Slashdot Mirror


Apple Pushes Unwanted Software To PCs, Again

itwbennett writes "Blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wags his finger at Apple for indiscriminately pushing the iPhone Configuration Utility 2.1 update out to Windows users, since it is a tool for business system administrators to set up and administer corporate iPhones — the blogger himself (and practically every other iPhone user) not being of the corporate iPhone user persuasion. But more than just unnecessary, the update actually puts him and millions of other iPhone owners/Windows PC users at increased risk by installing 'not just a configuration program, but the Apache Web server as well,' says Vaughan-Nichols. 'A Web server like the one Apple [is] adding to your PC... [is] a gateway just asking to be hammered on by an attacker. Managed properly Apache is as safe a Web server as you'll ever find, but ordinary PC users shouldn't try to manage it, and even an expert can't do anything with it if they don't know it's there.'" Reader CWMike notes that Apple pulled the iPhone Configuration Utility from the update list after a few hours.

267 comments

  1. Not really... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Informative

    the update actually puts him and millions of other iPhone owners/Windows PC users at increased risk by installing

    Millions? Lets see here, the update was only recommended for a few hours and was quickly pulled. How many people do you think update constantly? If Windows updates are any indication (and most just install in the background with almost no user interaction) chances are very few. We aren't talking about "millions" but a few thousand in the worst case.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Not really... by defireman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There we go again...

      So that's why I get this "iPhone configuration utility" on my PC when I don't even have an iPhone.

      Obviously Apple has learned that installing software without user consent will only earn a slap on the wrist from the users at the very best.

    2. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry, but this is NOT even close to true. It has been offered for at least a week, and came up again on my machine last night. I've had it "offered" several times now on both machines. I don't know who first said it was only a few hours but that is just dead wrong.

    3. Re:Not really... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Informative

      the update actually puts him and millions of other iPhone owners/Windows PC users at increased risk by installing

      Millions? Lets see here, the update was only recommended for a few hours and was quickly pulled. How many people do you think update constantly? If Windows updates are any indication (and most just install in the background with almost no user interaction) chances are very few. We aren't talking about "millions" but a few thousand in the worst case.

      Well iTunes has been installing the Apple Updater Thingy by default for a long time, so the question is how often that checks for updates. And according to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/apple-pushes-unwanted-enterprise-tool-to-windows-users.ars) the update was actually pushed "earlier this month" and only came to the attention of the online media today. It sounds like it was pulled a few hours after it hit half the computer-related news sites, not a few hours after it was pushed out to users.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    4. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      No darling. We Mac users prefer to get a big slap on the ass! And more slaps and more and more and ....

      So, tell me what you're wearing?

    5. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you seriously not understand the difference between having something show up on a list of updates that are available and actually having it download and install behind your back?

    6. Re:Not really... by NoYob · · Score: 1

      He was talking about Apple, no the users.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    7. Re:Not really... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      My sister in law runs itunes on her windows laptop. When she bought it I installed firefox for her to use then she called me to report some strange behavior. She had somehow started running Safari. Firefox had disappeared. So either it happened automatically or she was tricked into installing it.

    8. Re:Not really... by dreamt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you. And in addition, it was listed in a check-box list of items. True, it was enabled by default, but the user still had to hit the button to install it.

    9. Re:Not really... by icebike · · Score: 1

      That utility was there for far more than a few hours.
      It was there last night, over 5 days after the initial upgrade to itunes was announced.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Spoil sport.

    11. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My sister in law runs itunes on her windows laptop. When she bought it I installed firefox for her to use then she called me to report some strange behavior. She had somehow started running Safari. Firefox had disappeared. So either it happened automatically or she was tricked into installing it.

      Or she just went ahead and clicked OK. It's OK to admit that your sister in law might have done that.

    12. Re:Not really... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was at my sister's house this weekend and Saturday at around 11 am CST I saw it pop up on her old Dell machine.

      The big problem I had with it was what it was called which was "iPhone Configuration Utility" and the kicker is she owns an iPhone. Which confused me because she had nothing installed on there for her iPhone, only her iPod. So there I was debating on whether or not to install this for her because it sounded applicable and useful to her. I didn't install it but if I did, I would pissed to know that her five year old piece of crap Windows machine is now running an Apache server. Additionally, I had to uncheck Safari. Then I have to go into msconfig and uncheck the damned Quicktime (try installing iTunes without that!) run on startup shit that is always reset when you install iTunes. Because everyone wants that running non stop in the background especially when you have only 512 MB of SDRAM. So I did the little dance and I've bitched about it before but no one seems to care. It's bloatware and it sucks. Her computer can't even run iTunes videos, she just uses it for music but no one seems to care about that. Apple's the king of usability, design and interface chic!

      Now we get this story where someone points it out. Do we see people roll in and viciously attack Apple like we all would attack Microsoft if IE8 had Bing's Javascript Attackable Toolbar checked by default on installation? Or Microsoft's indexing service that eats up all your cycles whenever it feels like it? No, no, what we get is "there were maybe a thousand people, relax" or "it's not pushing, you could have unchecked it" or "the Windows people don't know how to update anyway."

      Unbelievable. How many free passes does Apple get before you start to question their infallibility? Hey, everyone makes mistakes but you guys are dreaming up probables and likely scenarios that somehow excuse Apple. Why?

      --
      My work here is dung.
    13. Re:Not really... by Miszou72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quicktime is the exact reason why I run iTunes in its own Virtual Machine.

    14. Re:Not really... by Plasmic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you seriously not understand the difference between having something show up on a list of updates that are available and actually having it download and install behind your back?

      How much research do you think people do before checking a box in an iTunes dialog? The onus is on Apple to not offer stupid things that would coincidentally inflate the installed base of an enterprise utility.

      Do you seriously not understand the use case of a typical end-user, e.g. teenager, that thinks they want the 'iPhone Configuration Utility' since it's offered by Apple iTunes and they ... have an iPhone? "Hey, I might want to configure my iPhone. And I've always downloaded every other iTunes update with iPhone in the title." (Anyone that can read the description and decipher that it's for enterprise device management doesn't fit the definition of "typical end-user".)

      The results speak for themselves: millions of users installed this software because it looked like a standard iPhone update.

    15. Re:Not really... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My sister in law runs itunes on her windows laptop. When she bought it I installed firefox for her to use then she called me to report some strange behavior. She had somehow started running Safari. Firefox had disappeared. So either it happened automatically or she was tricked into installing it.

      Or she just went ahead and clicked OK. It's OK to admit that your sister in law might have done that.

      She is not sophisticated enough to understand the implications. iTunes should manage music. Not the operating system.

    16. Re:Not really... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      It just works!

      Even when you don't want it to, apparently.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Not really... by timothyf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Users don't read dialog boxes. It could've had red flashing lights around it, and it wouldn't have mattered. It would still have remained checked by default and users would click the "OK" button to make the thing go away.

      Also, think about the actual action they'd need to perform to not install the software. Sure, it's easy to say "just uncheck it," but think about what that means. Unchecking the dialog box means that you have to know what the iPhone Configuration Utility is and why you absolutely don't need it. Unchecking it means risking that something will go wrong, because you didn't install something that your computer told you you needed.

      *That* is why it's a problem.

    18. Re:Not really... by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I love how it changes the registry to force the browser to load QuickTime for every PNG file on a page. Fuck does that take forever to fix! (Or load a page, for that matter).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    19. Re:Not really... by justindarc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Quicktime is the exact reason why I run iTunes in its own Virtual Machine.

      MSIE is the exact reason why I run Windows in its own Virtual Machine.

    20. Re:Not really... by node+3 · · Score: 0, Troll

      So that's why I get this "iPhone configuration utility" on my PC when I don't even have an iPhone.

      Because you clicked install. Apple does not, ever, install things behind your back.

      Obviously Apple has learned that installing software without user consent will only earn a slap on the wrist from the users at the very best.

      Apple has never installed software without user consent. The worst that has ever happened is Apple has defaulted the checkmark to "checked" on Safari (rescinded after people complained), and now this software (which, given it's extremely limited scope and appeal, seems like a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to get the software out there).

      Two other instances are iTunes bundles QuickTime (understandable, as iTunes depends on QuickTime), and the default download option for Safari is "Safari+QuickTime" (clearly visible on the download page, with an also clearly visible option to download just Safari).

      But in every single case, two things have remained the same--the user has always had to initiate the install, and the user has always been able to uncheck any unneeded components.

    21. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I've seen this included in the updates as well, also for at least a week not just for a couple hours today, and the default was to download and install the iPhone utility.

    22. Re:Not really... by gid · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure I was requested to install the "iphone configuration utility" not once, but twice. Enough for me to disable the apple software update task. What's bad? I don't have a iphone, itouch or any other apple hardware device, I don't even have itunes installed, just quicktime.

    23. Re:Not really... by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      I have been offered it at least twice a couple of weeks apart, including this weekend.

    24. Re:Not really... by roaddemon · · Score: 1

      You're a troll and/or apple fanboy, but I'll bite. Since when has Slashdot been known for giving m$ free passes?

    25. Re:Not really... by Techman83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would have been an "Opt-Out" option, which is nearly as bad as the common theme for windows apps and damn toolbars or other "partner" software. If a friend desperately needs/wants iTunes and I know for a fact they will install it against my advice anyway, I use this method. iTunes, without full quicktime, no updater, no bonjour, updater etc. I stipulate that I won't fix their machine if they choose to update it themselves. It works, keeps them happy and saves me the effort of diagnosing a slow computer.

      Why an F'ing music syncing application needs something like 8 persistently running services is absolutely beyond me.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    26. Re:Not really... by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there. Very original.

    27. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average windows user (and the average mac user for that matter) will install anything Apple suggests. It is technically/morally/etc different than a push, but it has the exact same affect to them. (And remember, if you're reading this, you are not average.)

    28. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hahaha. Patently false. They did not just default the checkmark to "checked". They stuck Safari in the "update" section *and* defaulted it to checked. Like they did with the iPhone configuration utility the last time I updated my iTunes. Someone less familiar with the programs installed on their computer would almost certainly have installed both of these, and since you already have to accept user agreements for updates they might not even notice the install instead of update.

    29. Re:Not really... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Defending Apple? In my slashdot?

      This was a stupid move and Apple's not as innocent as you claim. Defaulting the box to checked is almost equivalent to installing it without consent and Apple knows it. In both cases you end up with users loaded down with crap they don't need and distrusting updates, which has real dollar costs. The only difference is that in the former case the tech crowd squeals a little less, so that's the route they choose.

      Honestly, even if they were really stupid enough to not see any problem when they did it the first time, they have no excuse for doing it a second time. Why would they put it out and then withdraw it a few hours later? Did they forget the user backlash from the first time?

    30. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had that happen too

      I was at my sister's house this weekend and Saturday at around 11 am CST I saw it pop up on her old Dell machine.

      The big problem I had with it was what it was called which was "iPhone Configuration Utility" and the kicker is she owns an iPhone. Which confused me because she had nothing installed on there for her iPhone, only her iPod. So there I was debating on whether or not to install this for her because it sounded applicable and useful to her. I didn't install it but if I did, I would pissed to know that her five year old piece of crap Windows machine is now running an Apache server. Additionally, I had to uncheck Safari. Then I have to go into msconfig and uncheck the damned Quicktime (try installing iTunes without that!) run on startup shit that is always reset when you install iTunes. Because everyone wants that running non stop in the background especially when you have only 512 MB of SDRAM. So I did the little dance and I've bitched about it before but no one seems to care. It's bloatware and it sucks. Her computer can't even run iTunes videos, she just uses it for music but no one seems to care about that. Apple's the king of usability, design and interface chic!

