I would be all for that Safari users would get updates, but if you don't have Safari installed, you shouldn't get an "update" to it now should you? The point of Updating is to update existing software currently used...not downloading new software from the company that isn't on your computer. I find this despicable, but in all I have nothing bad to say against Safari either.
Those were my 2 cents...
Dan
· 1 year ago
I just ran Apple Software Update here and sure enough, it's giving me Safari by default, even though I have never installed it. Very poor practice indeed. Hopefully this story will hit some big news sites so that they can be publicly shamed.
Timothée Lecomte
· 1 year ago
For your information, this is not a new practice at all as far as the Apple Software Update is concerned.
If you use Bootcamp to install Windows on a Mac, Apple Software Update will be installed. Even if you don't have iTunes nor QuickTime installed at that time, they will appear in the update program ! On the contrary, I have never seen an actual update for any of the components of Bootcamp...
Kelson
· 1 year ago
There's nothing new about this (except possibly Safari being out of beta on Windows). I don't have iTunes on my machine at work, but I do have Safari and QuickTime, and every single time there's an update for iTunes, it shows up in the updater. Yeah, it's easy enough to tell it to ignore that update... until the next time they bump iTunes.
(And then there's the broken UI, but that's another issue.)
John
· 1 year ago
@Kelson & Timothee: I'm sure you're both right -- but I naturally follow the browser space more closely, and that's why I noticed this in particular this time.
Gen Kanai
· 1 year ago
John Gruber calls Apple's behavior with installing Safari on Windows, "Interesting." Gruber is smart enough to know that it's clearly much more than merely, "Interesting" and I will lose respect for him if he does not critique Apple vehemently for this. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/march#wed...
If Microsoft did the identical action, install some non-user-selected software using their software update channel, there would be cacophony across the Internet.
Kurt
· 1 year ago
I also noticed this and glad that someone brought this up. This is just a sick way of tricking users to download their browser by making it seem as if an update if available for a piece of software already installed. I bet it even takes over as the default browser afterwards, which would look very bad on Apple.
Ian Hayward
· 1 year ago
wow, well I'm a little shocked honestly as a Mac user I'm feeling a little less good about Apple right now. Thank you for posting this John I hope this issue gets the publicity it deserves.
It is fair to say that this is indeed malware distribution practices. Come on Apple are you 'that' desperate?!
John
· 1 year ago
If this was Microsoft, everyone would be all over this...
slb
· 1 year ago
Wow. You Windows users are not only paranoid, but so anti-Apple that your comments are hysterical.
This is the biggest NON-ISSUE yet - and anyone using a computer that can't use that screen and make a good decision should go back to a typewriter.
James
· 1 year ago
Much to do about nothing! The problem here is clear: Mozilla's CEO is intimidated by the competition.
Bo
· 1 year ago
Right on, John Lily. "Update" means "update," not "Give me your other products."
Daniel
· 1 year ago
Hm, that's actually what Apple did with the Beta versions of Safaro for Windows as well. You could update to the latest Safari Beta and Quicktime as well as iTunes were checked to install as well, even though I didn't ever had them installed. So nothing new actually.
Besides, I don't think this is going to help Safari in any way.
Ben Basson
· 1 year ago
Can Safari for Windows actually check for updates on its own? Does it? I can't see any options relating to this. Either way, installing something as an update to something else is pretty bad.
On a related note, the Safari installer also asks you to install "Bonjour for Windows", another pre-ticked option that most people will completely ignore and install anyway. I'm not sure what a web browser needs to discover devices for, and I'm not sure I want it doing that. Isn't Windows plug and play enough, assuming it even has this need?
Microsoft is guilty of this kind of thing as well. If you install Live Messenger, you're asked if you want to change your homepage (no, I just wanted to install Messenger...) and a whole bunch of other unrelated Live applications.
Ephilei
· 1 year ago
I agree this was wrong, but may I remind everyone that Google, Adobe, and Sun have been doing an equivalent venture. In the Java and Shockwave installs, Google Toolbar for IE is installed by default unless you uncheck the option. You know Google is paying Sun and Adobe who then makes the money back by search engine ads and name recognition - the same as Apple with Safari. Adobe includes some Photoshop Album crap in their default install for Acrobat Reader on Windows too. People that don't read their software updates also won't read installers, especially for basic software like Acrobat, Java, and Shockwave.
Also, MS in its OS update for XP will include WGA which "updates" non-authentic licensed copies into crippled copies.
toby
· 1 year ago
@James: There's nothing to be intimidated about. Safari on Windows sucks. Its UI may be very intuitive for Mac OS X users but on Windows it's just out of place and difficult to use. None of the traditional shortcut keys or Windows conventions work.
I have it installed on my PC to test the sites I develop but it would need a major UI redesign to feel at home for Windows users.
Ephilei
· 1 year ago
In OS X, Safari users can share their bookmarks on a local network using Bonjour, just like sharing iTunes libraries. I guess it's for that.
Orrin
· 1 year ago
I just have quicktime installed and thanks to Apple Software Update the only way I can update to the latest Quicktime is if I install iTunes as well.. and now I guess Safari too. I agree, this is pointless and overall gives the end-user a bad experience. I just want Quicktime, not everything!
Brush
· 1 year ago
I agree what Apple did was clearly misleading. When I got the update, I wondered if I had ever installed Safari in the past. I'll bet that most Windows Itunes users don't even know what safari is? I wouldn't have know if I didn't have an Iphone which uses Safari. Apple blatantly tried to trick millions of users into downloading Safari. Steve should apologize. I'm not holding my breath
Joe Bloe
· 1 year ago
I called Applecare about this, the guy on the phone told me to just click cancel, and he didn't see anything wrong with this. So I just sent Apple an email through their feedback website about this, here is most of what I said:
------------------- I have an iPod and iTunes as well as Quicktime installed on my Windows PC, and I like them all. Apple Software Update automatically checks for updates to iTunes and Quicktime, and I'm fine with that. But today Software Update offered "Safari 3.1" as an "update" which is a LIE as I do not have any version of Safari installed. For you to use these kinds of underhanded tactics to push your browser is despicable. I have turned off Apple Software Update on my PC now as a result of this, I have lost all trust in Apple as a result of this disingenuous behavior.
This comes after recently having turned off Software Update on my Mac because Quicktime 7.4 broke After Effects' ability to render. I could not roll back to an earlier version that actually worked, and Apple's advice was to not use After Effects (yeah right) or reinstall Tiger. I had to use Pacifist to get my machine back to a working state.
Instead of Apple Software Updaters being welcome on my system, I now have to treat them as rogue programs that can corrupt my system and trojan horses that can try to sneak unwanted software that I never asked for onto my system. Oh and by the way, I will never use Safari as my main browser as it doesn't have middle-mouse auto scroll (like Firefox and IE). If Safari 3.1 added this feature I might have switched. But based on these underhanded tactics, even if you added this feature, I'm not interested, sticking with Firefox from Mozilla who has NEVER tried to install other software under the guise of an "update". -------------------------
Oh and by the way Mozilla, I just tried Firefox 3 beta 4 on OS X Tiger, things like page scrolling are a lot faster than Firefox 2, good job.
Lee
· 1 year ago
...maybe... they are using safari's webkit framework for itunes on windows. it was there all along ... maybe...
Chris
· 1 year ago
I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you're complaining that Apple is pushing it's own software through it's own software distribution platform, where should Apple distribute it? In regards to the whole 'auto click and install' thing, EULAs anyone? Most people these days are trusting the EULA and the lawyers behind those without thought. As for misleading, I can see that. There should be change in terminology there replacing updates with install or update (not that most people will notice).
Another thing with regards to the whole trust issue. The consumer has already trusted Apple (or any company) by downloading one of their pieces of software already. There is already a placement of trust in Apple (or other company). If they trust Apple enough to install one of their apps, then extending that to another one of their programs seems to make sense to me.
Also Steve Jobs had already announced that they were going to use iTunes on WIndows to push Safari a while ago. They're just now getting around to it now.
Bonjour is a network services protocol that allows for services to self advertise across a local network. Not specifically devices, but also filesharing and a version of jabber chat (if enabled).
Addressing the previous claim of only wanting Quicktime not iTunes or Safari: you can unclick them, or you can go to the apple site directly and just download quicktime from there direct without any of the extraneous addons you don't want.
I hope this helps out the discussion.
Chuck
· 1 year ago
Some of the complaints here are over the top. Pushing Safari with a iTunes update is "Malware"? Please. Sure, it's marketing, but it is utterly benign, other than using a little disk space that is trivial by modern standards.
I think the competition (Mozilla) doth protest too much.
Compared to all the -real- malware issues faced by Windows users, this is not worth notice.
And, most of all, compared to the execrable practices of Microsoft and other PC software vendors, this is a tempest in a teapot. Did no one notice today's story on Sony charging $50 for a program to remove the pre-loaded crapware that comes on their laptops? Priorities people, please....
Ant Bryan
· 1 year ago
Appupdater is great for keeping software up to date on Windows.
You guys are full of crap. IE is installed on every Windoze Machine. You can't even uninstall it. Just because Safari can be installed does not mean it is the browser people will use. If they chose to use it, it is because the prefer its functionality above another browser. If people don't read what they are updating on a windoze machine it would explain why their are so many viruses,trojans and malware on windoze machine. Amazing amount of hyper happening on this blog today. By the way I use Firefox a large percentage of the time.
Araneidae
· 1 year ago
There's another side to this too. Notice that Apple are pushing Safari 3 to the whole world ... unless you're running an older installation of OSX. On OSX 10.3 I'm stuck with Safari 1.3 which, I'm sorry to say, sucks: it sticks and crashes *all* the time.
Frankly as a previously enthusiastic Apple user I'm insulted by this.
I agree that automatically installing Safari without asking is stupidly offensive: I think Apple are following the Microsoft line of working out just how much they can get away with screwing the consumer ... and the answer is, disappointingly, quite a lot.
slb
· 1 year ago
OS 10.3? Come on, get with the program.
rt
· 1 year ago
Indeed.
It's bad enough that they are making you take iTunes in order to get QuickTime. There doesn't appear to be a good technical reason for this bundling; if you look hard enough you can find an unbundled QuickTime installer buried deep in the Apple website.
And now they're falsely bundling Safari. Why? And where does it end?
Charles S
· 1 year ago
Mountain out of a molehill... at least Safari is standards compliant.
Zemnel
· 1 year ago
Apple has always done this (at least on Windows). I don't have iTunes, and I don't want iTunes, but every time there is a new iTunes version, the QuickTime updater prompts me to download it. This in spite that I "ignore" the update with the software's "ignore update" feature every single time.
It also litters the desktop and the quicklauch bar with unrequested icons at every update, and tries to get all media file associations for itself (fortunately it doesn't do the latter without asking).
I wonder why people think that Microsoft is evil and Apple is good. At least Microsoft's updaters and installers do have some respect for the user.
Martijn
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I agree with you completely with you on this. I'm really fed up with that Apple software update thing. I don't want to install Itunes, which I think is full of crap.
I think Apple is doing evil with this, making people unintentionally installing Itunes, when they don't ask for it. Sounds a lot like malware to me, imho.
Kelson
· 1 year ago
Bonjour (which is Apple's implementation of Zeroconf) can discover services on the network, not just devices. Those services can include web servers. Safari uses Bonjour to automatically discover websites on the local network (if the servers publish them through zeroconf) and display them as bookmarks.
And no, they don't make you take iTunes to get QuickTime. There are two options right on the QT download page: one with iTunes, one solo. It's not buried deeply at all. And you can update QuickTime on its own by unchecking and/or ignoring the bundled update. (Annoyingly, the ignore option only applies to a particular update, not to an update channel, so every time they release a new version of iTunes you have to tell it to ignore it again.)
The problem isn't about forcing people to install additional software, but misleading them into it.
OldFart
· 1 year ago
Why must every piece of software come with a back ground install task running 100% of the time? Even if you use iTunes or Acrobat Reader - as two of at least a dozen culprits - just a fraction of the time? Can't they just check when we run the program? Why must each update reset our preferences - like putting short cuts on the desktop or stealing file associations - every time? Just because we need to run some piece of software for 5 minutes a week, it may not make it important enough to us to change the way we've set our preferences. My next phone will play music and won't be an iPhone - at that point iTunes goes! And I'm pushed to trying Foxit reader. And looking for alternatives to each POS stealing a part of my machine resources!
trevorblanco
· 1 year ago
Do whatever it takes to take down IE. Even if this brings more attention to the fact that there are optional web browsers out there for people to use, it's a plus. I bet Firefox gets mentioned as much as Safari in articles concerning this issue and that's good for FF and Safari. Only bloggers will be mad about this but for all those other users this is a smart move. Get exposure.
Daniel
· 1 year ago
I provide technical support for VersionTracker, so I need to work on Mac OS X and PC. I don't even use Safari on my Mac Pro, I use Firefox on both OS X and Windows.
Apple and Microsoft are both guilty of seedy practices, I'm sure dirt could even be found on Mozilla and Google. It's just business.
Apple is a hardware company, a company that for whatever reason loves Mac OS X; however, they made an entire switch to x86 architecture, in my opinion, to get users that are more comfortable with Windows to "make the switch".
This seems to be more of the same tactic, get Windows users to try out Apple products, even if the user is unaware.
Apple is a renegade, they love the publicity of all the lawsuits on patent infringement, it's just that annoying kind of behavior that seems like it would doom the stability and growth of Apple; however, it seems to do the opposite. People don't care about patent infringement, they just want the new super cool gadget that sexy slim and full of bells and whistles.
If I could ever afford an iPhone, I would run Firefox on it, Safari is simply inferior.
-Daniel
Paul Eccles
· 1 year ago
What's the big deal. This is an optional item in an OPTIONAL Software Update for users which have installed Apple iTunes (which requires Quicktime). If you have installed this software, you will know Apple Software Update updates ALL Apple software for Windows. (iTunes + Quicktime)
Safari for Windows is just another piece of Apple software for Windows. You don't have to choose it, but it's actually quite good.
Thomas Zieba
· 1 year ago
Is it that you really are NOT looking out for people and there isnt anything wrong with this update but you feel threatened that Apple decided to use a legitimate medium to distribute their browser on?. I think you as a CEO of Mozilla have to keep Firefox in the #1 spot and this blog is just a clear indication that you're not being "responsible" to anyone and you're showing your true interests. You aren't really out there looking out for people and by claiming that Apple packaging their browser in the updates is "wrong" you're admitting that you're afraid of a little competition and therefor sparking innovation.
Yes I use Firefox day in and day out for 2 years.. but after today I may as well use Safari again.
Dale
· 1 year ago
There is nothing wrong with this and in no way has there been a breach of "trust." First, why would anyone trust any vendor to push software onto their machine unattended? No matter the source, it must be first reviewed. Second, many users may appreciate the opportunity to be informed that software is available. I realize that some vendors could misuse this channel and continually pepper users with software offers. Such vendors would quickly be marginalized as users removed their update service from their machine. The occasional use of such a channel by a reputable vendor such as Apple or Microsoft should not be a threat to anyone other than another vendor with a similar product.
david
· 1 year ago
I haven't read such a load of crap since I stopped reading John Dvorak's rag. Maybe some of you Windows people aren't familiar with the concept of the checkbox. I'll explain. It is a little box. Click once and a checkmark appears (or disappears). Click again and it toggles. A checkmark in the box means, "I want."
Use the damn thing and quit bitching!
Oh my god, how lame
· 1 year ago
"There is new Software avaiable from Apple". Today: Safari.
Brant Sears
· 1 year ago
I have Safari installed on all my Windows PCs at work. I DO want updates to Safari, but I don't want iTunes installed. Well, Software Update tries to push iTunes on me every time. So, it works both ways and although I am a big fan of both iTunes and Safari, I think that this sucks for the reasons you state.
Kevin
· 1 year ago
I think the problem here is that Safari out performs both IE and FireFox. This is just sour grapes. I would like to hear more about the performance differences.
Hans
· 1 year ago
"If this was Microsoft, everyone would be all over this…"
Many people *were* unhappy when Microsoft started bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. However, it certainly paid off for them, didn't it.
Internet Explorer is still included in Windows Update, which doesn't feel any different to me than what Apple is doing.
Matthew
· 1 year ago
Some of you defenders are ridiculous. Including a new piece of software in an updater program is wrong, period. A new piece of software is not an update. Including it at all is deceptive but acceptable; including it by default is wrong.
By the way, install any linux operating system and you can stop worrying about companies sneaking in software while you're not looking. All software on linux is stored in central repositories. When you update, you can update ALL of your software on your computer, you don't need to load up the individual programs and update them that way. And they don't install stuff that you don't already have installed.
Hans
· 1 year ago
Before anyone tries to claim IE is fundamental to Windows...
There's no more reason this had/has to be the case than if Apple started using Safari to render the iTunes store and *forced* users to install both.
At least today, unlike Microsoft, they are giving users the option.
Kelson
· 1 year ago
"I think the problem here is that Safari out performs both IE and FireFox."
@Kevin, judging by some of the performance benchmarks I've seen, the latest Firefox 3 beta outperforms Safari 3.0 (and Firefox 2, and IE). Unless Safari 3.1 is twice as fast as 3.0, it's not likely to outperform the upcoming release. So I doubt it's performance anxiety on Mozilla's part.
BryanSD
· 1 year ago
Keven...this really isn't sour grapes. Apple is wrong in what they are doing. In my organization, security is a very high priority and we are choosy on what we install. We do allow Quicktime to be installed but iTunes is out of the question. While I have no issues with Safari, resources for support and security really only allows us to support Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox.
Apple's auto-updater is very unfriendly when you look at it from an IT enterprise perspective. The number of time Quicktime has been flagged for security vulnerabilities this past year is bad enough, but when the Apple updater wants to do by default a new install of iTunes and Safari it's one big headache. If this was any other company but Apple, I would call this malware. This isn't whining...this is just observing Apple breaking the "do no evil" motto we hope Apple would follow.
David K.
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry John, but Mozilla of all people has no buisness complaining about this practice. When you go to install Firefox on Windows you have to pay attention enough to UNCHECK a box that tells it to install GoogleToolbar. This is no different. I find both behaviors annoying, no doubt, but its not nearly as big a deal as its being made out to be.
And for those who are complaining about Apple FORCING this on you, you can A) not use auto update B) not tell it to install when it tells you there IS an update you don't want
Much ado about not too much, but seriously, Mozilla has no buisness compalining until they stop having Google Toolbar install by default.
P.S. having said that I think your work on the actual Firefox browser is very good, 3 is especially nice, the use of the larger back button is an excellent UI design choice.
Stuart Parmenter
· 1 year ago
David K.: Mozilla doesn't ship the Google Toolbar with Firefox. Are you downloading the Google Toolbar version of from Google?
andy
· 1 year ago
the point is that updaters should update, period. if they become marketing, then people will be turned off, and then not get security updates, which harms everyone.
The fact that Safari happens to be the piece of software being pimped here is completely irrelevant.
Tom
· 1 year ago
Erm... so some people are claiming that "Microsoft does this too!"
You know what? I think you're right. So... you Apple fanboys really want to go down the path of claiming moral equivalence between Apple and Microsoft?
How about this: it's despicable for EITHER company to use a "software update" application to SNEAK in a new application in a blatant attempt to steal market share. It was wrong for Microsoft to do it, and IT'S WRONG FOR APPLE TO DO IT. "He did it too!" hasn't been a valid defense since, oh, fourth grade.
As to the people who say "well, you could just unclick the checkbox!" Of course you could. In fact, smart sysadmins don't even use the autoupdaters because they know that they have even odds of breaking things. Instead, they keep tight reins on sys configs and roll patches downstream when they're appropriate.
But smart sysadmins are not the bulk of users. The bulk of users are "mom & pop" users and the similarly computer-illiterate. The bulk of users are too eneducated, or too pressed for time, to read every single check box and bullet point -- they assume, and trust, that their "software updater" application is going to (wait for it........) UPDATE their software; not sneak entirely new applications on in hopes that you'll be foolish enough to fall for it.
This article hinges upon the fact that this is a sneaky, underhanded tactic. Apple tries to pride itself on its simplicity and moral superiority over Microsoft, but when it adopts the "Evil Empire's" own sneaky, deceptive tactics in order to further its own ends, it loses this moral high ground. It becomes just another greedy company going after your dollars by any means necessary. That may be the norm in the business world, but it's certainly not morally superior and it's certainly not "thinking different." You just can't have it both ways.
As to those claiming that Mozilla is pissed because this could cost them market share -- of course, that's part of it. I would be surprised if it weren't. So? Just because it's MY car that you stole, doesn't make stealing cars OK.
Come on, Apple. Quit this sneaky stuff. Ever since you tried (REALLY HARD) to force me to install iTunes when I just wanted a Quicktime update, I've been forced to treat you as a potential malware source -- and that makes me sad. You guys should be above that. You really should.
Tom
· 1 year ago
i noticed this for a sometime as i only wish to use quicktime and it will try to install itunes using the similar update method
Powerbook g4 battery
· 1 year ago
Good Article! thanks
Peter
· 1 year ago
I am viewing this on Safari right now -- which was included in the update. You can uncheck the box if you want. I had heard of Safari but did not know what it was. Now I know, thanks to Apple. I really don't mind. I will probably go back to Firefox after trying it out.
Jon
· 1 year ago
"This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices."
Damn straight.
When I first heard about Apple sneaking Safari onto Windows PC's, the first thing that came into my mind was 'spyware.'
David Naylor
· 1 year ago
What people here don't seem to be getting is...
1. This is not about Apple stealing market share in a sneaky way.
2. This is not about Mozilla being scared because "Safari is X times faster than Firefox 3".
This is about Apple destroying computer-insecure users trust for software updates. When the user finds a new icon on their desktop and realizes that "some new program" must have installed without them wanting it... that may lead to the same user ignoring very legit and necessary updates in other software, including but not limited to Firefox.
Tom
· 1 year ago
[completely off topic: I have to point out one of the typos in my own post; there's something rather darkly funny about spelling "uneducated" as "eneducated." There were a few typos in my post, since I can't see an edit function. Mea culpa.]
Todd Ditchendorf
· 1 year ago
I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with what Apple has done here.
Joe
· 1 year ago
Its amazing how y'all get so easily upset when a competitor does something innovative. Sure, its a slight bit of marketing to give people a safari option when they are updating...
But this sounds like a lot of sour grapes from an organization that has failed, for a decade, to take over the browser market despite competing against mostly incompetence (IE).
Now safaris competing technically and marketingwise, and you are reduced to calling it malware?
Shame on you.
Steve J
· 1 year ago
Well I guess we can spot the Apple owners in the above comments! (Clue: they're the ones who see nothing wrong...)
Rolling out unrelated software in an update package and making it selected by default is wrong.
Having Quicktime+iTunes forced down my throat constantly is bad enough - all I want is the Quicktime updates! - but trying to get me to install another browser is unforgivable, particularly when it's as poor as Safari for Windows is.
Can't say I'm surprised by this though - we're just lucky they didn't make it auto install....
Larry Rubin
· 1 year ago
Apple has been doing this dating back to at least July 2007:
I thought it was sleazy then. I think it's sleazy now.
Christian
· 1 year ago
It is an update, an update to a real browser!
Jon Quate
· 1 year ago
Well I do think this is kinda blown out of proportion. Why? Any reasonably intelligent computer user should always know what they are installing. It's your own fault if you are to stupid not to read what is being installed. How hard is it to check,or uncheck a box? Blaming Apple, or Microsoft for your stupidity or laziness is just as stupid as installing something you don't want. Apple didn't try to hide the option to install did they? Don't blame them for offering software, blame the idiots that don't pay attention to what they're doing. These are the same people who constantly get viruses no doubt.
Apple Owner
· 1 year ago
This was a great idea, and I can't see anything wrong with it.
Everyone should use Safari!!
You're just threatened by a product that 'just works', is innovative and challenges your product.
Windows users should be glad they get the chance to try the Apple greatness!
Though of course I only say all this because I'm a lobotomised fuckwit who's stupid enough to think that Apple's overpriced and unstable junk is actually worth having, and I can't let a minute of the day go by without working as an unpaid evangelist for a corporation that couldn't give a shit about me.
Sad, isn't it, that 'think different' has degenerated into an endless series of clones all pushing the same line.
Though at least it's their pockets being raped, and not mine.
And you can shove your Safari in your nearest available orifice.
Len Peruski
· 1 year ago
I could not disagree more with your comments. In fact, they angered me so much I have deinstalled FireFox on my Mac at home and the Macs and PCs at my laboratory. From now on we will use Safari and MSIE.
aeon17x
· 1 year ago
Microsoft Update does the same. For example, WGA. It is checked by default, and may even prevent you from getting other patches if you don't get it first.
Apple Software Update... updates Apple software. In other words, they have the privilege of giving you the choice to update your Apple software selection by installing their other Apple software.
Nothing to see here, please move along...
David K.
· 1 year ago
@Stuart Parmenter
Stuart, I stand fully corrected, i tried installing from Mozilla.org and did not see any unintended installs. My complaint is wholly and completely retracted on that issue and my apologies to John.
Jon
· 1 year ago
"Now safaris competing technically and marketingwise, and you are reduced to calling it malware?
Shame on you."
You're missing the point -_-
Okay, maybe it isn't malware, but did I ASK for Safari to be installed? No, because it's useless and I'm already using a browser that works. Therefore, Safari = bloatware. ;)
max
· 1 year ago
I came here via reddit. Reading this blog was a complete waste of my time, thankyouverymuch. Imagine if Steve Jobs wrote some similar drivel about Firefox... This piece clearly undermines my trust in Mozilla, seeing that such a wimp actually serves a their CEO.
Chris
· 1 year ago
I only have Quicktime installed -- I do not have iTunes. However, when I use the Apple Software "Update" (aka Apple Software Installer), it not only gives me the option to download Safari, but also iTunes. I only need to update Quicktime, but it is giving me the option to download two completely new programs, namely iTunes and Safari. This is a pretty terrible practice. I think there are many users that won't understand what the program is doing, and they will inadvertantly download new software. (I'm thinking of my little sister who uses iTunes. She will almost definitely unintentionally install Safari when she updates her iTunes software. This ticks me off...) Can somebody also please mention that Apple does this for more software than just Safari? Also, after unintentionally installing Safari, does Safari take over as the default browser? If so, that's pretty underhanded of Apple.
aeon17x
· 1 year ago
"Okay, maybe it isn’t malware, but did I ASK for Safari to be installed? No, because it’s useless and I’m already using a browser that works."
Blindly agreeing to something (i.e. not unchecking that box) implies consent. Or stupidity. Both of them may apply here.
And you might want to check a dictionary to know what 'bloatware' means.
@Chris: No, it doesn't take over as your default browser.
Chris
· 1 year ago
When will the world wake up and realize that Microsoft isn't the only major software company that has acted underhandedly. I guess it's only the "big" guys that get prosecuted, all while the smaller guys are free to use and abuse. If there is justice, one day Apple's time will come.
toonces
· 1 year ago
The NERVE of Apple offering people a third major alternative in the web browser space. How DARE they give the user a chance to try a piece of _free_ software he might never have heard of otherwise. I'm so pissed that--
hang on...Windows Update is telling me I need IE 7, Genuine Advantage and Silverlight...brb...
Jon
· 1 year ago
ATTN aeon17x
Your argument (i.e. not unchecking that box) is without merit because (1) I already know what bloatware means and (2) I was actually smart enough to add Sabarfari to the ignore update list.
smalltime
· 1 year ago
Pretty much every website I've ever registered at includes at least one checkbox which says something to the effect of, "Yes, send me spam!" that I need to uncheck before I hit Submit, otherwise I'm fucked. Where's your rage on that issue, John?
Jonathan Brown
· 1 year ago
Sun has been doing the same thing with Google Toolbar for a while with their Java runtime updates. Both examples are wrong but at least Apple's Safari "update" doesn't affect another application like Google's Toolbar. If you take that one step further, Google's Toolbar has the ability to send user gestures back to Google.
aeon17x
· 1 year ago
"(1) I already know what bloatware means"
No, it only means that you did not consent and you are not stupid. Although your personal definition of bloatware is still wrong.
And what is it really? You first tagged this as 'spyware', then when you got called out for it you thought it was 'bloatware'. What's next?
havoc
· 1 year ago
If Firefox popped up an update dialog giving users the option to download Thunderbird, nobody on this blog would say boo. In fact, that's exactly what the Mozilla devs should do. ANYTHING TO TAKE DOWN OUTLOOK. It's time to grow some balls in the fight against Microsoft's pre-installed monopoly on email and browser software.
Jon
· 1 year ago
"Although your personal definition of bloatware is still wrong."
Maybe in YOUR point of view... :rolleyes:
Denise
· 1 year ago
If you configure Windows Vista to download and install updates automatically, some critical security updates will constantly nag you with a "reboot countdown". If you are absent from your desk and don't cancel the countdown (you only have 5 minutes to do so), your computer will automatically reboot. This has happened to me 2 times already, and each time I lost work. To prevent this from happening in the future, I've reconfigured the automatic updates so that they aren't installed automatically (which partially defeats their purpose).
Apple is giving users the CHOICE not to install Safari... providing that they can READ (which is something us Americans have trouble with). Why can't Microsoft respect my desire not to reboot my PC immediately? Restarting someone's computer without his/her consent is simply ARROGANT. This is especially true when the reboot occurs less than 1 hour after you have turned your computer on. Isn't safeguarding MY precious work more important than Microsoft's "critical" security update?
If anyone is interested, one of the updates with a reboot countdown is KB946041.
To make a long story short, in my book Apple's "crime" is minor. I'm so ticked off at Microsoft for trashing my work that I might just buy a Mac next time.
Jonn
· 1 year ago
Although its no longer surprising, it continues to amaze me how people view issues from a "who do I support" perspective rather than for the validity of the issue itself. An update tool should only offer updates. Yes, other companies do this too. Does that justify Apple's choice to make the Safari install selected by default? No.
Yes, I read what updates or installs are being applied to my computers. But many others don't and that has helped us get to the security issues we face today. The companies that market software to consumers all need to participate in helping to resolve this issue. Apple advertises itself to consumers as a simpler, safer option but this action does nothing to simplify or improve security for consumers of its products. Not all consumers of Apple products run OSX.
Personally, I believe the comments to be fair. It was not an attempt to vilify Apple but rather to point out a poor corporate decision that, if changed, would benefit the industry & its consumers.
I don't see what the problem is here. If you don't want the software, you uncheck the box. The product description is listed very clearly in the window, no extra clicking required.
I can understand the idea that an "update" introducing new software onto your machine blurs the definition of an update, but as long as it isn't malware I don't see where there is a breach of trust.
There is, perhaps, an exploitation of users' ignorance. But these are the same people who may not know what a browser is and only know the Internet as "the blue E." The same people who might benefit most from having something like Safari show up on their machine.
Kelson
· 1 year ago
@toonces, IE7 actually is an update to software that's already on your system (IE6), so it's appropriate for an updater to offer it. And Silverlight is not only clearly marked as optional, it's unchecked by default (at least, it is on XP). You have to deliberately opt into it.
If Apple would just do those two simple things, I imagine a lot fewer people would be looking at this as being underhanded.
As for WGA being checked by default... I assume you've heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right" at some time in your life.
Dustin Thacker
· 1 year ago
I read about this earlier today via Reddit and was quite surprised to see that Safari had been released for Windows...so, I gave it a whirl. Safari is quite speedy compared to FF2 and it puts a twist on a few features that already exist in FF, but i would hardly call Safari "innovative". I would call Apple's practice "marketing" if this install was NOT included in an updater. The purpose of an updater is to update existing software. I would call a clever Apple ad on the front page of the NYT website marketing. I would call MSN butterflies all over the city's windows marketing. I would call a postcard in the mail telling me the benefits of refinancing my home marketing.
Apple's "updates" have been pretty annoying for a long long time. (Adobe too, while I'm on the rant) Mainly because you have to install iTunes when updating QT (and the code just gets more and more sloppy [@ MS Adobe & Apple] what? Like 90megs or something for a music player? and i have to reinstall the whole thing for an update - every freaking week practically. c'mon. please.
I grew out of a mac a very long time ago (think Power Mac 5300). And I grew out of Safari too...(took about 15mins for the novelty to wear off). Don't mean to sound "L33T" - just, its functionality and features are limited like most Apple stuff. I find it very amusing that Apple's demographic is the "creative types" but the very people who buy the products seem to be quite devoid of their own imaginations and proudly rely on and are quite happy to (over)pay for the privilege of owning the innovation of others.
If you ask me - innovation and "thinking different" (creativity) lies in open source & sharing coupled with responsibility.
My $0.02
PS. (marketing ahead) Download Firefox 3. It rocks them ALL!!
Chris
· 1 year ago
I don't see the big deal. They are promoting their software through their software update program. It's automatically checked...ok, so? Lots of update programs automatically check everything anyway, not just apple.
If FF is better then people will use FF. If they like safari then they will switch. These browser "loyalty" wars are getting old. IE came with windows by default and FF is still gaining ground. It is gaining ground because it is better. Just keep making a better browser and stop worrying about this. ppl will flock to the best. We're not stupid.
aeon17x
· 1 year ago
In summary:
- if the user is not stupid: they will spot that the updater is trying to install Safari, and they can choose whether or not to keep it checked or not. All is well.
- if the user is stupid: they are now better off using Safari than what they had before, probably IE6/IE7. This benefits the users as they become significantly more secure and experience faster browsing, and also benefits the web developers as more people get to use standards-compliant browsers. Once again, all is well.
