Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the hey-wait-a-minute dept.

Mozilla 768

hairyfeet writes "Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from Apple whether you want it or not, and Mozilla CEO John Lilly is not happy about it. After his daughter was offered Safari as a 'bonus update' with a recent update to her iTunes software, Mr. Lilly says on his blog, 'What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong. It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that's bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web.' He also pointed out the check box is already clicked when you go to update meaning you have to opt out, not in and that it lists Safari as getting an update even if you don't have it installed." Update: 03/21 21:44 GMT by KD : Corrected the name of the Mozilla CEO; also linked directly to his blog.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory (5, Interesting)

smitingpurpleemu (951712) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829788)

If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits. Now that the iPod is working on a monopoly of the mp3 player market, why is what Apple did any different? The quality of the software doesn't matter here.

Re:Obligatory (5, Informative)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829814)

If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits.

They kind of already do...and there have been...but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market, not dominating it. If they ever gained control of that market, then lawsuits may crop up (even still, you can always uninstall iTunes and use the iPod with one of a number of other programs, something Apple would be sure to point out).

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829856)

...but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market...
Actually, the real reason people won't issue lawsuits is that the initial homepage is set to a video of The Steve, saying with a hand-wave "Firefox is not the browser you're looking for, move along".

Re:Obligatory (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829968)

If M$ did this
They did it. I think at least twice. With same pitiful excuse of a browser.

Re:Obligatory (0, Troll)

opieum (979858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830000)

I personally find that update "feature" annoying. I am no OS fanboi. This is something I hate about both companies. They force their software on you. That said, it is hard to really take it seriously when the CEO of a competitor is saying it. But I do agree with him.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830154)

Then switch, Its quite easy to disable auto-updating on almost all distros both Linux and BSD. There is no need to be tied to a company.

Re:Obligatory (5, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830082)

At first I thought this story was a load of crap as it seemed Apple was just putting it in the Software Update list, but then I saw that it gets downloaded whether you wan tit or not unless you hit cancel. That really is bullshit and Apple should know better.

GLADOS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830102)

Apple Computers... We do what we must because we can.

Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (3, Insightful)

Mactrope (1256892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829792)

Shame on Slashdot for not seeing through this [slashdot.org] . What better thing could there be for Microsoft than a flame war between Mozilla and Apple?

Even Cnet [news.com] noted that this is not a mandatory install and that the brew ha ha is because:

... some point people became conditioned to downloading anything that shows up from an official source, like Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Yahoo, or whoever.

That and Microsoft can't stand competition from Apple any more than it will release new versions of IE and Office on OSX. Yes, we can expect Mozilla to not like this, but we can be sure they also hate the way IE is forced on Windows users too. It's too bad that perspective is lost in the Wintel press, isn't it?

There's more perspective missing from this story too. If you dig deeper, you find stories about how Jobs announced his intention to make Safari available on Windows though iTunes. This is exactly what has happened and it was done in a much nicer way than IE8 and Windows itself are forced onto users.

I don't like being critical of Slashdot and Slashdot editors because of all the great work done by the site. Most articles are better researched and though out than this one. Someone is asleep at the wheel this time and I hope this clears the issue up.

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (2, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829818)

In any event, Safari is at least a standards-compliant browser, so it still fulfills Mozilla's dream of a standards-based web, even if actual Mozilla software isn't being used.

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829904)

For some sites who are known to sponsor/push browsers to users there are "more standards based" browsers than "standards based" browsers.

However bad this is (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829942)

it's not half as bad as Google's pushing their "toolbar" along with Java updates... where you have to go into "advanced" install of the update to even KNOW that it's pushing Google Crapbar, let alone to drop it.

We've seen more problems with "my IE is crashing" lately, and every time it's that Google Crapbar that slipped in because the users didn't even get the chance to know it was coming in.

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (5, Insightful)

asa (33102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830112)

>In any event, Safari is at least a standards-compliant browser,
>so it still fulfills Mozilla's dream of a standards-based web,
>even if actual Mozilla software isn't being used.

It's not about Safari being used. I'm all for a healthy, competetive browser market where users can chose between several great standards compliant browsers. That's a big piece of what Mozilla is all about.

The problem here is not that Safari may get more users. The problem is that they have used "software update" to install a *new* piece of software. Safari is not a software update for QuickTime and it's not a software update for iTunes. It's an entirely new piece of software being pushed by Apple as if it was an update when it's clearly not.

