Microsoft is Now Injecting Full-Size Edge Ads on Chrome Website (neowin.net) 132
An anonymous reader shares a report: Being the default out-of-the-box browser on Windows 10 and 11 makes Microsoft Edge a go-to utility for downloading Chrome or another browser. That upsets Microsoft so much that it constantly comes with more aggressive and user-hostile methods to make customers stay on Edge. An attempt to install Chrome using Edge Canary now results in the browser displaying two ads: the first (tiny one) will pop on the screen when the Chrome website loads, and the second, a humongous full-size banner, will appear once the download starts. Yikes!
Microsoft also plays with words to throw shade at Chrome. The banner states that Edge uses the same technology as Chrome with the "added trust of Microsoft." The "trust" that your computer will connect to ad providers the moment you turn it on for the first time. The "trust" that Edge will shove more "recommended content" down your throat and enforce Bing without you even making a click. The "trust" that you cannot remove Edge from your computer and many more.
Microsoft also plays with words to throw shade at Chrome. The banner states that Edge uses the same technology as Chrome with the "added trust of Microsoft." The "trust" that your computer will connect to ad providers the moment you turn it on for the first time. The "trust" that Edge will shove more "recommended content" down your throat and enforce Bing without you even making a click. The "trust" that you cannot remove Edge from your computer and many more.
Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently did some Windows installs in VMs and both 10 and 11 harass you when you go to download Firefox, telling you that you don't need it (in so many words!) and putting up both a large ad and a small one right below it for Edge.
How is that not anticompetitive?
Re:Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:5, Interesting)
It is. But in regions where it lost the lawsuit on this front from IE times, you still get the browser selector at the first windows install.
Talk to your representative in you national legislature so similar laws are enacted and MS is prosecuted for them.
Re: (Score:1)
But in regions where it lost the lawsuit on this front from IE times, you still get the browser selector at the first windows install.
BrowserChoice.eu [wikipedia.org] only ran from 2010 till 2014, it has been gone for a long time. Windows N and KN edition [wikipedia.org] are still around, but that's basically the last remaining thing of the antitrust stuff I can think of.
Re: (Score:3)
Must've been Leonovo, or some local thing. Mine gave me a selector in windows installer for the same six I saw when I did a new install back in early 2010s.
But it was really low key, I had to notice the small text instead of giant "next" button.
Doesn't remove the main point though. I think that something like the browser selector should be implemented on new installs. And something similar should be done for this kind of IT monopoly level stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any.
Democracy is a participation sport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That doesn't make any sense?
I assumed your "I don't have any" comment was to say that you don't have a representative in your national legislature. I suppose maybe you meant that you live in an autocracy, or maybe you live in DC. But if you meant that you just don't feel represented even though you have nominal representatives, you should step up and make yourself heard. Attend local caucus meetings. Get yourself sent as a state representative. Write letters and make phone calls to your existing representatives to influence them. Dona
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That doesn't make any sense?
I assumed your "I don't have any" comment was to say that you don't have a representative in your national legislature. I suppose maybe you meant that you live in an autocracy, or maybe you live in DC. But if you meant that you just don't feel represented even though you have nominal representatives, you should step up and make yourself heard. Attend local caucus meetings. Get yourself sent as a state representative. Write letters and make phone calls to your existing representatives to influence them. Donate. Maybe run for office yourself. etc.
And waste my time and effort while my idiotic peers elect the same stupid idiots again and again? No thanks?
The only thing that works in this country is money and I don't have any of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That doesn't make any sense?
I assumed your "I don't have any" comment was to say that you don't have a representative in your national legislature. I suppose maybe you meant that you live in an autocracy, or maybe you live in DC. But if you meant that you just don't feel represented even though you have nominal representatives, you should step up and make yourself heard. Attend local caucus meetings. Get yourself sent as a state representative. Write letters and make phone calls to your existing representatives to influence them. Donate. Maybe run for office yourself. etc.
And waste my time and effort while my idiotic peers elect the same stupid idiots again and again? No thanks? The only thing that works in this country is money and I don't have any of that.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to make your voice heard through local caucus meetings. No money required, just time. Very few people participate at that level, so they have massively out-sized impact. They and their representatives to state-level meetings decide which candidates the party puts forward. Change that and you have changed which people your "idiotic peers" get to vote for.
