Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install
hairyfeet writes "Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from Apple whether you want it or not, and Mozilla CEO John Lilly is not happy about it. After his daughter was offered Safari as a 'bonus update' with a recent update to her iTunes software, Mr. Lilly says on his blog, 'What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong. It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that's bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web.' He also pointed out the check box is already clicked when you go to update meaning you have to opt out, not in and that it lists Safari as getting an update even if you don't have it installed." Update: 03/21 21:44 GMT by KD : Corrected the name of the Mozilla CEO; also linked directly to his blog.
If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits. Now that the iPod is working on a monopoly of the mp3 player market, why is what Apple did any different? The quality of the software doesn't matter here.
Shame on Slashdot for not seeing through this. What better thing could there be for Microsoft than a flame war between Mozilla and Apple?
Even Cnet noted that this is not a mandatory install and that the brew ha ha is because:
That and Microsoft can't stand competition from Apple any more than it will release new versions of IE and Office on OSX. Yes, we can expect Mozilla to not like this, but we can be sure they also hate the way IE is forced on Windows users too. It's too bad that perspective is lost in the Wintel press, isn't it?
There's more perspective missing from this story too. If you dig deeper, you find stories about how Jobs announced his intention to make Safari available on Windows though iTunes. This is exactly what has happened and it was done in a much nicer way than IE8 and Windows itself are forced onto users.
I don't like being critical of Slashdot and Slashdot editors because of all the great work done by the site. Most articles are better researched and though out than this one. Someone is asleep at the wheel this time and I hope this clears the issue up.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Since when did Apple start taking lessons from M$?
It offered me Safari when quicktime did its update as well, and by offered, it said it was installing it unless I hit cancel. not so good times.
How Jaded Are You?
> Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from
> Apple whether you want it or not,
I DO use iTunes for Windows. And I just updated it! And yet, strangely, I don't have Safari. How did that happen? Because I didn't want it.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
I don't care if this is a "mandatory" component of iTunes, or if Apple is "just" trying to sneak it in... WHY do this?
Has any company ever entered better light from including unrelated junk in their installers?
If iTunes doesn't require Safari (and I pray to god it doesn't because that would be horrible design to require a specific web browser -- they'd enter Microsoft territory in that case), then Safari shouldn't be part of the install. If people want Safari, they'll install Safari. If something doesn't need Safari, fuck that shit.
Please don't look at Microsoft as a good role model, Apple. They aren't.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Oh, please. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and Mozilla is right to complain about them.
Claiming that open source and Apple have some kind of common interests is fiction.
This issue is 5% real concern, 95% drama. Don't confuse a non mandatory offer with vendor manipulation and other dirty tricks. Apple, while non free and often in collusion with the Soft, is not the same kind of offender and has actually been helpful in promoting reasonable standards and free software.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
And QuickTime tries to install iTunes. Does this mean that installing QuickTime now forces you through a Safari install?
Does it make Safari the default browser, disabling Internet Explorer?
Say what, iTunes?! Who uses that crap in the first place? Might as well kill your computer with Real Player while you're at it!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Firefox shouldn't come bundled with any Google software, set home page to Google without giving a choice of other search providers or popup "set me as a default browser dialog?" unless the user explicitly goes to preferences menu and does so. I do hope Safari doesn't automatically hijack the default browser when it is installed in this manner. I don't see a big security downside to installing it if it needs to be explicitly run by the user rather than automatically activated from a web link.
Let's see. Apple Software Update popped up a window and said new software is availible, would you like to install it. I clicked quit and it went away. How is this forcing software on me or anyone?
I call bullshit on Mozilla. Microsoft forced IE 8 on me. I did not have a choice. Apple offered me Safari and I turned them down.
We need a way to classify software that does this. Call it installware for all I care.
installware: software that installs other products that the user would not expect to be installed as a default option. This includes any 3rd pary addons or 1st party products that are unrelated to the current install.
something that would lable products that instal browser bars too. We know some products work hard to not get listed as spyware or adware. Its time to expand it to include this other crap.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
While speaking off the record, Mozilla CEO Joe Wilcox was heard to say, "I don't give a shit whether they are taking market share away from Internet Explorer with this move, but Safari will take Firefox's place on some computers."
He went on, "Personally, I think Apple should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting their successful music business to empower their web browsing software."
On the other hand... default installations of Internet Explorer was one of the major reasons that Netscape lost its market share lead in the 90's. The only problem that I have with this is that the "Update" claims to leave the Checkbox for installing Safari clicked by default.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
If Apple pushes Safari/Webkit (webkit is important) they may have plans to make iTMS a web browser thing (it is NOT webkit now) and want to rely their own standards supporting framework for rendering.
After I tried using systems default browser (Safari) as my only browser instead of 3rd party and ended up downloading Firefox 2 because some large site required it for extra needed function (Firefox'es sponsor too) I think Mozilla CEO should be the last to talk about "pushing browsers to people".
A Safari.exe in program files if it is not becoming a system default browser with UI tricks shouldn't matter to any browser vendor especially a one which is supposed to be pushing more standards based choices to Windows users. They should be the ones asking their friends like Google, Yahoo about "Why IE and Firefox only? Why not Safari, Opera?" since people started to get seriously irritated about that attitude. It is not serving them at all. A user swearing and downloading firefox.dmg from their established Safari browser won't have good feelings from first minute.
If Apple is still doing "HFS+ on NTFS/FAT" tricks like putting Resources/Dlls to single directory, Safari 3.1 is comparable to single directory contained Opera too.
Does someone doesn't like the fact that some Windows users not being Joe Sixpacks does not use their work because of other concerns? What if those non Joe Sixpacks love Safari?
IE8 and the 1999 anti-trust trials ring a bell? This is a made up and distorted issue.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
I don't like Slashdot and Slashdot editors being critical of Apple...
Fixed that for you.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
IMO, all Apple has to do to solve this is:
1. Make all not-yet-installed software unchecked by default, so you have to opt into it (keeping actual updates checked by default)
2. Clearly label, probably by putting a separator and header in the middle of that list, which software is an update to what's on your machine and which software is another offering that Apple wants you to install.
That, and make it possible to ignore a product, instead of just a particular install. My Windows box at work has Safari and QuickTime for web development purposes, but it keeps telling me to "update" iTunes. I can tell it to ignore the item, but every time a new iTunes version comes along, it asks again.
This is one of the few comments that makes sense of the issue. Microsoft and Apple are not equals and this is only trick for people who are lazy. Most Windows users are going to think it's kind of cool to get a browser choice from a trusted source.
I've only seen it stand-alone in the updater, so I was simply able to tell it no. So long as you can tell it no, I don't see what the big deal is.
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
Maybe I'm a few versions behind, but in the Quicktime control panel, select "updates" and uncheck the box to TURN THEM OFF if you don't want automatic updates!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I was about to click ok, before I realised the Safari box was clicked.
Of course they already bundle QuickTime with everything, their hardware platforms are closed, they constantly screw their developers over by tweaking with their API's.
They're much worse than Microsoft in many ways and the only reason we've been saved from this is because they've decided to target niche market with their products.
Installing new software through an "Update" is of course about the same thing Real was doing with RealPlayer spyware couple of years ago.
Apple is rotten.
it's not half as bad as Google's pushing their "toolbar" along with Java updates... where you have to go into "advanced" install of the update to even KNOW that it's pushing Google Crapbar, let alone to drop it.
We've seen more problems with "my IE is crashing" lately, and every time it's that Google Crapbar that slipped in because the users didn't even get the chance to know it was coming in.
If you don't have QT/iTunes and just install Safari, the updater will also helpfully offer to download and install QT/iTunes. In other words, the Apple Software Updater that comes with each Apple app is used to push all other Apple apps (which aren't that many at the moment, granted).
I find this pretty par for the course for many Windows developers through the years; heavy-handed attempts to get the user to install bundled software that they don't want or really need. Google does this as well (no I do *not* want the Google toolbar!), and, yes, MS does it in their own auto-update feature (new software offered and not just updates), and an opt-out required). Google's gotten pretty bad about trying to get other companies to bundle their toolbar and hard-wire or at least default their browser searches to Google as well (Safari and Firefox). This is not customer-friendly behavior, and Apple seems to be excelling in being completely obnoxious about it, but they are by no means the only big player doing this kind of crap.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
I know, minor point, but it even says "John's Blog"
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
Buy a Mac. We have a checkbox to de-select if we don't want the update.
