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.
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
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 The worst that has ever happened is Apple has defaulted the checkmark to "checked" on Safari (rescinded after people complained), and now this software (which, given it's extremely limited scope and appeal, seems like a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to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.
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.
Why bother
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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".