Microsoft is Once Again Asking Chrome Users To Try Bing Through Unblockable Pop-...

›

• Same attitude that Google had that led to Chrome winning browser wars. This isn't about a [company], this is about all companies. This is why regulation of anti-competitive behavior is important for health of a capitalist system.

  • 1 hidden comment

  • >"Same attitude that Google had that led to Chrome winning browser wars"

    They haven't won yet, not as long as Firefox exists. But almost.

    But yes, lest we forget the *YEARS* of constantly being spammed by any Google service/site about "Try Chrome" "Use Chrome" "Works best in Chrome" blah blah blah. No thanks. No to all chrom* is what works best for openness, privacy, flexibility, control, customization, standards, and performance.

  • Re:

    Google "won" (or dominated might be better?) the browser wars because they had the best browser. (Well, at least at first, and for a long time. It's not clear if this is still the case, however.)

    As far as attitudes go, Google controls Android like Microsoft controls Windows, so... does Android complain when you install Firefox?

    • Re:

      does Android complain when you install Firefox?
      
      It never has when I've installed it. And the same goes for when I make Firefox my default browser and when I disable Chrome.

    • >"Google "won" (or dominated might be better?) the browser wars because they had the best browser. (Well, at least at first, and for a long time. It's not clear if this is still the case, however.)"

      Yes and no.

      Chrome was a better browser in SOME aspects for several years when it first came out. Primarily, it was better as far as speed. And yes, that certainly mattered. But it was *NOT* a better UI or the in the ability to customize. I believe most would argue it was considerably worse. It was also not better from a stability or privacy aspect, but not worse either at that time. As for security, that is hard to say.

      As time went on, Firefox caught up by using their new engine. So that chrom* advantage was lost. But Mozilla also cloned much of the UI of Chrome and its cusomizability, thus, reducing those advantages it had. And ticked off many users with the necessary (but temporary) breakage of many addons. BUT they improved privacy more, while Chrome slipped more. And the addon issue was resolved pretty quickly (although we didn't gain back anywhere near as much UI control, but there is still userChrome ability). I won't comment on the other non-Firefox non-chrom* browsers at the time.

      What we can learn from what happened is that the drive for competition is what created Chrome. And the actual competition is what greatly pushed the massive performance improvement of Firefox, to the point it is just as fast and perhaps better with resources. And Firefox is easily just as secure and even more privacy-oriented.

      But the competition with Google also destroyed all other multiplarform browsers in the process (and yes, converting to a chromium base is being destroyed). So here we are now with only two [actual] choices: chrom* and Firefox. It isn't good or healthy. And we know that Google has a perverse incentive to violate privacy with Chrome, and all chrom* browsers give Google various power over the entire web ecosphere, which is also not good.

      I think the better choice is obvious for now- Firefox. But we *NEED* another healthy engine like Firefox's, something open and independent (unlike chromium) and DIFFERENT to prevent lock-in, standards hijacking, stagnation, privacy erosion, and seriously bad security issues.

      Two engines are not enough.

  • • Re:

      Neither macOS nor iOS complain at all if you change from Safari to an inferior Search Engine/Browser Combo like Chrome or Bing. Personally, I use a Safari/DDG Combination.

  • Re:

    Funny; because freedom to engage in Competitive Behavior is what Defines a Capitalist System.

    At least a healthy one. . .

    • Re:

      >"Funny; because freedom to engage in Competitive Behavior is what Defines a Capitalist System. At least a healthy one. .."

      Until it becomes UN-competitive due to market domination through monopolistic behavior. Something we see frequently with many of the huge tech giants.

      But yes, competition is what makes everything work well- it drives innovation, lowers prices, makes things efficient, responds quickly to change, responds to user/customer demands, etc.

      • Re:

        Consumers still have the final Vote. But only in a Free Market. What places like the EU are aiming-for is anything but.