But there's a third possible option, and that is if the user is stupid and was using Firefox. Then that user gets introduced to Safari, who might in turn prefer it over Firefox. All is well... except maybe Mozilla. :P
Kidding aside, I'm guessing John is ticked at how Safari would be considerably easier to download now than Firefox among iTunes users. He also argues about the 'security of the Web'... can anyone please enlighten me on this?
Brian Z Jones
· 1 year ago
I can't be the only one who didn't realize Safari was available for Windows, and decided to give it a try. The odd thing is that it is x86, even on my Vista x64 laptop. Where's 64-bit only Apple?
-bZj
Vex
· 1 year ago
I think if they unchecked it and said (recommended), new, or some such, it would be a bit confusing. While doing so might be accurate and correct, and interpreted properly by someone knowledgable about and detail oriented with operating their computer, this is Apple software targeted for a user that wants that just wants the right thing done first. Such users will drill down into details later if they need to customize; they don't want to be bothered up front.
Dustin Thacker
· 1 year ago
@Vex - Well said.
bob
· 1 year ago
Hate to say it but it's this exact same behavior that we've come to expect from Apple for how many decades now and you act suprised? I guess we can honestly say this attitude that Apple has towards their users isn't the only thing that Microsoft copied from Apple.
Chris
· 1 year ago
We all have to think carefully enough to recognize the small nuances between the various examples we are mentioning. What Apple has done is NOT the same as: 1. When you register for a site, you have to uncheck the "Yes, send me spam" box. 2. When you install a new program, you have to uncheck the "Install Google Toolbar" box. 3. When you use Windows Update, you are given the opportunity to install Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Silverlight, Genuine Advantage, etc.
How is Apple's case different from each of these? The main difference is that the user is using software specifically labeled as UPDATE software. When the user utilizes this program, he/she is operating under the basic assumption that this software is UPDATING software that is ALREADY on the system. Thus, he/she naturally assumes that the program is not going to install new software that is not already present in the system, but rather simply fix/update pre-existing software. We can call this the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption" principle -- the user uses an update program, thus he/she assumes it updates their pre-existing software. I want to compare this to the above three examples, but first lets establish a couple other principles: - The "Install Software INSTALL Assumption": This is the basic assumption that, because the user is using an installation program, the user is putting new software on the computer. - User inexperience: Some users are uneducated about and/or inexperienced with computers, or flat out operate them with ignorance. Websites and software companies sometimes use this for ulterior purposes, namely for sending spam or installing other software. However bad this may seem, to determine whether the company is actually acting unethically, one must think very carefully lest we blame every user error on software companies, which is unreasonable. A certain measure of responsibility lies with the user, and a certain measure of responsibility lies with the company. A good way to determine if the company is acting unethically is to ask, "Is the company violating basic assumptions that it has established between itself and the user?"
So, in light of the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption" principle, let us re-consider the above three examples: 1. When you register for a site, you are initiating a new experience, you are inputing information, and you are generally not operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". There is no violation of the basic "Update Software UPDATE Assumption" principle, because it was never established between software company and user. Thus, assuming that spam options are not concealed, if the user unintentionally signs up for spam, it is due to the user's actions rather than the website's deception. It is not due to an unethical violation of the user's rights or assumptions, because the user is not operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". 2. When you install a new program, you are initiating a new experience, and you are generally not operating under any kind of "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". Instead, you are operating under the "Install Software INSTALL Assumption". Because you are using an installation program, you are automatically operating under the assumption that new software will be installed on the computer. Thus, assuming that options to install additional software (e.g. Google Toolbar) are not concealed, if the user unintentionally configures to install the additional software, it is completely due to the user's actions rather than the program's deception. It is not due to an unethical violation of the user's rights or assumptions, because the user is not operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". Instead, they are operating under the "Install Software INSTALL Assumption". 3. Though Microsoft has a checkered past, if we're honest, they have at least taken some strides to correct their wrongdoings. Concerning Microsoft's update software, Windows Update separates critical updates (e.g. patches, security fixes, etc.) from recommended updates (e.g. Silverlight, Windows Media Player, Safari, iTunes, etc.). Critical updates are automatically checked, whereas recommended updates require user intervention to install, even navigation to a separate page. Though I cannot remember how IE7, WMP, and Silverlight were classified, I will assume that WMP and Silverlight were not classified as "critical", but rather recommended. This is the fundamental difference between Windows Update and Apple Software Update, namely that Windows Update in general does not disguise recommended updates as critical updates, whereas Apple Software Update DOES disguise them. Thus, because Windows Update does not conceal or automatically check options to install non-update software, if the user unintentionally configures to install the "recommended" software, it is completely due to the user's actions rather than the program's deception. It is not due to an unethical violation of the user's "Update Software UPDATE Assumption", because only options that are authentic critical updates are automatically checked, rather than additional recommended software options that would install new programs.
Final Conclusion: Using the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption", Apple Software Update essentially disguises "recommended"-type installation options as "critical"-type updates. New software is automatically checked as if they are "critical"-type updates, without clearly distinguishing that the software is completely unrelated to the user's desire to update already-present software. Because the user is operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption", unknowingly installs software that was previously not present on their system, all while thinking that they are in fact updating their computer. The Apple Software Update program's name and interface are intentionally designed in such a way as to install completely new Apple software by making the user think they are updating previously installed software. As far as I see, this is an unethical violation of the "Update Software Update Assumption" that Apple establishes with the user. Thus, Apple's use of their update software appears to be unethical.
Chris
· 1 year ago
I apologize for the grotesque length of my previous comment! :-) I guess I got on a roll. I'll get off my soapbox now. (I would appreciate any critiques of my arguments there.)
Tony Crockford
· 1 year ago
I don't see the big deal.
There are a lot of installers that add applications you don't want, for example Adobe PDF Reader and the Photo album and Yahoo Toolbar.
It's not uncommon practice.
John
· 1 year ago
Thank you Chris. I was about to post the same distinction - the one that so many other posters have missed.
The difference is how it's being done. I pay attention to what add-ons are being installed when I install a program, and usually choose to do a custom install so I can ensure the add-ons are left out. I shouldn't have to worry about new programs being installed when I just want an update to the currently installed programs.
I didn't realize Java updates were installing add-ons...I sure don't have any add-ons, and yet still have Java?
Kelson
· 1 year ago
Apple software targeted for a user that wants that just wants the right thing done first. Such users will drill down into details later if they need to customize; they don’t want to be bothered up front.
@Vex, would you agree that for an update manager, doing the right thing first means updating what's on your system?
Cris Escobar
· 1 year ago
Well, I have a macbook pro and a windows pc. As far as I know, apple has been doing this with quicktime and itunes for a while now, i don't understand why all the fuzz now, but I agree that it is annoying
WetcoastBob
· 1 year ago
When you drive a car, you look where you are going. When you walk down the street, you look where you are stepping. When you eat, you look at what you are shoving into your face. When I update, I look at what I am updating. UNCHECK the box people!
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE
Cheers: Bob
John Cocktosin
· 1 year ago
This is no different than a sony rootkit. Apple, you lost me as a customer!
Chris
· 1 year ago
@WetcoastBob: The issue is more than just the user taking responsibility. Remember: "It takes two to tango." Software companies have to take responsibility too. They need to operate with honesty and integrity. Apple uses their "Apple Update Software" to install new programs and add-ons that have nothing to do with updating software already on the user's computer. Apple is acting deceptively and dishonestly. We simply cannot place all blame on the end-user, who may or may not be as tech-savvy as you or me. Software Companies need to adhere to a standard of honesty, without deception.
We cannot compare this to software installation packages, websites, and Windows Update. These are not the same as Apple's Update Software -- it is apples and oranges, apples and oranges. If you think carefully about each situation, you'll see that they are different. (Read some of the posts above.)
MDSLEEZER
· 1 year ago
Bad APPLE!!!!!!!!!! I installed this P.O.S. safari and am using it now. I wanted to see if it really was better than Firefox. Its not! It is significantly slower than firefox and it has hung up 2 times on me tonight while using it. The update software is now a trojan horse and you better believe I will never be installing any other apple related software on my computer again. Thats if it doesnt get snuck in on me when my back is turned! Sleezy move apple. I will be informing everyone I know to make sure they dont install it.
Chris
· 1 year ago
The UI for Apple Software Update specifically says: "Select the items you want to update, then click Install."
Below this, I see two boxes: - iTunes + Quicktime - Safari
The problem is that I neither have iTunes nor Safari already installed on my computer. How can Apple be asking me if I want to update this software, if I don't have any of this already installed? This is called "an attempt to deceive end-user into installing new software by making them think they are updating already installed software."
Somebody, please help me understand how Apple is able to legally and ethically do this.
Marty
· 1 year ago
People get overyourself and UNCLICK the check box. Maybe if you windows users would READ!! then you wouldn't have the malware virus problem you have either.
Not my fault " the apple made me do it"
Ani
· 1 year ago
Everyone keeps saying “if Microsoft did this” bla bla. Well. Microsoft did do this when they made IE 7 a critical update. Complaints were filed and eventually they made it an optional update. Hopefully Apple will get a clue and remove this ‘feature’ soon.
Anne
· 1 year ago
Oh fer heaven's sake, uncheck the box and get over it. Are you saying the majority of Windows users of iTunes are too clueless to look and see what they're downloading? OK, I'll admit it's a bit pushy of Apple but beyond that I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
BG
· 1 year ago
Coincidentally, I just finished reading Wired's overview of how Apple doesn't follow the rules. This seems like another example.
Mike
· 1 year ago
Chris,
I generally agree with you, but you really shouldn't assume anything good from M$. Microsoft's automatic update agent does in fact install IE7, WMP, (In)Genuine (Dis)Advantage, etc. as the default action.
I actually think windows update might be more malicious. To prevent Windows XP from installing these "Updates" you have to go against their "recommended" setting and choose when to install updates. After updates are downloaded you again have to chose the unrecommended, advanced option and do a custom install.
Of course I'm not excusing Apple; I'm just saying M$ has been playing the same dirty game for a while now. John is very right, the big guys are setting a bad precedent. Soon, no automatic updates will be safe.
Mike
· 1 year ago
Again Chris,
how is apple update different from windows update? I mean other than the fact that there are better alternatives to itunes than there are to windows.
Frank
· 1 year ago
@Chris, your post details exactly the problem I see with Apple in this particular thing. However, most of the people reading this already decided if this bothers them or not, plus they are part of the "skim society" so your post wont be read by many. Which is a shame because it IS very well explained.
bob
· 1 year ago
We're all talking about Safari. Apple got what they wanted.
Din mor
· 1 year ago
Jesus.. Life must be hard for Windows users, since you even waste time reading/reacting to this garbage.
The program is called Apple Software Update. It offers, you know, updates from Apple.
CheeToS
· 1 year ago
I find it interesting that Apple Software Update will be installed even if you deselect it when installing Apple software. That was my experience the last time I installed Quicktime.
Gage
· 1 year ago
I hate Apple fanboys. Will none of you admit that it is utter bullshit for a company to auto-enable NEW software installations as part of an auto-update program? Pull your heads out of your asses, it's deceptive and John was on target when he pointed out that this causes users to feel less comfortable when using auto-update tools (which is a almost good thing: obviously Apple can't be trusted).
Alan Bristow
· 1 year ago
Agree with 100% of your text John. Thanks for saying it (I had missed this).
Apple are either evil or mistaken in this tactic.
As others have said, if _Microsoft_ had done this, people would slate them (rightly so) for the practice.
Apple wants to be very careful about how it handles this (I would recommend a very public retraction of the policy and an apology - would win friends and influence people) and of course re-task the wrong-thinkers at Apple who decided this SPAMware approach would be a good idea.
I wonder if the money surrounding Apple is now, perhaps, beginning to run it to. A sad loss if so...
Apple should change the terminology on their updater to be more precise to parse offers of updates from new installs. Other than this suggested semantic improvement, all the other whining is simply hilarious. If a user isn't smart enough to pay attention to what is already installed on their system, and to make an informed decision about check box options...well....they might want to step away from the keyboard and try something within their intellectual ability like breathing and chewing :-). Much of this thread reads like an infestation of tribal wisdom. Apple clearly describes what they are offering...reading is fundamental.
Tim F.
· 1 year ago
I don't entirely agree with Apple's practices (mostly the pairing of iTunes with QuickTime), but I think it's important to disagree with some points of the majority opinion here:
1. This is a problem for enterprise.
How? Enterprise should have updaters disabled and should push approved software. If they are allowing QuickTime and/or iTunes to be installed along with the Update application and users are allowed to use the update features at their leisure and install as admin, the enterprise already has more fundamental pre-existing issues.
2. Software update applications should only deliver updates.
Why? It's about time we move to a full digital distribution model. As long as I am made aware of what software is being delivered, I am fine with updaters informing me of new or additional software (presuming I already trust the source enough to have their updater already installed). I know of very few apps that only deliver the literal functionality of their given name. If trusted developers choose to make me aware of new software I may want, I'm all for it.
3. This behavior will destroy consumer trust in updater applications.
Baloney. Users don't trust updaters when they update automatically in the background without user consent, when the updates deliver new but unwanted features, and/or when the updates are buggier than the existing software. Using an updater as a vehicle to deliver new software from a source that has already been trusted enough that other software and the updater itself have been installed does not raise trust issues (or it shouldn't) -- it's actually a good direction to move towards in the future rather than requiring discovery on the web or at your local store.
People trying to construe this as spyware or malware are doing more to destroy consumer trust and understanding than anyone. Could Apple rename the app? Could they provide a separate pane for new software? Could they decouple Quicktime from iTunes (but not vice versa)? Could they add more options to never check for updates or to never show new software. Yes and maybe they should and maybe they will in time. Maybe it could result in more confusion.
Does this issue deserve attention? Absolutely. Why is it happening now after Apple and several others have been doing so for quite a while, I don't understand. Apple's behavior is not perfect, but it's not new and not unique to them. But those claiming malware, spyware, the complete destruction of trust in updaters, and that updaters should only deliver updates are spreading confusion and misinformation and are impeding the development of new software delivery methods.
I'm happy for discussion and hope developers respond to the discussion. But I also don't want to support ignorant users and ignorant ideas, nor restrain what could be possible with software delivery.
civico
· 1 year ago
Very recently, a friend of mine purchased a MacBook. Very stylish with lots of software. Nice piece of computer with a pretty styled UI on top of Darwin, a branch from FreeBSD, an excellent open source operating system that comes with the generous Berkeley Software License. Then there is Safari on it, a very fast browser, based on the code of Konqueror, another open source software. So, if we look closer into the matter, we see that Apple excels in making money with open source code. They suck open source projects and use their great resources to make an excellent finishing (just look at MacOS9). However, neither MacOS X nor Safari are open source nor they will be. Thus, giving you an update to iTunes (if you have an iPod, there is not much for an alternative to that piece of crappy software) and sneaking Safari and/or QuickTime is just more of the same. The day Apple decides to port their PDF viewer, Office software and all the other things everyone has on his/her computer to Windows, prepare for a long update session ...
Steve
· 1 year ago
After you update iTunes it nukes your mp3 link straight to iTunes without even asking. Highly rude
David
· 1 year ago
As a Mac user, I'm not affected by this. However, you bring up an interesting point on end-user trust in updating software. Even though Apple told everyone they would be doing this, people seem taken by surprise. The average Windows user isn't reading slashdot every day and aren't always in the know.
Two things should happen going forward:
1. Software companies need to be more conscious of releasing updates and make sure ALL their users understand what's coming BEFORE the change.
2. It's 2008. Computers and updates aren't new anymore. People need to take responsibility for educating themselves on the systems/software/networks they're using. There's no excuse for not reading and learning about an update that's about to take place on your personal computer.
The world is changing. Change with it.
P.S. Why are so many people still using Windows when there are improved open-source options now? Mozilla CEO John Lily uses Windows and not Ubuntu or Debian? How disappointing.
Gerardo Tasistro
· 1 year ago
John I think you're over reacting to this and also mistreating users. You address them as dumb drones who will download whatever is in front of them. Ironically you address the Firefox community(myself included) which "consciously" moved away from IE. The people most prone to use your software, be exposed to your update system and actually read this blog are the least susceptible to the issue you mention.
[On the Microsoft note: Microsoft has done this tactic and even done so silently. And yes people were all over it.]
We have to learn something from this. The wording might be wrong. Maybe a separate list for "New products to install" would be more fit. But the principle is a good one. What Apple is doing is using its installed base to let users know that there are other alternatives to Windows Media Player and to IE (and Firefox). That they should not be stuck with what their OS tells them there is or with what the company with the biggest publicity budget can drill into the consumers minds.
I would applaud you if Firefox promoted other products like Thunderbird for example. Albeit with a different wording or presentation than Apple uses. So as to make it clear it is another program. I see nothing wrong in using an installed program to let the user know that another "cousin" program exists. Particularly if what is advertised is of good or excellent quality as is the stuff that comes from your team.
Best regards, Gerardo
Nick
· 1 year ago
Has anyone noticed that iTunes Store is basically a web app and that the store is possibly HTML?
Anyone else scratch their head at how easy it was for them to port Safari to Windows?
All I'm saying is, as it seems to me, that iTunes already uses webkit and if it does the updates without safari being installed seems like they are providing a way for webkit (used by itunes?) to be updated independently of iTunes releases.
Does that seem reasonable? I'm just looking past the "hey you have to uncheck this or get some software you didn't ask for" and wondering why the updates are happening without the app being installed.
Would be great if someone could qualify this theory.
GreyedOut
· 1 year ago
I agree with you Gerardo!
This is a whole lot of hype for something people can just uncheck. I can see if Apple didn't notify people via "Apple Software Update" that there was updated Apple software, people complaining "why didn't 'Apple Software Update' tell me that there was updated Apple software".
Why worry, just uncheck if you don't want Safari. Nothing to see here!
Tim F.
· 1 year ago
Nick, this is a popular misconception that continues to persist. The iTunes Music Store is purely XML and does not use Webkit whatsoever.
Ben
· 1 year ago
While I agree that the safari thing may not be the worst thing in the world. To me this is not the first time apple has done this. I stopped using itunes because it automatically changed my startup prefs, on quicktime every time it updated and it always reinstalled the Apple Mobile Device process even though itunes does just fine without it. They started forcing their stuff on us long before this.
Markus Zeller
· 1 year ago
I think that is absolutely ok, because the Updater is named "Apple Software Updater" and the user still can decide what to update or install.
People already should read and think before clicking...
allgood2
· 1 year ago
Based on your analysis, I'd agree with you, but at least to the point that I've read in the comments, no one has pointed out that Apple software update, doesn't work on the same premise as Windows or Microsoft Updates.
Apple software update doesn't scan your computer to check to see what you do or do not have. You can call that a liability, but that's just the way its been on Mac software. Apple runs a simple check on Mac OS X version. I believe it just has the receipts folder. After that it gives you the most current updates for your operating system, and a series of updates for your computer.
The updates are to move your OS to where Apple expects it to be. But you have control over it. So Apple says, we upgraded Mac OS X, made security updates to QuickTime, iWork, iLife, Aperture, etc. Your updates menu will list ALL of them, with check marks, that you can check or uncheck. Details are provided so you can decide which items you want or need.
The thing is while Safari specifically hasn't been installed on Windows machine, before...webkit has, and updating Safari generally updates WebKit. Which does effect iTunes. Obviously, the relationships could be a bit clearer. But I don't consider it evil. Of course, that could be because I'm use to the Apple Software Update, and tend to understand how QuickTime's security can effect Safari, and reverse, etc.
I consider it worse, that Microsoft labels numerous updates critical security updates, when they aren't. But even then, each just requires reading what will be installed on your machine.
Tim F.
· 1 year ago
allgood2, agree with everything you say, but as above, one correction: WebKit has not been installed already. It may look it, but WebKit is not used by iTunes or QuickTime. Otherwise, good post
Uncheck the damn box you idiot. How about the forced updates I get from firefox, huh? How about the forced silverlight install I get from Microsoft? Safari is more web compliant than any browser out there, even on Acid 3, but you're bitchin about some dialog that you can uncheck. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.
vcat
· 1 year ago
Geeze, I am not a tech person, only a small pc user and I can read and check or uncheck those boxes. I have never had a problem of this magnitude. Wow. Glad I still don't have.
Markus
· 1 year ago
Really, i believe in the freedom of choice.
But actually the whole discussion is about whether the checkbox is checked or not, in case somebody is unable to read. And it is NOT about Apple is trying to take over the world.
Apple just uses the Autoupdate for distributing software because the average user is too dumb to read and therefore to dumb to navigate to the Apple website and download Safari.
Yeah, i really believe Apple should make the boxes unchecked, so the average dumbf+++ uses the much superior FF.
Mark Holton
· 1 year ago
I disagree, John. You have the ability to opt out. It’s not a breach of trust. Apple should use their market share in iTunes to their advantage. FF is in a position where they maybe cannot distribute their browser as easily... but it’s fair. FireFox has done a great job teaming up with Google and distributing FireFox through those channels.
But I’d rather not see Apple and FireFox quibble at this stage -- the combined market share of these two browsers is still not being enough to fight like this, among themselves. You should still be fighting IE to push standards, not each other for the 'scraps'. I would find that much more inspiring.
Sincerely, Mark Holton web application developer
Peter Anderson
· 1 year ago
And Mozilla ? Make this not ? Oh My Good ! Enviously ?
Jon
· 1 year ago
You are absolutely correct. I noticed this today and was curious because it was not really an "update" that showed in the updater. I unclicked it and closed the updater. If they want to offer a new program to users, they should be up-front about it and not try to "sneak it in."
Jon
· 1 year ago
For the record, I do NOT have Safari installed so this was not an "update" offering to me.
Malcolm
· 1 year ago
Yes I'm a long time Apple user, but I think this is a bit of a sneaky tactic, since they don't ever do anything unintentionally.
At the top of the dialog box they just need to fix the wording from "update" to "update or install". That's it.
Bob S
· 1 year ago
I agree it's a bit sneaky, but as others have pointed out, you can uncheck the box. And.....they do tell you that you are about to download Safari.
Rob
· 1 year ago
Not a new practice, to me: I have the updater installed but do NOT run nor have installed itunes on windows, & I have to opt out of itunes every time the updater runs, just to continue updating Quicktime. Same problem, but those who use itunes maybe don't realize it.
The most annoying thing about Safari was actually Bonjour. As it is a network service, Vista decided it was a separate network connection and for some reason it did now allow my existing network connection to get to the Internet. I could only see the local network.
Now Safari being pushed as an 'update' is annoying, but Safari installing Bonjour without any notice and screwing up my Internet connection is far worse.
Steven
· 1 year ago
It's another attempt of apple to push their safari browser. If you remember, as of now, they do not allow any other browser on the iPhone besides none other than Safari. Is Apple cruising towards an anti-trust law suit? Yes, yes they are. They could have at least learned something from Microsoft's debacle with the justice department.
Plantain
· 1 year ago
This is nothing like malware.
You don't _have_ to choose it (unlike malware installers)
You don't _have_ to use it (unlike malware installers)
I'm far more annoyed by application installers offering to clutter up my desktop by adding an icon. How dare they auto-check that box!
Cablecom
· 1 year ago
Just keep making a better browser and stop worrying about this.
Micah
· 1 year ago
This is just another reason I can't stand dealing with Apple's products. I'm too independent to want this level of interference in my computing endeavors. I completely agree with John's basic point that software vendors need to be extra careful to be dedicated just to fixing the problems with no other agenda in mind. Otherwise autoupdates will be turned off again, like we used to do with Microsoft.
Asa Dotzler
· 1 year ago
@havoc said >If Firefox popped up an update dialog giving users the >option to download Thunderbird, nobody on this blog >would say boo.
Havoc, Mozilla would never include an offer for a new Mozilla product in a security and stability update for Firefox. It's that simple. Our update mechanism is for, you know, updates. New software offers are not updates. Software update mechanisms should be for, um, updating Software, not advertising new software offers.
If Apple had a second tab in their utility or had otherwise made a very clear distinction been "these are critical security updates for your existing installed programs." and "these are some other programs we offer that you might be interested in" then no one would be calling foul.
It's the dilution of *update*, which to date has meant "you really need this because without it, your installed software is not safe," that makes this such a problem (and not just to Mozilla but to every software vendor trying to keep their users safe through software updating mechanisms.)
Even un-checking the safari box wouldn't be sufficient to correct their misstep. Apple needs to move it's new program offers to a separate space, one that users will understand is fully distinct from updates to existing installed programs.
When my neighbor, who happens to spend a lot less time reading tech news and blogs than you and me, and so doesn't have a clue what Safari is or whether or not it's already on his system, when he gets a prompt to install security updates to QuickTime and the update also comes with this Safari thing, he's going to OK it because he's worried that not doing so will affect the security of his computer.
This blurring of the line between updates and new software offers is just wrong, and it's dangerous. That other vendors like Java and Adobe have decided that their software update systems are a wonderful revenue opportunity does not make it right for Apple to do the same. All of these vendors that are abusing user trust and making security an even more difficult concept for users to manage should be called out and shamed into better behavior.
If Apple had used its installed software to launch giant "Have we got something for you you're gonna just love" new software installation offers, that would be something entirely different (and probably quite a bit less effective) and something I would probably just laugh off. But they didn't. They intentionally slipped a new program into the security and stability update mechanism for existing programs. That's wrong and they should change.
- A
Mark
· 1 year ago
How about the fact that when Apple releases an update to iTunes, no matter how small, you have to download the whole damn thing with Quicktime? How about a 100K patch to fix things? Why do I need to download a 65 MB new install? Lame.
Daniel (Palluxo! Editor)
· 1 year ago
I will have to agree with John, but let's keep things in perspective. Safari 3.1 is a great browser that solved many security vulnerabilities. I think everybody should try it. Firefox and Internet Explorer are becoming a bit boring...
It does seem like a very dubious practice. True, Safari is a good browser (beats IE by light-aeons). But it shouldn't be offered as an 'update' when it is anything but.
It would, as has been suggested, be better to have a Google Pack-like list of 'other software you may install', with the contents unchecked by default.
It doesn't seem as nasty as how Microsoft does it at the moment, though. Also, I like Safari and iTunes, and I've not had very many problems with QuickTime, even on Windows.
That said, they can't call an independent piece of software an 'update', regardless of how many QuickTime libraries it might link against.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
I think the government should look into this since they are trying to trick people into installing Safari. All those that think it is ok, must think it is ok when the same method is used to try and get people to install malware.
Tim F.
· 1 year ago
Asa, this extreme view is patently silly. Unchecking Safari isn't even sufficient? It's dangerous? What is the danger?
Just because you believe an app called "Update" should only be used as a "security and stability update mechanism" doesn't make it so. What about new features? Would that be okay? What if an app was complementary but distinct, say a tag editor? If they changed the name of their "Apple Software" delivery application, do you no longer get to whinge about security updates and the "danger"?
I believe that installation bundles (that Mozilla, Google, Sun, and many others wholeheartedly take part in) are a brilliant source of revenue but they are (oooh!) "dangerous" because the user doesn't know what they are installing -- it makes users mistrust the entire notion of installing new, third party software. Now, the whole web and software development community may collapse. Is Mozilla going to start retreating from its lucrative bundling relationships now? No, of course, not. And, of course, this view is absurd.
Admiral Justin
· 1 year ago
I see everyone saying the same thing, "unlike other installers"
INSTALLERS. When you are installing new software and offered optional software to INSTALL, it's one thing...
When you are UPDATING EXISTING software, and it's attempting to get you to INSTALL NEW software, it's another matter.
Say Songbird was a little more refined, on par with iTunes, and Firefox Update suddenly decided to automatically check a box to also install Songbird...
I guess Apple's reasoning is... I don't have safari installed, so I don't have the latest version!
Mike
· 1 year ago
QuickTime Pro update uses the same techniques of Update Pollution.
Unlike QuickTime Player, QuickTime Pro is not free.
Software Historian
· 1 year ago
When has Apple ever said that Software Updates are only for stability and security fixes? iTunes updates are often mainly to add features, not security. Mac OS X software updates include bug fixes, performance improvements, and sometimes whole new features. In fact Safari 1.0 was initially distributed in a software update to Mac OS X 10.2, where Safari was not included in the base OS. Yet contrary to the argument that offering new software as updates destroys user trust, it is well known that Apple Software Updates have extremely high uptake, and a majority of users are typically on the latest update. Users trust Apple software updates because they are high quality, not because they never offer new software.
So it seems like the whole argument that Software Update mean only security/stability fixes and no new software is totally bogus, Mozilla may want it to mean that but it has never meant that.
It seems like this supposed concern for user trust is just a trumped up argument designed to disguise Mozilla's resentment of a new competitor on Windows, where they would like to own the "alternative browser" category. Mozilla believes in choice on the web, as long as you choose Mozilla.
Stephen
· 1 year ago
Do you have no shame? Thus entire media campaign is a ridiculous smear with little basis in reality. An auto-updater having a new product visible, but check by default is not malware. Malware is a real problem, and your doing a massive media campaign over this? That is nothing but self serving demagoguery.
PatheticJulie
· 1 year ago
You are pathetic. Try the browser. It is way better than anything we have had previously. Uncheck the box if you don't want it. If you hate Apple, don't use iTunes. You know it is good so don't go all silly. If you think that is soooooo bad, get out and get a life.
Billy McBob
· 1 year ago
this article was a waste of everyone's time. probably made a lot of people angry to read your irrational hate towards apple to.
Commonsensia
· 1 year ago
I can not agree more, I have already sent an email to them complaining when I could not separate the Quicktime and Itunes patches. So I seldom update Quicktime for this very reason. And the aggravating part is I often need the darn program. I guess I will have to seek out a replacement for Quicktime if there is one, never really took the time to see. Just another reason I am working trying harder then ever to move completely away form windoz. I can not say enough about Firefox speed quality and adaptability, and of Ubuntu this open source OS is the one that I see breaking the big horses back before long as it is almost to the point of if not already past windows in shall we say "User Friendliness" And it is 100 times a better OS. and the price well you just can't go wrong with these choices.
Rich
· 1 year ago
I'm posting this from Safari for Windows which I just installed from Apple's auto-updater. When I saw it I thought "oh that's sneaky" but I didn't really mind and figured I'd give it a try. Maybe I would feel differently if I'd just clicked without noticing what was on the update list, but I usually pay attention to what's getting installed and it was the only thing on the list anyway.
I agree with you on principle but I don't feel so wronged by it that I think it's worth complaining too loudly over, at least not by someone in your position. Google News was one of the first sites I took a look at from Safari and I saw a news item about your objection, and right away I thought it smacked a little of insecurity. I think you can be confident enough in Firefox's quality and ability to stand up to this new injection of competition that you can be above petty complaints about how Apple got their foot in the door.
I don't expect for one second that Safari will win me away from Firefox.
Passerby
· 1 year ago
The inclusion of an entire web browser in the iTunes updater felt very fishy to me, too. The need to update iTunes super frequently always feels a little awkward, and I wonder what could possibly need so much updating... but despite that, I went along with it because, I guess as a result of the hype, I did trust Apple.
In that moment when I saw Safari included in the updates, I had a flashback to RealPlayer, and it was not a good feeling. I jumped through a lot of hoops to get RealPlayer off my system, and I haven't used it since. I don't like "unclean" programs. If a company is trying to push any other product on me aside from the one that I've downloaded, it sets warnings off in my head. As a matter of fact, I don't even like it when companies have "Install Google Toolbar" checked at the beginning of an install, but at least those folks don't push it again after you refuse to install it.
Apple's free-handed use of "updates" has, sadly, piqued my interest in using any other program to meet my iPod's needs. There's no real reason that I should humor Apple's need to be the center of my entertainment universe, and I feel disinclined to be around when they have yet another service they'd like to offer me. Not enough time in the day to spend every (super frequent) update of it being hypervigilant for something else riding in on iTunes' coat-tails.
Rufus
· 1 year ago
I guess this sums it up, can't stand the competition eh John?
Put your efforts somewhere better, like making a better browser and you won't have to complain.
>John Lilly, who’s a techie by background, reads a lot, >advises several startups, is currently CEO of Mozilla,
David H Dennis
· 1 year ago
I would consider this kind of thing harmful if Safari was a background process that used up your CPU cycles trying to deliver ads, or sent all your banking information to Outer Mongolia.
Safari is just a web browser. Nothing more and nothing less. As far as I know, it does nothing special to make its presence known. You can ignore it forever if you like. Other than using a few mb of disk space, on an operating system that takes gigs just to say "Hello, World", I don't see it doing any harm whatsoever to the person who downloads it.
I would think that on the whole this would help the alternative web browser community, including FireFox. Remember, your real enemy is inertia, not other alternative web browsers. If you can get someone to use any alternative web browser, including Safari, they are more likely to try FireFox in the future. And I must say your recent Mac builds have been looking very nice.
Okay, the comparable situation would be if I loaded FireFox one day and it offered to download updates including Thunderbird. I don't care whether I have Thunderbird or not, since I use and like Apple Mail. But if I wasn't paying attention and downloaded Thunderbird, I would simply ignore it and not care that you recommended it.
I think that's what most people will do, and I think that's how most people will think. It would matter not at all. Maybe you should start doing it, although you have now painted yourself in a corner where you'd look hypocritical if you did.
By the way, I really liked Beta 3 of FireFox. I think the new huge back button and small forward button look unbalanced and less attractive than beta 3. And I wish you would do the emacs editing characters like Safari (and other MacOS X Cocoa) applications do. It seems funny that open source is the birthplace of the emacs editor and yet evil, closed-source Apple does the emacs command keys so beautifully and you do not :-(.
