Apple lofts middle finger at PC users, PC users thank Apple for acknowledging them

After weeks of complaints from users, pundits, and bloggers about it pushing its Safari Web browser like a piece of spyware, Apple finally responded by continuing to push its Safari Web browser like a piece of spyware. The subtle change they made, which in no way addresses the actual complaint, was met with a smattering of applause by most of those who had complained earlier (typical example: The unfortunately named Apple Bows to PC Users' Concerns Over Safari Update). I even got an email from an Apple backer claiming that this was proof that Apple listens to its customers.

Sigh.

Maybe it's time for a recap.

In case you're not familiar with the issue here, Apple recently starting spamming users of its iTunes and QuickTime software via a utility called Apple Software Update which, as the name suggests, is designed to provide updates for the Apple software you've already chosen. This capability is important because Apple's software is either buggy and constantly updated as a result (iTunes for Windows) or prone to massive security vulnerabilities and constantly updated as a result (QuickTime). Apple's Windows users need these updates. It's an important mechanism.

The problem is, about a month ago, Apple started pushing another software product, its pointless Safari browser, to its Windows users via Apple Software Update. It did this when users had never even installed Safari, contradicting the point of the application, which is to update existing software, not push new software on unsuspecting users. There was no way to turn off this behavior either, so if you simply ignored the pop-up warning you of new software, it would just appear again. And again. And again. Forever.

Many responded with shock that Apple would do such a thing. Apple apologists turned the debate around, naturally, by pointing out that other companies (including Microsoft) had done similar things in the past. In that way, I suppose it was excused. ("Look over there! Isn't that Bob Hope? Now what were we talking about again?") But this behavior is wrong no matter who does it. And for a company like Apple, which lives and dies on its user experience, this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

So after the weeks of complaints noted above, Apple actually changed Apple Software Update. Awesome, right?

Not really. Because Apple didn't stop pushing Safari on Windows users. And no, they didn't offer users a way to turn off the Safari promotion. Either one of these changes would have, in fact, addressed the actual complaint. Would have ended the controversy, proving that Apple does, indeed, listen to its customers.

Instead, Apple proved that it hears but does not listen to its customers. And it responded to these very valid complaints in a way that would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. They drew a line across the middle of the Apple Software Update application and simply moved the Safari offering below that line. Updates go above the line and "New Software" goes below it. New software, like Safari, is, however, still checked and selected by default, so unsuspecting users will still install this unnecessary product by mistake, as they were doing before. And every time Safari is updated (for whatever reason), it will be offered to users via Apple Software Update. Whether they want it or not.

So I'm sorry, but this does not address the problem. And it suggests if not proves that Apple does not listen to its customers, especially if they have the temerity to be in the biggest group of Apple customers of all: Windows users.

Discuss this Article 72

weedmonk
on Apr 20, 2008
El Jobso is always right....this is a big step for Apple. In anycase I one again look forward to the MacBoi onslaught the will now ensue...
pthurrott
on Apr 20, 2008
weedmonk: Yep. Still, it's a funny headline at least. :)
tomcage9
on Apr 20, 2008
Apple have been doing this for ages with iTunes - if you just have QuickTime installed, they push iTunes in exactly the same method. I'm glad it's been widely noticed now they're doing it with Safari, hopefully it'll get fixed. Simply having the box unchecked by default would pretty much solve the problem.
chickens
on Apr 20, 2008
Apple needs to create the ability to opt-out of any of their updates. Microsoft did this a long time ago, you can choose never to get an update again at your own discretion. As someone who uses a Mac at home I am starting to think about switching to a PC due to Apple not listening. I dunno, the grass is always greener.
Rasken
on Apr 20, 2008
LOL. I got the updated Updater, however since it's on my very busy media center machine, I hadn't yet rebooted to see the new UI. If it is still selected by default, then the bad form is still very very present.
williamk
on Apr 20, 2008
While I agree this is really crappy behavior and it does undermine users trust in software update tools, you can actually opt out in the update application. In Apple Software Update, when the Safari update is selected and nothing else is, go to Tools | Ignore Selected Updates. Now, its really lame you have to do this so dont think I'm trying to say "Look! Apple cares about you as a person! They put in a way to opt out! You Apple haters are just looking for flaw in the diamond that is The Steve." Its crap we even have to talk about this. Software updates are important and anything that keeps people from trusting them is a step backwards.
lotsamystuff
on Apr 20, 2008
How strange to see you and Gruber actually agreeing.
MaryW
on Apr 20, 2008
Definitely Illegal anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour. Further incontrovertible evidence that Apple is pure Evil. Steve Jobs ate my hamster!
Ocean
on Apr 20, 2008
Lets address several points: 1. >>Apple lofts middle finger at PC users<< >>Apple recently starting spamming<< >>Apple's software is either buggy<< >>prone to massive security vulnerabilities<< All pretense of objectivity is gone. Gone. These are not the writings of a professional journalist. They are the writings of a anti-Apple Windows fanboy. Thats his right...just know who you're listening too. For a bit more objectivity, consider the writings of Ed Bott, Mary J. Foley, Todd Bishop or Brier Dudley -- who maintain some objectivity (and professionalism) even when writing in their blogs. 2. >>other companies (including Microsoft) had done similar things<< Please link to your complaints about these other companies in your blogs and other articles. 3. >>unsuspecting users will still install this unnecessary product by mistake, as they were doing before. << The crux of this entire argument is that Mozilla is worried about unfair competition. A worthy and noble worry. Others (like Paul) are using it only to beat up on Apple. Safari isn't useless...it's probably the most widely used mobile browser in the market today.
