Forums | MacLife

MacZiMiZer · 2008-03-25 12:48 pm

NAG wrote:
Some people in the blog world are taking this entirely out of proportion. Should Apple have made it clearer this is a new piece of software and made it easier to ignore (a lot of people miss the ignore feature in the update menu)? Sure. Is it an affront to human life and all we stand for? No. This weird outrage is actually doing the exact opposite of what they profess.

Yes, I'm going to back up what I just said. Okay so you have a bunch of bloggers taking issue with something. Instead of offering positive feedback to Apple they go the route of getting outraged and resort to massive hyperbole. Normal people read this, see that bloggers are getting mad, and get mad too because the bloggers are mad (I've seen a few examples of this already). So you got angry bloggers and angry every day users that are just standing around getting outraged at Apple because they were asked if they wanted to install Safari and no one is telling them how to fix the problem.

That last bit there is the problem. They're in an environment of fear. They think that the the sky is falling because all the people they've been told were so smart and could solve problems aren't solving the problem. Instead they're telling everyone that this is the worst thing in the world that could happen to them and they should be afraid. Why should they be afraid? Because they're too stupid understand what is going on (I've actually have a few people admit as much to me, that they think a majority of the windows users are stupid and they need to be protected from Apple "sneaking" things on their computer...I thought this was about Apple just being annoying, not them trying to trick everyone).

I'm just baffled by how the bloggers chose such a stupid thing to rag on Apple about. I'm all for pointing out flaws or missteps but at least do it in a helpful way. This is just grandstanding to try to promote their own software by creating an environment of fear and distrust.

ANd a fellow Clan MA as usual words what I was trying to say much better, I should just have them translate all my posts from now on.

Anyways, even WITH this "sleazy" method of installing. It's just a browser, it just sits there, and only does something if you use it, and does nothing when you close it. This isn't another annoying little thing that appears in the task bar, it doesn't send information to Apple, etc. etc. etc.

And through all of the posts I've seen since last night, it still comes down to the user is responsible for themselves on this one, aside from EULAs (though we really should) you should always be checking what you're doing. But it won't be any easier to get the average american to check their tire air pressure, fluids, etc. on their own car.

And as Nag said this all could have been handled in a much more productive way. Such as suggesting Apple add a seperate list just below updates for "download new software" etc.

This way whether I'm on a Mac or XP, I simply go that section to look at what free software they offer I haven't downloaded, such as Safari, iTunes, quicktime, Rendevouz etc.

Bat · 2008-03-25 3:13 pm

maleko wrote:
Bat wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote:
true, it isn't an update.
but compared to IE, it's an upgrade.
And how much have you used Safari for Windows?
Agreed, I haven't downloaded 3.1 yet, but 3 was so bad I took it off. I don't have any Apple software (other then drivers obviously) on my windows partition. Apple is just downright bad at writing windows software. Mozilla Firefox is the best windows browser IMO, although I do use Safari on the Mac.

Pretty much my point. Safari may or may not be the best OSX browser, but when Safari for Windows came out every review I read said it was about the worst Windows browser available. Firefox 3 is set to go gold in June, and so far seems to be shaping up as choice.

HackerJax wrote:
reece_james wrote:
Ok, I kinda agree with Apple's logic. Hear me out.

If you're using BootCamp on a Mac, you want Safari as a general rule. It's no different than under OS X. It comes with the tick next to it, in this sense it's ok.

For the other 95% of Windows users, this isn't ok. It's plain wrong.

Now, it's not like Apple should push it to some users and not to others. That solution landed MS with anti-trust cases. So Apple had a choice, push it to everyone or push it to no one. In the best interests of its customers, Apple is pushing it. From this perspective, it's the right choice.
Dude come on, its in the interest of apple and apple only.

No offense but take your blinders off man.

Yeah, I just can't get with the faith-based computing initiative either. I think the reason for this was articulated last summer...

