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.

22 of 768 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by smitingpurpleemu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Obligatory by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits.

      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).

    2. Re:Obligatory by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market...
      Actually, the real reason people won't issue lawsuits is that the initial homepage is set to a video of The Steve, saying with a hand-wave "Firefox is not the browser you're looking for, move along".
      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    3. Re:Obligatory by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Obligatory by nwoolls · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Obligatory by asa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >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

    6. Re:Obligatory by webmaster404 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Its deceptive is what it is. When you download an update you don't expect to get extra programs installed, you expect to get patches applied to the program you are updating. And its not like in Linux where all that might also get updated is your version of say Python, this is an entire different application.
      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
    7. Re:Obligatory by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you have QuickTime or Safari (...), but not iTunes, the updater will offer you iTunes -- preselected -- every time a new version comes out, and call it an update. Maybe I'm just slow today, but how is it appropriate for an UPDATER to offer me a program I've never had installed on my computer?

      Sketchy tactics are sketchy.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Obligatory by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    9. Re:Obligatory by Wyzard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This happens with Bonjour too. If you install Bonjour for Windows (something that ought to be installed on every Windows box, IMO), you'll be offered iTunes and QuickTime as "updates" later.

      Calling installation of a new unrelated application an "update" is pretty underhanded.

    10. Re:Obligatory by mshmgi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think any rational observer will agree there's a HUGE difference between the iPod's 72% market share, and Windows' 95% [+/-] market share.

  2. quicktime also by B00yah · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:quicktime also by heson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quictime Alternative is your friend. Maybe it should be bundled with firefox :)

  3. WHY are Apple doing this? by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  4. iTunes? Ycuk! by morari · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. We need a new title for this by KevMar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  6. However bad this is by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Who modded this down? by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  8. Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. by asa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >In any event, Safari is at least a standards-compliant browser,
    >so it still fulfills Mozilla's dream of a standards-based web,
    >even if actual Mozilla software isn't being used.

    It's not about Safari being used. I'm all for a healthy, competetive browser market where users can chose between several great standards compliant browsers. That's a big piece of what Mozilla is all about.

    The problem here is not that Safari may get more users. The problem is that they have used "software update" to install a *new* piece of software. Safari is not a software update for QuickTime and it's not a software update for iTunes. It's an entirely new piece of software being pushed by Apple as if it was an update when it's clearly not.

    This is a problem because it waters down the meaning of "software update" -- something that vendors depend on to keep users safe and secure and that users should be able to trust. Users shouldn't second guess themselves when clicking "OK" on a software update dialog. If they're afraid of software update services, it'll be impossible for vendors to keep them safe with security and stability updates.

    It's this trust relationship being abused by Apple that's the problem, not that more people may end up with Safari.

    - A

  9. I feel your pain by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?
  10. I'm amazed you were modded up... by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
  11. it gets worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.