Apple tweaks Software Update for Windows following uproar

[AppleInsider]

Apple has made changes to the latest version of its Software Update mechanism for Windows PCs after being lambasted for using the application as a trojan horse to gain an advantage in the battle for share of the web browser market.

The updater application has been installed on millions of PCs as part of iTunes, allowing the Cupertino-based company to push users the latest updates to the digital media application and supporting QuickTime software.

Last month, however, Apple began using Software Update to recommend that Windows users also download and install its fledgling Safari web browser, which the company claims is the "fastest and easiest-to-use web browser for the PC."

The move was met with considerable criticism from industry figures and pundits alike, who accused the iPod maker of crossing an ethical barrier in its attempts to rapidly muscle its way further up the browser charts at the expense Microsoft's Internet Explorer and other third-party Windows browsers, like FireFox.

At issue was the fact that Apple was pushing Safari upon users who had never used or installed a prior version of the browser. As a result, the company has now released a redesigned version of Software Update for Windows PCs, notes ZDNet, that separates updates to applications users have installed on their PCs from new products they have not.

The new version, labeled version 2.1.0.110, also offers users a toggle to turn off automatic software updates, though the box is checked in the "on" position by default. Yet another added feature offers to "ignore" selected updates, such as Safari.

The old version of Software Update for Windows (left) compared to the new version (right).



Nevertheless, Apple continues to ping Windows users of the new application to download and install its browser. And ZDNet further speculates that redesigned interface may foreshadow a move by the company "to shove more software onto Windows users" in the near future.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[solipsism]

While people will still complain that it's not enough or too little too late, I wonder how many other companies would write a new version of their installer to appease the masses so quickly?

[Dunks]

iTunes is in ur windoze...
...screwin wif ur files

[DeaPeaJay]

Hey, Apple may be pushing ethical boundaries, but Internet Explorer *breaks a lot more ethical boundaries by refusing to properly support standards. Anything that takes browser share away from IE I'm all for.

[SHatfield]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple has made changes to the latest version of its Software Update mechanism for Windows PCs after being lambasted for using the application as a trojan horse to gain an advantage in the battle for share of the web browser market.

Cynical much?

A "trojan horse" doesn't give you an option.

Apple simply offered users another browser. The user didn't have to download it! They could have unchecked it (see the screenshots above)!

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

Hey, Apple may be pushing ethical boundaries, but Internet Explorer *breaks a lot more ethical boundaries by refusing to properly support standards. Anything that takes browser share away from IE I'm all for.

Yeah, I just can't get all that excited about this.

Seems to be much ado...

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by SHatfield

Cynical much?

A "trojan horse" doesn't give you an option.

Apple simply offered users another browser. The user didn't have to download it! They could have unchecked it (see the screenshots above)!

A trojan horse is an option. You can accept or reject it. I don't think it's a trojan horse. A trojan horse is something that says it's something else entirely in the hopes that a victim accepts it.

Personally, I wonder if this was just a bug or features to remember deselecting weren't implemented yet. Software Update for Windows is very new.

[macbookschmo]

Due to the low resolution and my distance from the screen, in the description of Safari in the first image the 'f' looks like a t and the 'ri' blends to look like an n.

Thus the desciption was:
"Satan for Windows is the fastest and easiest-to-use browser on the PC." Microsft might agree!

[crees!]

crossing an ethical barrier in its attempts to rapidly muscle its way further up the browser charts at the expense Microsoft's Internet Explorer and other third-party Windows browsers, like FireFox.

Oh cry me a river. This comes down to not paying attention. Why don't we just put everyone in a plastic bubble.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

Hey, Apple may be pushing ethical boundaries, but Internet Explorer *breaks a lot more ethical boundaries by refusing to properly support standards. Anything that takes browser share away from IE I'm all for.

Seconded! Worse many sites write to IE's oddities and do not work on standard Browsers.

[bsenka]

Originally Posted by macbookschmo

Due to the low resolution and my distance from the screen, in the description of Safari in the first image the 'f' looks like a t and the 'ri' blends to look like an n.

Thus the desciption was:
"Satan for Windows is the fastest and easiest-to-use browser on the PC." Microsft might agree!