      Now we get this story where someone points it out. Do we see people roll in and viciously attack Apple like we all would attack Microsoft if IE8 had Bing's Javascript Attackable Toolbar checked by default on installation? Or Microsoft's indexing service that eats up all your cycles whenever it feels like it? No, no, what we get is "there were maybe a thousand people, relax" or "it's not pushing, you could have unchecked it" or "the Windows people don't know how to update anyway."

      Unbelievable. How many free passes does Apple get before you start to question their infallibility? Hey, everyone makes mistakes but you guys are dreaming up probables and likely scenarios that somehow excuse Apple. Why?

    31. Re:Not really... by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Well, when users are told 'your iPod won't work anymore unless you click ok', the average user will just click ok. Sure, it's no problem for you and I, but less than a month after I went off to college (currently a sophomore) my parents' computer suddenly had safari as the default browser (which alone was a mess - the computer's 8 years old now, the latest safari absolutely _crawls_ on it. But then again, so does Firefox. And IE. Only browser with decent performance is Chrome). Also had quicktime as the default player for...well, pretty much anything that iTunes wasn't the default player for. The average user sees a box popup that says 'you need to update this', and it's for an app they use all the time, so they click 'ok'. And the apple updater by default checks quite frequently. Like I'm pretty sure it's at _least_ once a week. So if the problem has been out there for weeks...odds are a _lot_ of people have had it installed without having any idea what they were installing.

    32. Re:Not really... by NibbleG · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't have an iPhone either, I do have a iPod Touch, but both the iPhone Config are checked when iTunes has an update. Safari is ALWAYS checked, even though I have never installed it.

    33. Re:Not really... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, operating systems should periodically pop up cryptic dialogues asking you to solve an obscure computer science problem, and if you get it wrong then it changes your wallpaper and your file type associations.

      There's no reason to make it harder than it has to be, which is what Apple's doing by presenting users with an option they didn't ask for and don't know how to answer.

    34. Re:Not really... by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 1

      Users don't read dialog boxes. It could've had red flashing lights around it, and it wouldn't have mattered.

      Yeah I get those at the bottom of websites all the time, usually because I'm the Xth visitor etc. For some reason, the prize is always a bunch of forms to fill out promising more prizes. (this is a joke, by the way)

    35. Re:Not really... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Like it or not, most people have to use computers now. Apple have a reputation as being good UI designers. It is a shame they have this abusive approach to users of a different vendors OS. My wifes sister previously used Ubuntu. I will try to steer her in that direction on her old windows laptop, now that she has bought an apple laptop. I am sure that the niggling updates from Apple contributed to that.

    36. Re:Not really... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you. And in addition, it was listed in a check-box list of items. True, it was enabled by default, but the user still had to hit the button to install it.

      About 95% of all adware/malware crap, like those browser toolbars, uses precisely this technique to get installed. It has long stopped being considered adequate. The default for any "extra software" should always be off (Google, I'm looking at you, too).

    37. Re:Not really... by NibbleG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In complete honesty, most people are in the same boat as aforementioned sister. My father has a PhD, my twin brother is an architect and my sister is, well she is a photographer, but still these are smart people. One uses a Mac exclusively, one uses MS exclusively, the third uses both, but I am constantly being called to take care of things because they aren't computer people. Just like most people here probably don't even change their own oil, which is actually easier than installing Windows once you get the hang of it. The fact that any software company defaults extra software to be installed betting that the user won't know/think that they don't want or need it isn't right, but unfortunately there isn't anything stopping them. I know for a fact that have never, with one exception, read the entire "Terms of Agreement" of anything I installed. Seriously, who does?

    38. Re:Not really... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      http://xkcd.com/570/ would like to talk to you about licensing that joke :)

    39. Re:Not really... by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      I figured I was offered it because my son sometimes syncs his iPod Touch using my computer.

    40. Re:Not really... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      If you don't like Chrome, try Opera. It is almost as fast, still like lightning compared to FF and IE. If you do like Chrome, keep using Chrome :)

    41. Re:Not really... by stuboogie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have also seen this offered multiple times on more than one windows box at work. We use Filemaker which installs Bonjour as a component. I enabled the Apple software update to keep Bonjour updated not to install Safari, Quicktime, iTunes or the iPhone Configuration BS.

      I declined the install on the PCs I noticed them on, but I'm not sure about how many other users at work just clicked update without knowing any better. The Apple update should only offer updates relevant to the programs already installed, not use it as a platform to install additional unrelated software.

      You can complain about MS all you want, but aside from the malware tool they occasionally send, they do not push NEW software over their updates. They offer them through the Windows Update website as optional / recommended updates that are NOT preselected.

      If I want Apple's software, I will go to their website and download it. If they really want people to use Safari, Quicktime, etc., why don't they spend some of that iPhone marketing money on pushing their software instead of sneaking it in on the back of other products.

    42. Re:Not really... by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Yea, I love Chrome :) Well, I love it for Windows users. I'm on Linux myself, so I'm quite annoyed that there's no official build yet. As soon as there is, or whenever I get the time to try out the new dev build and it actually works well, I'm switching. Last time I tried it though it took up a few hundred megs of hard drive space and I don't think it even supported tabs yet. Also took hours to get the damn thing built.

    43. Re:Not really... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2

      Indeed.. I installed it on my Win partition because I thought it was something that OSX had built in.

      If it installed apache behind my back I'm somewhat pissed.

    44. Re:Not really... by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no reason to make it harder than it has to be, which is what Apple's doing by presenting users with an option they didn't ask for and don't know how to answer.

      It's almost as if Apple is trying to make Windows look hard to use...

    45. Re:Not really... by node+3 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Defending Apple? In my slashdot?

      Ego, much?

      This was a stupid move and Apple's not as innocent as you claim. Defaulting the box to checked is almost equivalent to installing it without consent and Apple knows it.

      Um, no. You have to click "Install" (or "ok" or "update" or whatever), and what's being installed is visibly checked. You're making this out to be some sort of horrendously evil and deceptive plot to... what? Install a program of limited appeal? This isn't like Safari, where everyone who sees that update can actually make use of it (not that they necessarily want to, but they all use web browser). But something like this, Apple has really no incentive to push this onto people. So this sound like a mistake to me, not deliberate (as with the Safari case).

    46. Re:Not really... by garote · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just because the userbase here will descend like a pack of starving dogs on any article lampooning the latest Microsoft failure, doesn't mean that they will, or should, respond in the same inane, irresponsible way to news of an Apple screw-up. That you expect them to is a testament to the low standards of Slashdot and, perhaps, your own ulterior motives. This particular incident is a case of Apple accidentally offering an update that is of no commercial interest to them. All they get by offering it is a higher bill from their update hosting provider. And you want to compare this to Microsoft? The company that hands you Windows Media Player like it was a security patch, and hogties your system with so much DRM that you need a cabal of starving Russian crackers just to restore your fair use rights?

      Apparently you do.

    47. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off my grass!!

      Seriously, is there anything that doesn't turn trendy get popular in IT and Slashdot dedicates about 3 articles a week to that whinning about it.

      Don't you guys ever get tired of just writing these giant paragraphs of absolute crap trying to analyze some situation as if it is an alien concept, "how
      could people tolerate that?" and just accept/copy it.

      I mean seriously; there are far more many Science/Technology/Nerd/Stuff articles on the front page of Digg.

    48. Re:Not really... by node+3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hahaha. Patently false.

      "Patently false" and "here's a minor detail you left out" are *not* synonymous.

      What's more, your "minor detail" is, itself (ironically) patently false. It wasn't in the "update" section, because there wasn't an update section at that time. The "Updates" and "New Software" sections were put in in response to people complaining (rightly so, but a bit hyperbolically in tone) about it.

    49. Re:Not really... by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Why would they put it out and then withdraw it a few hours later?

      Oh I dunno. Maybe because they never intended for it to happen?

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    50. Re:Not really... by node+3 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It wasn't "offered through iTunes". It was through Apple Software Update. I realize there's an argument to be made that people may not understand, even though what's happening is spelled out very clearly, and not at all hidden, what they're installing, but it is *not* presented as an iTunes update, nor does this update prompt even appear from iTunes itself.

    51. Re:Not really... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      How many free passes does Apple get before you start to question their infallibility?

      Has Apple ever received a free pass around here? I know they've had some nice press, but there are plenty of people ready and willing to jump into the fray.

      Infallibility... Ha, anyone who remembers the 90s will argue against that, whether they like Apple products or not.

    52. Re:Not really... by atamido · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I went ahead and installed it as I wasn't sure if it offered any extra functionality I'd be interested in. Obviously it wasn't so it's easy to uninstall. My wife though was offered it several days after I installed it (she declined install).

    53. Re:Not really... by atamido · · Score: 1

      I enjoy disabling the multitude of pointless extra services every time someone updates iTunes.

    54. Re:Not really... by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Users don't read dialog boxes.

      I'm normally not a "blame the user" type, but the dialog in question is not tricky, hidden, or in any way misleading.

      I agree that the only things that should be checked by default is software that is already installed (seriously, this is nothing near as bad as MS updates which install software without notification *and* it's hidden behind an "Customize" option), but in this case it really looks like a mistake. The iPhone Configuration Utility is not the sort of thing Apple has any motivation for pushing onto users. *Maybe* this was deliberate, but it doesn't really seem likely.

      Whenever Apple does something controversial, their motives are almost always clear, and those motives are almost always with the goal of making things easier/better/safer for the end user (even the iPhone app store lunacy has that motive at its core), but in this case, I just don't see any motive. Mistake is the only thing that really makes sense here.

    55. Re:Not really... by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Install it with the quicktime alternative and without all the crap. Linky from my post earlier -> These guys have been doing just that for ages.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    56. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, malware authors say the same thing about their products too.

    57. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, operating systems should periodically pop up cryptic dialogues asking you to solve an obscure computer science problem, and if you get it wrong then it changes your wallpaper and your file type associations.

      Actually, that's not a bad idea for an opt-in test for gung-ho power users, if they want to prove themselves as such and don't mind some mildly annoying penalties for spice.

    58. Re:Not really... by moon3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ORLY? Apple installs lots of interesting 'additional' software on Windows, there are at least 3 system level programs running in the background that 99% users are not even aware of. These are running hidden (no tray bar indication icon or similar hint).

      mDNSResponder.exe
      AppleMobileDeviceService.exe
      iPodService.exe

      These programs are running 24/7 in the background eating process time and resources. The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ? To pool the iPod you surely do not need to run at this level or stay hidden to the users. I mean normal users that know shit about 'services'.

    59. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they have an incentive to push this crapware - They're going to start using it to program ipods. Apple is about to start branding itself as "the gaming company, and all ipods will become game machines. This is to get your computer ready.

      This program, like Quicktime, is essentially bloatware crapware , stealing your CPU cycles. Someone should do a fake commercial with the funky dude trying to put a "kick me" sign on the nerdy dude's back.

    60. Re:Not really... by parkerf3 · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that apple is pushing unwanted software onto their customers, especially their iPhone customers. The apple is the sign of the beast, Jobs is the anti-christ, and soon the world will end! Long live PC!

    61. Re:Not really... by defireman · · Score: 2

      If a user will fast-click through a EULA, he will fast-click through any page that will install additional software by default.

      It's unsafe, but that's what the 5 page long EULA has conditioned the vast majority of users to do.

