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.
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?
They kind of already do...and there have been...but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market, not dominating it. If they ever gained control of that market, then lawsuits may crop up (even still, you can always uninstall iTunes and use the iPod with one of a number of other programs, something Apple would be sure to point out).
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?
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.
"Trusted source"??
I don't trust Apple installing ANY Windows software. I have yet to successfully install iTunes without the stupid mandatory Quicktime installation taking over most of my media file associations, no matter how hard I try to disable them. It even tries to display JPEGs in Quicktime instead of inline in IE. Apple obviously knows about this, because everyone I know who has tried this has had the same experience.
>Firefox shouldn't come bundled with any Google software
Firefox, if you get it from Mozilla (Mozilla is the vendor that creates and maintains Firefox) doesn't come bundled with Google software. Firefox does come with features that integrate web services from several vendors including Google, but there's just no "Google software" "bundled" with Firefox when you get it from Mozilla.
- A
At first I thought this story was a load of crap as it seemed Apple was just putting it in the Software Update list, but then I saw that it gets downloaded whether you wan tit or not unless you hit cancel. That really is bullshit and Apple should know better.
Actually, the reason Microsoft got (and still gets) in trouble is because they leverage an existing monopoly to break into new markets. It has nothing to do with them having a monopoly in that new market (browsers).
So, in essence, Apple is doing the exact same thing. They are leveraging their monopoly in MP3 players to break into a new market - browsers.
Exactly. Why do you think there are so many unpatched Windows installs? Because MS tries to push out "updates" not as patches but as entire different versions. Think of IE6 to IE7, to the person who is scared of the computer they have and doesn't know how to actually use a computer but just what the little icons mean, they might decide to never ever update their computer. Now when real patches come along that patch some security flaw, they refuse them thinking that it will change the look/feel of their system. Then they look at the new "updates" to Windows and Office, (Vista and Office 2007) and decide that they don't want them and keep disabling updates thinking that Office 2000 will suddenly morph into 2007 and XP into Vista.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
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.
Actually, under US antitrust law, whether a company is “large” or “small” is extremely relevant. It's NOT illegal for the average company to bundle one product with another; what is illegal is for a company to use monopoly power in one market to gain dominance in another. By definition a company can't have monopoly power without being large enough that it dominates a market.
Now, the confusing thing is that the nature of computer software makes it difficult to say for sure what constitutes a market. Is there a market for web browsers? I think in the past most of us would have said “yes,” but these days many operating systems (even many Linux distributions) come with a browser included. What's more, some operating systems come with an API (think IE's engine and WebKit) for other developers to quickly integrate web page display into their applications, further muddling the question of whether web browsers are even a discrete product anymore.
Of course, on Windows, Safari is indeed a separate product that is not needed by Windows or by other Apple software. But even if you see iTunes as having monopoly power (which might be vaguely true for online music, but it's not even close for music as a whole), there's still a question of whether that power is actually being used to take over another market. Do you really expect a default option in a software update application to significantly shift the balance of power in the web browser market, if that market even really exists? I don't.
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
Wait, so putting something untrustworthy under the okay button isn't a violation of trust but is, in fact, education?
Do you hit yourself with a hammer for the feeling of relief you get once you stop? We're not talking about a spoofing attack. This is an actual corporate push of product.
Not quite:
A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."The user can easily opt-out of getting the browser, and Apple is in no way preventing users from using another product. I don't agree with this move by Apple, but I can safely say that it isn't product tying.
>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).
Google didn't try to get Firefox to bundle its toolbar or hardwire it as the default search. Firefox (and Mozilla before Firefox) had Google as a built in option going back to 1999 or 2000, it was made the default in 2002 or early 2003 (replacing Netscape search, which was just a rebranded Google search) and there was no relationship with Google until late 2004.
We put Google there because people wanted it and it was extremely useful. We also made sure that you could change the default easily and add as many additional search services as you want (Today we ship Yahoo, Ebay, Wikipedia, Amazon, and others as selectable options and there are more than 10,000 additional services available at mycroft.mozdev.org.)
- A
Yeah, Apple used KHTML - and I think used is the right word. They took it, forked it, modified it heavily, paid lip service to open source, and saved a lot of money and time. (The Mac OS X version of WebKit includes numerous binary blobs for which the source code is not available. Oh, and they're often dependent on OS internals to work correctly and do things that are difficult or impossible with the public API, which is probably partly why WebKit never gets ported to other Mac OS X versions. I'm pretty sure this is a violation of the LGPL, which requires any libraries you use - except OS-provided ones, which these aren't - to be under a LGPL-compatible license.)
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.
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.
Sorry, but... no. iTunes is not using WebKit. The iTunes Store is using a custom XML format to describe the pages. Sniff your tcp traffic and see for yourself.
Windows isn't the only desktop OS out there, but I don't see anyone honestly claiming MS wasn't abusing a monopoly when they forced IE onto windows users. Antitrust rules don't have to wait until the share gets to exactly 100% market domination with 0 competitors before they kick in.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Start->Settings->Automatic Updates -> Turn Off Automatic Updates.
Start->Programs->Apple Automatic Updates->Edit->Prefs->"How often"->Never
If you are going to bitch, at least bitch about things worth bitching about.
When installing Quicktime on the PC it always asks you about which files you want to associate with it. You are presented with two quick options, Quicktime media only or all media files. If you wish you can manually go through a tree of check boxes to select exactly which file types should open with it. Quicktime media only is the default. Now if you buggered around with this without actually reading the dialogue then it's your own fault that you fail. The default was sensible and you changed it.
