Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install 768

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the hey-wait-a-minute dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install

Comments Filter:
  • Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smitingpurpleemu (951712) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:20AM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by snl2587 (1177409) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:24AM (#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).

      • by Naughty Bob (1004174) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:28AM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by nwoolls (520606) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:26PM (#22830292) Homepage
        Actually, the reason Microsoft got (and still gets) in trouble is because they leverage an existing monopoly to break into new markets. It has nothing to do with them having a monopoly in that new market (browsers).

        So, in essence, Apple is doing the exact same thing. They are leveraging their monopoly in MP3 players to break into a new market - browsers.
        • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Omnifarious (11933) <eric-slash@omnif ... s.org minus city> on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:51PM (#22830524) Homepage Journal

          I completely agree with you. Many times people say "If Microsoft did this... blah blah" and most of the time the comparison is completely silly. But this time it's spot on. And Apple is just as wrong to do it as Microsoft was (and is).

          • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @05:16PM (#22832198)
            I completely agree with you. Many times people say "If Microsoft did this... blah blah" and most of the time the comparison is completely silly. But this time it's spot on. And Apple is just as wrong to do it as Microsoft was (and is).

            Actually, I'd say it's even a little worse than that. Microsoft back in the day made the argument that people were starting to expect web browsing to be part of the "basic functionality" of a computer and that it made sense to ship IE as part of Windows. While their dirty pool in the browser wars is now a matter of public record, that piece of it at least did make sense.

            There's really no way you can argue that people expect to get a new web browser with an update of iTunes, though.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by analog_line (465182)
          They don't have a monopoly in MP3 players. They may be the most popular, but they certainly aren't the only maker of them. I have owned several Macs (I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro) and I just bought an MP3 player. Not an iPod, though. An iPod wasn't even on the list of possible purchases, and I had a lot to choose from (for the record, I ended up buying a SanDisk player).

          I don't understand the claim that the iPod is a monopoly. It's certainly the most popular. Its popularity means that it's a force
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by weicco (645927)

            I don't understand the claim that the iPod is a monopoly. It's certainly the most popular. Its popularity means that it's a force in the marketplace, but it's by no means a monopoly.

            Well, let's change that a bit...

            I don't understand the claim that the Windows is a monopoly. It's certainly the most popular. Its popularity means that it's a force in the marketplace, but it's by no means a monopoly.

            You might want to tell U.S. judges that Microsoft doesn't have monopoly, they are just the most popular player

            • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

              by aztektum (170569) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:54PM (#22831342)
              His argument still stands as yours fails to take into account that 99% of the time when a user buys a new PC, they're getting it with Windows, whether they want it or not thanks to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Windows is really only popular by "default" as there were few other options. That isn't the case with iPod.
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by prockcore (543967)

                His argument still stands as yours fails to take into account that 99% of the time when a user buys a new PC, they're getting it with Windows, whether they want it or not thanks to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.


                and 100% of the time when a user buys a new Mac, they're getting it with OSX, whether they want it or not.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by dryeo (100693)
              The thing with windows is that I've been basically forced to buy it on several occasions. Short of buying parts and assembling your own computer it was unavoidable. To do things on the internet (in the past) we pretty well had to have windows and their browser installed. Even today it is very hard to use any non-ms word processor due to how hard it is to read doc files without their word processor.
              In all cases this was not due to windows being good (think about ver 3.1 and 9x. They were crap and yet ended u
            • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

              by mshmgi (710435) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @04:26PM (#22831862) Homepage
              I think any rational observer will agree there's a HUGE difference between the iPod's 72% [wikipedia.org] market share, and Windows' 95% [wikipedia.org] [+/-] market share.
            • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

              by ukyoCE (106879) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @04:44PM (#22831986) Journal
              I think you missed the part was a federal judge ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. No such ruling has been made against Apple in the portable music market, and for good reason.

              As good as Apple is at making iPods, there are clones galore out there that work "just as well", are cheaper, and are selling tons of product.

              Comparing the Apple and the iPod to Microsoft and Windows is quite absurd.

              (all that said, I think an automatic install of safari with itunes upgrades sounds sleazy. Unfortunately being sleazy isn't illegal...)
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Albanach (527650)
                The number and availability of competitors is irrelevant. The iPod maintains circa 90% of the MP3 player market. That is almost certainly a monopoly.