This is a problem because it waters down the meaning of "software update" -- something that vendors depend on to keep users safe and secure and that users should be able to trust. Users shouldn't second guess themselves when clicking "OK" on a software update dialog. If they're afraid of software update services, it'll be impossible for vendors to keep them safe with security and stability updates.

It's this trust relationship being abused by Apple that's the problem, not that more people may end up with Safari.

- A

get over it (4, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829844)

What better thing could there be for Microsoft than a flame war between Mozilla and Apple?


Oh, please. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and Mozilla is right to complain about them.

Claiming that open source and Apple have some kind of common interests is fiction.

Re:get over it (1)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830114)

"Claiming that open source and Apple have some kind of common interests is fiction."

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22829870)

You make no sense.

No, the install isn't mandatory; nothing else depends on the install of Safari.

There is absolutely no question, however, as to whether or not the box to "update" Safari comes pre-checked; it most certainly does.

How do I know? ... first hand experience, something apparently _you_ don't need to draw conclusions.

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830098)

Poor thing. You had to unclick a checkbox. That must be tough. Are you receiving the proper counseling? Do you still have flashbacks? Do you think there will me many long term effects?

Spin Spin Spin (3, Insightful)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829876)

I don't like Slashdot and Slashdot editors being critical of Apple...

Fixed that for you.

Yes, this is spin but it's not mine. (-1, Troll)

Mactrope (1256892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830078)

I'm not a big Apple fan but I can smell fake news. What happened has been highly distorted and what Apple has done is not bad at all. They offered Windows users a choice, nothing more.

If Microsoft really cared for their customers, vendors would not need custom installers. To really give users choice and convenience, Microsoft would set up a software repository and serve up things like Safari with a good package manager. They have something like this for other vendor's hardware drivers which are equally non free, so it's not impossible.

Who modded this down? (1, Insightful)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829920)

This is one of the few comments that makes sense of the issue. Microsoft and Apple are not equals and this is only trick for people who are lazy. Most Windows users are going to think it's kind of cool to get a browser choice from a trusted source.

Re:Who modded this down? (5, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830056)

"Trusted source"??

I don't trust Apple installing ANY Windows software. I have yet to successfully install iTunes without the stupid mandatory Quicktime installation taking over most of my media file associations, no matter how hard I try to disable them. It even tries to display JPEGs in Quicktime instead of inline in IE. Apple obviously knows about this, because everyone I know who has tried this has had the same experience.

Re:Who modded this down? (4, Interesting)

MrNiceguy_KS (800771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830124)

For that matter, I'm tired of installing QuickTime, then having it pester me with "updates" to install iTunes. If I had wanted to install iTunes, I would have picked the giant "Download Quicktime and iTunes" button instead of hunting for the tiny "Download Quicktime only" button.

Re:Who modded this down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830076)

Maybe because Mactrope has 3 comments [slashdot.org] on this article all linking back to the place you already are: the slashdot article. They probably thought that was retarded and he's a troll. They'd be right.

Re:Who modded this down? (2, Insightful)

crazyjimmy (927974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830160)

Most Windows users are going to think it's kind of cool to get a browser choice from a trusted source.
Hey! I'm one of those windows users you're talking about. I had this message appear a few days ago, and was confused to see that Apple wanted to update Safari. I don't have Safari, and I don't want Safari. I opted out for the time being, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next time Apple updates something, I get that same prompt.

Regardless of who is doing it, it is absolutely wrong to push something in this fashion. It's not offering it as a bonus program, but as an update. It's lying. Simple as pie. To broadly claim that "Most" of any group would welcome this kind of deception is horribly judgmental, and factually questionable.

--Jimmy

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (1)

AmaranthineNight (1005185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830062)

That and Microsoft can't stand competition from Apple any more than it will release new versions of IE and Office on OSX.

http://www.macoffice2008.com/ [macoffice2008.com]

Re:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard. (1)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830130)

Even Cnet [news.com] noted that this is not a mandatory install and that the brew ha ha is because:
Your usage of brew ha ha is incorrect. You are looking for this word Brouhaha [wikipedia.org]

Apple == MS$? (1)

cheeni (267248) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829796)

Since when did Apple start taking lessons from M$?

Re:Apple == MS$? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22829826)

apple sucks and so all of their products.

its just another greedy corporation.

Apple != MS$ (3, Insightful)

Mactrope (1256892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829846)

This issue is 5% real concern, 95% drama [slashdot.org] . Don't confuse a non mandatory offer with vendor manipulation and other dirty tricks. Apple, while non free and often in collusion with the Soft, is not the same kind of offender and has actually been helpful in promoting reasonable standards and free software.

