Hello! Community Page
- john.jubjubs.net Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- now another firefox will come.. .(excited)
- I'm on my 2nd 3G Iphone. I've had the same battery problems that are being reported above after 2 months with each phone. When I took my first Iphone in to the "genius bar," they...
- Hi, Do you have experience with IntenseDebate+SEO ? Google for example. This comment plug-in will work 4 me or I and my blog will work 4 IntenseDebate ?
- I use mozilla firefox everywhere. But there are problems with it too. Some flash applications give erros with it. I try to fix problem but i can't fix it. I have 2 banners in my site. Top one...
- And how its that John? iam trying disqus but it seem have litle compatibiliy with another browser ie: Safari, opera and IE
Jump to original thread »
What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong. It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that’s bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web. What they did yesterday was to use the
... Continue reading »
1 year ago
Those were my 2 cents...
1 year ago
1 year ago
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...
1 year ago
(And then there's the broken UI, but that's another issue.)
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
It is fair to say that this is indeed malware distribution practices. Come on Apple are you 'that' desperate?!
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Besides, I don't think this is going to help Safari in any way.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
Also, MS in its OS update for XP will include WGA which "updates" non-authentic licensed copies into crippled copies.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
-------------------
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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....
1 year ago
http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
Come on, get with the program.
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Only bloggers will be mad about this but for all those other users this is a smart move. Get exposure.
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
Yes I use Firefox day in and day out for 2 years.. but after today I may as well use Safari again.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Use the damn thing and quit bitching!
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
@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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
The fact that Safari happens to be the piece of software being pimped here is completely irrelevant.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
thanks
1 year ago
1 year ago
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 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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....
1 year ago
http://designaesthetic.com/2007/07/08/apple-att...
I thought it was sleazy then. I think it's sleazy now.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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...
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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. ;)
1 year ago
This piece clearly undermines my trust in Mozilla, seeing that such a wimp actually serves a their CEO.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
hang on...Windows Update is telling me I need IE 7, Genuine Advantage and Silverlight...brb...
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
1 year ago
Maybe in YOUR point of view... :rolleyes:
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
http://www.gfisk.com/apple-safari-for-windows
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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!!
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
- 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?
1 year ago
-bZj
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
(I would appreciate any critiques of my arguments there.)
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
@Vex, would you agree that for an update manager, doing the right thing first means updating what's on your system?
1 year ago
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.)
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
"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.
1 year ago
Not my fault " the apple made me do it"
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
The program is called Apple Software Update. It offers, you know, updates from Apple.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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).
1 year ago
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...
1 year ago
1 year ago
http://www.applewatchdog.com/?p=60
sorry, html is disabled apparently.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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 ...
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
[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
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
People already should read and think before clicking...
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html
Start petition Mr JoHN PLS
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
Enviously ?
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
At the top of the dialog box they just need to fix the wording from "update" to "update or install". That's it.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
>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
1 year ago
1 year ago
Daniel
http://www.palluxo.com
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
Unlike QuickTime Player, QuickTime Pro is not free.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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,
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
Please visit my site at www.gnalk.com
1 year ago
I disabled apples software update program.
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
"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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
shame on you apple.. tought you were better than this
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.)
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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 ;)
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
- 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.
1 year ago
http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-softwa...
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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...
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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."
1 year ago
> 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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Pure bloatware
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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..
1 year ago
..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!!
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
Smart people use a MAC... end of story.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Apple is by no means the only, or the first, company to do this...
1 year ago
- 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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Actually, it's been proven that Windows actually runs faster on a Mac.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3...
1 year ago
Not only Apple, but every update will be checked, and customers will not want to update somethings, due this.
Apple has destroy trust
Sorry
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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 :)
1 year ago
1 year ago
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 !!!
1 year ago
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 ;)
1 year ago
- 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 ...
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
My question is, why ask me if you're going to ignore them anyway? It this kind of practice that undermines users trust.
1 year ago
It is all Apple's fault.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
where the pc guy is bloated by unwanted crapware. this is the way pcs get crapwares; from competition itself!
1 year ago
1 year ago
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!
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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...
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
And Safari is clearly inferior to Firefox (addons) and Opera (widgets) feature-wise, interface-wise and security-wise.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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