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

Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 22, 2008
"My IT department emailed us a modified blocker that finally worked." Sounds more like your IT department had problems rather than this being a MS thing. I have not seen IE7 automatically installed either, unless you opt-in, or manage it via WSUS or some other patch management solution.
Avro
on Apr 22, 2008
I have to say that what Apple did was wrong. Interesting to note though, there is a piece of spyware called PHORM in widespread use and if you don't want it to spy on you, use Safari. Both IE and FireFox are vulnerable to PHORM while Safari is not. Better security with Safari! From The Guardian "But Safari treats cookies differently, he said. "As far as I can see it's not that that they can't [track users on it] but in practice Safari has some built-in settings which mean that the cookies that they rely on at the end of the process [where you request a page, Phorm inspects it for cookies and whether to serve an ad and passes back a cookie] to serve you up targeted ads will not be sent by Safari because it considers it a privacy risk and doesn't send the cookies." http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/08/cambridge_expert_use_s... And people are making excuses for MS and they have been equally wrong. Take for example Vista Capable, total ripoff in other words. Take for example WGA. That was a stealth install. And the moniker , where is the Genuine Advantage for the computer user? If you have a false positive you still get your computer bricked. What about MS Office 2008? If you install Apple's iWork O8, it installs alongside iWork 06. Office 2008 is buggy and it eats your Office 2004 installation. No warning! Lot's of Mac users not happy about that. @Cfischer 83 Buggy MS Software apps: various incarnations of IE MS Office 2004 - Word and Entourage are particularly bad MS Office 2008 - Word and Entourage are particularly bad Windows Media Player Don't let me start on Windows ME, I get sooooo angry! As for the Apple Software you mention. Are you sure it is buggy or is it some of the cr*pware on your system that is giving it problems? I was getting annoyed at OmniWeb for crashing and then I found out that the cause was Adobe Reader. After I had zapped that app, no problems with OmniWeb. The Omni people were aware of the problem but Adobe was not helping them in fixing it.
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
I am one of the 70 doctors. We are not techs. We did not know about IE7, and I am sorry, but we turned on auto update, then clicked 'Express Install', and IE7 was installed on our home computers with Xp Pro and Home. This happended to over 60 of us at 3 hosptals, and two of y own computers. I reinstalled XP on my laptop and the same thing almost happened. I downloaded the blocker, but the same thing almost happened. But I did not choose 'Express Install' which is recommended, so I did not allow it to install. I used a blocker sent to us from IT that finally found out this this was a problem, way too late. Right now, on my laptop, IE7 is listed as a blocked 'Critical Update', and would have been installed if the blocker was not there using the recommended Express Install, on XP professional. OthersSo please, I could care less what your experience is, but don't call me a liar. This is the 3rd time that I posted this true experience. I don't care Safari, but at least you were able to see that it was about to be updated, so please, YOU stop apoligizing illegitimately for Microsoft. But don't take my word, or others that have posted here, google search "IE7 automatically installs" and gee, looky there! hHundreds of references that IE7 automactically installs. here are a few: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/07/26/678149.aspx http://www.webmasterworld.com/html/3142800.htm I like this one from Arstechnica: How to block the automatic installation of Internet Explorer 7 http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2006/10/11/5592 Here's one from Microsoft about servers: support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/946202 This is a strange title "Download IE7 Automatic Install Disabler 2.0 by IntelliNavigator, Inc". Why would you need it if auto install did not happen? www.programurl.com/ie7-automatic-install-disabler.htm or this "Many administrators are going to be taken by surprise when they find out that Internet Explorer 7 is going to be installed automatically via Windows Update. There are considerable changes that could cause many headaches. Most administrators would prefer to decide when Internet Explorer 7 is deployed on their network:" Link: http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2006/10/17/disable-automatic-install... Hundreds of google hits. Gee I must be wrong. What's your profession again?