At least Apple software works on Windows. Try getting Windows apps on a Mac.
Of course iTunes requires Safari in some form.
First off, both Safari and iTunes could require the same Mac OS compatibility layers that provide that brushed-metal Aqua look under Windows. Looking at the two, it's clear that they don't use the same libraries, but they could and arguably should and I'll bet in the future they will.
Secondly, and most importantly, the iTunes Music Store under Windows has used WebKit of some form since before Safari was released on Windows. Instead of embedding Internet Explorer, they went with their own software which makes perfect sense since it means that they don't have to build two versions of the store for both Internet Explorer and WebKit.
So, yes, iTunes requires a specific browser component. At this point it appears that the two don't share any libraries, but it makes perfect sense for iTunes to embed Safari and not Internet Explorer or Mozilla. In the future, it's probably going to move to the point where there's no point in not including the Safari shell since most of the browser is there anyway as libraries for iTunes.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Years ago when the apple fanboys were all updating their blogs with the glorious news of iTunes coming to windows, I thought I'd give it a try. At this point I was not a Linux desktop user (I had been using Linux for years on my server to share my media over my LAN) so I had been using winamp 2 for quite some time.
I decided to give this iTunes thing a try, and promptly removed it after a few hours of use on my work machine, where it was used to play music in the background while I worked.
I fount it to be bloated and sluggish, especially on my less-than-great hardware. I'm also not fond of do-it-all products, like iTunes, that wants to manage all your music, be your ripping/burning solution, among all the various other things it does. I think that a product that focuses on one task will generally do that one task much better than the product that tries to do everything. That's just my opinion, mind you. Adding all the extra unwanted software is yet another straw on the proverbial camel's back, I think.
I did try Safari for windows, and while I like the fast startup time and browsing speed, the total lack of configuration options that Firefox had bestowed on me was a deal breaker. I was so used to extensions like noscript and adblock that I was actually surprised at all the extra bloat that a lot of (bad) websites had. I removed that within the hour as well.
Today there are many other solutions for what iTunes does. Amarok and Rhythmbox interact with my iPod perfectly, as do many other windows solutions.
Maybe this continuing stream of events will help others to start looking at iTunes alternatives as I, and everyone I know, has as well.
I will never install iTunes, so I don't have the problem. Apple (and Adobe) products are all well known for their selling of other products when you install them. I tolerate Adobe Acrobat because I need to read PDF files.
I don't need iTunes for anything.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I didn't know there was Safari for Windows? Most interesting. Now if there were Safari for Linux I'd be pleased. I like having multiple web browsers available for use. As it stands, my only options are Firefox and MSIE+Wine (which looks like hell). How about Safari+Wine?
My point is that variety is good as long as the users' wishes and intent are respected properly.
the screenshot of the dialog [url=http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/]here[/url] (different person making the blog post) calling Safari the "fastest and easiest-to-use" web browser. I believe Firefox 3 may have been shown to be faster already... or did Safari just crash on all the benchmarks so we can't be sure?
Either way it just smells of false advertising. I'm not sure what the requirements are for something to be considered "false advertising" but I'm pretty sure you can't just throw out statements like that without polls or sources to back it up. Then again this is the interwebs and we know the legal system hasn't quite caught up with it yet (I'm referring to judicial confusion over some aspects which we geeks clearly see as legal or not legal).
Date Of Apple Backlash Set For March 21, 2008.
...they'll be bundling QuickTime with iTunes!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
On my girlfriend's computer, iTunes automatically reopens itself after you close it. It also waits about 30 seconds before doing so.
Apple Computers... We do what we must because we can.
Now look at Apple software on Windows. It doesn't give a damn about the Windows interface guidelines and pushes a nasty Aqua-like theme through Safari, Quicktime and iTunes. As far as I can tell, it ignores the system settings. A native Windows app should look like a native Windows app, not some refugee from OS X. Worse, the faux Aqua widgets cause sluggish performance and visual glitches. Scrolling a long list of tracks in iTunes is painful and often the app doesn't start properly in Vista and renders everything in black. The apps aren't even consistent with each other - the positioning and rendering menus is completely different in iTunes from Safari.
It's too bad they aren't taken to task for this. It's as arrogant as when MS did it. Except MS learned and Apple seemed to be getting away with it.
Apple has been doing this sort of thing with QuickTime for a while now. I only have QuickTime installed on Windows, and every time it has an update for QuickTime it wants me to download QuickTime+iTunes. It's annoying, but you can unclick the box, and I think there is an option to tell it to ignore that update in the future.
bdp
Just the other day I tried to install Konqueror, and it forced me to install some UNIX like operating system. Wiped out my whole hard drive. When is it going to end?
What?
I think a lot more of Apple than I do of MSFT, but then I'd rather catch rabies than AIDS....
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
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.
If people didn't have crappy PC's and bought real computers then Safari would come preinstalled and they wouldn't have to go through the hassle of downloading it.
I just don't see why point out this one thing. I've seen this practice go on for years now: Nero tried to install Yahoo toolbar Sun Java tries to install Google Toolbar and Desktop Adobe acrobat comes with built in Yahoo search Apple sometimes makes it really hard to download the Quicktime player without iTunes bundled and so on and so on and so on, don't have time to write down all of them, though I'm sure I hit another few cases. And of course by default extra programs are selected in the install procedure, so if you just click "next" quickly without looking, you're screwed.
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
Apple is not as evil as Microsoft. Their common interest with Mozilla is open standards. Apple has used a lot of free software such as KHTML on which Safari is built. A common burden for Apple and Mozilla is dealing with companies like Microsoft, the AAs and others who hate your freedom.
Mozilla statements have been blown out of proportion and this is not a big deal. It would be nice to see people from Mozilla weigh up the two companies or compare the IE8 force to this.
If you think about it, Apple has done what it did because Microsoft does not have it's act together. Why shouldn't Apple leverage iTunes like this? No force was involved other than Microsoft and iTunes being non free in the first place. This one time advertisement is a big fat zero next to the constant stream of intrusive Windows update popups that few dare turn off.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
I'm interested in the sociology of Apple. What does it say when a company chooses to be sneaky? To me it says that the top management of the company does not feel confident it can make money using honest methods. Apple's sneakiness says Apple top management is not qualified and should not be employed by Apple.
I'm not the only person disgusted by such behavior. See Apple's Sneakiness Did Not Start Today.
My best understanding is that abusiveness breeds abusiveness.
Computer professionals deal with Microsoft's abusiveness every day. The U.S. government has killed an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis. The eventual cost of the war is estimated to be $3,000,000,000,000. It has cost more than $1 million to kill each Iraqi. I've never met even one American who hates Iraqis. The money is being spent only to make profits for weapons and oil investors.
One result of all the abusiveness is that some people become accustomed to being abused, and hide the abuse from themselves.
There is only one healthy response: Don't accept abusiveness. Protest abusiveness. Demand that abusive executives be fired, impeached, or imprisoned. If you don't protest the U.S. government's war-making, then you are a murderer, too.
If you know an Apple employee, talk to that person about Apple's abusiveness. Each protest, however small, makes it just a little bit more difficult for abusers to do their mental illness to the rest of us.
It's bad enough iPods needing iTunes, now iTunes "need" Safari. Soon you'll need the entire contents of Mac OSX on your computer just to listen to music.
Don't install iTunes.
Low tech or what!
It's a bit like spamming people with a browser install :).
Fortunately you can opt out before you actually start downloading the browser.
Seriously, Apple's been pushing iTunes via it's apple software update (which you can disable) for years and it hasn't uproared like this. I think all the recent apple bashing is a plot to Validate the Onion.
Btw, last I noticed firefox fucking annoyed me to update itself. Suck it, mozilla.
Spend 10% of the effort you spend looking for reasons to be outraged and simply ignore the installation. Odds are your prior browser is set to check whether it's the default browser or not and the next time you start it, it will ask you.
I for one am happy that they asked me, and I installed it. And you know what? It works great. And if it doesn't, I won't use it. No problem there.
Now that we have that inflammatory title out of the way, lets look at . And no, the pictures are not fake, I saw them in the keynote video at Apple.com a while ago when Safari beta for Windows was announced. I think this is what Mozilla is worried about.
This space for rent.
Here is a link to John Lilly's actual blog post ...
