Apple tring to push Safari onto Windows users

[Asher]

It's impossible to have a sensible and polite discussion about technology topics on this site because certain posters spam threads with endless bull****

Aggie, you're the one notorious for your tech bull**** around here. You argue that Apple doesn't actively engage in vendor lock-in, for instance. That's just so blatantly and fundamentally wrong, you can't possibly be that stupid since you follow the same news all of us do -- you're blatantly bull****ting people and you think that only I notice.

Your tech opinions are as worthless as you are, demonstrably so.

You'd be surprised how civil and logical discussion can be in their absence.

You are clearly referring to yourself here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Not to contradict my previous post but... So Freaking What!?!!? It's not malware. Uninstall it, or just don't use it.

Getting rid of it is not something a complete newb may know how to do, and I shouldn't have to uninstall it.

Or be intelligent enough to actually read the software update popup before clicking OK. Is that really so hard???

As I say below, users ought to be able to accept an update without reading the details. I do read the details (even on the individual Windows Update patches - if you don't do that too, you're a hypocrite), and wouldn't be caught by something like this, but it's certainly fair for other people to be pissed.

But re this thread, what I see is a handful of people taking it upon themselves to be pissed on behalf of those iTunes users, since it allows them a bonus opportunity to air their Apple hate.

There's the additional fact that this sort of thing damages computer security. Users ought to be able to click 'update' without fear of unwanted consequences, because it's vitally important that users always install security updates. Spam botnets are very dependent on users who don't install those updates, as fresh victims to become new zombies.

It's very bad net citizenship on the part of Apple.

[Asher]

Precisely, Kuci.

Apple can do no wrong to some people. That's precisely what this thread demonstrates. Even when people admit this is wrong, and the behavior is wrong, they do defend Apple by way of attacking the people bringing their misdeeds to light.

Steve Jobs himself is quite the character. I don't understand why Agathon in particular loves Jobs/Apple and hates Gates/Microsoft. I think a lot of it has to do with profound ignorance.

Did you know...one of the first things Jobs did when taking over Apple in 1997 is eliminate 100% of their philanthropic contributions? Jobs himself hoards money (personally and through Apple), and does not contribute to charity in any meaningful way. Contrast this with Bill Gates and Microsoft, which both constantly contribute massive amounts of money to bettering the world.

There's also other instances in Jobs' past which display a rather inherent evillness. Did you know he lied to the courts when he fathered a child of out wedlock? He told the courts it was impossible it was his because he was impotent when his ex came looking for child support. He later acknowledged it was his child and then fathered many more.

The guy's a scumbag, and the actions Apple partakes under his leadership tend to follow his moral compass. Yes, Apple makes cool products and Jobs' attention to detail has made him and his company immensely rich, but it absolutely sickens me to see so many people blindly follow Jobs and his company and not take them to task for blatantly ethically questionable behaviour.

[Wiglaf]

There's that hypocrisy again. Criticizing this Apple updater thing as the minor problem it is, that's fine. Arguing it is unique to Apple and Microsoft has not done far worse is just retarded.

[-Jrabbit]

Well, I agree with the idea that it's misleading to put a new browser in an "update," and I agree that it (and imho all updates) should be Check To Opt In.

I would take issue with your thought that this somehow "damages network security." Apple is dropping a program onto your hard drive, but it doesn't affect the functionality of your machine.

FWIW, in terms of "unwanted consequences," I've had plenty of experiences with XP/Office where my comp was fubarred after accepting a security patch through the update process, and the patch would alter my settings. But I chose to go fix my issues rather than starting troll threads.

[Kuciwalker]

I would take issue with your thought that this somehow "damages network security." Apple is dropping a program onto your hard drive, but it doesn't affect the functionality of your machine.

Did you read the post at all? It damages network security by dissuading people from installing security updates.

FWIW, in terms of "unwanted consequences," I've had plenty of experiences with XP/Office where my comp was fubarred after accepting a security patch through the update process, and the patch would alter my settings. But I chose to go fix my issues rather than starting troll threads.

Have I been defending MS? Isn't this the computer equivalent of UR's "but the US does something bad too!"

