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.
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
> 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
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.
Also Google should code truly standards based so the poor souls happens to like Opera or Safari aren't pushed to installing Firefox with Google Toolbar if they use Google services like Gmail.
Paying $4 million for a open source project and pushing your anti phishing framework while dozens of other alternatives exist already makes some people concerned.
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.
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.
The issue is that we were offered a software update to software that you didn't have installed.
Apple is now leveraging their software updater to distribute new software - that is not by definition an update.
You did have a choice in selecting IE 6 over 7, I have a couple clients that still have IE 6 deployed enterprise wide. If you chose the "automatic" updates then it will get automatically installed. Also, it *was* an update, not a new product.
The issue is the intent behind this sort of action. Is it a software updater or a software installer? Because the two are different - and it should be clear what we are signing up for.
Apple has ALWAYS behaved like Microsoft. Worse in some ways. But it is Microsoft who always gets hauled into court, not Apple. Thus the corruption of the modern legal system: Lady Justice does not ask what you have done, but who you are. Apple can get away with this as long as they are perceived to be small. (Which is completely irrelevant to whether this practice in itself should be legal or not.)
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
And if you meant IE7, there's a difference: Unless you went to a great deal of effort to remove it, an older version of Internet Explorer was already on your computer, so it actually is an update to software you already had. It's not as if Microsoft installed IE7 on a Mac or a Linux box in such a way that someone who was not paying attention (i.e. most computer users, unfortunately) could get it by accident.
>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.
Microsoft didn't Force IE 8 on anyone. It's not even included in their Software Update system. It's a standalone download that you have to seek out on the web.
Perhaps you meant IE 7 which was offered as an update through their SOftware Update system. Well, guess what. IE 7 *is* an update to IE 6 -- a critical one for very legitimate security issues. You can opt out but you'll be doing yourself a security and safety disservice.
Safari 3.1 is *not* an *update* to iTunes or to QuickTime and calling it an update is misleading at best and predatory at worst. Not only that, but it weakens the trust relationship between vendors and users when it comes to software update systems.
Software update systems should be *update* systems and users should feel comfortable clicking "OK, keep me up to date, safe, and secure". When *update* systems are abused like this, people trust them less and it's more difficult for vendors to keep those users safe.
- A
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"
I tried to come up with a number of adjectives to describe this action. It's not "bad" exactly, because it's a minor thing--an extra web browser taking up a few megabytes of hard drive space. It's not "stupid" because it gets the browser out there so that they get more marketshare. The best word I can come up with is "annoying" and even then, only to a fairly small subset of people. It's a move that makes me look up and wish that Apple were a friendlier company, but uproars? That's a bit much, I think.
As far as the iPod monopoly goes--it doesn't. iTunes (and Apple software) isn't the only way to manage your iPod, and Apple doesn't intentionally make it hard for other software to compete. iPods themselves aren't a monopoly, despite a fairly high marketshare, and they certainly aren't anticompetitive, as other music stores are able to compete just fine. iTMS could be considered anticompetitive, except that they're trying to move away from DRM on their music.
Your post sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to Apple fanboys.
>The best word I can come up with is "annoying" and
>even then, only to a fairly small subset of people.
>It's a move that makes me look up and wish that Apple
>were a friendlier company, but uproars? That's a
>bit much, I think.
It's much worse than annoying. Users today mostly feel comfortable clicking OK on software update dialogs because software update keeps their *installed* programs secure. It's the best method a vendor and a user have to ensure that the software isn't going to be exploited.
When *installers* bundle extra programs and install them by default (opt out rather than opt in) it's *annoying*. When *updaters* bundle extra programs and install them by default (opt out rather than opt in) it's damaging to the trust relationship that users and vendors have relied on to keep software safe and secure.
That's much worse than annoying.
- A
They did.
There were.
They lost.
They paid the fines (which they could afford) made some token concessions (Set Program Access and Defaults) but, guess what, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are still bundled with Windows, and the vast majority of users will never know anything else.