That's what I read the first time too. I had to squint to see if it was a joke or something.

[minderbinder]

This all seems like much ado about nothing. If you don't want safari, just quit the downloader without installing.

And "trojan horse"? Please.

[roehlstation]

Uproar? Maybe whining...

While I don't agree with that tactic, it is NO different than what ANY software maker does, install Acrobat and Adobe tries to sneak on something else with it.

From what I've seen though, I would hardly call it an Uproar.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by roehlstation

While I don't agree with that tactic, it is NO different than what ANY software maker does, install Acrobat and Adobe tries to sneak on something else with it.

Isn't it letting them off though? For a company that tries to say they're better, but then, at times, they do some of the same undesirable things that everyone else does, it sounds like people are letting Apple eat their cake twice.

[TheCrow]

I don't see this as trying "to shove more software onto Windows users" - they are simply offering new, free applications to Windows users that didn't have this choice before. Those millions of Winblows users that use and love iTunes might WANT to try other offerings from Apple. I don't know - people make such a big deal out of little things.

[ncee]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Isn't it letting them off though? For a company that tries to say they're better, but then, at times, they do some of the same undesirable things that everyone else does, it sounds like people are letting Apple eat their cake twice.

And the "Trojan Horse" that Adobe puts in most of their software, that goes back to THEM, when you launch any of their software …

I can deal with a download that asked if I want to try a new browser over the Adobe (and others) feature.

Now if it downloaded Safari without your permission, and installed it, and launch it, instead of the browser you normally used … that would pisss me off.

Skip

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ncee

And the "Trojan Horse" that Adobe puts in most of their software, that goes back to THEM, when you launch any of their software …

I can deal with a download that asked if I want to try a new browser over the Adobe (and others) feature.

Now if it downloaded Safari without your permission, and installed it, and launch it, instead of the browser you normally used … that would pisss me off.

I haven't seen Adobe do anything like that.

[pdiddy]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Isn't it letting them off though? For a company that tries to say they're better, but then, at times, they do some of the same undesirable things that everyone else does, it sounds like people are letting Apple eat their cake twice.

I've heard Apple try to say their software is better. I've heard them try to say their hardware is better. I've heard them try to say they know what you want better than you do. I've never heard them say they're the bastion of morality that you would like to ascribe to them.

I find it hard to believe anybody cared about that update. I know a lot of media types jumped all over it because that's how they get paid, but other than that, everyone else thought it was same ol' same ol' and just unchecked the download.

Was it unethical for them to use their own software to advertise another piece of their own software, or even ask if you want to download it too? Not hardly. You don't have to like it, but if you don't, it doesn't make it unethical.

[ncee]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I haven't seen Adobe do anything like that.

Whenever I launch PS or Acrobat, (software I have installed) tells me the software is sending a message back to Adobe, do I want this to happen?

The software that checks this is called 'lil snitch"

Skip

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

I've heard Apple try to say their software is better. I've heard them try to say their hardware is better. I've heard them try to say they know what you want better than you do. I've never heard them say they're the bastion of morality that you would like to ascribe to them.

I don't think I really said or implied that.

If Apple tries to claim they're a better company, even if it's implied in the tone and such, then it's understandable that people set a higher bar.

I don't think it's necessarily unethical, but I do think it's undesirable.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I haven't seen Adobe do anything like that.

The point is that there isn't much concern about Adobe doing about the same thing Apple is now being flogged for. I don't think the other poster was saying that Adobe was doing anything *wrong* or anything.

Over the years this has come to be seen as accepted practice--to use leverage in one area to push your offferings in another. Most users, it seems to me, accept this as long as the software has some chance of being useful and is not harmful or aggressive. By aggressive I mean changing defaults or self launching or whatnot...

Apple did not cross that line, so it seems to be doing the same thing that many other software providers (including Adobe) have been doing and not getting flamed for.

The difference here, I suspect, is that there is large community of people who, after years of being on the "winning" side of the computer culture wars is now on the defensive. Some are taking Apple's advances and encroachment personally...

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't think I really said or implied that.

If Apple tries to claim they're a better company, even if it's implied in the tone and such, then it's understandable that people set a higher bar.

I don't think it's necessarily unethical, but I do think it's undesirable.