Apple promised last summer that it would use iTunes to help crack Safari’s sagging 5 percent market share, with Steve Jobs noting that Apple receives more than 500,000 download requests per day for the Windows version of iTunes.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11229

reece_james · 2008-03-25 8:49 pm

HackerJax wrote:
reece_james wrote:
Ok, I kinda agree with Apple's logic. Hear me out.

If you're using BootCamp on a Mac, you want Safari as a general rule. It's no different than under OS X. It comes with the tick next to it, in this sense it's ok.

For the other 95% of Windows users, this isn't ok. It's plain wrong.

Now, it's not like Apple should push it to some users and not to others. That solution landed MS with anti-trust cases. So Apple had a choice, push it to everyone or push it to no one. In the best interests of its customers, Apple is pushing it. From this perspective, it's the right choice.
Dude come on, its in the interest of apple and apple only.

No offense but take your blinders off man.

Well obviously you already have a well formed opinion of the topic. lol
Apple's well within their rights to push Safari to Windows on Apple hardware. They however can't legally push it to only Apple users and not PC users. (AFAIK)

FutureDreamz · 2008-03-25 8:53 pm

maleko wrote:
Bat wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote:
true, it isn't an update.
but compared to IE, it's an upgrade.
And how much have you used Safari for Windows?
Agreed, I haven't downloaded 3.1 yet, but 3 was so bad I took it off. I don't have any Apple software (other then drivers obviously) on my windows partition. Apple is just downright bad at writing windows software. Mozilla Firefox is the best windows browser IMO, although I do use Safari on the Mac.

I'll admit the beta is crap, but I've used 3.1 and all I will say is: not exactly.

Mr. T · 2008-03-25 10:17 pm

reece_james wrote:
HackerJax wrote:
reece_james wrote:
Ok, I kinda agree with Apple's logic. Hear me out.

If you're using BootCamp on a Mac, you want Safari as a general rule. It's no different than under OS X. It comes with the tick next to it, in this sense it's ok.

For the other 95% of Windows users, this isn't ok. It's plain wrong.

Now, it's not like Apple should push it to some users and not to others. That solution landed MS with anti-trust cases. So Apple had a choice, push it to everyone or push it to no one. In the best interests of its customers, Apple is pushing it. From this perspective, it's the right choice.
Dude come on, its in the interest of apple and apple only.

No offense but take your blinders off man.
Well obviously you already have a well formed opinion of the topic.
Apple's well within their rights to push Safari to Windows on Apple hardware. They however can't legally push it to only Apple users and not PC users. (AFAIK)

What's wrong with this solution?: Push the updated only to Safari-users (regardless of OS).

btw, Windows Safari sucks. I doubt that many boot campers would even touch Windows Safari, let alone install it as an "update."

FutureDreamz · 2008-03-25 10:25 pm

Mr. T wrote:
reece_james wrote:
HackerJax wrote:

Dude come on, its in the interest of apple and apple only.

No offense but take your blinders off man.
Well obviously you already have a well formed opinion of the topic.
Apple's well within their rights to push Safari to Windows on Apple hardware. They however can't legally push it to only Apple users and not PC users. (AFAIK)
What's wrong with this solution?: Push the updated only to Safari-users (regardless of OS).

btw, Windows Safari sucks. I doubt that many boot campers would even touch Windows Safari, let alone install it as an "update."

QQ: 3.0 or 3.1?

Mr. T · 2008-03-25 10:53 pm

I don't know -- the first non-beta version. I'll plea no-contest to 3.1.

avkills · 2008-03-25 11:42 pm

Why would you even be browsing in Windows...that leads to digital STDs and stuff. wink

-mark

HackerJax · 2008-03-26 8:58 am

reece_james wrote:
HackerJax wrote:
reece_james wrote:
Ok, I kinda agree with Apple's logic. Hear me out.

If you're using BootCamp on a Mac, you want Safari as a general rule. It's no different than under OS X. It comes with the tick next to it, in this sense it's ok.

For the other 95% of Windows users, this isn't ok. It's plain wrong.

