Apple Takes the Spyware-Style Low Road, Pushing Safari on Windows
Debate is raging over the news that Steve Jobs has made good on his summertime promise and is now sending Apple's browser Safari along for the ride when Windows users are prompted to update iTunes or Quicktime. Users can deselect the additional software download, but let's be realistic - there must be millions of people unwittingly downloading Safari onto their computers right now. Downloading software has to be opt-in, not opt-out.
Safari's market share among browsers is tiny but there are better ways to tackle that problem. Mozilla CEO John Lilly wrote today that Apple's tactic could make users skeptical of official software updates and leave them vulnerable to security exploits. That seems like a fair criticism it levy. How many ways can you think of that Apple could grow its market share through innovation, instead of lowdown tactics like this?
One of the primary reasons that Firefox users prefer that browser of Safari is its extensibility. Couldn't Safari do something crazy to foster a revolution in Webkit extensions? I'm imagining free, unlimited iTunes downloads for a year for anyone who develops a free Safari extension downloaded by more than 100k users.
How about something exciting with offline syncing? Google Gears built in. Maybe a Safari version of Greasemonkey built in. Perhaps some particularly magical syncing between iPhones and desktop Safari installations would be a big hit.
It's not my job to think of these things, that's something Apple does better than almost anyone. Why would a company so capable of designing and marketing must-have products resort to this kind of slimy distribution tactic?
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Software Update does this anyway on Windows. It has absolutely nothing to do with Safari. I've installed Boot Camp on Windows XP, which installs Software Update. I don't have iTunes or Quicktime installed in Windows XP... just Boot Camp. When I start up Software Update, I see that I can install iTunes, Quicktime and Safari even though I have none of those installed.
Posted by: bangpound.org
|
March 21, 2008 4:17 PM
You make it sound as if Safari 3.1 was installed without the user's consent but that's just not the case. First of all, the software update app shows up in the middle of the user's screen, then they have to click install and agree to a EULA before anything happens. And classifying Safari as spyware is pretty unfair as well - it doesn't collect personal data, it doesn't communicate that data to anyone and it's easily uninstalled in an expected fashion. Maybe Software Update is a poor choice of name, really it should be Software Catalog, as that's probably a more apropos metaphor.
Overall, I'd say Safari is a pretty model Windows application - easy to install and update, easy to uninstall, secure, easy to configure. In fact, it's basically the exact opposite of Internet Explorer 7 in those respects, the one browser that *does* automatically install itself on user's computers.
As to why doesn't Safari act more like Firefox, I'd guess it's a question of goals. If I had to sum it up, I'd say the goal for Safari is to create a lean, fast, cross platform, standards compliant browser. It does all of these very well, especially considering that it's been on the market just five years. Greasemonkey style addons, extensions, offline syncing are all great features that 99% of default Mac users will never find much use for and will only make the above goals, especially being fast and lean, more difficult.
Personally, I love extensions and addons, which is why I use Firefox on my Mac instead of the default Safari. And I'm always amazed by how much faster Safari is when I have to test stuff because it's not hogging 100+ megs of RAM with ad-blockers, gesture support, greasemonkey scripts, developer addons, etc. While I'd love to see official support for that kind of extensibility, I just don't see how it fits Apple's goals of making a sleek, fast, default browser. Unfettered extensibility works fine for open source projects aimed at power users that don't have to field support calls, not so much for Apple, though.
Posted by: Jim Ray | March 21, 2008 4:24 PM
That Steve Jobs is a savvy guy! His going to have Safarai on more computers than people know!
-------------------
http://www.hideNsneek.com
Posted by: Stanley | March 21, 2008 4:54 PM
I like Safari - don't get me wrong; in fact, I'm running 3.1 atop a recent Webkit nightly. But I don't hold out hope for it claiming significant market share. If Apple must resort to pushing it via opt-out distribution to pump up the installed base, it would seem that they agree.
It's interesting to note that Apple's attitude toward developers extending Safari has been cold if not hostile. Though add-ons (such as SafariBlock) can be implemented via InputManagers in OS X, this method is officially unsupported - and often broken. When compared with Firefox's add-on platform, it's no surprise that few Safari extensions are around.
John Gruber wrote an inflammatory post on this a few days ago likening Safari extensions to kernel-level hacks. I wouldn't consider Gruber's position normative, but he is highly influential within the Mac dev community (for better and for worse). It's a shame to see such lack of interest in extending an otherwise capable, standards-compliant, secure, snappy browser.
Posted by: Scott Andreas | March 21, 2008 5:10 PM
Boy this thing is sure exploding all over the Interwebs right now.
I am thinking maybe someone@apple made an honest mistake. Am I being naive?
Posted by: Hans Dekker | March 21, 2008 5:13 PM
Uncheck the box.