• Re:

  I can't really blame them. I mean, I do blame them, but at the same time I understand why they are acting that way. Immoral? Heck yea. Aimed at tech-savvy people? Hell no.

• 1 hidden comment

• Re:

  I use Bing, via a filter called DuckDuckGo. The search quality is somewhat inferior to Google's but adequate unless I'm searching for something really obscure / arcane, Google's search history for me is loaded with obscure and arcane terms.

  • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Friday March 15, 2024 @05:14PM (#64318601)

    I use DuckDuckGo the vast majority of the time. If I do want to see what Google has, I will go to startpage.com, which is Google without the spyware. I *never* use google.com for searching, there is just no valid reason, and hasn't been for years. I removed it completely as a search option from Firefox settings, as well, so it is never accidentally triggered. On phone, I also use non-Google search.

    • Re:

      I have startpage.com bookmarked on my phone and use that for all of my search needs.

• Re:

  I cackled when I read your post! That's a brilliant recursive acronym and one I haven't had the pleasure of previously encountering.

  Thanks!:D

• • Re:

    For certain topics, ChatGPT is clearly superior to everyone's cognitive abilities.

    Did you have a point?

• 1 hidden comment

• • Re:

    Literally all of it. Microsoft, just like all other dataminers searches everything about you, head to toe. So they can serve you better ads and get better compensation from ad buyers.

• Re:

  Rewards? Meaning if you use it you get the reward of not being constantly being told to use it?

  • Re:

    I got a laptop for free out of them...

• Re:

  This may be true in the USA and/or Canada. But here in the South-Americas, Bing isn't great at the best of times. Google however is dropping the ball lately, so the choice is becoming here a choice between 2 evils.

  Microsoft does most of the nagging lately in their OS and browser, behavior that I detest. So I keep using Google more out of spite than anything else. Via FireFox of course.

• 1 hidden comment

• Re:

  Google retains best image search. Bing is actually pretty good for general searches, though it needs to learn about your interests first. This is why DDG searches are generally noticeably worse, and Bing is just on the edge of being "good enough" for me, so DDG makes is go below that mark. Google scholar still reigns as the best search engine for scientific papers. You can also strip a lot of google tracking by using startpage for normal google, but just like with DDG and Bing you'll lose personalized searc

  • 1 hidden comment

  • Imagine being triggered so hard by "woke" that you advocate looking at Russian propaganda. Bravo, well done!

  • Re:

    ...but just like with DDG and Bing you'll lose personalized search.
    
    What makes you think I want personalized search? In order for them to give me that, they have to learn a lot of things about them that I consider none of their business, and it doesn't stop them from feeding ads for things that are completely inappropriate, such as sending a bachelor ads for feminine hygiene products.

• Re:

  So... they did what everyone else was already doing. What a surprise.

  • >"So... they did what everyone else was already doing. What a surprise."

    Not everyone.

    Install Linux and Firefox. If you have no specific and absolute need for some MS-Windows program, then it will make life a hell of a lot nicer in so many ways. And the challenges aren't that much different from other systems. Linux systems have decent equivalents for so much stuff, and many other things are web-based now so it matters so much less. Yeah, I know, "gaming." Believe it or not, many of us don't care or use a console.

    But yeah, Google spammed people for YEARS about "Use Chrome" on all their sites. Tit for tat. Although in their case, they didn't require manual dismissing of some dialog.

    • Re:

      Indeed. You can even use a Chromium browser on Linux. I use Vivaldi (use that as well where I still need to use Windows), and it works nicely and does not get on my nerves.

      • Re:

        >"Indeed. You can even use a Chromium browser on Linux."

        Yep. Choice is good. But I wouldn't choose to do that. Better to avoid all chrom* and block as much of Google's influence and control as possible. Right now that means using Firefox (or perhaps Palemoon).

        >"I use Vivaldi (use that as well where I still need to use Windows), and it works nicely and does not get on my nerves."

