Mozilla CEO says Apple's Safari auto-update 'wrong'
A lot of people appear to be bent out of shape about Apple using its auto-update service to distribute the Safari Web browser on Windows. The CEO of Mozilla, which makes the rival Firefox browser, calls it bad business.
In a blog on Friday, Mozilla CEO John Lilly criticized Apple's practice, uncovered this week, of offering iTunes and QuickTime users Safari 3.1 on Windows through the Apple Software Update pop-up.
Lilly says that automatic updates are a good way to ensure people have the most recent and secure versions of software. It's a practice that Mozilla uses with the Firefox browser.
What's different in what Apple is doing is that it is adding a product to the auto-update list that users never requested. That means they could very easily install software unintentionally, he argued:
Apple has made it incredibly easy--the default, even--for users to install ride along software that they didn't ask for, and maybe didn't want. This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices.
It's wrong because it undermines the trust that we're all trying to build with users. Because it means that an update isn't just an update, but is maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the Web by eroding that relationship. It's a bad practice and should stop.
Easy for users or a breach of trust?
(Credit: CNET Networks)An Apple representative issued an e-mailed statement on the matter to Information Week: "We are using Software Update to make it easy and convenient for both Mac and Windows users to get the latest Safari update from Apple."
Meanwhile, my colleague, Tom Krazit, in a post on Friday argues that people should become more aware of the software on their systems and think before they install.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
bought and control?? What a radical concept! No, I need to be able
to blame a successful corporation for all my problems!
any good, what you put into it is going to run like crap too.
Duh. Tis true that Safari is for Apples, but when iTunes came
out, Windblows fans were JEALOUS and therefore Apple caved to
the demand and gave them their own version. Seems to me I
have been hearing the same rhetoric from them now about
Safari... how cool it is, how well it runs, etc. But it seems that no
one has tried to figure out WHY it doesn't play well with
Windows, but plays perfectly with Mac OS... they just sit there
and WHINE about it and call us dirty names, as usual.
equivalent to Microsoft pushing IE7 is ridiculous. IE remains a core
component of Windows, rightly or wrongly, and IE7 represented a
legitimate software update to IE6. Safari 3.1, however, represents
an entirely new application, assuming that the user had not already
installed earlier versions.
default. At least apple gives you an option. I can't tell you all the
crap RealPlayer and others force down your throat on Windows,
without the option to only install parts.
A lot of users aren't very computer literate, and they're used to the application updating existing software. So they may not even be aware that they *don't* have this 'Safari' thing installed, thinking it is just another component like iTunes or QuickTime.
"update" by default or not then I'd vote for the lesser of the two
evils and have it disabled by default. However, I am uneasy with
the whole idea of Software Update being used as a medium to
install entirely new software that is not required for existing
application.
Apple is 'updating' Safari 3.1 for people who don't have Safari installed at all! It isn't an 'update' it is a new install, and that's not the same at all. They're pitching it as an update, and it isn't.
websites. I see this tactic as about the same, except the product
is free (and probably superior to anything natively on Windows),
the "ad" is visually (and sonically) unobtrusive, and the user can
easily opt out.
If a user is so clueless as to not pay attention to auto-update
dialogs, they deserve the awful fate of having a superior browser
installed on their machine.
didn't get to it first and hasn't got a product he could have done
that with. And he might lose 1 or 2 points of market share. Oh my!
Maybe he's actually worried Apple's got a better product than he
does. One never knows.
among us see invasions of privacy, malware and other bogeymen.
Hey, get real. It is a smart, effective way for Apple to promote
itself and it hurts no one. If you don't want its software, delete it.
I, for one, think it is incredibly convenient and a great way to
spread the usage of a great browser.
longer supporting Win2K! EOL'd, 10 years old. let it die.
Interesting that Apple, home of "Selling an Impression", would decide to go the route of so many millions of garbage, spyware, and porn purveyors before (and after) them!
I myself use Linux with 'on demand' VMware WinXP and did take a look at Safari 3.1 today. It just isn't much competition for Firefox 3 (currently testing 3.0 beta 4).
Similarly, on MacOS, Safari is always an actual update, since it comes with the OS.
other takes here, but I'd benefit from your take. Spread your
wings, man. Go beyond the reporting, the start blogging.
As for me, MS bundled IE unethically and illegally by extending
its monopoly to the web. Apple, like others, needs to take
particularly harsh measures to get a level playing field.
Apple doing this to MS's base doesn't bother me, though it
doesn't really pass the sniff test generally.
End of story.
Since installing the betas of Safari it's been pushing me to install quicktime and itunes - two items I really don't want on my pc.
Although according to some on this thread Safari 'is a superior piece of technology' I still find myself confining it to last place in terms of usage (behind even betas of other browsers) but this is a personal preference (which is fortunately shared by 98% of our website visitor).
Maybe Microsoft could learn from this though. How about offering all those Mac users using MS Office a free os update to Windows?
After all, people can just uncheck it if they don't want it right? ;-)
don't need to test them on Safari.
Mac Fans who will say you have the option of not installing Safari miss the point as I know they will. The point is that their is other ways to advertise a new product rather then include it in a piece of software designed to update software you choose to install on your computer.Apple is becoming more cult like all the time!
Am I being naive or can people still read instructions, understand
them, and make a decision for themselves?
Or is this where anti-trust litigation begins to stifle commercial
progress???
However I shouldn't have to say no every time the software decides to try an update!
It gets irritating having to remember to uncheck the download every time and eventually you just give up.
Perhaps this is a new Apple tactic - proliferation through irritation? ;-)
No software company should be installing new software on your computer without your permission and it should
always be assumed that the user does not want it. It drives me nuts that Sun Microsystems enables the "Install
Google/Yahoo! Toolbar for IE" when they update the Java runtime under Windows, and this is exactly the same. I
don't need a toolbar for IE to run Java and you don't need Safari to run QuickTime or iTunes. Sure, the option to
install Safari can be disabled but the point is that it should NEVER be enabled by default in the first place.
I like Safari on the Mac but happily concede that many users on Windows have already made a conscious decision to
switch to Firefox from IE. Because of this I can quite appreciate why people are angry about this - Apple is trying to
force their own browser on you when you already choose another and they are not respecting your decision. Further,
Mozilla managed to capture about 20% of the browser market with Firefox without such tactics in a time when the
only browser was IE. Clearly, now that the public are aware that other browsers exist it is unnecessary for Apple to
push Safari at Windows users and they should compete fairly as Mozilla has done.
the muck, but that is their choice.
install the software. It's not like they are installing it without permission, they are just trying to promote their browser, which
by the way is the faster internet browser on the planet.
People are always trying to find ways to blame other people for
their problems. It's like, oh my gosh, my computer crashed and I
think it was apple's fault because they make better computers
anyways and they just happened to make it convenient to install
their faster web browser on my crappy windoze box. Good night
people, take responsibility for your own actions and know what's
going on your computer. LEARN TO FREAKING USE A COMPUTER,
WHETHER IT'S A MAC OR A PC.
Microsoft (used to be?) Basically you just say that you're selling
your Apple stuff and having horrible luck with eBay buyers. That
has nothing to do with Apple business practices. You should either
qualify your position or not post unrelated comments with titles
that suggest the comments are related to the article.
- What...No Tabs???
- by kydude51 March 22, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
- Safari looks nice but we tab users can never go back. Plus it's too many clicks to edit a url.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- I think there are tabs
- by drisko March 22, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
- You may have to enable tabbed-browsing through the preferences
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (121 Comments)menu, but I think tabbed browsing is already enabled. You should
be able to click File->New Tab or I think use Ctrl+T.