have very different goals in mind.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Different goals maybe. The outcome from that case was that Ads won. Does the goal of the Chrome team matter when they are blocked from implementation?
- lolinder 3y ago
  > This suggests to me that the ad people have some influence on the decisions the Chrome team makes, but the two teams clearly have very different goals in mind. Yes, they have different goals, but you're downplaying the amount of influence from ads that this incident suggests—when the org was forced to choose between keeping a feature that was shown to serve users or scrapping it to make the ads team happy, they scrapped it. In the end it matters very little what the Chrome team would prefer if the corporation consistently overrules them.

Interesting admission: > Chrome exists to serve Google search, and if it cannot do that because it is regulated to be set by the user, the value of users using Chrome goes to almost zero (for me).

mojo74 3y ago

I wouldn't be surprised that Chrome's hook in future iterations will be that it serves like a loyalty card e.g. use Chrome and make extra savings clicking on their ads. Just don't call it a web browser.

kibwen 3y ago
Delete this before you give them any fresh new ideas for how to be as evil as possible.
cpeterso 3y ago
Like Microsoft’s Rewards points and discounts program: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rewards/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rewards/
- mojo74 3y ago
  'Earn points for each search you make through Bing' I did not know this existed. There's something a bit sad about it.

infecto 3y ago

Not surprising at all to me. One of my issues with Google in the past couple years is their super aggressive push for me to be part of the system, I am usually unconcerned with sharing my data but their tactic has gone from gentle nudges to bothersome. 1) Using a non-chrome browser to access gmail? At least once a week get a popup telling me the experience is better in Chrome and I should switch. 2) Not logged into google in safari on my phone. During a routine google search, telling me with a modal to login to improve the search experience. Its exhausting and I started backing away from google because of it. Ok, tell me once or maybe tell me every few months thats fine...but every week the same darn message. Too much.

rubyfan 3y ago
The last straw for me was when Google Maps somehow logged me in on iOS. Maybe it was via gmail or some shared login like when I had to sign in to a google account to buy a Nest Protect, I don’t know. All I know is I have on purpose never signed into Google on Maps. I don’t use Google for anything I can avoid and I get nagged for it all the time. It’s exhausting and the amount of data that most websites seem to be freely sharing with Google just through analytics and those annoying sign on prompts is absurd. Why is no public interest lobbying to stop this intrusion of privacy?
- brookst 3y ago
  The privacy issue is a fair concern, but orthogonal to the login topic. Google has enough info to connect not-logged-in Maps usage to your user account.
- RileyJames 3y ago
  Yep their iOS cross app sharing is a privacy nightmare. Not to mention just plain annoying. The google meet app seems to include an entire gmail client for no reason and seems to show it rather than go back to your calendar / mail. Mail loads a web view, rather than the app (say slack) or even safari. Which means half in email links go nowhere, because I’m not logged in / able to access the destination via the web view. And they always want to continue linking my personal and business account within the same app, and then messing up which one should be trying to access. No matter how many times I remove my personal, it always reappears. Often via a “authorise access” pop up while logging in via a different device. Surely it’s a security issue to run 2FA via a device that has actively logged out and removed the account from it. I’m looking forward to them being broken up. It’s becomes too hostile.
- blibble 3y ago
  this infuriates me, I have: - uninstalled all google apps from my iphone - cleared icloud for google apps - reboot - install a google app I've never installed before (say one of the 70 different chat apps) - somehow I'm logged in apparently it keeps some state in the local keychain, which can't be deleted by the end user (other than by factory resetting the phone) this is a huge privacy loophole

robertlagrant 3y ago

That's not an admission; that's their perspective based on their function in the org.

brookst 3y ago
“Admits” is just a cheap way to editorialize news and imply wrongdoing, just like “finally” or “openly”.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Agreed.

jeroenhd 3y ago

I doubt the core Chrome team agrees with that. This was said by someone in charge of negotiating search engine deals for Android and such, not someone in charge of Chrome. I'm sure the Chrome people see the ads people as a wallet for their development as much as the ad people see the Chrome people as a vessel for their ads. In the end the ads people bring in the money so they'll probably get their way, but last time this case came up on the front page there was an example of the quick search feature testing well with users (clearly originating from thr Chrome team) clashing with ad delivery, and only after the ad people raised an issue did Google turn back the changes. This suggests to me that the ad people have some influence on the decisions the Chrome team makes, but the two teams clearly have very different goals in mind.

djbusby 3y ago
Different goals maybe. The outcome from that case was that Ads won. Does the goal of the Chrome team matter when they are blocked from implementation?
lolinder 3y ago
> This suggests to me that the ad people have some influence on the decisions the Chrome team makes, but the two teams clearly have very different goals in mind. Yes, they have different goals, but you're downplaying the amount of influence from ads that this incident suggests—when the org was forced to choose between keeping a feature that was shown to serve users or scrapping it to make the ads team happy, they scrapped it. In the end it matters very little what the Chrome team would prefer if the corporation consistently overrules them.