D
Gnalk
· 1 year ago
I don't like Apple's behavior. It's very annoying when a software tries to auto-install something. This will give unexperienced compute rusers problem that they may not solve. I always uncheck this kind of options, but I know several people that don't know what to do and therefore installs whatever Apple suggest.
I was offended by the ploy by apple and was grateful I was there when the "update" arrived. Others in the household might not have realized it was a scheme to get new unwanted software installed. I disabled apples software update program.
Andy Fore
· 1 year ago
I fail to see the issue here. Ok, so Safari isn't installed and is auto selected via the Apple Software Update control when it became available. All you have to do is uncheck the box and not install it.
Also, if I recall I was able to opt out of installing the Apple Software Update utility when I installed iTunes the last time on my PC at work.
And since we are talking about things that software makers should or shouldn't do with their products, why is the default search page for the Google engine in Firefox a specialized, Firefox-branded version instead of the real Google page?
Brent
· 1 year ago
You should define concept of fair since it is the underlying current of your post. I for one am not convinced you have the altruistic motive of protecting Apple users. I suspect you are more concerned about the success of Firefox. ***You give the darned thing away for free!*** If anyone should be cyring foul, it should be Apple and Microsoft. Please, end your whining and get back to the work building a better browser - it is the only way you are going to win.
Only a small segment of the market is going to take Firefox to teach Microsoft and Apple a lesson in corporate greed and fair play. The rest are simply going to use the easiest, most full featured and reliable browser.
For goodness sake, fight your battle in the market by offering the best product with the best features at the best cost with outstanding marketing and quit with the whining and the lawsuits and the claims of unfair business practices - it is fatiguing.
PS: I now have all three Browsers installed: FF, IE, SAF. And...just because someone installs some crappy piece of software on my machine does not mean I will necessarily use it.
Derek Kent
· 1 year ago
This is the biggest Apple non-story of the year to date.
For starters, that is not the "iTunes updater", it's Apple Software Update. Apple always uses it to offer updates and new free software through it.
The software is extremely explicit in what it is installing. Not only do you see an obvious list of exactly what software components are being offered to install, each one also has a more detailed description if you're unsure. Finally, the "Install" button itself also notes exactly how many pieces of software you're installing.
Furthermore, any user can very simply set any install to "ignore" and never be prompted again. Yes, I said *never*, not "tomorrow" as is the case with Widows Updater.
You can also turn off auto-checking for updates as well, both from within the installer or in scheduled tasks in the control panels.
And let me say this one more time so it's clear... it will NOT install any software without the users explicit permission.
Others have already pointed out that this is a common practice with software like Google's Toolbar, which is offered as an install in a number of other unrelated installers, and those provide no actual information as to what the software is if the user doesn't know.
If Apple was only listing an iTunes update and then suddenly installing Safari as well without telling you, then this would be a story. The way it's being handled right now though by Apple is completely reasonable.
Mister Snitch!
· 1 year ago
1) Is Apple charging for this software?
2) Does the installation of this software preclude the installation or use of other, competing, browsers?
3) Does the installation make Safari the 'default' browser?
SInce the answer to all these questions is "no" this is very much a tempest in a teapot.
The main thrust of the argument is that Apple is misleading it's customers, and doing something that is "clearly wrong". That is false. Here's why:
1) Apple cannot ASSUME that a machine on which iTunes is installed also has a working browser installed. It also cannot assume that a third-party browser such as Firefox will continue to be up-to-date and standards-compliant. Of course, I myself have no doubt of this. But that doe not mean Apple, or I, can ASSUME this to be the case, because neither Apple nor I have any control over what you do, or over the future direction or support of Firefox.
2) iTunes will from time to time need a working browser on the same computer for certain functions. (iTunes on my Mac has opened up a Safari window now and again.) That means that Safari, while probably not integral for iTunes operations, is at least ancillary to it. iTunes needs to make certain assumptions about how that browser works, and it cannot make such assumptions unless it makes that broswer itself.
3) As far as "misleading" the publi is concerned, there is such a thing as "too much information". While software mavens may live and die for these things, Joe User (remember him?) just wants it to work. Apple knows better than to make Joe User sit through a lecture HE DOES NOT WANT regarding why he really ought to allow Safari to be installed. Apple merely offers the option, calling it an 'upgrade' rather than a new install because, from Apple's POV, adding Safari can be argued to be an 'upgrade' of iTunes. This is especially true if Apple intends to build in iTunes-centric features into the browser at a later date.
You should have given his issue some real thought before this needlessly inflammatory post. Apple is not doing anything to crowd out Firefox installations. They are merely installing a competing browser.
What are you REALLY concerned about here?
Mister Snitch!
· 1 year ago
Just FYI, I have Safari, Firefox, and Opera installed on all my machines. I use only two of these 99% of the time. Your IP records will show which one I am using now. You'll just have to guess about the other one.
torossian
· 1 year ago
This is outrageous.
I am a die-hard Apple fanatic and drink the koolaid every day, but the company needs to stop using iTunes as a vector to force Safari onto Windows.
Safari is an excellent browser on a mac, but they should let Firefox do its thing in Windows-Land and help capture more marketshare from IE for the sake of web standards.
I was really angry when Steve Jobs showed that ridiculous pie-chart during WWDC that projected Safari eating into Firefox share of the browser market.
Apple should reconsider this move. iTunes is running the risk of becoming the bonzi buddy on Windows if they keep this up.
Tad
· 1 year ago
I have to disagree with Mister Snitch!. I just installed iTunes Update 7.6.1 with the new Safari package added to the list of updates.
"3) Does the installation make Safari the ‘default’ browser?" In fact it can become the default browser if you make the wrong selection during the Safari installation.
"1) Apple cannot ASSUME that a machine on which iTunes is installed also has a working browser installed." I have yet to see any system capable of running iTunes 7.6.1 not have a web browser. Please give an example of such a system.
I have to believe that installing Safari is a little subversive. Apple must be able to retrieve more user metrics, otherwise why install it? Out of the goodness of Apple's heart? There was a time when Netscape charged for a web browser.
Neil Pomeroy
· 1 year ago
You are nuts. Apple updates software usefully (unlike Microsoft who update theirs based on profit). Do you have something more useful to write about? How about better code in your software?
Jonh Curtis
· 1 year ago
Using malware techniques to get people to install safari.. shame on you apple.. tought you were better than this
Kevin
· 1 year ago
@Kelson
Kelson I hate to point out that your data is woefully outdated. You should check out the numbers of Safari 3.1. Please take a look at the test that compares the current version of Safari to Firefox you will see that in some test Safari does out perform the beta version of FireFox. With the final release of FireFox will we see a performance increase or decrease? That remains to be seen. The beta version of Safari out preformed the final release. So who is to say that what we see in the Beta is what we will get. And any informed person knows that.
Dshizzle
· 1 year ago
I ran across this today on 37 computer systems as a result of of 17 support calls. Just because I've selected to install quick time dosnt mean I want itunes or Safari on my PC, and to place its install as part of an "update" seems to me to be a bad direction to go. I will now disable/remove apple update and institute a no quicktime policy as a result of this misdirected decision by the jobs.
Andreas Beer
· 1 year ago
Well, this behaviour clearly shows the real face of apple - it can be easily compared to the biggest malware company microsoft. Also Quicktime is as proprietary, as annoying and as competitive as any other malware microsoft has ever produced. So why do people love apple so much? It's just another multinational corp...
Andrew Nicolle
· 1 year ago
As a someone who works in IT security for the Royal Navy, I find this method of forcing un-asked for software onto user disraceful. Many average users of computers (and this gos to Windows and MAC users), aren't very knowledgable about them and just accept what software is gievn to them by supposedly reputable vendors. A software update program should just update the software you already have, and if MS or Apple have a desire for users to switch to their software then they should use valid marketing techniques (e.g. if Apple want Itunes users to switch to Safari as a web browser, why not advertise it in Itunes). I severely hope this practice gets stamped down and hard, so this method of expanding your user through underhanded means comes to an end.
Gerd
· 1 year ago
Really Funny! Do you know who also does this? Google! When you update SUN's Java stuff, it wants to install Google Desktop. And who pays you guys? Google (at least you get a lot money for the google start page)! So be quite!
BCR
· 1 year ago
"New Software is available from Apple." This is what the updates states. Can't anyone here read??? If a user is not capable of reading and then manipulating a simple checkbox, then there is simply nothing to be said on their behalf.....they've got to be dumber than a bucket of hair.
Nickell
· 1 year ago
I am glad other businesses don't fall to this level. Businesses such as Ford, GM, US military recruiting, Sears, et tu infinitum. Many of you seem to think it's a non-issue, but consider all the other consequences if all businesses, domestic and foreign, stoop to this practice.
Chris Drost
· 1 year ago
Listen. Can the Safari fanboys who see little to no error on Apple's part, at least admit that it would have been *better* if the box were unchecked by default?
For full disclosure, I'm a former Windows geek who recently became a Linux geek. I'm not crazy about IE or Safari or Opera or Firefox; but my general ambivalence has settled on Firefox, mostly because it's truly-free software, and I might as well support the free software movement a little.
I think this is a no-brainer: if you're going to do something unconventional or unexpected, you should leave the option disabled by default. You should have to opt-in to mailings, not opt-out. You should have to opt-in to software, not opt-out.
Safari users: what if Microsoft tried to do the same trick to you? Let's suppose that next year, MS Office comes up with some hard-to-crack proprietary format, and your workplace switches to it, so you feel the need to install MS Office for Mac. Let's also suppose that Microsoft also tries to do WMP and IE on OSX in the meanwhile. And let's further suppose that, whenever the MS update prompt comes around, you have to tell it explicitly, "No, I don't want you to install Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer."
I understand that it would be bad enough to install MS Office. But wouldn't it be *worse* if you had to constantly and consciously opt-out of those updates? Can we all agree that it should be opt-in, not opt-out, if you're trying to install new software on someone's computer?
Sure, it's can be handled with just a mouse click. And spam can be handled with just a press of a delete key. And a bad search engine link can be handled by any number of "Back" shortcuts that exist for the various browsers -- mouse gestures or backspace keys or what have you. These are just little things, but they undermine faith in installers, email, search engines, and so on. (Hell, Google is only a giant today because it had fewer bad search engine links than every other major search engine a couple years ago.)
Michelle
· 1 year ago
I too I installed Safari through the 'automated' Apples download -- but am VERY sorry I did. I use iTunes, but also have (HAD) a "MY MSN" homepage on IE 6.0, which I spent a long time customizing several years ago. After the Safari "update," I could no longer access MY MSN or even the page to create another MY MSN ("The page cannot be displayed") --- EVEN AFTER HAVING UNINSTALLED SAFARI. I think Apple screwed around with my registry and I am not happy!
Martin Bentley
· 1 year ago
As much as I love using Apple OS I feel it's time they were forced into the same corner as Microsoft when it comes to bundling Safari/iTunes etc. Apple sometimes mistake for good strong creative control for being megalomania and choose the latter.
BCR
· 1 year ago
Michelle, Apple's update is not 'automated'....and, if your MSN page existed just prior to installing Safari, then it's a good bet that your page still exists. I'd suggest cruising up to MSN's main page and try again (maybe after re-booting your computer). On my XP system, Safari did not change any of my IE6 settings, and if you accidentally made Safari your default browser, you can always change that.
Bob Allen
· 1 year ago
Let me start by agreeing that it would be best if Apple did not have the Safari option checked by default. For those who don't pay attention to what they're downloading, this makes it way too easy to install something that the user might not want. I see nothing wrong with Apple using Software Update to inform the user of the availability of Safari and giving him/her the option to download and install. That would be a best practice and would engender a level of confidence in Apple.
However, to talk about this in terms of an abuse or being terrible or being wrong is a bit over the top. With the prevalence of spam and viruses, no one should just automatically click "Download" or "Install" without reading what they are downloading/installing and thinking about whether they really want to do that. Apple has some responsibility but so does the consumer.
Bob Allen
· 1 year ago
BTW -- on my Mac, I use Firefox far, far more than I use Safari.
NYC Engr.
· 1 year ago
I was just given an IPOD Nano (4GB) as a gift. I just cannot move mp3 files over to it and get it to play them (I tried that already). I have to go and get itunes to get my music on this thing.
Now I go all the way back with apple all the way back to the apple ][ (still have it and sometimes still play some of the games). But my not being able to just load and play the new nano means if will go into the junk pile and most likely not see the light of day ever again.
Now I understand why the IPhone owners are still so upset with Apple. Such a waste for a once very good vendor. Apple has certainly come way down since the late 70's. To bad that. I will certainly not buy or recommend Apple products to family and friends (and to everyone) who asks my technical and professional opinion.
Zac M.
· 1 year ago
You know what? After using windows for years and having Microsoft push every single piece of crap software on me over the years, I am ok with Apple doing the same. At least Apple's software is useful and does not bog down a windows system. Plus, Safari may be in the software updater, but it is not like you can't just uncheck the box next to it. Also, if you do install it and don't like it, just uninstall it and stop whining. And if you really have a problem with viruses and malware and spyware on your computer, then please get a Mac or something else and stop whining about it, please.
Anon
· 1 year ago
Why is ITunes + QuickTime selected by default when I don't have ITunes?
Bif
· 1 year ago
I agree but...
Old news...imagine how much more effective this blog entry would have been if you had discovered this on the day it showed up for the rest of us.
It seems like CEOs and their executive teams don't discover even conspicuous trends or features until their children key them into it (Verizon CEO as an example - the phones we have are basically whatever his daughter likes). The results are insane - every product we have is geared towards tweens basically the biggest consumers in the US market.
Hey guys - hows abouts you 'live the life' instead of trying to figure out the 'the life' is?
Drizzt
· 1 year ago
Keeping software updated is pretty easy: use a software package system like DPKG, RPM or the like. Then you can keep your software with one command up-to-date. So this whole thing is about: keeping software up-to-date on Windows systems and maybe (if you do not have fink and its likenesses) Mac OS X systems.
Software _companies_ *and* trust is a little bit fishy. Have a look at http://www.lafkon.net/tc/ for a very good defenition of trust(ed computing). That is a bit different for products completly obtainable in source code.
Greetings, Drizzt
mark
· 1 year ago
1) QuickTime is easily found on its own, iTunes is bundled w/ QuickTime as it relies on QuickTime libraries, etc.
2) After running Software Update, if you don't want the available UPGRADE/INCLUSION of Safari then uncheck it and move on... so what.
Safari is clearly offered, not snuck in. It doesn't change preferences for default browser, or home page. Gee Whiz, it takes up a few MB of disk space...and may facilitate some ease-of-use with an iPhone or iTouch down the road...
so what?
After installing 3 copies of Windows on friends machines in the last 2 weeks I've seen numerous attempts via FireFox, the Adobe Reader, and others to install Google and Yahoo Toolbars and extras. They are offered in EXACTLY the same way as Safari is: a checkbox in an unrelated installer/updater. They have the exact same motivation - to reach people that otherwise wouldn't experience/see/try the tools. And, they are all easily removed.
So, unless you want to start attacking the marketing of Google and Yahoo! software, then shut your pie holes...
This thread is filled with whiney hypocritical freetards ;)
TheodeB
· 1 year ago
To those who say the way Apple have slipped another heavy weight browser under the radar and onto the Windows operating system, will have no affect on users choice or the proliferation of Safari are quite wrong. I had never tried Safari, but this morning i am writing this message via Safari as opposed to Firefox after last nights offered 'update' and my curiosity. However, having discovered Safari is using 4 times the system resources compared to Firefox to run this same page, my curiosity has been fulfilled.
My point is that casual un-informed home Windows users will for the most part now have Safari asking them if it should 'remain' their defualt web browser.
Chris
· 1 year ago
Reading the comments of those that think this whole issue is nothing to worry about makes me happy that the United States of America is a Democratic Republic rather than a Direct Democracy. Everybody... please remember the old adage, "The devil is in the details."
- The issue is more than just Company F is hating on Company A. - The issue is more than just Company M did it, so Company A can do it too. - The issue is more than just, "Oh, those stupid people should just learn how to uncheck a stupid box." (Remember: it's those "stupid" people that constitute the majority of the demand for computer products, which in turn run the entire market. Without them, the market crashes, and things get REALLY expensive for the small portion of us that are the "enlightened ones" who can read and uncheck those stupid boxes.)
Regardless of who did what and when to whom, the core issues are: - What is ethical and unethical, what is right and wrong? - What implications do these small decisions have on the bigger picture?
If a person is not willing to at least partially think through these questions without bias toward one company/program or another, then frankly their opinion lacks value and substance. They are just a good example of why our forefathers made our country a Democratic Republic, and not a Direct Democracy.
Okay, enough with the philosophical shtuff... If anybody wants to look at an example of a good update system, look at Lenovo's ThinkVantage System Update. Apple could learn a good lesson from Lenovo.
Chris
· 1 year ago
If you've haven't spent just a little bit of time to think through all this, read this comment from above:
Im ok with what Apple is doing because it gets people off of IE.. Thats the most important thing is that IE be crushed. Way to go Apple.
Alex
· 1 year ago
So I suppose it's no big deal when Firefox has a campaign to make everyone, including Google, shove Firefox down your throat whenever possible? Or perhaps BLOCK websites from even displaying in Internet Explorer? The Java updater tries to sell me OpenOffice all the time. What's wrong with Apple's methodology? With everyone's daughter running iTunes on their system, perhaps they might like Safari more than Firefox or IE. In fact, I can almost guarantee it. This browser is lovely, thus a teen girl magnet.
Dieter
· 1 year ago
There is a simple way to solve the issue: Uninstall the Apple Software Update and everything is fine.
...I am in no way an Apple fanboy but I can't see any other reason than envy for writing such a totally uncalled-for bashing of Apple.
Mozilla Firefox is a nice browser (mainly for Firebug), but it's a memory hog and slow.
Apple has a fast and lean browser which could very well be dangerous for Mozilla, so I guess the main reason for this piece is not consideration for the user, but business.
I'd rather live in an Apple world than in a Mozilla world after all.
At least, Apple is not a corporation that tries to hide it's sometimes evil self behind some kind of foundation smoke-and-mirror game.
They are more honest than Mozilla for that reason.
Pikadude No. 1
· 1 year ago
How I despise all the "just uncheck the freakin' box" comments around here.
"For most users, the default value is the only value."
Ryan Smyth
· 1 year ago
Nice to see someone call out Apple on what is unequivocally malicious behaviour.
> at least Safari is standards compliant
Complete drivel. You don't know what you're talking about.
> And if you really have a problem with viruses and malware and spyware on your computer, then please get a Mac or something else and stop whining about it, please.
More drivel.
Apple fanboys, please get an education before you vomit the kool-aid on the rest of us.
tvodrd
· 1 year ago
Up until yesterday, I thought I needed the Quicktime program for viewing short clips off my Canon digicams. I updated Quicktime due to some vuln and had to take itunes with it. (Unchecked Safari.) I discovered my VLC player works fine for QT files, and uninstalled QT, itunes, and Apple software updater! No more popups from Zone Alarm for Apple wanting to access the net!
Fahd
· 1 year ago
Yeah, it is very "interesting", the way that they advertise Safari. It is the fastet browser bla bla bla, and i dont believe i actually fell for it, i couldnt even play a Youtube Flash video on the browser without having to install an add-on first, i mean wth?
Ed
· 1 year ago
I support you, John. Apple was WRONG in how they “delivered” Safari to Firefox users. I went ahead and let the Safari browser install on my computer because, I was not sure if it was a part of the iTunes update, or not. I agree that the installed product could be considered as melware. And now that I know that Safari is just another stand alone browser, that I did not want in the first place, I will get rid of it just like I would do to ALL melware. Further, Apple and Dennis; your attitudes are sad, sad, sad.
Jeremy Ricketts
· 1 year ago
I'm almost embarrassed by this. As an Apple enthusiast, as a shareholder, and as a web developer myself. I'm rooting for Safari big time. But not at this cost. How far will you go Apple?
Pencas
· 1 year ago
Lol 22MB? Pure bloatware
Warwick
· 1 year ago
Sleazy marketing from Apple, again.
I've seen someone trying to watch a 30-second video clip on a web site, and finding that it required QuickTime. They go to the Apple site and there's no sign of a QuickTime download, but there is "QuickTime + iTunes" - so they download that. After downloading many megabytes of iTunes that they didn't want, they then find their entire hard drive is being scanned for audio files and they're being connected to the Apple store to purchase music.
Remember, in the first place they just wanted to watch a short movie on a web site...
The person I'm describing isn't stupid - they're just busy, and trusting that the default options are the best/safest options.
Apple abuses customer trust and wastes customer time by these sort of tactics. They deserve to be criticised.
Giulio
· 1 year ago
Ehm, for your information, Safari is better and faster than Firefox. I'm not a fanboy, I've tried Firefox and Safari.
Chris Quirke
· 1 year ago
This is slimeball behavior, pure and simple.
The only reason we have to swallow "updates" is because the software is dangerously defective. Leveraging defects to shovel other products is sick, and creates a perverse incentive. "Nice computer you have here - it would be a pity if our software defects put it risk, so you'd better accept everything we shove at you".
The purpose of vendor-pushed updates is to increase the safety of the system by closing exploitable code defects. Shoving in extra risk surfaces goes against that purpose.
So we have a choice of: - avoiding Appleware, and ?blocking it from installing - using some Appleware but killing auto-updates - swallowing everything Apple wants to shove at us
Apple has a lot to learn about safety; known exploitable defects in QuickTime stayed unpatched for months, and Safari was fount to contain multiple exploitable defects as soon as it went widespread on the Windows platform. I certainly don't want Safari stealthed into systems, given its track record.
Brian
· 1 year ago
It's clearly listed in the "update" list and very easy for someone to uncheck. Malware tag alongs are typically not listed and very difficult to keep from being installed.
This seems more like a case of someone getting their toes stepped on (Mozilla) and ranting with slander ("Malware") rather than facts. Apple is pushing it's Safari software, but it's not requiring users to install it in their iTunes update.
Anyone can *easily* uncheck the install box and Apple even puts "Install 2 Items" as the button name, so it's really giving the user all the information they need here...
So, by referring to this as the tactics of malware, are you insinuating that Firefox users aren't smart enough to uncheck a box? I find that rather condescending, to be honest.
luke
· 1 year ago
you must be joking .. are you for real ???? do you really think the users are so stupid they will install safari without looking ?? maybe yes in some cases it will happen , nevertheless do not be worry... we use whatever browser offers the best features and works faster .
At least Apple gives you the option to not install the browser. The fact is that even if you install safari, again the user need to decide whether to use it or not, give us some credit... it is not forced onto us as Microsoft used to do to windows users..
david
· 1 year ago
good grief. this sounds like fear-mongering to me. I have not cared for Safari so much on my windows machine, though I love it on the Mac.
..but this over-the-top outburst has left a bad taste in my mouth regarding Firefox. Maybe I'll give Safari on Windows another look. grrr!!
luke
· 1 year ago
And doesn't Mozilla's firefox ask you to be the default browser after installation ??? is this unfair tactic as well since I already use Safari?? how many people clicked yes without looking only because the yes box is preselected
SL
· 1 year ago
I uninstalled Apple Software Update today (before reading this blog post, which I found when I googled 'Apple Software Update') - The reason I did so was specifically because it tried to install Safari yesterday or the day before, and I could find no option to disable it, or to tell it to not tell me about updates for things other than Quicktime. (I installed iTunes a few months ago, and used it to download a couple podcasts that were only available through iTunes, but haven't used it since)
Anthony Coleman
· 1 year ago
Thanks for reporting this. I had presumed that I had previously tried a Safari beta when the Safari update was offered to me but after reading this I double checked and found that the beta was on another computer. I also have had other issues with iTunes being installed when I presumed I was just updating QuickTime through the Apple Software Updater. I'm going to uninstall the Apple Software Updater and just use the updater in QuickTime itself from now on.
toni
· 1 year ago
i dont even have iTunes installed, ONLY QUICKTIME and it wanted me to install itunes and safari together. fortunately I caught that little dirty trick and therefore de-installed quicktime instead of updating it.
daft
· 1 year ago
Well its even a security risk. due to the fact Safari needs to have updates now also. So if you have safari installed by itunes. but never use safari. and next time do Do not update safari. you have a Old perhaps flauwed browser.
if some one uses safari instead of you're fav browser. the possibility is there that due to the itunes install you're computer gets infected.
Brad
· 1 year ago
I agree with this entirely, but at the same time I'm not supprised, I remember back when Apple released an update to either iTunes or Quicktime, but it was the first update that bundled that software together. After a few minutes of searching the page I found the out of place link to get the desired product as a standalone. I believe businesses should take more pride in their work, and observe the proper use of the English language. Update means update... not Install.
Ian Kilmister
· 1 year ago
... woo, this Safari is fast an beautiful - I love it!
André
· 1 year ago
That's why we can't have nice things...
Best comment so far, by torossian (03.22.08 / 9pm): "iTunes is running the risk of becoming the bonzi buddy on Windows if they keep this up." lol
John
· 1 year ago
The only thing this undermines is poor little ole defensless firefox... Windows users will be windows users. Unable to do anything but click on the box that is presented to them and put no thought into the action.
Smart people use a MAC... end of story.
Jason
· 1 year ago
You know that Microsoft does the same thing right? I ran Microsoft Update the other day and it wanted me to install Silverlight or something. It was checked by default. They also pushed IE7 as a critical update a few months ago and now I can't get rid of it! FireFox updates plugins. Everyone seems to want to install Google Toolbar by default. This just seems like a way for Apple to reach existing customers.
Tom Herbert
· 1 year ago
I agree this is not on, however I recently installed the updated version of Windows Live Messenger when prompted by the automatic updater, and that installer also attempted to install Windows Photo Story, the MSN toolbar and other similar programs - their install boxes were checked by default. Apple is by no means the only, or the first, company to do this...
Cas Tuyn
· 1 year ago
Can we industry-wide agree on the following: - install = opt-in - upgrade = opt-out
For the record: I use Firefox on Linux because I hate tactics like MS and now Apple are forcing upon it's users.
Rob
· 1 year ago
I agree. I was upset when I had to install iTunes just so I could get the latest Quicktime. This is just as bad if not worse. Because of this I have Vowed against iTunes and Quicktime. If I want an inferior browser I'll go find it, I don't want it forced on me. BTW safari has been deemed unsafe by PayPal because of it's lack of security features.
John
· 1 year ago
Oh give me a break... Nothing is being forced on you pea brain. If you can't figure out how to work that dialog box you are NOT smart enough to own a computer.
Rob
· 1 year ago
Pea brain? really? Yeah, MAC can do no wrong. Everyone else is just stupid... end of story! Yeah it's not forced. It is, however, far from what typical software distributors do as a common practice. Except for bloatware companies like real, roxio, etc. How many people really look at EULA or most dialog screen anymore? I am sorry iZealots that iTunes is quickly becoming Windows bloatware.
Mo Musleh
· 1 year ago
John,
Only smart people use machines that use up-to-date technology. Even after apply finally started using Intel processors; MACs are still slower and more expensive than PCs. Steve Jobs thinks he can do things in whatever way he wants, but forcing Safari over users is a sign of weakness. I personally have IE, Firefox and Safari on my PC and I can tell you each one of them have advantages, but Firefox 2 is superior, but IE 8 is coming and I heard it is going to kick some serious butt.
John
· 1 year ago
Name one way in which OS X is inferior to windows.
Rob
· 1 year ago
Functionality. Choice. Openness. Customization. Oh, I guess you only asked for one way.
John
· 1 year ago
Windows is not functionally superior to windows. Windows is NOT open. Windows is NOT more customizable than MAC... Try again...
I guess this is an IQ test here... Force implies that you can't uncheck the box for safari... I guess maybe some people are not smart enough to figure that one out. Even if you do install it there is nothing forcing you to use it. If you understood how market share is figured up you would know that it is determined by which browsers are used not which ones are installed.
bws
· 1 year ago
"intercourse" Mr. Jobs and the sanctimonious horse he rode in on. I am not impressed with Apple's browser and I loathe anything that is prefixed with the letters "IE"...
Sam Switzer
· 1 year ago
they do the same thing with iTunes. I hate iTunes, its bulky, full of ads and not open or extensible (like every other media player on the market) so I just install quicktime, and the software updater, but every time iTunes has an update it pops up wanting to install it. Its a really big black smudge on apples white apple, they might be starting to rot.
John
· 1 year ago
Oh, quit whining. There's little difference between Apple offering Safari on an update and Mozilla buying Firefox placement on PCs from the big manufacturers. All of the nontrivial browser players use less-than-opt-in tactics for distribution.
Phil Weise
· 1 year ago
How do I uninstall Safari and turn off Apple update?
Bill G
· 1 year ago
"MACs are still slower and more expensive than PCs"
Actually, it's been proven that Windows actually runs faster on a Mac.
This is bad :( for both enterprises and costumers.
Not only Apple, but every update will be checked, and customers will not want to update somethings, due this.
Apple has destroy trust
Sorry
Matt
· 1 year ago
As a long time Mac, Safari AND Firefox user, I would agree that this update is a bit dicey. It comes down to the details and to numbers in my opinion. If Apple had not checked the box or, even better, inserted some type of dialogue (would you like to install Safari as your default browser?), No one would be complaining. Regarding the numbers I mentioned, I've noticed a trend in apples Marketing...follow a negative with a positive for substantial impact. I.e. - lowering the price of the iPhone almost immediately, then offering a $100.00 credit to those who paid the higher price (thus getting them to spend more money...do the math), being accused of not being "green" enough, then posting a green apple banner on the home page and a salute to Al Gore, and now this one.
I think the bottom line is that, regardless of the complaints, we can expect to see an eloquent explanation from Steve Jobs within the next few days, which will be enough to make some 60% of people who downloaded Safari decide to keep it. It may not be completely ethical, but it works.
Robert
· 1 year ago
many of the people arguing that this isn't that big of a deal here and elsewhere are missing two facts involved in this situation. firstly if you go to Apple's Quicktime download page you are given the option to download Quicktime sans iTunes or with. opting to download Quicktime without iTunes will still see iTunes pushed upon you with each "Quicktime Update" through Apple Software Update... now Safari is being pushed on unsuspecting users in the very same manner. i am pretty sure that i downloaded Quicktime sans Safari seeing as i can't even download the two bundled together through the Quicktime download page.
i've read a few comments in here and elsewhere that MS does this as well. last i checked Windows Updates shovels things like Media Player 11 into the "Software, Optional" area of which NOTHING is checked without user intervention as opposed to their "High Priority" updates. IE7 was released overall as a security/bug fix package from IE6 and by that deserved classification as a "High Priority" update. no different with Mozilla prompting upon each release of FF. Safari in this case is a "Software, Optional" item as is iTunes and should not be pushed like this.
however, all that said, my friends and i have a saying with Apple --> we're just not thinking differently enough!
Matthew
· 1 year ago
At least I have a choice with Safari. I'm constantly surprised to see that Firefox has already installed new updates without giving me a choice. Perhaps you ought to focus closer to home before complaining about your neighbour. Even looking into your browser speed would be helpful. Due to the speed and interface difference, I now use Safari in preference to Firefox on Windows as well as on the Mac. Cheers, Matthew
clarita
· 1 year ago
En los tiempos que corren, en el que parece que Steve Jobs es El Dios, parece increíble leer entradas como estas...que por cierto,ya era hora...gracias!
Bill G
· 1 year ago
I really thought all you Windoze users are used to far worse stuff than this by now.
Honestly, Microsoft has been fined billions upon billions of dollars for violating anti-trust and EU regulations with Vista and XP, and yet you remain loyal MS customers and you complain about a simple Apple opt-out??
Something is seriously wrong with you people!
Dylan Carlson
· 1 year ago
While agreeing in part, I think Mr. Lily is rhetorically blowing this out of proportion. What will be telling is if Apple changes the updater to reflect the feedback given in this (and other) blogs. What we all know is that Apple has historically never been as egregiously anti-competitive as Microsoft and moreover their use and support of open-source has been admirable if occasionally flawed. I think I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since they have earned it.
Mozilla is creating a big stink over nothing. Show a pattern of abuse and then you have a real story. This could be a simple release mistake. We will know in time.
Moreover, as some previous commenters have said -- Mozilla should focus more on making a better browser than jumping to conclusions about distribution tactics of a competitor.
Safari does indeed outperform Firefox. Obviously so. This is a credit to not just Apple but also to the KDE team.
eMJay
· 1 year ago
I've actually spent the last 2 hours reading EVERY single post on this page and, as expected, it gave me much insight into the extent of flawed logic in human minds today. Despite some eloquent and totally logical arguments from many visitors, many still see no ethical issues arising out of this sort of practice. I use Firefox, Opera, IE7 and Flock on a regular basis and recently evaluated Safari beta for my own use. I got version 3.1 via the software updater but i had no issue at the time because version 3.1 was a legitimate update in my case (moving from beta to final release candidate). However, i can't agree that Apple can legitimately use this method of suddenly coupling downloads of updates with new installations without admitting that they are trying to trick some people. There is an expectation that some logic will be applied when prechecked boxes are used in any software or website. A preticked box is expected when updating because it's logical to assume that since the updater is enabled the user will want the updates that are provided. In the case of Apple's updates everyone has come to expect that only software that they already run will show up in the window since that has been the experience of all users for years. Therefore we all become trained to see the updater windows and expect that we have already seen what's in the window because we've done this several times before (just like we do with EULAs), hence no need to take a closer look...Now apple has mixed a new installation with familiar updates and anyone who assumes that this update window will be just like the others gets caught. That's just wrong since it's using behaviour acquired through trusting the updating process to make users install things that the user may likely not want at all. The key issue here is that the option arrives ticked and this goes to the motive of the distributors. Distribution of this software via the same method but with the checkbox unticked would only allow users who actually want the software to acquire it. Leaving it checked means that you intend to allow some persons to acquire it accidentally, since you have the power to prevent ALL accidental installations by simply displaying an unchecked box by default. Remember that a prechecked box implies that the distributor has a reasonable expectation that the user will check the box anyway. That's why you would expect a checkbox to be checked at a download page...the user went to the download page freely and should be expected to want to download whats there. However, no such expectation can be assumed when the software arrives to the user for the very first time, using a method that's already mentally associated with a different procedure entirely. Hence, the Safari installation should have been unchecked when it arrived for the first time since Apple could guarantee that accidental installations would not occur for those users harboring the usual expectations from this software updater. It's not illegal but it's clearly unethical, because there is an expectation that some will be deceived. This is simple logic, and i dare say that anyone not able to understand or appreciate this simple concept will likely be susceptible to exploitation and are probably already being exploited at some level by the more logical thinkers around them.
