×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Bundles Toolbar With Adobe Apps

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the jab-landing-close-to-home dept.

157

grammar fascist writes "Sci-Tech Today reports that Google is paying a 'significant amount' to bundle Google Toolbar with certain Adobe downloads. From the article: 'The initial venue for the Google mini-app will be downloads of the popular and free Shockwave multimedia player. The move is seen by some observers as an effort to outflank Microsoft, especially as Internet Explorer 7 nears its formal launch this summer [...] Interestingly, Google's search toolbar will be available only when Shockwave is downloaded for use with Internet Explorer on Windows.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google crazyness.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599810)

Next step will be start advertising in pdf files !

Re:Google crazyness.. (3, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599826)

This may be that next step. I recently got a Dell PC with Google Desktop pre-installed (but disabled until I enabled it after installing the software of my choice to replace IE, Outlook etc). Google Desktop seemed to be working fine as a search tool, until one day I started Internet Explorer. All of a sudden my firewall started warning me of outgoing connections from GoogleDesktopDisplay.exe, and ads started popping up from my taskbar. Even after closing IE, this continued, and after searching the preferences and terms of service for Google Desktop and finding nothing about this "feature", I have now banished this Google spyware from my system.

Re:Google crazyness.. (3, Funny)

omegashenron (942375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599847)

Are you sure it was google desktop responsible for all those ads or perhaps it was all the p0rn sites visited with IE.

Re:Google crazyness.. (3, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600586)

Are you sure it was google desktop responsible for all those ads or perhaps it was all the p0rn sites visited with IE.

Pretty sure. Turns out it is a feature called "Alerts", which there is no mention of in the normal Preferences, or the documentation for Google Desktop, but if you enable the Desktop Sidebar and look in the menu for that, there is an extra item "Customize Alerts...", where you can disable them. Since I never use the sidebar, I had no idea this feature existed, I guess it got turned on by the IE Google Toolbar since it lay dormant until I fired up IE for the first time.

As for the mods that modded you +1 Informative, rather than Funny, and my original post -1 Troll, you need to stop smoking the Google crack guys.

Re:Google crazyness.. (5, Interesting)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599853)

Google Desktop seemed to be working fine as a search tool, until one day I started Internet Explorer. All of a sudden my firewall started warning me of outgoing connections from GoogleDesktopDisplay.exe, and ads started popping up from my taskbar. Even after closing IE, this continued, and after searching the preferences and terms of service for Google Desktop and finding nothing about this "feature", I have now banished this Google spyware from my system.

I use Google for searches and for unimportant email, but I know the company is not my friend, as they would like me to believe. But I won't use other Google software that has to much access to my computer without necessarily telling me everything it is doing. And I won't run IE except in very rare circumstance when Firefox or Opera can't load a page I really ned to get to. I suspect Google will sell-out a lot of security or usability for ad revenue.

Re:Google crazyness.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599859)

quick, get your tinfoil hats.

Re:Google crazyness.. (2, Informative)

Killshot (724273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599880)

I am pretty sure google does not serve ads in this way. I have google desktop and never had this problem.

Re:Google crazyness.. (2, Informative)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599943)

I never experienced any ads or any of the behaviour you describe when using Google Desktop....in-fact, of all the reviews and everything I have read about the program, you are the first to even say anything.

As for the firewall thing, did you enable Search Across Computers by any chance? Did you read the linked to privacy policy explaining what the feature does?

Re:Google crazyness.. (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600155)

GoogleDesktopDisplay.exe has not been widely reported to cause any problems with popups despite its wide use, so your problem likely lies elsewhere, like in Internet Explorer.

[Redacted] Space for sale! (5, Funny)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599941)

They could sell ads that take the place of redacted text. But then the original text still is there though, and what would you advertise on an NSA memo?

Re:[Redacted] Space for sale! (3, Insightful)

J_Darnley (918721) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599983)

The correct way to black out a document.

Re:[Redacted] Space for sale! (4, Funny)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600335)

They could sell ads that take the place of redacted text. But then the original text still is there though, and what would you advertise on an NSA memo?
"Click here to find Top Secret items at bargain basement prices!"

Re:[Redacted] Space for sale! (2, Funny)

MrNonchalant (767683) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600522)

Tin foil.

Re:Google crazyness.. (3, Insightful)

Xymor (943922) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600541)

That's actually good ideia. Download the e-book for free, and the ads pay for the royaties. And could still buy a ad-free hardcopy if you want.

I'm all for it (5, Funny)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599817)

As long as it works on Linux, with Firefox and will give me flash 8.

Re:I'm all for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599883)

And 64bit version of flash too!

web -1.0 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599938)

The WWW was initially all about information: it is a way so people can publish data, people can get the data and they can follow the right hyperlinks that lead to other related data. It is a distributed, cooperative, data sharing thing.

Now we have a new kind of WWW applications. It's applications that use the web browser as their GUI platform and run in the web browser. Such applications are, advanced word processors, spreadsheets, e-mail readers and eventually the Browser In The Browser secret project google's been working on. These applications have NOTHING to do with the concept of the WEB.

