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.
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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".
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
I love Safari. It's my primary browser for personal use. As a web designer, I recognize that WebKit is on the bleeding edge of browser development. CSS gradients? Are you kidding me? Awesome!
However, Apple has traditionally been a user centered company and the way they rolled out Safari to Windows users was wrong. Separating updates and new software is a step in the right direction, but it should be *unchecked* by default. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a Trojan Horse, but the implementation they chose is incorrect IMO. Offering a new piece of software for free is great, but the user should opt in, not opt out. That's just basic user centered design, something that I love about Apple but they seem to have forgotten in this case. Rdunn got it right. I'm just chiming in.
The argument that Windows users don't pay attention anyway, they're not power users, it's good for them, etc - that's irrelevant. Apple's decision should be weighed on its own merits, not against Windows or IE or how MS does anything. Do you really just want Apple to be "better than Microsoft"? There is much room for improvement.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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, 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".
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.
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
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.
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.
Maybe unsolicited/junk mail would be a better metaphor.
Whatever.
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.
"I fear the [Cupertinos], even bearing gifts."
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:
[CENTER]
However, Apple has traditionally been a user centered company and the way they rolled out Safari to Windows users was wrong. Separating updates and new software is a step in the right direction, but it should be *unchecked* by default. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a Trojan Horse, but the implementation they chose is incorrect IMO. Offering a new piece of software for free is great, but the user should opt in, not opt out. That's just basic user centered design, something that I love about Apple but they seem to have forgotten in this case. Rdunn got it right. I'm just chiming in.
The argument that Windows users don't pay attention anyway, they're not power users, it's good for them, etc - that's irrelevant. Apple's decision should be weighed on its own merits, not against Windows or IE or how MS does anything. Do you really just want Apple to be "better than Microsoft"? There is much room for improvement.
Did I mention that I love Safari/WebKit?