... 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?
http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/
OS X, Linux, Tivo, Amiga, my fascination with cult-like technologies would intrigue any psychiatrist.
I guess I understand why this is such an affront to Mozilla because they produce firefox, but this has been common practice forever, especially for apple. They try and shove Itunes down your throat every time you install Quicktime. I can't begin to name the number of products that have opt-out only options for yahoo and google toolbar (adobe everything, anyone?). Yeah, it blows, it's annoying, but it doesn't change the fact that it's common practice all over the industry.
People are trying to keep their computers clean, and the software industry will be DAMNED if they let you.
>I'd rather catch rabies than AIDS
Bad choice! There have been fewer than a half-dozen documented cases of people surviving rabies for more than two weeks. On the other hand, tens of thousand number of people have survived AIDS for over 25 years (so far). Even taking base rates into account, your odds are orders of magnitude better with AIDS than rabies.
Buy Text Processing in Python
I installed it on my bosses computer and replaced the icon with the IE icon. I think he'll be pissy on Monday when his browser is changed on him :) HAHAHAHA. Anyone know where I can find a virus to put on there too? He's a jerk!
The problem is that the "option" is mislabeled as "Update Safari" rather than "Install Safari" even if you don't have Safari already installed. If Joe Blow doesn't have Safari installed, but sees in iTunes update an "option" to "Update Safari" (rather than "Install Safari"), he'll think that he already has Safari installed and go ahead and make the "update" to it, when what's actually happenning is that he's installing Safari, not merely updating it. Apple is tricking users into installing Safari under the guise of merely "updating" it.
The second problem is that the option to "Update Safari" (which really means "Install Safari") is pre-checked, another no-no for non-critical software installs. Google is by far the worst offender of this, with their paying many software companies to bundle Google Toolbar and Google Desktop on the back of unrelated software packages, with the option for these being pre-checked. Hell, Java security updates offer Google Toolbar and Google Desktop as pre-checked options, something that should NEVER happen for security updates, period. (Yahoo is also an offender by packaging Yahoo toolbar with Adobe Acrobat/Reader, but Yahoo does it much less than Google).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I think it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition that users will install something because it is 'good' for them. This very concept of 'good' is difficult to define. IE meets all the requirements of the web for users as long as everyone agrees that we live in an exclusively-Microsoft ecosystem. Trying to explain why open-standards, in this environment, are 'good' for people is like trying to explain the virtues of taking public transportation. Public transportation, like using open-standards, is a great idea for other people.
In the case of Apple, they need open-standards to compete against Microsoft. Without web standards there is no competing with IE. The only way to build market share for another browser is leveraging their extremely popular iTunes software to encourage people to try it out. Although the primary way I assume Apple will get Safari to matter is via iPhone. Still they need open standards for Safari to be competitive, and they need Safari to make OS X attractive, and ultimately sell hardware.
The idea that it is 'evil' to push a free browser that is standards-compliant out via their Software Update tool seems dumb. More people pushing for open-standards in the Microsoft ecosystem is a good thing.
BTW I love Firefox 3 beta 4.
Windows has and still is creating a diverse cheap hardware platform that many other computer systems take advantage of, while MacOS refuse to run on something that isn't Apple. That's evil.
iPhone (try to) refuse other software run on it, while Mircosoft is happy to let you run anything on their mobile system.
iTunes is just a way to steal money from people without doing anything except copying a file and support government and corporate control of Internet communication. Usury and censorship are evil.
And now: Tricking their costumers into installing another of their products. Maybe not very evil, but it makes a bad product and I can't advice anyone to use products from a company with that philosophy.
I personally only run Linux (and some dosbox actually...).
It's been said the evolution of all non-unix applications expand until they can do e-mail.
In this case let's look at the capabilities of the app in question. To actually function it needs an internet enabled application, capable of displaying text, images, hypertext, and acting on clicks to links by fetching new pages. It maintains a backward forward history. Permits bookmarks and drag and drop weblocs. It plays music, and video. It can gather feeds and display them.
Wait which app was describing? Safari or Itunes?
The point is they are all the same. I'd bet that in some debug mode, itunes is safari. The only substantial difference between itunes and safari is that Itunes permenantly stores the music, can stream music, and can burn/convert music.
SO essentially safari is within itunes entirely. It would not surprise me if there was not already some secret debug mode preference setting that exposed a complete set of browser window controlls instead of only using the itms URL.
on windows rather than a mac, the situation is probably even more extreme since while on a mac those simmilarities could be factored out either to the OS or to libraries that come with the OS, on windows Apple reimplements the entire webkit/quicktime ecosystem rather than using the Windows navtive functionality.
----
That said I would agree that if we were talking about different applications that were not so coupled then I could see why this would be verging on bundling. For example, If i updated itunes and it also installed a Word processor or Quicken program, I'd say wait a second.
----
I also note however that for Web2.0 apps like google apps. When you go to the site you find that they have indeed given you new apps you did not ask for.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I just ran iTunes on my Windows machine to see what it would do. It said that there is a new version of iTunes available and do I want to install it. I clicked OK and I got the "Apple Software Update" disalog offering me "iTunes + Quicktime" 7.6.1 and Safari 3.1. Each piece of software was offered with a check box (by default checked) but which I could uncheck. I had to hit a confirm button that actually says "Install 2 items" os "Install 1 item" before I anything was installed.
This is forcing software on me the same way the grocery store forces food samples on me.
FFS, if you don't want it, don't tell it to install.
I have a truly marvelous proof of why you're hideously wrong, which this comments database is too narrow to contain.
(spoiler: it has to do with RDFs and massive amounts of kool-aid)
Optional Safari installs undermine the hegemony of Internet Explorer, and that's good -- not just for the individual who uses Safari, but for the security of the whole Web.
Apple is part of the reason alternatives to Windows on the web and regarding media formats exist; to be sure, Linux is also part of the reason, but offering things like Safari via the iTunes download can, it seems, only help the greater effort for Internet freedom.
I got this message a day or two ago. Good thing I know what's going on. Darn it Apple, what the heck. Do I need to take iTunes and QuickTime off my computer?
It's unethical for any company to "sneak" software onto my computer. They can offer it to me, incessantly if they have to (read: QuickTime Pro) - but I object strongly to something just "arriving". Even if they succeed, you can bet that once I figure it out and remove the crap, I will feel worse about that company from then on. As a for-instance, I will never install the Google Toolbar. And I feel worse about Google for bundling it with completely unrelated products. It definitely walks the line of "do no evil".
It is just like inviting your friend over, and he brings two other friends unannounced and they all raid your fridge. Worse, he sneaks his other friends in the side window and you don't know they are there until all the pizza and beer is gone. Then those friends all live there until you find a way to kick them out. Your pizza and beer are history, and your relationship with your friend will never be quite the same.
(and yes, I take my pizza and beer seriously...)
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
This summary is just flat-out wrong. After reading John Lilly's original post yesterday (linked above), I saw this and wondered, "Who the hell is Joe Wilcox?" Hint: he isn't the CEO of Mozilla.
He also doesn't mention a daughter. Joe Wilcox does, according to this "Dee Chisamera" person, but seriously, WTF. CmdrTaco should be ashamed of himself.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
I don't use thunderbird, so I don't know. Firefox, on the other hand, does not bundle thunderbird, and it certainly doesn't offer any plugins out of the box. They have a landing page which you can read through and take explicit action to opt into, which is nothing like having an updater which you have to opt out of. But a download is not an update. They're bundling their downloads with opt-out, fine. But "updating" iTunes with Safari is a gross kind of nonsense.
Your points here are ridiculous. It doesn't matter how the monopoly is acquired (since when is the Windows marketshare illegally acquired? The usual complaint is that it's illegally leveraged. I don't even know how they could illegally acquire a monopoly without already holding a monopoly, short of guns). How many markets company X "owns" doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's Apple tightly tying their software to their other software, just as it was Microsoft tying their software to their other software.
It's not only Safari that is selected by the Apple updater by default but also iTunes too. I only have QuickTime installed and when the updater prompted me to update QuickTime to a newer version, iTunes and Safari were selected too. I decided to uninstall QuickTime and not be bothered by Apples shenanigans.