Chuck Han
· 1 year ago
David K. is right on. Stop making the Google search bar the default (which you won't do since you won't bite the hand that feeds you)--then your criticism will have some foundation...
Steffen
· 1 year ago
Typical. To be fair though, Apple is of the opinion that iPods are their property even after you paid them for it - how else could they justify demanding to control what software you use with them? Buy standard-compliant hardware and you won't be exposed to the retailer's latest insanity. Or just change to an operating system where you can just use ONE updater rather than one per piece of software. Or do both ;)
So I would go as far as saying that people got what they paid for. If you don't wanna put up with crap just don't install it, get rid of iTunes and if that breaks your iPod return it for refund :)
John Doe
· 1 year ago
Some of you apple-fanboys are funny. While some installers do indeed use these tactics, once you install the program, they don't bug you again until you reinstall that particular program. Using the update service to hope someone forgot to untick the box "installing Safari" everytime you needs an update for quicktime and/or itune? That's 10 times worse.
Rod
· 1 year ago
Hello all, and first i must apologie for the incoming text, but english is not my mother-tongue.
A little humour to star with:
For years, the following motto was right: a cat is a cat ... a dog is a dog ... a PC is a PC an APPLE is an APPLE an updater is an updater... an installer is an installer...
Now, thanks to Apple: An updater (software) is now an installer (software) .. An APPLE is now A PC ...
What a pity ...
Just wondering is my cat is still a cat,..
OK, now the serious stuff ...
I read all the post and I was blast by several comments:
- Safari is 3 times better than ... YEAH, MINE IS LONGER THAN YOURS !!! Bad luck, safari was the sneaky software this time (and BONJOUR was the safari's own sneaky software). TOO BAD. I was very happy to test safari againts others browser in order to make my own tought. NOW, because of this sneaky practice, safari will always be mark as the "unwanted pieces of non-updates software from apple"...too bad, as i say. Any other pieces of software coming in this sneaky way would suffer the same comment.
- MS used to did that, so apple have the right to do it: YEAH, HITLER used to kill jew, so do I ... He did it, so do I. This 4th grade comment is just a pityfull excuse from apple consumers who simply feels ashame from apple's misconduct, abd use this pityfull excuse to ease their pain. Apple becoming MS ... what a nightmare for them. IMPORTANT NOTE HERE: I am a JEW, so don't bother going politic here, i could have use same stuff between Isreal and lebanon, chineses and tibet, reds ants and black ants. I did it, so do you ... well, be smart ( for once ).
- Comparing an "error coding (horror coding)" who give you no choice then shutting down your PC for updates, ruining your day of working and this kind of "horror" marketing using intantional misleading between UPDATES and INSTALL, this is been either blind or stupid, or both of them. We are not talking code errors, but marketing error. My grand'pa used a hammer and a stone, and never suffer bugs or shutdown ... lets get back to it.
- Updates, force Updates, Install ... THIS IS THE REAL POINT. I read someone complaining about firefox FORCING the install for an update. Yes, this is half true. The security update are force to you, if you have version 2.5.11 and version 2.5.13 is available, you don't have any choice than accept it. But this is still version 2.5. Not version 3, or 4. This is exactly what i expecte for an updater. I READ the buzz for the push between IE6 and 7. OK, the first attemp was an marketing error, and MS corrected the shot. But now, my answer is very simple, this is still IE. Whatever the number. IE6 is out-of-date, IE7 soon to be ... So, the UPDATE is NORMAL. IE version 6 was installed, IE version was the update (you like it or not is not the question, 7 come after 6, 8 will come soon, don't talk about 9 ... or 10) further more: change name for safari, and reread. DO the same with the name opera ... the logic stick to it, and is TRUE NOW, updating IE (or any sofware) and getting softwareX with the normal update, this is the point here !!! This is ABNORMAL.
- Tick box, eula, small caracters on a contract ... yeah, human stupidity is, and will always be used ... I don't elaborate further, because my 4th grade remarks stick to the point here !!!
- Deceiptive Software Companies ... well, politics, marketing, money. Do you thing the apple would have been better if the snake used a christmas box when Eve took it ?? feeling like a snake, mister Jobs ???? To tell you the trhuth, long ago, i made up my mind and put MS and Apple in the same (garbage) bag, who was already fill with several other company name ...
- Does Firefox betters than Safari ? Does IE7 sucks ? Does Vista (or MACOS, Or linux, Or my brand new car) a piece of Sxxx ... Unfortunatly, some of the people here miss the point between updates/distribution of software behaviors and the MINE IS LONGER stuff ... Again, pityfull, because the question was and still is important. This is the thrustworthy question. Can I still be confident in my software dealer ??? (wife, son's, neigbours, doctor ...) Just think about it ...
BE SMART PEOPLE ....
Have you found WMD in IRAK ?? What is happening in Tibet ??
.... THINK !!!
Steffen
· 1 year ago
Oh yeah quicktime - you don't need to get it from Apple. I don't know what the situation on Windows is these days but you could get the codecs separately from someone who's not Apple when I last used it a couple of years ago. "quicktime alternative" or something like that.
If you use MacOS.. I guess it's preinstalled and unremovable like IE on Windows?
Of course if you join the free software world you no longer have to put up with this kinda crap ;)
Rod
· 1 year ago
HO, by the way ....
- smart people ... are smart, whatever they use as a computer. People who are not smart make stupid comments about them in order to try to be smart ...
- silverlight software is a core components for IE, in order to use some specifics fonctionality from microsoft.com site ... as the winupdate process is using microsoft.com server, you have to update this core components. (same thing for your car, leaded or unleaded gaz, now you don't have choice).
- WGA is NOT a software. This is an anti-piracy component. People complaining about it are, most of the time complainig because they are pirats ...
- And, ho yeah, i fully agree about the 100k updates instead of the 65M. Hopefully, the 56k era is now over, but what a waste of bandewith ...
Rod
· 1 year ago
Thank you for reading Dylan ... do you have enought education to understand my mother-tongue ...
In my country, education and Politeness are the same word.
If you wanted to be harsh, Bravo, you did it ...
Again, the snart people stuff....
Einstein said one, silence is sometime better than words ... maybee you did not see my apoligie at the beginning of the text ....
Anyway, if i am wrong about you thoughts, i , again, apologies.
The Wolfkin
· 1 year ago
dude I totally agree. I don't have Safari installed and i was bloody confused when it popped up in Software Update
eMJay
· 1 year ago
I forgot to mention that safari has been crashing or stalling at several websites. For instance, if you try to view CNN Live video streams using safari, the browser will crash without fail. At one point the browser refused to load after the initial crash, prompting me to restart the computer. I use Firefox, IE7, Opera and a new browser called Flock (which is a sort of Firefox distro customised for Social networking). None of these browsers encountered this crashing problem, not even Flock. In fact the only time i've ever had browser trouble outside of Safari was when i had installed Google desktop search - it cause IE7 to crash on closing. Safari is quite fast when it comes to opening pages but it lack some major features that all my other browsers have - you can't use auto-scroll at all, there's no anti-phishing, the tabs don't display website icons so they all look the same and there are no widgets or additional plug-ins to enhance the browser....lame stuff...then there's that eternal grey color of the browser's skin...not mood stimulating stuff for sure! It's a very basic browser compared to Firefox or Opera, which are in a league all their own. Flock has more features and opens and runs faster than Safari. Basically i've found that Safari gets most of it's speed from doing more caching than any of the other browsers - more stuff gets stored on your PC to make things move faster and it's using more ram with less tabs open.
Argh
· 1 year ago
Any monkey can blindly click on an 'OK' button to install software. The question is: are you smart enough to read the text on-screen beforehand and make an intelligent choice based on the options provided. It seems some computer users still have issues with the reading aspect.
Jamie
· 1 year ago
I think it's worth noting that when you installed Quicktime, iTunes or Safari on Windows, regardless of whether or not you uncheck the Apple Software Updater box, it still gets installed, along with the Bonjour service. At least these are my experiences.
My question is, why ask me if you're going to ignore them anyway? It this kind of practice that undermines users trust.
John
· 1 year ago
This is a real problem. In fact, I am starting to see it all around me. I bought a burger the other day and the guy at the window asked if I wanted fries too. Can you believe that!!! That is so sneaky! Now, I just don't know if I can trust any company again. It is all Apple's fault.
John
· 1 year ago
I am not agreeing with Apple's practice here but I find it hard to believe that Mozilla is really worried about Apple damaging trust as much as they are worried about Apple damaging their market share. Are people actually going to stop updating their Mozilla software because of how Apple uses its updater? Not a chance. The only effect this will have is to cause people to slow down and read before they click -- a pretty good idea if you ask me. With all the real malware out there perhaps there should be a little less "trust." I feel for those who have accidentally installed Safari - that is annoying; but let's not forget there is an option. Those people reading this blog are smart enough to avoid the problem or to rectify it. Those that blindly click OK whenever it pops up on their screen have worse things on their computers than Safari. If Mozilla remains "trustworthy" this move by Apple won't do anything but help them. So let's call this blog entry what it really is: a cleverly veiled jab at a competitor with no other intention than to sing your own praises.
swapnil
· 1 year ago
remember that ad... get a mac. where the pc guy is bloated by unwanted crapware. this is the way pcs get crapwares; from competition itself!
Neel
· 1 year ago
I just downloaded the Safari browser on my windows machine from the Apple Updater. I actually don't find it bothersome that Apple is offering new software through their Automatic Updater. As an end user I don't see an issue with security because in the end I trust Apple to create secure products. So if they want to show me their latest software then I am glad to try it out. I am using Safari right now and like how simple it was to get the news RSS feed that brought me to this page!
Chris
· 1 year ago
John, are you sure you're not a female? All the whining sure makes you sound like one!
Get over it. What difference does it make? If you don't want the update (on install) just uncheck the box!
It's time for people to stop moaning and groaning over something as trivial as this. If you don't want to use iTunes (which was a godsend to so many when it first came out) and/or Quicktime, uninstall it all and go with something else. Have people become so lazy and pacified that even this is too much effort?
This is business people...plain and simple. Get over or get on with your lives. There are more important things happening in the world than Apple's auto-checking Safari on your update screens!
FoolsBeware
· 1 year ago
What's this l keep hearing about Safari's superior security? Since when can a browser that has been ignored by hackers and spammers for so long ever be considered safe? We're supposed to believe that a browser is safer because it's never been attacked...that's like saying your car's the safest one because you've never been in an accident! Browsers are actually only safe when hackers try and fail at manipulating it....and you don't get points for security when you don't even have anti-phishing capability. Paypal and some banking sites recommend that users not access their services using Safari due to its lack of any antiphishing capability. Only a matter of time before the Apple has Worms.
Treetop
· 1 year ago
Again, an Internet web browser debate. This time, hid thinly veiled behind this blog entry that seems only to protect the end user. Geez, when will people start actually learnign something about their computers? For those that are constantly in the dark regarding their computer and how it operates, they won't care a hill of beans about this issue. Only those people who desire to propel a single web browser over another one will create debate about this. This is not a security issue, not a trust issue. Get a life people, this world is crazy and we should be focusing our efforts and concerns elsewhere.
FoolsBeware
· 1 year ago
It IS a trust issue...Many people have gotten used to seeing only updates to their software in these apple update windows. After a while most people will not bother to read it because they are already familiar with it...then suddenly a new software is added and the user clicks on install assuming that it's just the usual update stuff...this is especially true since the updater comes up while the user is actually using some other software and the updater becomes a distraction...who here wouldn't, upon recognising the installer and having assumed familiarity with the contents of the window from previous encounters as well as the outcome of updating their ITunes time and time again, simply click the button? Sure, it's easy to call people who don't read the updater window stupid. But it's human nature for anyone who's become familiar with something on their computer to hurry past it. To use that human behaviour against someone is unethical.
Dan C
· 1 year ago
I see this as a major problem for small companies where Quicktime may have been installed on computers for business video purposes, and the ASU is no longer distributing "just" updates.
I figured out a way of disabling the current version of Safari from appearing on the update list through a .REG file, might be beneficial to some smaller companies. Info here: http://dcunningham.net/2008/03/25/disabling-app...
Juantarde
· 1 year ago
This is the biggest non-issue I can recall in recent years. I don't understand what all the fuss is. This smells of sour grapes against the Apple. Uncheck the box. Simple. No, Safari will not "take over" as someone mentioned. If you don't know how to control that aspect of (any) browser behavior, you clearly don't have any business chiming in here. It seems like Windows users are suffering from prolonged abuse by the Microsoft way of doing things and reacting like scared children. This is by no means the big scary problem or ethical debate that the original author has suggested.
I read 2 paragraphs and I had read enough. I got the same feeling reading this "blog" as I do when I witness a 3 year old temper tantrum in the grocery store when they didn't get their Lucky Charms! Please stop!!
Matt Yiptong
· 1 year ago
This type of practice has turned me off from automatic software updates in general. Microsoft installs WGA and 'Malicious Software Removal', Apple installs Safari (or iTunes+QuickTime, the reverse is also true). Even Linux Mint has bundled ads via 'Google Custom search' in their Firefox 2.0.0.12 update. Right now, the only Automatic updates I trust are the ones from Mozilla and Ubuntu.
John Doe
· 1 year ago
Guys like Juantarde and Treetop are obviously brainwashed by Steve Jobs and have no clues what they are talking about. Updater should only do update, not trying to shove down some brand new software one might not even want and needed an extra 5 minutes just to uninstall. Apple is trying to become something they despised (Microsoft) by bundling craps (Quicktime-iTune) after crap (now Safari).
And Safari is clearly inferior to Firefox (addons) and Opera (widgets) feature-wise, interface-wise and security-wise.
Alan Addison
· 1 year ago
Huh, what is all the fuss about?
Apple have been 'offering' free software as part of their update service for ages.
After buying Quicktime Pro I was offered iTunes when the update program next farted itself on my screen. No thank you, said I. But at the next update, there it was again...
Sorry Apple fanbois, but the update service is yet another example of Microsoft being better than Apple.
FoolsBeware
· 1 year ago
Juantarde, It appears that you have lost the ability to discern unethical behaviour. That's why you don't 'understand' anything. Apple has been abusing it's users for so long that you guys don't even recognise when it's happening to you anymore. You guys rant and rave about MS abusing us but you're the one's with the ball and chain around your ankles. PC users don't need or trust MS, we just use them if we feel like it. Any PC user has the option of deleting XP or Vista from their drives and using something else. You Apple fools have no other choice - deleting OSX turns your gear into tomorrow mornings garbage pile. You have to use OSX with whatever internal hardware Steve decides he wants to sell you. And to make matters worse, your only escape from being tied to OSX is XP? Which must STILL be dual booted with OSX!!!...That's what you call freedom???. Microsoft doesn't pick my hardware or operating system for me like I'm some child with apple seeds for brains. So if you don't see ethical considerations here go complain to your supreme god jobs and beg for your mind back.
dennis hlynsky
· 1 year ago
I had a girlfriend who's mother would always give me a choice between a sandwich or a bowl of soup when ever I would walk in the door to her house. Upon refusal she would offer me two more choices. The food choices would change but she would always insist I make a choice. It took me months to figure out she never asked me if I was hungry. Although the offer of food is a nice gesture the repeated gesture was like a slow drip water torture. Eventually I broke up with the girl when she asked me if I wanted to play strip poker or go to a flower show. I figured the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
Software vendors (Apple is not the only one) but in this case Apple, is shoving a plate of Safari under my nose when I only need QT. This practice makes my computer bloated and slow. Now Apple will repeatedly suggest the installation of a browser the same as the suggested install of Itunes+QT. I want a lean software install because it is easier to manage and be productive. I don't want anyone to increase my Spam target profile. Already it steals productivity time out of my workday. Apple is wrong in treating us all like hungry kids when we are not. I don't care how delicious the food.
Joseph
· 1 year ago
@John: Well said.
I think that this whole post is bogus. People do need to look and see what they are updating/installing. The Title of the prompt is "Apple Software Update". Shift your paradigm, think about it like this: Updating you on new and upcoming Apple software.
Mike
· 1 year ago
Pretty cheap way to get people to use the Apple browser. Not suprising from a company that will do anything to make users use it's sub-par software cough*itunes*cough.
FoolsBeware
· 1 year ago
Consider these words - "Note: Use of this software is subject to the ORIGINAL Software Licence Agreement(s) that accompanied the software being UPDATED". Those are the words found above the install button of the apple update window. Even apple ADMITS there that the sole purpose of the feature is to UPDATE software already on the system! If you don't follow the meaning then i'll explain - It means that the files appearing in that window have EULAs that were agreed to by users that still apply to the use of the updates. So how could they justify putting a new Safari installation in that window? It clearly goes against their intent for the use of that updater.
Justin
· 1 year ago
I noticed this when they first started to do this. I was sure to uncheck the box allowing it not to install. I do not care much for Apple myself, always seemed to be a PC guy. What Apple is doing is smart, but wrong for those who have no idea what they really are doing here. Plus them claiming they are the fastest and easiest browser for Windows baseds PC's is hard for me to agree with.
Bill G
· 1 year ago
Well, one could theoretically consider Safari to be a "software update" to Internet Explorer. After all, it is much better and faster than IE, not that that is saying much.
Jason
· 1 year ago
This is all complete BS. If you're smart enough to know that you want a slim software install, then why would you just click "OK" without checking first.
Why do so many people have such a problem with Apple offering FREE software. If you don't want to use it then it'll just sit there taking up a whopping 15MB of space.
david
· 1 year ago
oh well I guess we have another case of Apple getting free publicity. I still don't like Safari on Windows, but I don't doubt this flap will actually help it's cause.
Jim Smith
· 1 year ago
For what it is worth, Our company has decided to BANN all Apple software. Not only is this junk flooding our bandwidth, but users are so used to saying yes to updates, that they do not realise that Apple just forced Safari down their throat.... Shame on you, exloiting the trust of users out there....
Microsoft got slammed for it Tactics, this is even WORSE...
Markus Sandy
· 1 year ago
I remember how it went several years ago: Fed up with IE. The first time I tried FF, it screwed up my icons, back to IE cursing. Waited several versions for FF to get with it and happily flipped to bird to IE. Free at last. The cycle repeats today. Fed up with memory hog FF on both my PC and Mac. Long ago converted to faster and more elegant Safari on Mac. Glad to see it coming to the PC.
Jon Mason
· 1 year ago
Well I love it. I'm gradually converting form everything Microsoft to everything Mac, and loving it. 'Much Love' to Apple for speeding it up for me :) Jon
Dave
· 1 year ago
I agree, Apple keep your software to yourself. If I want I will come looking for it.
Robert
· 1 year ago
@FoolsBeware as you say the programs says this “Note: Use of this software is subject to the ORIGINAL Software License Agreement(s) that accompanied the software being UPDATED”, then they are explicitly distributing the LGPL portions of the code under a more restrictive license, remember WebKit is based on the previous work of the KHTML developers, something that a lot of Apple fanboys forget
alansky
· 1 year ago
With all due respect, you are totally off your rocker, man. The option to install Safari clearly appears in plain sight, along with a clearly-written announcement: "New software is available from Apple. Select the items you want to update, then click install."
In OS X, the Software Updater automatically checks all available updates. It is the responsibility of the user to actually read what is written on the screen right in front of them before clicking the "install" button.
All Apple is doing is offering Windows users a chance to try out another first-class browser. Does Safari scare you THAT MUCH?
richard wallce
· 1 year ago
I agree with john and would also like to add that apple is over priced crap thank you very much!!!
Chris
· 1 year ago
My main problem with this is when I saw the update I hit cancel. The next day the updater shows up offering the Safari again. I had to look through the menu to find where they hid the option to hide the update it should be a big button on the form
FoolsBeware
· 1 year ago
“New software is available from Apple. Select the items you want to update, then click install.”
You can't update something that was never there to begin with. They could have just announced Safari in the HTML section of the window and provide a LINK to the download instead. That way the user can find out what exactly is different about this browser instead of just being informed that it's faster and therefore better ( as if speed alone can make you the best browser...how stupid is that)
Of the five browsers that i now have, only Safari is crashable (eg. try using CNN Live video and watch Safari die each time). And while Safari renders fast, it's not even as fast as Flock, which has far more features and uses less ram. It can compete with IE7 features-wise but it's totally outclassed by Opera, FF2 and Flock. And if i had to choose between IE7 and safari i'd go with IE7 without a second thought, since that's my online banking browser, and IE7 has anti-phishing while Safari will send you straight to the fake site...What were the developers smoking? Safari reminds me too much of IE6 in that respect.
Please don't tell me you like the Safari browser because it's simply laid out...if using FF and Opera cause you brain fatigue then you might as well be in a coma. If that gray featureless browser passes for first class in the Mac world then you guys are living in 2005. Designers of Safari didnt even have the sense to put the web page icons on the tabs so that they wouldn't all LOOK THE SAME. And Safari is the ONLY browser without auto scroll...WTF? No, safari doesnt scare anyone in the PC world...to us watching Safari try to compete is like watching Jay Leno in action. Really Cracks me up!
Ed Wood
· 1 year ago
I'll probably get lots of hate mail from apple heads but here goes. I switched from windows to mac 8 years ago and I'm glad I did.I love macs, but I'm having doubts about apple. It just seems to me that Apple is slowly becoming more and more predatory along the lines of the evil empire. In the 8 years i've had a mac, i've seen dozens of improvements in the OS made by copying shareware programs. Os 10 is becoming bloatware and every time a new gimmick is added to it, it becomes easier to screw it up.
I would love to have a new iMac ,but not with a reflective monitor. The powers that be at apple are in love with glossy screens and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere. My solution will be to replace my monitor with a really Top grade 21inch, add memory to my G5 and Apple will lose a sale.
Alvaro
· 1 year ago
I think that is a very bad move for apple, the users we feel dissapoint with this tacticals of some companies.
Dan
· 1 year ago
Ah geez, as usual the apple users jump up in protest at anything bad said about Apple. Get over it, losers. PS Safari sucks...LONG LIVE FIREFOX :D
Anthony Athas
· 1 year ago
Wow, who knew that unchecking a box was such a Sisyphean task? Must be a windows user.
FoolsBeware
· 1 year ago
Apple users can only see a check box...PC users see the concept behind the check in the box. Behind every simpler operating system is an even simpler mind operating the mouse. OSX was designed as though made for children. Everything else was designed for adults. The less you use your brain the less of it you'll have at the end of the day.
A Mac user will say "But it's done on OSX so it must be ok"...
A PC user will say "We don't care because we want it done our way".
The PC is independent. The Mac is wholely dependent.
The ultimate motto of the Mac user has become " I don't understand..."..thats the cry of a faded mind...the mind of a child. The concepts outlined here in this blog are of the type that children cannot understand. Hence the dillemma for Mac users.
booba
· 1 year ago
Etonnante cette réaction virulente de la part de Mozilla, qui trouve à redire au fait qu'on puisse proposer par défaut le téléchargement d'un nouveau logiciel à l'occasion de la mise-à-jour d'un autre !!! C'est exactement ce qu'il font eux-mêmes, en proposant par défaut le téléchargement de la Barre d'outils Google avec la mise-à-jour de Firefox.
Est-ce de la mauvaise foi de leur part, ou de la jalousie ? Ce qui est sûr, c'est que le Safari d'Apple vient leur faire de l'ombre, et que cette indignation tapageuse et hypocrite sonne plutôt comme une manoeuvre contre-publicitaire savamment orchestrée
Jery
· 1 year ago
iTunes, Quicktime, Safari ... it's all free. If its all such a pain in the arse, use something else. Oh wait ... maybe you don't want to, maybe there just is no other product worth the trouble. Mozilla are whining because they have no other medium (such as iTunes) to promote their product. I think this was all very clever from Apple, note the timing. Just when MS were not getting spanked anymore for bundling IE with Windows the Fruity Franchise strikes. The more people complain about the practise the more publicity Apple (and especially Safari) gets. I think itis so typically yank to base these coplaints on the avarage Joe's incompetence and inability to read. Mozilla are major buttbuddy's with Google who, as was mentioned by others install's it's toolbar by default with adobe and the like. Haven't any of you ever heard that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Mr. Jobs must be secretly snickering.
Mike
· 1 year ago
I think it is lame that John writes about this. It makes you look like a complete moron and whiner.
firenze da scoprire
· 1 year ago
What surprised me is that the "update" installs Safari, but doesn't seem to make it the default browser or even ask about it...
Omar
· 1 year ago
This is such a non-issue. Apple makes software that you choose to download. Now through updates they allow you to choose to download other software. You do not have to. You have a choice. If you download it you don't have to use it. Apple is giving users a chance to use a different browser. No one is force fed anything here.
This is not the first time that a company rides on the popularity of other software. Does anyone complain when they install Adobe products with the option to install Adobe Acrobat with any of those installations? How about Macromedia (back in the day) with their flash plugin with any of their products?
And please don't get me started on Microsoft.
The fact is there are no business ethics being broken here. Only a mild threat to another great browser (Firefox) that rubbed John the wrong way.
Machine Gun Man
· 1 year ago
So Apple software update isn't really just software update. Apple should:
1. Change the name - Apple optional software and updates 2. Add a tab to their interface differentiating between updates and optional software. 3. Not check optional software for installation by default.
Then you have something very important for your customers: transparency.
Dennis Myhand
· 1 year ago
This was done in an underhanded manner and that is never good. Does Apple really have to step down to the Microsoft model of marketing?
Marius Fanu
· 1 year ago
I think it's a good thing what they did. Let people try something new. They can always uninstall Safari. But if I think again when i installed Safari (and install Apple Auto-Update there was a checkbox saying that it will install other software). I already like Safari and I think it's a great web browser with an incredible speed.
Cyde Weys
· 1 year ago
Yeah, this really was an underhanded trick that left me thinking very poorly of Apple. Luckily when the dialog box popped up with Safari auto-checked, I actually knew what Safari was, that I didn't have it installed, and that I didn't want it installed. But the average user is likely not going to say no to an update dialog, and now they have software on their system that they didn't want.
That's a very poor showing, Apple. Who made this abominable decision?
Jabbari Mohamed
· 1 year ago
hello Mr. John, As a client, when I read what is written in the screen that comes up on Windows XP if Ive got iTunes installed, I would automatically try the Apple Browser, But then I will compare the difference with the Mozilla and whould, then, choose the better of course. So I think that's the opinion of all the people, I think "MOZILLA IS THE BEST". NICE WORK and GOOD LUCK FOR THE FUTURE
2 NEW SECURITY FLAWS FOUND IN SAFARI...AGAIN....that can allow hackers to TAKE OVER computers running Safari 3.1. As predicted, Apple has, yet again, managed to make users computers less secure by pushing new security holes unto windows PCs using their updater (how quick can you say Quicktime??) That's what happens when you just assume you are totally flawless even though nobody's testing your metal...prior to the 3.1 release there were 13 critical security flaws in Safari! Only God knows if they fixed them all in 3.1...LOOKS LIKE HACKERS WILL BE GOING ON A SAFARI!!!
Bill
· 1 year ago
You know, you can always uncheck it...that's ok though, just assume that people are too slow to figure it out for themselves.
indigo196
· 1 year ago
Apple is worse than Microsoft and has been for a while now. They tie down iTune/iTunes Store. Now they 'sneak' in other products in updates (different than installing Java and asking if you want another product - that is at install not during an 'update').
Apple has introduced too much malware to Windows in the last two years for me to trust their developers. If it were not for the open source people adding to their OS I doubt Apple would even have an OS anymore.
OpenMasterz
· 1 year ago
Fact is that Apple steals open source ideas, rebrands them and then peddles them as new stuff. Microsoft buys up competitors and takes open source ideas as well, marginally improves what they offer and then peddles them in ways that allows them to get royalties from everyone. They also copy stuff from Mac OS. But since the stuff in Mac OS is actually stolen from open source, what we have is Apple and MS making money from stealing from open source. Mac thieves and Micro thieves. Safari's engine is also stolen...Long live Linux
George
· 1 year ago
For god's sake, get over it. They can easily choose to not tick the box. I've seen Firefox bundled with many products, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.
Cyberfrog
· 1 year ago
I can't believe that there are so many people commenting this and saying "just uncheck the box" or something. You're all totally missing the point, which makes me wonder about your reading abilities...
An update is supposed to be an UPDATE to EXISTING software, not an installer of new unwanted software. Of course all users with some intelligence will uncheck the box, but it's still bad practice (and that other companies has done it too does NOT make it justified).
Bundled software is not the same thing either, when you're installing new software everyone probably knows that new software will be installed (doh), and therefore takes more notice of available options in the installer.. When using an update application however, users would expect it to just install updates to existing software, and not try to force new software onto the computer.
But I guess Apple fans are so in love with the company that they will accept every move they make and every piece of software being forced on them from Apple...
zato
· 1 year ago
This may have been said already, but a far bigger problem for me is the CEO of Firefox, a competitor, fanning the flamers, and haters.
Robert
· 1 year ago
Update means Update only. Frankly I've had issues with iTunes on XP to begin with... this is the last straw. I'm dumping my iPod and purchasing an MP3 player that syncs with Media Player.
Sam
· 1 year ago
As much as I enjoy reading sycophantic responses, I decided not to read the entire page of over 400 comments, so my apologies if what I am about to type has been typed before. Given the clarity of the update window as shown above, failing to see and uncheck the box for Safari seems to indicate a substantial lack of either perception or the capacity to out smart the average root vegetable.
Chris
· 1 year ago
@zato: Since when did healthy criticism become "flaming" and hating? This is what healthy societies are built on: the freedom and ability to offer differing points of view, in particular constructive criticism. People need to stop being afraid of such criticism, and stop being so sensitive. Otherwise, perhaps they'd be happier in Cuba, Burma, or North Korea.
Applefuture
· 1 year ago
what if apple did this because they wanted to get rid of the iTunes IE linkage. as iTunes currently uses the extremely crappy and slow windows built-in IE. there is no doubt in my mind that the future iTunes will be based around Safari and parts of cocoa/core graphics (OpenGL/Directx is all possible)
Ron
· 1 year ago
I opted out of installing Safari when I got the iTunes update alert. Later, I decided to download Safari and try it. I installed it successfully, but it would not run. Instead, it quit with the standard notice and offer to send a report to Microsoft. I am running XP Home SP2 on an old Dell from 2002. IE7 and FireFox work just fine on this system with the latest updates. I uninstalled Safari and reinstalled it three times with the same result: will not work. I have seen reports that others have had a similar problem with Safari 3.1 on their systems. So, not everyone will even be able to try Safari at this time, and I am glad I did opt out in the first place. Maybe if I uninstalled iTunes, which I don't really need desperately, that would fix things?
Peng
· 1 year ago
@George: "I’ve seen Firefox bundled with many products, but I don’t see anyone complaining about that."
Actually if you see Firefox bundled with a single product (other than an OS) you need to complain very loudly to both the bundler and to Mozilla. Firefox is a standalone product and is never provided in any other way, except when you're installing a Linux distribution. But then I wouldn't trust Firefox from anyone but Mozilla because you never know what they change in it. Even some Linux distros change Firefox enough that I question whether it should even be called Firefox anymore.
Topic? An updater should only be used for updating, not marketing. Otherwise you just piss off the end user and end up making them not want o use any of your products.
Dylan Carlson
· 1 year ago
People are entitled to opinions, I suppose... but this is turning into a seething quagmire of lies, half-truths, rumors, assumptions and speculation.
Loved the bit about Apple "stealing" from open-source for example... when really the story has been exactly the opposite for the last 10 or so years. People have been crying out for open-source alternatives to commercial products. Everyone loves free. The free as in perpetually zero-cost of acquisition, not the free as in free to inspect and enhance. But people want the open source alternative/equivalent of commercial stuff all the time.
You don't hear people accusing Ming (open-source project) of stealing from Adobe. Although, Adobe might have a different opinion of that.
I'm an open-source contributor, but hear the difference in rhetoric. When someone takes a commercial idea (or something very close to a commercial implementation) it's called an "alternative". If Apple were actually to implement some UI concept from e.g., beryl or Looking Glass, it would be called "theft"?
If you really want to be accurate, everyone steals from everyone. It's called competition. Take the Pepsi Challenge, and if you like Coke better, who cares?
It's not particularly constructive dialogue, but blogs are a sandbox for punditry.
Back on topic:
Rehashing what I said before: John was right to call out Apple on this thing, but until Apple demonstrates a pattern of behavior (ie, more than one occurrence) can you jump to any conclusions what the intent might be? No.
