Comments on: Apple widget checks raise eyebrows
Some Mac users express concern about a new feature in the latest Mac OS X that sends information back to Apple.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Android and iPhone users not so different after all
December 28, 2009 6:10 PM PST
- 10 music-tech trends that will shape the next decade
December 28, 2009 6:00 PM PST
- AT&T resumes online iPhone sales in NY
December 28, 2009 2:39 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Asking for registration is really quite modest. I really don't have
a problem with Apple wanting to find out who their customers
are.
As the other poster said, you can bypass the process by quitting
(which is not as hidden as you describe since, I think, Quit is
available as a menu choice -- besides command-Q is hardly
undocumented; it's been the way to quit any Mac program since
1984). Or, you can supply phony contact information if it really
bothers you.
Asking for registration is really quite modest. I really don't have
a problem with Apple wanting to find out who their customers
are.
As the other poster said, you can bypass the process by quitting
(which is not as hidden as you describe since, I think, Quit is
available as a menu choice -- besides command-Q is hardly
undocumented; it's been the way to quit any Mac program since
1984). Or, you can supply phony contact information if it really
bothers you.
off. In case people are paranoid about clicking links (I am when
using a winblows box), the instructions are as follows:
1. Open Terminal.
2. sudo mv /etc/mach_init.d/dashboardadvisoryd.plist /etc
mach_init.d/ dashboardadvisoryd.plist.disabled
3. Reboot.
Not so bad. Ever go through removing that WGD (Winblows
Genuine DISadvantage) trash from your system before? I have,
let's just say it's not quite so easy.
Since we're comparing this to WGD, would someone mind telling
me how Apple could use this to disable your system? That's what
ticked me off about WGD - I couldn't use my own computer for a
few days until I called M$ and read them a bunch of useless
numbers, then entered another bunch of useless numbers. And
for those who figure I'm a nefarious type, no my XP license isn't
in question (it's perfectly legal) and no I haven't upgraded
anything on my box in years (same processor, memory,
motherboard, HD, etc). WGD literally locked up my computer
because my firewall prevented it from phoning home upon
installation (it can be argued that's my fault, since I blocked it). I
seriously doubt Apple could do the same with this.
That said, this wasn't a good move for Apple to say the least. I
wish these companies would learn to come clean about stuff like
this, it wouldn't bother people as much as discovering it this way
does.
off. In case people are paranoid about clicking links (I am when
using a winblows box), the instructions are as follows:
1. Open Terminal.
2. sudo mv /etc/mach_init.d/dashboardadvisoryd.plist /etc
mach_init.d/ dashboardadvisoryd.plist.disabled
3. Reboot.
Not so bad. Ever go through removing that WGD (Winblows
Genuine DISadvantage) trash from your system before? I have,
let's just say it's not quite so easy.
Since we're comparing this to WGD, would someone mind telling
me how Apple could use this to disable your system? That's what
ticked me off about WGD - I couldn't use my own computer for a
few days until I called M$ and read them a bunch of useless
numbers, then entered another bunch of useless numbers. And
for those who figure I'm a nefarious type, no my XP license isn't
in question (it's perfectly legal) and no I haven't upgraded
anything on my box in years (same processor, memory,
motherboard, HD, etc). WGD literally locked up my computer
because my firewall prevented it from phoning home upon
installation (it can be argued that's my fault, since I blocked it). I
seriously doubt Apple could do the same with this.
That said, this wasn't a good move for Apple to say the least. I
wish these companies would learn to come clean about stuff like
this, it wouldn't bother people as much as discovering it this way
does.
Of course, that won't stop ignorant folks from spreading the usual FUD...
Of course, that won't stop ignorant folks from spreading the usual FUD...
Of course, that won't stop ignorant folks from spreading the usual FUD...
Of course, that won't stop ignorant folks from spreading the usual FUD...
If Apple, or ANY software manufacturer, wishes their software to 'phone home' that manyfacturer needs to let me know before the software is installed, and offer me a choice. If they do not, no matter how benign the software and kind-hearted the provider, they have taken a wrong step.
This is my hardware, and my comunication link. Use of either is at my pleasure, not some random programmer.