Like others above me have said, they are abusing their (alleged) media monopoly to expand their reach into other domains. The EU has already announced it will be keeping a close watch on Apple, and actions like this should put them in the same line of scrutiny as MS. Also, if you download Firefox (which I am posting from on my work's windows box; shudders), then you are offered all sorts of plug-ins, etc And which of them are opt-out? For this to be == to MS, Apple would have to OWN multiples markets esp. the platform They only have to own one market. And it is a platform (for media delivery). Whether it constitutes a monopoly remains to be tested in court. have aquired the monopoly illegally Not a requirement. The monopoly limitations are regarding the status quo, and how that got to be is not relevant. However, it can help (goes to establish a behavioural pattern, your honor) and then start forcing JUST their applications to be available you mean, with only ITunes being able to use the downloaded and encrypted AACS files? That requires you to burn the media to a physical disc before you can use the legally obtained files directly?
However, I would not object to ITunes automatically uninstalling IE instead...
That's pretty perverse. You can live years/decades with HIV with effectively no ill effect; rabies is pretty much an immediate death sentence. The number of people surviving more than a week or two is about two or three.
The problem isn't that Apple are offering Safari to Windows users, it's the method by which they have chosen to do it. It would be fine if Apple offered it when you download iTunes/Quicktime, but to offer it via a mechanism that has been designed to offer security updates is wrong. We need as many people using software updaters as possible because it keeps users safe online. Some companies aren't so bothered about user safety. Mozilla is one of those that are. Therefore, when a software update system is abused like this, it has the danger of turning people off of updating software. People will get fed up with new, potentially unwanted software 'tagging on' to security updates. That's the problem. Apple are fine to offer Safari to as many people it likes, but wouldn't it be better, honestly, if it didn't do it through the same system it uses to keep it's users safe?
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
...as you couldn't possibly be more incorrect. If you install Firefox, you will most likely start at this page. There is no mention of Thunderbird, no mention of add-ons, no mention of any other Mozilla product at all. The default home page for Firefox is here and contains no mention of add-ons, or other programs.
But all that is completely beside the point, because the real issue is other products being pushed out by default through the software update for an unrelated product by the same company. Which is what Apple Software Updater is doing.
Firefox's update by comparison *cannot* download another product that you don't have installed, not only that, but it doesn't suggest any other products, or even mention that they exist.
Your point was that Firefox "offers" their products, where they do not, they simply provide links in their browser to their site where if you wish, you can choose to go and search for their products. Your other point was that Apple is simply "offering" their products, but it isn't doing that either, it is selecting them for you, and choosing to download them to you if you don't specifically deny them every time there is a product updated.
These are two completely different things.
The television will not be revolutionized.
I've just discovered that if you run your iTunes auto-update *again* it re-adds and re-checks the Safari download each time the update is run. This is sort of like how Microsoft keeps offering you the Windows Genuine Advantage update even if you've already turned it down before. So, it seems like Apple is being very hostile with this update. You are eventually going to download it, maybe by accident.
Now, Safari might be nice, I don't know I've never used it. But, I do know it is insecure compared to Opera and Mozilla. It also lacks a lot of privacy features, script blocking, deep cookie management, password wands, etc. The irony is that Opera while being the most innovative browser is only the most secure web browser right now because it is unpopular, they lack managed script blocking. You can turn off scripts but no one in their right mind does that. We need to have whitelists so we only allow what we know we need. Blacklists don't work because you can't keep them up to date fast enough and disabling entirely isn't reasonable because there are many situations where scripting/cookies are absolutely necessary. The same goes for Internet Explorer and Safari, they lack this what should be by now, mandatory functionality. And, really, this should be built directly into Firefox itself, but has not been because a majority of people would simply be confused why their websites aren't working correctly. It has to be informed decision to install and try the plugin and understand what it is doing. I suspect this is the reason that other browsers have just completely ignored this functionality altogether.
In addition, I'd like to point out that Mozilla's AdBlock plugin, although bad for the advertising business, is a benediction for security as well. Too often now banners are being used to inject malicious arbitrary code into end user's computers. Even on Microsoft's own Hotmail email service!
Mozilla actually out innovates Opera in features when you look at the plugins, but the main browser itself does not. Until recently Opera has been the fastest and most compliant browser in the world, though it historically has had trouble rendering some websites. It has greasemonkey-like functionality built in which is a nice plus. With the advent of Firefox 3 coming out though, Opera and Safari lose the speed crown and also cannot compete with the plugins, privacy, or security. You can bet Apple knows this and wanted to pull this stunt before Firefox 3 became mainstream, because after that it is game over.
Mr. Wilcox has every right to be afraid for global security because of this new tactic by Apple.
FYI, rabies is a much worse disease than HIV, and will rapidly kill you with 100% certainty past a certain point of infection. With modern retrovirals one can prevent progression to AIDS for many decades.
Try telling potential sex partners you're HIV positive. See how many are comfortable fully exploring a sexual relationship with you then.
There will be a coupld people out there who'd be willing sure, provided you use condoms, etc... But not that many really.
Now, factor into it the odds of a typical
Slim odds * tiny odds == negligible odds.
So, I can live for decades with HIV? Great! Wait, I'll be lucky to ever have sex again?
Lying/lying by omission and not telling your partner about your AIDS isn't really an option either IMO.
This is all bullshit. The Safari installer doesn't just jump out of your computer and hold a gun to your head. I ran the itoons updater just now and it ask me if I wanted to download and install safari. I said 'no'. I didn't even download the new itoons ether. Nobody held a gun to my head.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
1. You can opt out.
2. If you don't know how to opt out, you probably won't know you have Safari, unless it changes the default browser when installing.
"... you have to be paying attention ... "
... How much does that cost? ;-)
THE HORROR!
O-M-G!,
~hylas
The Mozilla CEO is not Joe Wilcox, it is John Lily. In fact, it even says that right in the article.
Vista? Didn't you get the memo? People in general prefer to run XP. Computer manufacturers are selling machines with XP. Often, software companies aren't even testing with Vista. Vista was oversold into an underpowered (for Vista) PC market.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I don't think it's too much to expect that Apple Software Update would you know, UPDATE the installed Apple software on your machine, not install new software, and certainly not do so by default. No, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal, but it's still pretty sleazy.
I'd much rather see a page, picture or such of the new software and expect the company to leave it to the me to click though to the download. A truly valid expression of choice could be realised if the download page carried of the competitors' products and highlights the 'killer' features.
An updater service should NEVER install services which are not already on the system.
Cheers.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
that and ad hominem attacks go hand in hand with Microsoft defense, don't they? The point of my comments here was to point out how this issue has been spun and to speculate on the spinners. You have not added much to that and I wish you would shut up.
What and how I named this account is none of your business. Just imagine that I like the way it sounds.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Safari's marketshare is low, what's he worried about?
Sure it may increase as a result of this, but anything that's not IE is a good thing.
John Lilly is. The article doesn't make the mistake, /. does.
...just how fsking stupid the average Windows user is.
Apparently, according to most of the commentors , the average Windows/iTunes user, upon seeing the Update Safari" checkbox, are too stupid, too ignorant, too docile and conditioned by Windows to do anything other than click the "install" button.
They can't be bothered to read the EULA, or even make the effort to wonder what the heck this here "Safari" thing is.
Now, I am NOT making ANY judgements whatsoever about the average Windows user.
I AM observing that the preponderence of comments/commentators ARE making judgements about the average Windows user.
I am also speaking as one who uses Firefox as his default browser under Mac OS X 10.4.11.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
>Apparently, according to most of the commentors , the average Windows/iTunes
>user, upon seeing the Update Safari" checkbox, are too stupid, too ignorant,
>too docile and conditioned by Windows to do anything other than click the
>"install" button.
No. Not quite. The average Windows user, having developed a trust relationship with their software vendors, (now, thanks to Apple) incorrectly assumes that a software updater will do just that and update software they've already installed. They don't assume that a software updater will try to sneak new programs on to their computer. They rightly see software updaters as important tools to keep their installed software up to date and they don't want to worry that agreeing to software *updates* for their installed software will put new software on their system.
- A
Software Update is no more annoying than any other updater. Anyone who has used an Adobe or Microsoft Office product, for example, has already had the experience of their updaters offering frivolous add-ons in addition to security updates.
As for the Download Safari box being preselected, that is the default behavior Apple's Software Update. This is quite reasonable and expected behavior on Macs, but perhaps Apple should reconsider changing what happens on Windows, if so many users are so dimwitted as to not uncheck the download box and are so inattentive as to not interrupt the download before installation.
