Safari for Windows: Only for 'Apple-labeled' computers?

Apple, it seems, hasn't totally gotten used to making browsers for this Windows thing.

The license terms for the company's Safari Web browser on Windows include a curious restriction: "The software allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

(Credit: The Register)

The Register, which was tipped off by legal eagles at the Italian site settleB.IT, calls the terms a "mockery of end user agreements."

Apple last week caught a lot of flak from users and from Mozilla, which makes the rival Firefox browser, for its practice of offering Safari for Windows as part of its auto-update service for iTunes.

Let's see how many millions of Safari for Windows downloads there are before Apple's legal corps tweak their language to cover exotic things like, you know, Windows PCs.

Update 7:11 AM Pacific: After seeing this blog, an editor at settleB.IT informs me that the Apple license has been updated so that Windows PC users can install Safari without fear of violating any licenses. He says the change occurred overnight Wednesday to Thursday European time.

If you have good eyes, you can see the different versions: before and after.

[hunter_jc]

Not news.

Apple slacking off since last year. Especially apparent when those promotion videos for Macbook air wasn't even online when you view the website.

[gomer43]

Oversight.

It's boilerplate legalese, and they forgot to tweak it for the PC
version. Big whoop. I wish Cnet would get back to reporting news.

[milrtime]

oversight?

I wonder if they would accept the answer of "it was just a simple oversight" when consumers don't abide by the "agreement"...

[fredtheviking]

This is news?

To your point, this was a Blog post, not a news article. It is an interest tidbit about Safari. Also, the blog also provide an interesting point about user-end licenses. That apple like most user are not overly concern with user-licence agreements. I never read anything that has ever come from them.

[bugma302]

But we love it

CNET don't print these stories for their newsworthiness.
They just know how the rest of us love to watch the Apple fanboys getting their knickers in a twist.

[tgrenier]

great strategy

Trick millions of itunes users into installing Safari against the terms of a license agreement nobody reads, then come back and sue them in a few months and tell them it would not be a problem if they would move away from the all-evil pc to the all-good mac.

Steve is after all brilliant and would never make a mistake.

tom

[PaulG.1]

Safari

Who reads license agreements? :) I got the Apple update offering Safari just yesterday. I downloaded it and it works fine on my Vista PC. I'm starting to acquire browsers the way some women acquire shoes.

[wigmo]

Buy an Apple sticker, get a free iPod

slap your sticker on your PC, problem solved. Re-gift the iPod for your nephew, because you know you already have 3 of them.

[kool_skatkat]

Santa help me

It's all I'm hear as a request for a gift, and iPod. I'll start collecting the stickers.. and I'll take an extra one, just for me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kool_skatkat/

[open-mind]

Apple Fixed Their Mistake

They've corrected the license agreement text, so you can probably take down this story now.

[bugma302]

As the Chinese Government said to the BBC

There's nothing to see here....move along.

[Seaspray0]

No they didn't

Their mistake was to turn quicktime into malware with the inclusion of software (itunes, safari) that has nothing to do with quicktime. They haven't fixed that yet.

[Daniel L Smith]

It's not called "Auto-Update for iTunes"

The program that pushes downloads of iTunes, Safari, etc. updates
is called "Apple Software Update." Because that's what it does --
facilitates downloads of Apple's published updates to its software.
The users who think it's "Auto-Update for iTunes" are the same
ones who got peeved when they saw the non-iTunes-related Safari
show up on the list: because they don't understand the app's
purpose, they get offended when it does what it is supposed to do.

[ittesi259]

Don't forget

It wasn't a forced install, it could have been ignored.

[Sir Limey]

Apple Software Update

It's called Apple Software Update not Windows Update. So it will be ok for Microsoft to push IE 7 onto Mac as updates? After all thats what Microsoft Software updates does!!

[ivorycruncher]

You know...

If the license agreement for Safari says it can only be installed on Apple-labeled computers, yet Apple is forcibly pushing it onto Windows PCs, doesn't that mean that any PC can be an Apple-labeled computer? That should mean that I can legally install Mac OS X on my PCs, because the license agreement for that also states it can only go on Apple-labeled computers. What a stunning revelation!

=P

[shycelticwitch]

You wish

That you could install Mac OSX on your PCs. But don't lose hope
just yet... Apple is working on this. And then soon, like the rest of
us super intelligent people who hate unstable products, you will be
using your PC without fear of crashing, and you will never ever
again see the "blue screen of death."

[ewelch]

Instead of a snide article...

...Arstechnica.com called Apple's PR people and they said it was
an oversight. They took care of it.

So instead of a lame story that obviously reports a typo as
making software illegal (when in no way it would be enforceable
considering it's clearly not Apple's intent) why not at least report
it accurately. Not "Safari is illegal..." which it clearly is not, but
"Apple has a typo in their user agreement."

Yeah, as if that's never happened before. Non-news
schadenfreude if anything.

[technkl]

it's not a typo

Because it's not a typo, it's carelessness and stupidity. They're too lazy to re-due their license agreement so they just copy and paste, how lame is that.

[ittesi259]

Man that is funny

One should be able to appreciate the humor in that whether they be a Mac or PC user...

[pictureguy]

So What!?

So does anyone really read or pay any attention to license agreements anyway? Big deal!

[DustoMan]

"Oh crap..."

"We are about to ship Safari on Windows and legal isn't done with the EULA yet."

"That's ok..." :Control-C: :Control-V: "...Done."

[Neo Con]

Close...

That's :Command-C: :Command-V: (Formerly :Apple-C: :Apple-V:. Silly Windows users... ;)

[Jon N.]

I just don't get it...

