| SillyDog701 Forums |
| Author |
Message |
beanboy89
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 1432
|
 23 Mar, 2008 5:06 pm Mozilla CEO: Apple's Safari Auto-update unethical |
[sdp=90802] |
|
From C|Net:
Martin LaMonica, C|Net wrote: |  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:
| Quote: |
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.
|
Mozilla CEO says Apple's Safari auto-update 'wrong'
[profman added BBcode for last link. 3/24/2008]
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8
Desktop: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, DVD-RW, Radeon x700SE, Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Laptop: AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-58 1.9 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM, 120 GB HDD, DVD-RW, NVIDIA GeForce Go 7200, Windows Vista Ultimate x64 |
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
Fulvio
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 10312
|
| 23 Mar, 2008 5:37 pm |
[sdp=90803] |
|
I have no idea what this is all about. How can they call it Auto-update, if you get a popup with the choice?
I wanted to get Safari3.1, and I saw the iTunes/Quicktime as part of the update (which I already had). It is an option which you don't need to select. It is more transparent than the update in Firefox, and such programs, which is in the settings.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9b4) Gecko/2008030714 Firefox/3.0b4
"I've got a very poor sense of direction. I keep forgetting which way is forwards."
WinXP, SP2, FF2.0.0.14, TB2.0.0.14 IE7.0, Opera9.27, SM1.1.9, Flock1.1.4, Safari3.1, Sygate5.6; AVG7.5, JRE1.6_05 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11718
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 5:25 am Re: Mozilla CEO: Apple's Safari Auto-update unethical |
[sdp=90806] |
|
| beanboy89 wrote: | From C|Net:
|
Interesting.
Firefox is the one, using dirty tactics , forcing users to updating/upgrading to the latest version. (Although some may argue that it may be important to get the latest release) Rushing for the latest release is certainly not the best interest of every user. Now, Firefox is dare to call Apple doing 'bad' business?
The pot is certainly good at calling kettle black.
To recap: such dirty tactic setting was implemented in default preference, in hope to catch users who are not confident on changing preferences or those who missed out the setting in many options. Detail on Firefox's dirty tactic is discussed in Firefox's (semi) forced updating policy?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fulvio
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 10312
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 9:10 am |
[sdp=90809] |
|
| Quote: |
Firefox is the one, using dirty tactics, forcing users to updating/upgrading to the latest version. |
I, always, disagree at calling "dirty tactics" anything which can be changed. However, anything can be called "dirty tactics" if it leads to unwanted results. But, neither Safari nor Firefox use "dirty tactics", unless one is clueless.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
"I've got a very poor sense of direction. I keep forgetting which way is forwards."
WinXP, SP2, FF2.0.0.14, TB2.0.0.14 IE7.0, Opera9.27, SM1.1.9, Flock1.1.4, Safari3.1, Sygate5.6; AVG7.5, JRE1.6_05 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don_HH2K
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 4445
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 4:56 pm |
[sdp=90821] |
|
| Antony wrote: | | Now, Firefox is dare to call Apple doing 'bad' business? |
What's dirtier a tactic: automatically updating something you have, or labeling something you don't have to begin with as an "update" and automatically installing that?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default; X11; i686; en_US) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko) SUSE
Main rig: Turion64X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2-667, 100GB HD, Radeon X300, 15" LCD, XP Pro x64
Server: P2 @ 233MHz, 192MB PC66, 20GB HD, 13.3" LCD, Windows Server 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11718
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 5:45 pm |
[sdp=90823] |
|
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | What's dirtier a tactic: automatically updating something you have, or labeling something you don't have to begin with as an "update" and automatically installing that? |
I think you need to get the facts right first.
When did Apple's Software Update automatically install updates as the dirty tactic deployed by Firefox? The default setting does not give users no options but to install/update whatsoever as Mozilla/Firefox seem fit.
Updates listed in Apple's Software Update can be easily unselected and even ignored (in the future).
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060723 Firefox/1.5.0.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don_HH2K
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 4445
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 6:44 pm |
[sdp=90825] |
|
Just like Firefox can easily be configured to not automatically update itself, you mean?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default; X11; i686; en_US) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko) SUSE
Main rig: Turion64X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2-667, 100GB HD, Radeon X300, 15" LCD, XP Pro x64
Server: P2 @ 233MHz, 192MB PC66, 20GB HD, 13.3" LCD, Windows Server 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11718
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 7:46 pm |
[sdp=90826] |
|
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | Just like Firefox can easily be configured to not automatically update itself, you mean? |
NO. Firefox's default setting is to force everybody to rush (and install for those who forget to switch it off) for the latest.
