What Microso~1 could teach Apple about updates
J. J. Louder
Last summer, I looked at Apple’s announced plans for its Safari web
browser and wondered out loud, Is Steve Jobs planning a hostile takeover
of the Windows desktop? Apple’s decision last week to begin aggressively
pushing Safari to any Windows user running iTunes (in other words,
anyone with an iPod or an iPhone) made this part of my earlier post look
downright prescient:
Does any Windows user want Safari on their current system?
Unlikely. Does Steve Jobs want as many Apple logos as possible on the
Windows desktop when it’s running on Apple hardware? Absolutely. Think
of it as a hostile takeover of the Windows environment by someone who is
an acknowledged master at the art. Just ask the music industry.
I got to see this most recent move by Apple up close and personal last
week. For Christmas, I gave my wife an iPhone. Based on her response, it
was one of the best gifts I’ve ever given; she raves about it and uses
it more than any gadget she’s ever owned. I helped her set it up,
gritting my teeth at the mandatory installation of iTunes on her PC, but
accepting it and turning on Apple Software Updates to make sure she
keeps up to date on the many, many patches for iTunes. And several weeks
ago I reminded her that she has to take update requests seriously. Most
of them are issued for security reasons, and I want her PC and our
network to be secure.
So I was stunned and angry when I saw Apple Software Update pop up on
her PC last week. There were no updates for iTunes or QuickTime, the two
Apple programs I installed for her. Instead, using the same mechanism
that delivers security updates, Apple Software Update was offering
Safari 3.1 for Windows, with the check box obligingly selected and the
Install button awaiting her click.
For the record, I think Apple is dead wrong in the way it’s gone about
using its iPod monopoly to expand its share in another market.
Ironically, an excellent model for how this update program should work
already exists. It’s called Windows Update, and it embodies all the
principles that Apple should follow.
Compare for yourself: see my
image gallery comparing Apple
Software Update and Windows Update.
Which company does a better job of
disclosure, consent, and respect
for the customer?
Those principles aren’t esoteric or new. For the most part, they
represent well-accepted behaviors that define the way software companies
should respect their customers. Companies that deliver network-connected
software that contains potential security vulnerabilities have a
responsibility to offer regular updates to repair those issues. The
right way to do it involves these four principles
* Opt-in is the only way. The update process should be completely
opt-in. The option to deliver software should never be preselected for
the user.
* Offer full disclosure. The software company has a responsibility
to fully disclose what its software does, and the customer should make
the opt-in decision only after being given complete details about how
the update process works.
* Offer updates only. Updates should be just that. They should
apply only to software that the customer has already chosen to install.
* Don’t mix updates. Updates that are not critical should be
delivered through a separate mechanism.
In this post and the accompanying image gallery, I’ll walk you through
how Apple offers its updates and how Microsoft does the same thing.
After you see both procedures in action, you tell me who’s got it right
and who’s doing it wrong. Note that I’m not asking you to accept my
point of view. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
Here’s the Apple way:
(See link for pictures)
When you install iTunes as part of setting up a new iPod or iPhone, the
update option is selected by default. In other words, you must opt out
of automatic updating. There’s no disclosure of what this option means,
and several screens make references to updates to license agreements you
never accepted. The license agreement for Apple Software Update does not
describe what the software does. By default, Apple Software Update is
set to check for “updated software” every week. This setting is not
disclosed, nor can it be changed except after installation. After you
install iTunes for the first time, Apple Software Update runs and offers
Safari 3.1 for Windows. You can clear the check box for Safari and then
close the Apple Software Update dialog box, but when the Update program
runs again a week later, you’ll be offered Safari again. The only way to
make it go away is to leave the Safari item selected and use a
well-hidden option to suppress this update.
And now the Microsoft way:
(See link for pictures)
When you set up Windows for the first time, you see a screen that asks
you to choose your update options. It’s an opt-in system. There are
abundant links to Help text and web pages that explain what each option
does, as well as a link to the Update Services Privacy Agreement.