                Now there's nothing wrong with that in itself. Apple won that position. The trouble is, once you win yourself a monopoly in a market, you have to be very careful not to abuse that position to extend your reach into other markets. It sounds like this is exactly what Apple are trying here.
          • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Informative)

            by Oktober Sunset (838224) <sdpage103@nOspam.yahoo.co.uk> on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:57PM (#22830924)
            Windows isn't the only desktop OS out there, but I don't see anyone honestly claiming MS wasn't abusing a monopoly when they forced IE onto windows users. Antitrust rules don't have to wait until the share gets to exactly 100% market domination with 0 competitors before they kick in.
      • It's been said the evolution of all non-unix applications expand until they can do e-mail.

        In this case let's look at the capabilities of the app in question. To actually function it needs an internet enabled application, capable of displaying text, images, hypertext, and acting on clicks to links by fetching new pages. It maintains a backward forward history. Permits bookmarks and drag and drop weblocs. It plays music, and video. It can gather feeds and display them.

        Wait which app was describing? Safar
      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gad_zuki! (70830) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:58PM (#22830926)
        >but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market, not dominating it

        That makes no sense. If a copy of Office 2008 for OSX installed Windows Media Player to fight off iTunes then slashdot would melt from the outrage. When Apple does it, slashdotters bend over bankwards to rationalize it.

        The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

      by DurendalMac (736637) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:00PM (#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.
      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kelson (129150) * on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:39PM (#22830408) Homepage Journal

        then I saw that it gets downloaded whether you wan tit or not unless you hit cancel.
        Not quite. You can disable it -- the problem is that it's selected by default, and you have to be paying attention to notice that something unfamiliar is in there. Since people have been trained by years of "Keep your system up to date so you don't get hacked/infected/etc!" to accept all updates, a lot of them are going to just accept that update without realizing that they allowed it to install a new program.

        And it's not just Safari. It's iTunes as well. If you have QuickTime or Safari (it's been in beta on Windows since last summer), but not iTunes, the updater will offer you iTunes -- preselected -- every time a new version comes out, and call it an update. It's only become an issue now because most people using Apple Software Update on Windows were using it for iTunes. Since Safari was in beta until recently, the only things the updater offered were iTunes and QuickTime -- things that were already on most users' machines.
        • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:51PM (#22830518) Journal

          If you have QuickTime or Safari (...), but not iTunes, the updater will offer you iTunes -- preselected -- every time a new version comes out, and call it an update.
          Maybe I'm just slow today, but how is it appropriate for an UPDATER to offer me a program I've never had installed on my computer?

          Sketchy tactics are sketchy.
        • by cyclocommuter (762131) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:15PM (#22830670)
          It's not only Safari that is selected by the Apple updater by default but also iTunes too. I only have QuickTime installed and when the updater prompted me to update QuickTime to a newer version, iTunes and Safari were selected too. I decided to uninstall QuickTime and not be bothered by Apples shenanigans.
        • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Wyzard (110714) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:50PM (#22830874) Homepage

          This happens with Bonjour too. If you install Bonjour for Windows (something that ought to be installed on every Windows box, IMO), you'll be offered iTunes and QuickTime as "updates" later.

          Calling installation of a new unrelated application an "update" is pretty underhanded.

        • by Joce640k (829181) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:20PM (#22831126) Homepage
          To watch a Quicktime movie on my PC I have to:

          * Install iTunes, have it hijack all my multimedia file types.
          * Have all the mime types replaced in my browser (a new plugin to show jpg files, yay!)
          * Install an "iPod sync tool" in my system tray
          * Have Apple pester me the whole time to install updates to all of the above.
          * Have Apple pester me the whole time to upgrade to a "professional" version of something or other.

          All that to see a dumb Quicktime movie? I think I'll pass...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fwarren (579763)
        I dont think that it is going to matter. Unless it automatically sets itself up as the default web browser.

        The truth is, if it becomes the default web browser and sets the homepage to http://msn.com./ [msn.com.] The people they want to switch, won't notice the difference. If they don't hijack the default browser settings, no one will even know it is installed. If they do hijack it and MSN is not the hompage, those people will switch back to IE anyways.

