What's always frustrated me is that there are perfectly legitimate complaints about how google has gained their market share; but people seem to like weakening the broader argument with more emotional arguments.

I'll gladly cite examples: Search ad dark patterns. I remember a time when G was _proud_ of that their ads were entirely distinct from native search results, and never caused native results to fall beneath the fold. Now when I search on even a moderately sized monitor, literally half of the first page results are sponsored or ads (native content being entirely beneath the fold), to boot in a manner increasingly less distinct from the native results. (there used to be a separate ad box, and then a line between ads and native, and now just a tiny little 'ad' or grey 'sponsored' blip)

I've seen these encroachments across the board; youtube/G+ integrated logins was another, dark patterns for data-gathering approval on droid ("do you want to share data; yes/cancel"), which I'd best summarize as a slow collapse of any legitimacy to their "don't be evil" mantra from early on.

The one concrete point I can think of for "scraping data without approval" is that when various new data policies were established and yes/no controls added to your G profile settings, I believe some of them defaulted on? I've heard mumblings both ways in the HN discussions on this topic so it's a less strong point than my previous, but may be a basis for a more established argument of that aspect of dark patterns in private data acquisition that the parent was trying to pose.

The problem is that Google's target market is largely people who are unaware of what the risks are, unaware of the extent of what Google does with their data. It's up to us in the tech community to protect people from companies that use dark pattern behavior like Google.

yuhong: Responding to your question as an edit to my own comment since two -4 comments is probably enough for one day. Silently implementing opt-out features, and automatically opting everyone into new ways to violate their privacy, granting themselves the right to change their terms of service or privacy policy without notification. Using confusing terminology to make it difficult to discern what is the "more private" option. (Opting out of Google+'s "Featured Photos" feature, for example, requires you to switch ON the option to shut OFF Google stealing your intellectual property.) As existencebox noted, making ads on search look as close to search results as possible to mislead people into clicking on scam and malware laden Google Ads rather than real results...

Even if you know that, you don't really have an option to stop it. You can buy a smartphone with either Android or iOS - and both are spying on the user heavily.

Apple is not even in the same spyware league as Google. Don't try to muddy the waters.

But true, Google can't be stopped as long as software developers and companies continue to sell out for ad money.

"Apple is not even in the same spyware league as Google." - Why? Seriously asking.

They make money from products and are the only remaining big tech company not mining customer data. Google and Facebook are built on the idea of spying on users. Microsoft is moving in that direction.

They've also taken a public stand for privacy, whether out of self-interest or not, that's something Google will probably never do.

>It's up to us in the tech community to protect people from companies that use dark pattern behavior like Google.

Are you a self appointed privacy vigilante or were you elected by the people to protect them? Do you also protect people from Credit Card companies, ISP's, Cable Companies, e-Commerce sites and Cell Phone companies or are you just infatuated with Google?

I definitely also try to protect people from other types of predatory technology companies. When people ask me for recommendations, I generally steer people away from ISPs with poor/slow service, hardware manufacturers which produce low quality equipment, and cell carriers which use deceptive marketing.

I do speak about Google more than average, largely because the volume of fanboyism around the company is so massive, and their PR department generates so much fiction. I don't have to tell you AT&T is a terrible company, you already know, so I don't waste a lot of time doting on it. Combatting the sort of psychological warfare Google employs requires drastically more effort.

This is unfortunately the kind of feedback one can expect whenever Googlefacesoft are criticized.

Kicking the person trying to protect others because of some nitpicking.

Who are you protecting, Google? Must be hard protecting poor G against some individuals on forums.

What dark patterns are you referring to?

Making their ads on a search result page look more and more like their organic search results, for example.

Or making Android Location History on by default and then using it for things like http://searchengineland.com/hood-google-adwords-measures-sto... -- yes, they're reporting anonymized data to the advertisers, but of course they're storing your actual location data, with a well-hidden knob to turn it off.

Doing things people probably wouldn't like done to them if they knew about them with a well-hidden knob to turn it off is fairly dark-patterny as far as I'm concerned.

ocdtrekkie is infamous for having endless anti-Google arguments on Google+ for the past 5 years. Trust me, you're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

What would the ideal result of such a fruitful discussion be? Accepting that Google is truth and Google is love?

This is exactly what we need, exposing antisocial behavior for what it is.

I'm not saying the argument is bad (I probably agree with it more than not), but from memory, it almost seems compulsive rather than an actual attempt to discuss Google's role. Many posters on G+ resorted to blocking him because it became insufferable.

And the people who ended up with Chrome installed and set as their default browser because they installed some other application (like Flash) were using Chrome willingly, right?

Yes, Google was doing that sort of thing for Chrome distribution for a while. They've stopped since, which is better than nothing, I guess. [Edit: apparently they haven't stopped, according to ocdtrekkie's comment! Or maybe they have started again.]