Hey, I am all for holding Apple to a higher standard. As a longtime user and new AAPL owner I would be proud if they held to a higher standard. I just find this standard laughable. Offering a piece of software for free is evil?

No, hold Apple's feet to the flame for faulty products or software updates that blank screens or environmental no nos, not for this.

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I haven't seen Adobe do anything like that.

Try to intall Flash on a Windows machine now and Adobe tries to slip in Adobe AIR.

[roehlstation]

Or how about the fact that Adobe tries to install Acrobat with just about ANYTHING you install from them.

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

I find it hard to believe anybody cared about that update. I know a lot of media types jumped all over it because that's how they get paid, but other than that, everyone else thought it was same ol' same ol' and just unchecked the download.

This is the point few people are talking about: Media uproar does not equal normal-guy-with-a-PC uproar. Not even close.

Was there really an uproar? The kind that counts, I mean?

Why do we let the media whip these things up?

[Clive At Five]

Children, children. We all have our favorite browsers. Some of us like Firefox, some of us like Opera, some of us like Safari. Statements to the effect of, "Apple is doing 'Windoze' users a favor by showing them Safari" is your matter of preference. Let's keep the squabbling outside.

Originally Posted by solipsism

While people will still complain that it's not enough or too little too late, I wonder how many other companies would write a new version of their installer to appease the masses so quickly?

Solipsism, though I often agree with your opinions I must state that it appears you've been duped by Apple.

Tweaking the software updater like that very likely took a single person a couple hours to program and a couple hours to test... if that. My overly-cynical prediction is that there was simply an option on Apple's end that they could've just clicked to make Safari selected by default. Why would they release a new installer then? To brag about how they're listening to thier customers, etc.

Of course my patience is a little short with Apple right now (I got into a heated xMac debate on MacRumors this morning) so maybe I'm unfit for such an opinion.

And "appease the masses" must be code for "not be regarded as a shady business." In my experience, only the shady companies try to dump unrelated software on their customers. Never have I seen a reputable one employ such a tactic.

-Clive

[hezekiahb]

Originally Posted by solipsism

While people will still complain that it's not enough or too little too late, I wonder how many other companies would write a new version of their installer to appease the masses so quickly?

Agreed, People have been complaining about Microsoft pulling this kind of thing for years & even with court orders they sort of halfway attempt to do what the public wants.

I suspect the people who will talk negative about this though are Windows lovers who don't care about anything except talking bad about Macs.

[SHatfield]

I haven't seen Adobe do anything like that.

The Google Toolbar is "offered" when you install Acrobat Reader... and it's on by default...

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Solipsism, though I often agree with your opinions I must state that it appears you've been duped by Apple.

Tweaking the software updater like that very likely took a single person a couple hours to program and a couple hours to test... if that. My overly-cynical prediction is that there was simply an option on Apple's end that they could've just clicked to make Safari selected by default. Why would they release a new installer then? To brag about how they're listening to thier customers, etc.

Of course my patience is a little short with Apple right now (I got into a heated xMac debate on MacRumors this morning) so maybe I'm unfit for such an opinion.

And "appease the masses" must be code for "not be regarded as a shady business." In my experience, only the shady companies try to dump unrelated software on their customers. Never have I seen a reputable one employ such a tactic.

Maybe I have, but I can't think of any other software company that has altered there methods like Apple did here. But I can think of many that have snuck in apps and plugins past my unwatchful eyes. The ones that come to mind are from the most profitable software and services companies.

Upon rereading, it seems Apple only comprised by adding a separate section for new software but is still keeping it checked by default.

But you are right, this isn't a big deal to program. Though it would have even easier to make the software unchecked by default.


PS: My biggest complaint with Apple updates on Windows is that QT doesn't adhere to preferences. After the update it now resides again in the System Tray and will run at startup. To me, that is a much bigger to complain about than 16MB of my HDD being used by the program. But since no one seems to mention it I may be alone in "pet peevity".

[jowie74]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

Hey, Apple may be pushing ethical boundaries, but Internet Explorer *breaks a lot more ethical boundaries by refusing to properly support standards. Anything that takes browser share away from IE I'm all for.