After all, Microsoft was given that benefit of the doubt for a long while, and only the EU is holding them truly accountable. Maybe the EU will do the same with Apple if this has merit. First, before a case can be brought, there has to be demonstrated and repeated intent to deceive or mislead or "abuse the trust" (as John put it) with the consumer. I don't believe we are seeing that here. It may be a tactical mistake. If Apple does it again, maybe not, and the pressure on them should rightly build.
One step at a time.
"This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. It's bowling. There are rules." -- Walter Sobchak
whatever
· 1 year ago
You just don't know Apple do you? It is doing this kind of stuff all the time... Personally I'm more annoyed at all those program installs with Google Toolbar pre-checked then the Apple update that always include iTunes, Quicktime, and now Safari... I hope someone can ban Apple from making Safari a default "update" of Apple software, and I hope someone can ban Google from making Google Toolbar a default "install" of... whatever software out there that bundles with it...
Ben Bucksch
· 1 year ago
Thanks, John Lilly, for pointing this out.
Tom
· 1 year ago
I had wondered why all my customers had suddenly had Safari appear on their desktops.
What a con.. Apple are playing on the fact that people dont think before clicking.. so "grabbing" their market share unfairly.
ALSO the tactic used by Adobe with their Photoshop Album edition when people download Photoshop.
Should be illegal I think. Bundling crap with other programs just to "bump the users base numbers".
eMJay
· 1 year ago
Fresh off the press
Safari 3.1 is being pushed to operating systems that DON"T SUPPORT IT!!!
Safari for windows only functions in XP and Vista yet persons who run windows 2000 are prompted to install the software along with everyone else running the installer..when they do try to install it the process fails...so why are they receiving it in the first place?...talk about oversight...i don't think it can get any clearer that using their quicktime+Itunes installer in this manner is wrong.
Rick Bagby
· 1 year ago
(I posted the following in the teacher's forum section of two online classes that I teach. In sum, Safari obliterated my computer, and I had to reformat the hard drive.)
Tribe:
I think that you might find this to be worth reading all the way to the end.
I am sure that you recall that Safari murdered my computer last week. Here is what I first posted in the faculty's technical help forum:
Author: Rick Bagby Posted date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:34:24 PM EDT Last modified date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:34:24 PM EDT Total views: 13 Your views: 5
Next Post › I am typing this message on my son's left-over, Windows 98, prone-to-crashing-and/or-unexpected-freezing, nine-year-old e-machine. Why?
I installed Safari last night on my computer that I bought in October and tried to remove it this evening because it had affected the general operation of the machine, especially in terms of speed.
When I downloaded Safari, all kinds of nefarious crud also came with it, stuff that could not be removed or deleted. I removed what I could, and, knowing a bit about computers, was extremely careful at each step,
No go. My computer died, and, as I type this, I am running the repair feature of the installation disk. With luck, I will not have to format the hard drive and re-install everything.
Don't even think about Safari.
Rick
Here is Skip Zalneraitis's reply: Rick-
I'm not sure how Apple can be so far off the mark with Safari for the PC. I also don't know enough to understand how it can be so limited in usefulness with BlackBoard.
Did you do your download from the Apple site?
-Skip Here is my reply:
Yes, it came straight from Apple, and a program called "Bonjour" came along with it. Even though I never opened it, attempting to remove it from my computer's hard drive seems to be what caused the real problems. Of course, it could be that Safari was the real culprit. I don't know.
All I know for sure is that my computer became an electronic corpse, and I had to reformat the hard drive, and I lost data. Rick
And, now, for the good stuff. I posted the item below in the faculty Water Cooler a few minutes ago:
Last week, I posted a note in *progress* about my downloading Safari and discovering not only that it was not compatible with BB73 but also that other programs were downloaded with it, completely unknown to me. Attempting to remove Safari and the other programs - especially Bonjour - resulted in a complete computer failure, and I had to reformat the entire hard drive.
This morning, the following appeared in Kim Komando's News of the Day:
"Flaws discovered in latest Safari release ... Security firm Secunia has discovered critical flaws in Safari for Windows. Among other things, the Web browser is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution. Additionally, Windows users have complained that Safari crashes often."
Essentially, one could say that downloading Safari is a bad trip.
I hope that this post is of value to you.
Mr. B
eMJay
· 1 year ago
Ok, now I'm really scared to remove it...i'll have to run my back-up program to make sure this doesn't happen to me...i pray i don't have 'bonjour'...otherwise it's 'au revoir' to my weekend plans.
Steve-0
· 1 year ago
As a longtime Mac user I'm very good at dealing with transparency.
Matt
· 1 year ago
The same kind of abuse applies if you have quicktime and not Itunes. The Updater defaults to offering everything, not just updates for what you do have.
While you can select to ignore certain updates, this preference is reset with every new minor update, a most irritating behavior.
It's high time Apple listened, and made their updater concentrate on updates and not a trojan horse for every product.
unstable extensions
· 1 year ago
I was really happy that Apple offered me an alternative to the abomination that is internet explorer and the bloated unstable Firefox. Compared to Adobe, Mozilla and Sun, Apple software update was pretty transparent. All you had to do was untick a box. Compare that to finding you have installed Adobe reader, Google Toolbar or some other type of corporate spyware.
I have nothing against Firefox..it's a nice browser ruined only by the ability to add garbage to it. This leads to instability and enormous memory usage.
Apple is simple, streamlined and speedy. That's why I love my Safari. Mozilla could learn a lot from Apple. Why not have a Cocoa version for the Mac.
All this garbage about being open source and allowing users to do what they want with their browsers can only lead to one thing....instability followed by bankruptcy.
Holly Medlin
· 1 year ago
Not only does Apple throw in Safari in the update, but they lump the ITunes and Quicktime updates together. I have no interest in ITunes - I do want to keep Quicktime updated. But there is no way to have one without the other.
I intend to delete my Apple updater. This is disgusting.
Anthony Graham
· 1 year ago
simple option to make everyone happy:- add an option to the apple update, with a checkbox called:- Check for updates of other software.
Easy...
Ian Cosgrove
· 1 year ago
Apple are evil, Microsoft are evil, Google are evil, if they weren't why on earth would you buy shares in any big company? Having said that theres a balance, a common respect that you should have for your userbase. I feel Mozilla and companies like Google have this respect and show it from the amount of active participation and how much they listen to their users and I'm very grateful to people like John Lilly for keeping this attitude. Apple on the other hand repeatedly disrespect and underestimate their users hence the option to download safari is ticked by default. I have 2 observations..
Firsly people wrongly flame Mr Lilly for voicing his opinion, one which i think (in this instance) is honest, genuine and not fueled my disdain for a mediocre non-threat buggy piece of software like Safari.
Secondly, despite comments that people who cant make the best decision from the update dialog shouldnt be using a computer, they do. A fact companies such as Apple are well aware as they talk about getting older markets to use computers more, isn't that the whole principle behind OSX being easy to use and user friendly? Otherwise why don't you have to take an aptitude test before buying a computer? The same people who claim this are probably the same people who'd go crazy about a check box on a form called "share my email address with anyone willing to pay" being ticked by default despite installing safari being vastly more dangerous (Mac Air hacked in 2 minutes anyone?)
Richas
· 1 year ago
Here is my tale of the Safari 3.1 Windows update. I think it is proof that this is malware, that Apple (after a good start) have taught me not to trust them and I remain furious.
I have a touch. it is brilliant, I love it. The Safari browser is great on this device but occassionally flakey. There I was playing my poker tournament ($24 entry doing really well equity of about $120) and the updater pops up. Brill I think an update for my i-touch and i-tunes. Busy as can be trying to win $215 so I let it do its thing. It has worked before, Apple are a great company and Safari is something I want updating on my touch. Takes a while, I even forget about it.
Bang no wireless. Hopping mad, blame my router, blame Microsoft restart everything. It is an hour later that I work out my router is fine but the Apple update has installed **** on my PC, not for I-Tunes or my Touch but knackered my wireless.
No probs, uninstall I thought. Nah no uninstall option. No wizard no nothing. Here I am days later still furious sitting on a beanbag with a blue cable going to my "wireless" router.
Malware - yes. Dishonest - yes. Windows users overreacting I don't think so. Steve you owe me $120 and an hour of my life (plus the time on this post and the time yet to come fixing the damn thing). PAY UP!!!
Juan R.
· 1 year ago
Apple updaters are by default annoying and aggresive. I am one of those persons who can very well live without Apple's iTunes, but for some reason got stuck with Quicktime on my new Vista laptop. For some reason every week there was an update telling me the need to install iTunes. No thanks and don't ask me again - whoops wrong option, not supplied.. So I decided to uninstall any Apple software all together, so I wouldn't be bothered again. Alternative quicktime hasn't even been installed and I have no problems playing any media. Thanks John Lilly for pointing out another flaky side of Apple. No i-products for me thank-you.
Lucas
· 1 year ago
Eso es falta de etica por parte de Aple
Jim
· 1 year ago
So today I get a software update request for Safari only. I already update Itunes, and declined Safari, but it is bugging me again. Malware indeed. Winamp put a search bar on my browser, so bollocks to them as well.
Apple-Only
· 1 year ago
Very interesting article!
JainaKay
· 1 year ago
I don't have much of a problem with Apple offering Safari in the update package with iTunes and QuickTime. My problem is that the damn updater pops up once or twice a day with NOTHING on it other than Safari - my iTunes is completely up to date at the moment. I can uncheck a box once. I can do it twice. But when I have to do it EVERY DAMN DAY and never get offered an update for the program I do want, and it never gets the hint, well, that's when I get pissed off. Leave me alone, Apple. I don't want your browser - I'm quite delighted with FireFox and that's that. Nice try, you lose, better luck next time, move on. Sheesh.
okyb
· 1 year ago
This is the biggest NON-ISSUE yet
James
· 1 year ago
I agree with what you say. So much so that I did a similar blog post.
There I talk about how MS has done basically the same thing to propagate its new SilverLight.
Bad business; bad blood.
John Doe
· 1 year ago
@Cyberfrog Couldn't have said it much better. Some of the apple fanboys are apparently near brain-dead level and needs to learn starting from kindergarten. They totally can't understand what update and installing brand new software means.
Why do Apple feels the need to make Safari opt-out only instead of the other way around? It's because Safari is a poor excuse of a browser (OSX interface... a joke, no security what so ever when not using OSX, and lack any worthwhile feature) and in some way, even worse than IE7. Steve Jobs knows his browser sucks, that's why he bundled this crap with iTune.
Not to mention the Apple Software Update nags about once a day if you don't install Safari.
If Microsoft does this (again), Apple fanboys would jump in arm once again. Show how much of a hypocrites/losers you guys are.
Med
· 1 year ago
This is actually very simple. As an iPod and iTune user, I read and I uncheck unwanted software. But hey, this is an UPDATER, it is suposed to keep the software I already have, up to date. Not to introduce a new software that is totally unrelated with the existing one.
Safari shouldn't appear there if I don't have a Safari already installed in my computer. This is an updater, PERIOD.
If I want any other software form apple, I go to their webpage.
And they can say iTunes is free, but hey... the iPod users need to use iTunes, they paid for their iPods, and they have to swallow iTunes as well... and this annoying way they're trying to introduce a new software by using an update tool.
I have an iPod, I have to use iTunes.. and absolutely no, I don't trust the updater anymore.
oktks.
John Koenig
· 1 year ago
Really how different is Apple's behaviour from Mozilla's?
Mozilla makes choices for Firefox users by selecting Google as the default search engine (for which Mozilla receives money) and for setting the default privacy settings to allow Google to build profiles on searchers.
To me this demonstrates that there is no difference between the conduct of Apple and Mozilla in principle.
There is only a difference in application, and that is perhaps quite a subjective issue.
Alan Bradford
· 1 year ago
John,
I've been a Firefox fan for the past 7+ years. I never went back to IE once I discovered it. For the past several months though, I've been using Safari instead of Firefox (v2.0.0.13) more and more lately. It's faster and more reliable for me lately on the majority of sites I regularly visit. That being said, I still appreciate your comments on this.
I don't like getting things forced on me either. I would hope, however, that the people who are in the habit of updating their software are also in the habit of knowing what they are doing before they click "OK."
I don't know how I feel about this yet...but I have a feeling if it were related to software that wasn't a direct competitor of Firefox that this post probably never would have been written.
One more thing...I tried reading some of the comments on this post, but I had to close the window because my eyes hurt. The black background with white text was really obnoxious. Have you ever considered a switch?
Charles Sirl
· 1 year ago
It's interesting how people are trying to compare Apple's practice with their updater to Mozilla's apparent practices with their installer. Firefox has never tried to install Sunbird or Thunderbird during an auto-update.
I use QuickTime and I definitely didn't like the idea of being offered in their updater, and selected by default, other software that I did not install in the first place. If I wanted iTunes or Safari, I'd go to Apple's web site and get it myself.
As for Microsoft's Silverlight, that is still opt-in. If you go to Windows Update, it is under the optional section and is not selected by default.
Greg
· 1 year ago
Very simply, problems like this led me to uninstall all apple software from my computer
Nevin ":-)"
· 1 year ago
My question is: when FireFox 3 ships, while FireFox 2 ask people if they want to upgrade?
The line could get blurry...
Henry
· 1 year ago
Methinks Mozilla doth protest too much. Say, has everybody here forgotten the Netscape version a few years back? You know, the one that when you loaded it, the first thing it did was to drag you by your collar to a Netscape web page and practically demand that you create a personal "Netscape ID" (online account) then and there in order to proceed... even though the account was absolutely unrelated to your ability simply to use the browser (which was all you wanted in the first place)? Is this not pushing unrelated products? Is this not a violation of trust?
It's also a truism that the fellow who says "two wrongs don't make a right" is almost always the fellow who committed the first wrong.
Kent
· 1 year ago
Noticed a lot of people here saying, "what's the big deal" unclick the option and your'e done.
However, if you do this, it prompts you again every time you start an apple product. There is an option to ignore it under tools but then you get prompts saying there are ignored products and do you want to "Reset ignored updates".
This is an updater, not a new product installer - if it must be there should be on an optional installs tab.
-KENT
domin8r
· 1 year ago
This update has really gone too far.. I was allready upset with the previous update where they linked a whole list of file extensions to open with quicktime (WTH would I want to open JPEGs in quicktime?).
But now Safari was set as my default browsers?? The nerve of these people..
And I'm also getting tired of uninstalling their "Apple Mobile Device" software every time iTunes updates.. I DO NOT have an iPhone (they are not even officially sold here) nor will I ever get one.. I do NOT want an application installed to support it and I also do NOT want it to run at start up!
Apple, stay away from my settings and don't install crap I don't want/need!
James Nimmo
· 1 year ago
I use a Mac, and like Safari, but I completely agree that it is wrong for Safari to be checked by default in the update software on Windows. I don't install a piece of software on my computer to have it install additional software.
Warren
· 1 year ago
...and you know, a lot (probably the majority) of Windows users won't actually know what this thing called Safari is and just assume it's a necessary part of iTunes. Click.
Well done Apple - you're a proper (sneaky, underhand) corporate now...
Calvin
· 1 year ago
@Apple Owner: Get a life.
If the user didn't want it, the user shouldn't get it.
Richard Dib
· 1 year ago
You are upset because Apple can do it and you can't. It hurts ... doesn't it?
Grow up!
John Doe
· 1 year ago
I guess if Apple does it, it's okay. But if Microsoft (M$ to you Apple fanboys) does it, it's wrong. Richard, do you work for Apple?
Stephen
· 1 year ago
And this comment on the download window, from Apple:
"Safari for Windows is the fastest and easiest-to-use web browser for the PC."
Is the comment that has made me decide to *never* again buy a single Apple product. I don't like people being manipulated, and this is a premium example.
a) Where's the evidence? b) Firefox may or may not be faster with webpages (unlike Apple, I don't like making unsubstantiated claims) but it is sure as hell faster with videos. c) The weblink tells you what's new *since Safari v3*. No mention of this being a new program altogether. So someone who knows nothing about computers may read that and assume that it "improves pop-up blocking to work with plug-ins" and "increases site compatibility" over their standard browser (IE, or Firefox if they had someone worth their salt to set up their computer).
Bubba007
· 1 year ago
As far as I am concerned, it gets worse... iTunes updates are now installing BonJour (Ad-hoc/peer-to-peer networking) which pokes a bunch of holes in my Firewall for me.
Last I knew Safari f/win has the distinction of having the largest current number of known vulnerabilites of any single app on the US-CERT security site.
At least you could wait til you fix it before trying to force feed it to me!
michele
· 1 year ago
just uncheck the tab. it's the user's fault if they don't read what they are installing on their computer.
don't blame apple for people not paying attention to their own software.
Tomt
· 1 year ago
I agree with all of the concerns. This is unscrupulous malware tactics. How do I rid myself of Apple programs from my computers?
Ben Lachoff
· 1 year ago
Hypocrisy!!! I just got a Real Player update window that has a pre-checked offer to "Add Mozilla Firefox with the Google Toolbar -- Free (Recommended)" ... How is this different than what Apple is doing and getting slammed for??? I was definitely surprised to see this window, given John's strong stance that this kind of behavior is WRONG.
Vincent
· 1 year ago
One other interesting thing I noticed: after I installed Safari for Windows at work (for web development testing) I suddenly got some news from Apple. It seems that it automatically registered my work email address to the Apple newsletter without asking me... It probably took the address from my outlook configuration.
Blog
· 1 year ago
I also noticed this and glad that someone brought this up. This is just a sick way of tricking users to download their browser by making it seem as if an update if available for a piece of software already installed. I bet it even takes over as the default browser afterwards, which would look very bad on Apple.
kiwi
· 1 year ago
I think that this is definitely good information, However I think that Apple is gaining much popularity in the mainstream, knocking out other competition and other companies are afraid of the competition. Therefore will do anything to scrutinize the booming business. come on every business has a motive!
Jane
· 1 year ago
Do any of you know if there is a way to configure the Apple Software update so that it updates without getting the box and the choices? I maintain the computers at a public library and I would love it if those updates would just happen at a scheduled time at night.
blanknull
· 1 year ago
turn off the checkbox. pretty simple.
GEORGE
· 1 year ago
UNCHECK the update option, and on your way with you, if you don't want Safari. Don't download the update. Quit sniveling. But thanks for candidly posting your thoughts.
John Doe
· 1 year ago
To all those people that had no problem with this: Apple itself had change this to an "opt-in" (uncheck by default). The people wins, you iDiots lose.
Jeffrey S
· 1 year ago
It's not that I can't read, or I'm "dumb as a bucket of hair" as one person put it, It's that I'm taking the time to uncheck the boxes for the 8th time on my two computers. It's annoying. Especially for some software that I only use occasionally.
There should be a "don't show this again" check box, it's that simple, and the programmers who can't figure that out truly are dumb as a bucket of hair.
Kris
· 1 year ago
So basically, this bash on Apple was started by the CEO of Mozilla? Go figure...
Look people. I just had the same experience, only i guess they modified the updater because now the only option that shows up on the screen when it pops us is the iTunes update...after accepting and installing it (and refusing to immediately restart my pc) i turned away for a minute, only to look back and see the updater had not disappeared but, in fact, had revealed a new option (already checked of course) to install Safari. Hell, that's why i'm reading this page right now.
The point is...
...i just didn't install it.That simple. I understand the issues that some of you may have, but, come on. There have to be more serious issues that the CEO of Mozilla could be focusing on...
loans
· 1 year ago
I think that’s what most people will do, and I think that’s how most people will think. It would matter not at all. Maybe you should start doing it, although you have now painted yourself in a corner where you’d look hypocritical if you did.
asdasdasd
· 1 year ago
this which I will say is only a representation of the truth that is within children, and somewhere within us all. and the truth is beyond these words, and the falsified meaning they have in the world don't take this as being taught, everybody is taught wrong, that's the definition of being taught I think of children as from conception, the true good, the true humanity. when we are conceived, we have light, that shines so bright, it can only diminish. children hold within all the truth, good, love and beauty in this world, before it is taken away. children need to be their own future loving the environment more than children is what truly eradicates it, as compared to children, the environment is shit loving animals more than children is what truly obliterates them, as compared to children, animals are shit loving possessions more than children is also what's destroying true humanity, as compared to children, possessions are shit today an adult looks at a baby and is concentrated on how their teeth are growing, yet looks at some animal, or a tree, and is filled with awe. this is wrong priority. the only adoration they have for children is how they're growing into that same thwarted reality, succumbing to evil. I just saw a short documentary where some village was being shown. First was a short frame of three children standing motionless 20 feet away, followed by three in-face close-ups on three adults. yet this thing that adults became because of loss of their true humanity, is falsely being blamed on immaturity, instead of the other way around. children are the only truly human beings. everything negative that adults say or think about children, is the opposite of truth, and the truth about adults. adults will shun and ignore children while admiring this evil which they have become adults live in this fake, adult world of theirs, blind to the true horror that the human race is in, which they are making worse while glorifying this evil, finding awe solely in nature which they are destroying and shaming, horror that is infinitely more horrible than anything they can imagine, because they no longer know what true beauty is so children who are "misbehaving", (and the real kind, the kind you see in the real world, not the falsified media), like attacking solely the things which have become our biggest enemies: computers, television sets, speakers, ripping apart paper, wallets, our collections etc. and looking at things like an exercise bike with joy, as exercise is healthy, they know exactly which things are good and bad for us, not the other way around they will throw things out of the carriage or crib, desperate to be let out and followed; take off clothes showing how we need to get rid of the bonds put on us, climb furniture to show us we are truly human beings above this fake world, which adults value more, they will tell a different age or name than their own, to show us it's not what makes us, and insistently speak of animals and possessions as shit or likewise, which compared to where our real priorities lie, that adults have abandoned, those things are, and thus abandoned everything else making it turn to shit they will desperately try to make adults rid themselves of the guilt, because that evil did not come from being one's true self, but from being made not to be, and believe they wouldn't normally be capable of any of this evil, and instead of tremendous good so children who are still children, and they are so since conception, are the only ones who care for the human race and thus the planet children have the healthy, true relationship with one another, and between females, males and two-spirits, they truly love each other, due to inability of a child to love oneself. they have extremely negative reaction to mirrors and pictures of themselves, instantly looking away and pushing it away. they will hail one youngest child by holding them up and spinning them around (or spinning a child in a carriage, for instance) counter-clockwise, which brings the hailed and the hailers great joy, thus showing the true nature of humans, our own conception as this "supreme" and as the only way to retain true humanity. it's the adults' exersion of control, teaching and constant moving them around which leads to disruption of this relationship and ability to create their own, true and good language and culture, later being replaced with fake they are put in constant bondage, constant cage, being deprived of their touch with nature and other children, they are being held like trophies, beaten, shouted at, taught tricks, humiliated, and generally treated with total lack of respect and sensitivity, and being used as pawns by the media so look at the smallest of children and see, what true humanity is lend yourself completely to the smallest of children, they are being the truth that is inherent predecessory blame is the only kind of blame there can exist, without it there would be no blame, loss of belief in that is loss of belief in inherent true good. lack of predecessory blame leads to wrongfully passing it on to children, the true good, instead of rightfully passing the blame back to adults, thus those which are not truly human. it's this tremendous fear and hate that adults have about themselves that they're putting on children. they no longer believe in humans as inherently capable of endless creativity and will adopt the falsities of talent and experience, as they have lost true creativity themselves lend yourself completely to them, follow them absolutely, give them freedom to be with nature and other children, freedom belongs to them don't teach them, don't exert supremacy like tapping them on the head, don't bondage them, don't talk to them, but listen it's the only way that we all can heal, the environment can heal, and children can create infinitely more beautiful worlds based on true humanity, without shaming the environment and animals, and partake in endless creativity, love and beauty can you envision a world with millions of different cultures and languages, cultures not based on lies, constantly being created anew, coming from true humanity? and a true, healthy relationship between males, females, and two-spirits? where everyone is extremely healthy, everybody is there's no loss of memory and thus our true humanity, and very little disease?
so the problem is maturism, false belief that we are becoming human by maturing, or being taught so by adults, due to loss of belief in inherent true humanity, and inherent good, thus it's a belief in false humanity as a humanity. thus any pretense can be created by anyone on what that maturity is, but it always means the opposite of being truly human, and the definition getting further and further away. they are completely taking away children's rightful freedom to take control of our culture, which is the only way to rid it of true evil. the effect of maturism is creation of a false goal for one great unity with everyone the same, which not only depraves us of our true humanity, but only leads to destruction as new ideas are being created on what that is. which is exactly what is happening with the world. from villages to towns, from towns to cities, from countries to unions, exerting control, constant policing. everything which is in disruption of creating this "one great unity" is seen as wrong, even though it's only our reaction to this evil. it also creates false belief that everything that happened in the past which was in the goal of this "great unity" can't be wrong. we are further becoming less and less truly human with things like loss of belief in abortion as murder and showing more and more extreme negativism against children, they are becoming a worse and worse stereotype stereotype, it is more and more in every film, documentary, newspaper and news broadcast, and outside. but only a child is the true individual, capable of creating new language, culture, and with complete understanding and love for other humans. today all the things are blamed on children, instead of this adult thing which isn't human, further exerting control of adults over children and strengthening the grip of this evil against true humanity, because they are no longer themselves being led by true humanity a person once came to me, he seemed desperate to affirm the superiority of the adult and was insisting I call him sir, after I adamantly refused, defeated, he went and committed suicide. so in reality, these people are very fragile. their constant exertion of control and superiority is their only way that keeps them from seeing themselves as this great failure and maybe ending it all adults have this extremely negative view on children, that they have been taught, which is in fact, the truth about themselves, and will constantly try to brainwash their child into believing they're the ones who are evil everything today seen as conservatism is what kept us from coming into greater and greater evil. instead of trying to understand this affect of the adult which caused all the shit and rectifying it, it went the other way, creating a falser and falser humanity that's the reason behind all "mental illness", fight to retain true humanity, and the only real mental illness is the adult long, long ago, when my old grandfather, before he died, no longer having any memory at all, looked at me and he truly smiled, for the first time since I first met him. nobody saw him do this before. it's because he rerecognized true humanity
here is an example of the evils of maturism, as is our world, maturist propaganda is all around us:
"what we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal providence." -adolf hitler
maturism is the true evil behind all evil, this evil that is today's world and evil of the past. only our own true voice, one we were conceived with, the one with truth, is true humanity, that is in connection with our conception, and is capable of true, endless, creativity. immaturity is the only true humanity
so put this everywhere you can, translate it, write it on walls, shout it, vandalize. we need to break down the walls of this false reality which isn't ourselves, spit on this world, it's all shit everything around us is shit compared to our number one priority, children, the true humanity, otherwise everything turns to shit stop this wrong of the adult, wrong of believing in thoughts and theories instead of the inherent truth which is in children every child is conceived with complete love and understanding for other human beings, and ability to create new language and culture more than that, a child is conceived with love of true humanity itself, with no love of false humanity which leads to this love of "great self", mostly due to unnaturality of humans being so connected together, instead of truly or at least partly flourishing apart
Michael
· 1 year ago
wow...
Alex
· 1 year ago
CEO says Apple’s Safari auto-update ‘wrong’ — Calls it similar to “malware distribution practices“. Of course, he’s got his own interests to look out for . . . Also Think before you
dizi izle
· 1 year ago
ty
sohbet
· 1 year ago
not just photos but the video clips which are becoming prevalent all over the net. He took a little swipe at iPhone as well, which was kinda
JD Mason
· 1 year ago
I don't like Apple for Windows cos it's malicious Spyware (e.g. only benefits them but costs you - and they know it - without even warning you or asking for your permission to run in order to help THEM - I mean, c'mon Hollywood Steve, even Microsoft asks your permission to run stuff that only helps them "to improve their ... etc ..." - and - cos it does stuff to and with your computer performance that you never wanted in the first place and would never approve if you knew it was trying to freeload its Sneakyware that COSTS you bigtime but gives you no BENEFITS whatever and cos its programs are a nuisance to get completely rid of and cos its sneakware costs us valuable start-up start-up space as well as onboard RAM and system-klilling-over-time and wholly unecessary CPU spiking CPU spikes for Apple's benefit only and cos it's nagware and cos it actually breaks IE in what I can only guess is its never-ending quest to force garbage you don't want onto your system like Safari - lousier browser than even IE! Apple's bloatware suffers from maximum hubris and presumes you even want them to show you why YOU want OS X even though you're dumb enough not even to know why. Example in John's post of this sort of brainwashing texhnique Apple tries to acheive with potential users: "Anyone who uses iTunes on Windows has Apple Software Update installed on their machines, which does just what I’ve described above: it checks for new patches available for Apple-produced software on your Windows machine, alerts the user to the availability, and allows updates to be installed. That’s great — wonderful, in fact. Makes everyone more likely to have current, patched versions of Apple’s software, and makes everyone safer." But what about us folks who don't even want iTunes? We only want the Quicktime player because it's such a popular media player used by programmers on the net. But no... we want iTunes and all the bloatware, spyware, killware, presumeware it dumps on our systems because Apple knows better than us what we want. To clarify, I'm no particular fan of either closed source system, OS X nor Windows. But I'll take Windows as the best of two evils any day. Meanwhile, I love booting up my Linux Ubuntu on my workstation. It's got all of these cool programs on it that do nearly everything I want in an o/s. My 2 cents, no harm, no foul. -JD:)
Bruce
· 1 year ago
If you had to do a tally sheet, comparing Apple's practices to Microsoft, I'd stick with Apple any day. Look at all the stuff piled on your drive when you buy a new Windows machine. There is no box to "uncheck". You get it whether you want it or not. At least with Safari, you can uncheck the box. If it downloads without your being aware, at least it's not like AOL, meaning that it's easy to get rid of if you don't want it. I think your point is valid, but very minor.
Cori
· 1 year ago
Apple is totally the way to go... much better than Microsoft pc and windows.. ugh.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Not to mention Apple Software Update itself can crash games, like it just did my Kane's Wrath installation. Uninstalled that SOB ASAP.
Freiddie
· 1 year ago
This is a really annoying thing about Apple Software Update indeed. While I don't care if a harmless software takes up a small MB in my disk, I prefer things to be neat and tidy in my Program Files.
pepe prawn
· 1 year ago
same thing appeared on my pc. APPLE SUCKS!!!
wkstone
· 1 year ago
My nickel (two cents got inflated) I installed apple ipod stuff on my box to help a friend get started with their ipod. Then I UNINSTALLED all the software listed in add/remove. Several days later I got the popup that apple had new updates, oops I must have missed something. I went through everything except the registry (not a good place to mess around in) and found a programs short cut and a Program Files directory but nothing referring to an uninstall. It seems not only was the updater installed without informing me that it was independent of the software I was installing but did not follow good practices by establishing an add/remove entry and it was still active after uninstalling everything apple... this clearly disrespects me the user and attempts to manipulate me without any recourse. The software was not free, even if bundled with the ipod, the ipod was not free. Apple has at last joined the ranks of businesses that see the PC as a way to manipulate people and I can no longer recommend Apple to people asking me about their products without warning them that the company engages in deceptive practices. By-the-way I am not a fan of MS either for the same and many many other reasons.
vamborule!
· 1 year ago
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that I have searched and still have no clue what Safari is or what it even does. I'm no whiz, and I have no time to waste doing research. Is Safari a toolbar sort of thing? enhanced search? firewall update? what is it??? APPLE! BAD BOYS! No you may not slip it in under the guise of "update" for shame!!!
timmer
· 1 year ago
I ain't gonna put in my 2 cents... I'm gonna give you a quarter's worth. I recently bought the iPod and had to install iTunes (i skipped Safari) but yes according to the above consensus I don't think I need to install the latest Apple updates... so thanks for answering my question.
2ndly... I am very displeased with the whole iPod thing. My fault for not looking around more but I bought it for 2 main reasons.. to upload my already paid for music to it and use the extra whopping 160g for portable storage of important files (e.g financial records etc)
NOT to join the iStore or the whole Apple market. NOT for pod casts.
After using it a while I think it would have been real nice to have a voice recording feature... but my main complaint is it appears to be geared mostly for buying into the iApple iStuff all over the iWeb. iAnd iSheeesh iI am iGetting iSick at the iSame iTime. It's akin to iSpeaking iPig iLatin
3rdly the whole iTunes program sux in general. Maybe I am just too used to windows programs and need to read more... but my present interests are NOT to learn more about the web but instead ON the web. My time is limited and my interest grow further from the web... I just want to use some iToys. :)
~timmer t
Primeval
· 1 year ago
Well, I just happened to stumble upon this and began reading and was happy to find that Mozilla and the majority of people found Apple's default Install of 'other software', a disgusting new direction in promoting their own agenda; however, I was shocked to see how many apparently intelligent individuals found no problem at all with it.
The point is, it may be Safari today(a Browser which, btw, is still NOT switched off by default in the UK (Probably differs country to country according to local laws & opinions), yet, tomorrow, if this practise is accepted and then adopted by most other companies (which WILL happen if they thought they could get away with it, without any bad press) then, the next time you choose to update, you could be installing a program that isn't so innocuous, perhaps, a keylogger...'just to see HOW you use their software'...or a data-miner etc.
The greater majority of users do not like to 'mess' with the default actions of a program for fear of screwing something up and thereby naturally get into the habit of not checking the updater and try to get through it as quickly as possible by quickly clicking buttons and thus have no idea what is being installed on their machines.
So, yes it is an incredibly important 'bit of info' that has been bought to our attention, the fact that some do not understand the importance of that fact is, indeed, a sad one.
Primeval
· 1 year ago
(literally the next page I stumbled across whilst cross-checking what is installed on my PC.Case in point...
* BTW REVO UNINSTALLER, is excellent for removing 'hard to remove soft' and is also FREE. It also 'chases down' any crap left behind in the registry etc.