But if you'd rather just whine apathetically, you can certainly do that. But your whining will be worth as much as your
Re: (Score:2)
I repeat once again: Democracy is a participation sport. Those who don't participate get what they get.
I participated. I still ended up with shit. Your statement is invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
I repeat once again: Democracy is a participation sport. Those who don't participate get what they get.
I participated. I still ended up with shit. Your statement is invalid.
How, by voting once or twice? How many letters to representatives have you written? Phone calls made? Meetings attended?
Re: (Score:2)
Talk to your representative in you national legislature so similar laws are enacted and MS is prosecuted for them.
The laws already exist in the USA, the problem is the judges apply the impact of anti-trust crimes to effects on consumers (something very hard to prove) rather than the wider market or even other businesses. Worth noting is that the ruling went *against* Microsoft even in the USA and the company was ordered to be split up. But Microsoft appealed and had the order overruled based on a technicality related to conduct of the judge and not on a matter of law itself.
Re: (Score:2)
This always confused me when large imperial nations with bysantine longstanding legal systems function this way.
I understand why this is. What I don't understand from my "small country bumpkin" perspective is why legislative doesn't have a committee that looks into those things and brings fixes to legislative them as problems with recent legislation show up.
You'd think that with more resources of an imperial nation, you'd have more resources for legislative bureaucracy to check that legislation is having th
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are things that are, "just not right" and should have Federal legislation, usually that which supports conservative politics. Besides that, everything should be at the State level, preferably. And there, the
Re: (Score:2)
Completely opposite. Government should be as big as it can be as long as three factors are met:
1. It does not infringe on individual freedoms any more than absolutely necessary and guarantees basic freedoms of its citizens.
2. There are suitably sized government accountability systems in place.
3. Morale of the bureaucracy is very high, and their work is highly respected and jobs are competed for. (i.e. absolutely no diversity hiring for government positions, ever).
Government adding support systems that enabl
Re:Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine bought an Acer PC - at a guess - back around Summer 2014. It came with Windows 8.1 and with the usual pre-installed virus scanner from (I think) McAfee.
She was used to Firefox so one of the first things we did was to use Bing to search for and download that program. McAfee then started screaming, it turned out that Bing had pointed us at a malware-infested version of Firefox. I mentioned this to a couple of friends and this turned out to be known behaviour.
I had my laptop there and we either downloaded Firefox onto that and copied it across or we copied the URL and downloaded directly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You just clicked the first link, without looking at the address and it's Bing's fault?
Re:Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Bing's fault for ranking a shady malware site above the mozilla.org link.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a freaking search engine, FFS! It's not supposed to rank any site!
Re:Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
The search engine has to rank the sites it's searching. How else would it know what order to display them in?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
By oldest first? That way all the SEO crap will be on the last page :P
Re: (Score:2)
It's a freaking search engine, FFS! It's not supposed to rank any site!
So when you search for something, you want not to get it? Weird. Most of us want what we asked for.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a freaking search engine, FFS! It's not supposed to rank any site!"
A search engine by its very nature must rank sites, because it lists them. One site must be first on that list, another second and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I forgot to click anon posting and now I have to end it :P
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new to the internet. Welcome aboard.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it gives me the results I searched for and not 'here's what everybody else is searching right now' or 'here's what we know you really wanted'...
I don't want random search results, I want only what I've searched for. I have a working brain (or I hope so), I can decide for myself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Bing's fault for ranking a shady malware site above the mozilla.org link.
It's common practice is what it is. Google has been called out for the same behaviour. The reality is people aren't clicking on a search result. They are clicking on a paid advert.
Bing's ranking isn't bad. Their user interface is.
Re: (Score:2)
You just clicked the first link, without looking at the address and it's Bing's fault?
Kinda shows something's messed up when Bing actively promotes malware.
I don't trust Bing or any browser - but there are algorithms involved, so you and I might be really really smart. But the poor folks who are merely ignorant, are just following Bin'g guidance, first thing up is first thing recommended.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, in 2014, if you went to google.com and searched for Firefox chances are you would get the same virus.
Just about every search engine was ad hijacked for popular software downloads and probably still are. That's why 3rd party ad blockers are as essential as antivirus anymore.
historical context: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re:Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:5, Informative)
Google also harasses you to get their shitty browser if you're using something else, and not just on the Chrome page.