DarkSages
on Apr 22, 2008
OK fine I will post screen shot of this by installing a clean copy of xp pro and doing auto update on it. I know for a fact that it downloads IE7 and does not install until you click install on it. I wont do this today or tomorrow but in a week or so. I think even paul had a few screen shots of this in his site. I can not tell you how it happen to you but I will say that in all the xp machine I have seen (over 500 since IE7 came out) the same thing it downloads if you selects install all updates IE7 setup comes up and needs user input to finish installation. If you cancel it wont ask you again.
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
It did exactly as I posted and at the end simply told me to restart to finish the install. That seems automatic to me and the thousands of Google search hits as well. Dude, the Google search had 908,000 hits. Read them and see. At least one hit ont he first page was from Microsoft. If you use express install, you get IE7 installed, period end. That's what hundreds of sites are saying and that's why blockers were created, incuding a blocker from Microsoft. So you can post whatever you like, but straight from the mothership has the truth. How can you argue with all of these websites and the blocker apps. Why in the world would you need one if it were not true.
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
Darksages, were you referring to a notice at the end that shows restart the computer to complete installation of IE7? I am wondering if that is what it said and was there a chance to not install. If that is what you mean, I may have seen it, but am not sure. In any event most docs missed it, but what would you expect from us? these guys just click anything that pops up, but that is what you guys are complaining about Apple too. PS, I like IE7, my browser of choice. If the above is what you nmean, I apologize but still disagree. many of the docs called me at night to help them and it was a real pain. Peace, Doc
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 22, 2008
Dr Wam, two things. First, read from here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/automaticupdates.... "Automatic Updates will first notify you when Internet Explorer 7 is ready to install and then show a welcome screen that presents key features and the choice to accept, decline or postpone installation" Even with the express installation, it is still giving you a chance to opt-out. If you have problems installing security updates, MS offers *FREE* support. (866) PC-SAFETY Explicit to IE7 installs, try (866) 234-6020 Also try http://support.microsoft.com/gp/pc_ie_intro
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
I believe you, but we must have missed them. I have experienced nothing but superior customer service from MS., and like all thier products. It seems really strange that all this literature and my experience seems different, but I have only experienced two installs and cannot recall seeing it, and the web sites are stating something different, except they are not specific. However, I have known all of you a lot longer and will certainly trust what you are saying over nonspecific web sites. I mst say that I use IE7 now and it works great with my office PACS, but the frackin hospital has been sitting on the update to make itr compatible and everyone tells me that they did not install it. We are not IT guys and must have missed the warning. Try uodating anything at home wwith 3 little girls screaming, especially when the Webkinz site goes bonkers. PS, it's Dr.WAM [initials], not Dr. Wam! Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not an IT tech! Peace Doc
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 22, 2008
"but the frackin hospital has been sitting on the update to make itr compatible and everyone tells me that they did not install it." It has been out since October of 2006, so I would hope that most compatibility problems should have been ironed out by now. I do doubt that they were sitting on the update. They were no doubt waiting for the vendor first, then testing thoroughly.
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
Dipsh, the email lasy week told me that they were done testing, but it is a low priority as there are many other projects going on. What hurts is that we updated our office months ago [we own our own offices] and let them know that all was fine. The browser plugin perpetually asks you to install it and wants an OK. It's a continuous loop on the older software. If you lower your security settings, you can at least ignore it after the first install and get images. I got to hand to you guys at the site and Paul, because you all gave me the confidence to try to install Vista on my Pro Tower, and recently use VMware because of the last blog entry. This is great. One thing I am having trouble doing is turning on the old Virtual Machine. I can't figure out how to do it and i read the manual. I may be creating a new machine each time I attempt to turn it back on. I shutdown guest when I am done, but the turn on, power on or restart guest is grayed out. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Doc
DRWAM
on Apr 22, 2008
Sorry Paul, it looks like I got you spam from a Webkinz site by mentioning it here. Please don't ban me because I have never even heard of them, let alone visited them. PS, I think that I am starting the VM correctly, as Darksages and Dipsh politely inferred, I am 'Joe' not paying attention to what's going on in my computers. Pity me as I live with four females, all of which demand perfection from their computers, all six of them [computers]!
