logo RobMensching.com LLC

RobMensching.com /Blog because setup isn't just xcopy

Google Chrome... updates without asking.

# by Rob Mensching on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:53 PM

tags: ,

Last time I took apart the Google Chrome setup experience and came away disappointed that the Google Updater got left behind. This morning the Google Updater had another surprise. Well, it isn't so much a surprise as it is a departure from the norm and I'm curious what you all think about it.

 

The background.

The story actually starts a few days ago when there was a discussion on some mailing lists about the easiest way to crash Google Chrome. All you had to do was type ":%" into the address bar and the whole thing would blow up. However, this morning someone noted that the crash no longer happened but was baffled since nothing had changed. It turned out that Google Chrome had been updated silently.

The details.

It turned out that ZDNet Australia had already run down the story that included a couple nice quotes from a Google representative:

Google knows best

Without a manual check, Chrome will update itself automatically, Google said. "Google Chrome will automatically checks for updates approximately every five hours. If an update is available, it will be downloaded and applied at the next browser restart," Google said.

Google believes it's best if Chrome applies security updates not only without a description of what's changing, but also without an opportunity for users to decide whether to accept the patch.

"Users do not get a notification when they are updated ... When there are security fixes, it's crucial that we update our users as quickly as possible in order to keep them safe. Thus, it's important for us to not require user intervention," the company said in a statement.

My reflection.

Clearly fixing any security issues in the browser is paramount. But does the need for distributing security updates and bug fixes trump the user control over the software? The Google Chrome EULA grants Google the right to do just that. In fact, the update clause has its own top level number.  Number 12:

12. Software updates

12.1 The Software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the Services.

But just because Google says, in an electronic document that most users never read, that they may push new software to your computer does that mean they should do so without informing the user?

I can tell you that no Microsoft legal representative I've talked with has ever allowed such a clause in a Microsoft product. By default, the user must always be notified that an update is available and/or required. The user must also accept the update before it can be applied. If the user chooses not to accept a required update then the product may choose not start but a silent update is never an option.

But I've argued (unsuccessfully) that updates should be automatic and silent by default. Of course, users should be provided the option to opt-out and require notification/approval of updates. And, of course, group policy should be respected so that businesses can manage their desktops.

Personally, I think that Google has gone a bit too far requiring silent and automatic updates. I think their current outlook will slow their adoption in enterprises (if that was even a goal for Google Chrome). Time will tell if anyone really complains about the updates. My prediction is there won't be unless Google silently updates to a bad/broken behavior.

My question.

So, what do you think about this automatic and silent update behavior?

 

84 Comments

Comment by Koby Kahane on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:02 AM

If only IE had bothered to upgrade itself as aggressively, the Web wouldn't be held back and taken hostage by the broken legacy of IE6 and IE5.5, whose users are not savvy enough to confirm updates.

Comment by Kevin on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:29 AM

If you are selling software to the enterprise market you have to deal with the ones with the checkbook; IT. If you are selling eyeballs to advertisers, that that is Google's business model, you can go around the IT and be the IT department to everyone, in every enterprise. When offered to individuals, not IT, auto updates which rarely breaks something for five hours will win over something that asks keeps asking if they are going to be ok with the update. They don't know. When would you say no?

Undo is much more valuble. If what worked yesterday is broken now, show my what changed and let me undo until I'm fixed. The next auto update may be better, if not I'll undo that too.

Comment by Rik Hemsley on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:44 AM

I think it's great. What are the arguments against it?

Comment by Cronan on Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:46 AM

This application will never be permitted in a responsible corporate environment. I'm a developer at a hedge fund, and environment changes need to be tested against in-house applications before roll-out.

Comment by Lex Y Li on Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:56 AM

In fact, it is just your post that let me know my Chrome installation is already upgraded. OMG, Google really does something I want (but may not be what enterprises want).

Yes, I feel really good unless Google delivers me a broken Chrome some day. :)

Comment by Stefan Krueger on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:32 AM

While I wish that users would keep their software up to date to avoid their computer becoming part of a bot net, I think the user should be in control, i.e. notified and have a chance to decline an update. This is even more important with the recent trend to ship additional products like browser toolbars etc. with security updates.

BTW there's one exception at Microsoft: the Windows Update client automatically updates itself without asking the user even if that option is selected (http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx)

Comment by Magnus Mårtensson on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:42 AM

I don't like anything to be installed silently on my machine!

Now I see the true strategy behind this since (if you click into my post on this matter) Chrome installs outside of the Program Files folder! This is to avaid the UAC feature and enable silent updates without running as admin! This is DANGEROUS!

