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
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
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.
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?
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.
> Since when did Apple start taking lessons from M$?
1997.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
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.
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!
...they'll be bundling QuickTime with iTunes!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
"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.
For that matter, I'm tired of installing QuickTime, then having it pester me with "updates" to install iTunes. If I had wanted to install iTunes, I would have picked the giant "Download Quicktime and iTunes" button instead of hunting for the tiny "Download Quicktime only" button.
Redundancy is good And also good.
Regardless of who is doing it, it is absolutely wrong to push something in this fashion. It's not offering it as a bonus program, but as an update. It's lying. Simple as pie. To broadly claim that "Most" of any group would welcome this kind of deception is horribly judgmental, and factually questionable.
--Jimmy
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"
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.
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
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.
>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
What IE8 force? What are you talking about? You're making shit up. Stop making shit up.
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.
...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.
At the end of the Safari license there is an offer to provide source on request; what more do you want? Just because many (L)GPL software has source more readily available than nevessary does not mean Apple have to provide the source online - only "on request", in their case on physical media.
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.
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
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...
>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.
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.
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.