Point is, a lot of people are NOT using Google's products willingly. They may be using them because someone else set them up with the product and they don't know how to change, they may be using it because they're required to for work (Google docs, e.g.).

They still do it: https://get.adobe.com/reader/ (Checked today, Windows 10, while using Edge. Default checked on this page is to also install Chrome.)

It's worth noting that Sundar Pichai's claim to fame at Google, prior to Chrome itself, was getting the Google Toolbar installed on everyone's PCs whether they wanted it or not. The CEO of Google isn't just a fan of software installation dark patterns like this, he's the guy responsible for it at Google.

Huh. I hadn't realized they were still doing it. :( Thank you for checking that!

Isn't that because you're using Edge, which doesn't support ActiveX?

You can't use acrobat with the browser you're trying to download it with.

https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/display-pdf-in-browser...

What does that have to do with Chrome being default-installed along with the Adobe Flash plugin?

Because Edge doesn't support the Adobe Reader plugin, and to avoid a support nightmare Adobe seems to recommend downloading a browser it does work with.

I visit that same link using Firefox on Linux and don't get a Chrome install checkbox on the page, but maybe someone else is?

Adobe Flash is directly built into Microsoft Edge, they collaborate on this. Chrome doesn't support ActiveX or NPAPI plugins either, and the Flash plugin also doesn't work with Chrome, because similarly to Edge, the Flash plugin is built directly into Chrome.

Also, Adobe Reader is a standalone program, you don't install it to embed in the browser. (Both Edge and Chrome can display PDF files natively.)

This has nothing to do with "recommended" apps. Chrome is pushed with Adobe Reader because Google pays them to do so. Similarly, McAfee pays to have their software installed with the Adobe Flash plugin installer.

Adobe Reader plugin doesn't work with Edge, because Edge doesn't support ActiveX. The Adobe Reader installer also installs the browser plugin.

You linked to the Adobe Reader download page, which asks you to install chrome if you don't have a supported browser. Which you didn't.

I get that you have an axe to grind here, but it seems like you're cherry picking an example of where Edge doesn't support something so Adobe is recommending a supported download.

Adobe doesn't recommend the Chrome download when visiting with Firefox, for example.

Note that IE does support ActiveX, but Reader still not only tries to bundle Google Chrome, but the Google Toolbar as well.

You're creating an incredible work of fiction to avoid a long-standing well-known truth: That Google pays Adobe to bundle Chrome in their installer when the user is coming from a Microsoft browser. (If I come from Firefox, it offers McAfee's Security Scan Plus, which also pays Adobe for the privilege.) This isn't a technical or compatibility issue, and it never has been. This is where Adobe makes money on Adobe Reader downloads.

This started in 2011, long before Microsoft Edge existed: http://www.chromestory.com/2011/09/google-chrome-is-now-bund...

We don't know the dollar amount of the deal, as Google keeps those sorts of things confidential. But it is very similar to the figure an Oracle lawyer dropped, that Google paid Apple a billion dollars to keep Google as the iPhone's default search: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-22/google-pa...

Note that until recently, Google also paid to be default on Firefox, also rumored in the one billion dollar range: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/technology/firefox-mozilla-g...

Some additional reading on this strategy, is that Chrome came about as a fear that Microsoft might disable or cripple the Google Toolbar, which was used to push people over to Google Search and collect their browsing data. (And was also heavily promoted as a bundle item in other installers like Java.) Sundar Pichai, now Google's CEO, spearheaded the toolbar and then Chrome: http://fortune.com/2014/10/27/google-rise-of-sundar-pichai/

If you believe Google got where it was by being "the best", it may be hard to realize this, or easy to overlook the facts. But Google's market share is largely a result of paying for other companies to push their products, with or without user permission.

The Chrome distribution deal with Adobe was always Windows-only, as far as I know. So I'm not surprised you're not seeing it on Linux. That said, Adobe is just showing whatever they were paid to show, for whoever the target audience is. With Firefox on Windows as of today it shows checkboxes for some antivirus programs instead of Chrome; I assume McAffee outbid Google here.

With IE11, which does support ActiveX, it shows ... a Chrome download checkbox. And the Google toolbar.

Google Toolbar was one of the better browser toolbars AFAIK though.

That's a pretty low bar.

But in terms of the ethical question, we're now talking about how if I break into your house to steal all your unhealthy potato chips that's better than if I break into your house to steal your money. The fundamental problem is breaking into your house.

If you're diagnosed with cancer, but it is one of the least fatal forms of cancer... you still have cancer.

So you would have no problems with your cell service provider keeping records of all of your calls and locations and recording conversations in the room even when not on a call? Most people don't know what data google is keeping and monetizing.

Don't they do this already?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A