(Hey your blog looks just like mine!)

Cheers,

/Magnus

Comment by Matt Lacey on Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:22 AM

Part of me wants to be able to turn this off, but it has one key benefit that hasn't been mentioned so far (assuming that new versions get pushed to EVERYONE at once).

There's only ever one version! it's called current!

Development gets easier, for Google. (they only ever have to work on one version at a time)
Development gets easier, for developers creating web sites (no need to detect and account for browser version)
Support is easier. (You never have to ask what version someone is using, just get them to reboot and you will know.)

Imagine if there was (and only ever had been) a single (auto self updating) version of IE. How much time and effort would that have saved you? the world?

Comment by Neslekkim on Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:36 AM

I like this, it is way better than the stupid Windows Defender and Outlooks AntiSpam rules that I have to choose to install..
(That is, I choose to let windows update download its things, but I want to select what an when to install, but defender things, and antispam updates, no way, I want those to go in un-noticed, just as my anitvirus software updates itself..)


Comment by Erv on Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:14 AM

I may be a little grouchy this morning, but I actually don't hate this. A large contributing factor to the mess that exists with bot networks, trojans, etc is that users apparently can't be trusted to update their machines promptly. If they can't be trusted to do it themselves, then do it for them (and make it painless).

Comment by Martin on Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:45 AM

My opinion: Never do automatic, silent updates without asking the user. Ask right upon first startup, explain the available options and recommend automatic updates. That let's the user in control. Doing it silently and not letting the user know is not trustworthy.

Comment by Håkan reis on Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:18 AM

At least I think that this is dangerous way to go. Placing Chrome outside the normal application shields and making it writable to anything that runs in user mode is irresponsible.

To silent update without first informing about it, I would call irresponsible as well.

However, its all things together that worries me. They circumvent safeguards that MS sets up and by doing so the open up parts of the system for attacks.

Comment by Andreas Warberg on Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:24 AM

I think automatic and silent updates are the way to go. If Google starts pushing ads, other products etc. (which I don't think they will) I'm out of here.

I received a warning from Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) that chrome.exe had changed since last time I ran it.

I hadn't received any notifications from chrome so I wondered about it and eventually found your description - thanks! Great info on the install procedure too.

Btw. SEP is not on friendly terms with Google Chrome. SEP will block a system call from chrome.exe, causing a crash see eg. http://sonicko.com/online-marketing/google-chrome-crashes-and-burns/.

Comment by Grover Franklin Casey on Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:45 AM

If one of the premis for chrome is to break away from microsofts great hold then Why do they do the same as microsoft in the area of support only for xp or vista & linux . if they were realy interested in that! they would scurry along and come up with a patch for ALL windows users .

Comment by Martino Sabia on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:31 PM

Well, I think that automatic updates are not evil per se. But I agree with rob saying that it have to be an opt-in option to user.

If Google, or anybody else, wants to have only 1 current version of it's software it can be without silent auto updates. It's sufficient that a not opt-in installation block himself on opening when a new update is available, saying that to use the software you've to update it first.

It's radical but it's clear and clean.

If a user opted-in the auto update, the software have to notify the user that an update occurred and let user know what the update is all about.

If really Google wants to not be evil, I think that this kind of behavior begins to brake this tagline...

BTW i continue to use it ;) [it's way more fast on my machine that others]

Comment by Robert on Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:02 PM

I was surprised to see keyboard shortcuts for Yahoo mail suddenly working. Initially they were not. Looked around for 'Get updates automatically' setting and could not find one! All I can say is thank god Adobe Acrobat and Apple Quicktime don't do this or we will go crazy everytime we use these software.

Comment by Ross Bradbury on Friday, September 12, 2008 6:18 AM

While I don't have an opinion that covers all software, it makes sense to me that Google would automatically update their own web browser. The web browser is for viewing web pages, and how often do you get to prevent a web page from updating?

True, some sites offer the previous version for a while, or a preview of the next version, but you still can't run an arbitrarily old version.

Just didn't see this viewpoint mentioned yet.

Comment by Erik G. on Friday, September 12, 2008 12:48 PM

Don't mean to pick on your new adventures or anything, but I see similar functionality in Live Mesh. When I run Live Mesh, I'm given an option to update, but no clear option to turn off update checks or sticking to a particular version which I originally downloaded.

What’s the point of providing users with an option to update without providing them all the details and information required to judge for themselves whether or not it’s in their best interest?

Comment by jhayes on Friday, September 12, 2008 3:25 PM

As someone else said, Chrome is built for home users, not for corporate use, at least for now. So there is some merit to silent updates. As an admin, I don't like things happening on my machine that I don't know about, so, I killed the googleupdate.exe and removed it from the autorun list. Problem solved.