    62. Re:Not really... by ericlondaits · · Score: 2

      Once upon a time I tried iTunes, hated it and uninstalled it. Then the Apple Updater tried to install it every time an update for Safari was available (I keep Safari up to date because I use it to test web sites I develop) and I diligently unchecked it every time and told it to ignore the update... that was until iTunes 9 which I accidentally forgot to uncheck and ended up installing. I went "what the heck, I'll give it another go" but went to WMP and made it the default player for MP3s, WAVs, etc. ... Then when iTunes 9.0.1 came out I updated it (just for security purpouses) and it configured itself once again as default handler for MP3s and other sound files.

      I really hate Apple at times like this.

      --
      As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
    63. Re:Not really... by dangitman · · Score: 0, Troll

      How much research do you think people do before checking a box in an iTunes dialog? The onus is on Apple to not offer stupid things that would coincidentally inflate the installed base of an enterprise utility.

      I would have thought the onus was on users not to operate their computers blindly and not install software unthinkingly. After all, do you think the malware writers are going to play nice one this front? There's no excuse for stupidity, and you shouldn't be excusing it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    64. Re:Not really... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Do we see people roll in and viciously attack Apple like we all would attack Microsoft if IE8 had Bing's Javascript Attackable Toolbar checked by default on installation? Or Microsoft's indexing service that eats up all your cycles whenever it feels like it? No, no,

      Errr, yes, actually. What do you think your post, and dozens of other in this thread are doing?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    65. Re:Not really... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Well, if something not labeled as a WEB SERVER is installing
      something of that sort then this is a real problem. The user
      is being asked whether or not they want to install something
      that looks benign and simple when infact they are opening
      themselves up to a new level of hurt and bother.

      This sounds like a the early iterations of ground chicken that
      had more fat than ground chuck because they weren't what the
      label would lead you to believe they were. You had to carefully
      read the label to realize that they must be putting in extra
      skin to get the fat content up that high. Except there doesn't
      seem to be such a label here and the lay consumer wouldn't
      understand it even if it was there (like polysorbate-80).

      Stealth installs of "desktop software" is bad enough.

      Stealth installs of network servers is just irresponsible.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    66. Re:Not really... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      ORLY? Apple installs lots of interesting 'additional' software on Windows, there are at least 3 system level programs running in the background that 99% users are not even aware of. These are running hidden (no tray bar indication icon or similar hint). mDNSResponder.exe AppleMobileDeviceService.exe iPodService.exe These programs are running 24/7 in the background eating process time and resources. The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ? To pool the iPod you surely do not need to run at this level or stay hidden to the users. I mean normal users that know shit about 'services'.

      Ignorance of what these services represent is easily remedied by disabling them via Services.

    67. Re:Not really... by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same here. I know enough not to select it (I don't even have an iPhone), but the average user doesn't. This is par for the course for Apple.

      And NO I don't want Safari for the 10 Billionth time, Apple. Dunno why people prefer them over MS so much - on the scale of evil, I'd rate them roughly equal and on the scale of software features and implementation, I think MS is much better, hands down. IMHO, it's all marketing, which is supposedly something we geeks can't stand.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    68. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our past experience has taught us that it's safe to bend over in front of Apple without clenching our teeth. That's why.

      As long as we're on the whys... why do these big, gloom & doom, evil Apple stories almost invariably come from kdawson? As soon as I saw the editor, I quickly switched to full-on skeptical mode -- because kdawson is the John Dvorak of /.

    69. Re:Not really... by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1

      Two words.

      Apple Apologist.

      That is all.

    70. Re:Not really... by velen · · Score: 1

      I second that. iTunes needs to be broken up into a media player and the rest of the syncing apps should be separate installs that plug into iTunes or run with their own GUI.

    71. Re:Not really... by jaygridley · · Score: 1

      Yes its always lovely doing a system restore because iTunes removed DEVICE DRIVERS along with itself.

    72. Re:Not really... by thannine · · Score: 0

      I would have thought the onus was on users not to operate their computers blindly and not install software unthinkingly. After all, do you think the malware writers are going to play nice one this front? There's no excuse for stupidity, and you shouldn't be excusing it.

      So, you're saying Apple is just another malware writer these days?

    73. Re:Not really... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ignorance of what these services represent is easily remedied by disabling them via Services.

      I'll wager you that roughly the same percentage of Windows users have ever gone into Services with the intention of disabling unneeded services as OS X users do the same via /etc/rc.d. i.e. NOT F*CKING MANY.

      Only a few percent at top would probably be aware of the existence thereof.

      Security by obscurity doesn't work, and neither does, nor should "functionality by obscurity". "Oh, that's easily remedied, all you needed to do was disable it in Control Panel & Administrative Tools & Services, didn't you know?" is not what anyone would call acceptable.

    74. Re:Not really... by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      ...and the rest of the syncing apps should be separate installs that plug into iTunes or run with their own GUI.

      Ah yes, kill the iTunes + iPod/iPhone integration, great idea there. Or do you think it would somehow be "user friendly" to have a separate syncing applications?

      Did you even think this one through?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    75. Re:Not really... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And you want to compare this to Microsoft? The company that hands you Windows Media Player like it was a security patch, and hogties your system with so much DRM that you need a cabal of starving Russian crackers just to restore your fair use rights?

      Yes, I do. Because Apple installs Quicktime when you install iTunes. iTunes when you install Quicktime. Safari when it thought it could get away with it when you installed iTunes.

      And when you tell Quicktime to not be the default audio / video player, good luck. It'll still be there. As will iPodService.exe as a kernel-level service, even when you've never used an iPod.

    76. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, It's been offered to me at least twice, and again yesterday.

    77. Re:Not really... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    78. Re:Not really... by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

      "The first rule about the backlash from last time, is that you don't talk about the backlash from last time. Seriously, if never happened. Any employees caught even hinting that there was a backlash will be punished severely."

      Anonymous memo from inside Apple HQ. /sarcasm.

      On a more serious side, maybe they decided that the reason it went wrong before was that they weren't sneaky enough, not that people took exception to the act. Remember Apple still own that expensive shiny object, not you. That has to factor into the mindset of deciding whether or not the owner of the unit can make those decisions, or whether it should be left to a mere user to know what's good for them.

    79. Re:Not really... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space?

      If you can't even try to figure out what those services are for, I suggest you steer clear of making accusations of rootkitting.

    80. Re:Not really... by moon3 · · Score: 1

      What is there to figure? The "DNSResponder" -- as the name suggest is pretty self explanatory, why such a simple thing as "DNS responder" has to run as a service and why on earth is this even required for some simple audio player (iTunes) functionality is beyond my comprehention. WinAmp for example doesn't need any such services to function nor Napster or Spotify for example. So why is Apple polluting Windows with these services ? I would expect Apple to run in userland and transparently, otherwise it raises all kinds of suspicions.

    81. Re:Not really... by prockcore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or do you think it would somehow be "user friendly" to have a separate syncing applications?

      You mean like iSync? The separate sync application that comes with OSX? Yes. I do think that it's ridiculous that the iPhone syncs through iTunes.

    82. Re:Not really... by corporatefucker · · Score: 1

      Dammit, quit talking about teenagers and relatives, I am a unix sysadmin for five years now and I have to manage some windows boxen too, but I installed this stupid update because I did not bother to read and I own an iPhone. So imho apple are to blame here, not the users.

    83. Re:Not really... by Malc · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've been going around uninstalling Safari from my computers, because I missed that check box. I want to keep iTunes and QuickTime up-to-date. I don't need a web browaer, nor iPhone configuration utilities, etc. I probably don't need Bonjour either.

      Cheers,
      Malc

    84. Re:Not really... by Old97 · · Score: 1
      Like it or not most people have to drive. There are skills that we as human beings living in an advanced society have to master. We used to not have to know how to drive. Now we do. We used to not know how to type or use a computer or protect ourselves on the internet and now we do. We used to have to know how to render a pig to make lye for our soap, but now we don't. We used to have to master Latin and/or Greek and quote its literature in order to be considered educated, but now we don't.

      I'm not saying there is not room for improvement in how computers and software work. To say that there is would be a vast understatement. Nevertheless, not everything in life is going to be easy.

      It amazes me that at work no one except the IT folks think they should know anything about computers or even modeling and analysis. Why is that? They accept that they must know how to drive in most cases in order to get to work. What makes computer knowledge not part of your job? These days its something every educated person should have. Times have changed - again.

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    85. Re:Not really... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1
      mDNSresponder (a multicast DNS responder) is a component of Bonjour, which is a service discovery protocol. Amongst other things, it's used by iTunes to implement song sharing (though it can be used by a number of other services, such as printer sharing). Its installation might be pretty invasive, but I'd attribute that to incompetence rather than malice. You instead jumped straight into calling it a rootkit. You implied malice without even bothering to figure out what it was, or what its purpose is, and you implied stealthy behaviour without any proof. "It was installed without my consent" isn't stealthy behaviour either (hint: it's a functional, logical component of the application you installed, and enables a feature that's pretty visible). A rootkit is software that hides other things, and I've seen no evidence that this might indeed be the case here.

      Until you can actually prove those suspicions of yours, STFU.

    86. Re:Not really... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's not self explanatory at all. But there is perfectly good reason for it to be installed by iTunes. "mDNSResponder" (note the m) is Apple's Bonjour Service, Bonjour is Apple's implementation of zero-conf. This allows machines on a LAN to discover one another without user configuration. iTunes uses it to allow you to share your music library with other people using iTunes on your LAN.

      This is exactly the sort of task that Windows services are intended to be for. An always running task with no UI. It's a long time since I moved away from Windows, so I don't know whether services run in userland or the kernel. I suspect it's userland. But if it is kernel, then that is Microsoft's fuck up, not Apples.

      "Polluting" windows with these services? I suggest you don't make accusations till you know what you're talking about.

    87. Re:Not really... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Probably more a mistake than a "stupid move". Apple had no reason, malicious or otherwise, to auto-install this obscure enterprise utility on to everyone's PC.

    88. Re:Not really... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      How did that troll get modded insightful? Of course no such thing happens. Duh.

    89. Re:Not really... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      On the newer versions of IE (7 or 8) there's a Add-On manager tools that allows you to remove Quicktime's hooks in the browser. It's still annoying, but it beats manual registry edits. Quicktime might still open a PNG from somewhere else (like if you double-click it in Explorer - not sure since I don't have it installed, but this wouldn't surprise me) but the browser will use its own rendering engine which is a lot quicker.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    90. Re:Not really... by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

      You can complain about MS all you want, but aside from the malware tool they occasionally send, they do not push NEW software over their updates. They offer them through the Windows Update website as optional / recommended updates that are NOT preselected.

      Windows Genuine Advantage, and in some cases, Internet Explorer 8.

    91. Re:Not really... by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      You really only use iSync directly if syncing non-iPhone phones, with an iPhone it doesn't launch separately (as in: iSync window pops up showing a phone icon and a sync button that you have to click). When you plug your iPhone in iTunes will launch and handle the syncing, this is because of the whole "music, video and apps managed by iTunes" thing you may have heard of.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    92. Re:Not really... by Overunderrated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why an F'ing music syncing application needs something like 8 persistently running services is absolutely beyond me.

      Why I need "an F'ing music syncing application" to transfer audio files onto a flash device via USB, when every other similar device allows me to just drag some files onto the drive in explorer, is absolutely beyond me.

    93. Re:Not really... by moon3 · · Score: 1

      Sorry for confusion, but where did I call those binaries directly "rootkit" ? Nowhere, I've just stated that these run behind normal applications as services, those service applications are normally associated with the system and the kernel. For humble user anything that didn't run under icon and is not the operating system raises questions as malware uses these tricks also.

