Slashdot Mirror
Google Earth 5.0 Silently Changes Update Policy
mario_grgic writes "Recently announced Google Earth version 5.0 adds interesting new features like images of ocean floors and some detailed images of Mars. But it also brings another unwelcome change for Mac OS X users. Google Software update daemon is installed when the application is launched for the first time. The user is greeted with an uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen. After the user accepts, Google Update Agent is downloaded and installed. It updates all Google applications and not just Google Earth. Also, it runs on an unchangeable schedule of its own (instead of, say, only when one of Google's apps is launched), consuming system resources. Worst of all it can not be simply removed, since it is downloaded and installed again once Google Earth is launched. Users really have only two choices: live with it, or uninstall all Google apps. There's a discussion about the updater in this Google Group, including details of a way to disable it (not for the faint of heart). So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the line?"
usually when i want to disable anything on mac (dash board, spotlight, etc) i usually change the file permissions to 000. this wont work with google updater?
YES
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
... so you bought a Mac???
I still don't understand why all these companies feel like they need to create their own bloated ecosystem on top of the OS. All the #$%@#! application needs to do is check for an update and link me to its website (even that is not necessary). Adobe is the worst at the this-they have their own $^$#&*$@ file browser, for $@#%'s sake! And their updater nags and doesn't work properly half the time.
I'm not excited to see Google go down this path. If this is cloud computing, I'd rather be from the moon!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I would mind this less if Google was known for care in developing its client code. I specifically remember uninstalling Google Desktop last time due to its consumption of system resources and nasty vulnerabilities.
I really love the unified update system of the Linux distributions. One process updates all the software.
Right now, I have the following updaters running:
Windows
Adobe
Kapersky (Anti-virus)
Java
Apple
Isn't it time everyone gets on board with 1 system? This way, Apple can't sneak Safari in, we can set a coordinated restore point, and there is only one update user interface.
As software releases become a more fluid experience relying on weekly builds and not annual or semi-annual releases, I think all these updaters are going to eventually create a clusterfuck and a negative user experience if we don't get everyone on the same system.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
HP is yet another one of those companies that insists on a background process to update printer drivers, etc. I realized one of the last updates fixed a security flaw. I think my next move will be to uninstall the updater altogether, and thus not have to worry about security holes in a freakin' updater.
It used to be every software house insisted on a systray icon, even though it didn't need it.
Now the latest trend are background "updater" processes, even for stuff that doesn't need it(Adobe reader, etc).
Typically there's no indicators of it being installed, and trying to uninstall it is a mystery.
This needs to change. Identify it as malware or something. Anything.
This is a non-story. Google gives you the option of not using their software. It is not like they are trying to sneak it by you, and you can remove it if you realize that you do not like it.
I can understand why the updater runs on its own schedule. If the software updates itself when you aren't using it, then it will be ready to use when you want to use it! I hate it when software checks for an update when I run it, and then download and install the update. Google wants the software to be up to date and start when I use it. Makes sense to me, though I understand your concerns about the auto-update policy if you are concerned about bugs and regressions.
Or you could always block the updater's Internet access with your firewall.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I tend to agree with you, but I think it's a long ways off.
If you look at the economy, we're (potentially) on the verge of a 2nd great depression. That's because the people that ran companies around the great depression are now 1 or 2 generations removed from the people that run the things now. The new people just don't have any concept of the Great Depression, and just see ways to make money, and now we're winding up in a similar boat.
Right now Google is helmed by people that are incredibly smart and chant "don't be evil"... what happens in the 2nd or 3rd generation of management 40 years down the line? Will the montra still be there? I bet not.
and users should also be allowed to pick & opt out of any update they want. i hate how Apple Software Update, which comes with the Windows version of iTunes, will keep prompting the user about the same "updates" (often completely unrelated to iTunes or any other application the user has installed) until the user downloads and installs it. if you don't, the update will keep popping up or remain in the notification area/system tray.
just because i want to keep iTunes updated doesn't mean i want to install Safari (how is that an update anyhow?) or Bonjour/Rendezvous. at least now Apple makes an attempt (though a feeble one, as they're still using their "updater" to peddle unrelated & unsolicited software).
Have you considered paying for a commercial product?
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
In principle, YES Google crossed the line, clearly. (Reasons are already espoused in other threads, too tiresome to repeat.) In practice, it probably depends on whether end users perceive a clear change in the performance of their PCs.
If the app isn't visually intrusive and doesn't hork throughput, I would guess most won't care one way or the other. Problem is, if the updater causes problems, the simplest option is to uninstall the software -- and who will reinstall it later?
What ticks me off is that with this choice Google seems to be catering those with a surfeit of bandwidth... I never have enough bandwdith, never; now you want to steal a slice of what little I have for your own purposes? Bad Google, bad, evil Google!
I envision a conversation between two typical users:
"Hey, you seen that new Google Earth? Looks cool."
"Yeah, but if you install it nothing else on your computer will work right."
"Oh, dude... screw that."
Sometimes I have to say to hell with it and just eat my jellybeans.
Of course there are Mac (and windows) users for whom that is true. However, OS X is a BSD variant, and as such makes a very powerful and very geeky platform for those of us who like it that way. In fact, disabling the Goog's updater by changing its permissions is trivial using chmod. As for "cannot be simply removed", that is false. I can easily remove anything I want in OS X via the terminal. If you want it "simple", use sudo mc F8. :)
Caveat Utilitor
Considering that they're probably volunteers in a rural area, they probably don't have the money to pay for it.