Though I really like Chrome, I would never allow it's use in my environment in it's current state. However, since it's open-source, if some corp DID want to use it, it could easily be customized for any environment.

So, like many things, it depends on your needs.

Comment by David on Monday, September 15, 2008 9:37 AM

Call me old fashioned ... I don't like my systems doing anything that changes the environment without asking me first.

I work in a variety of environments [development / testing & at customer sites] and NONE of them would allow an app like this in to their environments.

Comment by Philip on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:26 AM

I think its sneaky, invasive, and downright devious! BUUUTT... they are completely within their rights to do so. The purpose of a EULA is to bar against being sued later when a user says "hey, you can't do that". Then Google would say "listen, it says right here in regular 12 point font that we would do it, and you clicked this little box indicating that you're ok with that".

I'm not saying its right, but its allowed.

Comment by Jack on Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:29 AM

I'm against any kind of sneaky activity. An option to disable this automatic update should had been given, at least.

Comment by Robin on Friday, September 19, 2008 3:21 AM

Provided there is an option to switch to prompting first behaviour if you want that, then I'm fine with it as a default.

At some point Google will put out a buggy update and everyone will howl. Also some users will have a dilemma if they haven't restarted their browser by then....

Comment by Bryan on Friday, September 19, 2008 12:46 PM

@Magnus Mårtensson:

This behavior isn't dangerous because it's a per-user installation. The application installs to a location that doesn't require admin privileges, so there's no elevation to be had.

Even if a virus or something happened to get in via this vector, it doesn't have permissions to do anything meaningful (linux argument), so the concern is void.

Comment by Mike on Friday, September 19, 2008 2:43 PM

Like Magnus said, I don't allow anything to be installed silently on my machine, except virus definitions.

It's debatable whether or not one-sided EULA's are even legal (check the late Ed Foster's Gripelog), buuut, I let my firewall decide what gets through & what doesn't. I only allow Chrome to update when I know there's an actual update. Otherwise, the installer is blocked.

And

Comment by Dan Roberts on Saturday, September 20, 2008 8:28 AM

From what I read some like the Automatic Update, others (like me) don't. A simple solution would be to allow the user to choose, we all like to have a choice right?

I would really prefer to know exactly is being downloaded and installed onto my own, rather precious PC. I also hate the fact that there is a Google Update service doing its own thing in the background of Windows taking away my choices and control of my own computer not to mention using resources and bandwidth.

Comment by katy on Monday, September 22, 2008 8:13 AM

One aspect of Google Chrome is the speed. It is faster than Firefox 3.0 and about 6 times faster than IE with our application (http://www.taskwriter.com). See the graphs: http://www.taskwriter.com/blog/how-good-chrome-really-is.

Comment by TaranQ on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:14 AM

Why not, don't have any problem with it.

Comment by Sushobhan Sen on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:11 PM

Personally, I trust Google a lot more than MS, so I don't find it impossible to allow Chrome to add some improvs without asking. However, if its a big update, going into a few hundred KBs or even MBs, I would like to be informed.

Comment by Dale Davies on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Hmm. If it was from a company other than Google then Chrome would be off my pc as soon as I discovered Google Updater running.

The question is, how much do you trust Google?

Comment by Jason on Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:45 AM

Actually, I think its great, especially for those of us who are not knowledgeable enough to decide when to accept an update or not. Perhaps an "un do" option may be in order in case it is absolutely needed.

Comment by Brandon on Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:17 AM

Even disabling the service on startup does not keep Chrome from launching google updater. With services disabled and the updater not even in any windows startup folders it still launches itself every couple hours and stays in memory unless you end the task each time. That says spyware to me, not that I suspect google of doing anything actually harmful to my PC; but, I like controlling which programs are in use when, especially when it throws up a firewall alert as it tries to connect to the internet and what happens if you don't allow the communication? it launches itself again, and again stacking google update programs in your memory until it is either allowed or each process is killed. No option to switch behavior that I can find.

Comment by Christopher on Monday, September 29, 2008 12:02 PM

As long as updates don't include additional software that was never requested and Google sticks to security and chrome improvements, there's no problem.

Comment by Dhiraj Kumar Bharali on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:05 AM

I just think that Google Chrome is the best browser and people should stop arguing about it.

Comment by R Davoes on Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:59 AM

The user actually does have a choice .. they can install and use it or uninstall and not use it. It is 'free' software after all, and their are lots of other options to choose from.