        What bothers me, is that mozilla feels threatened. If Firefox i

      • it gets worse (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:21PM (#22830698)
        I've just discovered that if you run your iTunes auto-update *again* it re-adds and re-checks the Safari download each time the update is run. This is sort of like how Microsoft keeps offering you the Windows Genuine Advantage update even if you've already turned it down before. So, it seems like Apple is being very hostile with this update. You are eventually going to download it, maybe by accident.

        Now, Safari might be nice, I don't know I've never used it. But, I do know it is insecure compared to Opera and Mozilla. It also lacks a lot of privacy features, script blocking, deep cookie management, password wands, etc. The irony is that Opera while being the most innovative browser is only the most secure web browser right now because it is unpopular, they lack managed script blocking. You can turn off scripts but no one in their right mind does that. We need to have whitelists so we only allow what we know we need. Blacklists don't work because you can't keep them up to date fast enough and disabling entirely isn't reasonable because there are many situations where scripting/cookies are absolutely necessary. The same goes for Internet Explorer and Safari, they lack this what should be by now, mandatory functionality. And, really, this should be built directly into Firefox itself, but has not been because a majority of people would simply be confused why their websites aren't working correctly. It has to be informed decision to install and try the plugin and understand what it is doing. I suspect this is the reason that other browsers have just completely ignored this functionality altogether.

        In addition, I'd like to point out that Mozilla's AdBlock plugin, although bad for the advertising business, is a benediction for security as well. Too often now banners are being used to inject malicious arbitrary code into end user's computers. Even on Microsoft's own Hotmail email service!

        Mozilla actually out innovates Opera in features when you look at the plugins, but the main browser itself does not. Until recently Opera has been the fastest and most compliant browser in the world, though it historically has had trouble rendering some websites. It has greasemonkey-like functionality built in which is a nice plus. With the advent of Firefox 3 coming out though, Opera and Safari lose the speed crown and also cannot compete with the plugins, privacy, or security. You can bet Apple knows this and wanted to pull this stunt before Firefox 3 became mainstream, because after that it is game over.

        Mr. Wilcox has every right to be afraid for global security because of this new tactic by Apple.
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sancho (17056) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:18PM (#22830246) Homepage
      I tried to come up with a number of adjectives to describe this action. It's not "bad" exactly, because it's a minor thing--an extra web browser taking up a few megabytes of hard drive space. It's not "stupid" because it gets the browser out there so that they get more marketshare. The best word I can come up with is "annoying" and even then, only to a fairly small subset of people. It's a move that makes me look up and wish that Apple were a friendlier company, but uproars? That's a bit much, I think.

      As far as the iPod monopoly goes--it doesn't. iTunes (and Apple software) isn't the only way to manage your iPod, and Apple doesn't intentionally make it hard for other software to compete. iPods themselves aren't a monopoly, despite a fairly high marketshare, and they certainly aren't anticompetitive, as other music stores are able to compete just fine. iTMS could be considered anticompetitive, except that they're trying to move away from DRM on their music.

      Your post sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to Apple fanboys.
      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:28PM (#22830322) Homepage
        >The best word I can come up with is "annoying" and
        >even then, only to a fairly small subset of people.
        >It's a move that makes me look up and wish that Apple
        >were a friendlier company, but uproars? That's a
        >bit much, I think.

        It's much worse than annoying. Users today mostly feel comfortable clicking OK on software update dialogs because software update keeps their *installed* programs secure. It's the best method a vendor and a user have to ensure that the software isn't going to be exploited.

        When *installers* bundle extra programs and install them by default (opt out rather than opt in) it's *annoying*. When *updaters* bundle extra programs and install them by default (opt out rather than opt in) it's damaging to the trust relationship that users and vendors have relied on to keep software safe and secure.

        That's much worse than annoying.

        - A
      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by webmaster404 (1148909) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:34PM (#22830366)
        Its deceptive is what it is. When you download an update you don't expect to get extra programs installed, you expect to get patches applied to the program you are updating. And its not like in Linux where all that might also get updated is your version of say Python, this is an entire different application.
        br>

        As far as the iPod monopoly goes--it doesn't. iTunes (and Apple software) isn't the only way to manage your iPod, and Apple doesn't intentionally make it hard for other software to compete.