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government. If you `vote with your feet they will take away every right you have. Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA or not.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Yes indeed. It just strikes me that Google is beginning to show it's true face of an advertising empire that it is, with a technology front to keep our minds from thinking about it too much.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
So are you just not ever going to install anything on your computer? Or did you not bother to read the part that said:
Would you tell someone finds out the toys his kid has been playing with were painted with lead-based paints "just don't buy your kid any toys and you'll be okay?" Or do you think that when we find out someone is doing something that is just plain unacceptable, we should shine a light on that behavior and motivate them to smarten up?
I don't care why you're posting AC
If you things being downloaded without your knowledge, don't install any software and unplug your computer from the network. Just visiting this page caused your browser to download text, images and javascript without your knowledge or consent.
I'm thinking that many of you do not seen to grasp how network apps like google earth work and how they are supposed to be updated regularly when the services they depend on are updated.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
Wow, that's just scary. Wait, I get it... I'm feeding a troll, right?
And they're not. People are voluntarily installing the software Google provided and agreeing to the terms they set. The article summary clearly points out that the software warns that it's going to install the updater. If a person doesn't agree to the terms, then they shouldn't use the software. It's that fucking simple. Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
If Google has something, and you want to use it, you're gonna have to play by the rules they set for it, or not use their shit. That's just the way it works. What would you do if Google said "Well, we're just not going to release Google Earth at all."?
Maybe not
I know what you mean about sketchy updates. I can view the exact hut I used to live in when I was a volunteer in Africa, but until last summer, the city where I live, near Toronto, had only low-res maps. It was difficult to even pick out where the streets and highways were!
Cuz that's the way to go lets ignore the fact that this is a sudden unprompted and uninformed update to an already existing software which installs extra software which then uses up system resources on an unchangeable schedule.
It has nothing to do with installing the software and everything to do with a major change in policy with no warning. If Microsoft makes a change like this people never say "so don't use their product" they wail on and on about user rights. Google on the other hand is defended like a religion.
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software. That's not retreating, that's taking power away from Google (the less people using their software the less power they have.) If everyone "retreats" Google loses (it's hard to maintain a company with no customers), it's as simple as that.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government.
What is Google doing that's worthy of government intervention? Google isn't breaking into your home and installing their software on your computer. You make the choice whether you want to use their software or not, if you don't like what the software does then don't install it.
If you `vote with your feet they will take away every right you have. Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA or not.
I'm sorry but what rights do you have as far as Google's concerned? Software companies can't take away your "rights" since your rights aren't granted by the software companies. As long as you aren't being forced to install Google's software (and you're not) you still have your rights.
Why can't something that has nothing to do with Google Earth not be installed? People want to install Google Earth. They DO NOT want to install Google Updater. What's so hard about that to understand? What is Google trying to be, Microsoft? (Movie Maker, IE, Outlook Express, Messenger, etc. etc.)
:) It really is my computer. If I choose to install something, I should be at the very _least_ aware of the consequences of the installation. AND if I remove it, stop trying to put it back. If it isn't on the computer, there _is_ a reason. So, I'm not installing Google Earth until they fix it. It's not worth the hassle and wasted cpu cycles.
why not make it a "check for updates on startup" (of the app), and allow the user to disable that? Is that so hard? OR, be forthright enough to tell users AT THE TIME OF THE INSTALLATION that they're agreeing to install an app that they have no control over, and one that keeps coming back even if you get rid of it? I don't see the point, nor do I see why Google insists on making it some kind of requirement that they are obtuse about in their instructions? What happened to "Don't be evil"?
I remember what these sorts of things are called... malware.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
The complaint is for the use on OSX, and yet Apple basically did the same thing with iTunes\Safari updater.
Its all wrong no doubt but people in glass houses...
Sun Tzu says:
A good general can fight a hundred battles and win them all
A great general can win a war without fighting a single battle
(or something like that, with apologies to the Master :-))
Guerillas all over the world are winning from large armies by retreating and refusing to fight a large battle. If you don't use google and badmouth google to your less tech-savvy friends, they will feel the pain.
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
But in the case of Google, you're not the customer, you're the product. Google's customers are the advertisers, and they're selling your eyeballs.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software.
Yes, it is.
I remember when CDs were CDs. Not disks that fit into my CDROM drive and install rootkits.
On Windows, every piece of software wants to install a daemon like this Google one into the tray thingy and periodically yell at you about updates and stuff (Sun's JVM does this, do most people even know what java is?).
My point, is that if we don't install any software, then what is the point of having a computer? Its easy to say, don't install X or Y, but when every company has a PHB who thinks its cool to have these terdlets that run outside of the program that I intended to install, well we have to put a stop this somehow. So, yeah, I would consider it a war in some sense.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The OS X system update daemon (which is responsible for updating the OS and a few applications that came with the OS) can be disabled by the user, and the user has the option of refusing individual updates. The default behavior is to download the updates automatically, but prompt the user before installing them. The Google updater, on the other hand, gives the user no control whatsoever.
Google went public, that's what happened.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
If people would stop being so apathetic to the world around them and start taking a stand, then industry would attempt to police itself more. The problem doesn't lie with abusive corporations, the problem lies in lazy people who don't do anything about it.
And before you say "well I'm powerless to do anything", I'm saying the problem isn't you personally, but society as a whole. Writing a harshly worded letter to your politician is boring, the majority of the population, en masse, quickly moving loyalties from one company to another over perceived trust issues, that will keep corporations on their toes. History has taught us, the truth always comes out.
Corporations aren't innocent, but their guilt exists due in big part to lack of consumer pressure.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
That's like saying, "My Yugo sucks. What's the point of having a car?"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Apple is just as bad in this regard.