Ocean
on Apr 20, 2008
>>How strange to see you and Gruber actually agreeing.<< Nope. Gruber thinks they went far enough. >>>>Good move by Apple: Software Update for Windows now does the right thing, displaying separate lists for upgraded versions of already-installed software and new software that you’d be installing for the first time.<<<<
DRWAM
on Apr 20, 2008
That damn Google Toolbar is checked off on almost every app that you can download. My kids install it every week as it is always checked, and I uninstall it ASAP. Google is evil! Their stupid maps suck. they can't find squat. I have struggle on too numerous occasions to use it, but it can't fine an business unless it's a sponsor. Mapquest became a turd too. At least we can delete all the crap we don't like. Sorry for the rant, but I am really getting tired of this behavior, especially from Google. I will get my revenge by getting the $10 off from Buy.com and keep making Gmail accounts and buy $10 items that ship free. I think that I'll buy two or tree each day for a year until I'm fifty yrs old!
Ocean
on Apr 20, 2008
Mozilla is being asked on Asa's blog to do something I don't think they'll do... >> The fact that Firefox, by default, wants to be my default browser and will continually warn me if it is not is as suspect if not more than Apple checking the option to install Safari by default. If Asa wants to put his money where his mouth is, Firefox will, by default, disable the "Always check to see if Firefox is the default browser on startup" preference.<< >>I take it Asa that you are leading the push at Mozilla to have the "Make this the default browser" option unchecked by default? Right now you guys are doing something even WORSE. With Apple you might get unwanted software that won't do anything. With Firefox you launch the browser once, don't unclick the button and suddenly every time you click a link Firefox is launching instead of IE.<<
Ocean
on Apr 20, 2008
>> Hmm. I just let Safari install. And you know what? It sat there, completely harmless. It didn't set itself as the default browser. It didn't automatically run. It simply sat there. Oh, what a huge security risk that was! What a huge loss in trust! Blah, blah, blah. So, anyway, my next step was to download Firefox. And guess what? The first step of that was to run a custom executable! Oh my! Of course, the Firefox installer can do whatever it likes at this point. Then I got through the Firefox installer. And right there, a checkbox, defaulted to on: Launch Firefox now. Next step: Import from Microsoft Internet Explorer? No. Stay out of my data. Oh, look! The default is also on. Next step: Change your homepage? No, stay out of my settings. Oh, look! The default is also on. Click a couple times, and Firefox is asking me if it should become my default browser. Oh, look! The default answer is YES. Fix your own defaults first. <<
Cfischer83
on Apr 20, 2008
"Lets address several points: 1. >>Apple lofts middle finger at PC users<< >>Apple recently starting spamming<< >>Apple's software is either buggy<< >>prone to massive security vulnerabilities<< All pretense of objectivity is gone. Gone." That might be the case if any of those statements were anything but 100% true. Show me software that's more buggy than iTunes, Safari and Quicktime... show me software that doesn't have as many vulnerabilities as Quicktime or Safari (read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080418/tc_pcworld/144813)... as for spam? What they're doing is the definition of spam which is the proverbial middle finger to anyone running Apple Updater. Ping back from Air Travel blah blah blah....
Lindy
on Apr 20, 2008
"And no, they didn't offer users a way to turn off the Safari promotion." Wow all that time spent to write this blog post and your dead wrong. Or would I call that a "Lie" using winsupersite lingo? Select Safari in the list (1 click or 0 if its already selected). Click Tools (another click) then click "Ignore selected updates" another click. You will never see it in the list again. That was 2-3 clicks dont strain yourself. Maybe you should work out more? Now if you have automatic updates on in Winblows will you get IE7 or WGA or soon silvershat? Do you have any articles or blog posts on this behavior...somehow I doubt it. If you install Java, Adobe Flash (silvershat killer), or Adobe reader all of them will install Google spunk onto your IE browser, unless you uncheck them. One thing I have not seen brought up is that fact this is free software. Nobody's ever happy I guess. So you posted this halftruth because..... 1.) Wanted to add a 20th reader? 2.) Its sweeps week in the tech blog world?? 3.) Could not let a week go by with out a cheap shot at Apple? 4.) Your on a down slope with your Apple bi-polar disorder, and next week you will praise some Apple product? 5.) Waiting for a pingback from proctologistnow.com?
DRWAM
on Apr 20, 2008
I guess that you're right Lindy. IE7 messed up two of my PC's so badly that I had to do a complete reinstall. It must have been a critical update or something. Either way, since I did auto or Express update, I got IE7 without a warning. It was not compatible with my imaging software [PACS, GE Centricty] so many of us were screwed when on call at the hospital as we couold not view patient's imaging study. Many of us reinstalled XP. What hurts is that there was a IE7 blocker from Microsoft that didn't even work! The hospital still did not update to be compatible with IE7 as they are 'too busy with other projects'. So much for patient care since you haven't been able to b uy a home PC without IE7 for about a year [I think]. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that IE7 is bad, it just that I wish that I was given a warning before it installed itself. One other thing, Google Toolbar blows almost as Google Maps. My dang GPS on my Benz took me 45 minutes out of my way on a 90 minute trip, so I tried to Google. It would only find a nearby sponsor... in another state!
drylight
on Apr 20, 2008
Nothing wrong with Apple offering PC users a better browser. No really, WebKit is going to be a very important browser technology. Even more so now that the iPhone will rule the roost while Windows Mobile sucks the big ones.
brandon.pope
on Apr 20, 2008
Hey. No Airline Pingback this time.