This is soooooooo boring!
Posted by: ron | March 21, 2008 5:38 PM
In my personal view, Apple knows that it faces an uphill slog to get PC users to adopt any more of their software than necessary. A big reason is that it usually doesn't work very well on PCs. To be fair, iTunes has gotten much better than some earlier efforts.
Trying to sneak in Safari like this makes total sense if you think about how QuickTime installs. It's always very aggressive about putting shortcuts in the quick launch bar, becoming a start-up item and trying to grab all the defaults. And it does this on updates. Slipping in Safari as an update fits the pattern to a tee -- and takes it to a new and more unsavory level. Shame on you Apple.
Posted by: Brian | March 21, 2008 5:38 PM
Safari = no extensions? bullshit :) > http://pimpmysafari.com/
what u need?
AdBlock port - checked
Greasemonkey port - checked
Suggested Search - Inquisitor (better by miles than FFs)
Growl support
Auto-annotated downloads with source url
and more
yes, some aren't free, but it will change, like with the adblock port, there were pricy plugins and adblock appeared and it rox. in fact, i just ported to safari, it's so much faster than FF2.0 - though i miss 2 things - bookmarks separators and google notepad plugin.
the thing with apple is strage they dont document a lot of features, some shortcut keys are not even shown anywhere among the system, but they exist and work awesome (like window rotation among one app). they've got such a great PR yet they tend not to reveal all the features to the public in some intuitive way. even searching through apple docs is a pain (i'm in fear when i finally try to search their dev docs, as im used to the awesome msdn :P)
Posted by: a0 | March 21, 2008 5:53 PM
"Apple software update" updater is the only one I know of that popups up anytime even when you *do not* use the product.
I have installed i-tunes, I had no choice but to install quick time that I loathe (but i-tunes needs it), and then suddenly I find that 3 services are installed and running, including one for i-pod although I have no i-pod and no intention to ever buy one.
And now safari...
Just for those who are a bit technical: just give a look at the XML Safari configuration files.
They rely on the order of tags, since all tags are at the same level. Not kidding ! All values and keys are siblings ! wow ! Even CSV has more structure, and saves 50% space.
Come on, Apple, give up on your shitty software and concentrate on your magnificent hardware.
Posted by: xavier | March 21, 2008 6:00 PM
"How about something exciting with offline syncing? Google Gears built in."
Safari ALREADY has SQLite (bundled by Apple in Tiger and Leopard, but also used as a persistence layer by Google Gears and Adobe Flex) for local storage. Lots of other goodies that you may also have missed in Safari/WebKit:
Runtime wars (2): Apple’s answer to Flash, Silverlight and JavaFX
http://counternotions.com/2007/11/15/apple-runtime-answer-2
Posted by: Kontra | March 21, 2008 6:25 PM
Actually, Safari 3.1 does include some exciting things such as client side storage (using the new standard that will be part of HTML 5 instead of the proprietary Google Gears) and super-fast JavaScript performance which is really critical for building the next generation of feature-rich client-side apps.
Posted by: Charles Jolley | March 21, 2008 6:26 PM
Thanks for your thoughts everyone, or everyone but the guy who said this was boring. No, thank you too, even though you're wrong. :)
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
March 21, 2008 6:39 PM
Apple's sneakiness did not start today...
Posted by: Zoli Erdos | March 21, 2008 6:55 PM
This initiative was in place and running live on the updater at least as far back as July 2007:
http://designaesthetic.com/2007/07/08/apple-attempts-to-sneak-safari-browser-onto-windows-boxes-via-quicktime-updater/
I noticed it back then and couldn't believe what I was seeing.
Posted by: Larry Rubin | March 21, 2008 7:12 PM
There's a simple solution to this. All Apple has to do is:
1. Clearly separate updates from new installs.
2. Leave new installs unchecked by default.
3. If it checks automatically, don't pop up more than once for the same new piece of software.
Problem solved. They get to promote their other software through the update mechanism, but there's no chance that someone will accidentally install it because they didn't notice it, or because they thought it must be related to something already on the box.
Posted by: Kelson | March 21, 2008 7:30 PM
What surprised me is that the "update" installs Safari, but doesn't seem to make it the default browser or even ask about it... at least I haven't seen anyone mention that. (As a developer, I already have Safari installed, so I didn't get the "update.") Granted, users would be far more upset (and rightfully so) if Safari changed their default browser, but the download seems a little pointless if the user doesn't make use of it (or doesn't know to). Not really sure what Apple's strategy is with this one... unless they're planning to tie Safari in with something like iTunes, sort of like what you suggested.
