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.
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.
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!
>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
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...
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
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.
...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.
>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.
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
>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
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!!
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.
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.