Google Earth 5.0 Silently Changes Update Policy 535
mario_grgic writes "Recently announced Google Earth version 5.0 adds interesting new features like images of ocean floors and some detailed images of Mars. But it also brings another unwelcome change for Mac OS X users. Google Software update daemon is installed when the application is launched for the first time. The user is greeted with an uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen. After the user accepts, Google Update Agent is downloaded and installed. It updates all Google applications and not just Google Earth. Also, it runs on an unchangeable schedule of its own (instead of, say, only when one of Google's apps is launched), consuming system resources. Worst of all it can not be simply removed, since it is downloaded and installed again once Google Earth is launched. Users really have only two choices: live with it, or uninstall all Google apps. There's a discussion about the updater in this Google Group, including details of a way to disable it (not for the faint of heart). So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the line?"
disable on mac (Score:5, Insightful)
usually when i want to disable anything on mac (dash board, spotlight, etc) i usually change the file permissions to 000. this wont work with google updater?
So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the li (Score:4, Insightful)
YES
You want to be in control... (Score:5, Insightful)
... so you bought a Mac???
Evil? No. Annoying? Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand why all these companies feel like they need to create their own bloated ecosystem on top of the OS. All the #$%@#! application needs to do is check for an update and link me to its website (even that is not necessary). Adobe is the worst at the this-they have their own $^$#&*$@ file browser, for $@#%'s sake! And their updater nags and doesn't work properly half the time.
I'm not excited to see Google go down this path. If this is cloud computing, I'd rather be from the moon!
I don't trust Google apps (Score:4, Insightful)
I would mind this less if Google was known for care in developing its client code. I specifically remember uninstalling Google Desktop last time due to its consumption of system resources and nasty vulnerabilities [hacker.co.il].
Proprietary OSs need a unified updater. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really love the unified update system of the Linux distributions. One process updates all the software.
Right now, I have the following updaters running:
Windows
Adobe
Kapersky (Anti-virus)
Java
Apple
Isn't it time everyone gets on board with 1 system? This way, Apple can't sneak Safari in, we can set a coordinated restore point, and there is only one update user interface.
As software releases become a more fluid experience relying on weekly builds and not annual or semi-annual releases, I think all these updaters are going to eventually create a clusterfuck and a negative user experience if we don't get everyone on the same system.
Handle it like spyware bundled with an app? (Score:1, Insightful)
Change the permissions on its files so it can't run, and can't automatically install.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Insightful)
the troll has a point. Apple is the king of installing background crap on your computer. (well, they are if you use their software on windows, at least)
Even if you kill apple software updater, no matter how many times I click "no" and "don't ask me again" iTunes still pops up a (@*&(#*&$@(* do you want to update box whenever I start it.
HP's updater (Score:5, Insightful)
HP is yet another one of those companies that insists on a background process to update printer drivers, etc. I realized one of the last updates fixed a security flaw. I think my next move will be to uninstall the updater altogether, and thus not have to worry about security holes in a freakin' updater.
It used to be every software house insisted on a systray icon, even though it didn't need it.
Now the latest trend are background "updater" processes, even for stuff that doesn't need it(Adobe reader, etc).
Typically there's no indicators of it being installed, and trying to uninstall it is a mystery.
This needs to change. Identify it as malware or something. Anything.
You Still Have A Choice, Right? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a non-story. Google gives you the option of not using their software. It is not like they are trying to sneak it by you, and you can remove it if you realize that you do not like it.
I can understand why the updater runs on its own schedule. If the software updates itself when you aren't using it, then it will be ready to use when you want to use it! I hate it when software checks for an update when I run it, and then download and install the update. Google wants the software to be up to date and start when I use it. Makes sense to me, though I understand your concerns about the auto-update policy if you are concerned about bugs and regressions.
Or you could always block the updater's Internet access with your firewall.
Re:Proprietary OSs need a unified updater. (Score:4, Insightful)
That requires each of the companies you listed to cooperate.
Companies generally don't like to do that.
Re:Scary! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the economy, we're (potentially) on the verge of a 2nd great depression. That's because the people that ran companies around the great depression are now 1 or 2 generations removed from the people that run the things now. The new people just don't have any concept of the Great Depression, and just see ways to make money, and now we're winding up in a similar boat.
