“What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong,” John Lilly, Mozilla CEO, blogs. “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 their updater for iTunes to also install their Safari Web browser…”
MacDailyNews Take: No, that’s not what Apple did. What Apple did was present the user an option to install and/or update Safari. Users did not have Safari installed and/or updated if they did not want it. That said, Apple should not use the word “update” for all users. Apple should change the nomenclature depending on whether or not Safari is actually installed on the PC. Say “install” if it’s to be an install and say “update” if it’s to be an update. If that single, minor change were to be made, we’d have no problem whatsoever with Apple using Apple Software Update on Windows PCs to offer new software while updating existing Apple apps, including having the “install/update” box pre-selected. However, stating “update” for all users with the “install” box pre-selected, as Apple is doing currently, is unnecessarily obtuse and could be interpreted as an attempt to deceive; in other words: Microsoftian. And, let’s face facts, Windows sufferers in general aren’t the brightest bulbs in the pack; they need all the clarity they can get.
Lilly continues, “Anyone who uses iTunes on Windows has Apple Software Update installed on their machines, which… checks for new patches available for Apple-produced software on your Windows machine, alerts the user to the availability, and allows updates to be installed. That’s great — wonderful, in fact. Makes everyone more likely to have current, patched versions of Apple’s software, and makes everyone safer… 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.”
MacDailyNews Take: Agreed.
Lilly continues, “The likely behavior here is for users to just click “Install 2 items,” which means that they’ve now installed a completely new piece of software, quite possibly completely unintentionally. Apple has made it incredibly easy — the default, even — for users to install ride along software that they didn’t ask for, and maybe didn’t want. This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices.”
MacDailyNews Take: Doh! (Disingenuous overstated hyperbole!) So, Lilly’s not the least bit worried that users might like the much-faster and more elegant Safari over other browsers, including his own? We find that very difficult to believe.
Full blog post here.
MacDailyNews Take: The fear is palpable. Hundreds of millions of iTunes software downloads will do that to you. You can almost hear the beads of sweat dripping on his keyboard.
That said, we repeat: Apple should change the nomenclature depending on whether or not Safari is actually installed on the PC. Say “install” if it’s to be an install and say “update” if it’s to be an update.
And, finally, as we said yesterday: It’s about damned time Apple leveraged those iTunes for Windows installs to help spread the word. There also ought to be a big permanent link to the “Move to Mac” and related videos right in the middle of iTunes’ home page. It’s pedal to the metal time now. Let’s go!
The practice does not need defending- the user either chooses or not to install Safari- where the fsck is the trick? A couple of years ago, I was stuck between the POS IE, and the memory-eating, but innovative Firefox, I ended up choosing Opera, but certainly wish I would have had the option to use Safari. Fsck him and his article.
Safari may be fast but its rather bland and featureless. I don’t think Firefox has anything to worry about.
@toonie:
I couldn’t agree more. I love Safari’s speed, but it lacks so many of the things I’m long accustomed to in Firefox. I especially like the way Firefox can put RSS feeds on the Bookmark toolbar, and when you click on them, it drops down a summary of all the items in the feed.
Even if it didn’t do that, I’d use Firefox just for Ad Block Plus.
The Apple Fan Boys will have a fit because somebody has dared to criticize Apple, but the criticism is correct. Using iTunes to promote downloading of another product is something I expect from another company, not Apple.
The fan boys vomit at the thought of anybody not heaping enough praise on Apple, but the real Apple fans are those who take off the blinders, the rose colored glasses, stop drinking the cool-aid, and see things as they are.
I am sorry, does it make itself default like IE? No?
Then blow me….
A rare time when I agree with 100% of everything the nameless MDN editor says. Apple should clarify “update” vs. “install”. A humble approach would be to have “install” options unchecked by default.
So what, people will only actually use Safari if they find they prefer it (which of course they will). For a body I wpuld have thought would be pro-choice, Mozilla has sure been protective since Safari came along.
Wow, did nobody read the actual blog post! The whole point is that by making what seems like a security update install a whole new program, users will be less likely to install _real_ security updates. The ones that are important. And with Windows, by adding Safari and polluting the oh-so-wonderful registry if users don’t actually want it Apple is actually SLOWING the computers! Did everyone miss this????
My beloved Apple is becoming more and more just another Microsoft. Sad.
Hazmatt:
You are correct. No one prefers having software installed by default. Apple should be more considerate and make every install feature optional regardless whether the machine is a Mac or PC. It seems that Apple is a bit desperate for Windows users to load Safari by making the Safari install feature defaulted.
Nonsense… Microsoft used Windows to make Internet Explorer the unfortunate defacto browser. Apple is using the popularity of iPods (and therefore iTunes) to challenge Internet Explorer.
