Those bastards at Apple have done it again. They’re leveraging their installed base of iTunes to optionally have people download Safari for Windows!
HORRORS!
The thrust of the problem for most people is that the app “sneaks” it’s way into your machine by way of Apple’s Software Update app that keeps iTunes and Quicktime (and Safari if you have it installed) up to date. Apparently, the people complaining don’t understand the concept of a checkbox, though, because the fact that you can click it and turn it off means it’s not required. Nowhere in the dialog does it say it’s required, and Apple gives no indication that the update is required at any point.
In other words, this is a complete non-story, but don’t let that stop you from commenting all you Apple pundits out there. Here’s a sampling of the reactions I’ve seen in the blogosphere. First, from Joshua Schnell at Macgasm:
The idea of mac’s came up and virus’s and I began explaining to him some reasoning behind why it’s a little more secure, I brought up Internet Explorer and active x controls. When I explained to him that he could use firefox he was dumbfounded. He literally thought Internet Explorer was the “internet”. To him they were synonymous, the same thing, no difference. To us this seems completely unlikely, but we’re not in this normal demographic, we lay outside of it. Now, back to the matter at hand! Do you honestly see these users knowing what to do with an automatic download of safari? I don’t, and I really think it’s a bit of a slap in the face to users who know. If they want safari they’ll download it. They don’t need it shoved down their throats.
Instead of tricking people into using it, why wouldn’t apple focus on making it the best browser available? It originally worked for Firefox, so why wouldn’t it work for Apple? If they make a superior browser people will use it. It’s that simple.
It’s not an automatic download unless you just click update update update to everything. As he mentions, most people aren’t smart enough to read screens they’re presented with and often just click “ok ok ok ok ok ok” until the dialogs go away. But at the same time, is that Apple’s fault? No. The checkbox means it’s optional, and people who don’t understand that shouldn’t be updating and maintaining their own computers at all. I’m sorry, but a certain basal understanding of checkboxes is probably a good idea if you’re going to be using a computer.
I don’t think Apple is “tricking” anyone, and the only people likely to be “tricked” are the ones who don’t pay attention to things like warnings and dialogs anyway.
Mac Daily News seems to think similarly…
What Apple did was present the user an option to install and/or update Safari. Users did not have Safari installed and/or updated if they did not want it. That said, Apple should not use the word “update” for all users. Apple should change the nomenclature depending on whether or not Safari is actually installed on the PC. Say “install” if it’s to be an install and say “update” if it’s to be an update. If that single, minor change were to be made, we’d have no problem whatsoever with Apple using Apple Software Update on Windows PCs to offer new software while updating existing Apple apps, including having the “install/update” box pre-selected.
Now we run into conflict, because if, as Joshua says, people don’t read dialogs anyway, what’s going to make them pay attention to the difference between install and update? Seems a fine refinement to me geared at people who would get nothing out of it either way.
This reaction, however, is the most ridiculous:
Apple’s approach is atypical. For example, I use Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox on my Vista PC. Mozilla’s software updater automatically downloads Firefox updates, but it doesn’t prompt me to download Thunderbird, which isn’t on the laptop.
Already, Apple uses iTunes as a mechanism for distributing QuickTime. One requires the other. The updater isn’t a required install with iTunes, and it can later be removed. But the strategy of using the updater to deliver other Apple software is an aggressive encroachment into the Windows desktop. It’s smart business, but is it good for enterprises?
There are reasons why IT organizations use tools like WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) to control and manage software updates. But what about rogue updaters that come with products like Adobe Reader, Firefox or iTunes? Policies can be set to restrict new software installation, but not every IT organization uses them. And where should that line be drawn? It’s one thing to let employees install iTunes and something else for Apple Software Update to offer another Web browser.
Where to begin.
Firstly, Apple’s approach is certainly not atypical. Mozilla doesn’t implement it, but Microsoft and Adobe certainly do. If you’ve ever gone to Windows / Microsoft Update, you’ll see downloads for Silverlight, Media Player, and so on. Last I checked, they weren’t required components of a Windows install. Adobe consistently tries to foist its Adobe Photo Album on you every time you update Acrobat.
That, however, isn’t even the weakest part of his argument. The talk about Enterprises easily wins that prize.
If an Enterprise allows lowered security for something like, say, an installation of iTunes, then they’re opening themselves up to employee discretion as far as what to install on these company-issued computers. The idea that Apple is somehow wrong here is laughable, seeing as the ultimate responsibility for allowing application installs falls on the user and the organization that issued the computer! Imagine that.
Enterprises have a different set of standards for what is and isn’t allowed. In our company, for example, everyone is on complete lockdown. Nothing gets installed without our okay. iTunes? No problem. We’ll set that up for you. If you try and update it, it’ll fail because you don’t have admin rights. Same if you tried to install Safari; no go.
Citing the challenges of an enterprise environment as reasoning for chastising Apple is weak, at best, particularly since the apps in question theoretically don’t belong in an enterprise to begin with.
I’m not pleased that Apple chose to distribute software over their update mechanism, but I’m not completely surprised. They’re certainly not the first to do it, and they won’t be the last to do it. In fact, if I was a shareholder, I’d be livid that Apple didn’t try this a whole hell of a lot sooner. Not taking advantage of the millions upon millions of iTunes users to increase your reach into their digital life would be considered by anyone, or at least anyone looking at this with a clear eye, as a major epic fail and a terrible business decision.
Apple isn’t the first to do this, and they won’t be the last. Time to get over it and move on.
Recent Comments