johnpapola
on Apr 22, 2008
Dipsht, Very informative post. Good work. I agree, that I know very little about security. I'm a director, not an admin. So are you saying that a user can have safari launched by a website they go to in IE7 or 8 because of these MIME types and HTML handlers, even if the user is running Safari and has maybe never run it? If that's the case, than I take everything back and agree that this is "wrong" to push the App out to people in a way that relying on social engineering to get it installed (people are too dumb to read before clicking install). If that's the case, then your analogy hold ups. But if you need to be using safari to be exploited by it's flaws, your argument is weaker. Apple Software Update does not launch safari or try to change your browser defaults. That would be REALLY wrong and very spyware like (like google toolbar). But if Safari only exposes users when they're using it, I argue that it's security IS a separate issue than the method of installation. Installing and using are two separate choices. Paul may call safari "pointless" because he's hacking it up, but it's a fast browser with a clean interface that may appeal to iTunes users. So it has some value (though not much for Windows users I will admit). My point is simply that, so long as it's clear that the installation is new, and there is a way to block if from pestering, I don't see a problem. The click-first and questions later mindset is a bigger problem that's a user problem. Though I will admit that Apple is exploiting that to get Safari out there. When this first happened, and safari was positioned as an "update", I think that was "wrong" because it was misleading. Now that it's clearly delineated as new software, I think it's much better and acceptable. Why aren't you able to lock down the systems you admin the Viacom has? Just curious. Lack on on-site admin? Good post, though, man. That's some rational, hack-free, argument an I commend it. I wish Paul could be more rational and less biased in his tone about Apple. Instead, he seems to go off on hackish rants that make any good points hard to swallow since they're dripping in snark (and sometimes lies).
johnpapola
on Apr 23, 2008
ibarskiy, I'm an Apple fan for sure. But I'm not a biased hack. I want them to succeed wherever they can because they're success improves the support for my platform of choice. I don't want them to use unethical tactics, but this updater is a gray area that's worthy of debate. I thought the first incarnation of this safari push was misleading because it presented it as an update. Now that the dialog is honest about it being new software, I don't have a problem with it. All this hoopla about check-boxes is ridiculous for average users... though I will concede it could still be a problem if Safari's security holes effects users even when it's not open. As for your monopoly ranting... what a crock. You can't define a monopoly based on one product line. What you're saying is essentially like "Toyota has a monopoly on Toyota's". The Mac market is the computer market and Paul can tell you all about how little share Apple has. The iPod and iTunes also have no case for monopoly. There are plenty of equivolent devices and services (Amazon MP3, Zune, etc). The dominance of the iPod does not pose any barrier to entry of new or existing players. The iPod wins purely on it's merits and the momentum of it's popularity. Microsoft, on the other hand, used OEM contracts that essentially eliminated the ability of OS competitors to have their stuff included on PCs. They forced Dell, HP, Compaq and the rest to pay a fee for every PC they sold, regardless of the OS it ran, which meant that a system that shipped with OS/2, or BeOS or Mac OS (when it was legally licensed) STILL had to pay a license fee to MS as well. Nobody in any space is being bullied like that by Apple. The content companies have their stuff everywhere. iTunes has very few exclusives. As for "pushing crap like Quicktime" with iTunes... um... you do realize that Quicktime is the media foundation that iTunes relies on to work, right? You do know that without QuickTIme installed, there's no built-in support for AAC, MP4 or any other standard codecs since MS won't include support for them natively, right? You do understand that Quicktime isn't just a player, but an entire media API, right?