If they should be so dimwitted and inattentive, what do they get? A completely free, fairly speedy and highly standards-compliant web browser which will do absolutely nothing but take up hard disk space if not used.
I first saw a rant complaining of the software update behavior update at http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1567, and would have responded there, except in order to post I would have had to register with my my name, address and phone number while they tried to auto-enroll me into several of their products with preselected checkboxes. What hypocrisy!
The point is, everyone is subjected to similar behavior or worse all the time. It is quite reasonable to complain and to want to do something about it, but trying to promote the idea that Apple is a particularly egregious violator is just silly and wrong.
Warning: The intelligence of this post may be larger than it appears.
I can see how it might be confusing to have an "updater" give you new software but the text of the message is clear. In bold letters it says, New software is Available from Apple. Between that and the fact that you know you don't have Safari installed, anyone who's had their morning coffee would have done OK.
I also expect Apple will continue to make this available in their updater because the updater is really a package manager. If the package manager can get Safari, why should the package manager hide it?
Finally, this would not be a problem if Microsoft had it's act together. Why is it that every company has to make it's own custom package manager for Windows? Apple, Mozilla, Adobe, AV companies, freaking everyone has to include their own custom package manager on Windows. You would think that all of these companies could get together and agree on a standard repository system that gives users control. There are two big reasons that won't happen. No one trusts Microsoft and Microsoft would rather die than give users real choices. More on topic, if it were not for the games Microsoft plays, people would not be afraid to install another browser. I've got three or four on my GNU/Linux computers and all of them work well. Through Wine, or virtual machines, I could have IE if I wanted it but I have not needed that in more than five years.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
I don't care much about itunes upgrades, but I was interested to see the actual release on Windows, and thought I might see how it compares to Opera/FF/IE. The license agreement has blunted my interest, though: "4. Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals, that is gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support and other services to you (if any) related to the Apple Software, and to verify compliance with the terms of this License. Apple may use this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify you, to improve our products or to provide services or technologies to you."
I think that many of Apple's strategies prove that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are very similar businessmen. The fact that Steve Jobs wanted to close the hardware *and* the software almost makes me happy that Bill won. Almost.
eqsellent, man! are you from frans?
Chances are most people using Firefox would notice if they were suddenly not, and most people using IE weren't likely to install Firefox anyway. If anything, this could get a few people to say "Hey, there are other internet explorers? Maybe I should try a different one..."
To watch a Quicktime movie on my PC I have to:
* Install iTunes, have it hijack all my multimedia file types.
* Have all the mime types replaced in my browser (a new plugin to show jpg files, yay!)
* Install an "iPod sync tool" in my system tray
* Have Apple pester me the whole time to install updates to all of the above.
* Have Apple pester me the whole time to upgrade to a "professional" version of something or other.
All that to see a dumb Quicktime movie? I think I'll pass...
No sig today...
From this i'm assuming that you're not a Sales
http://www.bash.org/?17246
IMO people are drawing the "line of inappropriateness" in the wrong place here and exaggerating rather strongly as well.
It's entirely appropriate for a software updater to offer you new products because Software Update is a program intended to keep the software on your computer "up to date." It is quite proper that in addition to maintaining the software you already have installed, it might also notify you of new software that's available. Since it's whole purpose is to keep your computers software fresh and working properly, having Software Update suggest that you might want to swap out your clunky old browser for one that will take less space on your hard drive and make your computer work faster (which this one will), is indeed a valid suggestion.
The *only* issue here (and where the "inappropriate" part begins), is the installation of Safari being checked by default.
If a software updater is presenting you with a new program that you don't already have installed, then the checkbox should be of course be off because the user has not agreed to install the program (yet). If they unchecked that box Apple would be golden from the moral side of things and there would be no problem at all.
Overall, this is an intensely minor deal that doesn't deserve all the copy it's getting, but Apple is perhaps foolish for checking off that box and causing all the bad press.
>The *only* issue here (and where the "inappropriate" part
>begins), is the installation of Safari being checked by default.
>
>If they unchecked that box Apple would be golden from the moral
>side of things and there would be no problem at all.
I disagree. By mixing up "new stuff you may or may not want" with "stuff you really, really, really need to install immediately to keep your already installed software safe from exploits" is just a bad, bad idea.
When my software update mechanism comes up with a critical security update and I have to spend time trying to work out whether or not I should check or uncheck or install or not install, it creates confusion and leads to some percentage of people not opting in for the right parts.
If Apple wants to use the same infrastructure to advertise new products, fine by me, but don't mix them in with real updates for software I already have installed. Make it clearly a different interaction.
But they won't do that. They don't want to create an advertising mechanism here, they want to create a situation where users feel like they "need" to install this new software by associating it in every way possible with critical security updates.
It's not enough to simply uncheck the box. There needs to be a clear distinction that most users will understand between "update what I've already got on my system so that I can stay safe and secure" and "offer me new stuff that i may or may not want."
- A
Yeah, I remember how controversial that graph was at the time. It seemed to me, however, that Steve was engaging in some misdirection and/or a joke that "fell flat" in front of the audience. Apple has no incentive to genuinely target a browser that supports standards, browser diversity, and platform diversity.
It was clear to me then, and it's clear to me now, that the real intended target is IE, and Apple merely didn't want to telegraph its punch.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
You're obviously just trolling (and using a great deal of inexact, exaggerated language), but it has to be pointed out that almost none of the points you mention are actually true.
Only if you are the kind of fool that just clicks on every dialogue box that comes up, doesn't read anything, and goes with the default suggestion on every install would you even get close to the kind of behavior you describe.
I didn't want another browser. What really bothered me was it was being pushed as an update when I didn't have it to begin with.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
The next thing you know, you'll click to update iTunes, reboot, and find that your PC is suddenly running Mac OS X! On second thought, that would be pretty cool. :-)
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
I can see your point, but I disagree right back at you.
Many software platforms over the years, (including a lot of linux ones), have a Software Update type of tool as a part of the operating system that keeps the software up to date. It also works as an installer of new software and an uninstaller of older software. I still think it's appropriate to "suggest" new software if it's available, but the user must remain in control and be offered a clear choice.
That last part is where I think Apple has really dropped the ball in that the tool itself could be a lot clearer in it's intent. I would like to see them re-work the whole updater so that it clearly states what it's going to do and what it's purpose is as most Windows users seem to not see it in the same way. It's more an issue of clarity and informing the user than an outright nefarious act IMO.
Yes, I am one of the few people who don't use iTunes, but I do use Quicktime.
After reading this article I restarted apple's automatic updater (which I usually keep killed). Apple indeed came with a Quicktime update,but then Apple proposed I "update" iTunes and Safari too!!
it's an invasion !!
Ernest J.W. ter Kuile
Further, note that this distribution mechanism isn't even going after the same market segment that Firefox currently enjoys. Firefox climbed to about 15% share and has stalled there for quite a while.
This suggests to me that of the people in the world who will voluntarily go out and download another browser, about 15% of them choose Firefox.
This distribution mechanism, however, is not targeting people who will go out of their way to try another browser. Rather, it targets people who, if presented with a 1-click impulse offer, will try another browser. On windows, almost all of those people are currently using IE -- the exceptions being a few people who had a friend or family member install Firefox or Opera for them.
So, clearly, if Apple's strategy is to decrease Firefox's market share, this distribution mechanism won't do it for them. What it might do, however, is grab a small slice of the pie from IE. The graph from that keynote is like getting your little brother to "look over there" so that you can easily grab his french fries.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Its OPT IN not OPT OUT people, get over it.
What about GOOGLE BAR that is automatically installed with Java?
Holy shit, since when should blind fanboyism be modded "Interesting"? The only thing interesting about this post is how EVERY "fact" is totally wrong.
"Many software platforms over the years, (including a lot of linux ones), have a Software Update type of tool as a part of the operating system that keeps the software up to date. It also works as an installer of new software and an uninstaller of older software. I still think it's appropriate to "suggest" new software if it's available, but the user must remain in control and be offered a clear choice."
All of the package management systems I've used on Linux make a very clear distinction between updates for existing programs I have installed and new programs that I do not have installed.
When an installed program's updater is triggered, whether it's specific to the particular program or a system-wide tool, the interface to be presented to the user should be one of updating. It's that simple. During software updates, it is no time to be hocking new wares. If you want to use the same system to promote new products and to offer security updates for already installed products, you don't do it the way Apple has done it.
