[HN Gopher] Microsoft to force Chrome default search to Bing via...
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft to force Chrome default search to Bing via Office365
ProPlus installer
Author : Flenser
Score : 367 points
Date : 2020-01-23 09:20 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| kunglao wrote:
| I think a large number of people can't tell a browser and the
| search engine apart anymore. They are so entangled, internet to
| people means something that when they click on it, it shows the
| iconic Google search page. Wonder how that happened. I heard that
| Google is introducing Chromebooks to school kids. By the time
| these kids graduate, they'll be confused by any computer that is
| not a Chromebook.
|
| I think if the OS, browser and the search engine belongs to the
| same company, its perfectly fine to set it as the default. As
| long as on first launch they give a clear option to choose
| something else.
| ourmandave wrote:
| Seesh, even Adobe gives you a McAfee checkbox.
| fdjlasdfjl wrote:
| Hey EU, it looks like Microsoft hasn't had enough of an anti-
| trust beating!
| rkagerer wrote:
| People are going to get fed up with all these stupid, user-
| hostile tricks coming from the major tech companies. I'm not just
| talking about this one incident. There's a bar that's not only
| lowering, but crashing fast.
|
| Ploys like these tend to be a symptom from companies about to
| become obsoleted by innovators who actually understand and give a
| shit about their target audience.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > about to become obsoleted by innovators who actually
| understand and give a shit about their target audience.
|
| A caring innovator is very easily crushed by a platform
| monopolist. And building your own platform and securing mass
| adoption is _incredibly_ hard. Microsoft didn 't manage it in
| phones.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _A caring innovator is very easily crushed by a platform
| monopolist._
|
| That's been a common suggestion in tech for years, but I'm
| not sure it stands up to scrutiny.
|
| Right now, we do most of our graphics work with "young
| upstarts" like the Affinity suite, because Adobe went all
| user-hostile and subscription-based. Previously we'd been
| Creative Suite users.
|
| Every service used to collect payments by every business I
| have is from the newer generation, not the big banks or
| PayPals of the world.
|
| We didn't move to Windows 10 but instead we've been
| experimenting with various other desktop platforms and other
| devices according to our needs. Previously we were mostly
| using Windows 7 PCs.
|
| We don't do a lot of "traditional" office document
| preparation ourselves any more, and the various OSS packages
| are fine for the occasional spreadsheet or whatever. But
| among our professional network, there is _a lot_ of use of
| online collaboration and documentation tools now, and I can
| hardly think of anyone we work with regularly who is still
| using MS Office as their main tool for this kind of work.
|
| Basically, at this point, we typically keep a single machine
| around with a genuine copy of whatever big name software we
| used to use, for guaranteed compatibility and/or testing
| purposes, but the 800lb gorillas of the software world have
| mostly been eliminated from our day-to-day workflows now.
| Smaller, more flexible businesses like ours certainly are
| moving away from the traditional monopolies, even if the huge
| enterprise deployments are slower to do so.
| thrwaway69 wrote:
| I have been hearing that for a decade. I remember the time when
| installing anything would change your browser's search engine.
| Those companies are still alive and going.
|
| What eventually hurt their market space wasn't some trendy
| hippie customer oriented startup but other "lesser evil" big
| companies with bigger pockets.
| close04 wrote:
| I think people are slowly getting used to all the tricks the
| major tech companies use and they are going to see this as
| more and more acceptable and even perfectly normal. And those
| companies know this. I'm sure they pay very qualified people
| to tell them how far and how fast they can take it to get
| what they want without truly alienating the people.
|
| The stuff that many people find perfectly acceptable today
| would have been absolutely outrageous 10-15 years ago.
| rkagerer wrote:
| There's nothing hippie about capitalizing on the opportunity
| created when a market leader alienates its customers by
| letting its products rot with pain points.
|
| In some ways Google is just as sinister as Microsoft ever
| was. It's not any sort of intentional master plan, it's
| simply what happens when you lose sight of the user. Some of
| the crap being pulled by today's incumbents... They might as
| well put a little imp in the box that beats you with a whip
| to drive the behavior they want from you.
|
| All of them began as tiny startups with a couple of smart
| people and disruptive tech... take a long enough view and I'm
| still optimistic the cycle will continue.
| lioeters wrote:
| Yes! I believe "the people", in this case the users who are
| getting abused/exploited/disrespected, need to be more
| attentive and vocal about borderline illegal behavior of
| corporations, tech companies included.
|
| It's shame how Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, et al
| have behaved in recent years, patronizing and manipulating
| users on a mass scale with a brazenness and near impunity.
| (OK, Microsoft deserves some love with VS Code, TypeScript,
| and other open source goodness, but..)
|
| I'm with your optimistic comment that the pendulum is
| swinging back. These companies have lost sight of users,
| what "customer care" means, and they're leaving an
| increasing gap in the market for more humane service and
| technology.
| janpot wrote:
| There are no people in this world through the eyes of these
| companies. They only see "consumers". Walking money-bags. And
| they'll do whatever they need to to shake as much out of them
| as they can. Nowhere is there a guarantee that what's best for
| the user is what generates the most money. It's a system
| failure.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| I just switched to libre despite having 2 different office
| licenses, because I got way too annoyed with an issue.