      Most people blindly trust Apple, but learning from that Sony rootkit incident we ought to be careful. Apple should be more transparent here and enable user to choose to avoid these services.

    94. Re:Not really... by Overunderrated · · Score: 1

      So every decision MS makes is because they're evil, and every decision Apple makes is out of the good of their hearts? Good lord do they ever have great PR.

    95. Re:Not really... by Overunderrated · · Score: 1

      Unbelievable. How many free passes does Apple get before you start to question their infallibility?

      A lot. Next.

    96. Re:Not really... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      Sorry for confusion, but where did I call those binaries directly "rootkit"

      You at the very least implied it:

      The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ?

      For humble user anything that didn't run under icon and is not the operating system raises questions as malware uses these tricks also. Most people blindly trust Apple, but learning from that Sony rootkit incident we ought to be careful. Apple should be more transparent here and enable user to choose to avoid these services.

      Indeed, we ought to be careful, and we ought to check anything suspicious that crops up. But that doesn't mean making accusations without proper research first.

    97. Re:Not really... by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      You can complain about MS all you want, but aside from the malware tool they occasionally send, they do not push NEW software over their updates. They offer them through the Windows Update website as optional / recommended updates that are NOT preselected.

      Well, duh! All MS components are already on the machine. If PCs came with all Apple software preinstalled the wouldn't be pushing extra software would they?

    98. Re:Not really... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I work in IT - I have been building images for a number of lab machines, and I know for a fact that its been on the default install list (in the Apple updater) for several weeks now (because it pops up just after installing Quicktime), even though I don't even have an iphone.

    99. Re:Not really... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      So why is Apple polluting Windows with these services?

      I place the blame for this crap squarely on Microsoft. They could have implemented cross-platform standards compliant mDNS, like everyone else. There are even BSD licensed implementations written to promote adoption. Instead MS decided to implement their own, closed and proprietary version that by design cannot interoperate with non-Windows systems. As a result Apple, Adobe, and numerous other companies end up implementing their own version in Windows programs so they can interoperate with Mac and Linux versions of their software. And the end user is left with confusion (like you) and decreased security because two different services are exposed that provide the same functionality, and sometimes multiple implementations of one of them, increasing the exposure of a system to attack.

      This is another case where MS intentionally broke compatibility to try to shield their product from fair competition, decreasing security to do so.

    100. Re:Not really... by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      True enough point. But I can understand that people like that kind of functionality. It would be an awesome thing indeed if the ipod was like that, but then it would be harder to force you into using a complete apple stack.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    101. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually its STILL not pulled. My system has been requesting this update for 3 days now. Check your facts before posting if 30 million Iphones, http://games.venturebeat.com/2009/03/17/iphone-30-event-30-million-sold-now-thats-a-game-platform/, have been sold even if only 1 in 1000 have been used thats 30,000 alone. I cannot honestly believe that its 1 in 1000 more like 1 in 10 which is 3,000,000.

      Now lets address your second comment >>(and most just inall in the background with almost no user interaction)

      Just what I want a program that does what it wants to my system, without my approval or consent, and opens up the backdoor while I'm busy trying to protect the front door.

      I honestly hope your not a systems admin somewhere.

    102. Re:Not really... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Um, yes it does. It used to do JPG and GIF as well but I just looked and thy seem to have stopped doing that.

      You can configure it via the Quicktime applet in the control panel - look under "mime types" in the "browser" tab. I wonder how many average users would know how to do that?

      They also constantly try to install iTunes and iPhone apps on my machine. I don't own an iPhone or iPod so why they do that is beyond me.

      --
      No sig today...
    103. Re:Not really... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      XP and Vista both have services running in the userspace. I haven't tried Windows 7 yet, but since it's using the same basic kernel as Vista, I would image services would also run in the userspace there.

    104. Re:Not really... by jsalbre · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why ignorance about computers is acceptable when ignorance about other matters in life is not.

      When you buy a car you're expected to know what the options are for, and if you don't you're expected to figure it out, not just say "ok" to everything the dealer offers.

      When you order dinner at a restaurant you're expected to know what you're ordering or ask if you don't.

      The same goes for cable service, telephone service, clothing, and every other product you acquire in life.

      Why is it only IT companies are expected to assume their users are completely ignorant and must be handheld through everything?

      Now, I'm not saying at all that I agree with the practice of selecting unneeded software packages by default, but that doesn't change the fact that users should be *expected* to figure out what something is before they click on it. The problem isn't that companies offer things that users don't need, the problem is that society accepts and even encourages ignorance in IT matters.

    105. Re:Not really... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Note the post I replied to said "for every PNG on a page. Now, it appears, you mean in IE, not Safari!

      Well IE would be pretty fucked up if it did that. But it doesn't. However when you view A PNG (rather than a page (HTML) containing PNGs as the post claimed) IE uses the system PNG viewer rather than realising it can display it itself. Yes, that is pretty fucked up. And the fucked-up-ness is IE. All Quicktime has does is correctly inform Windows that it is a viewer for the PNG file type. IE's behaviour of using that information in a stupid way is Microsoft's fault. And it is I believe a defect that Microsoft have remedied in the latest versions of IE.

      Don't blame Microsoft's mistakes on Apple. Safari always did the right thing with regard to PNGs displaying in the browser.

    106. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, whether ignorance is ok or not, I don't consider a car dealer who pushes things I don't need onto me good, and I won't buy from someone like that unless they are really cheap.
      Likewise I just won't install Apple stuff on "production" systems because of that kind of thing.
      Life can be hard enough without inviting people over that do their best to make it even harder for you.
      And I just consider the behaviour of Apple's updater as "doing their best to make things harder".
      So I consider that fairly consistent.
      Also I think you are just wrong on what people expect, there are all the time people who fill up regular into diesel cars and the other way round and particularly when I am abroad I regularly order stuff in restaurants I have no real clue of what it is (and I sure expect it to be edible, though not much more! Depending on where I am I'd also consider it normal to be warned when it is very particular and I obviously look like a foreigner - I won't blame them if they don't, but I might consider it a sign that they don't care and not go there anymore).
      Or consider mathematics, isn't some of it a rather basic skill? But how many people will just say "I've never been good at maths" if you even mention something related to it? How many check if what they are asked to pay actually matches? How many would pay at least 20% more before they would even notice? Who would be blamed if someone regularly overcharged?
      So I just don't think that IT stands out that much all in all.

    107. Re:Not really... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Sorry for confusion, but where did I call those binaries directly "rootkit"

      You at the very least implied it:

      The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ?

      I think it was clear that he was just pointing out that these services have the same privileges as a rootkit, not that these services are rootkits themselves.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    108. Re:Not really... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If a user will fast-click through a EULA, he will fast-click through any page that will install additional software by default.

      Exactly, which is why fast-clicking should always and only install the minimum necessary (for whatever is being installed), anything extra should always be explicitly allowed, not the result of fast-clicking.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    109. Re:Not really... by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      I probably don't need Bonjour either.

      AFAIK, the only reason a Windows system would need that is if you had an Airport Extreme with a printer attached to it.
      I've played around with it at work before, and there are actually a LOT of printer manufacturers that support zero-conf, and are detected by Bonjour. We also have Windows print servers, but I could see it being useful in a small workplace. It's analogous to UPnP, which is native to Windows, but I don't think it has the same hardware support zero-conf does.

    110. Re:Not really... by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Perhaps getting these checkboxes to a default of 'off' is something that should be added to the Windows Logo Requirements. Difficult to police though, because even on Slashdot not everybody is in agreement.

    111. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop channeling Milhouse.

    112. Re:Not really... by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      In services != kernel.

      These are not running at kernel level, all service run in user mode.

    113. Re:Not really... by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Then the text becomes "Don't install blah". The requirement needs to be carefully written.

      On a side note, does iTunes even have the logo?

    114. Re:Not really... by shirotakaaki · · Score: 1

      as OS X users do the same via /etc/rc.d. i.e. NOT F*CKING MANY.

      Only a few percent at top would probably be aware of the existence thereof.

      I am familiar with rc.d on linux but this comment made me look on my OSX box and there is no rc.d. So I think you can change that comment from NOT F*CKING MANY to NONE.

      (I was honestly curious if OSX had rc.d. There is something similar but not at all like the *nix version. Just leftovers from BSD I imagine.)

    115. Re:Not really... by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quicktime does not appreciate tactics like that, and will change it back. Also, unfortunately, the addon manager does not allow you to remove said hooks at all. You can disable Quicktime, but then any PNGs just get "red x'd" on you.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    116. Re:Not really... by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      whoosh!

    117. Re:Not really... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You're also wrong. In the associations section in the registry for a file type, which is the biggest pile of shit to navigate that I've ever seen, you can declare the associated executable for many actions, and one of those is the in-process viewing (i.e. the browser). QuickTime overrides this, presumably to incorporate full alpha-transparency support which hasn't been needed for about 4 years now.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    118. Re:Not really... by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      If that's their intention then they fail horribly.

      Whenever I see iTunes it makes me think what a nightmare it must be owning a Mac where the entire operating system would be as awful as iTunes is and I thank the gods that I'm running Windows. Of course, it's a totally wrong impression, but that's what it says to me.

    119. Re:Not really... by node+3 · · Score: 1

      I'm always fascinated by people who come to absurd conclusions from innocuous starting points. Thanks for providing a few moments of fascination today.

    120. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. They also send me spam (I never signed up for their mailing list). Not surprising they'd resort to these tactics too.

    121. Re:Not really... by Overunderrated · · Score: 1
      The statement:

      the dialog in question is not tricky, hidden, or in any way misleading

      is not at all innocuous. Something called "iPhone Configuration Utility" which is checked by default, although unnecessary to actually "configure an iphone", is pretty much the definition of misleading. Packaging a webserver with this "iPhone Configuration Utility" and not explicitly stating, or giving an option, that it includes f'ing Apache, is pretty much the definition of hidden. This is bloatware, plain and simple. When you state that "Apple's motives are always clear... the goal of making things easier/better/safer for the end user", you're clearly implying that their competitor's motives *aren't* clear. Like somehow Windows Update is some nefarious tool to push bloatware onto unsuspecting users. The slashdot population never ceases to amaze; the same people that will bemoan windows including IE are willing to make excuses for a software travesty like iTunes.

    122. Re:Not really... by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 1

      "Control Panel & Administrative Tools & Services"

      [win]+R -> "services.msc" if you're nasty.

  2. iTunes application bugs by PaKL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally I hope they spend more time on the main iTunes program itself. Mine always freezes if I allow the program to sync as soon as the iPhone is connected! Disabling that function is the only way I have found allows me to connect the iPhone without having iTunes stall.
    Is this the second update to version 9 of iTunes already? It seems just last week the 9.01 (?) was released!

  3. Any verification on the Apache web server? by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one else reporting on this "issue" (it was a mistake folks - chill out) has mentioned installing Apache, which would definitely be a huge issue.

    Has anyone here independently seen this supposed Apache installation?

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    1. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by zn0k · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have the iPhone Configuration Utility installed on a work machine as we support a few dozen iPhones at work. Just checked, and there's no Apache process (just an iPCU.exe) when running the app. One of the links in the summary also mentioned using a browser against localhost:3000 for configuration, netstat shows no process listening on that port.

    2. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by zn0k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Should have checked more carefully before posting - the first link from the summary in turn links to http://www.itexpertmag.com/telecoms/supporting-mobile-email-on-multiple-handsets, which mentions a Ruby web service on port 3000 for iPhone configuration. Again, there's nothing listening on port 3000. I have no idea why the first summary link uses to support the idea that Apache gets installed.