subzerohitman721
on Apr 20, 2008
I'm sorry Paul and Lindy, but you're both partially wrong that one. When you alerted us to this practice of Apple pushing Safari on Windows users, I did update my Apple software? (Yes, I do run both Quicktime and iTunes on my Windows Vista ultimate edition. I've been a Quicktime user since 1997. Thank you very much.) I did see the ignore users option and I activated it. Thank you Lindy for calling Paul on that one. However, Lindy, when I updated the Apple Software Update, it put Safari back on the menu. I had already previously instructed the program to ignore Safari, as it is a badly written and executed web browser. Proof, I went to an Apple demostration session at Best Buy in Keller, Texas. The brand new Macbook, straight out of the box, couldn't even render the Apple.com webpage accurately! This begs the obvious question, if it can't render its own homepage correctly, what else does it display inacurately? I'm sorry Paul, but thats a lil bit of a mistruth and you were accurately called on it. However, I do agree with you that pushing it as a pre-checked new software is wrong. Microsoft has never done that as best to my knowledge on any Windows Update, Microsoft Update, etc. I have to manually select each and every update with the exception of Windows Defender updates. I do believe Apple has the right to offer it as a download selection, but please give me the choice of putting it on my equipment. I don't need Apple acting like a pushy sales person. They can fix this behavior. Once again, proof that Apple is just as bad or notorious as Microsoft. So it becomes now like politicians a choice between the lesser of two necessary evils. I just don't think paying over a grand justifies that kind of evil.
Lindy
on Apr 20, 2008
Yes updating the Apple update software reset what to ignore. This could be because of the fundamental change in the software (updates vs new software) or Apple trying to get you to download Safari, honestly I dont care. I use FF on my PC's and Mac's and I am not going to complain about free software unless they install something with out telling me....ala IE7. I have a choice with Apple sotware and since I am not a drone Windows user (clicks ok with out reading) it does not bother me. That said if you open up the current version of Apple software updates right now 100 times in a row Safari wont be an option if you told it to be ignored. It may however be an option again if the Apple update software gets modified again.
subzerohitman721
on Apr 20, 2008
Believe it or not, Windows users do have a choice and we aren't drones of any kind. I used for many years Netscape Navigator along side I.E until I dropped it for I.E. exclusively in 2000. I used to use WinAmp side by side with WMP for years until WMP 8 was released and WinAmp was having some major security issues. I also used Picture Viewer from Apple until I found better applications like Adobe Photoshop Album Starter etc or Windows Photo Gallery. Basically it comes down to a personal choice as to what works for the individual user. WE do have a choice. None of us have to click on I.E., WMP, or any Microsoft application if we truely choose not to. To say that we are drones and don't pay attention to the trends in the industry is dead wrong. There are so many websites and magazines dedicated to issues for Windows users that its a matter of the ignorant vs the informed. I constantly check out for 3rd party applications and frequent sites like download.com, sourceforge.com, oldapps.com, etc. While you tend to like the open sourced, free apps, etc... I tend to like the proprietary apps because these companies are getting better at tackling security issues. I feel like I can hold Adobe, Microsoft, etc.. Accountable where as Linux its a lot more vague who exactly I hold responsible. Frankly, it is taking the open source community a little bit longer to adress these issues and I don't want my system compromised. Vista is holding up security wise to its open source counterparts. That much is very clear. As for Apple and Linux, I don't feel like paying a grand for a PC and I don't like any Linux version that I've come across. They've all felt like Windows 2000 or 98 that lacked the polish of a Microsoft OS, lacked the native file support of mainstream files I use, nor do they support the applications I use on a daily basis. IE, Office, iTunes, etc. Perhaps one day when Linux gets it game together, I might switch, but I'd rather use OS-X. I do plan on buying a Mac to play around on but my heart will always trust Windows first.
marc57
on Apr 20, 2008
This is one of the many reasons why I don't use iTunes or QuickTime. Long live VideoLAN.
johnpapola
on Apr 20, 2008
First off, I'm pretty sure that I'm the "Apple Backer" that emailed Paul talking about how I find that Apple is generally good about listening to customer feedback. They definitely aren't quite as good at listening to competitor feedback (firefox), or self-aggrandizing tech pundit feedback for that matter. And certainly not rabidly biased, snark-laden "pundits" like Paul who are too lazy or dishonest (I'm hoping the former, but not denying the latter) to research before they write. I mean, seriously, as Lindy pointed out... it's very very easy to turn off this safari update. It's certainly easy enough for any of the tech-savvy geeks that are bothered by this installer. So paul's statement to the contrary definitely falls into the supersite "lie" category (you know, where proving intent or prior knowledge is unnecessary before using the words "lie" or "liar") I think it's safe to guess that the percentage of users that have noticed or care about this issue is in the low single digits. If there's more than 1% that care, I'd be surprised. And again, they're all capable of disabling this with ease. Regardless, is this checkbox deal "wrong"? Annoying for some dorks, perhaps, but not "wrong" in and of itself. What made/makes Microsoft's identical tactic "wrong" is that they're a convicted monopolist. Not the tactic itself. It's clearly been pointed out that other Microsoft competitors are using even more aggressive and annoying defaults as part of their installers. So here's what I find ironic about all this. Microsoft was able to force IE on the world through illegal bundling that not only crushed innovation in browsers for a generation, but opened the door to security nightmares... but now competitors like Apple must not be allowed to legally leverage their platforms to compete and take away share that was unethically and illegally gained. How fortunate for Microsoft. Apple would be stupid not to leverage iTunes and it's immense installed base for competing the browser space. If I were a shareholder still, I'd be demanding they do what they're doing. As a user... this is so easy to ignore and so mild an intrusion by Windows software standards that it's not even worth discussing... But Paul and the tech blogs will take every chance to attack Apple, no matter how silly, and even after Apple reacts reasonably.