| Basically, at first my excel died in a way that actually set
| back saves on some of my files. I was surprised this is even
| possible. Nothing worked to solve the problem except a
| reinstall, but you can't just reinstall Excel, you need to
| reinstall the whole package.
|
| I did that, but now there is no simple way anymore to have
| compartmentalized logins with different licenses on the same
| system. At least I didn't find one. I'm used to setup
| directories, servers etc. but this kind of bullshit is
| extremely off-putting to me.
| chirau wrote:
| A lot of a weird arguments here. You are OK with Google being the
| default and not Bing? Sounds silly to me.
|
| Have you heard of "other browsers" on iOS and how Apple forces
| them to use Safari specs?
|
| This is more of you folks having an issue with Microsoft itself,
| not what they have done. Because your favorite company is doing
| it already and you just choose to look away.
| JC5413789642675 wrote:
| How many users are going to get "stuck" because of the text
| below, from the MS bulletin?
|
| "Once this feature has rolled out, your end users can change
| their search engine preferences only via the toggle in the
| extension; they cannot modify the default search engine in
| browser preferences."
| SteveSmith16384 wrote:
| I don't mind what the default is when I install a browser since
| I know to change it, but I have issues with any piece of
| software altering the settings of another unrelated piece of
| software that I've already configured.
| Kuraj wrote:
| I'm not OK with software messing with my other software.
|
| I install Office because I _need it_ , not because I think it
| and everything else Microsoft has made is the best thing ever.
| s_y_n_t_a_x wrote:
| Lets not pretend browsers are like other software. They are
| essentially a VM that can run remote untrusted code.
|
| Software has changed the start page, search providers, and
| installed plugins into browsers for a very long time, this is
| nothing new.
| ajay_sibri04 wrote:
| Use open office then??
| blobs wrote:
| I moved back to linux (fedora) a while ago, what a relief and
| what a joy it is compared to Windows.
|
| I use Firefox with duckduckgo search engine, no pages full of ad
| results like with google nowadays. I cannot think of 1 single
| reason to install Windows 10 and use Chrome browser, you just
| bite yourself with that choice.
| zeta0134 wrote:
| The primary reason I boot into Windows is to play videogames,
| especially VR, which just isn't stable on Linux yet. But that's
| not a bad compromise either; my Windows boot is for companies
| that are _happy_ to sneak rootkits onto the OS to detect
| cheaters, and honestly I 'm totally okay declaring my Windows
| partition unsafe, and booting back to a sane OS to do real
| work.
|
| It's really a shame, because the core OS underneath Windows 10
| is fairly solid. It's specifically the user interface and
| Microsoft's behavior around telemetry and advertising their own
| products at the expense of the end user that turns me off
| Windows as a platform. Like, I feel like if they focused on
| making Windows a solid and _boring_ OS that was so stable and
| reliable that no other choice made sense, their overall brand
| image would improve so much. Experiment elsewhere, the OS is
| not the place to tarnish your users ' good will.
| paultopia wrote:
| it would be nice if some of the CFAA abuses that are a plague on
| the world actually get directed at companies who do this kind of
| crap
| Mindwipe wrote:
| This feels very stupid from MS, the bad publicity must surely
| outweigh the tiny increase to a product that's not substantive
| and underperforms anyway.
|
| Presumably a product decision by the same people who though
| inserting 200% additional whitespace into Outlook would go down
| well.
| bla3 wrote:
| The Edge team is trying really hard to create a "we do things
| right" story around their project. They must be annoyed that a
| different department squanders the goodwill they're working so
| hard to create with stuff like this.
|
| If you're a team in a big company and you're trying to optimize
| for long-term success, you better have the power to stop other
| teams that try to drive short-term success with campaigns that
| hurt you.
| minedwiz wrote:
| The Microsoft chart in this comic is still pretty accurate:
|
| https://bonkersworld.net/img/2011.06.27_organizational_chart...
| uncle_j wrote:
| Very large companies like Microsoft usually have a problem of
| the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| They should go next door and ask how that's working out for
| Boeing.
| uncle_j wrote:
| Well there is a bit of a difference it is unlikely a web
| browser is going to directly cause of a person's death.
| villahousut wrote:
| Is this the same Edge team which forces a Bing search bar on
| your New Tab page, even if you've removed Bing as a search
| provider in the settings?
| kUdtiHaEX wrote:
| That sounds like an excellent plan.
| downvoteme1 wrote:
| I think people are missing a key point here . This is included
| with the pro plus installer which is exclusively a business
| product. My company installs a bunch of tracking and other crap
| software on my windows machine in the name of data privacy,
| security and other bullshit. All it does is makes my i7 laptop
| with 16 gigs of ram behave like a slow crappy laptop. So if you
| have an issue with this complain to your work organization
| because somebody higher up made a decision to go with Pro plus .
| cosmiccatnap wrote:
| Have you ever tried to 'bing' a python error you've ran into?
| This is specifically bad because it's a business product
| meaning that trying to get work done will only get harder.
| rosybox wrote:
| I use Bing regularly, I made it my default search engine just
| for kicks about 2 months ago just to see how terrible it was
| and for the most part I can't even tell the difference.
| Sometimes I can't find what I want and then I search Google
| and it can't find it either. I can think of exactly two times
| in the last two months when Google found something Bing
| couldn't. One was when I searched for Hearthstone cardback
| browser and Bing couldn't find the link to it, but Google
| did, but it was like halfway down the page. I actually prefer
| not giving Google any more info about me and still getting
| decent search results.