    3. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by reydeyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      EVERY Mac OS X installation comes with Apache. It's off by default and you're never asked to turn it on (you can turn it on system preferences though). If the mere existence of a web server on a computer is security risk, then everyone with a mac is screwed!

    4. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by justindarc · · Score: 0

      At least it wasn't IIS.

    5. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Informative

      No I can't find the Apache server other than the one I installed on purpose.

    6. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      What, the web server with virtually no security vulnerabilities in the last 4 years in the two most recent iterations?

      Yeah, demon forbid that get installed.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1, Informative
    8. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by justindarc · · Score: 0

      What, the web server with virtually no security vulnerabilities in the last 4 years in the two most recent iterations?

      Yeah, demon forbid that get installed.

      The last time I checked, IIS 6.0 is considered "in the two most recent iterations".. From earlier this month: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=4170

    9. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by fermion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that we are not talking about OS X. We are talking about MS Windows, which does not come with Apache, so that is why it might be installed.I see not documentation on it being installed. I see a number of items that must be installed to support the utility.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    10. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa fluffy. The parent post by Kalraith was claiming that IIS was "the web server with virtually no security vulnerabilities in the last 4 years in the two most recent iterations".

      He was indirectly claiming that IIS is more secure than Apache. You were probably hit by the idiotic "reparenting" feature of slashdot, where parents below the abbreviate threshold, of a post above the full threshold, are completely hidden, making a post look like the grandparent was the parent.

      If a post is above the full threshold, the proper thing to do is not to hide any ancestor posts, but to merely abbreviate them. Therefore the ancestry of any post is clear. But Slashdot is badly broken, and has only been getting worse. *sigh*.

    11. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Ok, but what was the vulnerability count on IIS, which Kalraith was referring to?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since when has "virtually no" meant "no"? IIS6.x has had eight vulnerabilities in its seven years of existence (only seven if you search CERT). Less than one a year. IIS7.x has had two in two years (three if you search CERT, plus one "unreliable"). One a year. Apache 2.0.x has had TWENTY-FIVE, and Apache 2.2.x has had TWENTY SEVEN.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    13. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read it again. He was talking about IIS

    14. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Jeez, can't anybody here use Google? According to Secunia, for the time period 2003-2009, IIS6 had 6 vulnerabilities http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1438/?task=statistics. Apache had 39 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/73/?task=statistics.

      You can look at those statistics a few different ways. Apache had far more moderate-severe vulnerabilites than IIS6. Or if you're an Apache fanboy, you can twist it and say Apache's vulnerabilites were less severe in general, but that's only because Apache had a whole lot more lower vulnerabilities to skew the percentages. It's too bad Secunia doesn't show the statistics on how long those issues remained patched.

    15. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that should have tripped your spellchecker.

      It's "bullshit". With a "u". Slashdot doesn't have a "bad words" filter that you have to work around.

    16. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      By "vulnerability", what you mean is an advisory or a known vulnerability. You can only guarantee that a vulnerability is documented by an advisory when its discovered by a third party who publicises the fact. If it' discovered internally by a closed souce software vendor, there is no guarantee of an advisory.

      Apache is open source, IIS is closed source. No shit there are more public discoveries of vulnerabilities in Apache, and hence advisories. That doesn't mean that IIS has less vulnerabilities.

    17. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Rary · · Score: 1

      Has anyone here independently seen this supposed Apache installation?

      And why would it be a huge issue anyway? Does the installer also hack into your firewall configuration, open port 80, and port map it to your workstation?

      Okay, okay, I realize there are still a few people out there who don't connect to the internet through a router. My ultra-luddite sister, who only abandoned dial-up last year, comes to mind — of course, she would also never own an iPhone. But even if Apache is automatically installed (which appears questionable), does it also automatically open port 80 on the Windows firewall?

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    18. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Hmm. So what you're saying is that Microsoft is actually doing well with their security if they're patching the vulnerabilities before they are discovered and exploited? Good to know.

      Anyway, we're still talking about a difference of 8 to 27. Even your "undisclosed vulnerabilities" (because demon forbid that Microsoft actually do something better than someone else, you have to put up a load of bollocks argument to explain it) would not account for the 1:3 variance there.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    19. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Hmm. So what you're saying is that Microsoft is actually doing well with their security if they're patching the vulnerabilities before they are discovered and exploited?

      No. Clearly no one outside of Microsoft knows that. I'm saying that Microsoft doesn't have the transparent vulnerability reporting process that Apache does.

      Anyway, we're still talking about a difference of 8 to 27. Even your "undisclosed vulnerabilities" (because demon forbid that Microsoft actually do something better than someone else, you have to put up a load of bollocks argument to explain it) would not account for the 1:3 variance there.

      You have no visibility of the problem, so you can't say. It's as simple as that.

    20. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Kalriath · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just because it's open source, doesn't make it transparent - people keep making that mistake. How many people do you know (personally, not on Linux developer forums) that actually inspect the source code of their Apache install? How many of them actually look at the release notes of a given patch? How many of them check to see that the only files changed are part of that patch?

      Don't be sucked into thinking that open source == transparent. It doesn't necessarily mean that.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    21. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by wallsg · · Score: 1

      (it was a mistake folks - chill out)

      And I'm sure everything would be just as chilled if Microsoft made this kind of mistake.

    22. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many people do you know (personally, not on Linux developer forums)

      Why do I have to know them personally? Silliest argument ever.

      Don't be sucked into thinking that open source == transparent. It doesn't necessarily mean that.

      That's the equivalent of saying a tree in a forest falling down doesn't make any noise if there is no one there to hear it. Open source is transparent whether or not people routinely take advantage of it's transparency. However it's obvious that some people do take a keen interest in changes, and if there is ever any doubt about what is in apache or a patch, then it's there for anyone to see, and the full trail of changes will be for years thanks to SCM.

    23. Re:Any verification on the Apache web server? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You're right, I phrased my original question badly - I did not necessarily mean in person, but I was trying to explicitly exclude users who actively engage in developing Linux (folks who contribute to the code, etc) since the point is that the users who use Windows will likely never look at the code for Linux as well.

      And you're still conflating Open Source with Transparent. They don't mean the same thing and don't necessarily go together at all. I mean, you're saying "the source is available" is the reason it's transparent. Why is that specifically transparent? Why does that exclude closed source vendors from being largely transparent (after all, someone can read the code, probably a lot of someones).

      I also see that someone thinks "Troll" is a euphemism for "Disagree". Newsflash jerkwad, it isn't. "Troll" means "a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses". That isn't directed at you, by the way BasilBrush.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  4. pushes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not so sure if asking me if I'd like to update/install something is the same as having it "pushed" to me. I had the Apple Software Update thing pop up on me the other day, I unchecked the items I didn't want (the iPhone Config Util being one of them), and I went ahead and updated the software that I did want. So how exactly are they "forcing" this one me?

    1. Re:pushes? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not everyone is a slashdotter. In fact, you'd be less vulnerable even if you install it just because you're a techie and post on a site that bills itself as 'News for Nerds'. So, the name (iPhone Config Util) itself sounds like something an iPhone user would want.

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:pushes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright. That's fine then. As was mentioned in another post (by one of those "techie" slashdot folk), the article is completely off base in assuming that Apache gets installed/turned on when the utility is downloaded. At best, anyone who downloads it and never touches it won't have it do anything more than take up a few MB of disk space. But then that wouldn't be anywhere near as sensational a headline. That is, unless you have some ACTUAL PROOF that this thing is the supposed security risk it's being made out to be.

    3. Re:pushes? by BeaverAndrew · · Score: 1

      I agree, the average iPhone user may be turned on by the name of the app. Personally, I can't stand using iTunes, Quicktime, etc. on my PC, so I'm sure this [useless] application will be no different.

    4. Re:pushes? by thepainguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They should give us the option of not being offered it. I have tried several times to deselect it from the offer list, but that's not an option. Instead, you have to notice it in the update list. I'm not worried about what I am going to do, but about what my wife and kids are going to do. They aren't as tech savvy as me.

    5. Re:pushes? by eulernet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how exactly are they "forcing" this one me?

      In that case, explain me why when I update Safari with the latest version on Windows, and I uncheck the Bonjour checkbox, it installs Bonjour anyway ?

    6. Re:pushes? by moreati · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're just being friendly. Installing extra software is Apple's way of saying hello!

    7. Re:pushes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft makes a concerted effort to ensure that only security updates get pushed out automatically.

      Anything that is just 'new/expanded/different functionality' never gets pushed to the customer. A customer needs to consciously visit Windows Update and add that new feature/program/...

      The reason why they make such a concerted effort is because Microsoft caught a lot of flak, a huge amount of flak, at the introduction of automatic updates in a Service Pack to Windows XP. People were ranting about how Microsoft was going to install software on your machine without your explicit say-so.

      Anyhow, a couple of years later, and Windows update has always just updated components for security requirements.

      And now Apple actually leads its users into installing more, and more, and more software, and people on Slashdot aren't absolutely livid?

      Strange how being cool always gets you a lot of leeway in mistreating people.

  5. Re:Actually laughing out loud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bad, clicked on a brand new top article when I came back to slashdot from the Win 7 party http://www.cnbc.com/id/33007219/

    Noticed immediatly but of course I'm still getting with each attempt... "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

  6. Re:tucker max failure!!!!! by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

    It's September 28th. where is this comedy upset?

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  7. Likely Accidental by iMouse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple only pushes the iPhone Configuration Utility updates to those who have the utility installed already. This is the case with my home and my work computers where only my work computer contained a previous installation of the iPhone Configuration Utility.

    It appears to be more of a screw-up by Apple rather than the intent of pushing unwanted software.

    1. Re:Likely Accidental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incorrect. Apple Updater has been popping up every time my wife opens iTunes (and sometimes even when she doesn't) asking her to install Bonjour, Safari, MobileMe, QuickTime and the iPhone Configuration Utility. The config utility is a new addition from a few weeks ago. We certainly don't have that tool already and it is most certainly part of Apple's continued ploy to get her to just click Okay and "accidentally" install all of that crap on her PC. There's no way to tell the updater to only offer relevant iTunes/iPod updates -- it's a complete pain in the ass.

      The bit about Apache is a mistake, but the point of this article is 100% dead-on. It's like the Java VM update trying to install the Yahoo Toolbar every damn time it runs (with the boxes pre-checked for my wife's convenience... thanks).

    2. Re:Likely Accidental by Plasmic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Incorrect. Apple Updater has been popping up every time my wife opens iTunes (and sometimes even when she doesn't) asking her to install Bonjour, Safari, MobileMe, QuickTime and the iPhone Configuration Utility.

      Can't argue with that!

      And aren't we aware of Apple's iPhone in the enterprise push with IT buyers? Apple would love to say, "With over 10 million installs, the iPhone Configuration Utility is widely adopted by corporate IT departments". Nevermind that 99% of those are due to the "accidental" installation.

      You also have to ask yourself, have they ever done anything to indicate their shyness with regard to software installation? QuickTime takes over every single audio/video playback association, both in Explorer and with browser-embedded media, and even gets its own system tray and desktop icons. Same goes for iTunes with its "uncheck if you don't want it" policy for the apps mentioned above.

      I just don't see why we'd give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one.

    3. Re:Likely Accidental by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah the bit about Apache is bad but the rest is completely trustworthy, sure, sure, what color is the sky where you are? Well I had the tool installed but I uninstalled it because we decided to use a different machine to administer the phones. When I run the updater utility it doesn't try to re-install it. I can't find even the remnants of it on my system. But don't let that get in your way. 100% dead on it is then!