This is because bundling products is not the problem. The problem is that MS has a near-total monopoly on desktop operating systems and office productivity software. The various anti-trust actions have simply squirted around some air-freshener and scattered some sawdust while completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
Meanwhile, a medium-size cat called Apple wanders around the room and occasionally craps in a corner or claws the furniture. "If the elephant did that there would be uproar!" cry the cat-haters, although their voices are slightly muffled by the huge steaming pile of elephant dung in which they are buried.
Apple's "monopoly" on the digital music market only exists if you squint (e.g. ignore Amazon distributing all that digital music on shiny discs) and certainly doesn't hold a candle to the breadth and depth of the MS monoculture in desktop computing (qv ad nauseum in a previous post).
Anyway, as long as Firefox comes pre-installed on most end-user-oriented Linux distros and devices such as the EEE PC (even when they've got webkit integrated in KDE) I'm not sure the Mozilla guys should be chucking any bricks in that particular greenhouse.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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
They may not have a high market share in the windows browser market, but they have a near monopoly in the MP3 player and online music store market. Here it appears they are leveraging the monopolies they do have to force their way into the windows browser market by using the anti-competitive practice known as product tying.
We are all just people.
br> As far as the iPod monopoly goes--it doesn't. iTunes (and Apple software) isn't the only way to manage your iPod, and Apple doesn't intentionally make it hard for other software to compete.
Oh yes, as if adding a hash to stop third-party applications isn't "intentionally making it hard" http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1831236 I don't know what is. Now granted that, has been broken but still it is no excuse for Apple to decide to block third-party applications from using the iPod.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
And it's not just Safari. It's iTunes as well. If you have QuickTime or Safari (it's been in beta on Windows since last summer), but not iTunes, the updater will offer you iTunes -- preselected -- every time a new version comes out, and call it an update. It's only become an issue now because most people using Apple Software Update on Windows were using it for iTunes. Since Safari was in beta until recently, the only things the updater offered were iTunes and QuickTime -- things that were already on most users' machines.
They did?...
I dont remember ever having an Upgrade of Windows Media Player ever install IE...
Sure IE comes with Windows... but thats there right, thats like buying a car and bitching when the floormats say Mazda on them...
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.
Sketchy tactics are sketchy.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I completely agree with you. Many times people say "If Microsoft did this... blah blah" and most of the time the comparison is completely silly. But this time it's spot on. And Apple is just as wrong to do it as Microsoft was (and is).
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I'm for any entity that can rid the world of IE6 and get us all on web 2.0 standards. That should be the issue. The internet is completely held back by supporting the bugs in IE5 and IE6 and my statistics show that 60% of the users are still using these browsers. So I give Apple 2 thumbs up for jamming a better browser down everyone's throat. FireFox should do the same and force Microsoft to get their shit together. Most people never upgrade to IE7 because of the whole "process" they put you through. Apple at least knows how to make it easy.
Except that there is a big difference between software that is optional to download and IE being so completely tied into windows that you couldn't uninstall it and still have a working install. That is why Microsoft got the anti-trust flack-- they abused their monopoly position to ensure that they had a close to 100% install base, thus making their product the defacto standard in a new market (why design for anything else when 95% of PCs out there have IE).
Yes, Apple could be more explicit about the Safari download, but you still give permission to install it (yes, the box is checked by default; no, there is no reason why you can't uncheck it). iTunes won't stop working without it. Your OS won't stop working without it (note that even under OSX there is no reason you can't uninstall Safari).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Not quite. Floormats can be removed. IE can't.
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...
...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.
They don't have a monopoly in MP3 players. They may be the most popular, but they certainly aren't the only maker of them. I have owned several Macs (I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro) and I just bought an MP3 player. Not an iPod, though. An iPod wasn't even on the list of possible purchases, and I had a lot to choose from (for the record, I ended up buying a SanDisk player).
I don't understand the claim that the iPod is a monopoly. It's certainly the most popular. Its popularity means that it's a force in the marketplace, but it's by no means a monopoly.