|
| Honestly the worst part about Bing is coworkers seeing I use
| it. It's kind of embarrasing, but it's stupid that it is
| because it's actually a good search engine.
| lucb1e wrote:
| > the worst part about Bing is coworkers seeing I use it.
|
| I use Bing Images (because I don't like DuckDuckGo's image
| search) and link people there sometimes, and I used to have
| a Bing-branded wallpaper just to call attention to that
| there is a choice. Didn't even work, nobody around me finds
| that weird, many already use DDG or chose to remain with
| Google.
|
| Bing seems to have switched away from branding a Bing logo
| onto their wallpapers, though, so that's no longer a thing.
| wolco wrote:
| The truth about this experiment is you don't know what you
| are missing on both ends because you only attempt to find
| the missing item.
| idclip wrote:
| Oh they are burning down the house pretty badly. I think even
| good ol bill is cringing at recent events. My god ..
|
| But, it takes a fire to feed a forest sometimes. Let them
| jannes wrote:
| Cringing?? Are you familiar with the MS of the 90s? The stuff
| that happened on his watch was not much better.
| idclip wrote:
| I am, but honestly, i actually feel this is worse.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Changing people's defaults search engine is worse than EEE?
| Longhanks wrote:
| 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.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| The user is the business that administers the machines. They
| want this. If not, they would disable it.
| gsich wrote:
| I hope they do. And in the process do the same for Android.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/hNZLbmL.jpg
|
| https://i.imgur.com/Uldw6X3.png
|
| I've seen some installers that didn't even use a dark pattern,
| just installed it.
| rpvnwnkl wrote:
| 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.
|
| They did a similar thing with Teams (to what seems like some
| success) and like Teams they are offering IT admins some tools
| to stop this change for their users (see
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-
| sear...).
|
| 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?
| tr4cker wrote:
| Agreed
| mister_hn wrote:
| 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?
| chithanh wrote:
| Spare me the whataboutism to justify Microsoft's actions.
|
| If Chrome did that it would be objectionable too.
| behringer wrote:
| Like making Google search the default?
| Milner08 wrote:
| 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.
| mcny wrote:
| 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...
| bgdnyxbjx wrote:
| 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.
| dontblink wrote:
| I would argue the inverse. I set my preference in Chrome.
| Why is Windows forcing me to use Bing if I use the search
| box in Windows 10?
| EasyTiger_ wrote:
| Why are you trying to change the conversation to Chrome?
| tomrod wrote:
| Can't speak for OP, but tu quoque arguements are common!
| anoncake wrote:
| And unproductive. We should judge each company by each
| own demerits, not excuse Microsoft's behaviour with
| Google's and vice versa!
| paulnechifor wrote:
| 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.
| lhopki01 wrote:
| 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.
| tomrod wrote:
| Hear here!
| mister_hn wrote:
| Because the "don't be evil" in this case doesn't apply,
| speaking of browsers
| rezeroed wrote:
| Why does anyone on this site ever talk about anything but
| Firefox. We should all know better, and put our full
| collective force behind Firefox.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| 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.
| mister_hn wrote:
| 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)
| mcny wrote:
| 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...
| gruez wrote:
| How hard can it possibly be? ungoogled-chromium is a
| thing and they seem to have gotten it right.
| lorec0re wrote:
| Agreed
| badrabbit wrote:
| 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.
| mavhc wrote:
| Why is their browser popular? Because it's better.
| nimbius wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| LeonM wrote:
| > 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/
| lonelappde wrote:
| Why is a browser a search engine but an office suite isn't?
| cmcd wrote:
| What do you mean? There is no reason an office suite
| should be changing configuration for your browser without
| explicitly asking.
| C1sc0cat wrote:
| I don't I expect a browser to be a browser and that's the
| exact argument Microsoft lost about bundling IE with
| windows
| wdobbels wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Inaccurate. Microsoft was not prosecuted for merely
| including IE, they were prosecuted for forcing OEMs to
| not include anything else (Netscape).
| jchw wrote:
| 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.
| Traster wrote:
| 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.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| > 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.
| badrabbit wrote:
| 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.
| creato wrote:
| > 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.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| 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.
|
| > You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights
|
| Nope.
| jevgeni wrote:
| So, any modification of the OS environment would be
| illegal. Like, say, updating the PATH.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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".
| anoncake wrote:
| > 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.
| _jal wrote:
| You you want the "adults" bullying users and developers
| instead?
|
| You _really_ do not want what you are asking for.
| anoncake wrote:
| > You you want the "adults" bullying users and developers
| instead?
|
| In the same way I want the police to take over the sex
| trafficking business from the mafia. So no.
|
| > You really do not want what you are asking for.
|
| I believe I know my mind better than you do.
| _jal wrote:
| > So no.
|
| Wanted or no, it is the end result you will get.
|
| > I believe I know my mind better than you do.
|
| I believe you do, too. What I am questioning is if the
| end result is what you think it to be.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| jevgeni wrote:
| Holy hell.. Can you imagine the complexity of such a
| legislation?
| pjc50 wrote:
| I'm not sure that nationalising Windows would go down
| very well with the rest of the industry or indeed the
| voters.