ibarskiy
on Apr 23, 2008
..."As for "pushing crap like Quicktime" with iTunes... um... you do realize that Quicktime is the media foundation that iTunes relies on to work, right? You do know that without QuickTIme installed, there's no built-in support for AAC, MP4 or any other standard codecs since MS won't include support for them natively, right? You do understand that Quicktime isn't just a player, but an entire media API, right?" Well, yes I do, but if that argument is deemed "bad" to allow MS to bundle IE with the OS (for a lot of the same reasons), how come we're applying a different standard to Apple?! And re: monopoly argument - your analogy is not right. In fact, there is no analogy in the automotive industry. They control hardware with for a particular software (Apple OS; iTunes library) and control software for a particular hardware - (iPod). It's fine if you accept that hardware / software represent a natural bundle, but that is not the case, in my opinion, as examplified by ALL OTHER MEDIA PLAYERS / OS's, who have no such control. So, maybe monopoly is not the most precise term (or rather the market is not that precisely defined; in the end; plastic wrap and aluminum foil were considered competitors...), but it is still the level of control that is not precedented in the industry and has always been targeted by Apple, and more specifically Jobs. He almost killed the company with this philosophy once. Since I actually like a lot of things Apple, I just hope he runs himself out of it (never gonna happen), 'cause I hate all management things Steve Jobs (I like his sense of style and creativity...)
Waethorn
on Apr 23, 2008
"Apple Software Update does not launch safari or try to change your browser defaults." Actually it takes control of HTTP handlers and MIME types that are common ground, but not currently implemented by IE and other browsers, such as application/xml+xhtml among others, WITHOUT THE USERS CONSENT. This is the same as what Quicktime on Windows XP will do - any MIME types or file associations that Quicktime supports, but is not associated by another application, is automatically assigned to Quicktime. This wouldn't be a problem usually, but it often takes over MIME types that are not assigned but are for files that IE already handles, such as PNG files, which open in the Quicktime image viewer app instead of IE natively. Also, even if you have custom settings for Quicktime, every time it comes up on loadup and says "Some file types are note associated with Quicktime. Do you want them to be?", it will reset ALL of the default Quicktime file associations, NOT just the ones you told it to. Your argument about the Quicktime API is just pro-Apple marketing fluff. The Quicktime API is made up of several DLL's, and neither the player software, nor file- and MIME-type associations are necessary for proper operation of iTunes. Apple just wants you using their player software, because they collect advertising revenue from their sponsers via the Quicktime "home screen". That, and the fact that Jobs Inc. is egomaniacal, as I suspect are you.
johnpapola
on Apr 23, 2008
ibarskiy, - " Well, yes I do, but if that argument is deemed "bad" to allow MS to bundle IE with the OS (for a lot of the same reasons), how come we're applying a different standard to Apple?! " Jesus. Yes. We are applying a different standard. Microsoft, as a monopoly, has to be held to a different standard. That's the whole point. Excuse me if I'm a bit frustrated by this lack on understanding. It doesn't look like you have any real understanding about what monopolies are, how to identify them and how they effect markets. That's fine. I'm not a total expert either, just very interested in economics as a pretty ardent libertarian. "but it is still the level of control that is not precedented in the industry and has always been targeted by Apple, and more specifically Jobs.  He almost killed the company with this philosophy once.  Since I actually like a lot of things Apple, I just hope he runs himself out of it (never gonna happen), 'cause I hate all management things Steve Jobs" - I will concede that I am a huge fan of Steve. He may be a jerk for all I know, but he's a great leader and clearly an amazing manager. Just look at how few re-orgs have happened at Apple compared to Microsoft in the past ten years. Look at how he identifies talent. Jonathan Ive was at Apple before Jobs came back... but only after Jobs returned did this brilliant designer get to really shine. That's great leadership. And your take on Apple's history though is WAY off. Jobs had been kicked out when Apple was still at the top of their game with the Apple II a massive success and the Mac only 2 years old. It was the