    4. Re:Likely Accidental by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      This is wrong. I don't have the app installed and they still pushed it to me.

    5. Re:Likely Accidental by iMouse · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe you just failed to notice that Bonjour, QuickTime, and MobileMe are all tied to iTunes for functionality.

      MobileMe is tied in to iTunes for iPhones, Bonjour is for iTunes Sharing, and QuickTime is required for iTunes functionality.

      Safari has been known (recently) to prompt for optional installation, but is not checked for installation by default. Your wife would have to check the box and click the install button to "accidentally" install Safari. Also, she is prompted to install these items because the Apple Software Updater process is running on startup. Whoever installed iTunes failed to read and uncheck the box for it to not be installed.

    6. Re:Likely Accidental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's giving them the benefit of a doubt? Everyone's complaining about how Apple shouldn't be forcing software on their granny. It's one thing to be OCD about your own machine...but jeez, what is the actual damage done by this thing?

    7. Re:Likely Accidental by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Safari used to be checked by default.

      I remember being quite annoyed at it.

    8. Re:Likely Accidental by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Safari was checked by default last year. There's even a screenshot of it on mozilla's blog when they complained about it.

      http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/

  8. Clearly done in error by danaris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The previous ones were probably Apple deliberately (and stupidly) trying to push its software to Windows machines that didn't have it already.

    Given that almost no one needs the iPhone Configuration Utility among regular consumer-type users, I can see no benefit to Apple in deliberately pushing it out, and thus conclude that it was just a mistake.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Clearly done in error by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can see no benefit to Apple in deliberately pushing it out

      You are all set to replace your cell phone with one of these new hip phones, like the Blackberry, the Pre, or the iPhone.

      You know that you already have iPhone interop support because, after all, Apple Maljector keeps telling you that you have access to an "iPhone Configuration Utility" - Surely that means the iPhone works great with your computer! - Hell, you may even have installed it already!

      Now, you were saying something about no benefit?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  9. Re:Actually laughing out loud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have claimed that Slashdot was simply duping stories from a few days ago when posts went to the wrong story.

    We would have believed it.

  10. Apple haters ahoy! by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Troll

    Last time I worked on a windows PC I updated the Sun Java installation and had to uncheck boxes to avoid installing several unwanted things (toolbars, openoffice, etc). Where is the outrage? Bah! People just love to hate on Apple...

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      Just because Sun does it doesn't mean it's a good practice, from Apple or Sun.

      Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't you ever learn that?

    2. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Java didn't try to install anything last time I updated it.

      It has an ad for OpenOffice.org in the installer (which utilizes Java for some bits and pieces) but that's it.

    3. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by Intron · · Score: 2, Informative

      They push Yahoo! toolbar unless you uncheck the box.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    4. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't you ever learn that?

      Where did he say that it did? His point would appear to be that people are treating Apple more harshly than others for the same transgression. I'm sure it's not caused by an abnormally powerful fanbionic flux or anything like that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Microsoft regularly reboots my machine without any intervention on my part. Where's the outrage.

    6. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Time for a trip to the nearest re-education center. MS good. Apple Bad. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

    7. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by topperharley122 · · Score: 1

      You either need to change your automatic update settings or you have a re-curring error, in which the system is set to automatically restart. To turn it off: Right-click on My Computer-> Click the Properties option-> Click the Advanced tab->Click the Settings button under Startup and Recovery->Uncheck the Automatically restart check box That should take care of all the automatic restarts that happen, unless something else is going. I had that happening all the time until I changed it up. Silly Microsoft.

    8. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Sun does it doesn't mean it's a good practice, from Apple or Sun. Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't you ever learn that?

      Whoooosh.
      You're a moron, and so is the asshole who modded GP troll. Fucking slashtards... Half of you are no different from religious fanatics, with your false dichotomies and double standards.

    9. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      When we get an article about Sun, we'll bash Sun in a heartbeat. In the meantime this is an article about Apple so expect Apple bashing.

      Is this really all that complicated?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    10. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by prockcore · · Score: 1

      What "people"?

      This post on reddit shows people aren't treating Sun any differently than Apple in this regard.

    11. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      But it says that bad things will happen if I turn off the automatic update. Automatic restart was off by default when I installed the motherboard.

    12. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by topperharley122 · · Score: 1

      I always set the automatic update to ask me first if I want to install anything. I wouldn't turn it off completely, you will need important security fixes (with microsoft there will be a lot).

    13. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      My exact settings, and yet I get certain "Critical" updates that cause a reboot whether I wanted one or not. Go figure.

    14. Re:Apple haters ahoy! by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Oh and just so you know for certain it's not a failure the exact window that opens after the boot is "Microsoft has added a critical update to your computer and a reboot was required". This usually happens when I don't use the windows box for a while.

  11. pulled, not pushed. by NivenHuH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Software updates are pulled from the client, not pushed to the client. There's an important difference between the two and the phrases shouldn't be used interchangeably. For software pushes, see: Amazon Kindle + 1984 book deletion

    --
    Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
  12. dumb... by shentino · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...ass

  13. Saw this update a week ago! by ancarett · · Score: 1

    The update has been pushing this software for days -- my twelve-year old called me to the family PC last week to ask about the update install. If I hadn't trained her well, she would have assumed it was okay since she knows we have Apple's Quicktime installed (and the update cleverly bundles Quicktime with iTunes, which I don't want on any computer, especially one with a nearly-full HD).

    I hadn't looked into the iPhone configuration part though, like the blogger mentioned, I was irked since there's never been anything like an iPhone in this house. Knowing now what was involved, I'm glad we dodged that bullet!

    This whole experience goes to show that corporations can all fall into traps of not thinking or knowing what one part's doing and not really caring until someone makes enough noise to get their attention. I don't trust Apple anymore than I trust Microsoft. Nor should anyone blindly trust these corporations: they don't have your best interests at heart!

    --
    ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
    1. Re:Saw this update a week ago! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This whole experience goes to show that corporations can all fall into traps of not thinking or knowing what one part's doing and not really caring until someone makes enough noise to get their attention.

      The company that tries to ninja software onto our computers all the time did not make a mistake when they did it yet again.

      The 'mistake' was only getting 1 million people to install it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Saw this update a week ago! by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      So ninjas are visible and easily disabled in your world, eh?

      If you don't want it, turn the checkbox off.
      If you don't understand what it is, read the text that shows when you select it.

      Apple shouldn't enable it by default, but no-one is "ninjaing" software onto your computer. You had to click a button to start this process.

      But that's not good hyperbole, so I understand why you pointlessly nerd-rage.

    3. Re:Saw this update a week ago! by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So ninjas are visible and easily disabled in your world, eh?

      In my world, if a program is called 'iPhone Configuration Utility' yet it does not perform configurations relevant to the average owner of an iPhone, then its big-time ninja.

      And for the record, it has only been a single year since the iTunes update (version 8) installed...

      Apple Mobile Device Support
      Bonjour
      MobileMe

      ...without any method of preventing it, or any notification that that was happening.

      You claim that I am filled with nerd rage, eh? I claim that you are fucking ignorant.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  14. in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....apple has released a trojan/virus?!?!?

    get a rope...

  15. Typical Apple... pushing crapware by spywhere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I build a Windows box, I turn off QuickTime's default automatic updates and delete the shortcut from the Start menu.
    (I also install Flash and Java in front of the customer, so I can show them the "already checked box" scam).

    1. Re:Typical Apple... pushing crapware by bdg2 · · Score: 1

      When I install Quicktime on a PC I just uninstall the Apple software updater. That seems to be all it takes to stop other Apple software being offered. It don't think it stops updates to Quicktime being offered when Quicktime is used.

      The Quicktime installer installs Apple software updater silently without any warning even if you uncheck the box that says check for new software when you run the Quicktime installer.

  16. Try again... by spywhere · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sun was pushing the Bing toolbar with a pre-checked box until last week... now they're pushing Carbonite 30-day trialware the same way.

    1. Re:Try again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes you wonder how often people are installing Java. Seriously... I mean it must be often enough for them to change the advertising every once in a while. That's insane for something that is suppose to be stable and ubiquitous. Java sucks.

  17. I enjoy getting forced to install shitware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need a new MP3 player and the only thing keeping me from getting an iPod touch is the fact I need the complete pile of shit that is iTunes for PC to sync with it since Apple has done everything humanly possible to prevent other programs from syncing with it.

    Thanks, you're basically costing yourself a sale. Not that it matters with all of the Steve Jobs knob slobbers out there.

    Fuck iTunes.

    1. Re:I enjoy getting forced to install shitware. by Borommakot_15 · · Score: 0

      http://www.getsharepod.com/

      No iTunes

      That was easy.

    2. Re:I enjoy getting forced to install shitware. by sbeckstead · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually you are a total idiot and didn't bother to even look for other software. There's plenty and it works very well for iPods.

    3. Re:I enjoy getting forced to install shitware. by psiclops · · Score: 1

      except apple decided to bunde the ipod updater with itunes (which used to be two seperate programs) so i was forced to install iTunes onto my pc. unless they've seperated these again?

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
  18. RDF much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears to be more of a screw-up by Apple rather than the intent of pushing unwanted software.

    Do you believe that the Sony rootkit was just an April fool joke and that Windows Genuine Advantage cures cancer?

    Phaggart.

    1. Re:RDF much? by iMouse · · Score: 1

      The Sony rootkit was derived from Sony/BMG's need to control ripping of their CD content. It was most certainly wrong and got worse when a vulnerable version was exploited.

      I won't comment on WGA....even the Microsoft fanboys hate that crap.

      Apple has no interest in pushing the iPhone Configuration Utility to consumers. The software doesn't mean anything to them, nor do they know how to use it. For a piece of Apple software, it isn't very end-user friendly.

      I believe this was just an error on Apple's part that got blown up into Apple doing something sneaky. The Safari debacle, yes, I would believe that. iPhone Configuration Utility, not so much.

  19. Got the prompt at least twice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only have Safari installed to test how websites look in it (no QuickTime and definitely no iTunes) and I got the prompt to install this nonsense a couple times over the past day or two. Now I need to make a mental note to go look and turn off whatever Apple Updater (ugh, I hate the "updater" name) is running in background.

  20. Quicktime Alternative by Derwood5555 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Quicktime Alternative, FTW.. No iTunes, no iPhone, no iToilet...

    1. Re:Quicktime Alternative by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even better, VLC media player. Hardly a need to install anything! http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

    2. Re:Quicktime Alternative by MojoStan · · Score: 1

      Quicktime Alternative, FTW.. No iTunes, no iPhone, no iToilet...

      Even better, VLC media player. Hardly a need to install anything! http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

      Install both, FTW (including Media Player Classic Home Cinema, which is bundled with Quicktime Alternative). MPC-HC and VLC use different decoding frameworks, so they don't interfere with each other. Some stuff works better on MPC-HC (hardware accelerated decoding) and some stuff works better on VLC (broken/incomplete files). However, Apple's Quicktime is definitely NOT needed to play back non-DRM's video on Windows.

      I'd rather not get into a K-Lite vs CCCP war, but I prefer CCCP plus QT Lite.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    3. Re:Quicktime Alternative by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but I've always found mplayer more reliable than VLC for network streaming, but on the other hand ffmpeg will play things mplayer won't. And I thought all these FOSS players shared code...

    4. Re:Quicktime Alternative by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Does anyone still talk about WinAMP?

  21. The # of Free Passes by weston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many free passes does Apple get before you start to question their infallibility?

    Probably about as many as there are strawman constructions of people's conceptions of Apple as a company.