Re:Apple == MS$? (4, Funny)

Chysn (898420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829898)

> Since when did Apple start taking lessons from M$?

1997.

Re:Apple == MS$? (3, Insightful)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829998)

Apple has ALWAYS behaved like Microsoft. Worse in some ways. But it is Microsoft who always gets hauled into court, not Apple. Thus the corruption of the modern legal system: Lady Justice does not ask what you have done, but who you are. Apple can get away with this as long as they are perceived to be small. (Which is completely irrelevant to whether this practice in itself should be legal or not.)

oh yea (0, Troll)

play with my balls (1253180) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829798)

I'd let the Mozilla CEO nestle his balls in my mouth.

quicktime also (5, Informative)

B00yah (213676) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829806)

It offered me Safari when quicktime did its update as well, and by offered, it said it was installing it unless I hit cancel. not so good times.

Re:quicktime also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22829836)

If you've already got quicktime on your machine what further evil can apple possibly do to your machine?

Re:quicktime also (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829852)

Yeah, I wasn't paying attention to exactly what the update said, and much to my surprise, I noticed a Safari icon on my desktop. "WTF - I didn't even know they had Safari for Windows." But really, what is my incentive to use it? I like Firefox, it's all set up the way I want... goodbye, Safari.

Re:quicktime also (2, Interesting)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829900)

I actually like having an auxiliary backup browser. Sometimes a page won't load properly, and I want to try it in a different browser to see if maybe something is broken in one but not in the other. And I'd a lot rather use Safari than Internet Explorer (which is broken on my current winbox anyway).

Re:quicktime also (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829906)

...not so good times.
Unless you are hoping to hasten the adoption of Linux on the desktop.

It seems that the decision required of those turned off MSFT, specifically because of wacky stunts like this, just got a whole lot easier.

Re:quicktime also (5, Informative)

heson (915298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829958)

Quictime Alternative is your friend. Maybe it should be bundled with firefox :)

Why, yes... (3, Insightful)

Chysn (898420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829832)

> Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from
> Apple whether you want it or not,

I DO use iTunes for Windows. And I just updated it! And yet, strangely, I don't have Safari. How did that happen? Because I didn't want it.

Re:Why, yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830088)

Exactly. It's not really an "auto install" as claimed here. You're given an option.

WHY are Apple doing this? (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829838)

I don't care if this is a "mandatory" component of iTunes, or if Apple is "just" trying to sneak it in... WHY do this?

Has any company ever entered better light from including unrelated junk in their installers?

If iTunes doesn't require Safari (and I pray to god it doesn't because that would be horrible design to require a specific web browser -- they'd enter Microsoft territory in that case), then Safari shouldn't be part of the install. If people want Safari, they'll install Safari. If something doesn't need Safari, fuck that shit.

Please don't look at Microsoft as a good role model, Apple. They aren't.

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829932)

It's a marketing tool.

Mozilla comes with half a hundred things in it that may or may not be anything you want, and you have to opt-out of them. The fact that Safari is a whole application (or does it share interface libraries with iTunes? I wouldn't doubt that) doesn't change that.

Personally, I hate how every time you upgrade Firefox it insists on starting up by loading the Firefox webpages. Same deal. Unwanted marketing that I have to counteract, and can't counteract until it's already done.

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? (4, Insightful)

deadsquid (535515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830030)

So what are the "half a hundred things" that are bundled, assuming you mean applications, not default preferences (which, to me, are very different things). If you download Firefox from mozilla.com, you get Firefox, that's it.

If you don't want the update page to show up after a successful upgrade, just set the value for browser.startup.homepage_override.mstone [mozillazine.org] to "ignore".

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? (1)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830158)

Personally, I hate how every time you upgrade Firefox it insists on starting up by loading the Firefox webpages. Same deal. Unwanted marketing that I have to counteract, and can't counteract until it's already done.

Erm... if you already have Firefox, what is being marketed at you by it loading up the Firefox page when you first install it? Do you bitch that the can of coke you just bought had 'Coca-Cola' written on the can?

WHY are Apple doing this? iTMS. (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829976)

Of course iTunes requires Safari in some form.

First off, both Safari and iTunes could require the same Mac OS compatibility layers that provide that brushed-metal Aqua look under Windows. Looking at the two, it's clear that they don't use the same libraries, but they could and arguably should and I'll bet in the future they will.