| anoncake wrote:
| > 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.
| jevgeni wrote:
| > Chrome is not part of the OS.
|
| Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft
| wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE.
|
| > It's not only possible but easy...
|
| Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the
| whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco.
|
| > I prefer solutions that have a chance of working
|
| Where you can impose your wishes on other's product
| choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly,
| it's a niche product tweak.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| > If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked
| for bundling IE.
|
| They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR
| by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.
| Skeime wrote:
| > > Chrome is not part of the OS.
|
| > 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.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| 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.
| jevgeni wrote:
| You are talking again in technical terms. Legally this is
| all irrelevant.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| 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?
| ajross wrote:
| > 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.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| 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.
| lonelappde wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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-
| sear...
| bishalb wrote:
| Does a user who installs Chrome provide consent for Google
| to be their default search engine?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| 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.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| if you don't consent, don't download
| Spooky23 wrote:
| 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.
| mtgx wrote:
| 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.
| teddyuk wrote:
| 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.
| Longhanks wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| 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.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > 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.
| cmcd wrote:
| > 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.
| simion314 wrote:
| >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.
| danShumway wrote:
| > 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.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| So the maker of the software doesn't get to set the defaults?
| Then who does?
| threatofrain wrote:
| 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.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| There so much money in search referrals they could afford to
| send someone to your house and configure it
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| 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.
| psv1 wrote:
| > It's time these big corporations get broken up.
|
| 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.
| mtgx wrote:
| I think Google has restricted such installers from installing
| stuff in Chrome, so I imagine only Microsoft is capable of doing
| something like this now because it owns the OS underneath the
| Chrome browser.
|
| If that's true, that's quite an abuse of power, and Google should
| report Microsoft to the EU. Not to mention the whole "forcing" of
| a monopoly software onto users on a monopoly OS probably won't
| look all that good to the EU either.
| jakear wrote:
| Please do correct me if I'm missing something, but this seems
| like a lot of uproar over not much... the article states that
| this only applies to enterprise, who would most certainly have IT
| admins, and those IT admins are able to block the extension
| through Group Policy. They've also been given one month prior
| notice about the change. This also only applies accounts which
| are owned and operated by IT, making it IT's decision what
| happens on them, not the actual users.
|
| Disclaimer: I work at msft, nothing related and no knowledge of
| this besides the article. Opinions are my own.
| farisjarrah wrote:
| I was an IT admin for a company of 100 people. If you mess with
| employee's browsers or browser layouts or search functionality,
| you are going to get a LOT of angry users. Furthermore,
| Microsoft is forcing companies who do not want this
| functionality to take evasive action to prevent this from
| happening. It's not the fact that this functionality is useful
| or the fact that this functionality isn't evil thats making
| people angry. Its the fact that they are forcing changes on
| people that people may not want or need. That is user hostile
| behavior.
| JC5413789642675 wrote:
| A bit underhanded, given the text from the bulletin.
|
| "Once this feature has rolled out, your end users can change
| their search engine preferences only via the toggle in the
| extension; they cannot modify the default search engine in
| browser preferences."
| jedieaston wrote:
| If you use your work Office 365 licenses on your personal
| machine (as is heavily encouraged in Education since you get 5
| BYOD devices), this will automatically install when your
| machine is updated to 2002, and IT can't do anything about it
| since they don't manage your personal laptop.
| Kneecaps07 wrote:
| It's not just Enterprise. Plenty of small businesses use Office
| 365 as well. They don't all have on-site IT staff, and they
| often don't have competent IT consultants who keep an eye on
| this stuff.
| ragerino wrote:
| It's old Microsoft all over again!
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Old Microsoft never went away, despite what the kids think. It
| just put on some new clothes and pretends it has been reformed.
| kkkkkkkkf wrote:
| which company does not?
| tracker1 wrote:
| Dear Microsoft,
|
| Shit like this literally undoes every bit of goodwill you earn.
| Much like replacing user's wallpaper for Win7 EOL (why you didn't
| just put notification text like "Windows $VERSION - End Of Life -
| Unsupported" in the bottom corner instead is beyond me).
|
| I mean, I _WANT_ to see the new MS, which is really present on
| the developer tools and azure side of the business. Windows and
| Office teams seem to be bent on destroying that at every
| chance... it 's time to fire some upper and mid-level managers
| that have these attitudes and make these decisions.
| donmcronald wrote:
| I'm getting skeptical about the developer tools. The cynic in
| me says it's just a ploy to gain market share before forcing
| everything to an online subscription like they're doing with
| Office.
|
| Things like Visual Studio Online, GitHub Actions, Azure
| Pipelines, etc. worry me. Once everything's a subscription and
| you're paying to spin your mouse wheel, you lose the ability to
| spend time in lieu of spending money.
|
| I think it'll happen slowly, but it'll happen. Eventually
| they'll have a complete, online only development solution
| that's charged based on usage. Development on local tools will
| get de-emphasized so they lag behind and suck by comparison and
| there will be "donations" of subscriptions to educational
| institutions to ensure no one ever learns to deal with, or even
| think of, a local development environment.
|
| I think it's ok to have ongoing costs like IntelliJ's products.
| I don't like the way they screw you with an outdated perpetual
| license if you drop your subscription, but it's a hell of a lot
| better than something like Visual Studio Online which is
| literally pay per hour.
