Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more

Heh. I posted almost the same thing earlier today, if a bit less succinctly.

I think this is Steve's plan to take over his 15% of the web.

i think you're just being petty. apple has already made this latest - and i would say significant - concession to mozilla by separating its updates from new software. clearly, you want more than just for apple to uncheck the box; you want them to leave out the new software option entirely, don't you? well, it's a free market, so that's not gonna happen. give the end-users some credit, let them decide what they want or don't want to download. apple's just making it easier for them to discover new - and perhaps better - alternative applications to what they've been using.

The update process as proposed by Apple (old one or new one), let no the user choose what they want. Have the choice means: "Here you are, choose what you want". Apple's proposal is: "Here you are, choose what you don't want". Do you go to a supermarket where you have to say what you DON'T want? Do you agree if when you put gasoline on your car, you have to say: please, I don't want chewing gums?
Every time I get Apple software update, I have to see in depth to see if something has been added. I'm really sure that Apple's defenders would not be glad if Mozilla included in it's update process a default-checked checkbox to download Thunderbird.

@angstrid: Asa is just completely right here. I don't want to have to carefully uncheck the same boxes each time I install a security update for the pieces of Apple software I want to use on my machine. And it is a fact that many many less saffy users just click 'OK' on every box. and up with a bloated system. Until they get screwed over too often, then they start to press 'Cancel' on each box, so they end up with unpatched systems. The Thunderbird comparison is very apt BTW.

"Apple Software Update service (v2.1)" bundles iTunes with Safari3 (BETA),
Apple has copied from Micro$oft
(Windows bundled with M$ Internet Exploder)!!!!
And once more:
Quicktime is bundled with iTunes, I do not want iTunes automaticly,
when updating Quicktime, I WANT CHOOSE BY MYSELF !!!

I do NOT USE iTunes or Safari, I WANT use Quicktime ONLY!!!

I do not need Safari, I have a better browser (Opera) !

I do not hate FireFox, but I only use (and love) Opera.

I'm quite a big fan of many Apple products - they make some amazing devices (like my iPhone, and the entire OS X operating system).

But Asa's definitely right here. Kudos to Apple for the improvement, but I'll give them full credit when they stop putting icons on my desktop without my approval, and stop trying to make their processes auto-run on every install when I've specifically disabled them. Yes, I like my iPhone. No, I don't want their mobiledevices process running, or quicktime starting every time I start my computer. That's fine on my Mac, but not on my business (XP) laptop. Apple's behavior on Windows really is bordering on completely unacceptable, enough that I'm considering uninstalling all Apple products from my XP laptop.

So no, they should not check to install new junk (it's junk if the user hasn't asked for it) by default. It's a nice market grab technique, but people aren't quite as unsavvy as they used to be - and Apple could see a growing backlash if they become perceived as predatory on the Windows platform. I'd hate to see that when there is so much real merit to their products.

full disclosure: have an iPhone, use Firefox on both my Mac and my Windows system, also use Safari and IE in appropriate situations. Fan of beautiful products, not a fan of corporate greed.

I don't know why people seem shocked that a corporation trying to gain market share is acting like a corporation trying to gain market share. Yes, if Apple wants to be a good citizen it shouldn't have the box checked by default, but there are a million other examples of companies that default to installing crap you don't want along with the parts you DO want. I remember the last time I downloaded Yahoo Messenger, it had options checked by default to install the Yahoo Toolbar, change my homepage to Yahoo, and so on. So what does Apple gain by being a "good citizen" here? A pat on the back from a foundation with less than a fifth of the browser market? Does Apple really give a damn? Hell, no--Steve Jobs is looking at Safari usage going up and laughing maniacally in his sleek, brushed-aluminum subterranean lair. As long as they give me the choice, I can't say I really care--if iTunes REQUIRED Safari that'd be another matter, and honestly I'm shocked they haven't gone that route yet.

@MasterofOpera - So why not download just QuickTime? Apple Software Update has a handy "Ignore Selected Updates" menu item under Tools. Ignore iTunes. It's not that hard.

@sumisu - iTunes does require parts of Safari for rendering the iTMS. It's just that the parts have been built into the Windows version of iTunes for quite some time.

I'm a Mac user at home and deal with mostly UNIX servers at work. Yes, Apple does some weird things, but their products work together extremely well. QuickTime in particular is nothing short of brilliant on Mac OS X. I just wish it worked that well on Windows.

I still don't understand why people use Firefox on Mac OS. It doesn't make sense to me. It has its own widget set, its own text entry box without system services like the spelling checker, its own font smoothing method (or lack thereof), and just doesn't integrate in general. OmniWeb for me, thanks. Firefox on Windows or Linux is as better as QuickTime on Mac OS X.

So whats the big deal? Unchecking the box? How petty can you get. Just download safari and get on with life and stop the bytchin.......
Must be a Bush supporter

@MasterofOpera.. you WANT Quicktime? Wow.... I blogged about this awhile back, now admittedly, I work for Microsoft, so I will probably get smacked for being totally uncredible, but I do carry a Macbook Pro (even into MS meetings hehe) and I think that gives me a little credibility towards being unbiased.