This guy is just afraid that Safari will replace FireFox as #2. In actuality, anything that reduces the number of IE users is a good thing for Mozilla. Apple has an effective mechanism to get Safari on people’s PC’s. Mozilla does not have any such method for FireFox.
He is right, Apple is wrong. Apple is learning from Microsoft
When faced with a dilemma like this I always ask what Forest, Forest Gump would say.
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
If you are too dumb to recognize the ‘iTunes Trojan Horse’ then you deserve to get everything you download.
Maybe Apple could just have a link when the updater is finished that is called something like “Free Stuff” that goes to a website where (based on which OS they were running) they can download things or link to the Switch to a Mac page.
I agree that if an updater is called an updater, then things which are not an update should default to off, and should be plain about whether you are updating or installing (at a minimum).
It would be unfair if Apple tied iTunes to requiring Safari and making it the default browser.
Offering it as a DL in a generic Apple Software Updater is reasonable.
It’s called “leveraging your monopoly…errr platform”. MS has been doing it for years now. Apple can learn from the best.
The Apple update piece isn’t hidden in the registry like 99% of the other uselessware. It’s in the scheduler, accessible from the control panel and can be turned off. Also- the button caption reads “Install 2 items” clearly informing the user of both installations. There are check boxes that allow the user to decide.
… and the problem is???
Agreed. Apple should avoid any behavior that smacks of manipulation. Great software is its own justification. This type of PC-like behavior is both unnecessary and unacceptable. Apple should change the nomenclature AS SOON AS POSSIBLE so that systems without Safari will be offered the option to INSTALL it. Again, remove the PRE-SELECTION for INSTALLING Safari on systems that do not currently have Safari installed.
You know, I agree with MDN on this, but wow, people, why do you need to be so inflammatory in your remarks? Calling the Moz CEO a crying little baby and such? I learned something from a debate I had with someone who was quite rude to Air fans on another post, and that is that you should never say things like that about people.
You can say, Hmm, sounds like he’s scared, or even MDN’s wording, of being able to hear the sweat hitting the keyboard. That depicts fear. But calling him a baby? Come on people. Grow up.
What’s the big deal?
It’s “Apple Software Update”, not “Apple Only-Software-That-You’ve-Already-Installed-Previously Update”.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
@No way
Camino has deffinitely a problem reading Flash on overlaping layers! This is bad…
The average Windows user sticks with IE because it’s what they get used to. Although Safari is easy to use and configure, I was surprised it didn’t link to a helper/intro page “let’s get started”, “see this feature”, “this is how” etc.
Missed opportunity, I think a lot of potential users will open it up and think it’s bland (we say elegant) and lacking features (you have to know to show the tab bar and that ctrl F gives you the search page feature).
They could also have given it a marketing personality like Firefox and just jazz it up a bit – after all it’s going out to an iTunes audience.
Seems a fair comment to me.
Just change the word to ‘install’ when the pc has’nt got safari installed and ‘update’ to when it has.
Simple.
Hmmm… does he even use Windows himself? Because if he did, he’d know what REAL malware looks like. Real malware installs, lurks, and self-launches without ever being asked and with no uninstall command.
His statement is like calling a couple of sneezes the flu. Which really pisses off people at home in bed suffering from the real thing.
Okay, he probably knows this. He’s just worried that he’s going to loose google referral dollars.
I’m writing this from my windows box, using Safari 3.1 and the truth is that it was about the simplest install I’ve ever experienced on Windows. Another reason for Mr. Mozilla to go hyperbolic.
@ iLuvMyMacs
“Also- the button caption reads “Install 2 items” clearly informing the user of both installations. There are check boxes that allow the user to decide.
… and the problem is???”
At least two:
#1: Claiming a brand new install as an ‘update’ is unethical behavior.
#2: As I mentioned yesterday, notice how Apple bundles iTunes and Quicktime together – – there is ZERO option for those of us who are allowed to have Quicktime on our Windows PC (but aren’t allowed to have iTunes as per local IT policy) to upgrade **just** Quicktime.
Yes, its true that other companies do similar tactics with pre-checked install options to catch those who aren’t paying attention. However, this merely means that they’re already “unethical scumbags”. Do you really want Apple to join them?
Where I work, if any piece of IT Dept’s “DO NOT INSTALL” software is found on your PC, it takes a few offenses, but you can be fired from your job. Now ask yourself how much of a big deal it is for “updates” to be sneaky and install other stuff if you’re not constantly paying attention, to uncheck boxes, etc.
I understand Apple’s interest in promoting Safari, but these technique is underhanded and unethical. It was because of just such unethical behavior that I boycott Microsoft.
-hh