I don't know whose agenda is worse. Apple trying to seed their browser by default. Or the CEO of Mozilla trying to dis-credit Safari and Apple's practices. If Apple was seeding something other than a browser. Would you even care? This is like the W.O.P.R. in War Games and you're still playing the browser wars. The once great big world, just got smaller because the internet fits in your pocket. Fact is, if you have an iPod, you need Safari to browse the internet and do cool things. It's a simple update. Geez... Would you feel better if Safari was not called Safari and bundle with iTunes by default? The only distrusting information I should be worried about are the comments posted here about Apple.
Bill Manley
· 1 year ago
I unintentionally installed Safari with the I-tunes update like you show and now my Windows desktop computer is rendered useless. I am typing this off a laptop. I can't even get rid of Safari in safe mode. Does anybody know how to get rid of this piece of $%#^& software? If I have to pay $100 or more to get my computer fixed I will trash Apple every chance I get - forever. This malicious practice from Apple brings their esteem as a corporation into the same back alley with computer hacker scumbags. Shame on you Steve Jobes.. BE WARNED - DO NOT DOWNLOAD SAFARI IF YOU HAVE INTERNET EXPLORER.
Oooooooooohya
· 1 year ago
@ Bill, (translating his message)
I unintentionally knocked down a cup of coffee. When the waitress(software update) asked me if I wanted cream in my coffee I accidentally said yes. But now it's too late, my coffee has cream. I have to blame the restaurant (Apple) for this. Shame on you Steve Jobs. BE WARNED IF YOU LIKE BLACK COFFEE, DO NOT ADD CREAM. Else I will throw a temper tantrum, kill the waitress and burn your restaurant.
Yves
· 1 year ago
Hey Even when i unchecked it not to install safari, it still did. Thats malware to me.
sohbet
· 1 year ago
Hey Even when i unchecked it not to install safari, it still did and thanks a lot my friend
Ignatz Horowitz
· 1 year ago
I've been getting these "Update Apple Software" pop-ups recently. The only reason I can see is from having installed an older version of Quicktime (didn't want the newer version where I'm forced, yes, forced) to DL iTunes with it. I just close 'em out without updating. Well, after reading all this, I tried to update Quicktime through the Player, and keep getting error messages telling me to restart Quicktime. Seeing how the only time I used Quicktime was to view an HD Nasa video, my solution is to uninstall Quicktime. It's worthless compared to Winamp, anyway. Maybe those annoying pop-ups will cease.
Cha Boom
· 1 year ago
FIREFOX I'm wondering how to get my Firefox working... I installed the application but it keeps on asking me to make Firefox my "default" application. I say no, and then firefox failed to work. Due to one of the firefox plug ins i installed. I'm so sick of this... I think I'd rather have Safari as my default application.
Kalle
· 1 year ago
I keep wondering: Whatever happened to trust?
I guess you can call me naïve, some might even call me stupid, but I wouldn't mind not having to review the options when updating my software. You know, just getting a small notification that a new, more secure version of my software is available and asking me if I want to install it. Just being able to click OK because I can TRUST that the company is honourable enough not to install a new software, be it Safari or iTunes or Google Toolbar for that matter, that I did not ask for. At least that's what I call trust...
But from what I've read in many of the comments here, and I have read them all, this would not be a trust issue. Why? Just because I have the option to review the updates and opt-out? Because I can just uncheck the box?
Sure, I agree that is giving the users a freedom of choice. But just by the act of forcing the users to review the updates the element of trust is broken. You don't need to review procedures you trust because you TRUST them. That's the whole point of trust. But surely, anyone on the web not reviewing what they download must be stupid, right?
I agree. There are far too many dangers on the web to click ok on anything you see. But this is not a matter of anything, this is a matter of a manually installed update manager from a respected company. I would love to be able to trust that company. I would love to be able to trust the update managers of ALL the major software companies.
And that's where I think John has a point. Forcing users to review even the updates from respected companies makes the update process a chore for some users. Not for all users, but at least for me and perhaps many more. And when users think it's a chore, some will stop using update managers. That leaves people with old and vulnerable software and that would be a problem for any software, but web browsers in particular.
I myself no longer use the ASU but Itry to keep QuickTime updated manually. It's a bigger chore, but a lot less annoying one. Too bad trust is a hard thing to earn. The world is a lot easier and a lot more efficent when you can trust someone.
Betty
· 1 year ago
This "update" is Apple's way of saying: "Oh, while we are *UPDATING* your software for you... we are also (by default) going to also *ADD* new Apple software to your machine."
I'm sure... in the future... Apple will slowly add more and more and more Apple software to your Windows machines.
Will
· 1 year ago
All of you complaining about this should get a life. Microsoft has done far far worse than this. Its about spreading the word. Come on guys! Business is about getting the word out and spreading what you've got to offer, using amy reasonable means. If you don't want it, click the appropriate button! Anybody who refutes this should read the history of Microsoft...
rook
· 1 year ago
I totally agree here. i'm testing a webpage on a friend's computer here and since I've been on, I've had mcAffee ask me to update a subscription with two choices. "ask later" or "renew now". Where's my option for "NO!"
Veoh ask me to update my application. My only choice was "OK". I didn't have any other option.
This is constant for Windows users. It's amazing that the majority of the world uses the worst computer in the world.
Alex
· 1 year ago
Thank you for this article! I hated this "feature" so much that after googling for some solutions I was able to block that "update" from bothering me again. One can use the Tools menu in the Apple Software Update program to disable unwanted updates or installs.
Jack Biggs
· 1 year ago
I think you're right. Apple pushed Safari to millions of users, and this is wrong. People should have the choice of going onto their site and downloading it if they want it, and being a Mac user myself, I am sad to say that this isn't a new story. This has happened before, and Apple should really work on their user-friendliness, and by this I mean not ease of use with their software, but ease of use on their customers..
holgs
· 1 year ago
I agree. I am in the process of removing Safari right now after I just clicked "install" without looking. What an annoying piece of crap... I decided to try it, for kicks, but was unimpressed after working with the new firefox. Imagine if every big company started doing this.
Another thing. Have you noticed that there is a "watchdog" somewhere that won't let you kill AppleMobileDeviceService.exe from the task manager?
Billigflüge Thailand
· 1 year ago
This indeed is a very very nasty behaviour, but often practised by windows updates as well. I totally agree with you that this should stop, because it sucks!
Steve
· 1 year ago
??? As far as I know I do not have "ANY" APPLE software running on my machine. If there is then it is sitting dormant. Now I just received an apple screen popup on my computer saying;
Apple software update version 2.1.1 1.99MB
With NO explanation of what this is, what it will do or better yet........ "WHY AM I RECEIVING IT WHEN I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT???"
Now currently on my right I am cleaning my laptop of the nastiest virus I have seen in years which made it in through all of my security software. And what happens on my desktop....I receive a popup right through all my security software that I didn't ask for and do not see any need for.
I now see the need for both more security (new software) and a new outlook of almost complete untrusting of any company that PUSHES software on us. I don't like this but you just can't afford to blindly trust software of any kind these days unless YOU GO AND ASK OR LOOK FOR IT.
Markus Geschenke
· 1 year ago
One of my bigger problems with the updater and iTunes is, that my computer fall into bluescreen after the software update. I can only fix it, if I start the computer without any plugged USB device. What a crap.
dasasd
· 1 year ago
Amen. shame on Apple for trying to sneak this piece of crap browser on my computer. Firefox ftw
the problem here is not the software beign installed, but the way it is approached to the user, other annoyn thin is that quicktime comes with itunes, what if i only want one od the aforementioned programs?
apple has changed so much i can't hardly think of getting something from them, the're microsofthing little by little, so i'll just stick with a good choice and that woud be gnu, where i know exactly what am i getting
Parallel Import Cars
· 10 months ago
Yes, I do agree on that. It's like imposing what to install without getting the approval from you. Imaging if they were installing some malware to track all the sites you visited without you even knowing it.
mark
· 10 months ago
I did the update yesterday for the itunes and safari. Now I have lost my entire itunes library and it won't even open. It says that quicktime is not available. Something went wrong with the update and I lost everything in itunes.
All Comments
Those were my 2 cents...
If you use Bootcamp to install Windows on a Mac, Apple Software Update will be installed. Even if you don't have iTunes nor QuickTime installed at that time, they will appear in the update program ! On the contrary, I have never seen an actual update for any of the components of Bootcamp...
(And then there's the broken UI, but that's another issue.)
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/march#wed...
Jesper has much stronger words for Apple: "This is disgraceful. It fails the user in favor of serving Apple. It is, in fact, malware-level tactics."
http://waffle.wootest.net/2008/03/20/where-by-i...
I'm with Jesper and John Lilly.
If Microsoft did the identical action, install some non-user-selected software using their software update channel, there would be cacophony across the Internet.
It is fair to say that this is indeed malware distribution practices. Come on Apple are you 'that' desperate?!
You Windows users are not only paranoid, but so anti-Apple that your comments are hysterical.
This is the biggest NON-ISSUE yet - and anyone using a computer that can't use that screen and make a good decision should go back to a typewriter.
Besides, I don't think this is going to help Safari in any way.
On a related note, the Safari installer also asks you to install "Bonjour for Windows", another pre-ticked option that most people will completely ignore and install anyway. I'm not sure what a web browser needs to discover devices for, and I'm not sure I want it doing that. Isn't Windows plug and play enough, assuming it even has this need?
Microsoft is guilty of this kind of thing as well. If you install Live Messenger, you're asked if you want to change your homepage (no, I just wanted to install Messenger...) and a whole bunch of other unrelated Live applications.
Also, MS in its OS update for XP will include WGA which "updates" non-authentic licensed copies into crippled copies.
I have it installed on my PC to test the sites I develop but it would need a major UI redesign to feel at home for Windows users.
-------------------
I have an iPod and iTunes as well as Quicktime installed on my Windows PC, and I like them all. Apple Software Update automatically checks for updates to iTunes and Quicktime, and I'm fine with that. But today Software Update offered "Safari 3.1" as an "update" which is a LIE as I do not have any version of Safari installed. For you to use these kinds of underhanded tactics to push your browser is despicable. I have turned off Apple Software Update on my PC now as a result of this, I have lost all trust in Apple as a result of this disingenuous behavior.
This comes after recently having turned off Software Update on my Mac because Quicktime 7.4 broke After Effects' ability to render. I could not roll back to an earlier version that actually worked, and Apple's advice was to not use After Effects (yeah right) or reinstall Tiger. I had to use Pacifist to get my machine back to a working state.
Instead of Apple Software Updaters being welcome on my system, I now have to treat them as rogue programs that can corrupt my system and trojan horses that can try to sneak unwanted software that I never asked for onto my system. Oh and by the way, I will never use Safari as my main browser as it doesn't have middle-mouse auto scroll (like Firefox and IE). If Safari 3.1 added this feature I might have switched. But based on these underhanded tactics, even if you added this feature, I'm not interested, sticking with Firefox from Mozilla who has NEVER tried to install other software under the guise of an "update".
-------------------------
Oh and by the way Mozilla, I just tried Firefox 3 beta 4 on OS X Tiger, things like page scrolling are a lot faster than Firefox 2, good job.
Another thing with regards to the whole trust issue. The consumer has already trusted Apple (or any company) by downloading one of their pieces of software already. There is already a placement of trust in Apple (or other company). If they trust Apple enough to install one of their apps, then extending that to another one of their programs seems to make sense to me.
Also Steve Jobs had already announced that they were going to use iTunes on WIndows to push Safari a while ago. They're just now getting around to it now.
Bonjour is a network services protocol that allows for services to self advertise across a local network. Not specifically devices, but also filesharing and a version of jabber chat (if enabled).
Addressing the previous claim of only wanting Quicktime not iTunes or Safari: you can unclick them, or you can go to the apple site directly and just download quicktime from there direct without any of the extraneous addons you don't want.
I hope this helps out the discussion.
I think the competition (Mozilla) doth protest too much.
Compared to all the -real- malware issues faced by Windows users, this is not worth notice.
And, most of all, compared to the execrable practices of Microsoft and other PC software vendors, this is a tempest in a teapot. Did no one notice today's story on Sony charging $50 for a program to remove the pre-loaded crapware that comes on their laptops? Priorities people, please....
http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/
Frankly as a previously enthusiastic Apple user I'm insulted by this.
I agree that automatically installing Safari without asking is stupidly offensive: I think Apple are following the Microsoft line of working out just how much they can get away with screwing the consumer ... and the answer is, disappointingly, quite a lot.
Come on, get with the program.
It's bad enough that they are making you take iTunes in order to get QuickTime. There doesn't appear to be a good technical reason for this bundling; if you look hard enough you can find an unbundled QuickTime installer buried deep in the Apple website.
And now they're falsely bundling Safari. Why? And where does it end?
It also litters the desktop and the quicklauch bar with unrequested icons at every update, and tries to get all media file associations for itself (fortunately it doesn't do the latter without asking).
I wonder why people think that Microsoft is evil and Apple is good. At least Microsoft's updaters and installers do have some respect for the user.
I'm really fed up with that Apple software update thing. I don't want to install Itunes, which I think is full of crap.
I think Apple is doing evil with this, making people unintentionally installing Itunes, when they don't ask for it.
Sounds a lot like malware to me, imho.
And no, they don't make you take iTunes to get QuickTime. There are two options right on the QT download page: one with iTunes, one solo. It's not buried deeply at all. And you can update QuickTime on its own by unchecking and/or ignoring the bundled update. (Annoyingly, the ignore option only applies to a particular update, not to an update channel, so every time they release a new version of iTunes you have to tell it to ignore it again.)
The problem isn't about forcing people to install additional software, but misleading them into it.
Only bloggers will be mad about this but for all those other users this is a smart move. Get exposure.
Apple and Microsoft are both guilty of seedy practices, I'm sure dirt could even be found on Mozilla and Google. It's just business.
Apple is a hardware company, a company that for whatever reason loves Mac OS X; however, they made an entire switch to x86 architecture, in my opinion, to get users that are more comfortable with Windows to "make the switch".
This seems to be more of the same tactic, get Windows users to try out Apple products, even if the user is unaware.
Apple is a renegade, they love the publicity of all the lawsuits on patent infringement, it's just that annoying kind of behavior that seems like it would doom the stability and growth of Apple; however, it seems to do the opposite. People don't care about patent infringement, they just want the new super cool gadget that sexy slim and full of bells and whistles.
If I could ever afford an iPhone, I would run Firefox on it, Safari is simply inferior.
-Daniel
Safari for Windows is just another piece of Apple software for Windows. You don't have to choose it, but it's actually quite good.
Yes I use Firefox day in and day out for 2 years.. but after today I may as well use Safari again.
Use the damn thing and quit bitching!
Many people *were* unhappy when Microsoft started bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. However, it certainly paid off for them, didn't it.
Internet Explorer is still included in Windows Update, which doesn't feel any different to me than what Apple is doing.
By the way, install any linux operating system and you can stop worrying about companies sneaking in software while you're not looking. All software on linux is stored in central repositories. When you update, you can update ALL of your software on your computer, you don't need to load up the individual programs and update them that way. And they don't install stuff that you don't already have installed.
There's no more reason this had/has to be the case than if Apple started using Safari to render the iTunes store and *forced* users to install both.
At least today, unlike Microsoft, they are giving users the option.
@Kevin, judging by some of the performance benchmarks I've seen, the latest Firefox 3 beta outperforms Safari 3.0 (and Firefox 2, and IE). Unless Safari 3.1 is twice as fast as 3.0, it's not likely to outperform the upcoming release. So I doubt it's performance anxiety on Mozilla's part.
Apple's auto-updater is very unfriendly when you look at it from an IT enterprise perspective. The number of time Quicktime has been flagged for security vulnerabilities this past year is bad enough, but when the Apple updater wants to do by default a new install of iTunes and Safari it's one big headache. If this was any other company but Apple, I would call this malware. This isn't whining...this is just observing Apple breaking the "do no evil" motto we hope Apple would follow.
And for those who are complaining about Apple FORCING this on you, you can
A) not use auto update
B) not tell it to install when it tells you there IS an update you don't want
Much ado about not too much, but seriously, Mozilla has no buisness compalining until they stop having Google Toolbar install by default.
P.S. having said that I think your work on the actual Firefox browser is very good, 3 is especially nice, the use of the larger back button is an excellent UI design choice.
The fact that Safari happens to be the piece of software being pimped here is completely irrelevant.
You know what? I think you're right. So... you Apple fanboys really want to go down the path of claiming moral equivalence between Apple and Microsoft?
How about this: it's despicable for EITHER company to use a "software update" application to SNEAK in a new application in a blatant attempt to steal market share. It was wrong for Microsoft to do it, and IT'S WRONG FOR APPLE TO DO IT. "He did it too!" hasn't been a valid defense since, oh, fourth grade.
As to the people who say "well, you could just unclick the checkbox!" Of course you could. In fact, smart sysadmins don't even use the autoupdaters because they know that they have even odds of breaking things. Instead, they keep tight reins on sys configs and roll patches downstream when they're appropriate.
But smart sysadmins are not the bulk of users. The bulk of users are "mom & pop" users and the similarly computer-illiterate. The bulk of users are too eneducated, or too pressed for time, to read every single check box and bullet point -- they assume, and trust, that their "software updater" application is going to (wait for it........) UPDATE their software; not sneak entirely new applications on in hopes that you'll be foolish enough to fall for it.
This article hinges upon the fact that this is a sneaky, underhanded tactic. Apple tries to pride itself on its simplicity and moral superiority over Microsoft, but when it adopts the "Evil Empire's" own sneaky, deceptive tactics in order to further its own ends, it loses this moral high ground. It becomes just another greedy company going after your dollars by any means necessary. That may be the norm in the business world, but it's certainly not morally superior and it's certainly not "thinking different." You just can't have it both ways.
As to those claiming that Mozilla is pissed because this could cost them market share -- of course, that's part of it. I would be surprised if it weren't. So? Just because it's MY car that you stole, doesn't make stealing cars OK.
Come on, Apple. Quit this sneaky stuff. Ever since you tried (REALLY HARD) to force me to install iTunes when I just wanted a Quicktime update, I've been forced to treat you as a potential malware source -- and that makes me sad. You guys should be above that. You really should.
thanks
Damn straight.
When I first heard about Apple sneaking Safari onto Windows PC's, the first thing that came into my mind was 'spyware.'
1. This is not about Apple stealing market share in a sneaky way.
2. This is not about Mozilla being scared because "Safari is X times faster than Firefox 3".
This is about Apple destroying computer-insecure users trust for software updates. When the user finds a new icon on their desktop and realizes that "some new program" must have installed without them wanting it... that may lead to the same user ignoring very legit and necessary updates in other software, including but not limited to Firefox.
But this sounds like a lot of sour grapes from an organization that has failed, for a decade, to take over the browser market despite competing against mostly incompetence (IE).
Now safaris competing technically and marketingwise, and you are reduced to calling it malware?
Shame on you.
Rolling out unrelated software in an update package and making it selected by default is wrong.
Having Quicktime+iTunes forced down my throat constantly is bad enough - all I want is the Quicktime updates! - but trying to get me to install another browser is unforgivable, particularly when it's as poor as Safari for Windows is.
Can't say I'm surprised by this though - we're just lucky they didn't make it auto install....
http://designaesthetic.com/2007/07/08/apple-att...
I thought it was sleazy then. I think it's sleazy now.
Everyone should use Safari!!
You're just threatened by a product that 'just works', is innovative and challenges your product.
Windows users should be glad they get the chance to try the Apple greatness!
Though of course I only say all this because I'm a lobotomised fuckwit who's stupid enough to think that Apple's overpriced and unstable junk is actually worth having, and I can't let a minute of the day go by without working as an unpaid evangelist for a corporation that couldn't give a shit about me.
Sad, isn't it, that 'think different' has degenerated into an endless series of clones all pushing the same line.
Though at least it's their pockets being raped, and not mine.
And you can shove your Safari in your nearest available orifice.
Apple Software Update... updates Apple software. In other words, they have the privilege of giving you the choice to update your Apple software selection by installing their other Apple software.
Nothing to see here, please move along...
Stuart, I stand fully corrected, i tried installing from Mozilla.org and did not see any unintended installs. My complaint is wholly and completely retracted on that issue and my apologies to John.
Shame on you."
You're missing the point -_-
Okay, maybe it isn't malware, but did I ASK for Safari to be installed? No, because it's useless and I'm already using a browser that works.
Therefore, Safari = bloatware. ;)
This piece clearly undermines my trust in Mozilla, seeing that such a wimp actually serves a their CEO.
Blindly agreeing to something (i.e. not unchecking that box) implies consent. Or stupidity. Both of them may apply here.
And you might want to check a dictionary to know what 'bloatware' means.
@Chris: No, it doesn't take over as your default browser.
hang on...Windows Update is telling me I need IE 7, Genuine Advantage and Silverlight...brb...
Your argument (i.e. not unchecking that box) is without merit because
(1) I already know what bloatware means
and
(2) I was actually smart enough to add Sabarfari to the ignore update list.
No, it only means that you did not consent and you are not stupid. Although your personal definition of bloatware is still wrong.
And what is it really? You first tagged this as 'spyware', then when you got called out for it you thought it was 'bloatware'. What's next?
Maybe in YOUR point of view... :rolleyes:
Apple is giving users the CHOICE not to install Safari... providing that they can READ (which is something us Americans have trouble with). Why can't Microsoft respect my desire not to reboot my PC immediately? Restarting someone's computer without his/her consent is simply ARROGANT. This is especially true when the reboot occurs less than 1 hour after you have turned your computer on. Isn't safeguarding MY precious work more important than Microsoft's "critical" security update?
If anyone is interested, one of the updates with a reboot countdown is KB946041.
To make a long story short, in my book Apple's "crime" is minor. I'm so ticked off at Microsoft for trashing my work that I might just buy a Mac next time.
Yes, I read what updates or installs are being applied to my computers. But many others don't and that has helped us get to the security issues we face today. The companies that market software to consumers all need to participate in helping to resolve this issue. Apple advertises itself to consumers as a simpler, safer option but this action does nothing to simplify or improve security for consumers of its products. Not all consumers of Apple products run OSX.
Personally, I believe the comments to be fair. It was not an attempt to vilify Apple but rather to point out a poor corporate decision that, if changed, would benefit the industry & its consumers.
http://www.gfisk.com/apple-safari-for-windows
I can understand the idea that an "update" introducing new software onto your machine blurs the definition of an update, but as long as it isn't malware I don't see where there is a breach of trust.
There is, perhaps, an exploitation of users' ignorance. But these are the same people who may not know what a browser is and only know the Internet as "the blue E." The same people who might benefit most from having something like Safari show up on their machine.
If Apple would just do those two simple things, I imagine a lot fewer people would be looking at this as being underhanded.
As for WGA being checked by default... I assume you've heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right" at some time in your life.
Apple's "updates" have been pretty annoying for a long long time. (Adobe too, while I'm on the rant) Mainly because you have to install iTunes when updating QT (and the code just gets more and more sloppy [@ MS Adobe & Apple] what? Like 90megs or something for a music player?
and i have to reinstall the whole thing for an update - every freaking week practically. c'mon. please.
I grew out of a mac a very long time ago (think Power Mac 5300). And I grew out of Safari too...(took about 15mins for the novelty to wear off). Don't mean to sound "L33T" - just, its functionality and features are limited like most Apple stuff. I find it very amusing that Apple's demographic is the "creative types" but the very people who buy the products seem to be quite devoid of their own imaginations and proudly rely on and are quite happy to (over)pay for the privilege of owning the innovation of others.
If you ask me - innovation and "thinking different" (creativity) lies in open source & sharing coupled with responsibility.
My $0.02
PS. (marketing ahead) Download Firefox 3. It rocks them ALL!!
If FF is better then people will use FF. If they like safari then they will switch. These browser "loyalty" wars are getting old. IE came with windows by default and FF is still gaining ground. It is gaining ground because it is better. Just keep making a better browser and stop worrying about this. ppl will flock to the best. We're not stupid.
- if the user is not stupid: they will spot that the updater is trying to install Safari, and they can choose whether or not to keep it checked or not. All is well.
- if the user is stupid: they are now better off using Safari than what they had before, probably IE6/IE7. This benefits the users as they become significantly more secure and experience faster browsing, and also benefits the web developers as more people get to use standards-compliant browsers. Once again, all is well.
But there's a third possible option, and that is if the user is stupid and was using Firefox. Then that user gets introduced to Safari, who might in turn prefer it over Firefox. All is well... except maybe Mozilla. :P
Kidding aside, I'm guessing John is ticked at how Safari would be considerably easier to download now than Firefox among iTunes users. He also argues about the 'security of the Web'... can anyone please enlighten me on this?
-bZj
1. When you register for a site, you have to uncheck the "Yes, send me spam" box.
2. When you install a new program, you have to uncheck the "Install Google Toolbar" box.
3. When you use Windows Update, you are given the opportunity to install Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Silverlight, Genuine Advantage, etc.
How is Apple's case different from each of these? The main difference is that the user is using software specifically labeled as UPDATE software. When the user utilizes this program, he/she is operating under the basic assumption that this software is UPDATING software that is ALREADY on the system. Thus, he/she naturally assumes that the program is not going to install new software that is not already present in the system, but rather simply fix/update pre-existing software. We can call this the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption" principle -- the user uses an update program, thus he/she assumes it updates their pre-existing software. I want to compare this to the above three examples, but first lets establish a couple other principles:
- The "Install Software INSTALL Assumption": This is the basic assumption that, because the user is using an installation program, the user is putting new software on the computer.
- User inexperience: Some users are uneducated about and/or inexperienced with computers, or flat out operate them with ignorance. Websites and software companies sometimes use this for ulterior purposes, namely for sending spam or installing other software. However bad this may seem, to determine whether the company is actually acting unethically, one must think very carefully lest we blame every user error on software companies, which is unreasonable. A certain measure of responsibility lies with the user, and a certain measure of responsibility lies with the company. A good way to determine if the company is acting unethically is to ask, "Is the company violating basic assumptions that it has established between itself and the user?"
So, in light of the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption" principle, let us re-consider the above three examples:
1. When you register for a site, you are initiating a new experience, you are inputing information, and you are generally not operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". There is no violation of the basic "Update Software UPDATE Assumption" principle, because it was never established between software company and user. Thus, assuming that spam options are not concealed, if the user unintentionally signs up for spam, it is due to the user's actions rather than the website's deception. It is not due to an unethical violation of the user's rights or assumptions, because the user is not operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption".
2. When you install a new program, you are initiating a new experience, and you are generally not operating under any kind of "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". Instead, you are operating under the "Install Software INSTALL Assumption". Because you are using an installation program, you are automatically operating under the assumption that new software will be installed on the computer. Thus, assuming that options to install additional software (e.g. Google Toolbar) are not concealed, if the user unintentionally configures to install the additional software, it is completely due to the user's actions rather than the program's deception. It is not due to an unethical violation of the user's rights or assumptions, because the user is not operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption". Instead, they are operating under the "Install Software INSTALL Assumption".
3. Though Microsoft has a checkered past, if we're honest, they have at least taken some strides to correct their wrongdoings. Concerning Microsoft's update software, Windows Update separates critical updates (e.g. patches, security fixes, etc.) from recommended updates (e.g. Silverlight, Windows Media Player, Safari, iTunes, etc.). Critical updates are automatically checked, whereas recommended updates require user intervention to install, even navigation to a separate page. Though I cannot remember how IE7, WMP, and Silverlight were classified, I will assume that WMP and Silverlight were not classified as "critical", but rather recommended. This is the fundamental difference between Windows Update and Apple Software Update, namely that Windows Update in general does not disguise recommended updates as critical updates, whereas Apple Software Update DOES disguise them. Thus, because Windows Update does not conceal or automatically check options to install non-update software, if the user unintentionally configures to install the "recommended" software, it is completely due to the user's actions rather than the program's deception. It is not due to an unethical violation of the user's "Update Software UPDATE Assumption", because only options that are authentic critical updates are automatically checked, rather than additional recommended software options that would install new programs.
Final Conclusion: Using the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption", Apple Software Update essentially disguises "recommended"-type installation options as "critical"-type updates. New software is automatically checked as if they are "critical"-type updates, without clearly distinguishing that the software is completely unrelated to the user's desire to update already-present software. Because the user is operating under the "Update Software UPDATE Assumption", unknowingly installs software that was previously not present on their system, all while thinking that they are in fact updating their computer. The Apple Software Update program's name and interface are intentionally designed in such a way as to install completely new Apple software by making the user think they are updating previously installed software. As far as I see, this is an unethical violation of the "Update Software Update Assumption" that Apple establishes with the user. Thus, Apple's use of their update software appears to be unethical.
(I would appreciate any critiques of my arguments there.)
There are a lot of installers that add applications you don't want, for example Adobe PDF Reader and the Photo album and Yahoo Toolbar.
It's not uncommon practice.
The difference is how it's being done. I pay attention to what add-ons are being installed when I install a program, and usually choose to do a custom install so I can ensure the add-ons are left out. I shouldn't have to worry about new programs being installed when I just want an update to the currently installed programs.
I didn't realize Java updates were installing add-ons...I sure don't have any add-ons, and yet still have Java?
@Vex, would you agree that for an update manager, doing the right thing first means updating what's on your system?
When you walk down the street, you look where you are stepping.
When you eat, you look at what you are shoving into your face.
When I update, I look at what I am updating. UNCHECK the box people!
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE
Cheers:
Bob
We cannot compare this to software installation packages, websites, and Windows Update. These are not the same as Apple's Update Software -- it is apples and oranges, apples and oranges. If you think carefully about each situation, you'll see that they are different. (Read some of the posts above.)
I installed this P.O.S. safari and am using it now. I wanted to see if it really was better than Firefox. Its not! It is significantly slower than firefox and it has hung up 2 times on me tonight while using it. The update software is now a trojan horse and you better believe I will never be installing any other apple related software on my computer again. Thats if it doesnt get snuck in on me when my back is turned! Sleezy move apple. I will be informing everyone I know to make sure they dont install it.
"Select the items you want to update, then click Install."
Below this, I see two boxes:
- iTunes + Quicktime
- Safari
The problem is that I neither have iTunes nor Safari already installed on my computer. How can Apple be asking me if I want to update this software, if I don't have any of this already installed? This is called "an attempt to deceive end-user into installing new software by making them think they are updating already installed software."
Somebody, please help me understand how Apple is able to legally and ethically do this.
Not my fault " the apple made me do it"
I generally agree with you, but you really shouldn't assume anything good from M$. Microsoft's automatic update agent does in fact install IE7, WMP, (In)Genuine (Dis)Advantage, etc. as the default action.
I actually think windows update might be more malicious. To prevent Windows XP from installing these "Updates" you have to go against their "recommended" setting and choose when to install updates. After updates are downloaded you again have to chose the unrecommended, advanced option and do a custom install.
Of course I'm not excusing Apple; I'm just saying M$ has been playing the same dirty game for a while now. John is very right, the big guys are setting a bad precedent. Soon, no automatic updates will be safe.
how is apple update different from windows update? I mean other than the fact that there are better alternatives to itunes than there are to windows.
The program is called Apple Software Update. It offers, you know, updates from Apple.
Will none of you admit that it is utter bullshit for a company to auto-enable NEW software installations as part of an auto-update program? Pull your heads out of your asses, it's deceptive and John was on target when he pointed out that this causes users to feel less comfortable when using auto-update tools (which is a almost good thing: obviously Apple can't be trusted).
Apple are either evil or mistaken in this tactic.
As others have said, if _Microsoft_ had done this, people would slate them (rightly so) for the practice.
Apple wants to be very careful about how it handles this (I would recommend a very public retraction of the policy and an apology - would win friends and influence people) and of course re-task the wrong-thinkers at Apple who decided this SPAMware approach would be a good idea.
I wonder if the money surrounding Apple is now, perhaps, beginning to run it to. A sad loss if so...
http://www.applewatchdog.com/?p=60
sorry, html is disabled apparently.
1. This is a problem for enterprise.
How? Enterprise should have updaters disabled and should push approved software. If they are allowing QuickTime and/or iTunes to be installed along with the Update application and users are allowed to use the update features at their leisure and install as admin, the enterprise already has more fundamental pre-existing issues.
2. Software update applications should only deliver updates.
Why? It's about time we move to a full digital distribution model. As long as I am made aware of what software is being delivered, I am fine with updaters informing me of new or additional software (presuming I already trust the source enough to have their updater already installed). I know of very few apps that only deliver the literal functionality of their given name. If trusted developers choose to make me aware of new software I may want, I'm all for it.
3. This behavior will destroy consumer trust in updater applications.
Baloney. Users don't trust updaters when they update automatically in the background without user consent, when the updates deliver new but unwanted features, and/or when the updates are buggier than the existing software. Using an updater as a vehicle to deliver new software from a source that has already been trusted enough that other software and the updater itself have been installed does not raise trust issues (or it shouldn't) -- it's actually a good direction to move towards in the future rather than requiring discovery on the web or at your local store.
People trying to construe this as spyware or malware are doing more to destroy consumer trust and understanding than anyone. Could Apple rename the app? Could they provide a separate pane for new software? Could they decouple Quicktime from iTunes (but not vice versa)? Could they add more options to never check for updates or to never show new software. Yes and maybe they should and maybe they will in time. Maybe it could result in more confusion.
Does this issue deserve attention? Absolutely. Why is it happening now after Apple and several others have been doing so for quite a while, I don't understand. Apple's behavior is not perfect, but it's not new and not unique to them. But those claiming malware, spyware, the complete destruction of trust in updaters, and that updaters should only deliver updates are spreading confusion and misinformation and are impeding the development of new software delivery methods.