Secondly, and most importantly, the iTunes Music Store under Windows has used WebKit of some form since before Safari was released on Windows. Instead of embedding Internet Explorer, they went with their own software which makes perfect sense since it means that they don't have to build two versions of the store for both Internet Explorer and WebKit.

So, yes, iTunes requires a specific browser component. At this point it appears that the two don't share any libraries, but it makes perfect sense for iTunes to embed Safari and not Internet Explorer or Mozilla. In the future, it's probably going to move to the point where there's no point in not including the Safari shell since most of the browser is there anyway as libraries for iTunes.

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? iTMS. (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830036)

I was questioning why it required Safari, the browser. It hasn't always needed that, so why does is it included now? Apple is also providing a separate download for their Windows Safari on their web site; why isn't that link sufficient? Who was asking them to include Safari with iTunes? The answer is probably some department for strategic marketing decisions. However, how many will now be happier users as they may risk setting Safari as their default web browser on Windows? Do I even need to add that last time I tried Safari 3.1 Final, after an hour of usage it used 450 MB RAM on Windows. It blows even IE 7 out of the water.

Sure, if they really need to, just include WebKit.dll or whatever. That doesn't Macify the system at least by requesting new default browsers.

What I'm talking of is of those kind of poor marketing decisions, decisions that piss people off. How are they ever good decisions?

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? iTMS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830052)

xeno, you're misinformed. Never did iTunes embed Internet Explorer and it doesn't today embed WebKit. the iTunes Music Store is not "web" content and it's displayed by QuickTime (which is a required component of both iTunes and Safari on Windows -- QT is their toolkit on Windows.)

Just making stuff up isn't a good way to make a point. Next time, provide links or at least credible "facts".

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? iTMS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830110)

Now for some facts.

1. iTunes does not now and never has used WebKit. You're an idiot.
2. Safari and iTunes CURRENTLY do not share any libraries. You note this, but claim that they could. So until they do, DON'T INSTALL SAFARI WITH iTUNES! You're a FUCKING MORON for not realizing that.

Seriously - why the FUCK would you bundle Safari with iTunes unless you're trying to pull the same anti-trust BULLSHIT Microsoft did? A music player and a browser have fuck-all to do with each other, and you're a FUCKING MORON for not noticing that.

Finally, I highly doubt that iTunes and Safari will ever share DLLs under Windows. Windows really doesn't like programs trying to share shared code (says a bit about Microsoft) because of Windows programs history of overwriting newer versions of programs with older versions. Windows would just copy the shared code back to the individual programs and you'd lose any benefit of code sharing in the first place.

So iTunes will always use separate code as Safari. THERE WILL NEVER BE A REASON TO INSTALL SAFARI WITH iTUNES! END OF STORY!

Why blow the issue out of proportion? (0, Troll)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829990)

This is only a trap for people who push OK without reading things. It's not Apple's fault that Windoze bombards users with so much crap that it's next to impossible for people to be careful. If you look at screen shots of the installer, you will see that everything is well explained and it's easy to opt out of the offer. Don't compare this to malware installers which don't ask or M$ which give you no choice in the matter. "IE8 or no more updates" is not happening here.

Re:WHY are Apple doing this? (1)

andersa (687550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830068)

I just uninstalled all apple software from my computer and went to the itunes feedback form [apple.com] , and told them where to stick it.

Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829848)

And QuickTime tries to install iTunes. Does this mean that installing QuickTime now forces you through a Safari install?

Does it make Safari the default browser, disabling Internet Explorer?

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829912)

It's an updater for all Apple software on Windows. So whether you're trying to update QuickTime, iTunes, or Safari, it will show you new versions of all three. The real problem is that it automatically enables "updates" for items that you don't already have installed, making them opt-out instead of opt-in.

And no, it doesn't make Safari the default browser.

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829960)

Actually, in regards to QuickTime and iTunes, it doesn't simply show you iTunes. The ONLY update available for QuickTime is "QuickTime + iTunes". I have the most recent version of QuickTime, and I don't have iTunes installed, and it kept showing me that "update." Eventually I just disabled it. If you want to use the updater, you MUST install iTunes. Annoying.

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830006)

Actually, in regards to QuickTime and iTunes, it doesn't simply show you iTunes. The ONLY update available for QuickTime is "QuickTime + iTunes".
Not always. I've seen updates for just Quicktime show up in the list.

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (4, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829922)

Exactly. QuickTime for Windows has been installing iTunes by default for quite some time now. The last time I downloaded QuickTime I had to hunt through Apple's site to find the standalone version.

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830132)

QuickTime not only installed itself on my only windows machine, but made itself the default app for a bunch of file types instead of VLC.