Right now Google is helmed by people that are incredibly smart and chant "don't be evil"... what happens in the 2nd or 3rd generation of management 40 years down the line? Will the montra still be there? I bet not.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
and users should also be allowed to pick & opt out of any update they want. i hate how Apple Software Update, which comes with the Windows version of iTunes, will keep prompting the user about the same "updates" (often completely unrelated to iTunes or any other application the user has installed) until the user downloads and installs it. if you don't, the update will keep popping up or remain in the notification area/system tray.
just because i want to keep iTunes updated doesn't mean i want to install Safari (how is that an update anyhow?) or Bonjour/Rendezvous. at least now Apple makes an attempt (though a feeble one, as they're still using their "updater" to peddle unrelated & unsolicited software).
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you considered paying for a commercial product?
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:1, Insightful)
In general, not having current imagery makes our job more difficult than it should be.
Your interpretation of what a free service owes you is amusing.
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
In principle, YES Google crossed the line, clearly. (Reasons are already espoused in other threads, too tiresome to repeat.) In practice, it probably depends on whether end users perceive a clear change in the performance of their PCs.
If the app isn't visually intrusive and doesn't hork throughput, I would guess most won't care one way or the other. Problem is, if the updater causes problems, the simplest option is to uninstall the software -- and who will reinstall it later?
What ticks me off is that with this choice Google seems to be catering those with a surfeit of bandwidth... I never have enough bandwdith, never; now you want to steal a slice of what little I have for your own purposes? Bad Google, bad, evil Google!
I envision a conversation between two typical users:
"Hey, you seen that new Google Earth? Looks cool."
"Yeah, but if you install it nothing else on your computer will work right."
"Oh, dude... screw that."
Re:It just works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there are Mac (and windows) users for whom that is true. However, OS X is a BSD variant, and as such makes a very powerful and very geeky platform for those of us who like it that way. In fact, disabling the Goog's updater by changing its permissions is trivial using chmod. As for "cannot be simply removed", that is false. I can easily remove anything I want in OS X via the terminal. If you want it "simple", use sudo mc F8. :)
Re:Good for an Apple product (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no, that sort of stuff only seems to happen with Apple's Windows offerings. There's a system-wide software updater on the Mac, kind of like Windows Update, that updates various things. But individual programs like iTunes or whatever won't update themselves or try to download other stuff.
Re:Evil? No. Annoying? Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with 'self-updating' apps is you have to ensure that you never change the way they check for updates or at least always maintain the old paths. If you don't, then that person who only runs the app three times a year is never going to get the update.
On top of that, you now have to maintain this setup for each app you distribute.
Having a 'mother program' which watches over all the apps and downloads updates for them on a regular schedule is a far more stable and reliable way of doing things.
What really needs to happen is these 100+ companies that have enough apps that they think they need to install a background "update" service need to come together to define an open protocol for apps to register with one 'services/daemon/app' so instead of 100 programs all attempting to check for their own programs, you have one service that is covering them all.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that they're probably volunteers in a rural area, they probably don't have the money to pay for it.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government. If you `vote with your feet they will take away every right you have. Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA or not.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes indeed. It just strikes me that Google is beginning to show it's true face of an advertising empire that it is, with a technology front to keep our minds from thinking about it too much.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not have iTunes or Quicktime installed on my computer because apparently Windows 2000 is not shiny enough for watching mov files. /me thinks it is drm related
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
So are you just not ever going to install anything on your computer? Or did you not bother to read the part that said:
Would you tell someone finds out the toys his kid has been playing with were painted with lead-based paints "just don't buy your kid any toys and you'll be okay?" Or do you think that when we find out someone is doing something that is just plain unacceptable, we should shine a light on that behavior and motivate them to smarten up?
First freedom, slashdot is now redefining privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you things being downloaded without your knowledge, don't install any software and unplug your computer from the network. Just visiting this page caused your browser to download text, images and javascript without your knowledge or consent.
I'm thinking that many of you do not seen to grasp how network apps like google earth work and how they are supposed to be updated regularly when the services they depend on are updated.
People don't buy Macs for control. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Proprietary OSs need a unified updater. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one option, but Microsoft could step in and develop an application that monitors the update requirements of programs.
It's done on Linux... why not MS? It could even save companies money buy not having to develop a fancy updater of their own.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
Wow, that's just scary. Wait, I get it... I'm feeding a troll, right?