Now, it's not like Apple should push it to some users and not to others. That solution landed MS with anti-trust cases. So Apple had a choice, push it to everyone or push it to no one. In the best interests of its customers, Apple is pushing it. From this perspective, it's the right choice.
Dude come on, its in the interest of apple and apple only.

No offense but take your blinders off man.
Well obviously you already have a well formed opinion of the topic.
Apple's well within their rights to push Safari to Windows on Apple hardware. They however can't legally push it to only Apple users and not PC users. (AFAIK)

Absolutely I have an opinion on it, and its been formed over a long period of time by companies like apple who do this kind of thing.

I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of legalities, there is nothing illegal about pushing software to a select group of users, its done everyday.

I don't think apple is even within their right to push out Safari to copies of Windows running on Apple hardware. What gives them that right? Its your machine, you should be making the choices on what software is installed on it, not apple (or any company for that matter).

HackerJax · 2008-03-26 9:00 am

FutureDreamz wrote:
maleko wrote:
Bat wrote:

And how much have you used Safari for Windows?
Agreed, I haven't downloaded 3.1 yet, but 3 was so bad I took it off. I don't have any Apple software (other then drivers obviously) on my windows partition. Apple is just downright bad at writing windows software. Mozilla Firefox is the best windows browser IMO, although I do use Safari on the Mac.
I'll admit the beta is crap, but I've used 3.1 and all I will say is: not exactly.

I've run it also and its light years ahead of the beta.

I did remove Safari from my windows workstation though, it is limited compared to firefox (sorry but I'm sold on extensions) and the way it displays fonts makes the text within the browser look fuzzy (to me, some people don't mind it).

NAG · 2008-03-26 9:41 am

Yeah, they don't use cleartype in Safari 3.1 for windows so it does look fuzier. Ars actually has a good review of it up.

If you want a fast standards compliant browser but don't really want plugins (some people don't) then Safari is a perfectly good browser on windows now.

NAG · 2008-03-26 10:01 am

HackerJax wrote:
NAG wrote:
So the benevolent overlords of Mozilla have to resort to the same trickery and environment of fear that they loath to achieve their goal? Isn't that a bit like destroying something in order to save it?
Mozilla is doing nothing remotely close to the same thing.

Okay, so telling people they know best and not explaining things is completely different than microsoft saying they know best. Got it.

HackerJax wrote:
I have never had Mozilla push other software on my machine by default with an automatic update.

So you are equating asking to install new software to being evil and promoting an environment of fear.

HackerJax wrote:
The guy is pushing fear because there is plenty to be afraid of with acts like this.

So why not approach the windows user with knowledge and help empower them to make intelligent decisions instead of using fear...which apparently they aren't using unless you're deciding to contradict your first sentence.

HackerJax wrote:
Today its safari, tomorrow who the hell knows what they'll decide to push out.

FLYING MONKEYS!!!!!! OMG A TORNADO!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Seriously, if someone didn't like something you programmed would you be more likely to listen to them if they do mock outrage and scare a bunch of people or if they come up with real reasons and provide easy alternatives?

HackerJax wrote:
Add to the fact that another major company such as Apple doing this is just sending a message downstream to smaller ISVs that this is an OK practice in the industry. Its NOT.

I don't see how that is justifying perpetuating the environment of fear and by extension the impression that all windows users are stupid and need to be coddled. Seriously, how are the two connected? I thought this was about the software developers, not punishing the end user by making them fearful and telling them they're stupid.

HackerJax wrote:
I don't allow any MS software to automatically update because I can't trust that company when it comes to what is installed on my machine. Thats a sad state of affairs and now Apple has joined the same ranks.

Yes, they joined their ranks if by join you mean not do what you just said.

Safari doesn't autoinstall. The Apple Software Updater asks to install it. It includes a description of what Safari is. Now before you go off on me over how I'm defending Apple blah blah blah read my earlier post. Personally, I like the OmniGroup's take on the software updater. It looks a lot like Apple's but includes tags such as "free" or "New!" and provides an easy button to ignore if something is going to cost money (which could be applied if the updater decided to ask if you wanted to install something else).

wellfleation · 2008-03-26 11:10 am

Bat wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote:
true, it isn't an update.
but compared to IE, it's an upgrade.
And how much have you used Safari for Windows?