(I almost returned our brand new MacBook Pro I was so pissed off, but whenever I approached it, my missus emitted a guttural, territorial growl that said 'Back the fuck away from my shiny precious')

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830138)

The last time I downloaded QuickTime I had to hunt through Apple's site to find the standalone version.
You mean the one on the QuickTime Download Page [apple.com] ? When I look at that page (which I got to in two clicks from the front of Apple's website: Downloads, then the Download button under QuickTime) on a Windows box, I see two options: QuickTime+iTunes, or QuickTime.

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829926)

if it set safari as a default maybe itd be better than everyone using IE (which is why everyone develops for it, which generate numerous complaints)

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes. (1)

LocoMan (744414) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829946)

That is one of my pet peeves of quicktime. I installed the stand alone quicktime, with no itunes, yet anytime it updates (at least here on this computer) not only installs itunes, but also sets it as the default media player.

iTunes? Ycuk! (5, Funny)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829850)

Say what, iTunes?! Who uses that crap in the first place? Might as well kill your computer with Real Player while you're at it!

He should listen to his own advice (4, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829854)

Firefox shouldn't come bundled with any Google software, set home page to Google without giving a choice of other search providers or popup "set me as a default browser dialog?" unless the user explicitly goes to preferences menu and does so. I do hope Safari doesn't automatically hijack the default browser when it is installed in this manner. I don't see a big security downside to installing it if it needs to be explicitly run by the user rather than automatically activated from a web link.

Re:He should listen to his own advice (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829896)

Also Google should code truly standards based so the poor souls happens to like Opera or Safari aren't pushed to installing Firefox with Google Toolbar if they use Google services like Gmail.
Paying $4 million for a open source project and pushing your anti phishing framework while dozens of other alternatives exist already makes some people concerned.

Re:He should listen to his own advice (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829934)

What Google software is bundled with Firefox? Granted I haven't installed FF from scratch anytime real recent, but I don't remember Google Toolbar or any other Google software loaded.

As to the homepage, I see a big difference between setting the default home page and auto-installing software. The former is a quick change, doesn't really modify anything on your computer (with a clean install, you wouldn't have a homepage anyway), and a good number of users probably have Google set as their homepage anyways. Why not give them a Firefox branded page. It was the makers of the software that decided to use Google as the homepage, not Google hijacking a different install and loading Firefox for you, setting themselves as the homepage. With Safari, users already have a browser most likely. It takes space on the system and many users probably don't want it. But yet it still installs or at least downloads automagically.

Re:He should listen to his own advice (4, Informative)

asa (33102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830070)

>Firefox shouldn't come bundled with any Google software

Firefox, if you get it from Mozilla (Mozilla is the vendor that creates and maintains Firefox) doesn't come bundled with Google software. Firefox does come with features that integrate web services from several vendors including Google, but there's just no "Google software" "bundled" with Firefox when you get it from Mozilla.

- A

Re:He should listen to his own advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830108)

How the hell is bundling a browser with a music player analogous to having a default search engine on a web browser? No one is going to have an improved music-listening experience because Apple decided to slip them Safari while they weren't paying attention. Firefox doesn't try to trick you into installing other software.

Re:He should listen to his own advice (1)

mmurphy000 (556983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830146)

Firefox shouldn't come bundled with any Google software

It doesn't. Leastways, it hasn't in the 100+ times I've installed it over the past few years, on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

set home page to Google without giving a choice of other search providers

If you install Firefox on Windows, and you choose to import settings from IE, you are given the option of keeping your current home page (imported from IE) or using the Firefox start page.

or popup "set me as a default browser dialog?" unless the user explicitly goes to preferences menu and does so

This was to counteract IE doing the same thing. I believe the thinking is that Joe or Jane Q. SixPack isn't going to wade through a bunch of preferences (in Firefox or in Windows) to figure out how to set their default browser.

Bullshit! (2, Informative)

MCSEBear (907831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829862)

Let's see. Apple Software Update popped up a window and said new software is availible, would you like to install it. I clicked quit and it went away. How is this forcing software on me or anyone?

I call bullshit on Mozilla. Microsoft forced IE 8 on me. I did not have a choice. Apple offered me Safari and I turned them down.

Re:Bullshit! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22829902)

Whaa whaa whaa wankerrr. Hold back the tears fanboi!

Re:Bullshit! (2, Insightful)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829988)

The issue is that we were offered a software update to software that you didn't have installed.

Apple is now leveraging their software updater to distribute new software - that is not by definition an update.