When I have QuickTime installed and a critical QT flaw is discovered and QuickTime offers me an update for that flaw, anything, anything that gets in the way of that simple and necessary transaction is a disservice to users and other vendors. Using that mechanism at that time to advertise additional products is just sleezy.
- A
Their common interest with Mozilla is open standards.
Apple and open standards? Don't make me laugh. Apple loves proprietary standards. Their business model is built on proprietary standards: a proprietary window system, a proprietary programming language, proprietary GUI APIs, proprietary iPod connectors, proprietary iTunes protocols, proprietary DRM, etc.
Why shouldn't Apple leverage iTunes like this?
Apple could easily make all the protocols and hardware interfaces on iTunes and the iPod open and non-proprietary. The entire digital audio industry would standardize on it within months. Instead, they choose to keep it all to themselves, because that way, they can squeeze their customers for all they're worth.
Apple has used a lot of free software such as KHTML on which Safari is built.
Yes, Apple uses plenty of free software; it saves them money. That's not a commitment to open standards.
is dealing with companies like Microsoft, the AAs and others who hate your freedom.
Apple hates my freedom, too. I know this first hand: I use an iMac, iTunes and a couple of iPods. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and I really don't care whether Apple or Microsoft bites the dust first.
So, the iPod enforces iTunes in an abusive way thanks to their firmware encryption and other tricks on their latest models.
And now iTunes enforces Safari... Something is telling me Apple is gonna be hit hard for this one.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Ah. Real.
Before there was one product, Real One, RealPlayer and RealJukebox were separate - but interdependent - products. So I downloaded the free versions, decided I wanted the features of the $20 "full" RealPlayer. After buying that, I decided I also wanted the "full" RealJukebox. But when I installed that, it also installed an updated RealPlayer crippled, free edition which of course made my earlier $20 RealPlayer incestment a waste.
Gee, thanks a lot.
Safari is different though since it is gratis and not even mandatory.
So, I can live for decades with HIV? Great! Wait, I'll be lucky to ever have sex again? ... :(
You know, life isn't all about sex. And you can have (safe) sex with few problems with other HIV positive people, of which there are quite a few around.
Seriously, swap AAPL and MSFT in most corporate decisions and they make the same stupid decisions--one company is just smaller than the other. Troll me down if you want to... A smart, cheap move by Apple would have been to not build Safari in the first place and throw a few bucks and their weight into the Mozilla project. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has made any money on a browser, and all it has caused is negative feelings, security holes, government intervention, and fragmentation of the browser market. Shareholders should be revolting against both companies for spending millions (IE has to be up to $1 billion since '95) on software they have given away for free--all in the name of bragging rights and for the CEO's ego...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
You seem to be suggesting that I should go for MSFT over Apple, yet you call me perverse???
(for your info, there is a cure for rabies, and I'm a Linux user by choice).
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
On one of my older machines with Windows 2000 SP4 (all updates) and the latest iTunes that works in Windows 2000, I was offered Safari too. On download page, it says "Windows XP or Vista". Umm, Apple goofed?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I call bullshit on you. Why would you make that idiotic argument? Microsoft offered IE7 on me, and I turned THEM down. Nobody is forcing you to install IE7 on windows. If you go through the updates you can always un-check any of the updates you do not want to be installed. I did this for IE7 and still have IE6. (not that I would use either one even if I did have IE7 installed).
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
>Firefox climbed to about 15% share and has stalled there for quite a while.
Actually, Firefox _user_ growth has been pretty much linear since we shipped Firefox 1.
The several plateaus that _usage_ growth has had (and overcome) are mostly related to seasonal changes in overall _usage_ on the Web. The somewhat slower increases in _usage_ as compared to _users_ is a result of reaching the larger segments of the internet using population which use the computer and or the web less frequently.
- A
than on FF or IE... so far that has been my experience on my XP on 3 different boxes. If you browse to a site and a pop up comes up that says 'Do you want to install this porn program?' - do you just automatically click OK/Yes? You are offered a choice to decline, just like you are free to turn off your TV or radio on mouthy commentators. It is pretty clear and obvious update screen. At the most this is a trial ware offer, like the Firefox+Google toolbar bundle - THAT is deceptive as well as all other typical software updates from Adobe, Real, or Norton - those don't even tell you clearly what you will be downloading and disguise them in various ways. Big deal over nothing.
Cool, a response from Asa. I'm glad to hear that the apparent stagnation of Firefox's climb actually indicates a change in the nature of its growth. That's very encouraging news.
Still, I don't think that invalidates my observation about which competitive browser is actually the target of this distribution mechanism.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
He's exaggerating, but everything he said is basically true:
* iTunes/QuickTime hijacks multimedia filetypes without prompting
* QuickTime hijacks browser mime types (MP3 and TIFF for example)
* QuickTime installs into your system tray and runs a background service
* Apple Software Update pesters you all the time and slams stuff like Safari
* QuickTime is neutered to encourage you to buy QuickTime Pro
Apple's Windows software follows every dodgy crapware vendor practice. And keep in mind that unlike on a Mac, Apple doesn't have any privileged position. They're just one of a hundred Win vendors that try to spam as much of their branded shit as possible, and they're all annoying.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Shouldn't those accounting laws prevent an iPod software updater from installing new functionality without charging the user money? Safari isn't a bug fix, it's a totally new app... Shouldn't Apple again be forced to charge users an upgrade fee? Or was that total bullshit Steve?
Why nobody never complained when QuickTime began installing iTunes whether you want it or not? It was just a matter of time before they added more soft to the list...
>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
How is this any worse than Mozilla Corporation using its own update system to gather statistics on its users, without their knowledge?
I'm curious if there any iTunes widgets that Apple would rather implement with Webkit as opposed to with Windows' widget sets?
Certainly an install is not playing nice, unless there is a real reason for the inclusion. But, I also doubt that Apple is making Safari the default browser. It likely opens after the install, and goes away.
Also worth noting that like all good Windows crapware, QuickTime has a long history of security issues.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
http://lifehacker.com/software/ipod/hack-attack-add-music-and-movies-to-your-ipod-from-any-computer-without-itunes-237986.php
Its not Apple's fault even though they're the ones bombarding users with crap? Fine logic there.
You should check out how the Windows updater works, its far less intrusive than Apple's program.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
1. ["Xbox 360"]
2. ["iPhone"]
True, both platforms have become much more open over the past 12 months. But they still require each developer to pay three figures USD (incl. VAT) to be able to test software that they develop (XNA Creators Club and iPhone SDK respectively), and nobody else can run the software without also paying.
That the Mozilla people were not diabolical enough to do something like this on their own!
That's not the reason he's called Mactrope, trust me... the truth is far more pathetic.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Second, "swap out your clunky old browser" is not what it's doing. Even if it does hijack your default browser preferences - which I hope it does not - it doesn't uninstall your old browser, so it's not swapping anything, it's adding to the bloat on your computer. Furthermore, it does not replace your existing Quick Launch icons - so if you're like me, and you have a Firefox shortcut in your Quick Launch bar, you're still going to be using Firefox because you access it through that toolbar.
How, then, does it "take less space on [my] hard drive and make [my] computer work faster?" Looks to me like it sits there taking up space and never runs. That's a poor way to improve performance.
Even if Safari is "faster" than Firefox and/or Opera (which I'm not convinced it is), that's no excuse for attempting to install new software and pass it off as an update to existing software.
You know, Asa, I had read John's post about that topic when it was new, and the reason it didn't sit well with me is that there is an implicit fallacy in his text: he assumes that if one cannot take that graph at face-value, then it must have been done "carelessly", or "accidentally". It seems you buy the same line of reasoning, based on your own use of the word "casually". I don't think there's anything careless, accidental, or casual about refusing to lay your strategic direction bare for all competitors to see. Rather, it would be exceedingly careful, deliberate, and calculated. John's post did not address that hypothesis at all, other than to knock down the "careless" and "accedental" strawmen that he constructed.
If there's anything that Apple doesn't do casually, it's prepare Steve's keynote slides.
Actually, there is one thing that they are even less likely to do casually, and that is to give away their strategic direction. Can you think of a more secretively strategic software company?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Anyway, I should probably reply to your post or someone will mod me offtopic...