It is "scripts" for the IE/Mozilla program, like java programs for the JVM, C# programs for .NET, perl and python scripts, etc. The difference is that everybody has one of those two browsers, so the user does not have to download anything and that there is no need to install the application since it is downloaded and executed by visiting the URL. Some programmers have convinced some stupid venture capitalists, that this is the next big thing, and the news about AJAX circulates to attract more venture capitalists to spend more money to buy AJAX. Not a bad idea.

But for the users, the IE/Mozilla platform is the most insecure way to run their applications. Their application is constantly connected to the internet. Both browsers have numerous vunerabilities and new ones are discovered every day. The application downloads and "runs" new data, very often without the user knowing about it (through hidden javascript links and the flash player). The user cannot trace, debug or even study the AJAX code that runs on their IE/Mozilla platform. Through asynchronous javascript and flash, binary proprietary code runs on their PC with full priviledges. And to all these add that javascript is a terrible programming language and that the GUI in the browser was designed for forms and was never good for things like an interactive text shell. \paragraph

The result is that you get poor applications, that are slow, very insecure, do things without the user's control and it's a Mozilla/IE lockin.
That is Web -1.0

Alternatives (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599827)

If the alternative is bundling the MSN search bar, I'm completely in favor of this.

Re:Alternatives (5, Insightful)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599950)

Oh, so it's alright if Google does it, but not if Microsoft does it? It's a pain in the hole either way.

Google are inconveniencing everyone through this. Acrobat Reader is already a 20MB download for reasons I can't imagine. Why bloat Shockwave in the same way?

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600173)

Google are inconveniencing everyone through this.
No, no. Only those who download Shockwave for use with IE. And you know, IE users should be quite used to inconveniences by now. :)

Re:Alternatives (2, Informative)

danielpavel (243201) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600255)

Re: Acrobat Reader.

I don't understand why people bother with AR anymore. Other PDF viewers like FoxIt Reader [foxitsoftware.com] manage to do nostly the same in less than 1MB.

Re:Alternatives (2, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600953)

"I don't understand why people bother with AR anymore. Other PDF viewers like FoxIt Reader manage to do nostly the same in less than 1MB."

Does FoxIt have a search feature that'll go through entire folders and search those documents at the same time? I use this frequently...

Re:Alternatives (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600308)

I stopped using Acrobat reader a long time ago. It's so frigging slow and it's a huge resource hog.

I use FoxItReader [foxitsoftware.com] . It's super fast, the download is less than 1 meg. The only downside I've found is that it only works with Windows.

Re:Alternatives (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600606)

I stopped using Acrobat reader a long time ago. It's so frigging slow and it's a huge resource hog. I use FoxItReader [foxitsoftware.com]. It's super fast, the download is less than 1 meg. The only downside I've found is that it only works with Windows.
I found one more downside: I can't zoom the contents of a rectangle which I drag with the mouse. When working with A0 PDF drawings, this is almost a "need to have" feature.

(And I will have to learn some new keyboard shortcuts.)

But apart from that, it seems like a more than worthy replacement for Acrobat Reader.

Re:Alternatives (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600943)

Certain boxes with a background color are frequently printed with large opaque stripes across them... There are other compatability issues, but this is the one I hit most recently.

It's nice, but you still have to have a copy of Acrobat Reader around too.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599989)

Actually I'm pretty sure Adobe bundles the Yahoo! toolbar with Acrobat Reader. But I agree, rather Google than any other toolbar for me.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600113)

As of last week, the bundled item was Yahoo!'s toolbar. I don't like that they bundle any software for these downloads, but since they seem keen on the income (and ignoring the irritation of users), Google is the best one of the bunch.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600856)

this is the most uninsightful thing I have read all week.

    I'm completely in favor of a stick in the eye if the alternative is decapitation.

    I'm completely in favor of rancid oatmeal if the alternative is hemlock.

      I could go on with an insightful discussion like this for hours.

Toolbar? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599845)

What's Google Toolbar? Is it something like Safari?

Re:Toolbar? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599957)

It an extension for IE that adds stuff like a search field, a pagerank display and a popup blocker. Probably only necessary because the current versions of IE suck.

of course targets only IE (3, Interesting)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599865)

Interestingly, Google's search toolbar will be available only when Shockwave is downloaded for use with Internet Explorer on Windows.

Of course it targets only IE. If somebody is smart enough to not use IE, then surely he is smart enough to not use msn search or any other crap. He might even conciously choose to not use google, but others!

as an example my search toolbar includes:

http://www.google.com/search?s [google.com]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=s&meta=site3Dgro ups [google.com]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&c2c %20off=1&q=define:s&btnG=Search [google.com]
http://packages.debian.org/ [debian.org]
http://ask.com/ [ask.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search =s&go=Go [wikipedia.org]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/search/index.cgi?q=s [wolfram.com]
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=s [m-w.com]
http://freshmeat.net/search?q=s [freshmeat.net]

Re:of course targets only IE (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599870)

forgot to mention that "s" in those queries is actually written as a 'percent's - that's the place where the queried string goes. I just cannot submit %s written as it is written, because it is replaced with 'percent'25s

Re:of course targets only IE (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599885)

wow, I can submit. it just doesn't work inside an URL ;)

Re:of course targets only IE (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599907)

www.google.com/search?q=%s
www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&c2c%20off= 1&q=define:%s&btnG=Search
groups.google.com/groups?q=%s&meta=site%3Dgroups
groups.google.com/groups?selm=%s
images.google.com/images?q=%s
packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?key words=%s&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&rele ase=all
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s&go= Go
mathworld.wolfram.com/search/index.cgi?q=%s
encyklopedia.pwn.pl/szukaj.php?co=%s
www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=%s
freshmeat.net/search?q=%s

I think without http:/// [http] at the beginning, the addresses' characters are not replaced. There are only some extra spaces

Re:of course targets only IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600018)

If this is anything like the the yahoo toolbar that Acrobat currently includes, the stupid toolbar will actually be in Acrobat Reader - not just Internet Explorer.

Already happening, really (4, Interesting)

JLSigman (699615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599884)

We install Shockwave and Adobe Reader on all of the computer at work. Right now, Shockwave wants to install Yahoo toolbar and Adobe wants to install Google toolbar and desktop. I guess Yahoo's about to be out of luck?

this hurts ADBE more than it helps Google (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599890)

This reminds me of the Yahoo-Toolbar in Acrobat7, this brings nothing for Adobe - but a slight decline in reputation as a manufacturer of high-end software tools.

Re:this hurts ADBE more than it helps Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600315)

It brings them cash. Everybody who uses windows in the business world uses acrobat. If a small percentage of everybody installs a yahoogle toolbar Adobe will rake it in. It's a new revenue stream in addition to the people who buy the full versions of Acrobat which was previously the only thing that supported the free reader software.

The road to evil is paved with selling out (1)

quentin_quayle (868719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600827)

When an organization reaches a certain market share or amount of power, it reaches a sort of tipping point into arrogance, hubris and control-freakery, manifested in increasing its efforts to exploit all the other parties it deals with to the maximum degree. Microsoft and the **AA are long since way on the far side of that point; similarly on a larger scale the USA in the international arena; and now on a small scale, Adobe.

Last weekend I was collecting installers in preparation to reinstall Windows and wanted the latest Acrobat Reader. v.7 has the notorious behavior that if you turn off Javascript it nags you to turn it on every time you close the app. (Bug or anti-feature? It's exactly the kind of dual-purpose-with-plausible-deniability that is a favorite dirty trick of Micrsoft [WGA Notification, GUIDs, etc.].)

The v.7 reader also contained the Yahoo "feature" even if you specifically opted out of the toolbar. On Windows 2000 you can defeat the Javascript trick by replacing the Javascripts folder with a dummy file. So I expected to do the same on XP, and found that it runs an installer on every startup, and if the Javascripts folder is not as expected refuses to start the app. If I deleted the installer, the reader wouldn't start at all.

So I went to the Adobe site hoping to get a more recent version with this problem fixed. And discovered that (a) they don't even acknowledge the problem on their site (b) they no longer offer a standalone installer - only a stub that expects internet access. Well that's contrary to my security policy (I know, call me tin foil, I don't do plugins either). And no reading PDF documentation prior to networking on an OS install, as far as Adobe cares. With about five points against Adobe, I went for the alternative.

In the same day I was very disappionted to find that the latest version of the heretofore redoubtable Irfanview now bundles the Google (desktop? toolbar? whatever).

You have to get good products on the way up, while the companies are still trying to please, and abandon them when they sell out.

Obnoxious (4, Insightful)

rm999 (775449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599898)

I hate bundled software - I find it annoying, and everynow and then I forget to unclick the box when I am quickly installing something. I know a lot of freeware and toolbar companies do it, but I always thought (hoped?) Google was above that.

Re:Obnoxious (5, Insightful)

vistic (556838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599930)

I began looking at the comments for this story just to see how many comments will say it's a good thing or how many have excuses why it's acceptable.

I was disappointed there were so many.

Google Toolbar is a good program for those who use IE (I think it's totally unnecessary for Mozilla) but Google or not, bundled software is just obnoxious. It's sad to see Google going down this road. If I want to install Google Toolbar, I will go to google's website and download and install it. If I go to the shockwave download site, then I only want shockwave.

Google's contributing to the problem a lot of people have, where they have too many programs installed on their systems they never wanted. Too many programs installed even, that they don't even know are there.

Re:Obnoxious (2, Interesting)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600082)

*sigh*

I have to agree, this is a step too far as far as bundling goes- the Shockwave player is supposed to be as small a download as possible in order to lower the barrier to installation. Someone with a DSL connection may not mind the extra few seconds of download time, but someone with a shockwave download they're waiting on so they can use a site on their modem may get pissed off and not view the site at all.

Basically it adds to the payload of the plugin and makes it harder to use shockwave on your website.

Re:Obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600163)

Obnoxious is what I use to describe any web site that requires Shockwave to view. Frankly I don't install it any more and simply add sites that use it to my "too stupid and rude to visit" list. I may not be the sharpest computer user in the world, but near as I can tell from what I have seen of flash usage it only serves the vanity of the site producer and adds nothing of value for anyone visiting the site, well except maybe for the "oh, look, bright and shiny" crowd. If a page doesn't load in 30 seconds on a 28.8 modem then it probably needs redesigned. Think I have heard that said somewhere before, makes sense to me.

Re:Obnoxious (3, Informative)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600273)

A/C, I've made Flash applications that make HTML pages look bloated. Blame retarded designers and clients for oversized Flash. If i made a site with a hundred big JPEG images on the homepage you wouldn't blame HTML or the JPEG format, so get off your ass and email the offending websites and tell them to get off their asses.

Also, what other brilliant solution do you have for delivering multimedia over the web? Javascript? Realplayer? Windows media player? Give me a fuckin' break.

Actually the closest thing to it is Quicktime, but then that requires embedded flash elements for interactivity.

*sits back and watches his karma funeral pyre*

Re:Obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600901)

Java leads to javascript.
Javascript leads to shockwave.
And shockwave leads to suffering

Re:Obnoxious (1)

gruhnj (195230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600228)

vistic said ... "Google Toolbar is a good program for those who use IE (I think it's totally unnecessary for Mozilla) but Google or not, bundled software is just obnoxious""

Its not just obonxious, its adding an software that we cant use to an otherwise useful program. Extra toolbars from Google, Yahoo, or anyone else for that matter are a violation of the security policy where I work. This means that I have to start figuring out how to remove them from the system or worse, stop using their programs. Its a shame that as an administrator I cant use a program becuase of the bundled extra crap.

When will software vendors realise that users want to install just a single program and dont need or want bundled extra crud? Maybe more important, how do we stop this trend with Windows programs?

Re:Obnoxious (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600319)

Extra toolbars from Google, Yahoo, or anyone else for that matter are a violation of the security policy where I work. This means that I have to start figuring out how to remove them from the system or worse, stop using their programs. Its a shame that as an administrator I cant use a program becuase of the bundled extra crap.

As an administrator, you can probably work out how to uncheck the option to install it.

Re:Obnoxious (2, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600320)

"When will software vendors realise that users want to install just a single program and dont need or want bundled extra crud? Maybe more important, how do we stop this trend with Windows programs?"

As long as there is profit in bundling software, there will be bundling of software. In fact, the revenue from bundling is considerably more substantial and stable than the revenues from users. You don't think Adobe is offering this bundling to Google for free do you?!?!

B.

Re:Obnoxious (2, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600245)

I am not a Google user and Adobe can't dare to bundle anything with programs my segment uses. Also I am on OS X , thank God there is no "toolbar mechanism" on OS X (yet!)

Why I am reading story and comments? For my entertainment...

Some people were really bugged by Adobe displaying tiny banners in their "Reader", a thing which they give freely. It was plugging into MS Office or something. As this is Google, nobody gets bugged by a "toolbar" (seen its privacy policy?!) coming with Adobe applications and even defend this decision.

If there would be a really useful toolbar I'd like to install BY MY CHOICE on OS X it would be Yahoo toolbar. They were one of the first ones used the concept and it is really useful. Especially bookmarks storage on server. I can imagine what would happen on Slashdot if they made the huge error (!) of bundling that instead.

Keep this hypocrisy ;) Of course this is a type of comment you need to post with "karma bonus"

Re:Obnoxious (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600434)

I am not a Google user and Adobe can't dare to bundle anything with programs my segment uses. Also I am on OS X , thank God there is no "toolbar mechanism" on OS X (yet!)
Apple isn't much better with their "bundling" of software. In order to install iTunes in Windows, you are forced to install Quicktime aswell. Supposedely because iTunes uses Quicktime to play songs?!. They could have just included a quicktime dll in iTunes if iTunes really did use some quicktime technology to play mp3s. But instead, they just slip you their media player aswell and have it set (by default) to load into the system tray whenever you start windows. Yet another service that installs itself into the startup list, making windows take even longer to boot up.

Re:Obnoxious (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600476)

Their Quicktime division is "evil" but for this thing you can't blame them. To install iTunes for windows you really need Quicktime since most of that download is Quicktime framework for windows itself.

Quicktime Player.exe , that thing is just a small wrapper. iTunes is entirely quicktime.

The "tray" application? Blame the coder of OS it works in. As long as they compete in mafia ways by stealing extensions from programs, both Apple and Realnetworks will have those "lets see if windows media player stole my extensions at boot" applications at startup.

I say "Thank God" to no bundle possibility since DivX player 6.x+ EULA says they CAN install stuff like third party browser bundles and you can't sue/blame them for it. On an interesting platform you can be technically shot dead to use "Spyware for OS X" term by its fanatic users, it has 442,261 downloads (just on versiontracker) and counting.

With that EULA...

Reason for calling Quicktime division "evil" with legit reasons? One of reasons could be this. Quicktime 7 can install and run on Windows 2000 with latest service pack. It needs OS X 10.3.9 minimum to install on Mac. Guess the reason? :)

Re:Obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600768)

Microsoft doesn't steal extentions from other programs, you buffoon.

Re:Obnoxious (2, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600488)

Not only Quicktime - if you install iTunes, it installs an iPodHelper service too, set to start up automatically. I would understand if it asked ("Do you have an iPod? No - ok, I won't install the service, just go to Tools -> Options -> ... if you ever buy one; they're great!"), but it doesn't. There's a word for software that silently installs components that take up resources even when the main program isn' running...

Re:Obnoxious (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600455)

Google Toolbar is a good program for those who use IE

It's only good if you turn off all the spyware features that send every URL you visit to an advertising company's profiling servers. (The advertising company is Google, BTW.)

Re:Obnoxious (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600486)

If people doesn't have problem with such things, they should install Alexa toolbar instead of Google. I am not kidding.

By Default is it on or off? (1)

moultano (714440) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600753)

I find bundling software to be acceptible on one condition. The default state for the check box should be off so that I don't accidentally install it.

Believe it or not, not everyone knows all of the software available to them at any given time. As such, advertising like this (which is essentially what bundling software is, advertising for the bundled program) does have a useful purpose. If someone offers me a program, I like the look of it and I install it and enjoy it, then I am thankful for whoever offered it to me. It's only onerous when they use people's natural inattention to force it on them.

Re:Obnoxious (1)

thanasakis (225405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600043)

Right, you mean that they should just sit down and watch as M$ will once again leverage their monopoly on the OS market and plaster MSN search all over the place on IE7, and the clueless 99% will just use that instead of yahoo or google.

Besides, if I read correctly, this applies only to IE users. Well, if someone is still using IE, I bet he will have to deal with far more many bad things than google toolbar. An extra search box won't make hell of difference.

Re:Obnoxious (2, Informative)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600520)

Actually, Google have done this before - DivX used to have Google Toolbar included, and now even Google Desktop is bundled with it.

Re:Obnoxious (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600678)

That's one reason why I use linux. Every software is in its own package. Every install is the same, with no wizards or checkboxes or registration or serial #s or expiry date (even some freeware I've downloaded for Windows has 'expired', requiring me to get the new version which may not behave the way I want).

TrolL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15599913)

shar3. *BSD is [goat.cx]

Thanks, but no thanks (5, Insightful)

kirun (658684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599947)

Although it's nice of them to helpfully include carefully selected sotware from premier partners (where the careful selection process is making sure it's the highest bidder), even if they promise to be really, really, good [adobe.com] and not create a bloated installer, perhaps they could get the message that if I'd wanted to install X, I would have. If I'm installing a player so you can make massive profits selling people the encoder, I shouldn't have to look at ads as well. The fact that they've had to create a FAQ telling people why they shouldn't be annoyed suggests they know this.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

tommertron (640180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600070)

perhaps they could get the message that if I'd wanted to install X, I would have. If I'm installing a player so you can make massive profits selling people the encoder, I shouldn't have to look at ads as well.

I've already started to give them the message by uninstalling Adobe reader and installing the FoxIt PDF Reader [foxitsoftware.com] . It's a small download, doesn't come bundled with anything, doesn't ask you to update EVERY time you open it, and has no splash screen. It just opens a PDF and displays it - really, really fast. I'm surprised no one else has linked to it in these comments yet.

So now, with Foxit, PDF Creator [sourceforge.net] , and GIMP [gimp.org] , I'm now pretty much Adobe free, so I don't have to worry about these stupid bundled apps and constant updates. Any OS alternatives to Shockwave?

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600129)

Well, while you are at it, there is something that bugs me to no end. I must be stupid, or something:

The bookmark feature of Adobe PDF reader is not a bookmark feature. It is an index. The same goes for foxit.

I /read/ reference PDFs of +600 pages, and there seems no way to add a bookmark. This seems to be a dead simple feature. I can't even flip through pages of a PDF wihtout loosing track of where I was.

Am I missing the obvious ? Are all the readers crippled, so one have to buy an "professional" version that have highly advanced feature like trivial bookmarks ?

I'm holding my breath... (3, Interesting)

Dasch (832632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15599992)

... until Google helps Mozilla further develop the SVG implementation for Firefox 3, and switches Google Maps over to SVG, as well. Imagine being able to show and hide selected layers -- roads, highways, burger joints, bicycle paths, etc. dynamically, while zooming smoothly? The satellite imagery could just be another layer onto which the others could be placed. GMap-powered bike rides, anyone?