Re: (Score:2)
Google also harasses you to get their shitty browser if you're using something else, and not just on the Chrome page.
Once per account, or perhaps if you're not logged in, yes. But they don't do it by rewriting someone else's content, and if you google firefox, all you get is a whole bunch of firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
all you get is a whole bunch of firefox.
Along with ads for something which looks like Firefox but is probably malware in disguise.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's probably a stretch to say they've re-written somebody else's content. What they did was selectively modified the way somebody's content is visible on their own browser. And I think that in itself speaks volumes. While they can advertise that their own browser is superior in some way, it does so my messing with what is essentially, it's "only" job.
But I mean, we do things like this all the time, normally in more useful ways. It's not technically all that different than running an ad-blocker
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's probably a stretch to say they've re-written somebody else's content.
The browser has a whole bunch of jobs these days, but I still think people expect it to render what you accessed as faithfully as it can manage. And Google has never been as bad about suggesting Chrome as Microsoft is being with Edge. Plus, you know, Microsoft.
Re: Microsoft, up to all the old tricks (Score:2)
Every userscript is now in violation of copyright. Thanks SandorZoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Search algorithms typically deliver content that you can be said to be interested in, because it's more of what you choose to interact with.
This is delivering content to you that you're not interested in, and it's also deliberately deceptive. Saying you don't need Firefox when you asked for it is explicitly false, because it does things Edge doesn't.
Google pays Apple to make Safari suck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in this case i have a hard time thinking of two tech companies i despise more than MS and Google.
welp, thankfully brave is a thing (Eich's wrongthink aside)
Re: (Score:2)
Every company is doing something dodgy to keep their market share or gain. That's the rules we wrote as a society.
That sounds extremely unlikely, even though I saw someone claim this a week or two ago. Google might pay to make Apple not care about Safari for Windows, sure - but Apple absolutely wants the best out of the box experience on both their mobile devices and Macs. They'd lose so much more money in hardware sales both now and in the future otherwise.
"Added trust"? (Score:3)
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
I'm with you there. I trust a company that makes 100% of profits from my data more than a company that hawks off my data as a side gig like Microsoft. But none the less there are plenty of people who think the opposite and Microsoft is capitalising on this delusion.
Its already game over (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't even both getting upset anymore.
Chrome itself is by every reasonably definition either malware or a PUP.
Edge is by some measures better from a privacy perspective in terms of telemetry gathered and who gets what they almost certainly have not already got from other sources.
Do I like Microsoft injecting content, hell no but the much much much bigger probably is the near chromium engine mono culture that exists in the first place. Frankly any thing that moves revenue away from Google means competitors like Mozilla have a better chance of staying relevant.
The BEST thing that could happen to the internet would be if Google decided to close source Chrome development and force anyone who wants a browser that inst Chrome or wants to make one to support their HTML layout and JavaScript engines again.
Re: (Score:1)
The BEST thing that could happen to the internet would be if Google decided to close source Chrome development and force anyone who wants a browser that inst Chrome or wants to make one to support their HTML layout and JavaScript engines again.
There's some perverse, delicious irony here: where corporations use and publish free open source software to absolutely dominate the marketplace - we can say that at the very least, it isn't a hindrance to them at all. They don't benefit from it being proprietary, they benefit from it being open, and still have more money than god.
This situation may not please an anti-capital, anti-profit FOSS evangelist, but it's still perfectly compatible with the voluntary aspect of Stallman's philosophy. You're free to
Re: (Score:2)
Edge is based on chromium =P
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I realize that; which was my point.
However Google does not get revenue for un-googled versions of Chromium, they similarly do not get the telemetry and marketing data.
If you must use a chromium based browser, using anything but Chrome is a win, even if its a small one. Now it would be even better if people started using something webkit, gekko or quantum based, Safari, Seamonkey, Firefox, etc at least until those engines have to big a slice of the pie
Re: Its already game over (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also about to dump Office 365. They're about to require their authenticator app on my and, should I hire some, employees phones. My employees phones are not mine.
This can be shut-off. It is impossible to find, and I had to contact support to have then walk me through it. But it can be done. I shouldn't have to do it, I don't want it, or need it.