Updates are downloaded and installed for Windows only, based on the
preferences you set up initially. You can opt in to Microsoft Update,
which enables updates for Microsoft programs other than Windows. There
is ample explanation of what the options mean, and you must jump through
several hoops to opt in to this program. Even if you choose to opt in,
external programs such as Silverlight 1.0 are listed as Optional
updates. The only way to see the list of Optional updates and install
them is to visit a separate page, manually click the check box, and then
click Install.
Compare those two systems in respect of the principles I outlined
earlier. Apple offers an opt-out system, offers no disclosure, and mixes
potentially unwanted software with its security patch updates. By
contrast, Microsoft has a scrupulously maintained opt-in system, with
full disclosure every step of the way.
Unfortunately, some people who spend most of their time in the Apple
universe believe what they hear about the monster from Redmond, which
leads even very smart people like the normally perceptive Dave Murdock,
whose Inner Exception blog is on my must-read list, to get it absolutely
backwards:
Windows Update (now Microsoft Update) pushes new software on [users],
Silverlight is the latest example.
That’s wrong. Double wrong, in fact. Windows Update is not the same as
Microsoft Update. As you can see, it’s a 100% opt-in program, and even
when you choose to use Microsoft Update, there’s a clear, bright line
between security-related updates and those that are non-critical. If you
visit the image gallery I’ve put together, you can see for yourself that
Silverlight is not offered automatically. In this case, at least, the
knee-jerk criticism of Microsoft is misplaced.
All browsers have security-related issues. Safari is no exception.
Adding any major application to a computer, especially a new browser, is
not a decision to be made lightly. Even John Gruber of Daring Fireball,
who enjoys pretty much the same relationship to the Mac universe as I do
to the Windows world, agrees with me. First he quotes a reader, who
“pretty much nails it”:
I’m all in favor of programs updating themselves — especially
potentially network-exploitable apps like iTunes or QuickTime — but
companies shouldn’t abuse that to push entirely unrelated software on
end users.
And then Gruber adds:
The reason reactions to this controversy have been so polarized is
that we’ve been mostly arguing about the wrong thing: how or whether
Apple should offer new applications to Windows users via the current
Software Update app. The problem is with the design of the Software
Update app itself.
Absolutely correct.
Cupertino, get your photocopiers ready. In this case, at least, it’s the
right thing to do.
Robert Moir
"J. J. Louder" <me...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fsgq2d$qls$1...@aioe.org...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=405
[snip]
Nice article from Ed. I couldn't put it better myself.
Eric Lindsay
wrote:
> And now the Microsoft way:
Try buying a home computer without Windows. No retail store I have seen
will allow you to buy a computer without Windows. I believe that where I
live, this is a Third Line Forcing, which is illegal under the Trade
Practices Act, Section 47 (6) and (7). That is, requiring you to
purchase a third party product as a condition of purchasing another
product. When I buy a computer, I don't want Windows (I prefer Ubuntu).
What I don't see is anyone with deep enough pockets to take Microsoft on.
Paul Russell
I believe you can buy Dells with Linux (Ubuntu ?) preinstalled these
days. I don't know if any "bricks and mortar" retail stores carry these
but obviously you can buy them online.
Paul
Gordon
wrote:
> In article <fsgq2d$ql...@aioe.org>, "J. J. Louder" <m...@privacy.net>
PC World sell Macs
Stimpy
>
> Try buying a home computer without Windows. No retail store I have seen
> will allow you to buy a computer without Windows.
John Lewis *definitely* allow you to buy a home computer without Windows
...as, I believe, do PC World.
Eric Lindsay
Paul Russell <prus...@sonic.net> wrote:
Dell USA do. However Dell USA don't sell where I live. Here Dell do not
provide Ubuntu (we have two Dell laptops - we tried getting them without
Windows).
student
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=405
>
>
> * Opt-in is the only way. The update process should be completely
> opt-in. The option to deliver software should never be preselected for
> the user.
> * Offer full disclosure. The software company has a responsibility
> to fully disclose what its software does, and the customer should make
> the opt-in decision only after being given complete details about how
> the update process works.
> * Offer updates only. Updates should be just that. They should
> apply only to software that the customer has already chosen to install.