Comment by Joseph O gardner on Friday, October 31, 2008 8:52 AM

no it doesn't or the update is as bad as the original

Comment by Psymiley on Saturday, November 1, 2008 10:15 AM

One of the in-house apps of my workplace works under this method - everytime someone runs the program, the latest version appears.
And this has worked perfectly for the past 10 years.

And with hundreds of instances of the app at any one time, it's important that everything works perfectly. If something is wrong, an update can be rolled out in minutes, allowing anyone needing the newer version to simply run another instance.

It's primarily down to code discipline. From obvious things like coding properly, debugging and comments. Comments make the world go round! Comment the faulty code, explain why and the changes made. That way you can a) revert if theres a problem, b) prevent similar errors and c) keep the other programmers in the loop incase they notice patterns with data feeds, etc.

I'd hazard Google are already pretty up-to-scratch with running-updates for inhouse systems. Having hundreds (thousands?) of servers crunching away, any updates will need to happen with virtually no intervention.
Maybe more experienced than Microsoft in this field?

Comment by Tim on Saturday, November 8, 2008 3:01 AM

WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Its not just an upgrade silly! its an upload! Yes Google is supplying all your activities to the US government, they have a database, with all of you featuring in it, they have an image of your profile if you use a web cam, your eyes from your photos, your voice from your IM chat and all linked to your IP address.

When you hear that crunching noise since your chrome install, your hard disk is actually being scanned, you will notice that this doesn't show on you CPU usage, and you don't notice the silent upload which takes place while you are browsing the web.

People should write to their MP's and demand an explanation for your privacy theft, your government knows it's happening but won't make a move until you do.

It won't be long until you are arrested for something that you didn't do because someone else put something on your pc or borrowed your IP address.

Comment by Reasamp on Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:06 PM

For most people, yes, i know how it is to provide them support, and auto-update is great. But I am tech-savvy, and I want to be in control of my own macine.

Moreover, I live in a country where 8KB/s internet connections are common, and internet is expensive (often not 24hrs cable but dialup over phone). So an update is *never* silent for us. Even if the internet is on 24 hours, you definitely notice the internet pathetically slowing down if a background process is downloading something that big.

I download at 2mins/MB, and internet connection is a precious resource that I need to be in control of.

Comment by Manu on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:16 AM

I still remember, "Don't be Evil".

Imagine if Microsoft (the big bad wolf) does this at the moment. I'm betting all my money that people all over the net will curse and swear at Microsoft, hoping that it'll die a terrible death.

But, hey, it's Google, the good guy, remember? That makes it okay....... I guess :)

Comment by Dave on Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:18 AM

@Tim, you might want to see a psych. You may have some issues. If you have doubts about what Chrome is doing, download the source and see for yourself...

http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved

Comment by gary on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:58 PM

you know, thats what really draws me to google chrome, because it's so light weight and no fuss, it's purely web-browsing experience. now if they could just work on all the bugs...

Comment by Volter on Thursday, January 1, 2009 1:09 AM

I'd like to take a moment to remind you all that if there's an option to opt-out of updates, then many people will opt-out for no reason other than superstition and paranoia. This will lead to chrome's user reviews being skewed by people who cannot get an unsupported version to run correctly. Consider how many people rant about IE being unstable and insecure, and ask yourself, how many of those are actually patched and up-to-date? How many of the people who make snide remarks about linux have used it in the last 5 years?

If the same type of thing is allowed here with chrome, then many people will have bad things to say about chrome simply because they're refusing to patch, and having the typical problems that come with not patching.

And, to sum up a question that the OP made, i'd like to point out the invalidity of the question.

"But just because Google says, in an electronic document that most users never read, that they may push new software to your computer does that mean they should do so without informing the user?"

NO, they shouldn't do it without informing the user, but they DID inform the user, upon installing the software, in the EULA that they were sure to provide, and some users were too lazy to read.

But YES, putting it in the EULA in plain text gives them the right to do all of this, it's a legal agreement, and just because people are too lazy to read them doesn't mean that it's shady behavior.

Imagine for a moment, if you turned in a resume` for a job, and the employer hired you without reading it, and then later tried to reprimand you because you didn't have training on the standard machinery for the trade. If you didn't lie in your resume`, and the employer didn't bother reading it, then did you lie/scam?

Would it be fair for the employer to reprimand you?

In summary, all i have to say is, Seriously? google rolls out this nice new peice of software, and doesn't lie to us like some companies have been known to do, and all you can do is complain about how you can't use unstable/unsupported/insecure versions?

wake up, see what google's doing here, and if you don't like it, don't use it, just be glad they aren't lying to us.