Unlike Firefox, upon restarting OS or relaunching the software, a new software/version do not get installed automatically.
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | (...) and automatically installing that? |
Back to the main point: Apple's Software Update did not automatically install anything, unlike someone tried to frame Apple.
The fact remains, Firefox's default setting installs whatsoever software to users computer Firefox deems fit, at user's next relaunch of Firefox software.
It is a real surprise that, open-source extremists commend Firefox's such dirty tactic [i](of installs whatsoever update to users' computer at Firefox's wish), but the same open-source extremists would disapproval Apple's merely showing a new application which is available for installing (if users wish to).
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don_HH2K
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 4445
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 8:02 pm |
[sdp=90827] |
|
| Antony wrote: | | Unlike Firefox, upon restarting OS or relaunching the software, a new software/version do not get installed automatically. |
It seems to me that the default is, when you click that "Install 2 Items" button, Safari gets installed...
| Antony wrote: | | It is a real surprise that, open-source extremists commend Firefox's such dirty tactic [i](of installs whatsoever update to users' computer at Firefox's wish), but the same open-source extremists would disapproval Apple's merely showing a new application which is available for installing (if users wish to). |
Showing an available new application and defaulting to its installation are two entirely different matters. If you've already got the software installed, then fine, it's an update. When you don't, it's an advertisement. This is "Apple Software Update", not "Apple Software Advertising", correct?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default; X11; i686; en_US) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko) SUSE
Main rig: Turion64X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2-667, 100GB HD, Radeon X300, 15" LCD, XP Pro x64
Server: P2 @ 233MHz, 192MB PC66, 20GB HD, 13.3" LCD, Windows Server 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11718
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 8:18 pm |
[sdp=90828] |
|
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | Antony wrote: | | Unlike Firefox, upon restarting OS or relaunching the software, a new software/version do not get installed automatically. |
It seems to me that the default is, when you click that "Install 2 Items" button, Safari gets installed... |
A new meaning of default setting? How smart.
In Apple Software Update, users can choose not to install whatsoever software. Users were not forced to install the software/update as of in Firefox.
Unlike Firefox, users were told that an whatsoever changes will be applied to users computer at next relaunch of the software, and there's no escape of such once a notification similar to following shows up:
I think I will have to repeat again.
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | (...) and automatically installing that? |
Apple's Software Update did not automatically install anything, unlike someone tried to frame Apple. Users can choose to install or not.
On the other hand, Firefox's default setting leaves users absolutely no options but to install whatsoever software Firefox deems fit, at users' next relaunch of Firefox software.
Absolutely no escapes in Firefox's default setting.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11718
|
| 24 Mar, 2008 10:39 pm |
[sdp=90830] |
|
| Antony wrote: | | Don_HH2K wrote: | | Antony wrote: | | Unlike Firefox, upon restarting OS or relaunching the software, a new software/version do not get installed automatically. |
It seems to me that the default is, when you click that "Install 2 Items" button, Safari gets installed... |
A new meaning of default setting? How smart.
And the fact remains: in Firefox's forceful update, users have no chance of saying no at all.
In Apple Software Update, users can choose not to install whatsoever software. Users were not forced to install the software/update as of in Firefox.
Unlike Firefox, users were told that an whatsoever changes will be applied to users computer at next relaunch of the software, and there's no escape of such once a notification similar to following shows up:
I think I will have to repeat again.
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | (...) and automatically installing that? |
Apple's Software Update did not automatically install anything, unlike someone tried to frame Apple. Users can choose to install or not.
On the other hand, Firefox's default setting leaves users absolutely no options but to install whatsoever software Firefox deems fit, at users' next relaunch of Firefox software.
Absolutely no escapes in Firefox's default setting. |
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fulvio
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 10312
|
| 25 Mar, 2008 8:43 am |
[sdp=90832] |
|
I never saw a more pointless discussion. As I said before, if you does not check or know about the Firefox settings, it may be a shock to find out that there were unapproved changes.
And, yes, a person who is clueless will get angry, and continue without making changes in his/her settings.