(I do use Little Snitch, and do block connections I do not recognize - 'dashboardadivsoryd' is NOT calling out from here.)
Apple, it's simple. Your release notes should at a minimum have let us know to expect these external connections, explained their need, and offered a simple on/off choice. Anything short of that is unacceptable. :o(
Tomas
has any right to phone home without asking for your
permission.
They deserve some backlash for that one...
Charles R. Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Falls Church, VA
If Apple, or ANY software manufacturer, wishes their software to 'phone home' that manyfacturer needs to let me know before the software is installed, and offer me a choice. If they do not, no matter how benign the software and kind-hearted the provider, they have taken a wrong step.
This is my hardware, and my comunication link. Use of either is at my pleasure, not some random programmer.
(I do use Little Snitch, and do block connections I do not recognize - 'dashboardadivsoryd' is NOT calling out from here.)
Apple, it's simple. Your release notes should at a minimum have let us know to expect these external connections, explained their need, and offered a simple on/off choice. Anything short of that is unacceptable. :o(
Tomas
has any right to phone home without asking for your
permission.
They deserve some backlash for that one...
Charles R. Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Falls Church, VA
smoking, and do you mind sharing?
Command + Q is actually written in the users manual (but most
n00bs don't RTFM anyway, that's why they are so insistent on
b*tching when they can't figure it out on their own) and its the
universal quit command on macs.
When I first started using Macs, that was the absolute first thing
I learned. Don't complain that you didn't know about it becuase
you are too lazy to read manuals and instructions, because the
majority of computer users (mac and pc) aren't nearly as stupid
as you.
smoking, and do you mind sharing?
Command + Q is actually written in the users manual (but most
n00bs don't RTFM anyway, that's why they are so insistent on
b*tching when they can't figure it out on their own) and its the
universal quit command on macs.
When I first started using Macs, that was the absolute first thing
I learned. Don't complain that you didn't know about it becuase
you are too lazy to read manuals and instructions, because the
majority of computer users (mac and pc) aren't nearly as stupid
as you.
sure that the widgets I've installed are the correct ones (and are
the current version)? Not especially. I think it's similar to the
Software Update function and should be made even more like it,
in fact. I can understand why others don't feel this way,
however, because of the way that it has been implemented.
There are two flaws in implementation (in addition to not
explaining the change sufficiently). First, rather than check in
every 8 hours, it should check during the original widget
installation process. If someone is trying to push out a widget
that Apple has not inspected, I want to be notified during the
installation process rather than later.
Second, we should be able to configure this feature in the
Dashboard System preference pane. Specifically, there should
be a checkbox for turning the feature on and off and for setting
the frequency with which Dashboard checks for widget updates,
just like the Software Update preference pane. I know that it is
possible to turn off the widget check with a simple terminal
command, but users should have the usual intuitive way of
changing settings.
Apple's motives here are to protect users from malware. There
is nothing wrong with that. People may remember how Apple
was criticized loudly last year for security holes in Dashboard.
Now, ironically, they are criticized for tightening security another
step.
I think that Apple certainly could have done this better and think
that a Widget Update function that works more like the Software
Update function would be a terrific tool.
sure that the widgets I've installed are the correct ones (and are
the current version)? Not especially. I think it's similar to the
Software Update function and should be made even more like it,
in fact. I can understand why others don't feel this way,
however, because of the way that it has been implemented.
There are two flaws in implementation (in addition to not
explaining the change sufficiently). First, rather than check in
every 8 hours, it should check during the original widget
installation process. If someone is trying to push out a widget
that Apple has not inspected, I want to be notified during the
installation process rather than later.
Second, we should be able to configure this feature in the
Dashboard System preference pane. Specifically, there should
be a checkbox for turning the feature on and off and for setting
the frequency with which Dashboard checks for widget updates,
just like the Software Update preference pane. I know that it is
possible to turn off the widget check with a simple terminal
command, but users should have the usual intuitive way of
changing settings.
Apple's motives here are to protect users from malware. There
is nothing wrong with that. People may remember how Apple
was criticized loudly last year for security holes in Dashboard.
Now, ironically, they are criticized for tightening security another
step.