And they're not. People are voluntarily installing the software Google provided and agreeing to the terms they set. The article summary clearly points out that the software warns that it's going to install the updater. If a person doesn't agree to the terms, then they shouldn't use the software. It's that fucking simple. Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
If Google has something, and you want to use it, you're gonna have to play by the rules they set for it, or not use their shit. That's just the way it works. What would you do if Google said "Well, we're just not going to release Google Earth at all."?
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know what you mean about sketchy updates. I can view the exact hut I used to live in when I was a volunteer in Africa, but until last summer, the city where I live, near Toronto, had only low-res maps. It was difficult to even pick out where the streets and highways were!
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with installing the software and everything to do with a major change in policy with no warning. If Microsoft makes a change like this people never say "so don't use their product" they wail on and on about user rights. Google on the other hand is defended like a religion.
Re:It's my computer (Score:2, Insightful)
So don't install Google Earth. Wow, that was easy!
Fucking bullshit. What are you, a shill for Google? It's borderline malware, damnit. Every other piece of software I've ever seen allows you to disable automatic updates if that's what you want. Even Windows allows you to stop Automatic Updates!
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software. That's not retreating, that's taking power away from Google (the less people using their software the less power they have.) If everyone "retreats" Google loses (it's hard to maintain a company with no customers), it's as simple as that.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government.
What is Google doing that's worthy of government intervention? Google isn't breaking into your home and installing their software on your computer. You make the choice whether you want to use their software or not, if you don't like what the software does then don't install it.
If you `vote with your feet they will take away every right you have. Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA or not.
I'm sorry but what rights do you have as far as Google's concerned? Software companies can't take away your "rights" since your rights aren't granted by the software companies. As long as you aren't being forced to install Google's software (and you're not) you still have your rights.
Re: So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the (Score:3, Insightful)
If selling their soul to do business in China wasn't crossing the line then I don't see how this could be.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, that's what i eventually did. but it certainly would have been nice if Apple had made that option more visible instead of hiding it in a "Tools" menu--or they could simply use the updater to provide updates to installed applications.
really, these are almost malware-like tactics clearly designed to frustrate the average user into installing software that they neither need nor want. using an updater to push other applications is simply dishonest and undermines the purpose of an automatic updater, destroying the trust [jubjubs.net] between software makers and software users and making it more likely that users will ignore vital security updates.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:2, Insightful)
ok, you're using a 10 year old OS from Microsoft, and you and you think their deep desire for DRM is what stops them making QT available for Win2000? Are you on fucking crack?
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, come on..... I've been primarily a Mac user since around 2000, and yes, one reason I did so was because I want to feel in control of my computers.
That is, I don't like web sites arbitrarily pushing out and launching apps/applets via Active-X and security vulnerabilities in Windows, and I don't like having to run a bunch of resource-intensive software in the background to help "shield" my PC from malware.
Apple's built-in updater in OS X allows you to deselect any update you'd like it not to install, and it lets you select the frequency it goes out to check for updates. As updaters go, I always thought it was quite well-behaved and well-integrated.
(By contrast, look at something like Microsoft's whole "Microsoft Updates" thing. They've got the process that you can let run in the background to notify you and optionally auto-install any "critical updates" they push out. But at the same time, you have to visit their "Microsoft Updates" web page and manually select the rest of the stuff. Many times, it wastes double the bandwidth because you'll visit their page to grab a slew of updates, only to find the background process is ALSO simultaneously trying to download the critical updates the update site tagged and is downloading. It's not smart enough to integrate the two together.)
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
why not make it a "check for updates on startup" (of the app), and allow the user to disable that? Is that so hard? OR, be forthright enough to tell users AT THE TIME OF THE INSTALLATION that they're agreeing to install an app that they have no control over, and one that keeps coming back even if you get rid of it? I don't see the point, nor do I see why Google insists on making it some kind of requirement that they are obtuse about in their instructions? What happened to "Don't be evil"?
I remember what these sorts of things are called... malware.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
The complaint is for the use on OSX, and yet Apple basically did the same thing with iTunes\Safari updater.
Its all wrong no doubt but people in glass houses...
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun Tzu says:
A good general can fight a hundred battles and win them all
A great general can win a war without fighting a single battle
(or something like that, with apologies to the Master :-))
Guerillas all over the world are winning from large armies by retreating and refusing to fight a large battle. If you don't use google and badmouth google to your less tech-savvy friends, they will feel the pain.