Avro
on Apr 20, 2008
@Cfischer83 I think you doth protest too much. I've never had any real problems with Safari or Quicktime and only once with iTunes and within a day or two an update had fixed it. I haven't been using Windows for the better part of a year, but next month I start a Postgrad Certificate in computing and need to use XP for part of it (Vista isn't supported). This weekend I duly installed XP on my Mac Pro - and I like it. OEM installation with absolutely no crapware, this will probably give me my best Windows experience ever :-). Some observations on Windows. The UI has taken on the nickname Mother-in-Law because its nags me constantly, states the bloody obvious, is wrong, but not in doubt 'You need to turn on your anti-virus' 'I have you idiot, you just cannot detect it' 'I have detected new hardware' 'Hmm, I thought you would'. More to the point in this discussion though. When I update on OS X it gives me a list and lets me untick what I don't want to install. The Windows updater merely tells me that I have 87 updates to install and doesn't give me anything in the way of choice and let me know what they are. It also decided to install IE 7 without any desire from me. This could be a lot better. Still Windows is a good and worthy Operating System, it just has a wonky UI. But I do agree that Apple got it wrong with Safari, no one should have software installed that they don't want. No matter if others did it, Apple should not have.
Cfischer83
on Apr 20, 2008
Avro... I wasn't protesting anything, I wasn't even defending myself... I was simply showing that Ocean's comments hold no water based off of my, and most other users, experiences... Methinks thou doth useth the wrong saying... eth... err... yeah...
Avro
on Apr 20, 2008
No you were complaining about bugs and security problems - Windows vs Apple " Kettle calling the pot ...." I call 'em as I sees 'em. :-)
Cfischer83
on Apr 20, 2008
I don't have hardly any bugs in the Windows programs that I run except for Apple's, so I guess I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em too... I'm afraid that's not considered protesting too much, sorry... maybe next time ;)
befuson
on Apr 21, 2008
How totally pathetic and predictable... All the FANATIC Apple defense going on here is astounding, even when you consider all the crazy Apple Fanboys that obviously hate Paul, but come back, week after week after week after week... And the Apple blogs ALWAYS get an extraordinary number of comments. Always. Yet you all keep coming back. Why is that? If none or little of what Paul said were true, then why bother defending Apple? If all of his anti-Apple posts are so off-the-mark, then why are so many of you seeming personally offended by them? If he has such a baseless and biased hatred for the company you all wish you could make sweet, sweet love to, then why bother ever reading what he writes? Have ever heard the phrase: "the truth hurts"? It seems there's a lot of validity to that saying... - B
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 21, 2008
"The Windows updater merely tells me that I have 87 updates to install and doesn't give me anything in the way of choice and let me know what they are." Since when? I can see at any time, what updates are scheduled to be installed. I can uncheck them. And I can hide them. I have been able to do this since Windows 9x. The contention is very clear, and separating the screen in to two panes does not fix the problem. It is checked by default. It should not be. I don't mind you offering other software for install. This has been the case with so many applications it is hard to count (Google I'm looking at you, and don't even get me started on Real...). If it is optional, and UNCHECKED, then I feel fine about it. Whether it is Google, MS, Apple, or anyone else that is asking for you to install optional updates, but making them the default, it is wrong, and it means that a lot of extra crap gets installed that does not need to be there. In these cases, a lot of that extra crap is an extra attack surface that can be exploited. Just like IE, Safari has certainly not been immune to attack. Compare this to MS offering Silverlight. Many felt that this was out of line, and perhaps it is. However, this application is not checked by default, and will continue to show up as an optional update, and will not install until you choose to opt-in and choose it. If they change this behavior in the future, then I will appropriately get mad at them for doing that. And I can certainly bet that the blogosphere will be all over them taking them to task.
RunTimeError
on Apr 21, 2008
"New software, like Safari, is, however, still checked and selected by default, so unsuspecting users will still install this unnecessary product by mistake, as they were doing before." Unsuspecting users will install ANYTHING that is put before them regardless of the platform. Always have always will.
DarkSages
on Apr 21, 2008
God Apple/Steve fans are blind. Maybe Microsoft should make a Microsoft update for mac. This was when you want to update office you actually install all Microsoft products to your mac. As long as they don't run whats the harm (Ocean you idiot). And maybe they should start making IE for mac again and also push it out. See who would get more pissed off. The point is no one should be allowed to do this NO ONE not Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo... NO ONE. Apple just does not care about it's customer they are shooting themselves in the foot the worst thing is that you know that they did not do this because they are idiots they did this because they think they can get away with it. Back when Microsoft did a similar thing with IE they got got slap by the industry it's time for apple to get theirs.
johnpapola
on Apr 21, 2008
DarkSages and the like, Clearly this bothers people. I'd just like to know what rule book everyone is pulling from to determine that this is "wrong". It's certainly not about morality, so the religious texts are out. It's not a matter of US law, since Apple isn't a proven monopoly (as Microsoft is). Apple does provide a way to ignore the offer in the future, so it's not like they're leaving power users with no choices (despite Paul's false assertion to the contrary). That should be enough to address the annoyance factor. The only thing that makes this kind of thing "wrong" is when it's anti-competitive because of monopoly leveraging. That's what made MS bundling wrong. Not the act itself. Why can't you people just uncheck the box and move on? They've addressed the misrepresentation of Safari as an "update" versus "new software" which was fair from an honesty standpoint. But why should Apple not be able to fully leverage every competitive advantage they have for themselves? I sure as hell would want that if I was in their shoes. And, yes, it does matter that it's the practice of their competitors. That's how markets work. Netscape didn't get any consolation prize for losing to Microsoft. They just disappeared. Sometime unspoken geek ethics don't jibe with maximizing profit as a company, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. If you want to focus on something really annoying, install CS3 and run the updaters. Talk about awful execution, with multiple updates of the updater itself and lengthy periods of mid-install inactivity. That thing is a mess.