        ANYTHING is better for us all than using Chrome, but Vivaldi is still "chrom*" so it is only a little better. By using i

        • Re:

          I am not into virtue-signalling by my browser-choice. If that works for you, fine. I just think it is stupid, like all virtue-signalling.

          • Re:

            >"I am not into virtue-signalling by my browser-choice."

            It isn't virtue-signaling. You are LITERALLY signaling to every web server/system you visit what you are using. And that signal does matter. You might now care, but it is happening, nonetheless.

  • Re:

    I've never seen the described behavior in MacOS, iOS or its derivatives, Linux, BSD, or Solaris and the other old-school unixes.

    • Re:

      Best to exclude iOS in that list.... Apple worked very hard to force people to use its own engine. And that battle isn't over. So they didn't have to nag people to use their browser, they just forced the issue by making all other browser actually Safari. Kinda the same way that all multiplatform browsers that are not Firefox/Palemoon are Chrom*.

      • Re:

        And SeaMonkey is Chrome?

        • Re:

          >"And SeaMonkey is Chrome?"

          No, but it is pretty obscure. It lacks the Quantum components, so I expect it will be far slower than Firefox and chrom*. But I have no direct experience with it.

          • Re:

            I don't notice it being slower then latest Firefox, though I'd guess benchmarks might say otherwise, try to stay away from Chrome.
            It is more like Palemoon in not supporting all the modern web, with the latest problem being Cloudflare acting like a gatekeeper with its captchas.

            • Re:

              >"I don't notice it being slower then latest Firefox, though I'd guess benchmarks might say otherwise"

              There is a certainly amount of "doesn't matter", for sure. Machines are just so fast now that sometimes it doesn't equate to real-world results. But there was a massive improvement in Firefox when it jumped to Quantum around ver 58 I think it was. Quite noticeable, even when discounting that it could use multi-core.

              Of course, as CPUs and browsers get faster, the web sites themselves just get so much C

• Re:

  This is a very important point. Apple took this approach a long time ago, but it was to sell more computers to users, not to sell users to advertisers. Microsoft has no hardware to sell, so they fall back on selling user data. Google is in a similar predicament as Microsoft as long as its Pixel products are bit players in the marketplace. I think the model of selling products will prevail, in the end.

• Re:

  Sorry but no. Microsoft was doing this long before Windows as a service was even something they understood could exist. Additionally Google do the same thing if you browse the internet in any browser other than the one God, I mean Pichai, intended, giving you a popup telling you how much better Google would work with Google's own browser. And they aren't selling an OS.

  If you want the anti-OS-as-a-service to be taken seriously you have to stop claiming it is responsible for unrelated actions.

• Re:

  MS is making most of its money in the cloud these days. Not that they know how to run a cloud (they got fully compromised last year), but too many people think the cloud will finally make their IT not suck. Newsflash: It wills till suck, but now it is more expensive and your own people can do less to fis problems.

  Personally, I think MS will crappify Windows enough in the next 10 years that it will die.

• Re:

  One of the reasons I have stopped doing that. Google accounts are not really useful anyways.

• Re:

  I've never seen any nagging accessing my Google account using Firefox on Linux.
  But then I hardly ever need to access it.

• Re:

  I haven't been nagged by Google to use Chrome in a long time.

• Re:

  It's windows, so it's their screen real estate. You're just a user. And while first dose is free, you have to pay for the rest.

  In part with your eyeballs.

• Re:

  It's not flattering to put your mom's compliments in your sig.

• Re:

  Unfortunately, modern laptops come with ad-ware (Windows 11) pre-installed. Customers (of laptops) have to pay to avoid the Microsoft monopoly: Most don't value their time and sanity that much. (Also, corporations need a reason to spend more money and time teaching everyone to use non-Microsoft software.) Of course, people refusing to fight the monopoly only empowers the monopoly more. (eg. Windows linked to an account, same as Android & built-in nagging to 'buy' MS products and software from frie

  • Re:

    >"Unfortunately, modern laptops come with ad-ware (Windows 11) pre-installed."