Comment by Adam P on Thursday, January 8, 2009 11:40 AM

Wow. I really didn't expect such negative responses for the updater.

I have to say that I absolutely love it. For example, the bookmark bar is something I use a lot. One update made it so the bar disappeared after you loaded a website in the tab. This annoyed me a little but it must have annoyed a lot of other people because another update put it back to the old way. The fact was I didn't have to touch a single button and the problem sorted itself out. Magic!

In contrast to this, I love iTunes but I hate updating the software. Updates happen infrequently but frequently enough to annoy. I open the program to listen to music, get an update message, click yes, wait for the update to download and install (which takes time), wait to restart iTunes, then I can finally listen to music. It's not the worst thing in the world but it's not exactly fun either.

The fact is Chrome simply works. I spend less time waiting for updates to download and more time just browsing the web. Isn't that a step in the right direction?

Comment by Rob Loach on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:09 PM

Without forced updates, you end up with crap like Internet Explorer 5 and 6.

Comment by liozzi on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:05 PM

I updated Google Earth and it installed Chrome without asking. Google is becoming too spammy.

Comment by Manish Mittal on Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:00 PM

Silent software upgrades are certainly welcome, especially in non-commercial setting. I don't think most users understand the bug-fix or update enough to make a call anyway. It's in Google's interest to make sure they don't breach privacy in anyway and beyond that its adding value. Just because Microsoft does it does not make it a requirement.

Comment by user on Monday, February 16, 2009 4:16 AM

I started chrome and zonealarm told me it had "changed". I did not approve a "change". It has been blocked from any network contact. Done.

Comment by Web girl on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:53 PM

If you subscribe to a mailing lists the (if it's reputable) you opt in, so you are choosing to commit to receiving downloads. So if you want anything else that requires regular downloads, you should also have that option. Like many many people around the world I'm on a limited monthly download, not very fast, broadband plan, and I need to count every megabyte (yes megabyte, not even gigs). Chrome doesn't even have the courtesy to tell you the size of the downloads you are forced to receive. So sadly, as soon as I realised what it was doing, I uninstalled it.

Comment by Corbey on Monday, March 30, 2009 7:12 PM

Fortunately I have a security agent on my PC that blocks these kinds of silent upgrades. I value Chrome for one particular feature, which may actually be a bug, and I don't want Google taking it away with an "upgrade." For everything else I use Firefox.

Comment by ej- on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:22 AM

On WinXP googleupdate is in Sheduled Tasks, runs when PC idles for 10 min. Disabling it is no problem, if you have to.

Comment by Cowplater on Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:29 AM

My virus software picked up on the fact that the Chrome binary had changed. Without any notification of the update how do I know if the change is a genuine one or as a result of a malicious act?

Comment by The Beerslayer on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:38 PM

I agree with those who don't want some unknown (or even some known) process deciding what to download over the Internet and when. I understand that some folks like automatic updaters and I'm fine with having that as an option, but it needs to be something that I can disable or the software will never be installed on my computer.

Not everybody has broadband. My dial-up connection gives me maybe 5kbit/sec and bandwidth is very precious to me. If Google decides to start downloading a 13MB update in the background, believe me, I will notice. If I have no other way to gain control over the process, I will force-quit the application and uninstall it immediately. As someone remarked earlier, there are no silent downloads on a low-bandwidth connection.

Comment by BM on Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:02 AM

I am greatly in favor of automatic updating, and I don't think it should even be an option in standard browsers.

The internet is about interconnectivity. When some people have an outdated or vulnerable browser, it slows the development of innovative websites for everyone. Moreover, it also increases the risk of everyone catching viruses because vulnerable browsers can be exploited to attack other websites and networks. By allowing quick, automated updates, Google can keep the internet progressing and help reduce the risk of viruses and hackers.

I understand what Beerslayer says about dialup users. However, Chrome updates are usually very small and nowhere near 13MB in size. I understand what others have said about secure corporate environments. I'm sure managed IT environments could find a way to work around the automatic updates just like they find ways to work around other features they don't like. (In fact, I know there are ways to modify Chrome's pref file to change this update.)

I've found Chrome to have the least intrusive update system of any software I've other used. It just works, period. I don't need to deal with nagging dialog boxes, I don't need to restart my computer, I don't need to decide whether a particular update is worth it... In fact, I don't even notice when an update is happening. That sort of seamlessness is the way computers should work. Please, Google, don't change a thing!

Comment by Sioc on Monday, August 31, 2009 8:55 AM

As a question of principle, I don't like not to have the control over what goes in and out of my computers.