Between that and the fact that you know you don't have Safari installed, anyone who's had their morning coffee would have done OK.
Please twitter, you've crucified Microsoft for far less than this. Bold letters, etc. It doesn't matter. I mean you just said "Windoze" users are stupid, and now they're supposed to be clever because it's an update from Apple?
Why is it that every company has to make it's own custom package manager for Windows?
Why should Microsoft provide package management to competitors? Besides, it would be a logistical nightmare. When Quicktime goes tits up, who are these intelligent users going to call? Apple? Nope, they're going to call Microsoft. That's ridiculous, really. Besides, it's not like it's difficult to write a simple auto updater. Mozilla does it on Linux as well, don't they? Why do you think that is?
There are two big reasons that won't happen. No one trusts Microsoft and Microsoft would rather die than give users real choices
Actually, I'd go back to the "why should Microsoft help their competitors" argument.
More on topic, if it were not for the games Microsoft plays, people would not be afraid to install another browser.
People are not "afraid", they just don't know any better. But a lot of them do. Witness the massive market share that Firefox has today. People got fed up with IE, heard good things about FF and installed it. That's how it's supposed to work.
I could have IE if I wanted it but I have not needed that in more than five years.
Good for you. Right out of the twitter book of quotations.
I think I'm going to spend a few hours soon writing up the seminal Twitter Sockpuppet Log, get it? As in your "Vista failure log"? Then maybe people will realize who they are giving mod points to. It's really especially lame when you use your own sockpuppet accounts to shill your own posts. That's dishonest. Other people have played that game here, and all of them have eventually been found out and filtered off the discussion space.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
No it isn't labeled like that. Do you have a photo as proof?
no one will use it, it's so ugly on Windows.
What is up with the hideous fonts ? Firefox and even IE look like a dream compared to ugly font Safari.
I uninstalled it within 30 mins, it seems no quicker than Firefox or Opera or IE.
It runs good on OS X, but why so ugly on Windows?
When I saw the option to download Safari, I unchecked the box at first. I then checked it again, as I though - "gee, I'll install it and check out how it compares to Firefox, Mozilla and IE."
It became my default browser and replaced Firefox with Safari in the start menu (Windows XP). I checked it out on a few websites, decided that its default font/rendering was hurting my eyes and that the lack of a no-script plugin was a big letdown, so I uninstalled it 5 minutes later. Apple should be ashamed of so aggressively pushing a product that doesn't offer any advantages over its competitors.
We all know that we can't install QuickTime anymore without installing iTunes. Now we have can't have iTunes unless we install Safari.
I suppose we can't have Adobe Flash player anymore without installing Adobe Reader next. (Don't get any ideas, Adobe!) We can't have Windows Media Player without Internet Explorer, or in that case Microsoft Vista (which sucks).
So here's what is going to happen to Apple now that I can't get Quicktime without iTunes and iTunes without Safari: I'm going to use VLC media player. And because VLC MP has a Mozilla plugin, I will be able to watch what in any format exect Real Player format (which I don't like because their Real Player Media files interfere with Redhat Package Manager packages).
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
There's a rub here in your statement, bolded by me. I find that iTunes minor version update releases are very closely correlated to announcements of new ways of breaking iTunes DRM to allow folks to play purchased music via non-Apple hardware / software. This makes me highly suspicious that said minor version updates have exactly jack to do with security, at least in terms of security for the end user, and much more to do with the loathsome bullshit of a major corporation disallowing anything it dislikes regardless of ethics or legality.
But maybe that's just me. :-|
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
But isn't the obfuscation of installing Safari on Windows with iTunes therefore a complete contradiction to that ethic? If not, then the only conclusion I can come to is that it's a deliberate attempt to confuse inexperienced Windows users to the point where they have Safari forced on them.
And isn't that pretty much the same as Microsoft forcing IE on Windows users, for which they have taken a big hammering over the years and accused of monopolistic practices as a result?
Incidentally, can someone answer this question please? On the basis that someone installs Safari on Windows like this, does it set its default home page to be that of IE or whatever other default browser the user currently has? Or does it just happen to be iTunes?
Just curious because, again, Microsoft took a lot of flak for setting its default IE home page to MSDN a few years back.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I thought... "what does safari have to do with itunes?" and then i thought "well maybe its an internal component to itunes' browser"
Why the fuck would i want safari? If i wanted it, i would have dl'd it. I did once when it first came to windows, and i've hated it since.
Now apple is shoving it down people's throats?
In response Apple changes the name of "Apple Software Update" to "Apple Software Installer & Updater".
Problem solved. Now shut up.
There are vaccinations for rabies, and prophylactics that should prevent someone exposed to the virus from developing it, but no cures. Only a handful of people have survived after developing symptoms.
Since /. posters don't get laid anyway the technical inability to get laid without disclosing that you're HIV positive is no real impediment.
Being dead from rabies is another matter.
I think this is exactly the kind of tactic that is necessary to break Microsoft's monopoly on software on Windows. Get someone to install one of your products and then give them bonus installations of many other products. Get them using your stuff instead of Microsoft's stuff. Open source should do the same thing.
I think the original premise of the article is in error. We don't have to automatically download and install software when it's offered. Automatic software installs have a long history of breaking working systems... I mean, rendering them non-working, not just installing an extra component you might or might not want. If there's any trust being undermined, then it's trust that should be undermined. If there's a relationship that's being broken, it's a relationship that was only ever illusionary.
The relationship I have with other software developers is a tentative one. I don't automatically update my software. I don't update software behind people's backs. I turn off Windows Update, and Firefox automatic updates, and Apple's software update, automatically. I don't even think about it, any more, it's just automatic. I'll trust them, sure, but on my terms, as far as they can show they're trustworthy.
And, look, at least Apple asks. It doesn't just download a new update in the background and then ask you to restart Firefox to activate it. If there's a problem with an update, Firefox doesn't even have an option to say "no, I don't want this update, I'll catch up when they fix it", you have to refuse it over and over again.
I think this is a great lesson for people. It doesn't matter if you love Apple or hate Apple, if you love Firefox or hate Firefox. The point is that you never can tell what's going to happen when they update your ass. Don't just blithely let them do it, wait until you're ready and you know it's safe.
If Safari was forced, you might be able to compare Apple and Microsoft. It's not, unless you fail to read the dialog, so charges of leveraging a monopoly position are bullshit. I'm also not aware of any kind of music player contract that forbids makers from supporting other file formats, except from Microsoft.
The law does not forbid monopolies for monopolies sake, it forbids harmful anti-competitive behavior. There's nothing wrong with designing a good OS or even dominating a particular market, so long as you don't get up to dirty tricks. Microsoft got busted when they punished vendors for including the then superior Netscape browser with new computers. By doing this, Microsoft reduced Netscape from 90% market share and prosperity to broke dick in a very short time. Apple including Safari as an option the user can decline is no more a monopolistic practice than Red Hat's including Firefox in it's distribution.
The only thing that raised any eyebrows was that the dialog was a little confusing. Anyone with an IQ better than that of a sponge would understand they were gettin a new browser when they click "OK". As CNet noticed the problem is that,
It's my opinion that people are reduced to this stage by Window's poor package management. There is no central repository in the non free software world, so every vendor is forced to roll their own package manager if they want to keep their customers up to date. So really, this is all about how Microsoft sucks.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Not true. When I downloaded Firefox, I was also offered Thunderbird.
But "updating" iTunes with Safari is a gross kind of nonsense.But the updater doesn't claim it's updating iTunes with Safari. It's offering Safari as a separate download, just like Mozilla does with Firefox/Thunderbird. You'll not that the application is called "Apple Software Update" - not "iTunes Updater."
... and then they built the supercollider.
What is the application called? Is it called "iTunes software update"?
No, its "Apple Software Update"
What would you expect to see listed in that program?
"Apple Software Update" is the standard update app that lets you know about new Apple software. Its the same on Mac or PC.
When new updates are available "Apple Software Update" informs you & you decide what you would like to update.
It lists ALL Apple software available.
On a Mac most people accept all the available updates because they probably use everything in the list on a daily basis. Everything is auto-ticked & thats the ideal behaviour.
On Windows its a little different because you are not running Mac OS, so you may not want all the updates - in which case you should select the ones you want.
Yes, the auto-tick for apps you dont have is debatable - but if thats what you want then you are actually asking for "Apple Software Update" to behave differently than it does on a Mac.
