Wow, this is much worse than I assumed:<p>> <i>In fact, we were able to circumvent the issue just by changing the name of the Chrome app on a Windows desktop. It seems that Microsoft threw up the roadblock specifically for Chrome, the main competitor to its Edge browser.</i><p>From the beginning of the article, I was led to believe Microsoft had changed an API around checking/setting the default browser to show Microsoft's dialog instead. Which doesn't seem great to change an API without warning, but maybe you can make an argument that it ensures a "neutral" choice rather than apps pushing the choice on users.<p>But this shows it's <i>specifically against Chrome</i>. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, it's unforgivably anti-competitive behavior. It's a truly shameful tactic.
Trying to set yourself as the default handler for anything should pop up a system preferences box. Beating a dead horse perhaps but in the Apple world this works quite well: there are various permissions like “read folders”, “capture keyboard input”, “access location” and so on. When a programs wants to use these, all it can do is put in a request, and pop up a dialog box offering to take you System Preferences. When you’re in System Preferences you can look at e.g. “read folders” permissions and see all the programs that have requested this, and you can check or uncheck each program to decide its access. This is how default handlers should work, too (although it doesn’t in MacOS at the moment, probably because they couldn’t solve the UI issue of having a list of every possible file type, each with a sub list of every program that can open it).<p>If that was what Windows was intending, and Google found a way around it with sneaky automatic API calls, and Windows fixed the exploit which then resulted in those sneaky calls popping open Settings every time, that would be fine and Google would be the bad guy.<p>Sounds like that was not what happened here, Windows did some ugly hack (up to and including ‘relying on a Chrome.exe process name’, like, come on) and in fact doesn’t even have a “make request then approve in Settings” workflow, so yeah Windows is the bad guy here. Google is still a little bit bad - you’re fucking up my UI by forcing a self-promotion button into my tab bar, that’s not cool - but overall this situation is a point against Microsoft.<p>(Personally I’m glad the extent of browser wars for Mac is some apps doing some trick to make you choose between “Chrome”, “Safari”, or “the default browser [Safari]” every time you click a link. I want to use the default option every time automatically, that’s <i>what default means</i>.)
On one hand, Microsoft has been ridiculously scummy lately in regards to Windows and Edge (e.g., dark patterns everywhere) and I downright abhor what Edge has become. On the other hand, programs probably shouldn't be able to silently change a user's default programs. But back to the first hand, it seems like this was targeting Chrome specifically rather than actually improving the API, so more scummy nonsense from Microsoft.<p>While Chrome included a button to ask users beforehand, they could've just as easily changed the default browser without asking. I'm not saying Google would do that, but maybe they shouldn't have the ability to do so regardless of intention.
Applications should not be able to register themselves as the default handler for file and uri types.<p>Google should be forced to open the system settings panel that allows users to change the default browser, not do it for them. If this window unfairly favours one browser over another, I'd say that would be anti-competitive, but requiring to go through said window is not.
The year is 2023. Everyone who believes either Microsoft or Google are the good guys here is either not paying attention, or works for either of the companies (not so unlikely on Hacker News). Both companies use every imaginable dark pattern to trick users into agreeing to whatever tracking bullshit they added last week. With one company controlling the OS and the other the browser, the question is just which dark patterns preempt the other company's dark patterns in the battle for user attention and data in the advertisement wars.<p>I long for the days where I was able to <i>pay</i> for a piece of software. The nature of the transaction ensured that the software did what I as a user wanted it to do, and served no hidden agenda. But those days are gone, possibly forever.
"Antitrust: Commission fines Microsoft for non-compliance with browser choice commitments", European Commission 2013:<p><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_196" rel="nofollow">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_...</a><p>We need more legislation it seems.
Where were all the commenters when YouTube was silently breaking (old, Trident-based) Edge, Firefox and Safari with user-agent detection completely ignoring actually supported browser capabilities? Somehow they are able to get away with this while other companies don't.
Are we just going to ignore the time Google was caught slowing firefox with useless loops (well, actually turning on a client side noise reduction algo IIRC) in google meet and docs to make it look like chrome was faster? could also be 'fixed' by changing user agents to chrome.<p>...countdown to downvotes and replies asking for source for something that is easy to find online.
I'm no more a fan of this than I was of Google trying to shove Chrome in my face any time I used to visit any of their properties with a different browser. These 2 deserve each other. For now I just avoid both of their products.
> “For information on this, please see this blog post about Microsoft’s approach to app pinning and app defaults in Windows. Microsoft has nothing further to share,” said Miranda Davis, a Microsoft spokesperson. The post describes the company’s “long-standing approach to put people <i>in</i> control of their Windows PC experience.”<p>There's a little typo in there. They wrote <i>in</i> - but what they actually meant was <i>under our</i>.<p>Common mistake. The keys are right next to each other.
