Mozilla boss supremely irked by Apple’s Safari update (But why?)
Software updates should be software updates — not excuses to heap unwanted programs onto people.
That’s what Mozilla chief John Lilly says is wrong with the latest Safari browser update issued by Apple to Windows users this week. Lilly lambasted Apple in his blog on Friday. He’s accusing the Cupertino, Calif.-based computer maker of trying to push Safari onto Windows users whether they want it or not, and do it through download channels normally reserved for updates.
On Tuesday, Apple began shipping version 3.1 of Safari to Apple and Mac users via the company’s automatic Software Update feature for both operating systems mainly to patch numerous security flaws. But the update appeared to ship along with an iTunes for Windows upgrade even for PC users who never had the browser installed.
Though it’s labeled as an update, the Safari 3.1 file actually constitutes a whole new browser, not just security patches. And that burns Lilly.
“By and large, all software makers are trying to get users to trust us on updates, and so the likely behavior here is for users to just click ‘Install 2 items,’ which means they’ve now installed a completely new piece of software, quite possibly completely unintentionally,” Lilly wrote. “Apple has made it incredibly easy … 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,” Lilly says.
His comments stirred a lot of discussion Friday, some of it in agreement.
“In an apparent bid to rapidly gain share of the online browser market dominated by Microsoft, Apple is leveraging its vast iTunes install base to recommend that Windows users also download and install the latest version of its Safari Web browser,” wrote AppleInsider.
Other commentary, however, criticized Lilly either for being obtuse …
“For all the hubbub swirling around the blogosphere, you’d think Apple just instituted a policy to kill your first-born child when you download iTunes,” said The Industry Standard. “This is kind of sneaky, but it’s no worse than any number of companies have been doing for years — including Apple.”
Or self serving: Lilly heads the company that makes the rival Firefox browser, which has been eating away at the fan base for Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Web analyzer Net Applications says Internet Explorer controlled 75 percent of the browser market in the first quarter of this year, with Mozilla’s Firefox holding 17.3 percent and Safari 5.8 percent.
Regardless, Apple’s Safari shipment is wrong because “it undermines the trust that we’re all trying to build with users,” Lilly explained in his blog. “Because it means that an update isn’t just an update, but maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the Web by eroding that relationship.”
A good point, in principle. The problem is, given the widespread, routine distribution of adware, spyware and malware on the Web — much of it shipped intentionally or unintentionally even by companies who insist they’re above that sort of thing — Talking Tech wonders if there remains any relationship left to erode.
Tags: Apple, Firefox, John Lilly, Mozilla, Safari, Software Update
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
If you update QuickTime or iTunes, you don’t expect (or sometimes want) a whole new application. If Microsoft would push a browser in updates of WMP, the whole world (plus the U.S. Justice Department) would have a fit. Not that I’m a Microsmeg fan, but Apple/Steve Jobs can seem to get away with abusing its customers ten times worse than Smeg/Gates, with very little outrage.
Comment by Puggg -- March 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 amI don’t think this is much of an issue, really. It’s certainly not a case of Apple “abusing its customers 10 times worse than Microsoft”. It’s possible to de-select updates you don’t wish to download and install, using Apple’s update utility. It’s a matter of clicking one check-mark box to prevent it from loading Safari on your Windows PC, if you don’t want it.
Adobe has been doing the same thing with their free downloads of Acrobat Reader for a LONG time now, and not much was said about it. (They default to installing things like the Google toolbar or even Adobe Photoshop Album, starter edition” when you try to download Acrobat Reader.)
Why would the developers of the Firefox/Mozilla browsers be upset about this? Probably because they’d prefer to have less competition on the Windows platform. They’ve had this fixation with growing market-share compared to people using Internet Explorer, and would prefer to be the “only other game in town” for them.
Safari does some things Firefox doesn’t (such as allowing you to drag a tabbed browser window out to your desktop, opening it in its own independent window). It’s nothing REALLY innovative next to Firefox or even IE 7, all in all - but it is very fast at rendering pages, and allows Windows users to develop/test code they might develop for Apple’s iPhone.
I find it hard to protest too loudly about a company offering their work for NO COST, and helping keep things more competitive in the web browser space?
Comment by Tom W -- March 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pmIf someone installed iTunes and Apple bundled, without so much as a mention, Safari along with that install, that’d be a big problem. It’s also not like this is integrated into Microsoft’s update mechanism or anything. It’s “Apple Software Update”. Presumably, this would update you on the availability of new Apple software.
I don’t see a problem, especially since it’s not an auto-install.
Comment by Rich H -- March 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm