[morelinks]

How would MSFT react if Google injected a “GOOGLE DOCS IS FREE AND BETTER!” banner on Microsoft365 pages loaded in Chrome? Disgusting tactic.

[Spivak]

Their reaction: "Oh damn, that's good idea, let me call some PMs."

[sebzim4500]

Google does not have clean hands here, they paid to have chrome bundled with all kinds of scummy (and not so scummy) software and made it really difficult not to accidentally install.

[kibwen]

This is something a lot of people forget. Among tech folks the narrative was always "Chrome won because it was faster", but in the real world most people got Chrome for the first time because they installed a Java or Flash update and Google paid for Chrome to automatically be installed and instantly set itself as the default browser (this is literally how I got Chrome installed for the first time, against my will, via a Flash update).

[Brendinooo]

Don't call anyone a weenie though, that'll get you in antitrust trouble for sure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/15/technology/microsoft-inve...

[TremendousJudge]

the way they inject "CHROME IS BETTER" when you visit google.com?

[wvenable]

Are you saying someone shouldn't be able to put whatever they want on their own website? Even gasp market their own products on their own website?

[Dylan16807]

Yes. I am saying that. Because it's an abuse of a monopolistic position.

[wvenable]

How so?

[thfuran]

No, not like that. That's Google's site.

[Arainach]

That's not injected. That's rendered by Google on the sites they control.

[mrits]

The main issue here isn't propaganda.

[navigate8310]

How can they inject since MITM is impossible when the site is served via a TLS cert?

[phoe-krk]

TLS is worthless if they control the software that is rendering the website after it's decrypted. And, well, they do control Edge.

[bogwog]

Because Google owns the browser and can render whatever they want onto your screen.