> * Don?t mix updates. Updates that are not critical should be
> delivered through a separate mechanism.
Just try to to have windows media player not call m$ to "check for updates";
can't be done as there is no selection for "not to check for updates".
Then try to get some windows updates without having m$ place spyware
& trojans onto your computer; again, m$ would only allow downloads of
upstes for lots of "updates" only if the spyware is placed on your computer
under the guise of "genuine windows" check.
Then if you just change the nic card to a different slot, you must
go thru "authentication" process again as m$ calimes that you have
made a "drastic" change on your compouter.
That is the micro$oft way for updating.
Heath Raftery
Well said. The practice of installing Safari when performing
an update of iTunes/QuickTime is reprehensible. The error was
highlighted when a work collegue mentioned the other day that
he was doing his regular software updates (as he should) and
discovered that he now had Safari. He had no idea what it was,
and wasn't actually particularly concerned. I think he should
have been! Unknown software being installed on your computer?
Not a good practice to have users get used to!
But contrary to your argument, I don't think Apple should
look to Windows Update as a model! Windows Update constantly
interrupts you to report that it's working, that it's
downloading, that it's installing, or even that it can be
sent to the background so you can continue your work (the
best piece of technical irony I've seen in the last few
years).
Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
But otherwise, yes, Apple should rethink their
implementation.
--
*--------------------------------------------------------*
| ^Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool^ |
| Heath Raftery, HRSoftWorks _\|/_ |
*______________________________________m_('.')_m_________*
Stimpy
>
> Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
> run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
> mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
> and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
Errr... not on the PC I have sitting next to me it doesn't. After each
update, Outlook is still my mail client, and my 'quick launch' area contains
the icons it has always contained
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Nor on any of the hundred of machines I've administered over the
years. Something wrong with your box, Heath - I'd guess at a registry
corruption that WU keeps "fixing".
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds
language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because
I no verbs." - Quoted by Peter Ellis, afp
Heath Raftery
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:05:43 +0000, Stimpy <stimpy...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:08:37 +0000, Heath Raftery wrote
>>>
>>> Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
>>> run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
>>> mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
>>> and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
>>
>>Errr... not on the PC I have sitting next to me it doesn't. After each
>>update, Outlook is still my mail client, and my 'quick launch' area contains
>>the icons it has always contained
>
> Nor on any of the hundred of machines I've administered over the
> years. Something wrong with your box, Heath - I'd guess at a registry
> corruption that WU keeps "fixing".
Haha, you guys are being facetious right? If you already have Outlook/OE
as your default client, you're not going to notice the change. Same for
IE.
Stimpy
>
>>>> Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
>>>> run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
>>>> mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
>>>> and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
>>>
>>> Errr... not on the PC I have sitting next to me it doesn't. After each
>>> update, Outlook is still my mail client, and my 'quick launch' area
>>> contains the icons it has always contained
>>
>> Nor on any of the hundred of machines I've administered over the
>> years. Something wrong with your box, Heath - I'd guess at a registry
>> corruption that WU keeps "fixing".
>
> Haha, you guys are being facetious right? If you already have Outlook/OE
> as your default client, you're not going to notice the change. Same for
> IE.
Outlook *isn't* OE. The two are completely different products.
Heath Raftery
Come on, replace '/' with 'or' and re-read. You can do it.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<hraf...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In comp.sys.mac.misc Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:05:43 +0000, Stimpy <stimpy...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:08:37 +0000, Heath Raftery wrote
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
>>>> run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
>>>> mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
>>>> and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
>>>
>>>Errr... not on the PC I have sitting next to me it doesn't. After each
>>>update, Outlook is still my mail client, and my 'quick launch' area contains
>>>the icons it has always contained
>>
>> Nor on any of the hundred of machines I've administered over the
>> years. Something wrong with your box, Heath - I'd guess at a registry
>> corruption that WU keeps "fixing".
>
>Haha, you guys are being facetious right? If you already have Outlook/OE
>as your default client, you're not going to notice the change. Same for
>IE.