You did have a choice in selecting IE 6 over 7, I have a couple clients that still have IE 6 deployed enterprise wide. If you chose the "automatic" updates then it will get automatically installed. Also, it *was* an update, not a new product.

The issue is the intent behind this sort of action. Is it a software updater or a software installer? Because the two are different - and it should be clear what we are signing up for.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830002)

If you click quit, it does go away.

However, you have to tell the updater to ignore it, or it will come back the next time it checks for updates (weekly.)

I'm also calling bullshit on you "being forced to install IE8."

Re:Bullshit! (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830074)

Let's see. Apple Software Update popped up a window and said new software is availible, would you like to install it. I clicked quit and it went away. How is this forcing software on me or anyone?

Because it does the same things every damn week and is close to nagware.

The new software is disguised as an update. For me it was the other way around compared to the others. I had Safari beta installed on day one when it came out for Windows and had QuickTime(I absolutely hate that abomination of iTunes). Shortly after, Safari had a security update(remember the slew of security holes found in beta Safari?). Since it said software update, and had QuickTime also in the list(didn't notice the +iTunes), I clicked install and got iTunes.

Later I realized it and uninstalled it. And ever since then, EVERY friday evening, I am forced to uncheck the box for iTunes EVERY damn time if wanted only Safari to update or hit Quit. Extremely annoying and underhanded to slip new software under 'Software update' and mixed in with a list of real security updates to software I chose to install.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830090)

Well, most people would probably just click through the update boxes without actually paying attention to anything. Same reason people get malware on their computer.

Re:Bullshit! (2, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830096)

I call bullshit on Mozilla. Microsoft forced IE 8 on me. I did not have a choice. Apple offered me Safari and I turned them down.
Considering that IE8 is only out as a download-it-deliberately beta, I doubt Microsoft forced it on you.

And if you meant IE7, there's a difference: Unless you went to a great deal of effort to remove it, an older version of Internet Explorer was already on your computer, so it actually is an update to software you already had. It's not as if Microsoft installed IE7 on a Mac or a Linux box in such a way that someone who was not paying attention (i.e. most computer users, unfortunately) could get it by accident.

Re:Bullshit! (4, Insightful)

asa (33102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830172)

>I call bullshit on Mozilla. Microsoft forced IE 8 on me.
>I did not have a choice. Apple offered me Safari and I
>turned them down.

Microsoft didn't Force IE 8 on anyone. It's not even included in their Software Update system. It's a standalone download that you have to seek out on the web.

Perhaps you meant IE 7 which was offered as an update through their SOftware Update system. Well, guess what. IE 7 *is* an update to IE 6 -- a critical one for very legitimate security issues. You can opt out but you'll be doing yourself a security and safety disservice.

Safari 3.1 is *not* an *update* to iTunes or to QuickTime and calling it an update is misleading at best and predatory at worst. Not only that, but it weakens the trust relationship between vendors and users when it comes to software update systems.

Software update systems should be *update* systems and users should feel comfortable clicking "OK, keep me up to date, safe, and secure". When *update* systems are abused like this, people trust them less and it's more difficult for vendors to keep those users safe.

- A

Re:Bullshit! (1)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830176)

Microsoft forced IE 8 on me. I did not have a choice.

How exactly did Microsoft force IE 8 on you?

We need a new title for this (5, Interesting)

KevMar (471257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829864)

We need a way to classify software that does this. Call it installware for all I care.

installware: software that installs other products that the user would not expect to be installed as a default option. This includes any 3rd pary addons or 1st party products that are unrelated to the current install.

something that would lable products that instal browser bars too. We know some products work hard to not get listed as spyware or adware. Its time to expand it to include this other crap.

Off the Record... (0, Troll)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829866)

While speaking off the record, Mozilla CEO Joe Wilcox was heard to say, "I don't give a shit whether they are taking market share away from Internet Explorer with this move, but Safari will take Firefox's place on some computers."

He went on, "Personally, I think Apple should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting their successful music business to empower their web browsing software."

On the other hand... default installations of Internet Explorer was one of the major reasons that Netscape lost its market share lead in the 90's. The only problem that I have with this is that the "Update" claims to leave the Checkbox for installing Safari clicked by default.

iTunes music store may become HTML (3, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829868)

If Apple pushes Safari/Webkit (webkit is important) they may have plans to make iTMS a web browser thing (it is NOT webkit now) and want to rely their own standards supporting framework for rendering.