Alternately LibreOffice is pretty good these days, and the Evolution email client is a decent replacement for Outlook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Chrome itself is by every reasonably definition either malware or a PUP. " - Edge *is* Chrome ...
Re: (Score:2)
No, Edge is based on Chromium, i.e. the same engine, but a) not exactly the same and b) not actually spying for google
Edge is actually straight up better in terms of performance and efficiency too. There's really no reason to use actual Chrome other than some sort of misguided loyalty to Google.
It's still probably spying for MS instead of GOOG but such is life.
customers on edge (Score:5, Insightful)
Been like that since Windows 1.0
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this accepted as an article? (Score:2)
Bad practice, sure. But is briefly trash-talking a bad practice all it takes to get an article published here?
Just more uninteresting content to wade through.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a typical passive-aggressive msmash choice. Always, always note the editor who chooses such shit.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But now Google has monopolized the browser space, isn't it good to break that up at least?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the era of IE dominance demonstrated quite ably why a monoculture is such a terrible thing. The legacy of MS's browser dominance is still with us, and even much trumpeted declarations that IE is being actively removed are only accurate in that there isn't an IE executable, but the engine is still there in Edge's IE11 compatibility mode, because over a decade after IE was eclipsed, there's still so much legacy cruft that requires IE to function. Frankly, who can actually say when we will be rid of IE
Re:Why was this accepted as an article? (Score:4, Funny)
since when did posing a retarded hypothetical question and then answering it yourself with a retarded baseless answer become the norm for journalism?
That sounds like the kind of question Tucker Carlson would ask, without irony, while wearing his patented Confused Dog(tm) look.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly concurrence, except for the last part. I didn't say it, but I think he wants power and is thinking about going into politics. He has plenty of money, but would need as much attention as possible. However, I confess I have no concrete evidence, and in particular anything that tuck-tuck ever said is much more likely to be a lie than evidence of anything.
What happened to the censorious troll's fifth mod point?
So how many guesses do you want as to why the mod system reeks so badly these years?
Fair's fair (Score:3)
I also find the popups on Google sites wanting me to switch to Chrome annoying, so not surprised Microsoft wants to make countermoves. I'm generally not enjoying the current edition of "browser wars" though; rather than an arms race with companies competing to build the best browser, it seems to all about pulling various anti-competitive levers to gain/retain market share, while the browsers are getting worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part is both Chromium and Chromium-lite (aka firefox) both are hand in hand in degrading browser extendability with add-ons to enable maximal tracking and monetization of their users.
This monopoly that sorta kinda pretends to be a duopoly sucks. But alternative engines that exist can't compete because popular web sites have a massive vested interest in maximum exploitation of their viewers, which is enabled by browser makers. So they do no optimization for any alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
I also find the popups on Google sites wanting me to switch to Chrome annoying, so not surprised Microsoft wants to make countermoves.
Google only advertises on Google sites. This is Microsoft advertising over Google sites. It's not "fair's fair". The two approaches are nothing alike.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition is grand! (Score:5, Insightful)
I love it when tech companies compete. But it'd be nice if they didn't compete to see who could be the scuzziest, most underhanded of them all. Wrong goal, people!
Re: (Score:2)
conscent decrees aside (Score:2)
changing your default browser is even more painful in Win 11. I have to support multiple browsers and using Win 11 for web development suffers because of this nonsense.
Buy a games console and ditch Windows entirely (Score:2)
I've been Windows-free at home for over 20 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Linux is getting pretty good at running games.
Unless you're really into AAA titles with multiplayer etc that are more like online casinos rather than games, the penguin can run almost everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways, consoles lack the game library and features I want while being the same ad filled nonsense this is.
winget install Mozilla.Firefox (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably the most useful post on this story.
If I were ever to run Windows again, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely underrated. Everyone should know about winget and yet so few people do.
When will people see thru the Protection Racket? (Score:2)
Don' worry though, Google, Apple... ohhh.. I mean Microsoft is PROTECTING you
Also, YOU CAN'T TRUST THOSE OTHERS... But you can trust Microsoft, For sure, eyyyy.....
Edge (Score:3)
The browser you use to get the browser you want.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why I have the Firefox install executable on a flash drive.