I don't disagree that this particular practice by Apple is completely unethical, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. If you don't like iPods or iTunes, there are plenty of supported players out there, most of them with more features than the iPod. If the iPod is the only mp3 player you find acceptable, and you still don't like how they're doing business, perhaps you should re-evaluate your standards.
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.
Well, let's change that a bit...
You might want to tell U.S. judges that Microsoft doesn't have monopoly, they are just the most popular player in the field ;)
You don't know what you don't know.
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.
>but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market, not dominating it
That makes no sense. If a copy of Office 2008 for OSX installed Windows Media Player to fight off iTunes then slashdot would melt from the outrage. When Apple does it, slashdotters bend over bankwards to rationalize it.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
>I think users should be given an opt in with a default of
>off on the safari install. I guess this story would have
>more impact if someone from mozilla had not said it. Someone
>is competing against them and they are pissed.
I think you're missing the core issue here (did you actually read John's post?)
The problem is that an update system is being used to advertise (or sneak in) new software installs. Safari is not an update for iTunes and it's not an update for QuickTime, yet it's being offered as an update -- one that's checked by default.
Users should trust the updaters for their installed software to keep them updated and secure. They shouldn't have to worry that the vendor will try to sneak in things which are not updates. When users stop trusting the updaters for their installed software, everyone loses. Trying to sneak in new programs when users are trying to keep their existing programs secure and up to date will cause users to trust their installed software updaters less and that's dangerous.
- A
And lastly but most importantly,they are using the UPDATE mechanism to push their browser.It has taken a LONG time to convince folks that security is important enough to keep their software up to date.And a LOT of folks on Windows use iTunes to manage their iPod.If stunts like this turn even a small minority of those users off of updating because they are worrying about getting spammed with unwanted software it could be VERY bad for us all.With todays high speed always on broadband unpatched machines are a very juicy target and can flood the Internet with spam,DDOS attacks,worms,viruses,etc. If Apple wants to offer Safari when you download iTunes,or even have a pop up offering Safari when it comes time to update iTunes,fine. But pushing it through the update mechanism is simply the worst way possible IMO to offer Safari.But that is my 02c on the situation,YMMV.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits.
/etc.
Google and Yahoo do this as well as Apple. Have you tried to download Adobe Reader only to have it auto-install the Google / Yahoo (whoever's paying them that month) IE toolbar unless you opt out?
Basically, when I install something -- no matter WHAT I'm Installing -- I don't want any other software auto-installed without an opt-in. Heck I even hate all the little auto-update craplets that get installed with every software package out there from Sun Java to iTunes to Reader
Then again, iTunes is getting particularly crufty on PC's right now. It installs iTunes, QuickTime, AppleMobileDevices, iTunesHelper, iPodService, and finally their autoupdate program.
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...
>Google and Yahoo do this as well as Apple. Have you tried
/etc.
>to download Adobe Reader only to have it auto-install the
>Google / Yahoo (whoever's paying them that month) IE toolbar
>unless you opt out?
Yes, but this is apples and oranges. Installers are one thing. Software updaters are another. With an Installer, you haven't installed the software yet and you are free to chose options (or not, I really don't want to defend crappy installers) but with an updater, you've installed the software and you should be able to trust it to simply update itself, not to transform into an installer for other software and to mix in those other offers with security updates for the piece of software you did install.
Installers and updaters are not the same thing. Abusing updaters is really, really bad for everyone because it causes people to lose trust in the updaters and that means lots of people less secure in the long run.
>Basically, when I install something -- no matter WHAT I'm
>Installing -- I don't want any other software auto-installed
>without an opt-in. Heck I even hate all the little
>auto-update craplets that get installed with every software
>package out there from Sun Java to iTunes to Reader
Again, installers are not updaters and I don't hold them to the same standard. That being the case, I agree with you. Installers mostly suck (We try hard not to suck with Mozilla Firefox's installer and I think we're doing a pretty good job) and users should complain. But bad acting installers are not even in the same category as updaters for installed software.
