Is Safari taking Windows users for a ride?
March 21, 2008 by Chip |This morning after I logged in, Apple’s Software Update program popped up and asked me if I wanted to install Safari. “Safari? ” I wondered, “the only Apple software I’ve installed on this system is the QuickTime+ITunes bundle. Why’s it asking me about Safari?”
But I’ve mean meaning to install Safari anyway to test browser compatibility, so I said, “Sure, why not?”
Well, apparently a lot of folks out there aren’t as easygoing about this as I am.
Mozilla CEO John Lilly says:
It’s wrong because it undermines the trust that we’re all trying to build with users. Because it means that an update isn’t just an update, but is maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the web by eroding that relationship. It’s a bad practice and should stop.
Of course he’s not biased.
I guess maybe most users don’t pay much attention to what they’re installing on their systems, and just click OK to anything that pops up and asks for their permission. Maybe it’s becoming a knee-jerk reaction in response to Vista’s UAC.
My own opinion is that this isn’t such a big deal. What I was choosing to install was quite clear to me, and I had the option of saying no without losing any other functionality or security. And if you don’t know what Safari is, Google can take you there as its first result.
What do you think? Is Apple pushing its products in too subtle a fashion here?
Oh, and as for that browser compatibility test… it looks like I may have some work to do.
You Might Also Like:
- Safari for Windows
- Safari 3.04 for Windows
- Monday Morning Links Serving: The June 18th Edition
- Monday Morning Links Serving: The September 10th Edition
Subscribe by Email
















I used to use a pirated Quicktime Pro, for one reason, and one reason only. I really have absolutely ZERO desire to use Quicktime Pro, and if I really get asked to upgrade when the only option to get Quicktime to shut up IS to upgrade, I’m ready to slam the software up against the wall. I now run Quicktime Alternative, which works, but still gives me quirks on some pages that claim I can’t run their video or whatever. I download it, and then it runs just fine. It’s probably just some adjustment that QA needs to make, but it works for me now with a lot less headaches.
Oh, and when I was using Quicktime, I got real tired of “accidentally” installing iTunes every time there was an update. I don’t like iTunes, it thinks that it needs to be the keeper of the MP3 and other sound files, doesn’t work well with others (like Winamp) and it is a real bitch to find the link to the iTuneless version on Apple’s website. And now they want to throw Safari at us??
I had Safari installed. It was buggy, it didn’t look anything at all like Windows (still doesn’t), I still can’t remember what color does what on the title bar, and as far as I’m concerned it’s ugly. If they ever get it to look like a Windows program (not likely, QT is just as ugly and it’s been out a hell of a lot longer) then I may give it a try. Otherwise I’m giving it a pass.
plus, firefox is better
Nobody makes me run Safari, even if it’s installed. But once that toolbar is installed I have to look at it in my browser of choice until I remove it.
Actually, I am not surprised at all that apple would do something like this. I consider them a very dirty company(figuratively speaking). They take advantage of people that don’t know any better, for one thing. I really don’t know why anyone uses apple products anyway(I feel the same way about windows and IE… and their media formats.).
BTW, I have no preference for either MS or Apple, as I believe they are both as bad as each other in so many ways. However, all cases of this type should be judged by the same standards, no matter where it comes from. It seems some companies manage to get away with things that people would not accept at all from other sources.