Moreover upgrading something that works flawlessly may only cause a nonzero probability of something not working flawlessly anymore.

That's the reason why I disable the automatic update feature of Chrome. Otherwise, Chrome is a truly fantastic browser.

Comment by Bdubs on Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:48 PM

I was doing some fast paced, aggressive browsing (in a hurry type opening 10 windows at once to an already crowded 25+ open tabs) and google crashed or I crashed google several times.
Unlike Firefox I wasn't able to get (after the crashes) my windows to open back up. So i had to go extensively digging through the history and wasted a lot of time getting going again.

I began to wonder if i needed updates or why (all of the sudden google was crashing so much on me... I guess it's their tool and they just let us play with it. I'd like the option to decide. I LOVE firefox 3.5, but I liked the workings of firefox version's 1 - 2 especially their bookmarking and longer tab designs far more than the current firefox. If it weren't for security vulnerabilities i'd far prefer to use it.
Take IE6 to IE 7 & 8. I lost the ability to hover over a picture and snag it without having to right click / which is sometimes disabled on some sights with code so then I have to get all criminal and find a hack around it. I mean sometimes the old products just work better. I'm behind (3) firewalls of sorts and a robust AV/Malware protection setup. If I want to use an older "riskier" browser who cares?

If they want to update the unknowing, hazardous users out there automatically that's fine, but I'd like a heads up.
It may be a finite or useless point to argue, but google sometimes acts more imperialistic than M$. And while at heart I LOVE google. I have a growing distrust for all their data gathering and heavy handedness. I'll take them 3:1 over the EMPIRE everyday, but lets just hope LUKE doesn't grow up to take over the world with HAN & LEAH> while we mop up the remains of the declining/crumbling empire!!
=OR= at least let me know so I can move over to or at least open my windows up in Firefox as a back up so I don't keep losing my work while you tweak something in the background google.

Comment by AnonymousM on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:53 AM

Thanks to the silent update, I no longer have access to the recent bookmark bar which was a feature I used very often. I can agree to silently getting security updates, but functional changes should still get user approval. Besides, I don't have endless diskspace, I should only have things installed when I know I have the space to do it.

Comment by Alex on Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:25 AM

I demand that I know what software is doing on my machine. For that reason alone, Chrome is gone, and I will return to Firefox as my only browser. I certainly enjoyed Chrome and recently promoted it to my default browser, but when the "New Tab Page" changed without my knowledge or permission from something I actually switched for... to something less useful to me, it became clear that Chrome is not a tool I can use, but a tool for Google to use me. Google, I wish you luck, but I am not interested in any software that I have no control over. Usually, we call those things viruses, trojans, or other nasty names.

Comment by Venkateswara Rao on Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:16 PM

I agree, this is really great unless there is no broken updates. But I am really surprising about the changes made to the browser silently("how the users know certain feature added to browser, which he indeed required such one").

Comment by Armon on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:33 AM

I think its lame if it updates in the background without asking first. Lets say Im playing Multiplayer game over the internet, and think that Im playing a clan war.. Well, if durning that clan war the chrome starts to update without any considering that the connection is already in use by anyway, it will cause my game to lagg and annoy so much that I could actually lag out. And btw, Im using chrome while Im typing this. Chrome is great for those who want faster browser with basic things. But for me.. well, I just see way too many GOOGLE advertisement and other ADs too than F-Fox with AD-Block

Comment by Matthew on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:46 PM

I was really disappointed to notice just now a little window in the bottom right of my screen announcing that Chrome has updated itself. At first, I thought it was a normal auto-update detection, despite the fact that I see no way to configure Chrome to check for updates like most software. To my horror, it said it had _already installed_ the update. So, not only did it assume I wanted an automatic update check, it went further and assumed I wanted to use my Internet bandwidth to download it. Google and their hype machine can go to hell. Chrome's leaving my PC immediately.

FireFox was always my main browser anyway. I only had Chrome installed to check compatibility when I was doing some web development. Well, like I said, screw Google. If someone isn't using FireFox, IE, or Opera then I don't care about them anymore.

Comment by Bill Shirley on Monday, December 28, 2009 6:19 PM

The argument against it: I don't use Chrome for weeks, but it takes over my system several times a day (often) to tweak itself. Why can't it wait until I launch the application? I'm using MY system for other things!

I should be able to opt out of the group collective update as well.

I'll be deleting Chrome soon, I didn't see any magical speed improvements either.

Comment by mark on Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:29 PM

There's no such feature for Linux :) Have fun letting MS/Apple/Google control your computer.