As for Safari, I have no idea what's the flack. I had Safari3.0.4, and learned to pay attention to what it presented. I saw that there was an "update" to iTunes (or Quicktime), or whatever, checked. I unchecked it, and probably, spared myself an interminable download/install, which I did not need, because I, already had the "update".
If I have any complaint about Apple is its cluelessness. I have iTunes, and I am being asked if I want to back up my latest download. I say yes, and the program tells me to insert my DVD.
Very interesting, because my computer has no DVD burner!
Don't worry, I can get around this, unless the program tells me that I have "insufficient permissions" to make changes. And, I am given no hint about what is a sufficient permission.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9b4) Gecko/2008030714 Firefox/3.0b4
"I've got a very poor sense of direction. I keep forgetting which way is forwards."
WinXP, SP2, FF2.0.0.14, TB2.0.0.14 IE7.0, Opera9.27, SM1.1.9, Flock1.1.4, Safari3.1, Sygate5.6; AVG7.5, JRE1.6_05 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don_HH2K
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 4445
|
| 25 Mar, 2008 3:30 pm |
[sdp=90845] |
|
| Antony wrote: | On the other hand, Firefox's default setting leaves users absolutely no options but to install whatsoever software Firefox deems fit, at users' next relaunch of Firefox software.
Absolutely no escapes in Firefox's default setting. |
It seems to me that changing this...
...and changing this...
...are both changing the default setting.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default; X11; i686; en_US) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko) SUSE
Main rig: Turion64X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2-667, 100GB HD, Radeon X300, 15" LCD, XP Pro x64
Server: P2 @ 233MHz, 192MB PC66, 20GB HD, 13.3" LCD, Windows Server 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11718
|
| 25 Mar, 2008 4:35 pm |
[sdp=90847] |
|
| Fulvio wrote: | | I never saw a more pointless discussion. |
Sorry Fulvio. This is more about using opportunities... shaming either Apple or Firefox.
====
To Don:
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | (...) are both changing the default setting. |
You conveniently ignored the fact.
In Apple's case, you were merely being told that Safari 3.1 is available, and you can choose not to install it. That is you were given the option to say no under Apple Software Update's default setting.
On the other hand, under Firefox's default setting, you were not given any chances to say no. You were merely being told that a new software will be installed upon next relaunching of the software.
You seem to loathe Apple's informing users about a new software, but approval Firefox's forceful method, leaving users no options but to install the whatsoever update they deem fit. I am simply astounded that you are not just fine, but happy of being pushed/forced to have your application changed. But not a message about a great new browser which is the fastest on Windows platform.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don_HH2K
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 4445
|
| 25 Mar, 2008 8:45 pm |
[sdp=90856] |
|
You're also given the option to opt out of Firefox automatic updates as well. Generally speaking, if someone doesn't care to go deselect it, chances are they're not going to care if the browser automatically updates itself. This same thing, of course, also becomes a problem in which a user is going to blindly click on the "Install 2 items" button, thinking that since Safari is labeled as an update by Apple, that it must be necessary for the proper function of iTunes.
| Antony wrote: | | You seem to loathe Apple's informing users about a new software, but approval Firefox's forceful method, leaving users no options but to install the whatsoever update they deem fit. I am simply astounded that you are not just fine, but happy of being pushed/forced to have your application changed. |
I avoided forcefully having my software changed by deselecting a checkbox and hitting OK. On this machine, YaST informs me when updates are available, gives me a detailed list of what's being updated and why it's being updated, and allows me to opt out of single and all future updates for any given program. And of course, I can delay both the installation process and any necessary indefinitely. I wouldn't be happy at all if YaST suddenly started making decisions for me.
| Antony wrote: | | But not a message about a great new browser which is the fastest on Windows platform. |
This, of course, is entirely subjective. Ever tried a 64-bit PGO build of Firefox?
Conversely, I'm surprised that you support the default and deselectable installation of Safari alongside Apple products, seeing as you agreed awhile back that this exact behavior was "monopolistic" when Microsoft bundled IE by default (but deselectably) with their apps.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default; X11; i686; en_US) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko) SUSE
Main rig: Turion64X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2-667, 100GB HD, Radeon X300, 15" LCD, XP Pro x64
Server: P2 @ 233MHz, 192MB PC66, 20GB HD, 13.3" LCD, Windows Server 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Search
Log in
Search | FAQ | Rules and Policies
| MozInfo701 - Mozilla Information Centre
| SD701 Open Directory
| Message Board Map
| download Netscape