    1. Re:The # of Free Passes by indiechild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Apple has never gotten a free pass on Slashdot, but that doesn't stop people from claiming that (and at the same time getting modded +5 without fail).

    2. Re:The # of Free Passes by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      It's the thrill of swimming against a perceived tide.

      "Look at me! I'm not like the majority! I'm cool and different. I'm completely unafraid to speak out against the polarising thing that also polarises me (but in the opposite direction, and don't think about that for too long or you'll realise I'm essentially the same as everyone else)."

      A lot of forum moderators are suckers for that sort of rubbish.

    3. Re:The # of Free Passes by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My favorite was the story of how "iCon" was banned from Apple stores. The haters were doing their usual "now if this were Microsoft, you'd all be up in arms" even as many of the +5 posts called Jobs a consummate asshole.

    4. Re:The # of Free Passes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many free passes does Apple get before you start to question their infallibility?

      Probably about as many as there are strawman constructions of people's conceptions of Apple as a company.

      How the fuck was the GP post a strawman?

    5. Re:The # of Free Passes by weston · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How the fuck was the GP post a strawman?

      Darkness404 made an argument defending Apple. It's apparently not a correct argument, but in the course of that argument, nowhere did they say "Apple is infallible." In fact, almost nobody says or believes anything like that. As a rule, even people with a high degree of enthusiasm for Apple's products generally have some gripes. But the post I replied to essentially asked why the person who made the argument persisted in believing in Apple's infallibility. That's attribution of a position there's no apparent evidence for. This is pretty much what constructing a straw man is.

      Really too bad. eldavojohn's response was otherwise fairly useful as an anecdote.

  22. Apple can KMA by topperharley122 · · Score: 2, Funny

    First Jobs steals a liver and now he's trying to take over my computer. I'm pissed.

  23. I RTFA by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1
    That dude way the fuck overreacted. He needs to get over his bad self.
    • When /. let's ME moderate for a little while, you know their shit is fucked up.
    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  24. Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt out by DJRumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apple is 'asking permission' to install this when you are prompted to install it via the Software Updater. You get a short list of available updates. If you click on each you'll get a lengthy description of what each does. This isn't some hidden update titled KB12345 with a description that reads 'critical security update'.

    -----------------
    Description of the update:

    iPhone Configuration Utility lets you easily create, maintain, encrypt, and install configuration profiles, track and install provisioning profiles and authorized applications, and capture device information including console logs.

    Configuration profiles are XML files that contain device security policies, VPN configuration information, Wi-Fi settings, APN settings, Exchange account settings, mail settings, and certificates that permit iPhone and iPod touch to work with your enterprise systems. For instructions on how to use iPhone Configuration Utility, see the iPhone and iPod touch Enterprise Deployment Guide, available for downloading at http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/enterprise/

    -----------------

    It requires user intervention to install and it comes with a full text description of what the tool does. I know it's popular to hate Apple but insisting they are 'shoving this down users throats' is a misrepresentation. They offer the install and the user has to either leave it checked or uncheck it. If you've properly educated your family and friends (reading below it appears that at least some have), they simply uncheck it and ignore it if they don't know what it is. I've taught my family about software updaters. They simply called me about this one and I told them it wasn't needed and to uncheck it. Problem solved.

    That said, Apple should do the right thing and disable these by default or better yet, not even offer them. Any admin worth their salt would be able to find this software if needed in about 3 Google seconds. There is no reason this should be offered in the updater except perhaps if the user already has a previous version installed. I can easily see where a user who does have an iPhone might be tempted to install this without understanding what it does, but a quick read of the update description should clue most people in that this isn't something they could use for day to day use or at least prompt them to ask someone more knowledgable.

    As to the Apache software itself, does anyone know if it's enabled by default, or locked down? Apache is actually a pretty secure product if properly configured. I know the knee jerk urge to bash Apple, but does anyone know how it's configured, and if it's enabled by default? For example, every Mac comes with a built in FTP, Print Server, and Web Server, but they are all disabled by default. I know this is on the Windows platform, but surely there are ways to secure an Apache server even on that OS?

  25. iTunes is a trojan in most business environments. by Jim+Efaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had the Apple Software Update thing pop up on me the other day, I unchecked the items I didn't want (the iPhone Config Util being one of them), and I went ahead and updated the software that I did want. So how exactly are they "forcing" this one me?

    Wait until the Apple Software Update pops up again and you discover that all the items that have even a minor version number change are back — even though you selected "ignore this software" — and not only back, but checked by default again, because, even though you refused to install an enormous new program when it was on version 4.3.2, surely you'll want to install it now that it's 4.3.2.1.

    I have several business clients that feel a need for QuickTime. A couple of them even paid for QuickTime Pro. They certainly do not need iTunes. Yet, even though they paid money for the product, it won't stop trying (at least as of the last time I checked this summer) to trick them into installing 120MB of extra software as an "update" over and over. I've already had to uninstall iTunes twice for clients because Apple makes it look like it's a QuickTime-related "update" so important that it starts popping up again after a couple weeks (new version!) even after being ignored. There is no excuse for ASU's resetting the "ignore" flag on uninstalled software except to trojan machines with iTunes and Safari behind the computer tech's back and hope a large portion of users think that's just how their computers work now.

    When IE and Windows Media Player were doing these kinds of things in Windows 9x, everyone howled, yet at least Windows Media Player doesn't embed itself in the startup registry where everyday users can't remove it. iTunes does.

  26. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by dave562 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This makes owning and supporting a computer more difficult for users. I don't have time to answer questions from my friends every time a software publisher pushes out a new update. I've taken to telling them, "If it's a Microsoft auto update, install it. If it's an Apple auto update, install it. If it's an Adobe auto update, install it." When Apple starts pushing out software that is not necessary as part of their update process, it adds unnecessary confusion and software bloat. Like another poster above said, he only has Quicktime installed but the Apple updater is pushing iPhone utilities and Safari onto his desktop. Doing that is just bad form, no matter how descriptive the accompanying text is.

  27. Re: Snot really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha. Patently false.

    You have a funny idea of "patently false."

    They did not just default the checkmark to "checked". They stuck Safari in the "update" section *and* defaulted it to checked.

    OP didn't write "they just defaulted the checkmark," OP wrote: "The worst that has ever happened is Apple has defaulted the checkmark." They also got up in the morning *and* went to work *and* developed Safari *and* stuck Safari in the "update" section *and* ...

    Now you might be of the opinion that sticking Safari in the update section was worse than defaulting the checkmark, but that is not patently true (nor false).

  28. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that this should not be included in the update and certainly not checked by default, but the TFA implies this is somehow snuck onto the target PC like some thief in the night when that is not the case.

    As to how much time this takes, how many friends and family members do you 'actively support'? I have a handful of friends that look to me for support. About 5 total call me for various issues/questions). Of those, 1 called about this, and I'm sure one just installed it (he's new and VERY PC illiterate). If your family and friends are like mine, they DO eventually learn, albeit slowly in some cases. Eventually they get savvy enough to not immediately just accept any OK or CONFIRM prompt that they see and they do read what their getting. Your mileage may vary ;)

  29. Ipod owner with a PC... not forced, but tricky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have wind0ze and a iPOD. I use the crappy software that creates redundancies, runs at a crawl on a PC and generally annoys the piss out of me. Lately the updates which force apple's annoying quicktime plugin to dominate my browser now include a pre-selected option to install this crap. I also use ubuntu, and have a G1 android phone. I don't like or want a damn iphone. Nor do I want config utils for something I don't own... my question at first was, what is up with that?

    Now I ask: What reason if any have I been given to NOT be paranoid to learn about a imbedded apache server? Oh apple, please include a tinfoil hat with all successive Ipods!

  30. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the average user it has been just "snuck" onto their PC. The average user knows very little about there machine or the updates, my sister would not have the faintest idea what safari or boujour are or whether she needed to update them, they have learnt over time that the right thing to do is keep your machine UPDATED and the result is that a heap of garbage gets installed as users stick with the default selected options. apple is abusing the trust people play in updates.

  31. Time to weild a big hammer by SEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It looks like the only way to get Apple to start behaving responsibly would be for Microsoft to put Apple Software Update on the list of targets for the Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool, until Apple eliminates the default checkboxing of "updates" to software the user hasn't installed.

  32. Absurd by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    I now have two boxes to uncheck every time iTunes updates, one for Safari and one for this iPhone configuration utility. Safari I can understand somewhat. I use firefox, but OK, conceivably I could use Safari, I have an internet connection and need a browser so it's a product that could apply to me. I don't even own an iPhone though, and I don't plan on getting one. So why they feel that I need to have this installed is beyond me.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  33. Thaty's why I still run Windows 2000 by Animats · · Score: 1

    It's getting kind of dated, but my main machine still runs Windows 2000, and has nothing on it that updates automatically. It's rather peaceful - very little unwanted drama.

    I have the latest Firefox, the latest Open Office, the latest Python, the latest MySQL, the latest Sumatra PDF, the latest Blender, etc. - all the important stuff still runs on Windows 2000. Dreamweaver 8, Photoshop Elements, and other basic graphics tools run. Even rather exotic programs like the LTSpice circuit simulator, the AVR micro controller development system, and the Tortise SVN client work fine.

    Really, Microsoft hasn't done much substantive to their OS in the last decade. Most of the stuff since then has either been cosmetic or has made things worse.

  34. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by kramerd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Google translates 3 google seconds as 9.50662939*10^92 years.

    I assume this update will be irrelevant by then...

    On the other hand, the update isn't for the admin who can update quickly, but rather for the user who lets his software get old, thinking apple will send him updates when they make a difference to the functionality of his software. He is not reading what the update does, even though he has the option, because it's from apple.

    This isn't a windows vs apple issue. This is a (update automatically because you are lazy) issue, which means that millions of updaters are certainly possible, especially if corporations use iphones.

  35. Re:iTunes is a trojan in most business environment by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

    When IE and Windows Media Player were doing these kinds of things in Windows 9x, everyone howled, yet at least Windows Media Player doesn't embed itself in the startup registry where everyday users can't remove it. iTunes does.

    Nah, that's just for Moviemaker. And WMP DRM libraries... :)

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  36. SRWare Iron by mister_playboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Chrome without the crap... the current Linux alpha works great for me:

    http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    1. Re:SRWare Iron by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. This makes life so much better. lol

  37. Update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess maybe the word update confuses me as I understand it to mean that something is being made more current. I never realized update meant that I need to get up to date with every product a company wants me to have. Maybe I'm getting old.

  38. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by dave562 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point that I'm trying to make is that I want people to be able to trust software publishers to only deliver updates that they need. I want to be able to tell my friends and family, "If Apple sends you an update, you can install it. You don't have to second guess it." With Apple pushing software updates on users who don't need them, I can't tell people to trust what Apple is asking them to install. That is the problem.

  39. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    By the same token you can click on Microsoft's updates and, you know, actually read what they are for and what they do. They even have a link to tell you.

    Err... Most of the time.

    Fairness in our bashing would go a long ways.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  40. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by adolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Additionally, in my experience, these Apple updates happen mostly when launching iTunes.

    Picture it, if you will: A user wants to play some music, download a sitcom, or just sync their iPhone. So they launch iTunes, just like they have before. And instead of getting to do those things, they get an annoying thing that won't fucking ever go away until they press OK. Sure, they can cancel it (but then it just comes back), or they can read it and deselect things, but why should they be forced to do these things?

    They just want to instruct the computer to provide some manner of entertainment. Instead, the computer ends up instructing them.

    This, I think, the paradigm which bothers me most: That the computer switches from being told by the user what it should be doing, to telling (or at least suggesting to) the user what to do.