Business necesity (3, Interesting)

javilon (99157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600014)

With all the cheating going on (scrappers, link farms, google bombing, etc...), maybe they push the bar so much because Google needs some extra information apart from links to build their pagerank results, and they get it from statistics gathered from googlebar users.

Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600028)

First quote I see in the article is from Laura DiDio, second is from Jeffrey Mann who is identified as a Gartner "analyst". Nowhere in this article do I see a quote from Google, Adobe or Macromedia. Anyone have a better source then this article?

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600110)

Anyone have a better source then this article?

I see you didn't install a google bar.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600202)

No, didn't install a Google bar, nor Shockwave, nor would I install either. Did visit Google, searched, read a few other articles and kept finding Laura DilDio quotes but no information from Google or Macromedia. Saw none on the Macromedia website either. Thus the question "did I miss something?" Most DilDio articles linked here are usually for their comedy or flamebait factor being as she is generally credited as being a Microsoft shill. Reading the articles from the search I got the feeling she was picking on the two companies basically saying they have joined up in a sure to be ineffective attempt at competing with Microsoft but hey they do have competitors. Leaving unsaid, "therefore they are not a monopoly". So, let me repeat, did I miss something?

By the way, did anyone install the new version of Shockwave from just a few days ago and get the Google Toolbar option? Would test it myself but don't want to waste the bandwith or disk space on something as useless to me as Shockwave.

Is it (5, Interesting)

Konster (252488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600031)

Is it time for an Open Source Search Engine?

We already have a *pretty* good free OS in the form of Linux, we already have *pretty* good apps for it. Why settle for Google or MSN Search or Yahoo search or whatever? I should think that a massively distributed OS search engine should do pretty well.

Forgive the semantics, focus on the idea.

Use a bit torrent style method of sharing bandwidth. Say one lonely PC can store 100mb of data, 15mb of which can be shared on the internet per day to save end-user costs x the number of Linux installs, prolly not a bad use for distributed computing and bandwidth sharing if I have ever heard of one.

Open Source Search Engine.

The time is now. :)

Re:Is it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600130)

FreeBSD is *prettier* :-P

Re:Is it (4, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600562)

I think that the FOSS Search Engine would die a quick death. Here's why: Part of making a search engine is obfuscating the algorithm used to produce results. Sure, we all know that be putting in key words, etc. in the meta-tags helps the spiders find and catalogue a site. However, there are measures in place to help reduce the amount of search engine spamming that occurs. This algorithm isn't 100% effective, but it does a pretty good job. Now, if you have that algorithm out in the open, the incentive for not only spammers, but those you honestly want higher results are going to leverage that knowledge to artificially boost their page ranking. This kind of defeats the purpose of 'organic' search results. This means that the crap ends up coming up at the top, translating into a dissatisfied customer.

Re:Is it (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600954)

Why can't search engines have user feedback... Click on a link that is obviously search engine spam, or that returns different results than what was fed to the spider? Click this link! If it gets enough 'no' votes it's thrown to the end of the list and has to work it's way back up. A little bit of tuning on how many 'no' votes a page has to get over any particular period of time, and it should be rare indeed for people to see search-spam.

Re:Is it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600581)

If it's such a good idea, go ahead and do it - if it's that much better, it'll make you quite a bit of money and/or prestige. However, the technical problem with dealing distributing it like that is the huge latency penalties you'll accrue in trying to decrease your bandwidth costs. Do you remember why Google captured the market? They had response times of under half a second even when people were on dialup.

Also, the big P2P programs back in the days after Napster had distributed search - to even get a decent result on your search took on average 10 seconds and only traveresed a few degrees of seperation.

None of this also deals with the needed math backing the algorithms (which isn't trivial).

Long story short, it seems that at least for now, the search field isn't going to have any large change in the players involved. Remember what it took for Firefox to grab some marketshare from IE? What are the odds the same thing happens with search.

Re:Is it (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600967)

Use a bit torrent style method of sharing bandwidth.

The latency for receiving any specific bit of data over these types of protocols is very high compared to what we're used to from the big name search engines.

Think of how (not) fast Coral Cache pages are... Sure, they're faster than the site you're trying to get to that went down 40 minutes ago, but they're damned slow compared to most average websites. Peer to Peer hosting of interactive content would have the same problems... and that's before you get into people being assholes and mucking with the data being returned by their machine for 'fun'.

Adobe as a Buyout Target for Google (1)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600032)

Adobe's Portable Document Format [wikipedia.org] has the potential to become the dominant player as a universal format meeting some of the requirements of an ODF. If Adobe keeps the entry price for generating pdfs low or nonexistant it could sell the sizzle, bells and whistles to make pdf a potential Windows Office killer.

Agencies of many governments already use pdf and academica widely uses pdfs. The push for an Open Document Format could help Adobe advance pdfs as an alternative amenable to all.

If Google is going to move from it's base as a search engine cum advertiser it could do well to look at Adobe as a buyout candidate. IIRC Adobe just recently nixed a deal with Microsoft to have Word docs be able to generate pdfs. Google may be partnering up with Adobe with the intention of investing heavily in the company while positioning itself against Microsoft.