|
| Based on the willingness to pay astronomical markup on CI
| minutes, I wouldn't be shocked to see people paying $1000 /
| year (no joke) to use VSO.
| shmerl wrote:
| Time to move to Linux.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I'd been running a hackintosh at home for a few years,
| switched to linux in october with a new PC. Still on windows
| at work though.
|
| Aside: I actually do appreciate some of MS's efforts
| regarding open source, devtools, .Net Core, VS Code and even
| most of what Azure does.
| shmerl wrote:
| If you do any gaming, Linux is surely better than
| hackintosh these days. Though MS can still be viewed as
| hostile towards it.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Why Windows at work, do you work for a large company that
| provides laptops you're not allowed to reinstall, or are
| you in a non-tech job?
| ifdefdebug wrote:
| > or are you in a non-tech job
|
| Believe it or not, many of us techies really like our
| windows desktops along with other machines.
| shmerl wrote:
| I surely can't stand Windows for work. Some companies
| unfortunately force it in the work environment due to IT
| not willing to handle Linux. Better ones allow using
| Linux.
| thrownaway954 wrote:
| i hate to say this, but at this point it really doesn't matter
| which search engine i use as they all have ads as 90% of the
| results above the fold :( it saddens me that this is what has
| become of the search market :(
|
| and let me just get this out of the way now by saying, no, i will
| not use duckduckgo as my search engine cause it has given me
| nothing but _the_ most irrelevant search results i have ever
| seen.
| C1sc0cat wrote:
| A counter to the incessant nagging google forces on people who
| use google search with a browser other than chrome
| muro wrote:
| Nagging != Install
| rjmunro wrote:
| If this is something that IT admins can opt in to, rather than
| compulsory, it sounds like a good feature. The article hints that
| might be the case.
|
| If this happens by default, in a user hostile way, Google could
| respond by having their installers set the default search engine
| in Edge to Google.
| close04 wrote:
| > Google could respond by having their installers set the
| default search engine in Edge to Google
|
| Just to guarantee that every user has a reason to be pissed
| off?
| tr4cker wrote:
| It seems kind of fair...
| funnybeam wrote:
| Unfortunately it's opt-out rather than opt-in.
|
| Pity the poor help desks that missed this announcement and get
| swamped with tickets next month
| blackearl wrote:
| It's opt-out. Here's the email they sent out to admins
| recently:
|
| You must exclude the extension before you install or update to
| a version of Office 365 ProPlus that installs the extension for
| Microsoft Search in Bing. Implementing the exclusion after the
| extension has been installed will not remove the extension.
|
| * For new installations of Office 365 ProPlus, the Office
| Deployment Tool may be the best method, as outlined in this
| support document
|
| * For existing installations of Office 365 ProPlus, modifying
| the Group Policy may be best. Enable the policy setting Don't
| install extension for Microsoft Search in Bing, which makes
| Bing the default the search engine.
|
| * If you use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (current
| branch), from the Features section, set Microsoft Search as
| default to the Off position.
|
| * If you use Microsoft Intune to deploy Office 365 ProPlus,
| clear the check box Microsoft Search as default on the
| Configure App Suite pane.
| jedieaston wrote:
| My Intune instance does not have these checkboxes yet, I wish
| they'd make the changes before they push the new Office, or
| there'll be heck to pay.
| kalleboo wrote:
| Google doesn't really have any right to complain as they've had
| Google Chrome and the Google search bar as drive by installs in
| third party software installers
|
| https://www.labnol.org/software/chrome-with-adobe-reader/201...
| danShumway wrote:
| Yeah, but _I_ have a right to complain.
|
| Microsoft pulls a consumer-hostile move, and the first thought
| of a lot of commenters on here (not just you) is, "what is the
| impact on Google?"
|
| Who cares about the company? Stop messing with my computer
| behind my back.
|
| 200 years from now, someone on Mars will be reading the
| headline "Google Drones Lethally Injecting iPhone Owners On
| Sight", and there'll still be people on HN who's first reaction
| is to wonder whether or not that counts as anti-competitive
| towards Apple.
| kome wrote:
| Google did the same for years with any kind of installer, I
| remember installing CCleaner and finding Chrome on my computer
| for no reason. They put chrome everywhere using super shady
| techniques.
| Causality1 wrote:
| It's all the more infuriating when you consider how Windows 10
| throws a hissy fit if you should dare to change your default
| browser from Edge to something else.
| SmellyGeekBoy wrote:
| Not just the constant notifications but it even shows messages
| on the lock screen!
| floatingatoll wrote:
| HN may not be the target audience for this feature, but I've
| absolutely proposed writing a browser extension to synthesize
| confidential search results with public search results before,
| because it's a need that remains unmet to this day. If Bing is
| integrating their confidential cloud with logged-in search, that
| is a game-changer. I hope everyone gets past the visceral
| reaction against it and starts building browser extensions that
| compete. It is possible to do this without depending on a single
| search engine to perform synthesis for you. Metacrawler can live
| again.
| _tkzm wrote:
| since google does chrome os, microsoft should simply ban all
| google products from their platform altogether as a direct
| cmopetitor :D :D :D
|
| I'd love to see them fight it out.
