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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Is this verified?
> 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...
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
That is how a sandbox works, Microsoft's installer would not be able to access configuration files for Chrome to change the settings.
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
Apple designed a content blocking system years ago that doesn't allow the ad blocker to intercept all of your browser traffic.....
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
You really do not want what you are asking for.
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.
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.
Surely you can substantiate that claim?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.
Those devious Microsoft PR execs at the Justice Department...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
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.
“ 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."
What is this, a court of law?
> Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco.
You don't get to blame the GDPR for those pointless pop-ups webmasters choose to display that are not even remotely compliant.
> 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.
Microsoft is the one which tries to impose its choices on others. In any case it wouldn't be me but us, we live in a democracy.
MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.
You're talking about legislature (i.e. state stepping in). What did you think this was about? Crossfit?
> You don't get to blame the GDPR
Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.
> MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.
But ProPlus is. Either you are deliberately conflating the issue or you don't know what you are talking about.
What the law currently happens to be is irrelevant to the question what it should be.
> Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.
Please tell me how those pop-ups reflect a design flaw in the GDPR.
> But ProPlus is.
It's a version of Office.
I advise you to take a civics course. This is literally not true.
> Please tell me how those pop-ups reflect a design flaw in the GDPR.
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.
> It's a version of Office.
Yeah... That's the definition of a niche product. Because, it's targeted at niche audience.
Honestly, I'm not interested of arguing with you anymore. When people start throwing platitudes against facts, that's the time I lose interest.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.