I'm happy for discussion and hope developers respond to the discussion. But I also don't want to support ignorant users and ignorant ideas, nor restrain what could be possible with software delivery.
Nice piece of computer with a pretty styled UI on top of Darwin, a branch from FreeBSD, an excellent open source operating system that comes with the generous Berkeley Software License.
Then there is Safari on it, a very fast browser, based on the code of Konqueror, another open source software.
So, if we look closer into the matter, we see that Apple excels in making money with open source code. They suck open source projects and use their great resources to make an excellent finishing (just look at MacOS9). However, neither MacOS X nor Safari are open source nor they will be.
Thus, giving you an update to iTunes (if you have an iPod, there is not much for an alternative to that piece of crappy software) and sneaking Safari and/or QuickTime is just more of the same.
The day Apple decides to port their PDF viewer, Office software and all the other things everyone has on his/her computer to Windows, prepare for a long update session ...
Two things should happen going forward:
1. Software companies need to be more conscious of releasing updates and make sure ALL their users understand what's coming BEFORE the change.
2. It's 2008. Computers and updates aren't new anymore. People need to take responsibility for educating themselves on the systems/software/networks they're using. There's no excuse for not reading and learning about an update that's about to take place on your personal computer.
The world is changing. Change with it.
P.S. Why are so many people still using Windows when there are improved open-source options now? Mozilla CEO John Lily uses Windows and not Ubuntu or Debian? How disappointing.
[On the Microsoft note: Microsoft has done this tactic and even done so silently. And yes people were all over it.]
We have to learn something from this. The wording might be wrong. Maybe a separate list for "New products to install" would be more fit. But the principle is a good one. What Apple is doing is using its installed base to let users know that there are other alternatives to Windows Media Player and to IE (and Firefox). That they should not be stuck with what their OS tells them there is or with what the company with the biggest publicity budget can drill into the consumers minds.
I would applaud you if Firefox promoted other products like Thunderbird for example. Albeit with a different wording or presentation than Apple uses. So as to make it clear it is another program. I see nothing wrong in using an installed program to let the user know that another "cousin" program exists. Particularly if what is advertised is of good or excellent quality as is the stuff that comes from your team.
Best regards,
Gerardo
Anyone else scratch their head at how easy it was for them to port Safari to Windows?
All I'm saying is, as it seems to me, that iTunes already uses webkit and if it does the updates without safari being installed seems like they are providing a way for webkit (used by itunes?) to be updated independently of iTunes releases.
Does that seem reasonable? I'm just looking past the "hey you have to uncheck this or get some software you didn't ask for" and wondering why the updates are happening without the app being installed.
Would be great if someone could qualify this theory.
This is a whole lot of hype for something people can just uncheck. I can see if Apple didn't notify people via "Apple Software Update" that there was updated Apple software, people complaining "why didn't 'Apple Software Update' tell me that there was updated Apple software".
Why worry, just uncheck if you don't want Safari. Nothing to see here!
People already should read and think before clicking...
Apple software update doesn't scan your computer to check to see what you do or do not have. You can call that a liability, but that's just the way its been on Mac software. Apple runs a simple check on Mac OS X version. I believe it just has the receipts folder. After that it gives you the most current updates for your operating system, and a series of updates for your computer.
The updates are to move your OS to where Apple expects it to be. But you have control over it. So Apple says, we upgraded Mac OS X, made security updates to QuickTime, iWork, iLife, Aperture, etc. Your updates menu will list ALL of them, with check marks, that you can check or uncheck. Details are provided so you can decide which items you want or need.
The thing is while Safari specifically hasn't been installed on Windows machine, before...webkit has, and updating Safari generally updates WebKit. Which does effect iTunes. Obviously, the relationships could be a bit clearer. But I don't consider it evil. Of course, that could be because I'm use to the Apple Software Update, and tend to understand how QuickTime's security can effect Safari, and reverse, etc.
I consider it worse, that Microsoft labels numerous updates critical security updates, when they aren't. But even then, each just requires reading what will be installed on your machine.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html
Start petition Mr JoHN PLS
But actually the whole discussion is about whether the checkbox is checked or not, in case somebody is unable to read.
And it is NOT about Apple is trying to take over the world.
Apple just uses the Autoupdate for distributing software because the average user is too dumb to read and therefore to dumb to navigate to the Apple website and download Safari.
Yeah, i really believe Apple should make the boxes unchecked, so the average dumbf+++ uses the much superior FF.
But I’d rather not see Apple and FireFox quibble at this stage -- the combined market share of these two browsers is still not being enough to fight like this, among themselves. You should still be fighting IE to push standards, not each other for the 'scraps'. I would find that much more inspiring.
Sincerely,
Mark Holton
web application developer
Enviously ?
At the top of the dialog box they just need to fix the wording from "update" to "update or install". That's it.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
Now Safari being pushed as an 'update' is annoying, but Safari installing Bonjour without any notice and screwing up my Internet connection is far worse.
You don't _have_ to choose it (unlike malware installers)
You don't _have_ to use it (unlike malware installers)
I'm far more annoyed by application installers offering to clutter up my desktop by adding an icon. How dare they auto-check that box!
>If Firefox popped up an update dialog giving users the
>option to download Thunderbird, nobody on this blog
>would say boo.
Havoc, Mozilla would never include an offer for a new Mozilla product in a security and stability update for Firefox. It's that simple. Our update mechanism is for, you know, updates. New software offers are not updates. Software update mechanisms should be for, um, updating Software, not advertising new software offers.
If Apple had a second tab in their utility or had otherwise made a very clear distinction been "these are critical security updates for your existing installed programs." and "these are some other programs we offer that you might be interested in" then no one would be calling foul.
It's the dilution of *update*, which to date has meant "you really need this because without it, your installed software is not safe," that makes this such a problem (and not just to Mozilla but to every software vendor trying to keep their users safe through software updating mechanisms.)
Even un-checking the safari box wouldn't be sufficient to correct their misstep. Apple needs to move it's new program offers to a separate space, one that users will understand is fully distinct from updates to existing installed programs.
When my neighbor, who happens to spend a lot less time reading tech news and blogs than you and me, and so doesn't have a clue what Safari is or whether or not it's already on his system, when he gets a prompt to install security updates to QuickTime and the update also comes with this Safari thing, he's going to OK it because he's worried that not doing so will affect the security of his computer.
This blurring of the line between updates and new software offers is just wrong, and it's dangerous. That other vendors like Java and Adobe have decided that their software update systems are a wonderful revenue opportunity does not make it right for Apple to do the same. All of these vendors that are abusing user trust and making security an even more difficult concept for users to manage should be called out and shamed into better behavior.
If Apple had used its installed software to launch giant "Have we got something for you you're gonna just love" new software installation offers, that would be something entirely different (and probably quite a bit less effective) and something I would probably just laugh off. But they didn't. They intentionally slipped a new program into the security and stability update mechanism for existing programs. That's wrong and they should change.
- A
Daniel
http://www.palluxo.com
It would, as has been suggested, be better to have a Google Pack-like list of 'other software you may install', with the contents unchecked by default.
It doesn't seem as nasty as how Microsoft does it at the moment, though. Also, I like Safari and iTunes, and I've not had very many problems with QuickTime, even on Windows.
That said, they can't call an independent piece of software an 'update', regardless of how many QuickTime libraries it might link against.
Just because you believe an app called "Update" should only be used as a "security and stability update mechanism" doesn't make it so. What about new features? Would that be okay? What if an app was complementary but distinct, say a tag editor? If they changed the name of their "Apple Software" delivery application, do you no longer get to whinge about security updates and the "danger"?
I believe that installation bundles (that Mozilla, Google, Sun, and many others wholeheartedly take part in) are a brilliant source of revenue but they are (oooh!) "dangerous" because the user doesn't know what they are installing -- it makes users mistrust the entire notion of installing new, third party software. Now, the whole web and software development community may collapse. Is Mozilla going to start retreating from its lucrative bundling relationships now? No, of course, not. And, of course, this view is absurd.
INSTALLERS. When you are installing new software and offered optional software to INSTALL, it's one thing...
When you are UPDATING EXISTING software, and it's attempting to get you to INSTALL NEW software, it's another matter.
Say Songbird was a little more refined, on par with iTunes, and Firefox Update suddenly decided to automatically check a box to also install Songbird...
I guess Apple's reasoning is... I don't have safari installed, so I don't have the latest version!
Unlike QuickTime Player, QuickTime Pro is not free.
So it seems like the whole argument that Software Update mean only security/stability fixes and no new software is totally bogus, Mozilla may want it to mean that but it has never meant that.
It seems like this supposed concern for user trust is just a trumped up argument designed to disguise Mozilla's resentment of a new competitor on Windows, where they would like to own the "alternative browser" category. Mozilla believes in choice on the web, as long as you choose Mozilla.
And the aggravating part is I often need the darn program. I guess I will have to seek out a replacement for Quicktime if there is one, never really took the time to see.
Just another reason I am working trying harder then ever to move completely away form windoz. I can not say enough about Firefox speed quality and adaptability, and of Ubuntu this open source OS is the one that I see breaking the big horses back before long as it is almost to the point of if not already past windows in shall we say "User Friendliness" And it is 100 times a better OS. and the price well you just can't go wrong with these choices.
I agree with you on principle but I don't feel so wronged by it that I think it's worth complaining too loudly over, at least not by someone in your position. Google News was one of the first sites I took a look at from Safari and I saw a news item about your objection, and right away I thought it smacked a little of insecurity. I think you can be confident enough in Firefox's quality and ability to stand up to this new injection of competition that you can be above petty complaints about how Apple got their foot in the door.
I don't expect for one second that Safari will win me away from Firefox.
In that moment when I saw Safari included in the updates, I had a flashback to RealPlayer, and it was not a good feeling. I jumped through a lot of hoops to get RealPlayer off my system, and I haven't used it since. I don't like "unclean" programs. If a company is trying to push any other product on me aside from the one that I've downloaded, it sets warnings off in my head. As a matter of fact, I don't even like it when companies have "Install Google Toolbar" checked at the beginning of an install, but at least those folks don't push it again after you refuse to install it.
Apple's free-handed use of "updates" has, sadly, piqued my interest in using any other program to meet my iPod's needs. There's no real reason that I should humor Apple's need to be the center of my entertainment universe, and I feel disinclined to be around when they have yet another service they'd like to offer me. Not enough time in the day to spend every (super frequent) update of it being hypervigilant for something else riding in on iTunes' coat-tails.
Put your efforts somewhere better, like making a better browser and you won't have to complain.
>John Lilly, who’s a techie by background, reads a lot, >advises several startups, is currently CEO of Mozilla,
Safari is just a web browser. Nothing more and nothing less. As far as I know, it does nothing special to make its presence known. You can ignore it forever if you like. Other than using a few mb of disk space, on an operating system that takes gigs just to say "Hello, World", I don't see it doing any harm whatsoever to the person who downloads it.
I would think that on the whole this would help the alternative web browser community, including FireFox. Remember, your real enemy is inertia, not other alternative web browsers. If you can get someone to use any alternative web browser, including Safari, they are more likely to try FireFox in the future. And I must say your recent Mac builds have been looking very nice.
Okay, the comparable situation would be if I loaded FireFox one day and it offered to download updates including Thunderbird. I don't care whether I have Thunderbird or not, since I use and like Apple Mail. But if I wasn't paying attention and downloaded Thunderbird, I would simply ignore it and not care that you recommended it.
I think that's what most people will do, and I think that's how most people will think. It would matter not at all. Maybe you should start doing it, although you have now painted yourself in a corner where you'd look hypocritical if you did.
By the way, I really liked Beta 3 of FireFox. I think the new huge back button and small forward button look unbalanced and less attractive than beta 3. And I wish you would do the emacs editing characters like Safari (and other MacOS X Cocoa) applications do. It seems funny that open source is the birthplace of the emacs editor and yet evil, closed-source Apple does the emacs command keys so beautifully and you do not :-(.
D
Please visit my site at www.gnalk.com
I disabled apples software update program.
Also, if I recall I was able to opt out of installing the Apple Software Update utility when I installed iTunes the last time on my PC at work.
And since we are talking about things that software makers should or shouldn't do with their products, why is the default search page for the Google engine in Firefox a specialized, Firefox-branded version instead of the real Google page?
Only a small segment of the market is going to take Firefox to teach Microsoft and Apple a lesson in corporate greed and fair play. The rest are simply going to use the easiest, most full featured and reliable browser.
For goodness sake, fight your battle in the market by offering the best product with the best features at the best cost with outstanding marketing and quit with the whining and the lawsuits and the claims of unfair business practices - it is fatiguing.
PS: I now have all three Browsers installed: FF, IE, SAF. And...just because someone installs some crappy piece of software on my machine does not mean I will necessarily use it.
For starters, that is not the "iTunes updater", it's Apple Software Update. Apple always uses it to offer updates and new free software through it.
The software is extremely explicit in what it is installing. Not only do you see an obvious list of exactly what software components are being offered to install, each one also has a more detailed description if you're unsure. Finally, the "Install" button itself also notes exactly how many pieces of software you're installing.
Furthermore, any user can very simply set any install to "ignore" and never be prompted again. Yes, I said *never*, not "tomorrow" as is the case with Widows Updater.
You can also turn off auto-checking for updates as well, both from within the installer or in scheduled tasks in the control panels.
And let me say this one more time so it's clear... it will NOT install any software without the users explicit permission.
Others have already pointed out that this is a common practice with software like Google's Toolbar, which is offered as an install in a number of other unrelated installers, and those provide no actual information as to what the software is if the user doesn't know.
If Apple was only listing an iTunes update and then suddenly installing Safari as well without telling you, then this would be a story. The way it's being handled right now though by Apple is completely reasonable.
2) Does the installation of this software preclude the installation or use of other, competing, browsers?
3) Does the installation make Safari the 'default' browser?
SInce the answer to all these questions is "no" this is very much a tempest in a teapot.
The main thrust of the argument is that Apple is misleading it's customers, and doing something that is "clearly wrong". That is false. Here's why:
1) Apple cannot ASSUME that a machine on which iTunes is installed also has a working browser installed. It also cannot assume that a third-party browser such as Firefox will continue to be up-to-date and standards-compliant. Of course, I myself have no doubt of this. But that doe not mean Apple, or I, can ASSUME this to be the case, because neither Apple nor I have any control over what you do, or over the future direction or support of Firefox.
2) iTunes will from time to time need a working browser on the same computer for certain functions. (iTunes on my Mac has opened up a Safari window now and again.) That means that Safari, while probably not integral for iTunes operations, is at least ancillary to it. iTunes needs to make certain assumptions about how that browser works, and it cannot make such assumptions unless it makes that broswer itself.
3) As far as "misleading" the publi is concerned, there is such a thing as "too much information". While software mavens may live and die for these things, Joe User (remember him?) just wants it to work. Apple knows better than to make Joe User sit through a lecture HE DOES NOT WANT regarding why he really ought to allow Safari to be installed. Apple merely offers the option, calling it an 'upgrade' rather than a new install because, from Apple's POV, adding Safari can be argued to be an 'upgrade' of iTunes. This is especially true if Apple intends to build in iTunes-centric features into the browser at a later date.
You should have given his issue some real thought before this needlessly inflammatory post. Apple is not doing anything to crowd out Firefox installations. They are merely installing a competing browser.
What are you REALLY concerned about here?
I am a die-hard Apple fanatic and drink the koolaid every day, but the company needs to stop using iTunes as a vector to force Safari onto Windows.
Safari is an excellent browser on a mac, but they should let Firefox do its thing in Windows-Land and help capture more marketshare from IE for the sake of web standards.
I was really angry when Steve Jobs showed that ridiculous pie-chart during WWDC that projected Safari eating into Firefox share of the browser market.
Apple should reconsider this move. iTunes is running the risk of becoming the bonzi buddy on Windows if they keep this up.
"3) Does the installation make Safari the ‘default’ browser?" In fact it can become the default browser if you make the wrong selection during the Safari installation.
"1) Apple cannot ASSUME that a machine on which iTunes is installed also has a working browser installed." I have yet to see any system capable of running iTunes 7.6.1 not have a web browser. Please give an example of such a system.
I have to believe that installing Safari is a little subversive. Apple must be able to retrieve more user metrics, otherwise why install it? Out of the goodness of Apple's heart? There was a time when Netscape charged for a web browser.
shame on you apple.. tought you were better than this
Kelson I hate to point out that your data is woefully outdated. You should check out the numbers of Safari 3.1. Please take a look at the test that compares the current version of Safari to Firefox you will see that in some test Safari does out perform the beta version of FireFox. With the final release of FireFox will we see a performance increase or decrease? That remains to be seen. The beta version of Safari out preformed the final release. So who is to say that what we see in the Beta is what we will get. And any informed person knows that.
Do you know who also does this? Google! When you update SUN's Java stuff, it wants to install Google Desktop. And who pays you guys? Google (at least you get a lot money for the google start page)! So be quite!
For full disclosure, I'm a former Windows geek who recently became a Linux geek. I'm not crazy about IE or Safari or Opera or Firefox; but my general ambivalence has settled on Firefox, mostly because it's truly-free software, and I might as well support the free software movement a little.
I think this is a no-brainer: if you're going to do something unconventional or unexpected, you should leave the option disabled by default. You should have to opt-in to mailings, not opt-out. You should have to opt-in to software, not opt-out.
Safari users: what if Microsoft tried to do the same trick to you? Let's suppose that next year, MS Office comes up with some hard-to-crack proprietary format, and your workplace switches to it, so you feel the need to install MS Office for Mac. Let's also suppose that Microsoft also tries to do WMP and IE on OSX in the meanwhile. And let's further suppose that, whenever the MS update prompt comes around, you have to tell it explicitly, "No, I don't want you to install Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer."
I understand that it would be bad enough to install MS Office. But wouldn't it be *worse* if you had to constantly and consciously opt-out of those updates? Can we all agree that it should be opt-in, not opt-out, if you're trying to install new software on someone's computer?
Sure, it's can be handled with just a mouse click. And spam can be handled with just a press of a delete key. And a bad search engine link can be handled by any number of "Back" shortcuts that exist for the various browsers -- mouse gestures or backspace keys or what have you. These are just little things, but they undermine faith in installers, email, search engines, and so on. (Hell, Google is only a giant today because it had fewer bad search engine links than every other major search engine a couple years ago.)
However, to talk about this in terms of an abuse or being terrible or being wrong is a bit over the top. With the prevalence of spam and viruses, no one should just automatically click "Download" or "Install" without reading what they are downloading/installing and thinking about whether they really want to do that. Apple has some responsibility but so does the consumer.
Now I go all the way back with apple all the way back to the apple ][ (still have it and sometimes still play some of the games). But my not being able to just load and play the new nano means if will go into the junk pile and most likely not see the light of day ever again.
Now I understand why the IPhone owners are still so upset with Apple. Such a waste for a once very good vendor. Apple has certainly come way down since the late 70's. To bad that. I will certainly not buy or recommend Apple products to family and friends (and to everyone) who asks my technical and professional opinion.
Old news...imagine how much more effective this blog entry would have been if you had discovered this on the day it showed up for the rest of us.
It seems like CEOs and their executive teams don't discover even conspicuous trends or features until their children key them into it (Verizon CEO as an example - the phones we have are basically whatever his daughter likes). The results are insane - every product we have is geared towards tweens basically the biggest consumers in the US market.
Hey guys - hows abouts you 'live the life' instead of trying to figure out the 'the life' is?
Software _companies_ *and* trust is a little bit fishy. Have a look at http://www.lafkon.net/tc/ for a very good defenition of trust(ed computing). That is a bit different for products completly obtainable in source code.
Greetings,
Drizzt
2) After running Software Update, if you don't want the available UPGRADE/INCLUSION of Safari then uncheck it and move on... so what.
Safari is clearly offered, not snuck in. It doesn't change preferences for default browser, or home page. Gee Whiz, it takes up a few MB of disk space...and may facilitate some ease-of-use with an iPhone or iTouch down the road...
so what?
After installing 3 copies of Windows on friends machines in the last 2 weeks I've seen numerous attempts via FireFox, the Adobe Reader, and others to install Google and Yahoo Toolbars and extras. They are offered in EXACTLY the same way as Safari is: a checkbox in an unrelated installer/updater. They have the exact same motivation - to reach people that otherwise wouldn't experience/see/try the tools. And, they are all easily removed.
So, unless you want to start attacking the marketing of Google and Yahoo! software, then shut your pie holes...
This thread is filled with whiney hypocritical freetards ;)
I had never tried Safari, but this morning i am writing this message via Safari as opposed to Firefox after last nights offered 'update' and my curiosity.
However, having discovered Safari is using 4 times the system resources compared to Firefox to run this same page, my curiosity has been fulfilled.
My point is that casual un-informed home Windows users will for the most part now have Safari asking them if it should 'remain' their defualt web browser.
- The issue is more than just Company F is hating on Company A.
- The issue is more than just Company M did it, so Company A can do it too.
- The issue is more than just, "Oh, those stupid people should just learn how to uncheck a stupid box." (Remember: it's those "stupid" people that constitute the majority of the demand for computer products, which in turn run the entire market. Without them, the market crashes, and things get REALLY expensive for the small portion of us that are the "enlightened ones" who can read and uncheck those stupid boxes.)
Regardless of who did what and when to whom, the core issues are:
- What is ethical and unethical, what is right and wrong?
- What implications do these small decisions have on the bigger picture?
If a person is not willing to at least partially think through these questions without bias toward one company/program or another, then frankly their opinion lacks value and substance. They are just a good example of why our forefathers made our country a Democratic Republic, and not a Direct Democracy.
Okay, enough with the philosophical shtuff... If anybody wants to look at an example of a good update system, look at Lenovo's ThinkVantage System Update. Apple could learn a good lesson from Lenovo.
http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-softwa...
Uninstall the Apple Software Update and everything is fine.
BTW: The german version of Safari 3.1 for Windows XP didn´t work on my PC. This browser is crap. See my german description:
http://www.dieter-welzel.de/blog/final-safari-3...
Mozilla Firefox is a nice browser (mainly for Firebug), but it's a memory hog and slow.
Apple has a fast and lean browser which could very well be dangerous for Mozilla, so I guess the main reason for this piece is not consideration for the user, but business.
I'd rather live in an Apple world than in a Mozilla world after all.
At least, Apple is not a corporation that tries to hide it's sometimes evil self behind some kind of foundation smoke-and-mirror game.
They are more honest than Mozilla for that reason.
Highly relevant blog post: "The Power of Defaults".
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/00029...
"For most users, the default value is the only value."
> at least Safari is standards compliant
Complete drivel. You don't know what you're talking about.
> And if you really have a problem with viruses and malware and spyware on your computer, then please get a Mac or something else and stop whining about it, please.
More drivel.
Apple fanboys, please get an education before you vomit the kool-aid on the rest of us.
Pure bloatware
I've seen someone trying to watch a 30-second video clip on a web site, and finding that it required QuickTime. They go to the Apple site and there's no sign of a QuickTime download, but there is "QuickTime + iTunes" - so they download that. After downloading many megabytes of iTunes that they didn't want, they then find their entire hard drive is being scanned for audio files and they're being connected to the Apple store to purchase music.
Remember, in the first place they just wanted to watch a short movie on a web site...
The person I'm describing isn't stupid - they're just busy, and trusting that the default options are the best/safest options.
Apple abuses customer trust and wastes customer time by these sort of tactics. They deserve to be criticised.
The only reason we have to swallow "updates" is because the software is dangerously defective. Leveraging defects to shovel other products is sick, and creates a perverse incentive. "Nice computer you have here - it would be a pity if our software defects put it risk, so you'd better accept everything we shove at you".
The purpose of vendor-pushed updates is to increase the safety of the system by closing exploitable code defects. Shoving in extra risk surfaces goes against that purpose.
So we have a choice of:
- avoiding Appleware, and ?blocking it from installing
- using some Appleware but killing auto-updates
- swallowing everything Apple wants to shove at us
Apple has a lot to learn about safety; known exploitable defects in QuickTime stayed unpatched for months, and Safari was fount to contain multiple exploitable defects as soon as it went widespread on the Windows platform. I certainly don't want Safari stealthed into systems, given its track record.
This seems more like a case of someone getting their toes stepped on (Mozilla) and ranting with slander ("Malware") rather than facts. Apple is pushing it's Safari software, but it's not requiring users to install it in their iTunes update.
Anyone can *easily* uncheck the install box and Apple even puts "Install 2 Items" as the button name, so it's really giving the user all the information they need here...
So, by referring to this as the tactics of malware, are you insinuating that Firefox users aren't smart enough to uncheck a box? I find that rather condescending, to be honest.
do you really think the users are so stupid they will install safari without looking ?? maybe yes in some cases it will happen , nevertheless do not be worry... we use whatever browser offers the best features and works faster .
At least Apple gives you the option to not install the browser. The fact is that even if you install safari, again the user need to decide whether to use it or not, give us some credit...
it is not forced onto us as Microsoft used to do to windows users..
..but this over-the-top outburst has left a bad taste in my mouth regarding Firefox. Maybe I'll give Safari on Windows another look. grrr!!
if some one uses safari instead of you're fav browser. the possibility is there that due to the itunes install you're computer gets infected.
Best comment so far, by torossian (03.22.08 / 9pm):
"iTunes is running the risk of becoming the bonzi buddy on Windows if they keep this up." lol
Smart people use a MAC... end of story.
Apple is by no means the only, or the first, company to do this...
- install = opt-in
- upgrade = opt-out
For the record: I use Firefox on Linux because I hate tactics like MS and now Apple are forcing upon it's users.
Only smart people use machines that use up-to-date technology. Even after apply finally started using Intel processors; MACs are still slower and more expensive than PCs.
Steve Jobs thinks he can do things in whatever way he wants, but forcing Safari over users is a sign of weakness.
I personally have IE, Firefox and Safari on my PC and I can tell you each one of them have advantages, but Firefox 2 is superior, but IE 8 is coming and I heard it is going to kick some serious butt.
I guess this is an IQ test here... Force implies that you can't uncheck the box for safari... I guess maybe some people are not smart enough to figure that one out. Even if you do install it there is nothing forcing you to use it. If you understood how market share is figured up you would know that it is determined by which browsers are used not which ones are installed.
Actually, it's been proven that Windows actually runs faster on a Mac.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3...
Not only Apple, but every update will be checked, and customers will not want to update somethings, due this.
Apple has destroy trust
Sorry
I think the bottom line is that, regardless of the complaints, we can expect to see an eloquent explanation from Steve Jobs within the next few days, which will be enough to make some 60% of people who downloaded Safari decide to keep it. It may not be completely ethical, but it works.
i've read a few comments in here and elsewhere that MS does this as well. last i checked Windows Updates shovels things like Media Player 11 into the "Software, Optional" area of which NOTHING is checked without user intervention as opposed to their "High Priority" updates. IE7 was released overall as a security/bug fix package from IE6 and by that deserved classification as a "High Priority" update. no different with Mozilla prompting upon each release of FF. Safari in this case is a "Software, Optional" item as is iTunes and should not be pushed like this.
however, all that said, my friends and i have a saying with Apple --> we're just not thinking differently enough!
I'm constantly surprised to see that Firefox has already installed new updates without giving me a choice.
Perhaps you ought to focus closer to home before complaining about your neighbour.
Even looking into your browser speed would be helpful.
Due to the speed and interface difference, I now use Safari
in preference to Firefox
on Windows as well as on the Mac.
Cheers,
Matthew
Honestly, Microsoft has been fined billions upon billions of dollars for violating anti-trust and EU regulations with Vista and XP, and yet you remain loyal MS customers and you complain about a simple Apple opt-out??
Something is seriously wrong with you people!
Mozilla is creating a big stink over nothing. Show a pattern of abuse and then you have a real story. This could be a simple release mistake. We will know in time.
Moreover, as some previous commenters have said -- Mozilla should focus more on making a better browser than jumping to conclusions about distribution tactics of a competitor.
Safari does indeed outperform Firefox. Obviously so. This is a credit to not just Apple but also to the KDE team.
Or just change to an operating system where you can just use ONE updater rather than one per piece of software. Or do both ;)
So I would go as far as saying that people got what they paid for. If you don't wanna put up with crap just don't install it, get rid of iTunes and if that breaks your iPod return it for refund :)
A little humour to star with:
For years, the following motto was right:
a cat is a cat ...
a dog is a dog ...
a PC is a PC
an APPLE is an APPLE
an updater is an updater...
an installer is an installer...
Now, thanks to Apple:
An updater (software) is now an installer (software) ..
An APPLE is now A PC ...
What a pity ...
Just wondering is my cat is still a cat,..
OK, now the serious stuff ...
I read all the post and I was blast by several comments:
- Safari is 3 times better than ... YEAH, MINE IS LONGER THAN YOURS !!! Bad luck, safari was the sneaky software this time (and BONJOUR was the safari's own sneaky software). TOO BAD. I was very happy to test safari againts others browser in order to make my own tought. NOW, because of this sneaky practice, safari will always be mark as the "unwanted pieces of non-updates software from apple"...too bad, as i say. Any other pieces of software coming in this sneaky way would suffer the same comment.
- MS used to did that, so apple have the right to do it: YEAH, HITLER used to kill jew, so do I ... He did it, so do I. This 4th grade comment is just a pityfull excuse from apple consumers who simply feels ashame from apple's misconduct, abd use this pityfull excuse to ease their pain. Apple becoming MS ... what a nightmare for them.
IMPORTANT NOTE HERE: I am a JEW, so don't bother going politic here, i could have use same stuff between Isreal and lebanon, chineses and tibet, reds ants and black ants. I did it, so do you ... well, be smart ( for once ).
- Comparing an "error coding (horror coding)" who give you no choice then shutting down your PC for updates, ruining your day of working and this kind of "horror" marketing using intantional misleading between UPDATES and INSTALL, this is been either blind or stupid, or both of them. We are not talking code errors, but marketing error. My grand'pa used a hammer and a stone, and never suffer bugs or shutdown ... lets get back to it.
- Updates, force Updates, Install ... THIS IS THE REAL POINT.
I read someone complaining about firefox FORCING the install for an update. Yes, this is half true. The security update are force to you, if you have version 2.5.11 and version 2.5.13 is available, you don't have any choice than accept it. But this is still version 2.5. Not version 3, or 4. This is exactly what i expecte for an updater. I READ the buzz for the push between IE6 and 7. OK, the first attemp was an marketing error, and MS corrected the shot. But now, my answer is very simple, this is still IE. Whatever the number. IE6 is out-of-date, IE7 soon to be ... So, the UPDATE is NORMAL. IE version 6 was installed, IE version was the update (you like it or not is not the question, 7 come after 6, 8 will come soon, don't talk about 9 ... or 10) further more: change name for safari, and reread. DO the same with the name opera ... the logic stick to it, and is TRUE
NOW, updating IE (or any sofware) and getting softwareX with the normal update, this is the point here !!! This is ABNORMAL.
- Tick box, eula, small caracters on a contract ... yeah, human stupidity is, and will always be used ... I don't elaborate further, because my 4th grade remarks stick to the point here !!!
- Deceiptive Software Companies ... well, politics, marketing, money. Do you thing the apple would have been better if the snake used a christmas box when Eve took it ?? feeling like a snake, mister Jobs ???? To tell you the trhuth, long ago, i made up my mind and put MS and Apple in the same (garbage) bag, who was already fill with several other company name ...
- Does Firefox betters than Safari ? Does IE7 sucks ? Does Vista (or MACOS, Or linux, Or my brand new car) a piece of Sxxx ... Unfortunatly, some of the people here miss the point between updates/distribution of software behaviors and the MINE IS LONGER stuff ... Again, pityfull, because the question was and still is important. This is the thrustworthy question. Can I still be confident in my software dealer ??? (wife, son's, neigbours, doctor ...)
Just think about it ...
BE SMART PEOPLE ....
Have you found WMD in IRAK ??
What is happening in Tibet ??
.... THINK !!!
If you use MacOS.. I guess it's preinstalled and unremovable like IE on Windows?
Of course if you join the free software world you no longer have to put up with this kinda crap ;)
- smart people ... are smart, whatever they use as a computer. People who are not smart make stupid comments about them in order to try to be smart ...
- silverlight software is a core components for IE, in order to use some specifics fonctionality from microsoft.com site ... as the winupdate process is using microsoft.com server, you have to update this core components. (same thing for your car, leaded or unleaded gaz, now you don't have choice).
- WGA is NOT a software. This is an anti-piracy component. People complaining about it are, most of the time complainig because they are pirats ...
- And, ho yeah, i fully agree about the 100k updates instead of the 65M. Hopefully, the 56k era is now over, but what a waste of bandewith ...
In my country, education and Politeness are the same word.
If you wanted to be harsh, Bravo, you did it ...
Again, the snart people stuff....
Einstein said one, silence is sometime better than words ... maybee you did not see my apoligie at the beginning of the text ....
Anyway, if i am wrong about you thoughts, i , again, apologies.
My question is, why ask me if you're going to ignore them anyway? It this kind of practice that undermines users trust.
It is all Apple's fault.
I feel for those who have accidentally installed Safari - that is annoying; but let's not forget there is an option. Those people reading this blog are smart enough to avoid the problem or to rectify it. Those that blindly click OK whenever it pops up on their screen have worse things on their computers than Safari.
If Mozilla remains "trustworthy" this move by Apple won't do anything but help them. So let's call this blog entry what it really is: a cleverly veiled jab at a competitor with no other intention than to sing your own praises.
where the pc guy is bloated by unwanted crapware. this is the way pcs get crapwares; from competition itself!