DRWAM
on Apr 21, 2008
Darksages and all, the point that the Apple fan boys are making is that MS, Google and others are STILL doing it, but only Apple is being chastised here. That's why they are pissed off. But at least Apple gives you a chance not to download, unlike IE7. If you turn on the 'recommended' MS settings, it gets downloaded automatically. Imagine being a doctor at home, on call at one of the hundreds or thousands of hospitals where it IE7was incompatible, and you are at home waiting to view a life saving imaging study, but you cannot because of IE7. You are 30 or 45 minutes away from the hospital, and someone could be dead by the time you arrive. I doubt that that happened with iTunes or Safari. Do you get it now? They are all guilty, and it's worth mentioning all of them if you are mentioning even one. And they haven't stopped yet. google frackin Toolbar especially since it's box is always checked. Those peckerheads. [Or is it just Adobe and others? Whatever!]
DRWAM
on Apr 21, 2008
Woops, sorry about my rant. I guess that I was derepressing ny experience with two dozen doctors driving me crazy with their IE7 issue...all at night! They tend to use me as IT after hours. Again, sorry. I use IE7 now with Vista, since the office upgraded to compatible software, and In found a workaround at the hospital, and had to help others with it. Frackin hospital! Woops, there I go again! Doc
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 21, 2008
"But at least Apple gives you a chance not to download, unlike IE7. If you turn on the 'recommended' MS settings, it gets downloaded automatically." Big difference is that IE6 is already installed on your computer, so IE7 is just a natural upgrade path. Similarly, a new version of iTunes being installed with the updater over your current copy. In the case of Apple, Safari is not installed on your computer, and you are offered it as an update by default while installing updates to another product. The reason that this is important is that this is yet another piece of software gunking up machines. As a person that deals with the maintenance of computers as pretty big part of my life, the endless onslaught of this type of crap is annoying to say the least. If I'm cleaning up a computer, I look and see, gee, did this person install this thing on purpose, or did they accidentally install it? I tend to leave them on, and all I have done is leave another attack surface open using up more system resources. I will call out others when this happens. However, this happens so often with other applications (like I said earlier, Google and Real, I'm lookin' at you), it is impossible and useless to enumerate all of these when you mention it in every post. Dr, they are all guilty, but that doesn't make it right. I think that the biggest reason that this is called out, however, is that Apple and its proponents always talk about the the superior user experience that Apple hardware and software provides. Well, if it is such a superior user experience, then why are they offering, by default, software that I potentially don't need or want, and potentially putting my computer in more danger (particularly with Vista, since IE runs in protected mode, and other browsers do not)? "on call at one of the hundreds or thousands of hospitals where it IE7was incompatible, and you are at home waiting to view a life saving imaging study, but you cannot because of IE7" As an administrator of such a system, particularly one of importance such as the healthcare industry, potentially supplying Motion tables to the masses and other similar hardware, the administrator will use WSUS or something else to make sure that it is not installed automatically through Group Policy settings if IE7 was not compatible (and the same situation with Firefox, Opera, and yes, even the vaunted Safari, all of which will probably not be compatible or certified either). And in such life critical situations, you certainly wouldn't let your workers install anything without the approval of the administrator, since the uptime and reliability of those system are of the utmost importance. "Netscape didn't get any consolation prize for losing to Microsoft. They just disappeared." Many could argue that the quality of the later versions of software just didn't cut it. I held on for dear life to Netscape 4, but after update after update, I saw that the browser was not improving enough. Strangely enough, IE had been innovated enough that it had easily become better than Netscape, bundling or not. Fast forward to 2008, and certainly, if MS had been forced to not include any kind of browser in their OS, they would be chastised by the same Apple lovers commenting on this very same article about how they (MS) are dimwitted and useless, getting equally bad reviews by Mossy and our own drylight.
johnpapola
on Apr 21, 2008
"The reason that this is important is that this is yet another piece of software gunking up machines." What is this "gunking up" you speak of? I've got Firefox, Camino, Opera and Safari on my OSX system and am unaware of any "gunking" happening. Oh wait... that's right. This is Windows, where the fundamental architecture leads the system to become slower with more applications installed, even if they aren't running. Man. For a platform that's all about third party software, you guys sure seem averse to having actual third party software installed. And again, I ask you why you didn't uncheck the box and tell the installer to ignore future updates. It's easy. it really is. "all I have done is leave another attack surface open using up more system resources" Maybe I'm ignorant, but how does a program being installed introduce another "attack surface" if it's not being run? Does the installer launch safari? Does it install some memory-resident little app that will relaunch at boot? Just not sure where this attack surface expansion you're alleging is coming from. If users run Safari, and then choose to keep running it... that's called successful marketing, security issues or not. If they run it and think it sucks and never run it again... how does that hurt anything?