| aj7 wrote:
| And just try to save your Excel spreadsheet to Google Drive
| without having to click all over the place. And autosave only
| works when your stuff is saved to their infrastructure? Childish,
| destructive behavior.
| mthoms wrote:
| Autosave _only_ working when saving to your local OneDrive
| folder is infuriating.
|
| As every HN reader knowns, there is no good technical reason
| for this. It's anti-competitive bullshit, pure and simple.
| sdoering wrote:
| thanks for pointing this out. I have to use MSO in the future
| because of corporate s __t. would not have realized this
| until to late.
| tr4cker wrote:
| Another reason to hate MS.
| giovannibajo1 wrote:
| I haven't followed closely, but Chrome took many steps over the
| years to make sure software installers couldn't sneakily install
| extensions. How is this possible?
| est31 wrote:
| Google does offer a method to install extensions in an
| automated way for business use cases:
| https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6306504?hl=en
|
| I guess that Microsoft uses that method in the Office 365
| ProPlus installer (also targeted at businesses).
| giovannibajo1 wrote:
| This seems a method for enterprise administrators that
| centrally manage Chrome installation. That page doesn't seem
| to show a way for third-party software providers to bundle
| extensions into installers.
| sempron64 wrote:
| Since Office is a first-class Microsoft component in
| Windows Update, I'd assume they can use the Windows Updates
| mechanism to set any group policy or registry settings they
| need to manage Chrome.
| sequoia wrote:
| Google is doing everything it can to tighten its stranglehold on
| the entire WWW, if another behemoth like Microsoft wants to put
| up a fight, I say have at it!
|
| I certainly am not shedding any tears for Google, who
| relentlessly funnels people into their tools, automatically logs
| them in in chrome, pushes their products into schools to get
| young people into their data-vacuum as soon as possible. Not to
| mention shady practices like AMP trying to force developers to
| use their own version of HTML & serve their content on
| google.com, "or else say goodbye to your search ranking."
|
| MSFT is definitely "picking on someone their own size" and
| certainly not doing anything more underhanded than what google
| routinely engages in, so I don't see the issue.
| zamadatix wrote:
| One doing it is bad so 2 doing it is great? Competition is
| usually good but I don't think this kind of competition is
| actually helping get rid any of those problems just changing
| who's name might be on the particular problem today. No amount
| of giant tech companies shuffling is going to result in the
| return of an even playground for all in those areas.
| jlarocco wrote:
| At this point it's hard for me to feel sorry for anybody
| still using either Google or Microsoft.
|
| They've both been bad actors for years now, and the excuses
| people come up with to keep using them anyway have worn very
| thin.
| merb wrote:
| well the default office365 installer, is bad anway. without
| https://config.office.com/ it already installs a lot of
| unnecessary crap. sadly in config.office.com they made the choice
| to opt-out the feature (it's a checkbox:
| https://imgur.com/a/O43EI2M sorry for german language)
| OrgNet wrote:
| While this is bad, Google got Chrome installed on many computers
| using equally bad practices (Chrome defaults to Google search),
| which might be worst because they got executable files installed.
| moron4hire wrote:
| By what source is the claim that this is being forced verified?
| JC5413789642675 wrote:
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/DeployOffice/microsoft-sear...
| styx31 wrote:
| No particular advice here, I just want to point to the fact that
| bing allows users to search their organization documents (office
| 365 files) when using bing [1] when connected with their org
| account. This feature is named "Microsoft Search in Microsoft
| 365". It's not mentionned in the article. See original ms doc
| article for details [2].
|
| So it's not just a way to force users to use bing, it's also a
| way to push this feature in front of them.
|
| > By making Bing the default search engine, users in your
| organization with Google Chrome will be able to take advantage of
| Microsoft Search, including being able to access relevant
| workplace information directly from the browser address bar.
| Microsoft Search is part of Microsoft 365 and is turned on by
| default for all Microsoft apps that support it.
|
| [1] https://support.office.com/en-us/article/find-what-you-
| need-...
|
| [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/microsoft-
| sear...
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| > By making Bing the default search engine, users in your
| organization with Google Chrome will be able to take advantage
| of Microsoft Search,
|
| Also, if you are not doing that, they will still be able to,
| just not directly from the browser address bar.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Chrome also already has a feature for searching Drive files
| from the search bar[0], so it makes sense for MS to be on a
| level playing field.
|
| 0: https://9to5google.com/2019/12/02/chrome-google-drive-
| search...
| lonelappde wrote:
| Google's browser is Chrome.
|
| Microsoft's is Edge.
| cptskippy wrote:
| I can't speak for anyone else by my Org's recommended
| browser is Chrome and it comes preinstalled along with a
| bunch of shitty Extensions you can't remove because Chrome
| respects GPO.
|
| It's vaguely reminiscent of browsers in the early 2000s, it
| just needs Gator.
| techntoke wrote:
| I like Chrome enterprise policies, even for personal use.
| Sucks that your org has done a terrible job forcing
| crappy extensions.
| shaneofalltrad wrote:
| Edge is now Chromium, right?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Searching from the address bar, and changing the user's
| default search experience aren't the same thing.
|
| If Microsoft was adding Bing as a search provider this
| wouldn't be nearly as controversial. Instead they're removing
| the user's preference and replacing it with their own,
| without consent, during a regular update of an unrelated
| product.