I've been using it since its conception, and although it sucked at 1st this incarnation is super fast and rock solid (used to crash frequently but has yet to do so with this newest version).

HackerJax · 2008-03-26 12:07 pm

NAG wrote:
Okay, so telling people they know best and not explaining things is completely different than microsoft saying they know best. Got it.

What does MS have to do with Mozilla in this matter? We are talking about the same article right?
Mozilla DID explain it, if this part isn't clear I don't know what to say:

mozila CEO wrote:
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." "The problem here is that it lists Safari for getting an update - and has the 'Install' box checked by default - even if you haven’t ever installed Safari on your PC."

Pretty clear cut, he complains that this behavior destroys trust with companies and their customers. How that is not explaining things is again, beyond me.

So you are equating asking to install new software to being evil and promoting an environment of fear.

No you are the one using the word evil, I'm simply saying its wrong to push new software by default to an end user. Asking is one thing, this isn't a case of that happening. This is a case of by default you are getting a new piece of software unless you manually remove it from the update. Thats my problem with it.

So why not approach the windows user with knowledge and help empower them to make intelligent decisions instead of using fear...which apparently they aren't using unless you're deciding to contradict your first sentence.

There is a reason to fear this kind of stuff and if it weren't Mozilla, someone else would be blowing the horn on this. How should he have empowered the user? Blame them for Apple's screwball decision?

I'm sure plenty of users are aware of this situation now so the information has already empowered them.

FLYING MONKEYS!!!!!! OMG A TORNADO!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Not quite that serious but I do find the blindness to the issue to be somewhat surprising.

Seriously, if someone didn't like something you programmed would you be more likely to listen to them if they do mock outrage and scare a bunch of people or if they come up with real reasons and provide easy alternatives?

I pay attention to both situations, they both can generate bad publicity and harm the relationship with my end users.

Mozilla didn't code the apple updater, they don't need to offer a solution beyond making people aware.

I don't see how that is justifying perpetuating the environment of fear and by extension the impression that all windows users are stupid and need to be coddled. Seriously, how are the two connected? I thought this was about the software developers, not punishing the end user by making them fearful and telling them they're stupid.

No one is saying the end user is stupid, the argument is that apple is pushing other software the user has not installed via apple's software update by default.

Did we read the same article?

Safari doesn't autoinstall. The Apple Software Updater asks to install it. It includes a description of what Safari is. Now before you go off on me over how I'm defending Apple blah blah blah read my earlier post. Personally, I like the OmniGroup's take on the software updater. It looks a lot like Apple's but includes tags such as "free" or "New!" and provides an easy button to ignore if something is going to cost money (which could be applied if the updater decided to ask if you wanted to install something else).

The software update does not ask you to install it. Its in a list and its checked by default. Thats a far cry from notifying you that a new software package you never had on your machine before is going to be installed.

I like your solution and if it worked like that we would not be having this conversation, but thats not the reality of the situation unless Apple makes changes to the software update, which without people raising issues like this might well never happen.

MacZiMiZer · 2008-03-26 12:50 pm

I'll also add, removing Safari once it is installed, any of the Apple on windows software really, is easy. Removing almost anything microsoft, and a lot of things on windows, can be an immense pain.

Beyond that, the average Joe's trust of big, or "great" companies is pretty low, though it is higher of course for apple.

But here's my question for HackerJax

When you install new software lately, do you just go with the "recommended" selection, look under advanced, or go with custom installation?

dv · 2008-03-26 2:10 pm

Software Update should only "update" software you already have installed.

Like how it works on OS X. I don't get updates for Garageband on a computer without iLife installed, after all.

HackerJax · 2008-03-26 2:21 pm

MacZiMiZer wrote:
I'll also add, removing Safari once it is installed, any of the Apple on windows software really, is easy. Removing almost anything microsoft, and a lot of things on windows, can be an immense pain.