Apple has a better operating system, but allows Windoze on their PC's. Apple allows PC's to download iTunes and Safari, but won't make a full version of Mac OS X for PC's so the rest of their software will run on them (users would flock to buy their multimedia software!). Is Apple going to make Aperture for Windows? I think that there might be a hidden signal of the times. Could Apple actually be thinking of getting out of the personal computer market altogether? Apple either needs to push their own line, and take a hard stance on its EULA, Make OS X available to non-Apple PC's, or Open Source the whole thing. Apple either needs to do one of these three things. I just don't get it.

[rapier1]

Its how they make money

They make money by selling a tightly controlled computing
experience. Apple is, primarily, a hardware company that uses
software to entice people into their hardware environment.
They've always been this way and I don't see it changing anytime
soon.

Also, remember something very important... Apple is in this
business to make money. They're not going to do something
that will significantly cut into that if they don't have to. They do
not believe they will make more money from selling OS X openly
than what they would lose from having their product line tank.
You'd also have significantly higher support costs when Jim Bob
buys a copy of OS X and installs it on their 8 years old EMachine
they bought for $500. Tightly controlling the hardware
environment is a winning proposition for them.

[bugma302]

I've found another one

"....If you do not enter into an airtime agreement with O2 on one of our iPhone tariffs you will not be able to use your iPhone (including the iPod function). If you enter into but do not remain in an airtime agreement with O2 on one of our iPhone tariffs you will not be able to use the phone, internet and other related services on your iPhone (but will be able to use the iPod function.) Attempting to use services on any other network, for example by replacing the SIM card, may mean your iPhone becomes permanently unusable...."

Must be another oversight.

[californiajones]

Apple produces the same level of quality as the rest

I do like the Apple products for its looks and better user interface, but its quality is at the same level as any other company. The case in point is the Apple TV. But, like any other producer of cult products, it will have its diehard fans who will never see any flaw in Apple. If you think all their products are clean and works perfectly, you just have to read the forums on Apple site. I own an Apple TV for the last 3 months and I know the pain. I find suprising Windows users with Safari is a cunning trick, which is right up the alley where both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs grew up.

[psychosmurf]

Very Much Agreed. . .

Blind devotion to any corporation is not practical or logical. Both Microsoft and Apple have their strengths and weaknesses and anyone choosing not to see that is a weak-minded product of the corporate brainwashing we call advertising. I use a Windows PC because I want to: It runs more software and my Games work really well on it. I also used a Mac once upon a time. It was sleek, ran well most of the time and I needed it for graphics work I was doing and it was. But it still crashed just as much as my Windows box does. My friend, who is a DIE-HARD Apple man, has four Macs and I hear no end to the grief he has with those machines. There is no such thing as perfect software or hardware. Apple and Microsoft are the same company with different logos. Given the opportunity Steve Jobs would take over the world and would do it with no less cunning and derisive business tactics than those that have Microsoft up to its tragic ending in anti-trust fines.

[qwerty asdf]

EULAs are a joke

This just goes to show that not even the companies producing commercial software actually expect anyone to read EULAs. They're strictly a CYA device - and I realize they need to have one. But it seems to me that they could be presented in a more meaningful fashion during software installations. Perhaps with a summary in English of the major points of what we're actually agreeing to, with a link to open the full legalese version.

Any legal material presented in a text box showing 3-4 lines out of a 5 page legally binding contract is really a joke. It sounds like someone from Safari dev team stole the installer without bothering to read the EULA config value.

The "I Agree" / "I Don't Agree" check-box is old and ought to be replaced by a method that presents useful summary of the license terms.

[billmosby]

Only one copy?

Funny to think of having to pay another $0.00 for each copy I want
to run at one time, but fair is fair!

[lkrupp]

Too late, Apple bashers

As of this morning the oversight has been corrected, as if this
was news anyway. But the anti-Apple cultists (Windows fanboys
and C|net editors) make it their life's work to pounce on any
negative tidbit they can find. And they call enthusiastic Apple
users fanboys and cult members. Pot, Kettle, Black. Your
obsession with all things negative about Apple makes you even
more pathetic than we Apple diehards. At least we look on the
bright side of things. I guess you people have nothing good to
say about Windows either?

[E B]

Do you actually READ this site?

"But the anti-Apple cultists (Windows fanboys and C|net editors) make it their life's work to pounce on any negative tidbit they can find. ... I guess you people have nothing good to say about Windows either?"

Actually, news.com and cnet in general are more than willing to bash Windows when it'd necessary (and with Vista, it's often been necessary, from what I've seen).

So Apple forgot to dot their i's and cross their t's in their EULA. It's amusing. Nobody said it's a big deal, and it's certainly more newsworthy than who Britney Spears ate lunch with today.

Don't be so defensive. It makes you look like a fanboy and cult member.

[Sir Limey]

Apple bashers

Thanks ikrupp for proving once again how bigoted people exist in all spectums. You love spewing out against Microsoft but heaven help us if something is said about Apple. Instead of joining in on what was a good laugh on a simple wording and proofing error you make all of us Apple users look bad. Go away use Linux or OS2 instead

[benjwah]

I found a weird one...

Right in the middle, it says:
"Upon use of this product, Apple gains ownership of the first-born male of the household, OR females of child-bearing age. Should neither of these be available, Apple will gain ownership of the eternal soul of the user."

I'm sure it's just a misprint.

[gggg sssss]

trojan horse

what moron would intentionally install safari on a windows PC anyway? You get a perfectly useable IE, and if you really hate Bill G after spending your $100 - $500 on Vista you can always run Firefox. Safari's drive by install sounds a lot like a Gator antic. Hey, maybe Symantec will flag it as a tojan horse. LOL