The app automatically installs Bing Visual Search and includes code to decrypt cookies saved in other browsers, Rivera said, and it also brings a “free” geolocation web API to the system.

The developer discovered “many” nasty tricks Microsoft integrated in Bing Wallpapers, which include trying to change the browser’s settings and set Edge as the default system browser. If the default browser isn’t Edge, the app will open the default browser after some time asking to enable the previously installed Microsoft Bing Search for Chrome extension.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Oh, free markets can solve these problems, but we don’t have a free market. These big companies don’t win because they’re the best, they win because they buy the marketshare bribe companies to only support their platforms.

    ISPs are a fantastic example here. Starting a new ISP is prohibitively expensive, not because of the physical materials you need, but the permits (which the ISPs lobbied for) and lawsuits w/ existing ISPs. In a proper free market, we’d have a lot more selection than we do.

    What you call “free market” I call “crony-capitalism.” In a free market, monopolies only stay monopolies if they continue to be better than the alternatives. In a crony-capitalist market, monopolies continue if they can make enough barriers to prevent competition.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      These big companies don’t win because they’re the best, they win because they buy the marketshare bribe companies to only support their platforms.

      You’re just describing free market capitalism.

      The companies are free to do what they want without government telling them they can’t do XYZ.

      In a free market, monopolies only stay monopolies if they continue to be better than the alternatives.

      I disagree, because like you say, they can just use their position to harm competitors.

      In a crony-capitalist market, monopolies continue if they can make enough barriers to prevent competition.

      A crony-capitalist market is just the natural end result of free market capitalism.

      Only by regulating the market and not having companies be free to do whatever they want can you have healthy competition and companies that benefit people.

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I disagree. Monopolies are the end state of free market capitalism, and yes the economic system we experience in north America isn’t true capitalism either.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I really disagree, but we haven’t seen anything approaching a truly free market for 100 years or so, so it’s really hard to say.

        That said, one of the core functions of government is to break up monopolies to keep the market free.

        • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I think by virtue of the government breaking up monopolies, it cannot be a free market. I do believe the government should make sure that corporations shouldn’t be monopolies however.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            48 minutes ago

            Maybe if we’re talking in absolutes, but most of the problems I see in our current market are due to cronyism. People generally hate Comcast (or local cable company of choice) and CenturyLink (or local DSL company of choice), yet it’s incredibly hard to start an ISP due to local regulations and protectionism. Many people don’t like Windows, yet they’re “required” for many computing tasks due to agreements with others in the industry.

            Price fixing and other types of collusion go against the principle of a free market, and if that goes on unchecked, I think it’s appropriate for a government entity to step in. However, if a company is merely the preferred provider of a good or service and they’re not colluding or otherwise preventing competition, there’s no reason for a government entity to step in. So someone like Comcast should probably be broken up, but someone like Valve should not. Not all “monopolies” should be broken up, only the ones violating the law.

            • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 minutes ago

              The issues with google and windows that you are pointing out are the result of corporate welfare and capitalism without regulation. It’s incredibly expensive to start an isp yes. So it should be a nationalized service. MS got to where it was because they buy up competition, and there wasn’t anyone who stepping in earlier to stop it.