        Oh yes, as if adding a hash to stop third-party applications isn't "intentionally making it hard" http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1831236 [slashdot.org] I don't know what is. Now granted that, has been broken but still it is no excuse for Apple to decide to block third-party applications from using the iPod.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by itsdapead (734413)

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

      They did.
      There were.
      They lost.
      They paid the fines (which they could afford) made some token concessions (Set Program Access and Defaults) but, guess what, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are still bundled with Windows, and the vast majority of users will never know anything else.

      This is because bundling products is not the problem. The problem is that MS has a near-total monopoly on desktop operating systems and office productivity software. The various anti-trust actions have simply squirt

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hairyfeet (841228)
        I think you are kind of missing the point,and the reason I posted the article.First of all,we are talking about Windows users.While there are many tech savvy Windows users,they are dwarfed by the sheer numbers of those that see a pc as nothing more than a fancy toaster.Second Apple,at least in mind share,does have a monopoly on music players.When I walk down the street listening to my mp3 player(A Sandisk since I prefer an mp3 player that takes aaa batteries so I can change them out if needed) people don't
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Valar (167606) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:57PM (#22830554)
      Except that there is a big difference between software that is optional to download and IE being so completely tied into windows that you couldn't uninstall it and still have a working install. That is why Microsoft got the anti-trust flack-- they abused their monopoly position to ensure that they had a close to 100% install base, thus making their product the defacto standard in a new market (why design for anything else when 95% of PCs out there have IE).

      Yes, Apple could be more explicit about the Safari download, but you still give permission to install it (yes, the box is checked by default; no, there is no reason why you can't uncheck it). iTunes won't stop working without it. Your OS won't stop working without it (note that even under OSX there is no reason you can't uninstall Safari).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by adisakp (705706)
      If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits.

      Google and Yahoo do this as well as Apple. Have you tried to download Adobe Reader only to have it auto-install the Google / Yahoo (whoever's paying them that month) IE toolbar unless you opt out?

      Basically, when I install something -- no matter WHAT I'm Installing -- I don't want any other software auto-installed without an opt-in. Heck I even hate all the little auto-update craplets that get installed with every software pa
      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:26PM (#22831180) Homepage
        >Google and Yahoo do this as well as Apple. Have you tried
        >to download Adobe Reader only to have it auto-install the
        >Google / Yahoo (whoever's paying them that month) IE toolbar
        >unless you opt out?

        Yes, but this is apples and oranges. Installers are one thing. Software updaters are another. With an Installer, you haven't installed the software yet and you are free to chose options (or not, I really don't want to defend crappy installers) but with an updater, you've installed the software and you should be able to trust it to simply update itself, not to transform into an installer for other software and to mix in those other offers with security updates for the piece of software you did install.

        Installers and updaters are not the same thing. Abusing updaters is really, really bad for everyone because it causes people to lose trust in the updaters and that means lots of people less secure in the long run.

        >Basically, when I install something -- no matter WHAT I'm
        >Installing -- I don't want any other software auto-installed
        >without an opt-in. Heck I even hate all the little
        >auto-update craplets that get installed with every software
        >package out there from Sun Java to iTunes to Reader /etc.

        Again, installers are not updaters and I don't hold them to the same standard. That being the case, I agree with you. Installers mostly suck (We try hard not to suck with Mozilla Firefox's installer and I think we're doing a pretty good job) and users should complain. But bad acting installers are not even in the same category as updaters for installed software.

        - A
  • by Mactrope (1256892) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:20AM (#22829792) Homepage Journal

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CRCulver (715279)
      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.
      • by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:04PM (#22830112) Homepage
        >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
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by webmaster404 (1148909)

          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.

