<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apple sneaks Safari 3.1 into Windows updater</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/</link>
	<description>Loren Heiny</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:36:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sumocat</title>
		<link>http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/#comment-3541</link>
		<dc:creator>Sumocat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/#comment-3541</guid>
		<description>Hmm... Mine never updates automatically. I must have already set it to manual. Maybe that's why I'm not getting the same feeling of "pushiness" as everyone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm&#8230; Mine never updates automatically. I must have already set it to manual. Maybe that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m not getting the same feeling of &#8220;pushiness&#8221; as everyone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LCH</title>
		<link>http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/#comment-3539</link>
		<dc:creator>LCH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/#comment-3539</guid>
		<description>I've disabled the "iTunes updater" which is called "Apple Software Update" as you mention. I've found it obtrusive enough because on several of my machines I don't use iTunes and I'd rather not pay a time penalty at boot up to check for new "updates" or new apps in this case. (Interestingly iTunes got onto a couple machines because friends/relatives installed QuickTime and accidentally pulled down iTunes too.) There are other software packages that have their own updaters and I usually disable them too. One day I'd like to see all of them pooled together in Windows so they're all in one place and more easily controllable. I need a dozen updaters in the system tray (hidden or not) like I need a dozen toolbars in IE.

The big issue here is that Apple is setting the option on by default. It's a clear way to get naive users to install their app. I don't like when anyone does it--whether it's Sun with Java, Google, MSN, AOL, or Apple. (I also don't care for sites that auo-check send me more email when I'm purchasing something form them. Similar issue.) I realize many have done this, but it's annoying. Several of my neighbors have called me over in the past to "fix" their machines after new software magically appeared. I've noticed that more people are catching onto this pattern though and realizing that they have to disable options. However, as they do this more and more, I can see the companies hiding their options down one level and the like. The better thing to do is to build apps that people can trust and leave it at that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve disabled the &#8220;iTunes updater&#8221; which is called &#8220;Apple Software Update&#8221; as you mention. I&#8217;ve found it obtrusive enough because on several of my machines I don&#8217;t use iTunes and I&#8217;d rather not pay a time penalty at boot up to check for new &#8220;updates&#8221; or new apps in this case. (Interestingly iTunes got onto a couple machines because friends/relatives installed QuickTime and accidentally pulled down iTunes too.) There are other software packages that have their own updaters and I usually disable them too. One day I&#8217;d like to see all of them pooled together in Windows so they&#8217;re all in one place and more easily controllable. I need a dozen updaters in the system tray (hidden or not) like I need a dozen toolbars in IE.</p>
<p>The big issue here is that Apple is setting the option on by default. It&#8217;s a clear way to get naive users to install their app. I don&#8217;t like when anyone does it&#8211;whether it&#8217;s Sun with Java, Google, MSN, AOL, or Apple. (I also don&#8217;t care for sites that auo-check send me more email when I&#8217;m purchasing something form them. Similar issue.) I realize many have done this, but it&#8217;s annoying. Several of my neighbors have called me over in the past to &#8220;fix&#8221; their machines after new software magically appeared. I&#8217;ve noticed that more people are catching onto this pattern though and realizing that they have to disable options. However, as they do this more and more, I can see the companies hiding their options down one level and the like. The better thing to do is to build apps that people can trust and leave it at that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sumocat</title>
		<link>http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/#comment-3537</link>
		<dc:creator>Sumocat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:08:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lorenheiny.com/2008/03/21/apple-sneaks-safari-31-into-windows-updater/#comment-3537</guid>
		<description>I think you've been misled by inaccurate reporting. The update isn't sneaking in through "iTunes updater"; the application is called "Apple Software Update", which means not just iTunes. It's not required to update iTunes (can still be done old way) and the name is pretty straightforward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;ve been misled by inaccurate reporting. The update isn&#8217;t sneaking in through &#8220;iTunes updater&#8221;; the application is called &#8220;Apple Software Update&#8221;, which means not just iTunes. It&#8217;s not required to update iTunes (can still be done old way) and the name is pretty straightforward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