    Not all. But most, yes. Was looking at an HP a few days ago online that actually had the choice to include "FreeDOS" instead and knocked $150 off the actual price of the system. That is probably the exception, for sure.

    >"Customers (of laptops) have to pay to avoid the Microsoft monopoly"

    Not money. They just have to pay the MS tax if given no option. And, yep, and that REALLY SUCKS and should have been stopped eons ago.

• Indeed. "Sunk cost panic" I would call it. Comes from mindlessly and enthusiastically jumping on an expensive hype. While current "AI" is not completely useless, it cannot do what most people think. It is essentially a somewhat better search engine. As soon as it needs to do the tiniest amount of thinking, it completely fails and may give you fantastic fabrications on top of that.

  As to usefulness, for anything math, Wolfram Alpha (essentially a souped-up computer-algebra system) is the way to go. For anything else, DuckDuckGo does it just fine for me (I have mostly stopped trying Google when DDG finds nothing useful, because Geoogle usually finds nothing useful as well in that case) and if it takes a minute or two more than ChatGPT, so what. Allows me to actually think while searching. DDG does not hallucinate and I get pages where some actually intelligent person has written something.

  As to ChatGPT incapabilities: Here is what I have seen and are not impressed with: Complete failure on a simple, very basic firewall configuration exercise (by some of my students), complete failure on one of my Application Security exams on anything that needed a minimal amount of insight. It would have passed that exam, but so would have DuckDuckGo or Google with some minimal work and the students are passing these just on paper with no Internet or materials. I found one thing that the MS LLM can help you do, namely lie about how crappy things are. Just ask it "How do I say [bad thing] in a positive way". It did refuse "mass murder" though, so not useful for Putin or Boeing PR.

  Essentially, LLMs can be a bit better (but not groundbreaking) search on some things and a nice party-trick, but they are not in any way a revolution. I can see specially trained LLMs eventually reducing the need for low-level no-decision-power bureaucrats or nil wit customer support drastically, and that could remove a lot of jobs. But for anybody that needs to think in their job, LLMs are not a danger and not any real help either.

  Given that LLMs are an end-result of about 70 years of research and that their problems cannot really be fixed in any known way (maybe in another 50 years...), I would say most of all that money being thrown at them is essentially gone.

• Re:

  Indeed. I use Vivaldi, which is essentially chromium without the crap. Pretty good by now. I think they make their money by the pre-configured search engine, but one simple configuration at first start and you are rid of that.

• Re:

  When the "Unblockable Pop-up" comes from the operating system, I suspect there is only so much they can do.

• Re:

  Since Microsoft and Google are doing their dirty deeds through Edge/Chrome, Firefox plus uBlock, stops most of the bullying. (Microsoft can still access the entire Windows OS and Windows 11 doesn't have a no-spyware edition.) Chrome is on most computers because corporations (either the employer or 'the cloud') don't want the user to have privacy. But for personal use, there is rarely an excuse for avoiding Firefox. (Some web-sites have so much spyware, that Firefox doesn't work.)

  • Re:

    >"Chrome is on most computers because corporations (either the employer or 'the cloud') don't want the user to have privacy. But for personal use, there is rarely an excuse for avoiding Firefox."

    At my work, all the users have always used Firefox (and Netscape before that). But I might have a lot more than a little to do with that:)

• Re:

  Good idea. I think I will do that now. Wanted to upgrade to domain-blocking (so far I block only IPs) anyways.

• Re:

  >"Not having these in Firefox on Win11."

  If Firefox regains more market, you can bet you probably will.

  If you care about online privacy, control, flexibility, security, performance, cost, and freedom, it is REALLY difficult to compete with Linux + Firefox + Ublock.