The safest way to use Edge is to never start it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's Continual Meddling (Score:3)
Ran into this last night, trying to download Chrome on an (admittedly waaaayyy too) old machine that was already chugging. Every time I tried to go to the Chrome download site in Edge it'd time out, so I tried using IE - it would go to the download site, complain that it was too old, and then auto-close IE and try to open Edge again. Literally all I wanted to do was download the executable.
Probably should just look into another alternative (or just run 7) on something that old, but yeah, it doesn't help when Microsoft won't even let you do what you're trying to do and throws you down a path you're trying to avoid because it causes an even bigger performance bottleneck.
Microsoft sucks! Don't trust them. (Score:3)
I haven't touch any Microsoft product for over 25 years. I want my privacy and my computers are MY computers.
Say what? (Score:3)
Who trusts Microsoft even slightly?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Slashdot readers do care about such things but I
Re: (Score:2)
Windows runs my games. That's why I still run it. Not gonna subscribe to an office suite, so Open Office and Libre Office are installed. I switch up monthly when I remember...
Huh? (Score:2)
Microsoft also plays with words to throw shade at Chrome. The banner states that Edge uses the same technology as Chrome with the "added trust of Microsoft." The "trust" that your computer will connect to ad providers the moment you turn it on for the first time. The "trust" that Edge will shove more "recommended content" down your throat and enforce Bing without you even making a click. The "trust" that you cannot remove Edge from your computer and many more.
Has the author of this ever used Android or Google for, well, anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Using Edge means you are having to Trust two companies ...
Makes me wonder why they care so much (Score:3)
> Microsoft is Now Injecting Full-Size Edge Ads on Chrome Website
That's...quite evil. It makes me wonder why they care so much. They don't make any money selling Edge (right?). As far as I know, Edge isn't different enough from Chromium that it leads to some IE6-style lock-in. Yet they're mangling websites to insert ads that weren't there before, promoting...their own closed source shell around Chromium? If it's really that valuable to them, I worry about what's in there or what their plan is for the future. "Added trust of Microsoft" indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s interesting (Score:2)
"Are you sure you wanna install Chrome?" (Score:2)
Are you really sure?
Are you really really sure?
Are you really truly honestly sure?
We have Taylor Swift tickets if you stay. Do you not want to not want to not change browsers?
(I swear my stupid exercise cycle is almost this annoying, trying to get one to buy fancy coaching vids. My fingers get more exercise answering prompts than my legs do peddling. And if you don't use the screen, the tension setting turns off every minute. I'm getting Carpal Cancel Syndrome. Brand: Proform, avoid!!)
PowerAgent Redux - whats old is new! (Score:2)
I was involved in this late 1990s debacle:
PowerAgent Shuts Doors [cnet.com]
It's how I came be be deposed by David Boies. (PowerAgent sued Ross Perot's EDS when the failed to follow-through on promised funding. Bois represented PowerAgent.) I worked for a company that was contracted to do the front-end implementation. (Another company was responsible for backend.)
Part of this scheme was something called PowerFrames. I did the implementation of that.
We "framed" IE and Mozilla, and added a panel with 3 ads at the top, an
"With the added trust of Microsoft" (Score:2)
The what now?
Oh Microsoft... (Score:2)
Have they not had enough of the lawsuits? Someone shut that shit down.
Edge is a pile of shit and it's built on Chromium anyway, so it's like advertising a YouTube video where you covered a watermark with your own logo.
The illusion of choice (Score:2)
>"The "trust" that your computer will connect to ad providers the moment you turn it on for the first time. The "trust" that Edge will shove more "recommended content" down your throat and enforce Bing without you even making a click."
As opposed to the "trust" with Chrome that Google won't abuse it's incredible power of complete control over the rendering and guts and that Google won't track you, etc. Not a great trade, either way.
Although I disagree with what Microsoft is doing, I find it comical the i
Yawn. (Score:2)
Double standards? (Score:2)
"added trust of Microsoft." The "trust" that your computer will connect to ad providers the moment you turn it on for the first time. The "trust" that Edge will shove more "recommended content" down your throat and enforce Bing without you even making a click."
You do realise who makes Chrome right? Who does all of the above and sets your search to their own by default?
I don't prefer one over the other, but double standards much?
Check out Vivaldi, now that's a nice browser built on the same tech stack