|
| It is basically adware behaviour. Microsoft's self-
| rationalisation isn't relevant.
| untog wrote:
| It's worth pointing out that the installer doing this is a
| business-only installer. So while, yes, it is removing the
| user's preference, it is also a corporate tool for
| enforcing corporate policies on corporate machines.
|
| The issue here is that the install is _not_ optional when
| it should be: admins should have the choice. But IMO it 's
| debatable whether end users (of their corporate machines)
| should.
| lake99 wrote:
| I'd call it malware behaviour, but I agree with your
| general point.
| jhoechtl wrote:
| We had that back like 10 years ago when google provided a tool
| (I forgot it's name, Google desktop search?) which scanned and
| indexed files locally. It was accessible through a shortcut, I
| laid mine to double-Ctrl and upon invocation it prompted a
| search bar
|
| It was so great in search quality, number of formats it could
| index and performance that at one day I index the whole company
| file share. People showed up next to me and I rediscovered
| files which would have been lost otherwise.
|
| This tool also integrated after configuration with the browser
| which issued an invocation to localhost to integrate local
| search results. As this was widely regarded as a terrible
| security feature to potentially tell google all about local
| files, reception of that feature was poor. This feature was the
| only incentive for google to provide the tool and therefore the
| tool got quickly axed.
| pmontra wrote:
| I used it to search my Thunderbird messages. It was much
| faster than Thunderbird's internal search. Luckily Mozilla
| improved its algorithm and its fast enough now.
| jcheng wrote:
| I assumed the reason the tool got axed was because in short
| order, Microsoft released its own desktop search, and then
| integrated it into Windows (Vista?); and Apple added
| Spotlight to OS X. In retrospect it's a little surprising to
| me that in just a couple of years, the notion of indexing
| your entire hard drive went from novel to taken for granted.
| davidy123 wrote:
| I think desktop search existed before Google's. But not a
| lot of people used it in my experience. I found Google's to
| be fantastic,a and it was nice it showed results in line
| with the mostly used search engine. I was surprised when
| they discontinued it too, and suspect it was some
| "gentlemen's (anti-consumer) agreement" between companies
| around turf.
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| Thanks to Search Everything I just dump all my files into
| Documents nowadays. I only care about a meaningful naming
| scheme.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| > This tool also integrated after configuration with the
| browser which issued an invocation to localhost to integrate
| local search results.
|
| They had a similar tool to make some sites load faster. I
| suspect they embedded some of that to Chrome at some point.
|
| Edit:
|
| It was Google Web Accelerator.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Web_Accelerator
| legohead wrote:
| I remember that tool and loving it, as well as anyone else I
| talked to about it. Computer file search was (and still kinda
| is) a big pain.
| herf wrote:
| I think Google Desktop even injected results into Google's
| main page via a "layered service provider" at the TCP level -
| back before we all used SSL for everything.
| sabarn01 wrote:
| Its not desktop it indexes your org files on intranet sites.
| If you are signed in with you corp account to bing all
| searches also bring back relevant internal org info.
| rurp wrote:
| I personally HATE features like this. I want a web search to
| return web results and file system search to return files.
| Novel behavior that mixes in unexpected search results (ie. web
| results when searching from the Windows 10 start menu) is
| deleterious and I do my best to train my brain to skip over
| those unexpected options.
| jbreiding wrote:
| It's more of intranet plus internet search. It may appear
| like filesystem but that is because it's searching internal
| services like SharePoint to the company that has chosen this
| integration.
|
| It's also not mixed in, last I remember using this feature it
| was displayed in a banner section and made it really obvious
| these results came from a different sources.
| hirsin wrote:
| Yup - Microsoft employee here but unaffiliated with that
| team. I love it, frankly. For large orgs that have
| thousands of SharePoint sites going back years(1), it's
| pretty fantastic. What would have been a dozen emails
| across two days to find some random doc explaining how to
| do something is now five to ten minutes of poking things
| into Bing.
|
| 1. TAM for this may be on the order of triple digits only
| for all I know, but if you work in a 50k+ knowledge worker
| org it's great.
| slrz wrote:
| Still no reason to force-push this onto users. If you are
| going to set up and maintain SharePoint servers and what
| not, you can surely change that browser preference
| yourselves, no?
| dmix wrote:
| Opt-in and non-dark patterns is all we ask [1]. That plus a
| clean option to opt-out without breaking some wider
| integration.
|
| [1] Assuming it provides legitimate business value in the first
| case
| freeAgent wrote:
| Exactly. This should be OPT-IN, period. If they do that,
| there's no problem.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I think if the installer explains it clesrly and transparently
| then its fine. It should be entirely opt-in. Matter of fact
| default search engine should be entirely opt-in on first time
| use.
|
| Microsoft needs to really do a better job with these sort of
| decisions to make sure they arent stepping on a landmine.
| [deleted]
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| That's stinky but doesn't really hurt. Once I was given a new
| Windows 10 PC at the office, I've tried Edge (the classic, non-
| Blink version) and sicked to it because it's A LOT faster than
| Firefox. I haven't bothered to change the default search engine
| and the results Bing gives are Ok.
| jupp0r wrote:
| YMMV, bing search results do not work at all for me.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| I guess this may depend on the subjects you search
| information on and the country/language. I used DuckDuckGo
| and StartPage before that and was satisfied too. On a rare
| occasions when these wouldn't give me what I need I just go
| to Google manually.