Whichever your preference, ticked or unticked, in the grand scheme of things I don't think that one ticked box in a list of 3 items (given that you specifically installed iTunes & Quicktime, but not Safari) is worth this much fuss.
If you want to disable "Apple Software Update" you can do so in your Scheduled Tasks on Windows.
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
Sounds more like you violently agree with the GP :)
Both of you are saying that there should be a clear distinction between updates to existing software and new software that the user might like.
Unfortunately, everyone is all too familiar with sleazy marketers slipping things in under the radar (don't forgot to uncheck the "send some private data to XYZ company" box on the advanced tab when installing our FREE* screensavers!) and when ANYONE does it, even generally trustworthy companies like Apple, it's very obvious that someone did it deliberately. There's really no excuse these days.
It's another small example of how Apple (and particularly their marketing department) would be just as bad as Microsoft, if they had the chance.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
No, it's not. The text at the top says "New software is available from Apple" - the description of Safari tells the user exactly what Safari is, and doesn't call it an update. The button at the bottom that you click to start the process is labeled "Install," not "Update" - how is any of that labeling Safari installation as an "update"?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Which is why I *HATE* Steam...
:(
And I'm going to hate the EA downloader when it turns pimptacular next year.
Apple, you suck!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Having been called by a number of users about "my java says it needs updating", I can assure you - the revelation that Google Crapbar is being pushed is ONLY present if you click into the "advanced" update path and not the normal.
The majority of updates tend to be related to compatibility with new players - such as the iPod, iPhone and Apple TV - and for compatibility with new firmware updates for those players. That seems to be the major reason they are so infuriatingly frequent (personally, I think it updates far too often and they should consider an alternative update model, perhaps one where device compatibility updates are dealt with in a more behind-the-scenes manner).
The latest version of QuickTime is 7.4.1. You can download that directly from Apple.com without iTunes (though by default the "with iTunes" option is selected, the dubious merits of that aside, it's a very clear choice to download it on it's own on the download page).
The latest version of "iTunes+QuickTime" listed in Apple Software Update is "7.6.1". This actually refers to iTunes version number (which is 7.6.1.9) NOT the QuickTime version number. Of course, if you want iTunes you have to have QuickTime too (because it relies on it) but not the other way round. The latest version of QuckTime is simply 7.4.1, and installing the iTunes+QuickTime package will not change the version number reported by QuickTime.
Ironically that it says "iTunes+QuickTime" (rather than just sneakily installing QuickTime anyway when you install iTunes) is the cause of the confusion.
Interesting. I specifically recall at least three updates that have seemed to include a lot of DRM-related measures (somewhere around v5, v6, and even now with v7.6.1), which I've most frustratingly run full into when attempting at these varying points to carry out batch unlockings of iTunes purchased files, but maybe that's just been how my own observations have played out.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
How does the Firefox update on OS X? Because last time I checked, Firefox only updates with its 3rd party updater rather than through Apple's.
consider that the vast majority would be replacing internet explorer with safari, not replacing firefox. This is bundling, but bundling was only against the rules in Microsoft's case because they were using it to extend a monopoly.
That said, it is annoying when you must opt out of installing things.
My best guess? They don't want to risk being held liable for broken/hacked/malicious third-party updates. I've seen third-party drivers on the service, but that's it, and I expect Microsoft is vetting them in some way before putting them on the list.
We have 8 computers in the house, and all of them got this update pushed. Unfortunately, Apple has taken upon itself to operate much like Microsoft where they automatically check all options for you so you don't have to think about it, and just accept what they want to install in your computer. A few years ago we used to refer to this technique as "Drive by download", but now there is so much bundling and tying going on, it isn't funny.
I have a whole lot of machines that DO NOT NEED Itunes, but I must have Quicktime installed. After you successfully get Quicktime solo installed, God help you when Quicktime gets a notice to update, because you'll magically get slammed with Quicktime's update, plus Itunes, and any other crap that Apple deems that it needs on *your* computer!
You have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to install just Quicktime and leave off the other stuff. Apple apparently doesn't seem to see it that way, and thinks that you *need* all of this. I really don't know what to think anymore. They seem to be under this misguided impression that all these computers of ours, are really theirs for the taking. Strange but Microsoft feels that way too! What's going on here with these *commercial* operating systems anyway?
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
If you're bloody silly enough to be running i-tunes, than by definition there's no trust relationship! At that point, you're willingly installing DRM software that is specifically designed to limit your rights and abilities to use data you PAID FOR.
Bah. Such a silly notion.
The very act of installing i-tunes, shows that you are already a victim who is untrusted by the groups you choose to exchange data with. Any other sort of oppression or inappropriate EULA or ugliness is any suprise? Please!
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
The reasoning is clear: there hope is that once it's on your computer you will use it and then you might like it. If one in hundred like is that would be enough to be considere a success. And yes: that sounds like the resoning behind SPAM.
What they miss is that it can back fire: I avoid intalling quicktime theese days - and if I install it I deactiveate auto update.
Martin
So....what exactly is bitterly wrong with Safari anyway? Is it not a good, fast browser or something?
So the process is:
(a) do I really need the iTunes update?
(b) if yes, download where possibly controlled, and control what it installs. And delete what it installs regardless of what I want.
Principally, Apple only ever asks permission to install iTunes. You could just say whatever else is installed is a breach of computer laws, it's a sort of tresspass because it happened without permission. I don't care about the reason, neither Gates or Jobs have business installing code on any machine of mine without my EXPLICIT permission.
Apple, I like some of your products. But there's a reason I stopped using a lot of Microsoft stuff - and I'm just as happy abandoning any Apple products as well.
Oh, and before you flame away because I had the nerve to say something negative about Apple: you're too late. I know. It doesn't change the facts.
Insert
I didn't even know you could get Safari for Windows ! I just downloaded it, and it looks like I have to thank Mr. Lilly for that useful piece of information. Was he really attacking Apple or promoting the fact their browser is avaialable for Windows too ?
There's no real way to opt out of WGA, and IIRC they did something along these lines with IE 7.
I think it's more of an atrocity to bundle the stupid Quicktime program with Itunes. They claim that Itunes requires parts of Quicktime to work but I have a nagging suspicion that it isn't the case.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Of all the things that installers ever tried to cram down my throat, a browser just isn't near the top of the Most Offensive list. Not that I want to install Safari; I don't.
My karma is bad because I'm a bad person.
John Lilly is right to warn about breaking this trust. So many people do not pay attention, they think the checkbox is supposed to be checked, and then click the update button. Later when they find Safari on their system, they will wonder how the heck it got there. If apple were to do any tie in, it should be a nice little UI with perhaps a banner and graphics that forces the user to stop, read, and think about their next action. If the user chooses not to opt in (opt-out should be the default), then it should not ask again. Of course, it could do like windows update and put a grayed out list of apps on future update screens that have been disabled. That way, if a user gets curious again, they could find and select to install safari.
It is good practice to not install apps that you will not use. It does nothing for you, and it's just another piece of software that has to be maintained and updated. It also provides a new attack vector on the system, with no benefit to the end user.
What are you an idiot, or are you trying to be funny? So you would rather be dead, than have a decreased chance of having sex? And you seem to discount the fact that you can have great sex with anyone who happens to have AIDS/HIV already (Great sex=no condom). You truly are a stupid wanker.
7.6.1 fixed a significant number of annoying bugs and the release notes include quite a lengthy description of what's new. One of the fixes was for updated compatibility with the new Apple TV firmware for major features, such as Movie rentals.
What DRM changes are they supposed to have made in 7.6.1 that have explicitly broken whatever tool you are using to strip the DRM?
Are you sure it's something related to DRM implementation that's changed, or could it be that the DRM-stripping application now b0rks when used in conjunction with the latest version of iTunes for entirely different reasons?
This is entirely possible. I claim no DRM-related announcements from Apple, rather simply that every time they update iTunes, existing methods of stripping DRM seem to break. Since that plays in Apple's favor in terms of lock-in, and since it's pretty consistent, it's hard to view it as wholly accidental.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Of course I could quit Firefox after updating (which is stupid enough), but then it won't restore the session - IOW the only real way to get rid of that page is to restart Windows after updating Firefox - how dumb is that?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Why is it when i select the Don't Ask Me Again button on the dialog, that it NEVER WORKS? (Unless i agree to install whatever...)