Posted by: theharmonyguy | March 21, 2008 9:57 PM
@Marshall: great headline but way wide of the mark and you know it - unless of course you think that users are idiots. The worst that anyone can say is that Apple didn't go for the 'unselected all' option but to describe this as 'spyware' and have 'scam' in the URL is poor reporting.
Posted by: Dennis Howlett | March 22, 2008 1:08 AM
Apple has been doing this all along with iTunes (i.e., auto-selecting iTunes with QuickTime). This is more of the same and definitely a scam.
Is this so Apple can claim a huge number of downloads of Safari on Windows?
Self-update should *never* download any other software.
Solution: I have gone to all of my machines and turned off auto update altogether.
Posted by: Robert W. Anderson | March 22, 2008 1:09 PM
This is a pretty polarizing topic. Even the bloggers on our site have opposite opinions. It's pretty crazy. In my opinion, and i'm a huge mac fan, it is pretty low of them to do this, and I really don't see much of a point.
Posted by: macgasm | March 22, 2008 1:49 PM
@Dennis: Marshall specifically said "spyware-style," which I think is accurate. Many less-than-savory programs include a step in the install process that includes a checked box to install a separate spyware program. Yes, users ought to read every screen and uncheck the box, but many times they simply don't. This doesn't mean that users are idiots, just that they often don't pay attention to all the details of what happens when software "updates" or "installs."
Posted by: theharmonyguy | March 22, 2008 2:03 PM
I just noticed this a day or two ago. I was completely dumbfounded. The only Apple products I have on my laptop are iTunes and Quicktime. I am totally fine with Apple sending updates to iTunes and Quicktimes -- because they're already installed. (Granted, they seem to update a LOT).
But pushing an application down the update pipe that I don't even have on my system and is completely unrelated to the Apple apps I DO have on my system is SLEEEEEEEAZY.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: kayvaan | March 22, 2008 2:50 PM
I agree that software installations should be opt-in, not opt-out. I think an opt-out option is basically shoving software down someone's throat.
I don't think this discussion should be about if Safari is a good browser and if enough extensions are available for it (granted, these topics were mentioned in the original post).
Some companies are sneakier than others but whichever way you look at it, we all know that Safari is going to end up being inadvertently installed on many PCs.
I think I am sensitive to this issue because of the number of times I have had to "clean up" computers used by non-computer savvy individuals. I can recall a few cases where users had so many toolbars loaded into their web browser that there was less browser window than toolbar! I'm sure many of us have also seen the case of users running 20+ system tray applications when they only use a few.
When I install an application that does NOT prompt to install third-party application I am surprised. It actually makes me a bit nervous since I start wondering if I missed something or if a program was installed behind my back.
Posted by: Techphet | March 22, 2008 3:51 PM
Oh grow up you lunatics. The APPLE software updater says lists all the software APPLE has available for FREE - and oh noes!! Apple is teh evillz!!!11!
What is wrong with you people?
Its a link to FREE software that Apple is making available to you for FREE. They are not forcing it, they are not secretly installing it in the background (like certain toolbars and garbage that other unnamed companies tie together). They are simply letting you know its there and giving you the OPTION of downloading it.
Grow up freaks.
Posted by: Anon | March 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Didnt Microsoft do the same thing with Windows Update and Internet Explorer 7? Just more whining from PC users.
Posted by: Bob | March 22, 2008 4:16 PM
Safari is fucking shit
Posted by: Death to Apple | March 22, 2008 4:20 PM
Hmmm... I agree with the criticism that the practice will lower the trust (advanced) users have for software updates. On the other hand, the vast majority of people out there don't know they are using IE. For them an (underhanded) switch to Safari is a favor. At least that's the way I feel when I install Firefox on my tech-unsavvy friends and relatives computers.
Q. "Do you want a browser that's doesn't invite hackers into your computer?" A. "Huh?" And then I install.
So Apple-- for the integrity problem, and Apple++ for giving all the unwitting people a security update. Basically a wash.
Hopefully someone will write a virus that converts all Windows installations to Ubuntu. :)
Posted by: Chris Anderson | March 22, 2008 10:00 PM
Safari browser has come a long way since its conception.........I love it
Posted by: Vectorpedia | March 23, 2008 7:15 AM
It's always funny to read all the Windows fanboy comments screaming death to Apple.
Anyways, while it's true that Apple probably should have made this opt-in or at least made it more explicit that you're not required to have it, comparing it to spyware, on any level is going a little overboard.
The problem with spyware or adware is that it installs without permission, is crappy software that no one would want, and is usually hard to get rid of.
Safari is a fantastic browser. I still prefer Firefox for its greater extensibility but Safari is nice. While you could call it opt-out software, it still gives you that option, so take five seconds and read about what you're doing to your computer.