Get over it. What difference does it make? If you don't want the update (on install) just uncheck the box!
It's time for people to stop moaning and groaning over something as trivial as this. If you don't want to use iTunes (which was a godsend to so many when it first came out) and/or Quicktime, uninstall it all and go with something else. Have people become so lazy and pacified that even this is too much effort?
This is business people...plain and simple. Get over or get on with your lives. There are more important things happening in the world than Apple's auto-checking Safari on your update screens!
I figured out a way of disabling the current version of Safari from appearing on the update list through a .REG file, might be beneficial to some smaller companies. Info here: http://dcunningham.net/2008/03/25/disabling-app...
And Safari is clearly inferior to Firefox (addons) and Opera (widgets) feature-wise, interface-wise and security-wise.
Apple have been 'offering' free software as part of their update service for ages.
After buying Quicktime Pro I was offered iTunes when the update program next farted itself on my screen. No thank you, said I. But at the next update, there it was again...
Sorry Apple fanbois, but the update service is yet another example of Microsoft being better than Apple.
It appears that you have lost the ability to discern unethical behaviour. That's why you don't 'understand' anything. Apple has been abusing it's users for so long that you guys don't even recognise when it's happening to you anymore. You guys rant and rave about MS abusing us but you're the one's with the ball and chain around your ankles. PC users don't need or trust MS, we just use them if we feel like it. Any PC user has the option of deleting XP or Vista from their drives and using something else. You Apple fools have no other choice - deleting OSX turns your gear into tomorrow mornings garbage pile. You have to use OSX with whatever internal hardware Steve decides he wants to sell you. And to make matters worse, your only escape from being tied to OSX is XP? Which must STILL be dual booted with OSX!!!...That's what you call freedom???. Microsoft doesn't pick my hardware or operating system for me like I'm some child with apple seeds for brains. So if you don't see ethical considerations here go complain to your supreme god jobs and beg for your mind back.
Software vendors (Apple is not the only one) but in this case Apple, is shoving a plate of Safari under my nose when I only need QT. This practice makes my computer bloated and slow. Now Apple will repeatedly suggest the installation of a browser the same as the suggested install of Itunes+QT. I want a lean software install because it is easier to manage and be productive. I don't want anyone to increase my Spam target profile. Already it steals productivity time out of my workday. Apple is wrong in treating us all like hungry kids when we are not. I don't care how delicious the food.
I think that this whole post is bogus. People do need to look and see what they are updating/installing. The Title of the prompt is "Apple Software Update". Shift your paradigm, think about it like this: Updating you on new and upcoming Apple software.
Why do so many people have such a problem with Apple offering FREE software. If you don't want to use it then it'll just sit there taking up a whopping 15MB of space.
Microsoft got slammed for it Tactics, this is even WORSE...
Jon
In OS X, the Software Updater automatically checks all available updates. It is the responsibility of the user to actually read what is written on the screen right in front of them before clicking the "install" button.
All Apple is doing is offering Windows users a chance to try out another first-class browser. Does Safari scare you THAT MUCH?
You can't update something that was never there to begin with. They could have just announced Safari in the HTML section of the window and provide a LINK to the download instead. That way the user can find out what exactly is different about this browser instead of just being informed that it's faster and therefore better ( as if speed alone can make you the best browser...how stupid is that)
Of the five browsers that i now have, only Safari is crashable (eg. try using CNN Live video and watch Safari die each time). And while Safari renders fast, it's not even as fast as Flock, which has far more features and uses less ram. It can compete with IE7 features-wise but it's totally outclassed by Opera, FF2 and Flock. And if i had to choose between IE7 and safari i'd go with IE7 without a second thought, since that's my online banking browser, and IE7 has anti-phishing while Safari will send you straight to the fake site...What were the developers smoking? Safari reminds me too much of IE6 in that respect.
Please don't tell me you like the Safari browser because it's simply laid out...if using FF and Opera cause you brain fatigue then you might as well be in a coma. If that gray featureless browser passes for first class in the Mac world then you guys are living in 2005. Designers of Safari didnt even have the sense to put the web page icons on the tabs so that they wouldn't all LOOK THE SAME. And Safari is the ONLY browser without auto scroll...WTF? No, safari doesnt scare anyone in the PC world...to us watching Safari try to compete is like watching Jay Leno in action. Really Cracks me up!
I switched from windows to mac 8 years ago and I'm glad I did.I love macs, but I'm having doubts about apple.
It just seems to me that Apple is slowly becoming more and more predatory along the lines of the evil empire. In the 8 years i've had a mac, i've seen dozens of improvements in the OS made by copying shareware programs. Os 10 is becoming bloatware and every time a new gimmick is added to it, it becomes easier to screw it up.
I would love to have a new iMac ,but not with a reflective monitor. The powers that be at apple are in love with glossy screens and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere.
My solution will be to replace my monitor with a really Top grade 21inch, add memory to my G5 and Apple will lose a sale.
A Mac user will say "But it's done on OSX so it must be ok"...
A PC user will say "We don't care because we want it done our way".
The PC is independent. The Mac is wholely dependent.
The ultimate motto of the Mac user has become " I don't understand..."..thats the cry of a faded mind...the mind of a child. The concepts outlined here in this blog are of the type that children cannot understand. Hence the dillemma for Mac users.
Est-ce de la mauvaise foi de leur part, ou de la jalousie ? Ce qui est sûr, c'est que le Safari d'Apple vient leur faire de l'ombre, et que cette indignation tapageuse et hypocrite sonne plutôt comme une manoeuvre contre-publicitaire savamment orchestrée
This is not the first time that a company rides on the popularity of other software. Does anyone complain when they install Adobe products with the option to install Adobe Acrobat with any of those installations? How about Macromedia (back in the day) with their flash plugin with any of their products?
And please don't get me started on Microsoft.
The fact is there are no business ethics being broken here. Only a mild threat to another great browser (Firefox) that rubbed John the wrong way.
Apple should:
1. Change the name - Apple optional software and updates
2. Add a tab to their interface differentiating between updates and optional software.
3. Not check optional software for installation by default.
Then you have something very important for your customers: transparency.
That's a very poor showing, Apple. Who made this abominable decision?
As a client, when I read what is written in the screen that comes up on Windows XP if Ive got iTunes installed, I would automatically try the Apple Browser, But then I will compare the difference with the Mozilla and whould, then, choose the better of course. So I think that's the opinion of all the people, I think "MOZILLA IS THE BEST".
NICE WORK and GOOD LUCK FOR THE FUTURE
2 NEW SECURITY FLAWS FOUND IN SAFARI...AGAIN....that can allow hackers to TAKE OVER computers running Safari 3.1. As predicted, Apple has, yet again, managed to make users computers less secure by pushing new security holes unto windows PCs using their updater (how quick can you say Quicktime??) That's what happens when you just assume you are totally flawless even though nobody's testing your metal...prior to the 3.1 release there were 13 critical security flaws in Safari! Only God knows if they fixed them all in 3.1...LOOKS LIKE HACKERS WILL BE GOING ON A SAFARI!!!
Apple has introduced too much malware to Windows in the last two years for me to trust their developers. If it were not for the open source people adding to their OS I doubt Apple would even have an OS anymore.
I've seen Firefox bundled with many products, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.
An update is supposed to be an UPDATE to EXISTING software, not an installer of new unwanted software. Of course all users with some intelligence will uncheck the box, but it's still bad practice (and that other companies has done it too does NOT make it justified).
Bundled software is not the same thing either, when you're installing new software everyone probably knows that new software will be installed (doh), and therefore takes more notice of available options in the installer.. When using an update application however, users would expect it to just install updates to existing software, and not try to force new software onto the computer.
But I guess Apple fans are so in love with the company that they will accept every move they make and every piece of software being forced on them from Apple...
as iTunes currently uses the extremely crappy and slow windows built-in IE.
there is no doubt in my mind that the future iTunes will be based around Safari and parts of cocoa/core graphics (OpenGL/Directx is all possible)
"I’ve seen Firefox bundled with many products, but I don’t see anyone complaining about that."
Actually if you see Firefox bundled with a single product (other than an OS) you need to complain very loudly to both the bundler and to Mozilla. Firefox is a standalone product and is never provided in any other way, except when you're installing a Linux distribution. But then I wouldn't trust Firefox from anyone but Mozilla because you never know what they change in it. Even some Linux distros change Firefox enough that I question whether it should even be called Firefox anymore.
Topic? An updater should only be used for updating, not marketing. Otherwise you just piss off the end user and end up making them not want o use any of your products.
Loved the bit about Apple "stealing" from open-source for example... when really the story has been exactly the opposite for the last 10 or so years. People have been crying out for open-source alternatives to commercial products. Everyone loves free. The free as in perpetually zero-cost of acquisition, not the free as in free to inspect and enhance. But people want the open source alternative/equivalent of commercial stuff all the time.
You don't hear people accusing Ming (open-source project) of stealing from Adobe. Although, Adobe might have a different opinion of that.
I'm an open-source contributor, but hear the difference in rhetoric. When someone takes a commercial idea (or something very close to a commercial implementation) it's called an "alternative". If Apple were actually to implement some UI concept from e.g., beryl or Looking Glass, it would be called "theft"?
If you really want to be accurate, everyone steals from everyone. It's called competition. Take the Pepsi Challenge, and if you like Coke better, who cares?
It's not particularly constructive dialogue, but blogs are a sandbox for punditry.
Back on topic:
Rehashing what I said before: John was right to call out Apple on this thing, but until Apple demonstrates a pattern of behavior (ie, more than one occurrence) can you jump to any conclusions what the intent might be? No.
After all, Microsoft was given that benefit of the doubt for a long while, and only the EU is holding them truly accountable. Maybe the EU will do the same with Apple if this has merit. First, before a case can be brought, there has to be demonstrated and repeated intent to deceive or mislead or "abuse the trust" (as John put it) with the consumer. I don't believe we are seeing that here. It may be a tactical mistake. If Apple does it again, maybe not, and the pressure on them should rightly build.
One step at a time.
"This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. It's bowling. There are rules." -- Walter Sobchak
What a con.. Apple are playing on the fact that people dont think before clicking.. so "grabbing" their market share unfairly.
ALSO the tactic used by Adobe with their Photoshop Album edition when people download Photoshop.
Should be illegal I think. Bundling crap with other programs just to "bump the users base numbers".
Safari 3.1 is being pushed to operating systems that DON"T SUPPORT IT!!!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1621&tag...
Safari for windows only functions in XP and Vista yet persons who run windows 2000 are prompted to install the software along with everyone else running the installer..when they do try to install it the process fails...so why are they receiving it in the first place?...talk about oversight...i don't think it can get any clearer that using their quicktime+Itunes installer in this manner is wrong.
Tribe:
I think that you might find this to be worth reading all the way to the end.
I am sure that you recall that Safari murdered my computer last week. Here is what I first posted in the faculty's technical help forum:
Author: Rick Bagby
Posted date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:34:24 PM EDT
Last modified date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:34:24 PM EDT
Total views: 13 Your views: 5
Next Post ›
I am typing this message on my son's left-over, Windows 98, prone-to-crashing-and/or-unexpected-freezing, nine-year-old e-machine. Why?
I installed Safari last night on my computer that I bought in October and tried to remove it this evening because it had affected the general operation of the machine, especially in terms of speed.
When I downloaded Safari, all kinds of nefarious crud also came with it, stuff that could not be removed or deleted. I removed what I could, and, knowing a bit about computers, was extremely careful at each step,
No go. My computer died, and, as I type this, I am running the repair feature of the installation disk. With luck, I will not have to format the hard drive and re-install everything.
Don't even think about Safari.
Rick
Here is Skip Zalneraitis's reply:
Rick-
I'm not sure how Apple can be so far off the mark with Safari for the PC. I also don't know enough to understand how it can be so limited in usefulness with BlackBoard.
Did you do your download from the Apple site?
-Skip
Here is my reply:
Yes, it came straight from Apple, and a program called "Bonjour" came along with it. Even though I never opened it, attempting to remove it from my computer's hard drive seems to be what caused the real problems. Of course, it could be that Safari was the real culprit. I don't know.
All I know for sure is that my computer became an electronic corpse, and I had to reformat the hard drive, and I lost data.
Rick
And, now, for the good stuff. I posted the item below in the faculty Water Cooler a few minutes ago:
Last week, I posted a note in *progress* about my downloading Safari and discovering not only that it was not compatible with BB73 but also that other programs were downloaded with it, completely unknown to me. Attempting to remove Safari and the other programs - especially Bonjour - resulted in a complete computer failure, and I had to reformat the entire hard drive.
This morning, the following appeared in Kim Komando's News of the Day:
"Flaws discovered in latest Safari release ... Security firm Secunia has discovered critical flaws in Safari for Windows. Among other things, the Web browser is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution. Additionally, Windows users have complained that Safari crashes often."
The title, "Flaws discovered in latest Safari release," was the link in the original email. Here's the url for the entire article: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle...
Essentially, one could say that downloading Safari is a bad trip.
I hope that this post is of value to you.
Mr. B
While you can select to ignore certain updates, this preference is reset with every new minor update, a most irritating behavior.
It's high time Apple listened, and made their updater concentrate on updates and not a trojan horse for every product.
I have nothing against Firefox..it's a nice browser ruined only by the ability to add garbage to it. This leads to instability and enormous memory usage.
Apple is simple, streamlined and speedy. That's why I love my Safari. Mozilla could learn a lot from Apple. Why not have a Cocoa version for the Mac.
All this garbage about being open source and allowing users to do what they want with their browsers can only lead to one thing....instability followed by bankruptcy.
I intend to delete my Apple updater. This is disgusting.
add an option to the apple update, with a checkbox called:-
Check for updates of other software.
Easy...
Firsly people wrongly flame Mr Lilly for voicing his opinion, one which i think (in this instance) is honest, genuine and not fueled my disdain for a mediocre non-threat buggy piece of software like Safari.
Secondly, despite comments that people who cant make the best decision from the update dialog shouldnt be using a computer, they do. A fact companies such as Apple are well aware as they talk about getting older markets to use computers more, isn't that the whole principle behind OSX being easy to use and user friendly? Otherwise why don't you have to take an aptitude test before buying a computer? The same people who claim this are probably the same people who'd go crazy about a check box on a form called "share my email address with anyone willing to pay" being ticked by default despite installing safari being vastly more dangerous (Mac Air hacked in 2 minutes anyone?)
I have a touch. it is brilliant, I love it. The Safari browser is great on this device but occassionally flakey. There I was playing my poker tournament ($24 entry doing really well equity of about $120) and the updater pops up. Brill I think an update for my i-touch and i-tunes. Busy as can be trying to win $215 so I let it do its thing. It has worked before, Apple are a great company and Safari is something I want updating on my touch. Takes a while, I even forget about it.
Bang no wireless. Hopping mad, blame my router, blame Microsoft restart everything. It is an hour later that I work out my router is fine but the Apple update has installed **** on my PC, not for I-Tunes or my Touch but knackered my wireless.
No probs, uninstall I thought. Nah no uninstall option. No wizard no nothing. Here I am days later still furious sitting on a beanbag with a blue cable going to my "wireless" router.
Malware - yes. Dishonest - yes. Windows users overreacting I don't think so. Steve you owe me $120 and an hour of my life (plus the time on this post and the time yet to come fixing the damn thing). PAY UP!!!
So I decided to uninstall any Apple software all together, so I wouldn't be bothered again. Alternative quicktime hasn't even been installed and I have no problems playing any media.
Thanks John Lilly for pointing out another flaky side of Apple. No i-products for me thank-you.
There I talk about how MS has done basically the same thing to propagate its new SilverLight.
Bad business; bad blood.
Couldn't have said it much better. Some of the apple fanboys are apparently near brain-dead level and needs to learn starting from kindergarten. They totally can't understand what update and installing brand new software means.
Why do Apple feels the need to make Safari opt-out only instead of the other way around? It's because Safari is a poor excuse of a browser (OSX interface... a joke, no security what so ever when not using OSX, and lack any worthwhile feature) and in some way, even worse than IE7. Steve Jobs knows his browser sucks, that's why he bundled this crap with iTune.
Not to mention the Apple Software Update nags about once a day if you don't install Safari.
If Microsoft does this (again), Apple fanboys would jump in arm once again. Show how much of a hypocrites/losers you guys are.
Safari shouldn't appear there if I don't have a Safari already installed in my computer. This is an updater, PERIOD.
If I want any other software form apple, I go to their webpage.
And they can say iTunes is free, but hey... the iPod users need to use iTunes, they paid for their iPods, and they have to swallow iTunes as well... and this annoying way they're trying to introduce a new software by using an update tool.
I have an iPod, I have to use iTunes.. and absolutely no, I don't trust the updater anymore.
oktks.
Mozilla makes choices for Firefox users by selecting Google as the default search engine (for which Mozilla receives money) and for setting the default privacy settings to allow Google to build profiles on searchers.
To me this demonstrates that there is no difference between the conduct of Apple and Mozilla in principle.
There is only a difference in application, and that is perhaps quite a subjective issue.
I've been a Firefox fan for the past 7+ years. I never went back to IE once I discovered it. For the past several months though, I've been using Safari instead of Firefox (v2.0.0.13) more and more lately. It's faster and more reliable for me lately on the majority of sites I regularly visit. That being said, I still appreciate your comments on this.
I don't like getting things forced on me either. I would hope, however, that the people who are in the habit of updating their software are also in the habit of knowing what they are doing before they click "OK."
I don't know how I feel about this yet...but I have a feeling if it were related to software that wasn't a direct competitor of Firefox that this post probably never would have been written.
One more thing...I tried reading some of the comments on this post, but I had to close the window because my eyes hurt. The black background with white text was really obnoxious. Have you ever considered a switch?
I use QuickTime and I definitely didn't like the idea of being offered in their updater, and selected by default, other software that I did not install in the first place. If I wanted iTunes or Safari, I'd go to Apple's web site and get it myself.
As for Microsoft's Silverlight, that is still opt-in. If you go to Windows Update, it is under the optional section and is not selected by default.
The line could get blurry...
It's also a truism that the fellow who says "two wrongs don't make a right" is almost always the fellow who committed the first wrong.
However, if you do this, it prompts you again every time you start an apple product. There is an option to ignore it under tools but then you get prompts saying there are ignored products and do you want to "Reset ignored updates".
This is an updater, not a new product installer - if it must be there should be on an optional installs tab.
-KENT
But now Safari was set as my default browsers?? The nerve of these people..
And I'm also getting tired of uninstalling their "Apple Mobile Device" software every time iTunes updates.. I DO NOT have an iPhone (they are not even officially sold here) nor will I ever get one.. I do NOT want an application installed to support it and I also do NOT want it to run at start up!
Apple, stay away from my settings and don't install crap I don't want/need!
Well done Apple - you're a proper (sneaky, underhand) corporate now...
If the user didn't want it, the user shouldn't get it.
It hurts ... doesn't it?
Grow up!
"Safari for Windows is the fastest and easiest-to-use web browser for the PC."
Is the comment that has made me decide to *never* again buy a single Apple product. I don't like people being manipulated, and this is a premium example.
a) Where's the evidence?
b) Firefox may or may not be faster with webpages (unlike Apple, I don't like making unsubstantiated claims) but it is sure as hell faster with videos.
c) The weblink tells you what's new *since Safari v3*. No mention of this being a new program altogether. So someone who knows nothing about computers may read that and assume that it "improves pop-up blocking to work with plug-ins" and "increases site compatibility" over their standard browser (IE, or Firefox if they had someone worth their salt to set up their computer).
iTunes updates are now installing BonJour (Ad-hoc/peer-to-peer networking) which pokes a bunch of holes in my Firewall for me.
Last I knew Safari f/win has the distinction of having the largest current number of known vulnerabilites of any single app on the US-CERT security site.
At least you could wait til you fix it before trying to force feed it to me!
don't blame apple for people not paying attention to their own software.
How do I rid myself of Apple programs from my computers?
But thanks for candidly posting your thoughts.
There should be a "don't show this again" check box, it's that simple, and the programmers who can't figure that out truly are dumb as a bucket of hair.
Look people. I just had the same experience, only i guess they modified the updater because now the only option that shows up on the screen when it pops us is the iTunes update...after accepting and installing it (and refusing to immediately restart my pc) i turned away for a minute, only to look back and see the updater had not disappeared but, in fact, had revealed a new option (already checked of course) to install Safari. Hell, that's why i'm reading this page right now.
The point is...
...i just didn't install it.That simple. I understand the issues that some of you may have, but, come on. There have to be more serious issues that the CEO of Mozilla could be focusing on...
don't take this as being taught, everybody is taught wrong, that's the definition of being taught
I think of children as from conception, the true good, the true humanity. when we are conceived, we have light, that shines so bright, it can only diminish. children hold within all the truth, good, love and beauty in this world, before it is taken away. children need to be their own future
loving the environment more than children is what truly eradicates it, as compared to children, the environment is shit
loving animals more than children is what truly obliterates them, as compared to children, animals are shit
loving possessions more than children is also what's destroying true humanity, as compared to children, possessions are shit
today an adult looks at a baby and is concentrated on how their teeth are growing, yet looks at some animal, or a tree, and is filled with awe. this is wrong priority. the only adoration they have for children is how they're growing into that same thwarted reality, succumbing to evil. I just saw a short documentary where some village was being shown. First was a short frame of three children standing motionless 20 feet away, followed by three in-face close-ups on three adults. yet this thing that adults became because of loss of their true humanity, is falsely being blamed on immaturity, instead of the other way around. children are the only truly human beings. everything negative that adults say or think about children, is the opposite of truth, and the truth about adults. adults will shun and ignore children while admiring this evil which they have become
adults live in this fake, adult world of theirs, blind to the true horror that the human race is in, which they are making worse while glorifying this evil, finding awe solely in nature which they are destroying and shaming, horror that is infinitely more horrible than anything they can imagine, because they no longer know what true beauty is
so children who are "misbehaving", (and the real kind, the kind you see in the real world, not the falsified media), like attacking solely the things which have become our biggest enemies: computers, television sets, speakers, ripping apart paper, wallets, our collections etc. and looking at things like an exercise bike with joy, as exercise is healthy, they know exactly which things are good and bad for us, not the other way around
they will throw things out of the carriage or crib, desperate to be let out and followed; take off clothes showing how we need to get rid of the bonds put on us, climb furniture to show us we are truly human beings above this fake world, which adults value more, they will tell a different age or name than their own, to show us it's not what makes us, and insistently speak of animals and possessions as shit or likewise, which compared to where our real priorities lie, that adults have abandoned, those things are, and thus abandoned everything else making it turn to shit they will desperately try to make adults rid themselves of the guilt, because that evil did not come from being one's true self, but from being made not to be, and believe they wouldn't normally be capable of any of this evil, and instead of tremendous good
so children who are still children, and they are so since conception, are the only ones who care for the human race and thus the planet
children have the healthy, true relationship with one another, and between females, males and two-spirits, they truly love each other, due to inability of a child to love oneself. they have extremely negative reaction to mirrors and pictures of themselves, instantly looking away and pushing it away. they will hail one youngest child by holding them up and spinning them around (or spinning a child in a carriage, for instance) counter-clockwise, which brings the hailed and the hailers great joy, thus showing the true nature of humans, our own conception as this "supreme" and as the only way to retain true humanity. it's the adults' exersion of control, teaching and constant moving them around which leads to disruption of this relationship and ability to create their own, true and good language and culture, later being replaced with fake
they are put in constant bondage, constant cage, being deprived of their touch with nature and other children, they are being held like trophies, beaten, shouted at, taught tricks, humiliated, and generally treated with total lack of respect and sensitivity, and being used as pawns by the media
so look at the smallest of children and see, what true humanity is
lend yourself completely to the smallest of children, they are being the truth that is inherent
predecessory blame is the only kind of blame there can exist, without it there would be no blame, loss of belief in that is loss of belief in inherent true good. lack of predecessory blame leads to wrongfully passing it on to children, the true good, instead of rightfully passing the blame back to adults, thus those which are not truly human. it's this tremendous fear and hate that adults have about themselves that they're putting on children. they no longer believe in humans as inherently capable of endless creativity and will adopt the falsities of talent and experience, as they have lost true creativity themselves
lend yourself completely to them, follow them absolutely, give them freedom to be with nature and other children, freedom belongs to them
don't teach them, don't exert supremacy like tapping them on the head, don't bondage them, don't talk to them, but listen
it's the only way that we all can heal, the environment can heal, and children can create infinitely more beautiful worlds based on true humanity, without shaming the environment and animals, and partake in endless creativity, love and beauty
can you envision a world with millions of different cultures and languages, cultures not based on lies, constantly being created anew, coming from true humanity? and a true, healthy relationship between males, females, and two-spirits? where everyone is extremely healthy, everybody is there's no loss of memory and thus our true humanity, and very little disease?
so the problem is maturism, false belief that we are becoming human by maturing, or being taught so by adults, due to loss of belief in inherent true humanity, and inherent good, thus it's a belief in false humanity as a humanity. thus any pretense can be created by anyone on what that maturity is, but it always means the opposite of being truly human, and the definition getting further and further away. they are completely taking away children's rightful freedom to take control of our culture, which is the only way to rid it of true evil. the effect of maturism is creation of a false goal for one great unity with everyone the same, which not only depraves us of our true humanity, but only leads to destruction as new ideas are being created on what that is. which is exactly what is happening with the world. from villages to towns, from towns to cities, from countries to unions, exerting control, constant policing. everything which is in disruption of creating this "one great unity" is seen as wrong, even though it's only our reaction to this evil. it also creates false belief that everything that happened in the past which was in the goal of this "great unity" can't be wrong. we are further becoming less and less truly human with things like loss of belief in abortion as murder and showing more and more extreme negativism against children, they are becoming a worse and worse stereotype stereotype, it is more and more in every film, documentary, newspaper and news broadcast, and outside. but only a child is the true individual, capable of creating new language, culture, and with complete understanding and love for other humans. today all the things are blamed on children, instead of this adult thing which isn't human, further exerting control of adults over children and strengthening the grip of this evil against true humanity, because they are no longer themselves being led by true humanity
a person once came to me, he seemed desperate to affirm the superiority of the adult and was insisting I call him sir, after I adamantly refused, defeated, he went and committed suicide. so in reality, these people are very fragile. their constant exertion of control and superiority is their only way that keeps them from seeing themselves as this great failure and maybe ending it all
adults have this extremely negative view on children, that they have been taught, which is in fact, the truth about themselves, and will constantly try to brainwash their child into believing they're the ones who are evil
everything today seen as conservatism is what kept us from coming into greater and greater evil. instead of trying to understand this affect of the adult which caused all the shit and rectifying it, it went the other way, creating a falser and falser humanity
that's the reason behind all "mental illness", fight to retain true humanity, and the only real mental illness is the adult
long, long ago, when my old grandfather, before he died, no longer having any memory at all, looked at me and he truly smiled, for the first time since I first met him. nobody saw him do this before. it's because he rerecognized true humanity
here is an example of the evils of maturism, as is our world, maturist propaganda is all around us:
"what we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal providence."
-adolf hitler
maturism is the true evil behind all evil, this evil that is today's world and evil of the past. only our own true voice, one we were conceived with, the one with truth, is true humanity, that is in connection with our conception, and is capable of true, endless, creativity. immaturity is the only true humanity
so put this everywhere you can, translate it, write it on walls, shout it, vandalize. we need to break down the walls of this false reality which isn't ourselves, spit on this world, it's all shit everything around us is shit compared to our number one priority, children, the true humanity, otherwise everything turns to shit
stop this wrong of the adult, wrong of believing in thoughts and theories instead of the inherent truth which is in children
every child is conceived with complete love and understanding for other human beings, and ability to create new language and culture
more than that, a child is conceived with love of true humanity itself, with no love of false humanity which leads to this love of "great self", mostly due to unnaturality of humans being so connected together, instead of truly or at least partly flourishing apart
2ndly... I am very displeased with the whole iPod thing.
My fault for not looking around more but I bought it for 2 main reasons.. to upload my already paid for music to it and use the extra whopping 160g for portable storage of important files (e.g financial records etc)
NOT to join the iStore or the whole Apple market.
NOT for pod casts.
After using it a while I think it would have been real nice to have a voice recording feature... but my main complaint is it appears to be geared mostly for buying into the iApple iStuff all over the iWeb. iAnd iSheeesh iI am iGetting iSick at the iSame iTime. It's akin to iSpeaking iPig iLatin
3rdly the whole iTunes program sux in general.
Maybe I am just too used to windows programs and need to read more... but my present interests are NOT to learn more about the web but instead ON the web. My time is limited and my interest grow further from the web... I just want to use some iToys. :)
~timmer t
The point is, it may be Safari today(a Browser which, btw, is still NOT switched off by default in the UK (Probably differs country to country according to local laws & opinions), yet, tomorrow, if this practise is accepted and then adopted by most other companies (which WILL happen if they thought they could get away with it, without any bad press) then, the next time you choose to update, you could be installing a program that isn't so innocuous, perhaps, a keylogger...'just to see HOW you use their software'...or a data-miner etc.
The greater majority of users do not like to 'mess' with the default actions of a program for fear of screwing something up and thereby naturally get into the habit of not checking the updater and try to get through it as quickly as possible by quickly clicking buttons and thus have no idea what is being installed on their machines.
So, yes it is an incredibly important 'bit of info' that has been bought to our attention, the fact that some do not understand the importance of that fact is, indeed, a sad one.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alunj/archive/2007/12/1...
* BTW REVO UNINSTALLER, is excellent for removing 'hard to remove soft' and is also FREE. It also 'chases down' any crap left behind in the registry etc.
http://img210.imageshack.us/content.php?page=do...
http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bloatr...
I unintentionally knocked down a cup of coffee. When the waitress(software update) asked me if I wanted cream in my coffee I accidentally said yes. But now it's too late, my coffee has cream. I have to blame the restaurant (Apple) for this. Shame on you Steve Jobs. BE WARNED IF YOU LIKE BLACK COFFEE, DO NOT ADD CREAM. Else I will throw a temper tantrum, kill the waitress and burn your restaurant.
I'm wondering how to get my Firefox working... I installed the application but it keeps on asking me to make Firefox my "default" application. I say no, and then firefox failed to work. Due to one of the firefox plug ins i installed. I'm so sick of this... I think I'd rather have Safari as my default application.
I guess you can call me naïve, some might even call me stupid, but I wouldn't mind not having to review the options when updating my software. You know, just getting a small notification that a new, more secure version of my software is available and asking me if I want to install it. Just being able to click OK because I can TRUST that the company is honourable enough not to install a new software, be it Safari or iTunes or Google Toolbar for that matter, that I did not ask for.
At least that's what I call trust...
But from what I've read in many of the comments here, and I have read them all, this would not be a trust issue. Why? Just because I have the option to review the updates and opt-out? Because I can just uncheck the box?
Sure, I agree that is giving the users a freedom of choice. But just by the act of forcing the users to review the updates the element of trust is broken. You don't need to review procedures you trust because you TRUST them. That's the whole point of trust. But surely, anyone on the web not reviewing what they download must be stupid, right?
I agree. There are far too many dangers on the web to click ok on anything you see. But this is not a matter of anything, this is a matter of a manually installed update manager from a respected company. I would love to be able to trust that company. I would love to be able to trust the update managers of ALL the major software companies.
And that's where I think John has a point. Forcing users to review even the updates from respected companies makes the update process a chore for some users. Not for all users, but at least for me and perhaps many more. And when users think it's a chore, some will stop using update managers. That leaves people with old and vulnerable software and that would be a problem for any software, but web browsers in particular.
I myself no longer use the ASU but Itry to keep QuickTime updated manually. It's a bigger chore, but a lot less annoying one. Too bad trust is a hard thing to earn. The world is a lot easier and a lot more efficent when you can trust someone.
"Oh, while we are *UPDATING* your software for you... we are also (by default) going to also *ADD* new Apple software to your machine."
I'm sure... in the future... Apple will slowly add more and more and more Apple software to your Windows machines.
Microsoft has done far far worse than this. Its about spreading the word. Come on guys! Business is about getting the word out and spreading what you've got to offer, using amy reasonable means. If you don't want it, click the appropriate button!
Anybody who refutes this should read the history of Microsoft...
Veoh ask me to update my application. My only choice was "OK". I didn't have any other option.
This is constant for Windows users. It's amazing that the majority of the world uses the worst computer in the world.
Another thing. Have you noticed that there is a "watchdog" somewhere that won't let you kill AppleMobileDeviceService.exe from the task manager?
As far as I know I do not have "ANY" APPLE software running on my machine. If there is then it is sitting dormant.
Now I just received an apple screen popup on my computer saying;
Apple software update version 2.1.1 1.99MB
With NO explanation of what this is, what it will do or better yet........
"WHY AM I RECEIVING IT WHEN I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT???"
Now currently on my right I am cleaning my laptop of the nastiest virus I have seen in years which made it in through all of my security software. And what happens on my desktop....I receive a popup right through all my security software that I didn't ask for and do not see any need for.
I now see the need for both more security (new software) and a new outlook of almost complete untrusting of any company that PUSHES software on us. I don't like this but you just can't afford to blindly trust software of any kind these days unless YOU GO AND ASK OR LOOK FOR IT.
apple has changed so much i can't hardly think of getting something from them, the're microsofthing little by little, so i'll just stick with a good choice and that woud be gnu, where i know exactly what am i getting
It says that quicktime is not available. Something went wrong with the update and I lost everything in itunes.
pissed