Comment by Bob on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:29 AM

Rob, Matthew and anyone in between that I didn't read:
Seen any Black Helicopters lately?
“Paranoia runs deep, into your life it will creep…”

Comment by Patareco on Sunday, February 7, 2010 12:28 PM

I have to say this is one of the best features in google chrome, and I do hope every browser adopts this in very near future. If this was the standard in all browsers we wouldn't have to wait years for things like CSS3 and HTML5 to become standards, everyone would have an updated browser allowing us to take advantage of these awesome features, that currently take forever to be a mainstream adoption, instantly.
Just my 0.02$ as a web developer!

Comment by nick on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:01 PM

Well, today the Google updated itself and iniciated a windows restart (it's clear to me from the event logs). Without no alerts! My unsaved work for previous 5-10 minutes are gone. So I'm just changing to firefox until they fix this very annoying behavior...

Comment by Dwight Stegall on Monday, March 1, 2010 2:59 PM

You have to be a complete idiot not to enjoy auto-updating. Why do it the hard way like you have to do with the other browsers?

Comment by Unicorn250 on Monday, March 15, 2010 7:37 AM

I have declined to use anything Google, since the installation of any of their products require you to agree to auto update. I do not want any software company having unrestricted access to anything on my computer anytime it chooses. You may find it convenient now, but mark my words, you will regret it someday.
And, no, Mr. Stegall, you are not an idiot for not enjoying auto updating. You are an idiot for saying that someone else is an idiot for not agreeing with you.

Comment by Kirk Davis on Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:21 AM

The updates should be automatic if the user selects that option. However, the automatic updates should be done when available, not when Chrome is restarted. I leave my machines on all the time, only rebooting when necessary. Therefore, I can go several weeks without getting an update. The update should alert the user to close and restart Chrome for the installation to proceed.

Comment by bob on Friday, April 23, 2010 1:11 PM

While I have a personal Gmail address, and have started to use Chrome extensively long after its initial debut, I have to say the company does some pretty shady things with my information and they make the assumption that their choice to force feed me - their corporate bullshit with a small rubber hose as you find me incompetent to think for myself - a bit off putting, unethical and disturbing, no matter what the small print says.

Google makes millions for a reason, and I can't say its because they're always being forthright with their practices. Free browser?

No, thats Firefox - a browser I trust.

Granted, I really like Chrome. Is it enough for me to stop using Chrome? If I really knew what Google knew about me, I'd probably never use the internet again. Will I stop using Google Chrome? Well, that would then imply I care deeply about my online rights - but since I really don't know what they are, and I can't even delete an old MySpace page - I think it makes little difference. They're out to collect info and make money.

In other words, you're damn right I want a choice. It gives me the illusion of control.

Comment by anonymousmagic on Saturday, September 11, 2010 1:45 AM

Automatic updates are fine as long as the changes really are security patches. Google Chrome also applies silent patching to aesthetic changes that should really be under the user's control.

Also, Windows is very bad with automated updates. I almost had my system crash once because apparently, Microsoft doesn't check you have the required harddrive space before applying an automated update... that's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen them do.

Comment by wwvvw on Friday, December 17, 2010 5:51 AM

maybe chrome should have let the user the option to choose the components they wish to update, or at least inform it's users of what is being updated before applying the update on it's own. (i was updated to a beta of chrome silently)

how i wish there are more active developments on other chrome derivatives, i just want what chrome offers, minus the google brand name.

Comment by j on Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:32 PM

please update me if disabling startup googleupdate and the google upadte service aren't enough to stop this.

Comment by The Masked Commenter on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 9:50 PM

I won't use Chrome because of the automatic updates. I use Firefox and had it set to automatic. When it updated from Version 2 to 3 I had all sorts of problems. The only fix was to uninstall and reinstall version 2 until a point in time when 3 was fixed. The used should always have control. Google will get a bad reputation if this continues

Comment by WantsTheComplainingToEnd on Monday, January 31, 2011 1:23 PM

Yes for some people auto-update is bad especially to gamers you do have the option to shut it down and chrome tells you how to do it directly from their website.

It's funny how people never spend the time to look for such things and prefer to complain first.

For those that are over protective should use the link to get peace of mind don't curse the program spend the time to realize there are always ways to disable things like this and for gamers its nice because then you can control when it updates.

For people that don't have that much bandwidth can disable it to save them but it doesn't use all that much but this is for them too.