After what I think was the same Windows 10 update last month I noticed a giant Edge search bar planted in the middle of my desktop which I did not ask for. I've since rolled back the update and group policy disabled Windows Updates entirely
I tried to read all the links, but there are still some questions:<p>So Google has a button to make it the standard browser and a group policy to do that automatically. This computes the userchoice hash based on the SID, obfuscated formulas, the create time of the registry key (minute only, retrying when the minute has changed while writing).<p>Now MS publishes an update which breaks this (But how?). Gizmodo says it only happes to "chrome.exe". Google implemented the userchoice hash algorithm, but now they disabled "the experiment".<p>And now?<p>When will Google come up with another solution? Does the group policy still work? What exactly did the update from MS change? Did the userchoice algorithm change somehow?<p>Does the button in Chrome to set the default even still work?<p>Here's how userchoice is or was implemented:
<a href="https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0dfc676a46a7e14778e6801bc1c0bafdce835729%5E%21/" rel="nofollow">https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0dfc676a46a...</a>
<a href="https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/58e203f9ba97826f98c414faf4eea289fb4d436e%5E%21/" rel="nofollow">https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/58e203f9ba9...</a>
Offtopic, but I started using Edge because of Bing integration, which turned out to be terrible (just give me exact gpt4-based copilot, not the watered-down version), but stayed for the side-tabs: sticky permanent tabs that allow to quickly reach you popularly use. I haven't found a browser that offers this functionality either natively or as a well-supported plugin.<p>I'd love to ditch Edge, any recommendations?
Rough edges like this are what make people like the experience better on other operating systems. Edge is a nice browser. But I want to use something else, and these kinds of things make me not want your software. As a developer, I just stop using the OS's "open url" call and add a setting to select the app to use to open links.<p>At my company, we're Mac for everything not engineering and linux for engineering. Every new hire at first hates the new thing, but after a few months, I'll ask them if they'd like to switch to Windows... and the answer is usually something between "no" and "for the love all that is good and wholesome, no!" The issue with Windows is lots of tiny spikes and sharp edges that interrupt your workflow.
Ok, so par for the course, absolutely nothing has changed since the previous round of the browser wars. But what really, and I mean <i>really</i> surprises me is that the open source movement so far hasn't taken a much harsher stand against Microsoft acquiring GitHub. Google is capable of defending itself just fine but with GH Microsoft has essentially acquired all of the open source code stored there irrespective of the license it is shipped under because somehow magically their TOS seems to supersede the GPL and they can do what ever they please with the code. That doesn't sit right with me, no matter how many goodwill parties Nadella & company attend.
Is it also possible that MS has a "budget" to promote Edge as the default/only option among its enterprise customers -- you know, supplying the IT departments with marketing material, mailers, talking points, and all sorts of "incentives" for adoption.<p>I ask because we saw a huge campaign by our corporate IT (large 50,000+ userbase) recently to eliminate Chrome for all company assets -- with mailers touting the superior security features of Edge.<p>If they simply said we cannot / donot want to support multiple browsers -- it would be forgivable. But the mailers seemed to be rather persistent in justifying why Edge -- sounding like PR from MS.
Looks like someone in Windows land has had enough:<p>A principled approach to app pinning and app defaults in Windows (windows.com) [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2023/03/17/a-principled-approach-to-app-pinning-and-app-defaults-in-windows/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2023/03/17/a-pri...</a><p>* Insert comic of different parts of Microsoft pointing guns at each-other *
Also it seems that associating a file type with a program also change its icon, you cannot have separate icon and file association.<p>For example, I want a separate icon for .txt .py .cpp, and all open them with sublime text. I tried many things, but I just gave up. Once I associate with ST again, it sets to another icon.<p>There are really few things holding me back to windows, really.
Looking at the comments, it's clear other people read a completely different article than I did. I recently canceled my LinkedIn account as LI refused to allow me to upload images when using Firefox. I have no desire to live in the MSFT-centric world of the 90s they seem to be re-creating.
It's unsurprising that they try, it's surprising that they get away with it. Blatant market manipulation by several big tech players with zero consequences. Which then emboldens them to go even further.
"What a convenient coincidence. Mind you, it was absolutely uncorrelated. Everybody knows that everything <a big corp> does is for better security." - a typical bitter sarcasm nowadays.
How is this Microsoft fault? Google presumably made their browser go around the usual interface for changing default browser( via some sneaky api manipulation?). Microsoft patched it to require more than a single click.<p>The only reason Edge or whatever Microsoft is pushing these days didn't trigger the issue is because their browser didn't make the API call on every new window event and not because of some sinister plan to increase their market share.<p>Back in the day trying to do things as silently as possible was reserved for malware.
I love browser wars. Google is getting taste of its own medicine. They also have endless message "Install google chrome" when we go to google.com or youtube.com.<p>I think Microsoft should do more to Google. Meanwhile, I am happy with Firefox.
They are allowing a Trojan horse application on their platform two of the main purposes of which are to convert paid MS Office users to paid Google Suite users, and to convert Windows users to ChromeOS users. I think Microsoft is being quite generous, patient, and tolerant, if anything (although to a large degree probably because they are required to act in this way by naive, ignorant, and/or Google-funded regulators).