FTR, though, MS's patches are at least well-intentioned (and possibly done in the least disruptive way they can - I don't know enough about the internals to say), whereas this is a blatant case of Apple disregarding the general welfare for its own profit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
There's that hypocrisy again. Criticizing this Apple updater thing as the minor problem it is, that's fine. Arguing it is unique to Apple and Microsoft has not done far worse is just retarded.

What did MS do that's far worse, in the same problem domain?

Are you going to bring out the "MS bundles IE with Windows" argument again? That's been demolished so many times it's hard to count.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I would take issue with your thought that this somehow "damages network security." Apple is dropping a program onto your hard drive, but it doesn't affect the functionality of your machine.

Did you read the post at all? It damages network security by dissuading people from installing security updates.

Yes, I read the post. But I disagree that this case is as egregious as the Mozilla CEO claims. The fact that the distribution system is similar to what malware practitioners have used is a fair point. But the fact remains that Safari is not malware. Some might, in fact, question why the CEO of Mozilla has taken time out of his busy schedule to equate the distribution of a competitor's browser with malware distribution.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I would take issue with your thought that this somehow "damages network security." Apple is dropping a program onto your hard drive, but it doesn't affect the functionality of your machine.

Read his post again, he's referring to the same trust the Mozilla CEO spoke of. When people are pushed "updates", they put trust in the provider into it being a, well, update. Most people default to "accept" without reading, and if you want to criticize the people that do that -- fine -- but it's unrelated. It's Apple banking on that to exploit their own welfare that's the problem, its no worse than the Adware and Malware **** that bundle themselves in other installers and provide very obtuse ways of opting out of them.

FWIW, in terms of "unwanted consequences," I've had plenty of experiences with XP/Office where my comp was fubarred after accepting a security patch through the update process, and the patch would alter my settings. But I chose to go fix my issues rather than starting troll threads.

The difference is the security patches -- by virtue of them changing something -- have to change how things work to fix security problems.

This is totally unrelated to our discussion here, where Apple is pushing out an unrelated technology to unsolicited users.

The direct comparison would be this:
1) Apple releases Apple Updater program which then, by default, pushes Apple software out disguised as an "update"
1a) MS releases Microsoft Updater program for Mac (which exists). Instead of just providing say, well, updates for existing MS software, it would install Windows Live Messenger, Windows Live Mail, Internet Explorer for Mac, etc. All by default. (This never happened)

2) Apple releases Quicktime for Windows, which, by default, steals all file associations from existing media applications and plasters its icon everywhere (start menu, tray, quicklaunch, desktop), even for security updates.
2a) MS releases Windows Media Player for Mac, which, by default, steals all media file associations and spams icons everywhere (never happened).

There is a clear strategy on Apple's behalf to be overbearing here, in contrast to what MS has done.

[Wiglaf]

What did MS do that's far worse, in the same problem domain?

Are you going to bring out the "MS bundles IE with Windows" argument again? That's been demolished so many times it's hard to count.

You brought out the 'Apple is evil and Jobs is a buddhist vegetarian' routine, so it's hard to see why it's unfair to point out Microsoft's screwups, even if they aren't explicitly in the problem domain.

Regardless, bundling IE with the OS is in the same 'problem domain' because it feeds off of user ineptitude to corner the market. User ineptitude is the whole basis of your argument that people simply do not know how to refuse the Safari download.

Also recall when they force fed Windows Desktop Search via Windows Update, crippling computers across entire networks (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10..._update_snafu/).

And of course, there was that little thing about using Windows update to force upgrades to IE7, regardless of whether or not you were even using internet explorer.

These instances are more egregious because Windows Update is an essential component to the operating system and not to the individual third party software installed by the user. Also, these updates can occur automatically without consent of the user, unlike Apple software update.

[-Jrabbit]

I think I'm clearly on the record as being in agreement that this move by Apple was bad form.

I just don't think it's as big a deal as is being so righteously portrayed here.

[Wiglaf]

The problem is his bat **** assertions that Microsoft has done nothing of the sort

[DaShi]

Well, I knew windows came with IE when I bought it. I didn't know Safari would come with my iTunes and would rather it didn't.

[Wiglaf]

It doesn't come with iTunes.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It doesn't come with iTunes.

So they're wanting me to download something through iTunes that has nothing to do with iTunes? Those bastards!