.Net applications you need the .Net framework installed. Quicktime is not just a media player but a media application framework. iTunes uses this framework for media playback, so without it iTunes can't work.
:)
Quicktime repeatedly checks its file associations and if it finds them different to how you originally set them it will ask you if you want to put them back. This is due to Microsoft's stealing media file associations, even those Quicktime ones it could not play away from Quicktime. This hampering of Quicktime was brought up in the anti-trust trial against MS.
If you want to run
Everyone has the same problem? Me myself and I?
Seriously Apple has a lot to learn about writing software for Windows, like how to use standard system window chrome and menu bars. But your problems are down to borked file associations that you very likely caused yourself. I've installed Quicktime on every PC I've used for the past 5+ years, never had any of such problems. But perhaps that's because I'm in the minority who actually read the dialogue my computer has to tell me.
Did you know you can even open up the Quicktime Settings utility and change them all again?
While we are suggesting moderation for posts in this thread. Can I point out that being condescending is not an option, but being informative is
Don't blame me - this
You could install vlc.
As an lawyer who does some corporate antitrust work, I can safely say that you're wrong. Your quote doesn't state a legal standard for tying arrangements, but rather provides one example of a tying arrangement. Some of the most insidious tying arrangements don't require a purchase of the tied product.
Having said that, Apple's strategy -- agree or disagree with it -- does not legally resemble Microsoft's famously illegal Internet Explorer tying arrangement.
A.C.
P.S. To clear up another misconception that I've seen several times in this thread (but not in your post), there is nothing illegal about monopoly. Monopoly can result from a company executing well and charging competitive prices. This is exactly what the antitrust laws encourage (and the entire field is based in economics). What is illegal is "monopolization," which is a legal term of art that deals with anticompetitive conduct. Monopolization doesn't even require a monopoly, so its a distinguishable concept.
Yes, but there you still have to accept the safari license agreement. To prevent the installation of safari on my Mom's desktop I told my Mom to disagree to the license agreement, I hope we won't have to deal with that for a while.
sudo mod me up
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.
I think any rational observer will agree there's a HUGE difference between the iPod's 72% market share, and Windows' 95% [+/-] market share.
I think you missed the part was a federal judge ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. No such ruling has been made against Apple in the portable music market, and for good reason.
As good as Apple is at making iPods, there are clones galore out there that work "just as well", are cheaper, and are selling tons of product.
Comparing the Apple and the iPod to Microsoft and Windows is quite absurd.
(all that said, I think an automatic install of safari with itunes upgrades sounds sleazy. Unfortunately being sleazy isn't illegal...)
>Apple has publicly stated that iTunes uses WebKit on a
>few occasions. I can't be arsed to look up the links though.
Yeah, except, no. Apple has explicitely stated that it does not use WebKit to render the iTunes Music Store.
Maybe next time you'll not use the "but I can't be bothered to prove it" claim to defend your untruths.
From Dave Hyatt, WebKit and Safari developer:
"Just to clear up a common misconception, iTunes does not use WebKit to render the music store. What you see when you visit the iTunes music store may look "web-like", but it isn't HTML, and it isn't rendered by WebKit."
>Safari isn't anything more fancy than a wrapper for
>the WebKit Framework, which incidentally, iTunes is
>using as well.
Dave Hyatt, Apple Safari and WebKit engineer disagrees with you:
"Just to clear up a common misconception, iTunes does not use WebKit to render the music store. What you see when you visit the iTunes music store may look "web-like", but it isn't HTML, and it isn't rendered by WebKit."
QuickTime is not a proprietary format. It is fully documented, and the trailers are all encoded in h.264 and AAC.
Qt (4.+) and Gnome gets Webkit html rendering which is
It also wasn't created by Apple originally, and the history of KHTML/Webkit mainly demonstrates Apple's unwillingness to work with the FOSS community.
I have a easy "benchmark" for you. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd , that is a technology which is offered free, open source and allows things like Automatically running X11 if it is "needed" and can even stop things on demand.
Apple didn't invent launchd technology, they just did what they always do: make something incompatible themselves.
Which distro uses that technology which is offered for free? Why not?
Why not? Because launchd a solution targeted for OS X; it ignores the needs of UNIX and open source software, and because there are better alternatives available. If Apple had wanted to create a useful open source init replacement, they would have had to create an actual open source project with a community of users, engage different Linux distributions, and respond to their needs. Instead, Apple just dumps their source code over the fence and says "here, take it or leave it". People left it.
Therotically, if you have a greatly written software in GNU/X11 environment, you can "install" it with drag and drop and may even have a icon for it. You can actually race with Cocoa based applications.
Porting GNU/X11 code to OS X is a significant amount of work. And Apple rigged it so that any X11 application loses in a race with Cocoa applications: X11 support on OS X is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of the desktop.
I wonder what else Apple has to do to prove their commitment to open source.
A lot more than what they are doing.
FreeBSD still hasn't switched to using Launchd, probably because their own RCng system is already quite nice and migrating all of the existing scripts to Launchd would be a lot of effort. I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up in MidnightBSD though.
I wonder what else Apple has to do to prove their commitment to open source. A lot more than what they are doing. How about working on a new, fast, C/C++/Objective-C compiler with link-time optimisations and JIT support under a BSD license, developed in a repository not hosted by Apple? Oh, wait, they're already doing that.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Actually, not everyone is free to implement it.
Quicktime is heavily patented:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/
A list of the patents that you must license to implement is listed here:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-att1.pdf
And the actual terms (presentation and terms) is available here:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-agreement.cfm
In fact, patents (from Wikipedia):
Pay special attention to the section "exclude other from *MAKING*".