DarkSages
on Apr 21, 2008
"I'd just like to know what rule book everyone is pulling from to determine that this is "wrong". It's call being considerate. Apple knew that most users did not want safari, but instead of removing it or at least have the box unchecked they just labeled it differently. I can tell you right now that many users that are not as capable as others here would just click install. They may not even know what safari is or what does it do. This is the reason that many pcs crash or get compromised because users install all these add-ons and apps without knowing they are being installed. Just because it’s not a law it does not make it right, I am sure that the majority of us would say that we do not like junk in our computers. A good example of this is adobe, if I want to install adobe reader from the adobe website there is a checkbox for google toolbar checked to be installed. If you missed it you have google toolbar. This should not be ok…it just should not we should not have to uncheck nothing we should only get what we ask for. Back to my first previous point if Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Adobe... would start doing this to apple consumers they to would be pissed off. I don’t care what company is doing this or not I just think that those that are should be stoped. ""But at least Apple gives you a chance not to download, unlike IE7. If you turn on the 'recommended' MS settings, it gets downloaded automatically." Big difference is that IE6 is already installed on your computer, so IE7 is just a natural upgrade path. Similarly, a new version of iTunes being installed with the updater over your current copy." Exactly
DarkSages
on Apr 21, 2008
Johnpapola -Why should we have to test something we dont want. Let me make it into a simple example so you can understand Lets say I order a magazine subscription. Lets make it PCMag and I am getting their magazines, now lets say one month they sent me a their magazine and maybe PCGamer. Ok now I got another magazine that I did not order I have to spend time and reply to their card saying I don’t want it. That’s time wasted for me and a Magazine I toss away. So a few months pass and now they sent me Maxim once again I have to fill up a form and send it in asking not to send me Maxim…. If we don’t put a stop to this companies would continue to do this. Now lets go back to apple and safari, I “order itunes” that got me itunes and quicktime and apple update. Now every month or what ever I get an update to itunes and quicktime. Next month I get another update this time with safari so I install it sits there, but now every time there is an update for safari I get it also and if I realize I do not want safari I have to uninstall it, it might not take a huge amount of time but it does take up some time and it is annoying. It might not be a huge thing now but it will be if we don’t say no to apple and other companies that are doing this, we have to let them know that it is not ok.
johnpapola
on Apr 21, 2008
"Apple knew that most users did not want safari" How exactly have you come to that conclusion? More likely, most users aren't aware of safari and this pop-up represents a marketing opportunity that's too good to miss. The geek echo-chamber of the tech web is not in any way a representation of the desires of most consumers. Apple is leveraging their success with iTunes. It's very smart of them. It was smart of MS too. If you can prove that the number of geeks that are turned off ideologically outweighs the potential browser share gains by leaving the box checked, than I'd love to see your market research proving this. Microsoft's research obviously leads them to keep up this policy, as does Google's and Apples. At least Apple's doesn't actively modify your current browser during the install (like google toolbar). Safari just sits there on your drive doing and harming nothing. These companies are running a business. It's your responsibility to read before you click on your home system. Quit crying, uncheck the box, and put this energy toward convincing your congress to eliminate subsidies for bio-fuels before they starve the entire third world. That's some outrage that is deserved.
johnpapola
on Apr 21, 2008
DarkSages, Your magazine analogy is ridiculous. We're talking about a checkbox. A FRIGGIN' CHECKBOX!!!! Not a magazine that was manufactured from cut trees, shipped in gas-guzzling trucks and will be throw away in a landfill. Not some annoying physical clutter that will sit on your dinning room table waiting to be thrown away. I agree that junk mail is a horrible problem, but this is not analogous at all. This is much ado about nothing and Paul is demonstrating his biased and aggressive tone in spectacular force for no good reason.
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 21, 2008
"And again, I ask you why you didn't uncheck the box and tell the installer to ignore future updates. It's easy. " WE know it's easy. But do Joe and Jane computer user? No, they don't. Since I don't have iTunes or QuickTime on my computer, and therefore no Apple Software Update, I don't know exactly what this does when you click to install it. If you want to make it worthwhile from a business perspective, then you will make it the default browser for that computer. This is where the supposed superior user experience falls apart, now that the average computer user has a different browser to learn. And, therefore, also opens up an attack surface on the computer. And yes, even if the application is not running, it opens and attack surface since it is installed on your computer. Since your mothership does not teach you proper security method but rather sticks its tongue at it, the understanding of what constitutes an attack surface is lost on you. Safari was pwned in 10 minutes. PayPal was considering blocking Safari because of inherent security problems. I have no way to lock it down through Group Policy or custom installs. And this becomes yet another piece of software that needs to be tracked and updated. And with the security issues with browsers in general, this updating will happen often. "successful marketing, security issues or not." Ah, that about sums up Apple. Marketing, nothing more. Your words, not mine. ;) I can guarantee that the same people giving Apple a slide would chastise MS if they tried the same thing if the tables were turned. Imagine if the Zune was the #1 player, and it was somehow universally loved by Apple lovers the world over. And in the course of updating the Zune software, they offered IE by default when updating said software. John, you and the entire blogosphere, Mossy, Pogue and the rest of them would be up in arms demanding blood. You know it. MS is a monopolist, that is using their monopoly power to increase their browser share. (Of course, it is Apple that has the monopoly in this space, and a captive audience, and of course then it is OK. Stevey knows best!) So John, quick apologizing for Apple, and put that energy towards convincing the Congress of whatever pet issues you have.