There are plenty of other people that this link will help look at it before thinking that "OH NO SILENT UPDATE BAN FROM PC".

here is the link to how to shut off auto-update you can still update it when needed just by opening up the "About Google Chrome" button under the menu.

http://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-updates

(don't know if linking is allowed but its needed)

Comment by Bill Kelly on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 6:30 AM

When Google buys me a computer then they can expect some say in what goes on inside it. I have un-installed Chrome, (I know I can disable auto-update via registry, hosts or other tricks). It's RUDE!

Comment by Raphael on Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:49 PM

Imagine how many billions of dollars would have been saved, how many stress related diseases would've been prevented, how much effort would be directed into making awesome products instead of dealing with IE crap if it had such a feature from the start.

Anyway, you can turn it off easily if it bothers you.

Comment by Deon on Sunday, May 29, 2011 10:23 AM

Theres nothing wrong with automatic silent update but the user should have the option to opt out. I come from South Africa and bandwidth is not cheap, i worked out the last update cost me R80.00 thats about US $12.00 and and 4 full meals for me. Chrome may be a good thing but i cant afford it.

Im no longer using chrome, moved to opera. Much better if you ask me.

Comment by Charles on Wednesday, February 8, 2012 12:22 PM

Autoupdate without user notification or control? The height of intrusive and STUPID. How many times has a company released a t*** of an update, and many of use were saved only because we delay updating software until there is some internet feedback on it. Not to give an option of approval is a sign of something very autocratic at Google. Very bad sign.

Comment by Mauricio Sánchez S on Friday, February 24, 2012 12:42 PM

That Chrome automatically update itself is the best thing Google did when designed this marvelous web browser, that makes chrome users have an updated software all the time and with constantly bugs repairing, always in aligment with the new standars in coding; for example HTML5 and CSS3.

For web developers like me is the ideal scenario, in the production procces it is a waste of time making our sites to correctly work in each version of browsers in the market, several times we cannot use new and fantastic features that comes with latest versions of html and css coding, that becouse the bunch of user using out of date browsers, we can't construct a clean code either, have to use third party packages often, and sometimes violating the standars is the way.

I understand people is worried about software installing into their hard drives without knowing, but many users are not aware about the importance to have an updated browser, and they just don't do it by themselves. I see sometimes friends still using browser from 8 to 10 years ago and I said, hey why you still using IE6, why you don't update it?, the answer ranged from "I don't know how to do it" to "I don't care about that, it works for me". Here in my city there is a lot of local business that provide computers with internet services, cybercafe, many of them still using very old browser versions, most of them IE and Firefox, when I ask, hey why don't you update your software?, the answer is "naaa, I don't have time for that, you know, I have 20 computers, I can't lost my time updating all of them"... If just those web browsers do the same Google Chrome does.

PD: When you click in "I Agree" in terms and conditions window when installing the software, implied you read the contract and is fine for you, the fact people don't do it, does not remove the validity of the document and the action you'r performed when clicking in "I agree".

http://www.msanc.com.

Comment by pabb on Friday, March 23, 2012 4:11 PM

I wouldn't mind if it gave you the choice between an update or a temporary deactivation of Chrome until you accept the update. Then I'd get the real, positive benefit of a single, always up to date version of the software, but I'd also get to know why everything suddenly slows down to a crawl on my old 1.8ghz AMD single core instead of alway thinking it's finally giving out, then getting a ctrl+alt+delete through, then giving an exasperated sigh at the GoogleUpdater.exe process taking 50% of available RAM and closing it in a fit before it gets a chance to work its benefits. Rant over thank you ^_^

Comment by yoan06 on Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:20 AM

Chrome auto slient update and google policy should be fine IF :

Updates let user choice to refresh or not shortcuts
and
Not refresh Registry !!!

example:
im using SSD drive
my temps drive is on another
Chrome have no persistent parameter like Ffox to move his temp and profile folder
so i use
--user-data-dir="D:\Temp\Chrome\User Data" --disk-cache-size=10000000

each update needs to change all shortcuts again and browse the registry to update all
shell/open/command key with
"C:\Documents and Settings\user\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --user-data-dir="D:\Temp\Chrome\User Data" --disk-cache-size=10000000 -- "%1"


just let me say : on this leak off flexibility
Google real su...ks

Comment by Josué Martín on Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:21 AM

It's awful, time to time y feel a overheating and its because a instalation background process related to google.

Comment by Daniel on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:53 AM

Google autoupdate its rubish. Y have a old computer, from 2006, and from times to times observe that everithing frezes. When enter in task manager, surprise! 100% cpu usage by GOOGLE AUTOUPDATE! Its not possible such thing! When i have an emergency to search something on web, my computer freze. I will give up and will start to use firefox. Thank you and bye bye chrome!

Leave a comment
optional