management that followed him that almost killed the company. Steve has pretty much single handedly brought the company from near death and synonymous with "beleaguered" to a market cap double Dell's and a place in the top 10 of world brands. Steve has been driving Apple to refresh their products fast, keep prices competitive and adapt to the market. None of these things were done between 1986 and 1997 at Apple. Those morons kept prices high, stumbled in the wilderness trying to launch a next-gen OS that never happened (while steve was busy at NeXT delivering something a decade ahead of it's time on the OS front). The control Jobs seeks for Apple and it's tech is the key to it's current success. That control delivers quality and vision. Microsoft has that control over the xbox and now zune, because that's what it takes to deliver reliable consumer electronics. One vision. Great design comes from dictators, not democracies. Just look at the sham that is Linux desktop design. It's just a wasteland of copycap nonesense. Every company should be entitled to control as much of their technology as the can and want, provided they don't tip into monopoly status like Microsoft. Monopolies are a problem because they break the market. Competition is the key and monopolies inhibit that in a way that fundamentally destroys the marketplace for innovation. I'm sorry you hate Steve, but I'd bet that's more about weird personal hang-ups than any real thought about managing and leading a creative organization.
chole
on Apr 23, 2008
Well, I don't have a problem with it. They're not bundling Safari with iTunes, it's optional to download. And it's not like it's something bad like spyware, or like it's 3rd party junk. It's all in house software from the same developer. I'd pretty much have to make this whole situation hypothetical in order to be upset about it. Safari would have to be a 3rd party app I had never heard of but it isn't. It'd have to be something harmful to my computer, though it's not. And it'd have to be bundled with iTunes and downloaded without the option to say no. But that's not the case either. There are just certain unwritten rules that upset everyone. No bundling software. No spyware. No 3rd party hookups from sketchy company's I've never heard of. No giving me anything without me knowing about it. And no updates without the option to say no. Apple doesn't fit any of that profile here, so what is the foul play? It's spam because Apple is offering their users software which they believe you'll like too because you already use other software they create? If that's the worst of it I'm not upset at all. If Microsoft offered a free download of IE7 for the mac platform upon updating Microsoft Office, I get excited and download it. That's the kind of service I WANT provided by developers of the software I use.
johnpapola
on Apr 23, 2008
"That, and the fact that Jobs Inc. is egomaniacal, as I suspect are you." Nice. I'd like to see you come down to New York and "debate" that way to my face.
Waethorn
on Apr 24, 2008
"I'd like to see you come down to New York and "debate" that way to my face." Assuming that my plane could be cleared for landing what with your head taking up all the room, maybe I would.
Dipsh t Admin
on Apr 25, 2008
"Nice. I'd like to see you come down to New York and "debate" that way to my face." Whoa, calm down fella! I thought Apple and its users were supposed to be about peace and love and understanding and all of that? MacBook Pro? $1800 Cable Internet connection? $50/month Making threats when your name and place of work is well known and publicized? Priceless.
subzerohitman721
on Apr 27, 2008
I believe both OSes play to certain strengths. Both companies play to certain audiences. But there are times the two companies mirror each other and this issue with Safari has shown that they are like two devils. Its like choosing between republican and democrat. Either way, you're really screwed but you four options. Go with either devil, choose an inde, or choose not to play. Not exactly fair or right, but thats where we are. I honestly believe we need brand spanking new OS development that merges the best of both worlds. An OS that does what Apple and OS-X does right and what Microsoft and Windows does right. Sprinkle some elements of Linux and we'd have a truely unique new OS. This is something I would love to be apart of without infringing on anyone's patents or anything. Since the future is 64 bits and multicore, that would be a great foundation to start.
Waethorn
on Apr 28, 2008
"Since the future is 64 bits and multicore, that would be a great foundation to start." Look no further: http://www.codeplex.com/singularity

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