- A
You do this and you lose the ability to complain when your box gets 0wned by the next Quicktime vulnerability coming down the pike (and there have been enough of them this year).
>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
"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.
His argument still stands as yours fails to take into account that 99% of the time when a user buys a new PC, they're getting it with Windows, whether they want it or not thanks to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Windows is really only popular by "default" as there were few other options. That isn't the case with iPod.
No sig for you!!
The thing with windows is that I've been basically forced to buy it on several occasions. Short of buying parts and assembling your own computer it was unavoidable. To do things on the internet (in the past) we pretty well had to have windows and their browser installed. Even today it is very hard to use any non-ms word processor due to how hard it is to read doc files without their word processor.
In all cases this was not due to windows being good (think about ver 3.1 and 9x. They were crap and yet ended up with 98%+ marketshare)
Even today it is very hard to find anything besides windows in the computer store and for people like me who are stuck with a 26.6 connection windows is pretty well the only choice if I want to upgrade.
With MP3 players, we have 2 in the household. Just went to a store and bought them. Getting music for them is as simple as going to a store, buying a CD, putting it in the computer opening a folder and dragging the music to the mp3 player.
I have never even seen an ipod (though I do see lots of accessories for them). If it was a monopoly I'm sure I would have seen one and have a hard time avoiding it when it came time to buy a mp3 player.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Oh, you can install Bonjour separately on Windows? I've always gotten it as a silent, totally unannounced install along with Quicktime.
Fuck Apple. That shit might work on your platform, but keep it off my computer. If I wanted you to take over my decisions I would own a Mac.
And it's still an underhanded tactic no matter how you try to rationalize it.
Apple can't even get DRM-free music from the big labels apart from EMI. They are a big player, but they don't have anything near the leverage MS has with PC makers.
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.
We already have a classification that fits. Trojan.
Did I miss the year of the Linux desktop already? Where are the competitors who are selling operating systems for the same platforms in numbers that you can see on the same scale as MS?
more of the same on Twitter.
But nowhere does it say that the software is an update to existing software installed on the system. The button to initiate the process says "Install." The text describing Safari is not describing an update - it's describing what Safari is, in the way you would upon the installing of a new product to an uninitiated user.
Is it a software updater or a software installer? Because the two are differentI heard this earlier up-thread, and I'm not sure why people have this idea. Software updaters and installers are essentially the same thing. Most installers also do updates, and most updaters also do installs. There is significant cross-over in functionality, and the difference is only a very minor semantic one.
... and then they built the supercollider.
The number and availability of competitors is irrelevant. The iPod maintains circa 90% of the MP3 player market. That is almost certainly a monopoly.
Now there's nothing wrong with that in itself. Apple won that position. The trouble is, once you win yourself a monopoly in a market, you have to be very careful not to abuse that position to extend your reach into other markets. It sounds like this is exactly what Apple are trying here.
Huh? Vista may be a failure, but I can assure you that the "winner" is then XP. That is also a piece of software sold by Microsoft, in case you forgot.
Well, I sort of disagree with some of what you're saying, but you shouldn't really have written:
Vista is highly unpopular and generally unwelcome, yet pretty much every major PC manufacturer except Apple is bundling it with their mainstream PCs. And when their mainstream PCs are offered with an option that isn't Vista, it's XP. So Microsoft is still dominating the desktop.
When Dell, HP, etc, start bundling Ubuntu or Mac OS X or Syllable, or AmigaOS, or OpenVMS, etc (heh) with most of their mainstream, as in "you can walk into Circuit City, Best Buy, Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Wal Mart, etc, and see these PCs on display running that OS", PCs then we can reasonably say Microsoft has lost its monopoly power. At this stage though, no it hasn't. It's just not doing well persuading people to like its newest product.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So is silverlight and .net but they are still considered proprietary.
Hint; there's more to being free than just being open, atleast if you ask RMS or the rest of the free software community.