Filed under: Windows, Apple, Microsoft, Commercial, Open Source
Safari 3.1 elbows its way onto the Windows desktop
by Ian Dumych Mar 21st 2008 at 9:00PM
For some time now, Apple has been widening its presence on the Windows desktop. While it has always offered QuickTime on both Windows and Mac as a web standard, Apple's port of iTunes made big waves and has propelled Apple to the number two spot of music sellers. Some fans of the program end up buying Macs as a result, seeing the computers as a big iPod of sorts. Now, Apple is slowly gaining more territory in the world of Windows software. Some users have noticed that the Apple Software Updater, a program that is optionally installed with iTunes, is offering to install the Safari web browser, even to people who have never used it before. Some critics say this is invasive on Apple's part, we don't really see how. It doesn't install Safari without asking, and there are plenty of companies like Yahoo that are much more pushy. Give it a shot, you whiners, it's a pretty good browser!
[via OSNews]
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
CUBSWILLWIN said 9:16PM on 3-21-2008
it is actually. I decided to download it after seeing all the whines, and man it's faster than the last time I got it which was I think version 2.2. Real slick and easy tp use too. RSS built in is the best RSS ever. Real organized
Reply
Ian Dumych said 9:32PM on 3-21-2008
Yeah, it's pretty solid. It kind of scares me honestly, how good Apple is getting at making Windows software. I can't help but wonder if they are going to standardize on Windows 7 or something, with OSX in a classic environment. Conspiracies aside, this is a very solid port indeed. I even noticed that pop-up dialogs from the browser have that same cool sliding out of a notch animation that they do on OSX, which makes me wonder what API they use for that. A tiny portable version of cocoa?
Reply
AlexL said 9:24PM on 3-21-2008
Apple's software for the PC have always been crapware on Windows systems. QuickTime insists on running Qttask in the background even after you turn off the task bar icon. iTunes has to run not one but two services to sync iPods (iTunesHelper and iPodService). iTunes installs and runs the Bonjour service regardless of whether you share your iTunes library or not. And all these apps uses their own widget libraries to draw their UIs because Apple thinks they are too good to use the Windows widget library and has to include extra bulk with its own. And now this. This surely is the last straw.
Reply
MDW said 10:08PM on 3-21-2008
The Safari browser for Windows is nothing short of garbage. Apple makes some decent stuff, but this just doesn't happen to be one of those things. Paypal has already warned users to avoid Safari due to it's insecurity and the lack of a native phishing filter - couple that with frequent crashing and generally buggy performance and, well, you get the picture. Spend 5 seconds searching and you'll get all the info you need on it.
Don't waste your time. If you desperately need to try out some Mac Software with Windows (God only knows why), go get iTunes - it's also crap (for different reasons), but hey, at least it works.
Reply
Mark said 11:19PM on 3-21-2008
I completely disagree Donwload Squad: the issue here is updater trust: if I trust a company to provide me with updates, I demand that it be exclusively updates that make the programs I already have installed stabler more secure or somethign else. This is very similar to the situation where MS pushed WGA through MS Update: it's just wrong.
As a developer I want users to be comfortable with enabling auto-update on the program and trusting it, otherwise they get malware, their friends might get malware, they can be used for DDoS attacks etc. In short it's better for everyone if the users keep their machines up to date in every way. When companies like Apple and Microsoft start abusing their positions in order to push software and updates that destroy the user's confidence it is a problem for the computer industry as a whole. I believe Mozilla CEO John Lilly said it best:
"The problem here is that it lists Safari for getting an update — and has the “Install” box checked by default — even if you haven’t ever installed Safari on your PC.
That’s a problem because of the dynamic I described above — 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 that they’ve now installed a completely new piece of software, quite possibly completely unintentionally. Apple has made it incredibly easy — the default, even — 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. "
Reply
Phour ZwanZig said 11:45PM on 3-21-2008
I just noticed this on a customers computer the other day.. Neither I or the customer had any clue that it was even out for Windows.. We figure he got it from iTunes when his wife got a Touch..
Crazy seein that app in Vista.. Reminds me of seein a win98 box in xp, just not right..