Maybe MS will embrace F/OSS by underwritting and developing LaTeX [wikipedia.org] :)

Re:Adobe as a Buyout Target for Google (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600354)

Adobe's Portable Document Format has the potential to become the dominant player as a universal format

No. It's great for displaying and printing, but basically impossible to edit (you can edit images, and change a word here and there, or fill out forms, but that's about it). It's wonderful for publishing, but useless for authoring or revision. You could embed a bunch of XML in it, and rebuild the PDF part every time you changed the text, but in that case you might as well just use the XML and render that directly.

I wouldn't worry about IE7 (1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600037)

It stands to be completely unusable for ordinary users. It can't even save downloads to the desktop anymore.

Its a major annoyance (3, Insightful)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600068)

Its one more program you have to keep an eye out for when installing otherwise "free" software from adobe and etc. I put it in the adware/spyware category because if you dont actively pay attention to your next/next/next clicking during install you will get a shitty google toolbar slapped onto your browser which is really annoying...

I'd rather... (4, Funny)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600099)

No company adds stupid toolbars I'll never use to my machine.

Asking for trouble (1)

Mutatis Mutandis (921530) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600139)

After all the trouble Microsoft got in for bundling IE and Media Player with Windows, I would expect the people at Google (or Yahoo) to be a little smarter. Just how many million dollars do they actually want to get fined? I don't know about the USA, but the EU competition authorities do regard product bundling as an anti-competitive practice and illegal.

And frankly, Microsoft had at least a decent case that integrating a web browser and a media player in an OS makes sense, but bundling a search engine with a media player or a document viewer does not make any sense at all. Next they bundle them with the cornflakes.

Re:Asking for trouble (1)

magicchex (898936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600174)

This comes up everytime and the difference to note is that Microsoft IS a convicted monopolist while Google/Adobe/Yahoo/etc is not. The rules of the game are different.

Re:Asking for trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600691)

This comes up everytime and the difference to note is that Microsoft IS a convicted monopolist while Google/Adobe/Yahoo/etc is not. The rules of the game are different.
You might be thinking of American rules. In EU, which the parent specifically pointed out, bundling is considered anti-competitive in many instances, independent of the US monopoly definition/conviction. Earlier it was even considered unlawful bundling in many markets that you got an unrelated product as "gift" when subscribing to, or buying, a magazine (I believe this particular rule has changed in most markets).

Re:Asking for trouble (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600545)

As I understand the EU doesn't like when one company bundles its product A with its product B to promote B with the monopoly or near-monopoly status of A. In this case, it's two different companies.
It's like complaining that you get free magazines on your airplane flight. Or getting Wikipedia links posted related to the slashdot story. Even Adsense may be considered bundling because when you visit a website, you get a lot of related (or unrelated) links.

Correct me if i'm wrong... (0, Troll)

EMacAonghusa (929754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600157)

...but was this not in the news already last week?

hmm?? firefox (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600213)

firefox bundles google search and defaults to google (..and makes millions) and no one on ./ says anything

Re:hmm?? firefox (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600299)

Check with the people at /., maybe things are different there.

Only with IE? Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600223)

I don't need or want google on my machine. Since I never use IE I'll have the option of what's loaded on my computer. I recently subscribed to ATT's DSL. The only way I could set up my user name and password was to use their setup CD. Fortunately I had an old hard drive lying around that I used for the set up. ATT's setup CD installed IE6 and a bunch of other unneeded crap-ware. I discarded the hard drive after the setup and am now using the configuration that I choose rather than what ATT thinks I should have.

Adobe Acrobat: The Intervention (5, Funny)

rocjoe71 (545053) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600231)

Scene: Adobe Acrobat comes home after a hard day of making side-deals with other companies and binging on smaller applications. Once, Acrobat would have leapt up the stairs to reach his 2nd-floor apartment. Once upon a time this valued member of the community helped countless others read and share documents. But now, after years of bloat, Acrobat reaches his second floor apartment sweating and turning purple in the face. He wipes the sweat from his eyes and unlocks the door to his apartment to find all his friends there...

Acrobat: Wha... what are all you guyes doing here?

Photoshop: Acrobat, first we'd like to say the-- WE LOVE YOU... Everybody in this room loves you... And we're worried... about YOU.

Acrobat: What's going on?

Photshop: Acrobat, you have to stop this.

Acrobat: Stop what? What do you mean "stop"? Stop what?

Photoshop: Here, read this...

Acrobat: Humm... RrrRRrrrrRrr... Humm... Would you mind if I just call the office and make sure there's no updates before I read you this document? No? Ok, but there' could be a security issue.... Hummm... RrRrrRRrr... Hummm...

Foxit: Give me that! [Snatches document from Acrobat's hands] You know what this says, Adobe? It says you've put on weight... AGAIN. No one can remember the last time you were under 10Mb! And at this rate, you'll be pushing 30Mb by the end of the year!

