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).
Exactly. QuickTime for Windows has been installing iTunes by default for quite some time now. The last time I downloaded QuickTime I had to hunt through Apple's site to find the standalone version.
"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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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...)
>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.