Reply
michael said 2:29AM on 3-22-2008
Safari, at least on Windows, still isn't good. Neither is iTunes for Windows, it's so bloated. I think Apple should keep off of making software for Windows.
Or at least make things like Final Cut Pro available on Windows, so I don't have to pay for heavy expenditures (ie : buying a Mac) just to run FCP.
Bundling this as an "update" is a kin to Firefox checked by default when installing the Google Pack. It's just not right.
I also don't like seeing iTunes as the medium for getting Safari updates. I'd do anything to avoid having the bloated iTunes software stick on my system. Making me have to install other extra (large) bits of software just to make other things work is absolutely a sham.
Reply
Shiba said 5:00AM on 3-22-2008
No, its not like Firefox installing with Google Pack, Google Pack is defined by Google as (here comes a copy and paste):
Google Pack is:
* Software specifically selected by Google
* Always free - no trial versions or spyware
* Ready to use in just a few clicks
So Google Pack is a bundle of Software Google feels you should have, which you can install or not, This Apple Updater thing is pushing extra software in a sneaky way, by hiding it and/or making it seem required for other software to run and tricking people into installing it.
Usually theres profit behind apple's BS, This one I don't quite understand. If you have the updater then you already have apple software/logos on your PC, and your probably already using some sort of apple product. Maybe they are trying to bog down PCs in order to make Macs seem faster. I wouldn't put it past them.
Think about it, Someone runs into an annoying garbage Quicktime .mov file (Why do people ever use this stupid format?). The average joe doesn't know about alternatives so he goes to download quicktime. OH but to get quicktime you need iTunes! (Are they still doing this?) and with both Quicktime and/or iTunes comes the apple updater. With all these apps installed at once you have a whole crapton of bloatware/extra services/background processes running which means less system resources and a slower PC. Average Joe now goes to use a Mac somewhere/Mac he already owns and it seems faster because well, at this point it is, eventually he switches to all Macs/a Mac/whatever.
I'm not saying my little theory is definitely true, but Apple is one of the sneakiest/greediest companies around, this is definitely how they do business on a regular basis. Microsoft is just as greedy if not more, just less sneaky, but I steal their software anyway so I couldn't care less, no ones ripping me off :P I'd probably steal from Apple too if I didn't find navigating the OS so annoying.
hazard said 5:07AM on 3-22-2008
I agree that the Apple Software Updater is quite ill conceived and poorly executed. Microsoft's method of putting updates into categories like High Priorty and Optional etc is a much better design. I've also found that the Apple Software Updater installs itself with Quicktime whether you like or not!
Reply
Raheem said 10:56AM on 3-22-2008
I actually found it terribly slow on my Vista Dell 9400.
Reply
sodapop said 1:23PM on 3-22-2008
Wait a minute. All the whooha about Safari on Windows and the download is OPTIONAL? Just about every time I boot up Parallels+Windows Windows has optional updates. And speaking of mozilla, mozilla downloads the update automatically and forces me to restart the browser. This is a non-issue.
Reply
Mark said 3:01PM on 3-22-2008
You sir, either need to learn to read or get a brain replacement. This is NOT an update. This is installation of a new piece of software.
Daniel said 3:49PM on 3-22-2008
This is a disgrace. If I want Safari, I'll ask for it or I'll go and get it. It's a glorified pop-up asking you to "click here" for some shit you don't want. If you are an inexperienced user, say using iTunes and the "Apple Software Updater" pops up, you may well be tempted to click install, when you don't even know what Safari is - this is VERY naughty on Apple's behalf because they MUST know they'll get at least some installs (and therefore boost their market share) in this way.
Poor from a company I have come to expect much more from.
Reply
Captkidd said 6:59AM on 3-23-2008
Having Safari on your Windows XP system is not a problem in my experience. It's quite quick and nice to use. It's not as unstable as the previous betas were and certainly not as unstable as IE7 is. Don't know what to say as I have read through many of the posts here.
Here we go: I have yet to see a machine running quick while running Vista anyway. I have tried all the main browsers including IE7, Firefox, Seamonkey, Opera and even Avant... They all have their good and bad points. I'm enjoying Safari on Win XP right now and I have come across no problems yet. It's quite nice in many ways.