I think that Apple certainly could have done this better and think
that a Widget Update function that works more like the Software
Update function would be a terrific tool.
believe there was anything more to it than a nasty PR blunder.
Apple made a few small changes without explaining or
addressing any of the more serious issues that were raised, and
the headlines read "Apple Does The Right Thing!".
Apple still refuses to answer direct questions about the
MiniStore, but nobody seems to notice or care.
So has Apple made the same PR blunder twice?
Somehow I don't think that's what's going on here, and the way
it worked out for them last time, I'm not sure I'd call it a blunder.
Apple learned an ugly truth last January, and a bad precedent
was set. As long as they can say you might benefit somehow
from them sticking their nose in your HD, they don't need your
permission, you don't need to be informed, and if you do find
out and ask questions, they are under no obligation to give you
any details about what they took or what they did with it.
Lets face it, by plan or by blunder, everybody is being
conditioned to accept the idea that just because it's your
computer doesn't mean the information on it is private, or yours.
It's not the information about my widgets that worries me, It's
the precedent that is being set.
How many posts have you read defending the widget check or
the Ministore that start with "Applications ABC and XYZ already
do something like this, so quit complaining." ?
Because of the Ministore they can now say this about Apps that
phone home, phone third parties, send information about what
file on your HD you are accessing at this moment, and add a
personal identifier to the transmission. The benefit to you?
Advertising on your desktop.
Now with the widget update they can add "and they don't have
to give you a way to turn it off".
Accessing data on your HD is not addressed in Apple's "Privacy
Agreement", and Apple has refused to comment on the fact.
Why?
Right now the information is about music files and widgets, so
nobody has a problem with it. Once the precedent is set, where
will it go? By the way, once it's set, the precedent applies to
other companies as well.
Quicken
Office
your ISP
"JayDub" & the boys in DC
You can't say it's OK for Apple, and still keep everyone else out.
Not for long.
One last thing. If we can all figure out that checking the widgets
on install and then just watching them for changes would have
been better, you can bet Apple thought of it too. So why do they
have it phoning home three times a day?
Probably just a PR blunder.
Lampie
- Setting A Bad Precedent
- by lampietheclown July 14, 2006 5:58 AM PDT
- When Apple put the MiniStore out the Mac Faithful refused to
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (104 Comments)believe there was anything more to it than a nasty PR blunder.
Apple made a few small changes without explaining or
addressing any of the more serious issues that were raised, and
the headlines read "Apple Does The Right Thing!".
Apple still refuses to answer direct questions about the
MiniStore, but nobody seems to notice or care.
So has Apple made the same PR blunder twice?
Somehow I don't think that's what's going on here, and the way
it worked out for them last time, I'm not sure I'd call it a blunder.
Apple learned an ugly truth last January, and a bad precedent
was set. As long as they can say you might benefit somehow
from them sticking their nose in your HD, they don't need your
permission, you don't need to be informed, and if you do find
out and ask questions, they are under no obligation to give you
any details about what they took or what they did with it.
Lets face it, by plan or by blunder, everybody is being
conditioned to accept the idea that just because it's your
computer doesn't mean the information on it is private, or yours.
It's not the information about my widgets that worries me, It's
the precedent that is being set.
How many posts have you read defending the widget check or
the Ministore that start with "Applications ABC and XYZ already
do something like this, so quit complaining." ?
Because of the Ministore they can now say this about Apps that
phone home, phone third parties, send information about what
file on your HD you are accessing at this moment, and add a
personal identifier to the transmission. The benefit to you?
Advertising on your desktop.
Now with the widget update they can add "and they don't have
to give you a way to turn it off".
Accessing data on your HD is not addressed in Apple's "Privacy
Agreement", and Apple has refused to comment on the fact.
Why?
Right now the information is about music files and widgets, so
nobody has a problem with it. Once the precedent is set, where
will it go? By the way, once it's set, the precedent applies to
other companies as well.
Quicken
Office
your ISP
"JayDub" & the boys in DC
You can't say it's OK for Apple, and still keep everyone else out.
Not for long.
One last thing. If we can all figure out that checking the widgets
on install and then just watching them for changes would have
been better, you can bet Apple thought of it too. So why do they
have it phoning home three times a day?
Probably just a PR blunder.
Lampie