Putting installers in an updater isn’t par for the course, in my experience. There’s really no good explanation for this.
It’s tacky at worst.
Do you want to install IE7? Of course you do! It’s a high priority “security” update!
Yes, because every computer brings IE and Microsoft doesn’t want people gettin haxx0rz for using IE6 or IE5. So, yes, IE7 is a high priority security update but installing Safari (not updating it, mind you) should not be included by default when trying to update iTunes.
Not commenting on the behavior being right or wrong, but that’s scant support for there being a difference between those cases. I can see justification being voiced in a meeting along the lines of “IE 7 did it, why the hell shouldn’t we?”.
Mozilla is another thing altogether. I only use it infrequently, and it seems like every time I start it it wants to do an update. Sometimes I’d swear it updates multiple days in a row. That’s something I find annoying.
I don’t know man. I see a very clear difference in including by default an update to something you already have and including by default an installation to something you don’t already have.
I do think it’s very effective (a lot of suckers will say, oh this is just something else neede for iTunes, like Quicktime) and install it. But it’s still morally dubious.
There has been a lot of commentary about Microsoft doing that with IE 7. I mean I think it’s kind of funny when you call your default browser a security risk, but they got some flack about classifying the update that way to get people to upgrade from IE 6 but stay in the family, rather than going for FF or some other alternative. It’s a fuzzier distinction than it might be, if you look at the history of Microsoft updates.
I find that reassuring, not annoying.
IE6 is practically an extension of the Windows file browser. If MS didn’t bundle IE7, security-minded enterprises would stop using the OS altogether. Meanwhile, no one needs Safari. No one was even asking for it. They’re using the iTunes updater as a brand identity wedge. MS merely spun IE7 as a cool new program when it was actually an update to core underpinnings. Apple is doing the exact opposite.
When Windows Update starts trying to get me to install MS Streets and Trips or the Money Essentials trial, then the distinction will be fuzzy. Every Windows user has IE, though, and whether they use it for web browsing or not, the OS requires it for certain tasks. Like running Windows Update, for instance.
In some articles I’ve read in Apple’s defense, they’ve mentioned MSN messenger as being guilty of trying to install a bunch of extra crap, making it a better counter-point than IE6/7. Is that true? Is it a fair example? I honestly don’t know, I’m just going on what other people have said in the Apple camp.
Okay, after thinking about it more I agree; it’s not the same thing.
I think the central distinction remains: The app is supposed to update currently installed software, not install extra things the user doesn’t want or need. If MS is doing that on OSX with a Messenger updater, I wouldn’t defend that either.
As far as I know, what MS is doing with Messenger on OSX is bundling extra stuff during the installation. While annoying, it’s not misleading, and this behavior exists on the Windows platform as well, and within other IM installers. I seem to recall some AIM updates asking me if I wanted to have a Yahoo toolbar, but that’s about the worst of it.
Well I’m not sure what Apple is doing counts as “misleading” either. It’s telling you what it would like to download/install, and letting you say no. Anyway, that’s all really beside the point, because the last thing I’d want to do is win an argument with “Well Microsoft does it that way, doesn’t that make it ok?”
It doesn’t bother me at all. I can understand that it bothers some people, and I’ll grant them their right to be annoyed because it’s not what is typically expected in this situation, but I can’t get behind all this crazy blogosphere hyperbole about it being malware or a security breach or whatever blah blah blah (which I don’t see getting out of control here really, I’m not really complaining about you guys).
Oh, I agree that it’s been blown out of proportion. To call it “malware” is ridiculous, because Safari is an entirely innocuous piece of software that only runs when you want it to. If there’s anything the blogosphere can be counted on, it’s creating tempests in a teapot.
It’s just so un-Apple.
I find that reassuring, not annoying.
You find a company issuing patches on several consecutive days to be … reassuring? Of what, exactly? Their stellar QA department?
Does Mozilla even have an actual QA department, or is it just the usual open source million-monkeys-downloading-betas thing?
I use Firefox day in, day out and I can’t say I’ve ever gotten the feeling that they’re pushing out an update every day or even every week. Sure, they’re regular, but - like EvilIdler - I can’t see how a company pushing out fixes for vulnerabilities and bugs can possibly be a bad thing. Then again, if you’re not using Firefox regularly then yeah, everytime you start it it is going to prompt you to update.
That’s at least partly what happens to me. Gets annoying, especially if you do this on multiple machines.