Re:It's my computer (Score:1, Insightful)
If google crossed the line, they crossed the line that Apple crossed years ago with their insidious "Apple Software Update" which actually doesn't listen to what you pick and installs whatever it pleases - you want to update any apple software you have to keep it. Mac users should be used to this shit.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
But in the case of Google, you're not the customer, you're the product. Google's customers are the advertisers, and they're selling your eyeballs.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software.
Yes, it is.
I remember when CDs were CDs. Not disks that fit into my CDROM drive and install rootkits.
On Windows, every piece of software wants to install a daemon like this Google one into the tray thingy and periodically yell at you about updates and stuff (Sun's JVM does this, do most people even know what java is?).
My point, is that if we don't install any software, then what is the point of having a computer? Its easy to say, don't install X or Y, but when every company has a PHB who thinks its cool to have these terdlets that run outside of the program that I intended to install, well we have to put a stop this somehow. So, yeah, I would consider it a war in some sense.
Re:It's my computer (Score:1, Insightful)
And they said OSX is virus free.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google Software update daemon is installed when the application is launched for the first time. The user is greeted with an uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen. After the user accepts, Google Update Agent is downloaded and installed [...] it runs on an unchangeable schedule of its own (instead of, say, only when one of Google's apps is launched), consuming system resources. Worst of all it can not be simply removed, since it is downloaded and installed again once Google Earth is launched
This is the behaviour of malware.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not the same thing at all. The OS X system update daemon (which is responsible for updating the OS and a few applications that came with the OS) can be disabled by the user, and the user has the option of refusing individual updates. The default behavior is to download the updates automatically, but prompt the user before installing them. The Google updater, on the other hand, gives the user no control whatsoever.
"Don't be evil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Google went public, that's what happened.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Shitty software is an old problem, and what Google Earth is doing here, is just one of the hundreds of ways that software can screw you.
There's other software out there that turns your computer into a spammers' botnet node. You can also find software that deletes your data, shows you ads, treats foreign-fetched supposedly-static data as executable code, contains easily-exploitable buffer overflows, implements DRM, or uses lots of memory and runs slowly.
You already have a mechanism for vetting it. Maybe you search for reviews before you give the software the same level of access that you have and let it become your agent. Maybe you use a clearing house or distribution, and if it it's not part of OpenBSD or Debian, then you just don't run it.
Whatever. You have a system for vetting, and..
And that system has given you a shitload of great software that you're comfortable with. So, no, I wouldn't say "you're just not ever going to install anything on your computer."
(*) Or you don't have a system for vetting (or your system does trust the software to tell you its qualities accurately), so you're already part of someone's spambot net, and you're running Sony's rootkit, and your computer is unreliable in countless ways, and you're not going to notice GE downloads using additional bandwidth, nor do you really care about micromanaging what version of GE you use. So why complain about GE, when you you're letting everyone else have their way with your computer? If your position is "I completely trust everyone" then it's a little late to complain that the 544th person to abuse that trust, has let you down.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
If people would stop being so apathetic to the world around them and start taking a stand, then industry would attempt to police itself more. The problem doesn't lie with abusive corporations, the problem lies in lazy people who don't do anything about it.
And before you say "well I'm powerless to do anything", I'm saying the problem isn't you personally, but society as a whole. Writing a harshly worded letter to your politician is boring, the majority of the population, en masse, quickly moving loyalties from one company to another over perceived trust issues, that will keep corporations on their toes. History has taught us, the truth always comes out.
Corporations aren't innocent, but their guilt exists due in big part to lack of consumer pressure.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying, "My Yugo sucks. What's the point of having a car?"
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not true. Not on OS X. Apple windows software is notoriously stupid and aggressive towards the user. If I were Windows user I would absolutely never ever use Apple software (and I'm a Mac user).
Bravo (Score:3, Insightful)
Google on the other hand is defended like a religion.
Thanks for saying this. It is nice to see that I am not alone in recognizing that Google gets a pass of far worse actions than we would put up with out of any other companies.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
On the flip side, freako right-wingers have been known to defend our status at the end of the Vietnam war by exclaiming, "How can you say we lost? We did not lose a single battle!"
Your (and Sun Tzu's) points are right on. The GP is either a troll, a kid, or just does not have very good perspective on these issues.