I think they should have replaced it with a window which pops up to tell you about all the Microsoft software on your system that you may wish to uninstall (including, of course, IE and Word)

I'd be all for that.

[Jimzip]

So a couple of things about this whole issue that irk me.

a) It's was an option. Not a requirement.

b) It's a browser. A 22MB internet browser. Even if they install it (by accident or not), it only takes them (maybe 3 clicks?) to drag it to the trash. If they open it up and realise they don't like it, they'll go back to IE or Firefox, leaving Safari and it's immense 22.53MB bulk in the C: \ or recycle bin..

c) I agree with you Clive... I think it was a shady tactic. Let's not forget though, at the end of the day nobody was hurt, nobody's brain exploded, and people will go back to staring at Twitter.

What's the difference between seeing an advert for Flock here on AI, or a popup for Mexican Cruises, or Software Update popping up with a free app on Windows? The answer I think is that people didn't expect Apple to do it. I'm surprised, but three minutes from now I'll forget about it and move on.
Let's do that now.

Jimzip

[howiethemacguy]

The whole controversy about the Apple update software is stupid. How can anyone who actually pays attention have Safari forced on them? The trouble is that most PC users are sloths who don't pay any attention. Windows users are their own biggest enemy.

[Fairly]

Originally Posted by solipsism

While people will still complain that it's not enough or too little too late, I wonder how many other companies would write a new version of their installer to appease the masses so quickly?

Who said they rewrote anything? They just changed a configuration setting. Get real.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Fairly

Who said they rewrote anything? They just changed a configuration setting. Get real.

I'm always real, Geppetto. Taken from the screenshots from the article's main page, they added a configuration setting...



...and they rewrote the Software Updater to separate the Updates box from the New Software box...



Even though I was referring to the latter images of the new and old Updaters (directly above), the term rewrite/rewritten/rewrote also means "to alter or improve", so the addition of a simple check box in the preferences would also be applicable to my original post.

[gilles_deleuze]

It's a mere technicality, but I think this could be seen as a trojan-horse tactic insofar as Safari, a new application, was disguised as an update. Then again, was there any intention to harm the host? Unless Safari hijacked the default browser setting or something, I'd say no.

Maybe unsolicited/junk mail would be a better metaphor.

Whatever.

[Rdunn]

They should have just left the Safari box UNchecked....
Giving users the in-your-face product option, but not forcing it. They could have provided a whole slew of potential Apple products as long as the boxes were UNchecked.
Oh, yes, it was 'convenient'... convenient like many webpages where the checkboxes for 'extras' (checked) are placed -below- the 'Submit' button.
Anyway, to Automatically 'update other software' would better be phrased as 'update other Apple products', as long as update means just that and not 'install'.
This kind of 'push' mentality is pervasive in the software industry... and should -not- be encouraged. It's similar to 'opt-out- holding sway in the market/congress rather than 'opt-in' which should be the default.... we should NOT -have- to opt OUT of hundreds/thousands/millions of potential products, marketing ploys, etc., etc.
I wouldn't call it an uproar either, except it's a surprise to have my normally click and ignore update pushing -other- software on me. I already had Safari... I have several browsers and don't denigrate one over others. But marketing ploys always seem to disrespect consumers.
We do need to 'roar' when they push too far.

[pmjoe]

trojan horse? you mean as in how it's impossible to uninstall IE from any recent version of Windows?

[solipsism]

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."

"I fear the [Cupertinos], even bearing gifts."

[delreyjones]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

Hey, I am all for holding Apple to a higher standard. As a longtime user and new AAPL owner I would be proud if they held to a higher standard. I just find this standard laughable. Offering a piece of software for free is evil?

No, hold Apple's feet to the flame for faulty products or software updates that blank screens or environmental no nos, not for this.

Begeljoey makes a good point. What are Apple's critics doing? They're making as much noise as possible about Apple aggressively giving away free, high-quality, standards-based software. AAPL holders, like Bageljoey and myself, should be pleased as punch that this is the best the critics can come up with. We can only speculate about the fear and loathing in Redmond, but it's easy to imagine:

Quality and Standards and Free, Oh My!
Quality and Standards and Free ...

[headwerkn]

Bloody Windows users... don't know what's good for them.