Beyond that, the average Joe's trust of big, or "great" companies is pretty low, though it is higher of course for apple.

But here's my question for HackerJax

When you install new software lately, do you just go with the "recommended" selection, look under advanced, or go with custom installation?

I manually update everything, nothing auto-updates on my machine(s).

I'm used to working in a production setting where the rule of thumb is 'if its not broken, then don't fix it'. If we do update our systems, we test and then test again before anything goes into production use.

I follow the same style on my home machines, I keep up to date on security bulletins and I selectively install updates based on the information I get and how it relates to my computing.

I only recommend automatic updates with default settings to users who really don't understand what they are looking at, or who simply do want to bother and can live with a day of downtime if their machine turns to trash due to a bad update that automatically installed.

MacZiMiZer · 2008-03-26 6:54 pm

HackerJax wrote:
I manually update everything, nothing auto-updates on my machine(s).

I'm used to working in a production setting where the rule of thumb is 'if its not broken, then don't fix it'. If we do update our systems, we test and then test again before anything goes into production use.

I follow the same style on my home machines, I keep up to date on security bulletins and I selectively install updates based on the information I get and how it relates to my computing.

I only recommend automatic updates with default settings to users who really don't understand what they are looking at, or who simply do want to bother and can live with a day of downtime if their machine turns to trash due to a bad update that automatically installed.

You did not answer my question

But besides, what you described is exactly (though you take it farther than average Joe would need to) should be doing, and wouldn't have ended up with Safari.

Users clicking "ok" to anything and everything is not the fault of the company.

Yes Apple shouldn't have done it
No it's not horrible, or even bad

Mr. T · 2008-03-26 8:13 pm

If it isn't "bad," then why would you say "Apple shouldn't have done it?"

MacZiMiZer · 2008-03-26 9:51 pm

Mr. T wrote:
If it isn't "bad," then why would you say "Apple shouldn't have done it?"

I also shouldn't eat ice cream hmm I wouldn't say it's a bad thing to do either

very bad analogy, just getting across that shouldn't doesn't exactly go straight to "bad"

Could have been handled better? (such as my suggestion of adding a "optional/new software" tab to software update, or any of the other suggestions here) yes

But Bat already mentioned the unspoken reason we all know, what's an easy way to get those install numbers up? having people who don't care install anyways. I can see a slight analogy towards how IE came about, and yet Safari was not forced on anyone, and can be removed easily.

Mr. T · 2008-03-27 12:27 am

MacZiMiZer wrote:
Mr. T wrote:
If it isn't "bad," then why would you say "Apple shouldn't have done it?"
I also shouldn't eat ice cream I wouldn't say it's a bad thing to do either

very bad analogy, just getting across that shouldn't doesn't exactly go straight to "bad"

Could have been handled better? (such as my suggestion of adding a "optional/new software" tab to software update, or any of the other suggestions here) yes

But Bat already mentioned the unspoken reason we all know, what's an easy way to get those install numbers up? having people who don't care install anyways. I can see a slight analogy towards how IE came about, and yet Safari was not forced on anyone, and can be removed easily.

So you're saying it's worse than neutral, but not quite bad? I'll grant you it's not bad compared to what Microsoft did with IE. However, in the context of software update programs, it's the worst thing that's been done so far by a mainstream company, and therefore, bad by definition.

If Apple were to implement your suggestion (or maintain the status quo), they ought to change the name of the program from "software update" to something a bit less misleading.

Finally, I disagree with "Safari was not forced on anyone, and can be removed easily." It's masquerading as an update, and less-savvy rational minded people would be inclined to trust Apple that it is an update. It's really quite similar to those banner ads that mimic official Windows alert dialogs. As far as it being easily removed, unfortunately, that's not necessarily the case. Being a comp sci person pretty much makes me the family/friend techie, and the mountain of unwanted programs (most with uninstallers) on the machines I've seen will shock you. I suppose you could blame the user, but it's still social engineering, now matter how you look at it.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-03-27 12:33 am)

reece_james · 2008-03-27 3:22 am

Bad would be Safari blocking IE working tongue

oatmeal · 2008-03-27 4:09 am

Just read the article; he's just upset that he didn't think of it first.

Bat · 2008-03-27 4:31 am

Huh? What would he bundle Firefox with- Quicktime, or iTunes? hmm

reece_james wrote:
Bad would be Safari blocking IE working

...like they could get away with that.

Sad thing is, this isn't really new, just an escalation. I don't use iTunes (shock, horror), certainly don't use it on my Windows box. I do use Quicktime, natch... however, since this Updater came in, I'm prompted periodically to install the latest version of QT... even when there's no corresponding updated plain vanilla version; just a new QT + iTunes. Sometimes there's a mysterious lag in updating the plain QT, too. So puzzling...

Opt-out is the default there, too, and if there's both, iTunes + QT, opt-out is the default- click install or hit Enter and I've got iTunes, a new app, on the machine, and I never asked for or wanted it. I've a hunch a fair number of those 500,000 requests a year for iTunes come partly from folks updating QT and iTunes comes along for the ride. Now it's a trio.

Apple's used QT updates to leverage/bundle iTunes for quite some time; now it's a step further.

They say the world is shrinking. Looks like the distance from Cupertino to Redmond shrank again.

Pariah · 2008-03-27 5:33 am

I think it is painfully obvious that an "update" should be just that, an update to existing software. "Updating" is a completely different operation than installing a new application and it can only be described as shady to "push" an application thru a spoof like hiding it in a bundle of updates.
When I run Adobe Update I get updates for only installed software, same with Google updates and so far, the same with Apple Software update. Piggy backing unrelated and possibly unwanted software on an update is the tactic of malware makers and should not be emulated by "legit" companies.
The Google example is the most apt. Google makes several apps I have chosen NOT to install and two that I have installed. It is a reasonable expectation that when Google Updates runs I should only get updates to the apps I have chosen to accept from them.
Apple is wrong to do this and it does set an extremely bad example..
Compute security is a continuing and growing problem. For the overwhelming majority of users their computer is the most complex piece of technology they will ever be exposed to. OEMs like Apple should create an environment of trust so that these users can feel confident in them and keep their computers up to date to avoid exploits. By running this exploit, Apple shows untrustworthiness.
This is bad both for the individual user and the larger net community.

Last edited by Pariah (2008-03-27 5:45 am)

Forums | MacLife

#26 2008-03-25 12:48 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

NAG wrote:

#27 2008-03-25 3:13 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

maleko wrote:

Bat wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

reece_james wrote:

#28 2008-03-25 8:49 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

HackerJax wrote:

reece_james wrote:

#29 2008-03-25 8:53 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

maleko wrote:

Bat wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

#30 2008-03-25 10:17 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

reece_james wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

reece_james wrote:

#31 2008-03-25 10:25 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

Mr. T wrote:

reece_james wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

#32 2008-03-25 10:53 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

#33 2008-03-25 11:42 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

#34 2008-03-26 8:58 am

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

reece_james wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

reece_james wrote:

#35 2008-03-26 9:00 am

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

FutureDreamz wrote:

maleko wrote:

Bat wrote:

#36 2008-03-26 9:41 am

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

#37 2008-03-26 10:01 am

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

HackerJax wrote:

NAG wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

#38 2008-03-26 11:10 am

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

Bat wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

#39 2008-03-26 12:07 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

NAG wrote:

mozila CEO wrote:

#40 2008-03-26 12:50 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

#41 2008-03-26 2:10 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

#42 2008-03-26 2:21 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

MacZiMiZer wrote:

#43 2008-03-26 6:54 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

HackerJax wrote:

#44 2008-03-26 8:13 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

#45 2008-03-26 9:51 pm

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks

Mr. T wrote:

#46 2008-03-27 12:27 am

Re: Mozilla CEO yaks