DRWAM
on Apr 21, 2008
Dipsh, the IE7 install was on all of our home computers. We are the Joe and Jane users and got screwed with this simple IE6 upgrade to IE7, but it was anything but a simple upgrade and caused many of us to reinstall Windows. No warning, no nothing. No chance for unchecking a box and no administrator to help. Given the fact that there are numerous browser based apps that could become useless, Microsoft should not have done it, so stop being an apologist for them. It was unacceptable. Now, to be fair to MS, I think Safari and iTunes sucks. I never upgrade iTunes on my PC because of fear, but of course, some that fear was caused by my IE7 experience. PS, Google sucks, and boy have I got a few Real player stories! Thanks for the info, Doc
Waethorn
on Apr 21, 2008
"Just not sure where this attack surface expansion you're alleging is coming from. If users run Safari, and then choose to keep running it... that's called successful marketing, security issues or not. If they run it and think it sucks and never run it again... how does that hurt anything?." Clearly you're not a developer. Obviously. Safari installs numerous additional MIME Types and HTML handlers which are separate from other web browsers, for one. Secondly, it's an internet-based program with [many] security holes. A simple website can be created to call one of their proprietary file handlers and introduce malicious code. It's actually not difficult to do, and I've already seen corporate security pros take advantage of those security flaws. That's why I say a big fat "NO!" (read: "F.U.") to Apple software in corporate environments. Now you're defending the fact that regardless of security issues, people should just accept that Apple must know what they're doing by installing software on unwitting users' computers? HA! Fat chance, pal! The real name for that is not "good marketing", that's called "bundling malware". "We are the Joe and Jane users and got screwed with this simple IE6 upgrade to IE7, but it was anything but a simple upgrade and caused many of us to reinstall Windows. No warning, no nothing." I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. I just ran a clean install of Windows XP Professional, and IE7 still clearly shows up as an optional update, and thus not included in Automatic Updates. That's even after configuring Microsoft Update as the default update site, instead of the standard Windows Update. Automatic Updates never once tried to install it.
johnpapola
on Apr 21, 2008
Dipsht, Joe and Jane user that don't know it's easy to uncheck a box, also don't care about 50MB of new software being installed. They're also an incredibly difficult audience to reach with software like a web browser given that Microsoft bundles IE in Windows. Please explain how having safari installed but not in use decreases security and widens this "attack surface". Safari was pwned in 10 minutes by exploiting an flaw through it's use. Paypal's issue also involves it's use. Show me an instance where the passive existence of the Safari installation decreases security and I'll happily change my entire tune on this whole thing. So far, though, I've read nothing here that explains how it compromises the system when not running. If users decide to to use safari and they like it, then we can get into the browser and it's pros and cons regarding security. But that's a separate discussion from this installation tactic all together and conflating the two doesn't support your argument. All software has security issues. And all of your talk about locking it down with group policies and custom installs appears aimed at company support. What does that have to do with anything? I know that Viacom strictly monitors and locks down all the PC desktops like crazy, and end users aren't allowed to install anything, so this whole issue doesn't seem relevant to workgroup or corporate users at all. "Ah, that about sums up Apple.  Marketing, nothing more." Dude, what a crock. Apple's got tons of original tech and engineering. This marketing line is idiotic. Regarding the tables being turned on Microsoft... you said it yourself. They're a monopolist. We don't need to imagine Microsoft using these tactics. They've already done it with IE and many other products. We don't need to imagine Zune being #1 because we have Windows with it's 96% marketshare which was obtained in part through arm-twisting and thug-style behavior. Apple, on the other hand, is NOT A MONOPOLY in any space. It hasn't been demonstrated in any court and you can't prove it here. Apple isn't bullying anyone into buying or carrying the ipod. The content providers have put their content on every platform. Customers are free to buy any device they want with no impact from the iPod and get the exact same functionality (just not as seamless or well executed). You're just Apple bashing along with Paul and blowing a nothing issue into yet another reason to slam them. As for Safari being "malware"... you know it's funny. I've been running OSX without any virus or anti-spyware software since it's release and have never had a single problem. I know you're all very anxious to see an actual live, in-the-wild security attack on Apple's software on the scale that Windows has been abused and bombarded for years, but until that day comes (and it probably will) your efforts to smear Apple's security are all theory and contests and no real-world damage or loss. I'm sorry for those of you that have to admin users and for some reason are unable to lock down their machines to prevent software installations. I don't know why that's a problem for you, but it's certainly not a problem with the PCs at our office. They're locked down tight.
Fanfoot
on Apr 21, 2008
Wow, Uhh... lets see. I am pissed off because this stupid Apple Software Updater keeps bugging me. Not horribly pissed off, but pissed off. Enough that I *did* consider uninstalling the damn updater. Meaning yes I might miss some security patches but hey, it was pissing me off. Why did it bug me so much? I just ran the DivX converter, it noticed a new version, and when I installed it they once again tried to install the damn Yahoo toolbar by default (just uncheck it). Same deal. Something I don't want checked by default. What's the difference? There isn't much of one, both of them are bad. Why does the Apple one bother me more? Because the DivX one only bothered me once, while the Apple updater bothered me over and over again in a short time. And then they fixed it. Or didn't. And in the process made me reboot the damn computer again. I'm running a Tivo Desktop application on this computer, and it takes FOREVER to boot. I can't stand things that make me reboot. I'm really pissed off now. And yes I heard about the Tools/Options thing and used that to get it to shut up. What I'm wondering now is whether it will bug me again the next time there's a new version of Safari, or whether I'm done answering that question...