Acrobat: Hey! Today's document rendering world is COMPLEX, I've just be putting on a little extra CODE to get the job done!

Foxit: Oh that is such bullshit Acrobat! I do nearly everything you do, and I'm still under 3Mb!

Photoshop: Acrobat, it's time you admitted you have a problem. For starters, you're going to have to stop haning around with those Google and Yahoo kids, they're TROUBLE.

Foxit: ...and here's some reading material on how to curb your bloat [drops large pile of documents in Acrobat's lap]

Photoshop: Foxit, oh god no! Acrobat hasn't been able to manage documents of that size for years, he's so out-of-shape! What have you done? Call 9-1-1!

End scene

600 x 768 web pages.. (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600287)

with all the damn tool bars trying to install themselves we're going to have to change our pages to be best viewed at 600 pixels in height.

google, msn, yahoo, viewport?, and others. Whats left for the webpage itself?

Google's Target Audience (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600311)

Google doesn't need to bundle the Google Toolbar for other browsers as well, because users of alternative browsers already know that Google is better than Yahoo or MSN, so they use Google. The computer illiterate, who use Internet Explorer because they don't even know that other browsers exist, are the target audience.

Say NO to Google Spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15600322)

Install NoScript [mozilla.org] to prevent Google from tracking which sites you visit and use Gimp [gimp.org] .

Look for Google alternative. Say NO to Google Spyware.

P.S. Don't think it's important? Just wait until Google gets really squeezed on earnings. Then you'll see what evil means.

Google should pay me a "significant amount" (4, Funny)

giafly (926567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600371)

... because know those $billions that Google makes? I think it's a zero-sum game because they load equivalent costs onto users and companies like mine -
  • User: "Your Website stopped working. It's a disaster".
  • Me: "Do you have Google toolbar installed?".
  • User: "No, I've not installed anything".
  • Me: "Because if you've installed Google toolbar, you need to click to allow popups".
  • User: "I just told you, I've not got Google toolbar. It's a bug in your program".
  • I waste hours trying to sort out the bug, without success.
  • User: "Hey, I fixed my problem, it was Google toolbar all along."

Re:Google should pay me a "significant amount" (1)

sabit666 (457634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600902)

If your application uses popup for core functionality, may be you should spend time reconsidering your design.

When will they ever understand that.... (2, Insightful)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600464)

....we DO NOT WANT bundled shit with the applications we intend to download. This is like someone giving you a side order of sh1t sandwich with your order at dinner. Complete asshattery that drives me nuts. I don't care how 'useful' it may be...let me decide if I want to install another app.

Competition (4, Interesting)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600489)

Microsoft looks like it could be getting into bed with Yahoo [slashdot.org] (to compete with Google apparently) whilst adding technology that mimics PDF functionality (XPS the XML Paper Standard [microsoft.com] (that competes with Adobe)) into the core of its next OS. Now Adobe gets into bed with the company that is giving Microsoft a headache over search and online applications. This could be a very clear case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend....

Hmmmm, This is either simply Google bidding the most for their tool bar to be bundled with some very widely used software, or the battle lines within the IT sector are getting a little more defined.

Personally I would prefer to be able to download and install an application that does whatever the job is I want doing; without installing any other "useful" application's - regardless of which "well selected" partner it comes from. However from a non technical perspective this may well become interesting.

Now to me it is starting to look as though Microsoft are feeling less in control of their ability to "lock" users to their software. This appears to be the reason for the plethora of new proprietary file formats that they can force into the main stream with Vista. It will be interesting to see if there is any fight against the formats or if the rest of the software industry will carry out its own embrace and extend exercise... After all this time round they are not providing "new" functionality but rather revamping existing standards and encroaching on other companies areas of expertise.

Google should add a decent dedicated document search feature that is purely an index of ODF, PDF, Rich/Plain Text etc.. and exclude XPS until it sees mainstream use at least, and offer links to - the original document - html version - adobe acrobat / open office. Im not certain if Adobe will or even should, but I would also like to see adobe and open office support the XPS standard for reading, if not necessarily for export.

What happened to.. (1, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600702)

.."Do No Evil"?


Bundling Google Toolbar with other products is evil in my book. I don't want Google's toolbar. I don't want Yahoo's toolbar. I don't want their crap on my machine.

Will this come bundled with Flash? (3, Informative)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600811)

It only says it will come bundles with Shockwave, not flash. Yet as I look at their site now, the Flash download page includes an option for the Yahoo toolbar, while the Shockwave download does not. I'm not sure if it asks you to download it later along, though. Please, news writers, do some reasearch about what you're talking about. The Flash and Shockwave players are two different things. The later, last time I checked, not available on Linux, and likely never will be.

Anti-Microsoft bias? (1)

The Barking Dog (599515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15600851)

Isn't that summary just a bit of anti-Microsoft bias? I see this as a move to outflank Yahoo, who bundles their toolbar with a wide variety of apps, not Microsoft, who only bundles with their own products. I'm sure the #1 search engine sees the #2 search engine as more of a threat than #3.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?