In the last decade I've never had OE / Outlook or IE as my defaults
for longer than it takes to install Agent / Notes and Netscape or more
recently Firefox. (actually not quite true - I used Outlook for three
months last year, with a new job+laptop)
And I'm absolutely sure that WU doesn't change those preferences under
normal circumstances. Until two years ago I used to manage dozens of
laptops, desktops and servers with Notes and FF as the defaults, and
WU running never changed them. Nor the five or so Windows boxes that
have been scattered around the house here for years, or indeed other
peoples machines that I get asked for support for.
Yours is behaving in a special way. Have you tried creating a new user
and seeing if you still get the same problem?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Women's breasts are like electric train sets. They're meant for
kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playing with them.
Stimpy
>
>>>>>> Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
>>>>>> run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
>>>>>> mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
>>>>>> and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Errr... not on the PC I have sitting next to me it doesn't. After each
>>>>> update, Outlook is still my mail client, and my 'quick launch' area
>>>>> contains the icons it has always contained
>>>
>>> as your default client, you're not going to notice the change. Same for
>>> IE.
>>
>> Outlook *isn't* OE. The two are completely different products.
>
> Come on, replace '/' with 'or' and re-read. You can do it.
You were suggesting that WU resets the default mail to OE. It doesn't. After
each update, my default client remains Outlook. It is NOT reset to Outlook
Express.
Believe me, I would notice if the default was changed to Outlook Express
Woody
I certainly noticed when it changed the default email application to
Outlook from eudora without asking when I installed office 2007
--
Woody
Robert Moir
"Heath Raftery" <hraf...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pQWHj.3358$n53...@fe127.usenetserver.com...
> But contrary to your argument, I don't think Apple should
> look to Windows Update as a model! Windows Update constantly
> interrupts you to report that it's working, that it's
> downloading, that it's installing, or even that it can be
> sent to the background so you can continue your work (the
> best piece of technical irony I've seen in the last few
> years).
That is a raving pain in the hoop. Clear proof that they have something
stronger than just root beer in the free drinks dispensers in that part of
the Microsoft building.
> Secondly, Windows Update resets your defaults - each time I
> run it, IE is suddenly back as my default browser, OE is my
> mail client, there are quick launch buttons for those apps
> and my desktop has shortcuts I didn't want.
Interesting. That has never happened to me. I wonder which one of us has the
"broken" install, so to speak?
Heath Raftery
You quoted my post (at the top of this quote chain) and still
misinterpreted it:
"each time I run [WU] ... OE is my mail client"
I suspect if I had Outlook installed, I would be saying:
"each time I run [WU ... Outlook is my mail client"
Anyway, this is an argument about nothing. I'll continue the real argument
in the relevant branch.
Heath Raftery
Very interesting. That's a good suggestion, but I'm basing this on
consistent experience from Win2k Pro and XP Pro, on hardware from P4's
to an Athlon 64, from Administrator accounts to guest accounts, and
through several fresh installs.
I'm stumped. Clearly some people are seeing it in hundreds of instances
and others are not seeing it in hundreds of instances. Up until this
point I wasn't even aware that it didn't happen in some circumstances.
Good to know!
A quick survey of this (Windows based) office here reports that all
have seen the behaviour I described, but no one knows the rhyme or
reason.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<hraf...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>I'm stumped. Clearly some people are seeing it in hundreds of instances
>and others are not seeing it in hundreds of instances. Up until this
>point I wasn't even aware that it didn't happen in some circumstances.
>Good to know!
>
>A quick survey of this (Windows based) office here reports that all
>have seen the behaviour I described, but no one knows the rhyme or
>reason.
Bizarre. I've never seen that myself, or even heard of it before. I'll
ask around the various support teams I work nearby, see if they know
anything.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Remember, "persistence" is just a euphemism for "serial failure"
-- Tim Dawson
Clever Monkey
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=405
>
> Last summer, I looked at Apple’s announced plans for its Safari web
> browser and wondered out loud, Is Steve Jobs planning a hostile takeover
> of the Windows desktop?
Are you serious?
--
clvrmnky <mailto:spam...@clevermonkey.org>
Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.