Mum
on Apr 21, 2008
I think it was much worse when Vista closed all my open files without asking before updating to SP1. My colleague did get asked whether she wanted to save her open documents, but saving them "failed" before they were just forced to close. When do we get to read about it here? Never. There might be an odd post about a piece of Microsoft software destroying your files concluding that the writer certainly hasn't experienced anything of the kind and that not many people use the said software anyway.
ibarskiy
on Apr 22, 2008
Johnpapola, You once attacked me for indirectly referring to you as a "fanboy," but I think now it's clear that you are nothing more than that. What Apple did is wrong because it goes against the trust of the user in the upgrade process, like the Firefox guys mentioned, the trust that is fundamental in keeping systmes up to date and safe. Trying to push software via an Updater is wrong, in my opinion. MS never pushed new software via an updater for an unrelated product - for example, IE via an updater for Office. Besides, Apple is certainly clearly a monopoly when it comes to the ecosystem that runs AppleOS. Or do you not follow the news? And Apple leverages its iPod device to push crap like Quicktime on people; how is that not bundling? But go on; ignore the facts so that you can put Jobs on a pedestal, surround him with bright light, and pucker up to his rearside without kneeling.
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 22, 2008
John, I hate to quote Waethorn on anything, but he speaks some truth here: "Safari installs numerous additional MIME Types and HTML handlers which are separate from other web browsers, for one. Secondly, it's an internet-based program with [many] security holes" So, say I'm a malware writer for profit, and I know that a very large population of the computing space is going to have another browser forced upon them that they may or may not want (or are totally ambivalent, doesn't matter). If they have extra file type handlers installed that are explicit to the browser, then I can craft special code to take advantage of that, through specially crafted web sites that may actually run in another browser. Since Safari has been proven to have a decent number of security holes, doing this is relatively arbitrary. Please, before you speak about computer security, drop the Kool-Aid and go to SANS, etc. and get a real education about security. See something like this that offers a way to exploit Safari in tandem with a bunch of other apps (note that this has probably been patched by now): http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/ lotsa will appreciate this, but John, you missed the all forgiving wink after I said that Apple is just all about marketing. ;) <-- All forgiving wink! "I don't know why that's a problem for you" It's a problem not in the way that you are making it out to be. I only have so many resources, and trying to lock down things too hard is difficult. Your company doesn't have that problem. Good for them. But, remember, corporate IT departments aren't the only game in town. There also is the SMB market which is quite large, just not as profitable, but lack the resources to do this effectively, making stuff like this ever more maddening. "But that's a separate discussion from this installation tactic all together and conflating the two doesn't support your argument." No, it's not a separate discussion. It is very relevant if that can open up security holes in my system, or the systems of potential victims that don't know better. Remember, Safari was owned in 10 minutes. Vista took longer to fall, thanks to Adobe. Third party applications DO matter. Think about it this way. Let's say you have a Ford Explorer and bring it in for service. You trust your service department (much like one trusts the Apple Software Updater), and unbeknownst to you they conduct a recall and install new Firestone tires, that later become known to have safety vulnerabilities (ie Safari). Driving along (web browsing), you have a blow out (pwned!) inuring a pedestrian (much like DR Wam's inability to view critical life saving information in his browser because of the system being compromised). How would you feel about this situation? Disclosure: Is this the best example? No. Best I can think of on short notice? Yes. Overwrought and hyperbolic to prove a point? Yes.
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
"I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. I just ran a clean install of Windows XP Professional, and IE7 still clearly shows up as an optional update, and thus not included in Automatic Updates. That's even after configuring Microsoft Update as the default update site, instead of the standard Windows Update. Automatic Updates never once tried to install it." Actually, your experience is different from 60+ doctors. IE7 was installed without our knowledge. We all got a warning or nag that updates were available [but I cannot recall if it showed the word critical or not], and we used express install. Badda-bing, we all had IE7 installed. So whatever your are saying is wrong and your experience is irrelevant, because that's how it happened, to more than 60 of us. Some called MS and successfully uninstalled it, while others reinstalled XP. It happened to two of my PC's. I turned off auto update, then downloaded the IE7 blocker, which did not work. Why would MS make an installer blocker if it was optional? Perhaps they changed it, but this was as recent as a new XP install two months ago. My IT department emailed us a modified blocker that finally worked. Why would we still need it if it were optional?
DarkSages
on Apr 22, 2008
DRWAM I am sorry but I manage a large elemtary school in san diego with 600+ mac clients and 200+ pcs. I know for a fact that IE7 did not install by it self. http://www.news.com/Microsoft-tags-IE-7-high-priority-update/2100-7350_3... "Although IE 7 will be pushed out over Automatic Updates, people will be able to choose whether they want to install it or not, Schare said. Automatic Updates will first notify people when IE 7 is ready to install and then show a welcome screen that presents key features and the choices to install, not install or postpone installation." So first of all if you are the tech there you should have prepare your self by testing betas. Second IE7 is not a new app it's an update to IE6. Third as the tech you should have installed the IE7 blocker before IE7 shipped and tested it. I had no problem what so ever I installed this two months before IE7 came out and I then push the IE7 update myself after testing 4 months later. Last like I said it will not install by itself it would have asked the person using the computer since you did not have this secured using an admin policy. One more thing apple does this also in macs all my macs got safari 3.0 downloaded but you could unchecked the box if you did not want it. It's the same thing and apple have their own way to bock updates so I also did for a while. (As i tested safari 3 some apps that used forms did not work) When you run a big setup of computers you always have to look ahead and prevent updates until you test them with your custom apps. Once you test them then you push them out all major companies follow this pattern. Block, test, push. We are talking about consumers normal people in their homes mainly with no IT. But I guess small companies that don't know how to manage updates will be affected as well. You can not compare what apple is doing with what Microsoft did with IE7 so stop. Apple installed safari an application that was not in your computer not an update like IE7 was. I am also going to stop this game of back and fort because like I said before companies should be responsible and do the right thing for their customers and if they don't then maybe we should install itunes quictime or what ever program is affecting you. I have stop using itunes a while back but still have it installed and this update thing did affect me.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use