  41. They offer the install ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no - they offered the "not install", that's why all these people are jumping on you.
    By default, the application will install itself, because of the routine "click OK to go away" behavior we've been trained to follow by our trusted geek friends.
    What Apple "offered" was a "not install", which people are not going to research and "accept" (by unchecking the box), because that would mean turning down something free that Apple thinks I need.

    It's not "problem solved" as you say, despite your backdown in the next breath.
    It was a bullshit move, and even Apple acknowledged this by pulling it - why did you find it necessary to defend Apple when they don't want to be defended.
    Sounds to me like you a "knee-jerk reaction" to defend Apple - better get that seen to, my friend.

  42. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by mikael_j · · Score: 0

    I'd still have to say that what Apple does on Windows (because the software updater doesn't really behave this badly on OS X) is just a fairly moderate version of what way to many "legitimate" software developers do with their Windows software. On my work laptop I get daily "OMG WidgetCorp(R) SoftFoo(R) 2011 (Remember kids, if the other guy starts releasing his software with an inflated version number, inflate yours even more!) needs immediate updating and we also recommend you install our media player, ftp client, image viewer and bathtub immediately. In fact, we've already prefetched the whole thing, the moment you hit ok or enter they will install and we will then forcefully reboot your computer for no good reason" popups. Not to mention the Windows updates where even the "extended" info on MS' website practically just states "install this or bad people will rape puppies and we won't be able to, err we mean, just install it already or the tur'rists have won!".

    It's sort of like how people complain about how the look and feel for iTunes and Safar on Windows don't match the way "everything else" looks, except way too much software for windows is even more non-standard than Apple's software, and often in completely user-unfriendly ways ("You made the windows round and shiny? Why would you do that?!").

    So yeah, I think Apple is just doing what they and everyone else can get away with when developing Windows software, but at least Apple can be excused on the UI issue since their software was originally written for another platform.

    /Mikael

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  43. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by corporatefucker · · Score: 1

    Oh sure, because i like getting 50 calls for every stupid windows app that makes an update.

  44. Uninstall it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or does no one on slashdot know how to uninstall software?

    I'm not 100% sure but I could swear I saw the option to uninstall it through windows' control panel when I was cleaning my parent's computer the other day...

  45. /. Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change one word in this story and there would be 1000s comments screaming bloody murder. What word change would it be you say? That change would be Apple to Microsoft.

    HYPOCRITES!

  46. Re:iTunes is a trojan in most business environment by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    I've also noticed that the Quicktime picture viewer at one point kept asking me to associate all my media files as being opened with the Quicktime picture viewer. Even thou I had said no. And that I did not want it to ask again.

    I never use it but sure enough when I opened it up right now it's still doing the same damn thing. (Likely it's the same version as I don't think there has been an update to it lately.) I suppose were I not the skeptical type I could just write it off as a bug. Such as it is...

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  47. Inside job... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Were they even aware this time this was going on, sometimes like the Chinese having malware pre-installed on usb keys and hdd drives, then say it was someone working for them and they would remove it, this too could be an inside job where someone thought it a great opportunity to set up some free web servers and set up some hax0r websites...!

  48. Apple software, no thanks by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    It's funny, just yesterday I was having a conversation about Apple's aggressive software with a guy who brought me a video in Quicktime. I told him that I refused to install any Apple software on my Windows computer because it is so aggressive about installing other Apple programs (like installing iTunes when you install Quicktime), taking over file extensions without asking, running an updater in the background without asking, etc. AFAIC, Apple software on a Windows machine is just glorified malware. The last time I installed Quicktime, it took over every media file extension, made iTunes my default media player, and put an updater on the system that I had to go hunt down in the registry to finally get rid of (even Apple's uninstaller is sneaky and tries to leave traces of itself behind). Bad-mouth MS all you want, but I would trust their stuff any day over Apple software.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  49. Humm apple apes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we go yet again another mighty fine example of why all you two legged apple sheep should all WAKE THE FUCK UP !!!! and get with the canning of ALL thinggs apple they are just a major fuckup waiting to toast your balls for you . DO a JOB on JOBS and get a life the iphoooone is a pile of rat turd any how .

  50. Pulled after Hours? by theJML · · Score: 1

    This update was put on the list as part of the 9.0 iTunes upgrade, I have an iPhone and I knew I didn't want it, as I already configure it through iTunes.

    THEN about 5 days later (maybe longer) Quicktime updated and at was part of THAT as well. Which affected not only my PC, but my wife's PC, who uses my install of iTunes for her 2G Shuffle and has nothing but Quicktime, reluctantly installed on her PC. I had to tell her to uncheck the box and skip over that as part of the quicktime update.

    But if this wasn't enough, the next day it poped up again as Quicktime detected an available update from Apple (not for Quicktime, that was done, but it listed the apple update's manager along with the iPhone Configuration thing and Safari 4. Luckily it hasn't asked again, but this was multiple questionings over a 2 week period.

    I'm glad to hear they pulled it, but unless "Hours after" means "240 hours after" this is a big crock.

    --
    -=JML=-
    1. Re:Pulled after Hours? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Dude, do you need some money? It sounds like you are running out of disk space or something. All of this emotion over something so silly. Are you really that anal?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  51. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by Tharsman · · Score: 1, Troll

    This makes owning and supporting a computer more difficult for users. I don't have time to answer questions from my friends every time a software publisher pushes out a new update. I've taken to telling them, "If it's a Microsoft auto update, install it. If it's an Apple auto update, install it.

    So you give stupid advice to your friends and expect them to be fine and have no issues?

  52. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by Tharsman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The user that is "stupid" enough to allow this to sneak on up them has many more secuirty issues to worry than this thing.

  53. Accident? by dn15 · · Score: 1

    Sorry if I sound like an Apple apologist. For the sake of disclosure, I do have an iPhone and I use and support/manage Macs as my day job -- about 700 of them.

    Anyway, I think pushing an enterprise config utility to all their Windows users was most likely a simple mistake. I'm guessing someone who manages their update service accidentally put it in the "make available to everyone" category instead of "make available to people who have an older version of the same utility" category. What's the point? I can't think of anything Apple would stand to gain by doing this deliberately.

  54. As easy as one, two, three by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    (1) trojan competitor computers
    (2) p0wn these computers with an "unrelated" attack
    (3) sell own computers to p0wned individuals

    --
    I come here for the love
  55. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it's a sekrit ploy by Steve Jobs to focus the negative virus/malware based attention away from Apple and toward Microsoft.

    What better way to add fuel to the "Apple doesn't get viruses" lie than to have Apple install not just an exploitable software, but a fucking web server, which can be used to proliferate more worms/malware/viruses on the Windows machines.

    I would say that's exactly what is happening, especially when a different post here mentions that this "update" was "intended" for corporate IT administrators... I'm a systems administrator; do you have any fucking clue how pissed off I would be to find out that Apple just turned my network of workstations into a network of web servers? Thankfully we don't have any automatic updates turned on, and every time I update our images I intentionally neglect iTunes and Quicktime.

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  56. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Is that the entire text of the description? It doesn't say anything about Apache being installed. Installing a useless piece of software that you'll never use which may auto start and run as a service is one thing, but if they're also installing a web server they need to say that.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  57. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by lennier · · Score: 1

    "This, I think, the paradigm which bothers me most: That the computer switches from being told by the user what it should be doing, to telling (or at least suggesting to) the user what to do."

    Right, except that it's not actually "the computer" which is telling the user what to do, but "the corporation" which sold the computer and publishes the software/media for it.

    Which is just the same way companies (and lets face it, most other large social and industrial groups) have been relating to their consumers for years. Since the dawn of mass manufacturing and marketing, at least.

    "Trust us. We're the experts. Buy this. We know what you want. You need this product. It's an update. You (might) need it to be safe. It (might) be healthy. It (might) make you happier, cooler, smarter and an all-round better person.Listen to us: we need to educate you about the benefits of our new product. It's for your own good. Can you take the risk that you know better than us? We're the Company. Would we lie to you?"

    It's the same power/knowledge differential, it's just being exploited through different media.

    In other words, it's a social, not a technical problem, and the root of the problem is that we have a society with tolerates and in fact *rewards* white-lying and sharp-dealing high-pressure sales, if it gets marketshare.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  58. Re:Risking karma here but shovelware? You can opt by hrimhari · · Score: 1

    That's where you got it wrong. When it's Apple Auto Update, do NOT install it : )

    --
    http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
  59. Windows is wide fucking open you shithead by gig · · Score: 1

    While Apple was politely knocking on this guy's door to offer him yet another free software download (by mistake it turns out) to go with the Apple software he is already using, malware and viruses were installing themselves through the windows and cracks in the walls and hiding all over his system. Windows is fucking wide open and this guy is complaining that Apple offered him something. This fucker should save his misplaced animosity for Microsoft and the shitty PC industry that can't even ship him a fucking Unix in 2010. He has to get his media layer, media manager, zero configuration networking, and HTML5 browser from fucking Apple even though he is using Windows. There is something already wrong there, and not at Apple. To be pissy about the updater politely offering you something you can refuse in 2 ways (refuse just for now, or refuse permanently) is just fucking completely unacceptable.

    Truly, STOP USING APPLE SOFTWARE. You are a fucking bigot and you deserve what you get from Microsoft. Take it from them, bend over, and plead for some more.

    I truly hope a black-hat finds this guy's wide-open fucking Windows PC and installs a fucking nuclear bomb on there and let's see his article about that. Probably goes something like this: "well, Microsoft tried their best, if only computers weren't so naturally virus-prone, I better upgrade to Windows 7!" and just insert about 20 more ass-licking Microsoft excusifying that Windows users have become so good at you fucking wretched masochists.

    The anti-Apple bigotry is widespread right now because Apple is once again 10 plus years ahead of the rest of the industry. The correct response to this is not hatred towards Apple, it's righteous indignation directed towards YOUR OWN FUCKING SHITTY PC VENDOR WHO IS 10 FUCKING YEARS BEHIND. HP/Dell/Lenovo are still selling you warmed over Windows fucking 95! Unix is fucking FREE! You already own the fucking thing but you are PAYING FOR FUCKING WINDOWS ANYWAY.

    With all the shit that self-installs and can't even be removed from Windows, it is just incredible to hear Windows users whine about this fucking iPhone provisioning app that was offered by fucking mistake. Microsoft fucking wishes that their mistakes were as small as offering people a download they don't want. That would be an awesome day at Microsoft.

    Truly, get off the Apple gear. Uninstall all of it, sell your iPod, get the fuck away from it all. Never darken an Apple Store again. Nobody has a gun to your head you fucking loser. INCREDIBLE.

    You hear people saying "Apple" and "anti-trust" in the same breath today, that is fucking ridiculous, they have 10% of the market. What that really amounts to is a plea to nationalize Apple, to stop them from competing, to break up the Yankees, to appropriate their technology for the user of the generic PC industry. That is how fucking hopeless the PC makers are. People can't imagine any of them actually advancing their technology to the same generation as Apple so they just say "well, Pre should be able to use iTunes if it wants, and PC makers should be able to use OS X if they want, and if not, then Apple is a criminal monopolist. FUCKING LAME. TOTALLY FUCKING LAME.

  60. wholesale Fashion Ladies ED Hardy Caps,Laguna Beac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Http://www.tntshoes.com

        The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.
    Features:
    1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)
    Size for women US5-8/10
    2) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)
    3) Many designs and colors available
    4) Delivery can be prompt shipping
    5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .

    OUR WEBSITE:
                                                            YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                    MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                                        Http://www.tntshoes.com