Slashdot Mirror

Safari was checked by default last year. There's even a screenshot of it on mozilla's blog when they complained about it.

http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/

Apple Software Update (automatically installed with itunes and quicktime) presented Safari as a checked-by-default update to users. Read about it on John Lilly's blog. He's the CEO of Mozilla

Windows Update (automatically installed with Windows) presented Internet Explorer 7 as a checked-by-default update to users.

Apple Software Update (automatically installed with itunes and quicktime) presented Safari as a checked-by-default update to users. Read about it on John Lilly's blog. He's the CEO of Mozilla

yes, that's what i eventually did. but it certainly would have been nice if Apple had made that option more visible instead of hiding it in a "Tools" menu--or they could simply use the updater to provide updates to installed applications.

really, these are almost malware-like tactics clearly designed to frustrate the average user into installing software that they neither need nor want. using an updater to push other applications is simply dishonest and undermines the purpose of an automatic updater, destroying the trust between software makers and software users and making it more likely that users will ignore vital security updates.

>Still, I don't think that invalidates my observation about which
>competitive browser is actually the target of this distribution
>mechanism.

See http://john.jubjubs.net/2007/06/14/a-pictures-worth-100m-users/

If there's anything that Apple doesn't do casually, it's prepare Steve's keynote slides.

It makes perfect sense for Apple (or Opera or any other alternative browser) to target Firefox users since those people have already shown a willingness and (and an ability) to try new browsers. An user for Apple is a user and I have no doubt they'll go after the easiest gains first. Easiest of all are Mac users -- they just get whatever Steve wants them to get. Next easiest are users who know how and have shown a willingness to download and try new software -- especially browsers.

It is possible that this latest sleezy maneuver is the beginning of the pivot to chasing a broader audience, but neither changes the fact that Apple is going after Firefox users (they'd be foolish not to) or that this is a sleezy tactic usually reserved for crapware and malware vendors.

- A

Here is a link to John Lilly's actual blog post ...

http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/

... can't imagine why neither the /. summary or the original "article" included a link to John Lilly's actual blog post. Who the hell is Dee Chisamera and why did /. link to Chisamera'a page full of ads instead of Lilly's actual blog post?

Joe Wilcox is the guy who 'first' noted it on his Microsoft Watch blog.

John Lily is the Mozilla CEO who noted on his blog that what Apple is doing is wrong; not so much because it gives Safari market share, but because it undermines the entire trust model of automatic updates.

These two people are not the same.

And Slashdot's unique actual use of HTML as opposed to proprietary weird square bracket notation foils me again. Here's that blog post.

Addendum: Didn't Apple require iTunes to be installed along with Quicktime for a short time? I seem to remember upgrading Quicktime and getting an unwelcome iTunes along with it (I don't even HAVE an iPod!) although it could have been because I clicked through the download pages without seeing the selections for Quicktime and Quicktime + iTunes... IIRC I later noticed those and that iTunes was opt-out.

So you're not Apple's target audience for Safari on Windows anyway.
what part of this picture and this picture is everyone having such a hard time comprehending? Apple's target audience, is all the users that don't use IE. Steve Jobs has clearly shown this.

Here's what I'm referencing. Jobs says: "Well we dream big. We would love for Safari's marketshare to grow substantially. That's what we'd love." Steve Jobs doesn't just want Safari available so people can test their websites quickly at their same Windows box, he want's all of the market share from Opera/Firefox/etc. If his graph would've shown market share eaten up from IE there wouldn't even be these discussions going on, but instead what we see is an inside look into Steve's view on how he wants the market to change.

So here's my point, to be clear: another browser being available to more people is good. I'm glad that Safari will be another option for users.

Wait. Tell me again where anyone said Mozilla is not a company. And tell me again where in John Lilly's original post he was crying. John Lilly just said the same thing I got modded +5 Insightful for. More browsers, good for consumers and web standards. Fewer browsers, bad for consumers and web standards.

FTFA: John Lilly, Mozilla's chief operating officer, focused on the part of the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) keynote where Jobs spelled out existing browser shares of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari -- 78%, 15% and 2%, respectively -- before displaying another pie chart that showed Safari with about a quarter of the market, IE with the remainder.

I've posted that already. Here's the link (with screenshots), if you don't want to read my previous comment.

Steve Jobs wants to push Firefox out. Period. It doesn't have anything to do with opening a development platform for the iPhone. Stop making those excuses! Apple is going to bundle Safari with iTunes and QuickTime in hope of massive market penetration, and in their vision, there is no room for alternative browsers.

I might be way off, but it seems more likely to me that Safari will be grabbing its marketshare from firefox, not IE.