If you install it accidentally and don't want it, just uninstall it. Big deal. Or heck, it's not like hard drive space is a huge issue these days. If you're too lazy to uninstall it, just leave it and don't use it.
I really don't see the issue, here. I honestly think many people on the internet just thrive on controversy, and that's all this is.
Posted by: Chris Pratt | March 23, 2008 3:18 PM
i don't understand what all the fuss is about.
one of my latest software updates from microsoft consisted of them forcing silverlight on me and my computer. considering that they have been doing it for years, why is it such a big deal when apple starts doing it??
Posted by: steve davies | March 23, 2008 9:48 PM
it's lame for anyone to do it whether it's MSFT or AAPL. updates should be updates and new installs should ALWAYS be opt-in if offered at all.
Posted by: kayvaan | March 23, 2008 10:00 PM
Yep, Microsoft has been doing it for years. But that doesn't make it okay for other companies to start doing it.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it is coming back to bite Microsoft in the ass a little bit. Firefox's rise in market share has much to do about it simply being a better browser than IE, but I think the anti-Microsoft sentiment of many people has also helped out.
When you are a bully, people want to turn on you. Does Apple really want to get people to start wanting to turn on them?
Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 7:00 AM
People wonder why Mac users aren't more up in arms, and that we'd be screaming bloody murder if it was Microsoft. Except no one seems to mention the MacOSX Software Update works the same way. I get offered updates and add-ons for Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc. I don't own any of those applications and typically unclick the box. If the behavior was vastly different from the Mac Software Update, then I'd pay a bit more attention to conspiracy theories. But unlike Microsoft Updates, Apple Software Update doesn't scan your computer. It scans it's receipt folder (for prior installs), then offers you anything you haven't installed.
@Scott Andreas. Gruber's reprt was inflammatory, it was unfortunately accurate. Input Managers are hacks. They allow really cool things to be done, but are still hacks. Apple does have an official method for creating Plug-ins, those files get placed in '/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/' directory. If your 'plug-in' or 'extension' isn't being placed there, then its most likely using a hack. One that has become acceptable to most developers, but still a hack.
Posted by: allgood2 | March 24, 2008 1:59 PM
I could care less if its free. If someone decided to start installing all the free software in the world on my computer I would be rather unhappy.
Unless I am going to use it, I don't want it. Just as I don't want any software bundled with a new PC, I don't want Safari. When I realized that Windows Live messenger took over five minutes to install I was quite upset (luckily I found Bitlbee since then).
I could care less who is writing software. I would expect loyal Apple users to be upset more than anyone- to find that their beloved company is starting to engage in the same practices they hate about Microsoft...
Posted by: techphett | March 24, 2008 2:26 PM
Its about high time windows receives a wake up call and acknowledges that there is a different and yes a much better system in the offing...good for you "APPLE" your good to the core!!!
Posted by: Hank o'handley | March 26, 2008 6:47 PM
Good Lord! Just uncheck the box! Safari is OK but it's long since been wiped off my drive. Apple is... Rotten.
Posted by: John | March 27, 2008 9:54 AM
I just started using Safari on my PC and I have no negative feedback. I used to use FF earlier.
Safari is simpler and faster but I do miss the addons facilities of FF.
It would be great to have the following features /addons of IE/FF in safari (These are only the begining..)
1) There is no status bar / tab/ or similar indication of download progress status. You are required to go to tools and see it, everytime.
2) Image tool bar Floating on the imgae for saving image ..
3) Skins and Colour options for layout
4) Google tool bar
5) Tab close X on right side of tab
Posted by: P.P. Chaukimath | April 2, 2008 2:26 AM
All I want is iTunes update so I can listen to music and audio. Apple already forces QuickTime onto my computer and absolutely won't let me run iTunes without it. Furthermore with every software update (way too many), Apple decides that QuickTime (which I NEVER use) and iTunes (which I launch once in a while) MUST be RE-installed into both my QuickLaunch and my Desktop without my consent.
Now they take these folks at Apple take it to a new level of sleaziness. They try to catch me not paying close attention once so I install yet another unwanted program -- Safari. I only want my damn iTunes updated. I don't want QuickTime and especially don't want Safari installed on my computer if I forget to opt out once.
Posted by: JW | April 8, 2008 7:06 PM
Why would Steve Jobs try to pull a fast one to get Windows user to use Safari - I would understand if Safari was some great program that once Windows users see it they will never use IE again. But Safari is so far behind IE and FireFox that users will say the same thing I did, which was "What" and "Why".
The only reason I can see people using it because it has the Apple name on it and more importantly it doesn't say Microsoft. And if you hate Microsoft that much try FireFox.
I personally prefer to use the best tool to do my job and that just happens to have the Microsoft name on it.
Posted by: Alan | April 14, 2008 8:29 AM