          Exactly. Why do you think there are so many unpatched Windows installs? Because MS tries to push out "updates" not as patches but as entire different versions. Think of IE6 to IE7, to the person who is scared of the computer they have and doesn't know how to actually use a computer but just what the little icons mean, they might decide to never ever update their computer. Now when real patches come along that patch some security flaw, they refuse them thinking that it will change the look/feel of their

          • by LO0G (606364) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:04PM (#22830596)
            In all honesty, I think that MSFT was right in pushing IE7 as an upgrade for IE6. IE7 is an update to IE6, not a totally separate product. The reality is that the security improvements in IE7 (the phishing filter and the fact that it disabled most ActiveX controls by default) are enough of a reason to justify recommending it to customers (and just like the Safari "update" people are complaining about, you can turn it off).

            I'd have more issues if Microsoft decided to force a download of (say) Visual Studio Express as an "upgrade" to Windows (or any other component that's not a part of Windows). Or if they made the Silverlight update enabled by default (as of today, they offer it as an optional download (it's disabled by default)). Heck Microsoft doesn't even include Office products in Windows Update (you have to opt into the Microsoft Update version to get non Windows products offered in Windows update).

            Apple's doing one of two things: either they're (a) leveraging their iTunes monopoly to push Safari or (b) using their security holes as opportunities to upsell iTunes and Safari (since you need to use Apple Update to get fixes for the Quicktime security hole of the week)

            Neither of these are OK in my opinion. Software update should be for updating existing software to fix bugs in the software you chose to install.

            I don't have any problems with the Apple updater offering other products, I do have issues with the updater offering those products by default.
    • get over it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nguy (1207026) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:27AM (#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.
    • Spin Spin Spin (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Naughty Bob (1004174)
      I don't like Slashdot and Slashdot editors being critical of Apple...

      Fixed that for you.
    • by alcmaeon (684971) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:29PM (#22830334)

      You are absolutely right. Apple is hardly forcing Safari on people since it asks first and they can decline the download. I decline downloads offered from Apple and MS all the time. This is a complete non-issue brought up by someone wanting free press.

      The Mozilla folks are whining because there is some chance that a significant portion of Firefox users will switch to Safari. I have used Firefox since beta on Windows machines, but I will switch to Safari if it is faster. Firefox is dog-slow on a Mac, and I don't even consider it on that platform.

  • quicktime also (Score:5, Informative)

    by B00yah (213676) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:23AM (#22829806) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by heson (915298) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:42AM (#22829958) Journal
      Quictime Alternative is your friend. Maybe it should be bundled with firefox :)
  • Why, yes... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chysn (898420) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:25AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by makomk (752139)
      That assumes that you know what Safari is, you know that (despite the updater lying to you) you don't actually have it installed, and you know you don't want it. Most people aren't knowledgable and tech-savvy enough to realise this. Remember, the penalty for unchecking a box you shouldn't in that updater is leaving yourself open to hackers and viruses. Bearing all this in mind, most people are just going to leave the defaults as they are and click OK.
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:26AM (#22829838) Journal
    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.
  • by morari (1080535) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:28AM (#22829850) Journal
    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!
  • by iamacat (583406) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:28AM (#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.
  • by KevMar (471257) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:29AM (#22829864) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrumney (197329)

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

      We already have a classification that fits. Trojan.

  • by Ilgaz (86384) * on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:29AM (#22829868) Homepage
    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?
  • by Kelson (129150) * on Saturday March 22, 2008 @11:34AM (#22829892) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by sunderland56 (621843) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:39PM (#22830412)
      3. Clearly describe what the software is, in plain english. Words like "Quicktime" (software to help you display certain kinds of media) and "Safari" (yet another web browser) are pure geek speak, and unintelligible to your average user.

      At least "Internet Explorer" is reasonably named. How does the name "Firefox" or "Safari" relate to web surfing? Your average safari is held pretty far from the ocean.
  • ...they'll be bundling QuickTime with iTunes!
  • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:10PM (#22830186) Journal
    Just the other day I tried to install Konqueror, and it forced me to install some UNIX like operating system. Wiped out my whole hard drive. When is it going to end?
  • by mingrassia (49175) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @12:37PM (#22830390)
    Here is a link to John Lilly's actual blog post ...

    http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/ [jubjubs.net]

    ... can't imagine why neither the /. summary or the original "article" included a link to John Lilly's actual blog post. Who the hell is Dee Chisamera and why did /. link to Chisamera'a page full of ads instead of Lilly's actual blog post?

Can't open /usr/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.

Working...