After I tried using systems default browser (Safari) as my only browser instead of 3rd party and ended up downloading Firefox 2 because some large site required it for extra needed function (Firefox'es sponsor too) I think Mozilla CEO should be the last to talk about "pushing browsers to people".

A Safari.exe in program files if it is not becoming a system default browser with UI tricks shouldn't matter to any browser vendor especially a one which is supposed to be pushing more standards based choices to Windows users. They should be the ones asking their friends like Google, Yahoo about "Why IE and Firefox only? Why not Safari, Opera?" since people started to get seriously irritated about that attitude. It is not serving them at all. A user swearing and downloading firefox.dmg from their established Safari browser won't have good feelings from first minute.

If Apple is still doing "HFS+ on NTFS/FAT" tricks like putting Resources/Dlls to single directory, Safari 3.1 is comparable to single directory contained Opera too.

Does someone doesn't like the fact that some Windows users not being Joe Sixpacks does not use their work because of other concerns? What if those non Joe Sixpacks love Safari?

Re:iTunes music store may become HTML (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829924)

After I tried using systems default browser (Safari) as my only browser instead of 3rd party and ended up downloading Firefox 2 because some large site required it for extra needed function (Firefox'es sponsor too) I think Mozilla CEO should be the last to talk about "pushing browsers to people".
How is the fact that you deliberately went out, downloaded and installed a browser in response to a website requirement/incompatibility anything like an updater automatically installing software for people who aren't paying attention?

Re:iTunes music store may become HTML (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829996)

The iTunes Music Store is web-based. iTunes on OS X is a Webkit enabled browser. I don't know what iTunes for Windows uses for rendering.

Easy Solution: Unchecked and Labeled (4, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829892)

IMO, all Apple has to do to solve this is:

1. Make all not-yet-installed software unchecked by default, so you have to opt into it (keeping actual updates checked by default)
2. Clearly label, probably by putting a separator and header in the middle of that list, which software is an update to what's on your machine and which software is another offering that Apple wants you to install.

That, and make it possible to ignore a product, instead of just a particular install. My Windows box at work has Safari and QuickTime for web development purposes, but it keeps telling me to "update" iTunes. I can tell it to ignore the item, but every time a new iTunes version comes along, it asks again.

so far... (1)

musiholic (94408) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829928)

I've only seen it stand-alone in the updater, so I was simply able to tell it no. So long as you can tell it no, I don't see what the big deal is.

Uh... disable it? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829930)

Maybe I'm a few versions behind, but in the Quicktime control panel, select "updates" and uncheck the box to TURN THEM OFF if you don't want automatic updates!

update, schmuckdate (1)

tero (39203) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829940)


I was about to click ok, before I realised the Safari box was clicked.

Of course they already bundle QuickTime with everything, their hardware platforms are closed, they constantly screw their developers over by tweaking with their API's.
They're much worse than Microsoft in many ways and the only reason we've been saved from this is because they've decided to target niche market with their products.

Installing new software through an "Update" is of course about the same thing Real was doing with RealPlayer spyware couple of years ago.

Apple is rotten.

The opposite is also true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22829950)

If you don't have QT/iTunes and just install Safari, the updater will also helpfully offer to download and install QT/iTunes. In other words, the Apple Software Updater that comes with each Apple app is used to push all other Apple apps (which aren't that many at the moment, granted).

Windows Behavior? (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829962)

I find this pretty par for the course for many Windows developers through the years; heavy-handed attempts to get the user to install bundled software that they don't want or really need. Google does this as well (no I do *not* want the Google toolbar!), and, yes, MS does it in their own auto-update feature (new software offered and not just updates), and an opt-out required). Google's gotten pretty bad about trying to get other companies to bundle their toolbar and hard-wire or at least default their browser searches to Google as well (Safari and Firefox). This is not customer-friendly behavior, and Apple seems to be excelling in being completely obnoxious about it, but they are by no means the only big player doing this kind of crap.

who's joe wilcox? (1)

deadsquid (535515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829966)

Mozilla's CEO is John Lilly.

I know, minor point, but it even says "John's Blog"

The only solution... (1)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829970)

Buy a Mac. We have a checkbox to de-select if we don't want the update.

At least Apple software works on Windows. Try getting Windows apps on a Mac.

That's why I don't use iTunes any more. (0, Offtopic)

gsgleason (1241794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829986)

Years ago when the apple fanboys were all updating their blogs with the glorious news of iTunes coming to windows, I thought I'd give it a try. At this point I was not a Linux desktop user (I had been using Linux for years on my server to share my media over my LAN) so I had been using winamp 2 for quite some time.