Re:It's my computer (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, the Apple Updater allows you to opt out, but they do it in such a way that it's not apparent the option is available, which for all practical purposes is as bad as allowing you to opt out at all.
The opt-out option is a menu bar command, which is a bad choice for two reasons. One is that it operates on the checked items in a list box; in every other Windows application, when you are presented with a list box of checkmarkable items, the commands that operate on them are buttons next to the list box, not menu items. Indeed, Apple puts the button to install the checked items immediately under the list box.
The other reason that the menu bar command is a bad choice is because the window is presented as a dialog box, which in every other Windows application does not have a menu bar. Most Windows users do not even notice the menu bar, much less understand its relationship to the checkboxes.
Based on their PR, you would think that if any company could design a consistent, usable interface, it would be Apple. But the design of this window is so bad it borders on malicious; a quick browse around the web indicates that even experienced computer users need help figuring out how to disable the Apple installs. Surely if they had done user testing, they would have figured this out? The obvious solution: put an "ignore" button underneath the list box, perhaps offset some distance from the "install" button.
But of course it does not benefit Apple to make it easy to reject Apple software, nor does it benefit them to make the experience of Windows users particularly pleasant. I would venture to guess that 95% of the Safari for Windows installs are people who couldn't figure out how to ignore the update and installed it just to get Apple Updater to shut up.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is just as bad in this regard.
Re:It's my computer (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, you're the only one.
I appreciate the fact that when I open certain Mac apps, it gives me the option of downloading an udpate if one is available. I usually hit go ahead, but sometimes I'm downloading something huge and I don't want to bother killing download speeds because of an update that isn't vital.
What's the difference between this and the google updater? Choice. I decide when I want something or if I want it. Let the user decide. Or do it like Windows Autoupdater and have a switch that will turn on autodownloads. It's not that difficult.
Re:It's my computer (Score:1, Insightful)
It should still be my choice, for a couple of reasons:
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:3, Insightful)
tinfoil hat on...
They clearly need to support their iPods and iPhones under Windows... simply because a lot of people have Windows machines and it would be suicidal to not support the most popular portable media player and one of the most popular smartphones on -the- most popular (well, most-used, at least), desktop operating system.
However, that does not mean they have to build it well. It has to be usable. It can't delete your songs. It can't wipe your phone's contact lists, etc.
Beyond that.. it doesn't have to play well with other applications. It doesn't have to look like standard Windows programs. If it does, yay, if it doesn't.. whatever.
But now let's say it behaves... a little 'odd' in Windows. Like iTunes not shutting down properly.. maybe a lockup here or there, a flickering dialog from a bad draw instruction. Not saying that's intentional, probably just odd behavior or bugs they didn't catch before.. but maybe didn't look very hard for either.
Now that same person uses what should be the same application... but on a Mac. Suddenly, no more quirkiness. It closes when you tell it to. It doesn't lock up. The interface doesn't flicker.
Would that person think...
A. Why can't they make the Windows version just like this?
or
B. This works SO much better on an Apple! Maybe I'll get an Apple computer next time, I hear they run Windows apps nowadays anyway.
tinfoil hat off.
Yes, that's crossing the line (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who knows about this and leaves installed any Google webapp is basically asking for it.
Sorry if you find those apps useful. They are also inherently treacherous. They inherently give power over your data and your computer to a third party. You can trust them only to the extent that you trust that third party. I suppose you could run them from a separate unprivileged account and not put anything sensitive through them...but once you're doing that, then using them is so much hassle that you might as well not bother.
Re:It's my computer (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with what you're saying - but in the context of what I was replying to, what I said made sense, irrespective of the points you have made
Only if you ignore the greater context, which is whether Google should be doing this sort of thing in the first place.
In Kenya, a lot of people died when someone lit a cigarette near an overturned tanker. In the context of lighting a cigarette, what he did made perfect sense. In the context of being near petrol fumes, it was fundamentally foolish.
This is the problem most geek pedant asperger idiot-savants seem to make. They chime in with irrelevant, but technically correct, minutia which not only provides no value to the topic at hand, but is often a harmful influence. In the tanker incident, the harm is readily apparent. In your case, it's more subtle, but you're essentially promoting the idea that it's the user who is to blame, not Google, even though you don't hold that point of view.
That's what's most astonishing to me about this, how often I see someone argue against their own opinion merely for the benefit of being technically correct about some irrelevant point.