This infuriates me insanely. By what right does Microsoft think it is ok to manipulate a third party software by injecting their own code?! This is outright malicious. Malware.
I hope the EU fines them and forces Microsoft to stop such actions (as they forced them to stop bundling IE with Windows a couple of years ago).
It's time these big corporations get broken up. It really is. Stop f*cking with my hardware and the web.
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.
> 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.
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.
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"?
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.
Okay, and how do we compare that to the legal trouble microsoft had with setting IE as the default browser. As a customer of course I expect IE to be built in to windows. Yet that wasn't ok.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
> 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.
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
>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.
> 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.
So you're conflating legality with good practice I think. In general I agree touching other publishers software is a bad idea but far from illegal. MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. You picked their platform's installer so they configure it for their platform ,that's it. They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights, I hope some foss package maintainers chime in on this. Would suck if it was illegal to change upstream's defaults.
I did not mention either legality or good practice.
> MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer.
That sentence makes no sense to me. The chrome installer is completely unrelated to this and MS is not shipping anything resembling a chrome installer. They are shipping their office installer (which you are kinda forced to use to install office), which unexpectedly(!) tampers with your chrome install.
> They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example.
Everything you are saying makes sense if you are talking about controlling the defaults of the software maintained/installed by the package. That's not what is happening here.
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".
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.
> 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".
> 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".
Unless the adults aka the state steps in and orders them to do their jobs instead of bullying each others and the users they are supposed to serve.
Of course, the only reason the mafia is involved in the first place is because sex work is illegal in most jurisdictions. So the analogy is worse than a mere leaky abstraction. You're advocating a cure that's worse than the disease, in both cases.
And I think there is a big difference between "system" and "applications".
It is not like this is hypothetical magic or unexplored, see any sandboxing ever or Android and iOS, where an app can't even access another app's files without specifically asking for permission.
> What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system.
Chrome is not part of the OS.
> It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending.
It's not only possible but easy to differentiate between installing software which includes registering it in the appropriate places and changing user settings for anticompetitive reasons. Unlike some corporations' customer support departments, the court system is not only staffed by actual humans with brains, they're even allowed to use them.
> And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process.
I prefer solutions that have a chance of working, but to each their own.
> Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE.
I would argue that this shows that it is legally relevant. Because it is possible to say that IE is not part of the OS but an application, we can talk about “bundling” products together at all. If IE and Windows were one indecomposable unit, I don’t think the EU would have had a case.
United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] was a noted American antitrust law case in which the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.
Mate, you are hilarious! From the Wikipedia article you cited:
“ The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system.”
So yeah, follow your own advise. Because if you would, you'd find gems like this in the actual court case I cited:
"After trial, the court found Microsoft had violated Section 2 by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems (“OSs”) and by unlawfully attempting to monopolize the market for internet browsers, and that it had violated Section 1 by illegally tying its Windows operating system and its Internet Explorer (“IE”) browser."
> I advise you to take a civics course. This is literally not true.
It would be easier if you explained to me how this possibly can be not true.
> In short: GDPR failed to correct the incentives and lead just to more boilerplate disclaimers. Some of GDPR is good, but this part definitely isn't.
The incentives people think the GDPR sets are obviously broken but what about the ones it actually does set as written? The law is fine, the enforcement is disappointing so far.
> Yeah... That's the definition of a niche product. Because, it's targeted at niche audience.
If Office is targeted at a niche audience then everything is a niche audience.
Yes, absolutely. Such things should require explicit consent from the user and be implemented in such a way that the application can't even tell if permission was granted or not. For a long time now applications have proven that they cannot be trusted to act in the user's best interest. If we care at all about personal computing, then applications should be isolated and sandboxed by default with any connection to the rest of the system under the explicit control of the user.
I'm sure someone will say you should only install applications you trust, but where does that trust come from? How can I judge the trustworthiness of an application if I can't use it first? Must I trust some third party like a community of repo maintainers --not to mention corporate run repos-- and pretend that they all must have my best interest at heart and never make mistakes? Am I required to believe in the fantasy that once trustworthy software will always be so?
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.
> 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.
True, but we forget how also Chrome attempts to set itself automatically as standard browser in Linux _WITHOUT_ asking. That is also a malicious behavior, isn't?
Not trying to change the conversation, but also Chrome has malicious behavior without consent.
IMHO, browsers from Big Corps shouldn't be trusted at all.
If someone likes to use Chrome, should try to go for Chromium or a de-Googled version of it.
About Microsoft, don't use Office then, move to something else, the world has plenty of alternatives (LibreOffice or SoftOffice are really good ones)
For what it is worth, it seems like even Microsoft can’t make Chromium work without phoning “home” to Google. The new edge preview (at least for me, not sure if A/B testing) still talks back to the mothership at 1e100...
The market leader sets the terms. Behaving maliciously didn't hurt Chrome - consumers obviously don't care. So you fight fire with fire. Otherwise you're at a disadvantage.
It doesn't sound like mister_hn is excusing Microsoft's behaviour. It's just that, if people think Google is the "victim" here, they are completely wrong. They both have little regard for a user's preference.
People think the end users are the victim here. This equally applies if my default search engine is something else. Bing is still going to override it.
It doesn't sound like he is trying to justify it. He's suggesting that the popular alternative is just as bad. In no way does that make Microsoft's action any better.
Exactly. Imagine if Google changed your windows installation to point shortcut to win word to point to a new chrome window in kiosk mode that opens docs.new...
Chrome literally did something like this. When the user searched the web from the Windows search box, it used to open their default browser to bing.com. Chrome started to inspect the url and redirect to Google.com. So Microsoft changed it to open Edge to block this bs.
To me this was always why Google's position was weak and why they absolutely needed Android -- Apple and Microsoft could kill Google as a default move for users. Users only have so much energy to micro-manage the parameters of their devices and they depend on sensible defaults.
Or you can create and enforce laws that apply when they abuse their monopolies. Breaking up a company because it's above an arbitrary size threshold is a dangerous precedent, and most likely it won't even address the problem at hand.
The irony here is that Google mostly got its market share by paying companies like Adobe to pack the Google Toolbar in their installers which would hijack IE's default search and change it to Google. (Chrome later came out of a fear Microsoft might block the Google Toolbar in IE.)
Don't get me wrong, it's trashy behavior. But it's hardly a new one.
MS is implementing this in one of their ‘business tools’, and leveraging their position as an enterprise software provider to raise the status of some of their products that aren’t classic Office.
Personally, I think the change will be positive here only because it might help introduce some people to a web that is not google.com. So many people cannot conceive of a web search or address that isn’t done through google.com that I’m continually surprised by it.
This will be a test for enterprise IT admins: can they control this change’s level of disruption for their users, will they communicate it to their users, and will they stick with Microsoft?
Chrome often installs itself maliciously, so perhaps turnabout is fair play. Google has done pay-for-install with Adobe Flash updates, Java updates, 'Free' Windows antivirus vendors, etc, and all used dark patterns to trick users into installing Chrome and setting it as the default.
I hope the EU fines them and forces Microsoft to stop such actions (as they forced them to stop bundling IE with Windows a couple of years ago).
It's time these big corporations get broken up. It really is. Stop f*cking with my hardware and the web.