I decided to give this iTunes thing a try, and promptly removed it after a few hours of use on my work machine, where it was used to play music in the background while I worked.

I fount it to be bloated and sluggish, especially on my less-than-great hardware. I'm also not fond of do-it-all products, like iTunes, that wants to manage all your music, be your ripping/burning solution, among all the various other things it does. I think that a product that focuses on one task will generally do that one task much better than the product that tries to do everything. That's just my opinion, mind you. Adding all the extra unwanted software is yet another straw on the proverbial camel's back, I think.

I did try Safari for windows, and while I like the fast startup time and browsing speed, the total lack of configuration options that Firefox had bestowed on me was a deal breaker. I was so used to extensions like noscript and adblock that I was actually surprised at all the extra bloat that a lot of (bad) websites had. I removed that within the hour as well.

Today there are many other solutions for what iTunes does. Amarok and Rhythmbox interact with my iPod perfectly, as do many other windows solutions.

Maybe this continuing stream of events will help others to start looking at iTunes alternatives as I, and everyone I know, has as well.

Don't install it... (0, Redundant)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22829994)

I will never install iTunes, so I don't have the problem. Apple (and Adobe) products are all well known for their selling of other products when you install them. I tolerate Adobe Acrobat because I need to read PDF files.

I don't need iTunes for anything.

Interesting! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830012)

I didn't know there was Safari for Windows? Most interesting. Now if there were Safari for Linux I'd be pleased. I like having multiple web browsers available for use. As it stands, my only options are Firefox and MSIE+Wine (which looks like hell). How about Safari+Wine?

My point is that variety is good as long as the users' wishes and intent are respected properly.

Apple doing wrong? What's next - Google is evil? (1)

n1_111 (597775) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830014)

this is a crazy world

That doesn't bug me as much as (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830016)

the screenshot of the dialog [url=http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/]here[/url] (different person making the blog post) calling Safari the "fastest and easiest-to-use" web browser. I believe Firefox 3 may have been shown to be faster already... or did Safari just crash on all the benchmarks so we can't be sure?

Either way it just smells of false advertising. I'm not sure what the requirements are for something to be considered "false advertising" but I'm pretty sure you can't just throw out statements like that without polls or sources to back it up. Then again this is the interwebs and we know the legal system hasn't quite caught up with it yet (I'm referring to judicial confusion over some aspects which we geeks clearly see as legal or not legal).

Re:That doesn't bug me as much as (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830034)

And Slashdot's unique actual use of HTML as opposed to proprietary weird square bracket notation foils me again. Here's that blog post. [jubjubs.net]

Addendum: Didn't Apple require iTunes to be installed along with Quicktime for a short time? I seem to remember upgrading Quicktime and getting an unwelcome iTunes along with it (I don't even HAVE an iPod!) although it could have been because I clicked through the download pages without seeing the selections for Quicktime and Quicktime + iTunes... IIRC I later noticed those and that iTunes was opt-out.

The Onion predicted this! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22830022)

Next thing you know... (2, Funny)

chocolatetrumpet (73058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830028)

...they'll be bundling QuickTime with iTunes!

Funny thing is (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830050)

On my girlfriend's computer, iTunes automatically reopens itself after you close it. It also waits about 30 seconds before doing so.

Safari is okay except for the UI (0, Offtopic)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830150)

Apple are hypocrites. They release interface guidelines for MacOS which say how apps should look and feel. When MS ran afoul of these guidelines, users screamed blue murder and they soon learned.

Now look at Apple software on Windows. It doesn't give a damn about the Windows interface guidelines and pushes a nasty Aqua-like theme through Safari, Quicktime and iTunes. As far as I can tell, it ignores the system settings. A native Windows app should look like a native Windows app, not some refugee from OS X. Worse, the faux Aqua widgets cause sluggish performance and visual glitches. Scrolling a long list of tracks in iTunes is painful and often the app doesn't start properly in Vista and renders everything in black. The apps aren't even consistent with each other - the positioning and rendering menus is completely different in iTunes from Safari.

It's too bad they aren't taken to task for this. It's as arrogant as when MS did it. Except MS learned and Apple seemed to be getting away with it.

This isn't new... (1)

bdp (41335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22830168)

Apple has been doing this sort of thing with QuickTime for a while now. I only have QuickTime installed on Windows, and every time it has an update for QuickTime it wants me to download QuickTime+iTunes. It's annoying, but you can unclick the box, and I think there is an option to tell it to ignore that update in the future.

bdp
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?