| dessant wrote:
| This is good news, given the circumstances. Google doesn't show a
| welcome screen in Chrome to select your default search engine,
| and this action somewhat helps with mitigating that imbalance.
|
| Considering Chrome's market share, it's only a matter of time
| until Google will be required to show a search engine choice
| screen in the browser, they were already ordered by the EU to do
| it for the default Android browser and search engine.
| zeeZ wrote:
| If I offered a desktop software to browse my library of cat
| pictures and automatically changed all default search engines
| to my online cat search service, would that be good news as
| well?
| boudin wrote:
| I don't know how forcing people to use another search engine is
| better is good news. It's not like Microsoft is giving a set of
| options here. The way microsoft is trying to force its products
| through its other products (like edge and bing in windows 10)
| is sad and really annoying.
| dessant wrote:
| Microsoft is doing the same as Google, they set a default
| search engine that can be changed, instead of offering an
| active choice before setting a default.
|
| Both companies behave inappropriately, but then again,
| actions like these are needed to highlight how choices are
| made for us, and to shake us out of complatence.
| funnybeam wrote:
| Actually Microsoft are installing a chrome plugin that
| forces the search engine to Bing so users can't change the
| default back until they remove the plugin
| v7p1Qbt1im wrote:
| When you install Chrome you expect the search engine to be
| set to Google.
|
| When you install O365 ProPlus you sure as hell don't expect
| it to change search engine parameters in separate programs.
| PunchTornado wrote:
| how is forcing Bing on customers is good news? Microsoft,
| Internet Explorer creator, is a trillion dollar company, not a
| startup looking to disturb the market in face of tech giants.
| est31 wrote:
| The title only mentions "Office 365 installer", but note that
| only Office 365 ProPlus is affected, which is a product targeted
| at businesses.
| abrowne wrote:
| And Education. IIRC that's the version the large university I
| work for provides for students, faculty and staff
| Cu3PO42 wrote:
| Student checking in. This is indeed the version that my
| University supplies at a discounted rate.
| jaimex2 wrote:
| Sounds like a Chrome issue if true. Bug report filed yet? :)
| [deleted]
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Previously discussed here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22121150
| executesorder66 wrote:
| Loving the new Microsoft.
| Proven wrote:
| "force"?
|
| what default search isn't "forced"?
|
| and what's the problem anyway - isn't it customizable?
| jaboutboul wrote:
| I know this generally sucks, but given google's recent track
| record maybe this isn't the worst thing.
| adriantam wrote:
| IANL, anyone feels this is an invitation to another antitrust
| investigation?
| GlitchMr wrote:
| This is malware, as simple as that. Chances are Google will soon
| blocklist this extension as side-loading extensions is NOT
| supported, see https://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-
| windows-users-f....
| starfallg wrote:
| Considering MS Office has overwhelming market share in the office
| suite space for businesses, this will surely attract attention
| from the regulators, no?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Hopefully the regulators will whallop them with a big clue-
| by-4. They've already gotten in trouble for trying to leverage
| their position before (tying IE to Windows). They're now a
| repeat offender.
| Phylter wrote:
| Only if it ruffles enough customers feathers.
| rvz wrote:
| I don't know why people here are surprised about this. Companies
| like Microsoft are not interested in acting in the interest of
| users and their privacy, but they do whatever they please with
| their products; thus you don't own them. If there are laws to
| prevent this, they'll find other ways in bending them to continue
| to do nasty things.
|
| With that, personally I don't trust any company with a closed
| source OS these days and will treat all closed source programs as
| malware.
| proactivesvcs wrote:
| Microsoft introduced a feature in Internet Explorer 11 to
| specifically combat this type of abusive action, that is the
| interference of browser settings by third parties, via
| extensions. It's a shame to see them on the other side of their
| users' interests.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I thought Chrome had similar protections (both in terms of
| policy and technical enforcement) - while of course the browser
| can't protect itself against software running with root
| privileges, it can ensure that any attempt to pull this off
| requires tampering that would clearly be considered malicious
| by most, and I thought that Chrome was doing just that.
| acd10j wrote:
| People here are justifying Microsoft stance of modifying default
| browser in third party browser, What if they get away with this
| and what we could see is that, after every windows update
| Microsoft would change default search engine in Windows to bing.
| pojntfx wrote:
| Use Linux.
| mkup wrote:
| I guess, Google can, in turn, extend Windows 7 support in Chrome
| until 2029.
| zpallin wrote:
| The article does not mention whether or not Firefox will also be
| affected. Does anyone know if Office365 ProPlus already does this
| or are they just ignoring Firefox?
| zadkey wrote:
| The EU courts are going to have a field day with this one. I
| expect some fines to come out of it.
|
| They talked about this in the reddit article that was linked,but
| I feel it warrants further discussion.
| ec109685 wrote:
| Google is likely just going to block this behavior.
| solarkraft wrote:
| How, when installers get root privileges?
| trimboffle wrote:
| Why can't users choose their default search on installation?
| Edward9 wrote:
| I really like these corporative battles. Seems it's the only
| thing that keeps the market being for consumers and not for
| profit.
| tr4cker wrote:
| I don't like malware tho'
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-23 23:00 UTC)