Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install

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.

Obligatory

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

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

...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

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

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

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

>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

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.

quicktime also

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

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

WHY are Apple doing this?

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?

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".

iTunes? Ycuk!

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!

We need a new title for this

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.

Easy Solution: Unchecked and Labeled

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.

I feel your pain

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?

Link to John Lilly's actual blog post ...

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?

Re:Apple == MS$?

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

1997.

Re:Also, QuickTime tries to install iTunes.

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:Fake fight, Slashdot has been trolled hard.

>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

However bad this is

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:Who modded this down?

"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:Yes, this is spin but it's not mine.

I'm not a big Apple fan...

Your recent posts, and indeed your username (who defines themselves by something they feel nothing for?), suggest otherwise.

...but I can smell fake news.

I can smell something, but it isn't fake news.

I think a lot more of Apple than I do of MSFT, but then I'd rather catch rabies than AIDS....

Re:He should listen to his own advice

>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:Bullshit!

>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