As for Apple installing Safari as an "Update". So what! So many companies try this. Safari is not Malware or anything of the sort and if you have a Hard drive larger than say, 4Gb, then it shouldn't bloat your system. No one is making you actually use it. Get complaining about some real Malware criminals instead. (eg. Smiley Central)
Apple, Like MS, Mozilla and Opera just want to increase browser share. Installing Safari with iTunes makes good business sense, they're open about it and there's nothing sneaky about it. Make your choice. A good install of XP shouldn't slow down with all of the mentioned browsers installed at once, as you're only likely to use one or two. This is why we have Windows Prefetch.
Reply
gnalk.com said 10:11PM on 3-22-2008
I think that Apple's behavior will have an affect upon how people trust auto-updates. This is very important, because it may cause a damage to the relationship between software users and the software companies.
My own article concerning Apple's update service:
http://gnalkit.blogspot.com/2008/03/itunes-and-quicktime-update-installs.html
Reply
harmx said 11:26PM on 3-22-2008
This is pure stealth by Apple no question. I'm sick and tired of Apple telling me what I should do with the hardware/ software I decide to use!!
The plane fact is I actually like how Apple has chosen to render fonts (i.e. true to typeface vs. readability) in pages, and have personally chosen to install Safari as one of my browsers (firefox being primary), but to the average user who just wants an update the install of a NEW programme is completely unacceptable and shows the true colours of the company as just another global parasite!
Rant over.
Reply
David said 4:04AM on 3-23-2008
Let's rewrite this article in an unbiased fashion:
Software maker "A" has added the installation of their product "B" in their "Software Update" application as ticked by default, even though product "B" has never been installed on the computer.
If I run an application that is called "Software Update", I would not expect the installation of completely different and unrelated piece of software on my computer to be checked by default. Irrespective of who software maker "A" is or what product "B" is, I am expecting that an application called "Software Update" updates my installed software by default. The statements "Software maker "A"/Product "B" is so good so it's worth it", "Software maker "C" also does this" do not justify this type of practice.
The argument "It's easy to untick this checkbox" also does not justify ticking this checkbox by default - the majority of the public (and that's generally people who don't read these forums) simply accept the defaults - they don't read option pages/fine print/license agreements/even error messages presented to them. This is the problem with this type of practice.
If software product "B" is so good - it will be able to attract people to download and install it themselves consciously without needing to resort to a more deceptive way of installing it onto a computer. As gnalk.com has stated above, this practice damages the relationship between users and software maker "A" (and software makers in general).
Let's respect the users - put an animated, blinking advertisement for product "B" if you think you need to when they run your "Software Update" application, but let's not call "the installation of a new product" as part of your "software update" process. This applies to all software makers using such practices. (Try substituting other software makers "A" and products "B" - this practice is no more or no less justified for what it is).
Reply
David said 4:07AM on 3-23-2008
ps. Ian Dumych - poor form on writing an article with both bias and carelessness (hopefully not deliberate) flame-worthy statements.
Reply
Xavier said 1:31PM on 3-23-2008
The first thing I did after hearing this (from TUAW, the MacBlog that took a bit more sceptic approach to the subject) I started warning my friends. Not that they should stay away because of some malware, but because regardless of who (Microsoft, Google or Yahoo) is doing it, it is a software installment hidden in another softwares update.
Calling it "Apple Software Updater" sends a message of efficient updating of any software you have from Apple.
Not that you have signed up to a club membership that hands you everything the commercial company wants.
So, dear Ian Dumych, the personal opinion of what is or isnt a good browser has very little to do with the debate.
Wanting controll over what is installed on the computer is not whining.
I help 3 people with theyre laptops, they simply want to turn it on, let it do what it has to, and then use it.
To them it is just an equipment like any other. If they want Safari I will happely install it for them, but I will from now on block internet access for the "Apple Software Updater" just like any other software of its kind.
Reply
William said 11:42AM on 3-24-2008
How has Apple not yet gotten sued for monopolistic behavior for bundling Safari with OS X and now this? If Microsoft can get sued for bundling IE and Windows Media Player with Windows, shouldn't Apple be sued for bundling Safari and QuickTime with OS X? Especially given that they control software AND hardware, making it a true monopoly? Just wondering.
Reply