I think the thing is, it's not that Safari is a bad product, even though I won't use it even on the mac..... it's that it is a subversive way to try and install it. I had installed Safari for Windows on my main XP machine at home, and when I saw the update thing I wasn't surprised. Then I went to use my wife's computer for something and the update box was up with Safari, I thought maybe she had installed it and didn't think about it again until the 64 bit Vista machine I had just built from a clean install asked me to install it after installing iTunes. I was blown away. Stop taking the Apple fanboy side and ask yourself this.

What would happen to us (Microsoft) today if we tried to install IE8 with the Zune software for example. Me thinks we wouldn't get away with that one too well. So as far as I know, standards of computer etiquette are not unique to the company.

Anyone that pretends that MOST users don't just click next on those things is fooling themselves. My mom, sister, aunt, uncle, cousin, friend next door....all those guys probably would just go, "oh, it's an update...ok" Then they see a new icon on their desktop and go "What's that?" They click it, and another box comes up saying "Make this your default browser?" and they go, hmmm, ok, and click that.

I am not saying these are the brightest users on the planet, but it's a COMMON USER. Apple making this the default behavior, based on knowing research that this is a common user pattern, makes this NO different than the Browser Hijacking crap that went on 5 years ago. Seriously.

If you need an analogy to make it stick, Apple no more expects people to pay attention to that dialog as Best Buy expects you to mail in your rebates. That's just the facts ma'am.

"What would happen to us (Microsoft) today if we tried to install IE8 with the Zune software for example. Me thinks we wouldn't get away with that one too well."

--- Oh what's three more IE8 users going to hurt? Would anyone even notice?

This is so bogus. Mozilla just wants all browsers except Firefox to go away. What, you can't uncheck a box? Should we send out a social worker to do it for you? Sheesh.

Oh, and Zimmie, to answer your question: there is one reason to use Firefox over Safari. When it crashes, it allows you to restore all the windows that crashed. I wish Safari would do that, but it doesn't, even though I like it better otherwise.

Zimmie, you said "iTunes does require parts of Safari for rendering the iTMS. It's just that the parts have been built into the Windows version of iTunes for quite some time."

That's total bullshit and I don't know why people keep spreading that lie.

There is absolutely nothing Safari or WebKit in iTunes and the iTunes Music Store uses a proprietary format which is not HTML and does not require Safari's rendering code.

What iTunes does use is the QuickTime toolkit. All the chrome and the iTMS content are both rendered using that toolkit so it must be present for iTunes to exist (or any other Mac app on Windows -- they all use that toolkit, including Safari.)

That does not mean that they need the QuickTime media player application installed though. And it certainly doesn't mean they need the completely unrelated Safari installed.

Next time you want to tell people at my blog how software works, perhaps you should actually check to see that your hunch is correct.

From "the horse's mouth" so to speak. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666

(and in case you didn't know, Dave Hyatt, formerly of Firefox fame, is an original and lead developer for Safari.)

Susan,

Agreed! And unchecking that box is certainly less trouble than dealing with Firefox's ever annoying SOFTWARE UPDATE box EVERY 30 DAMN MINUTES. Get off my back already! Didn't I just update you like ... yesterday? Damn.... I did.

Sounds like someone is afraid Safari might eat away at Firefox's market share.

But.. but.. but Firefox 3 is gonna be awesomely awesome!!!!!!

>> "Do you go to a supermarket where you have to say what you DON'T want?"

No, but then again, a supermarket has hundreds of thousands of choices. I cant ever see the "new software" field containing more than five items at any given time.

If you go for a sandwich, and the guy says "hey! we now put avocado on all our sandwiches, cause we think it tastes awesome!" - but gives you the choice to leave it out, would you really demand that they make avocado a "by request only" item for everyone, or would you simply say "Ill have mine without, please!" -?

..and if a single person says "i probably wouldnt go back there," then god help you if you have to actually go out into the world and interact with it, cause i dont see it ending well.

To steal the quote from Darby Lines:

"Apparently Apple needs to also not check the box to install Safari by default. Again, the take home message here is that Windows users are so fucking confused by a checkbox that they can’t be trusted with the horrible responsibility of installing a browser."

You have a vested interest in having Firefox be "the" alternative to IE instead of any other browser.

@Jason Burns: You say that people would care if you put IE8 with the Zune, but the reality is that Windows user already has IE, and IE is not offered on Mac. Every WIndows user does not have Safari already so, therefore, it is new software, and not the same situation. Also, you sound a little hypocritical since Windows comes with a bunch of useless applications (including IE). Now that is FORCING you to have applications.

@Step: Apple is by no means FORCING you to download anything or PUTTING anything on your desktop without your permission. They are not stopping you from unchecking it.

It is the responsibility of the user to pay attention to what they are downloading. Apple is just trying to get more users, and considering that the Safari market share is so low, everyone is just scared that Safari is going to take market share from Firefox and Internet Explorer. It might be slightly annoying, but it is not worth biching and moaning about. Just uncheck it! That would save you time from complaining.

When you say "discreet" in the second sentence, you mean "discrete". Discreet means careful and circumspect, and discrete means individually separate.

The fact that Firefox, by default, wants to be my default browser and will continually warn me if it is not is as suspect if not more than Apple checking the option to install Safari by default.

If Asa wants to put his money where his mouth is, Firefox will, by default, disable the "Always check to see if Firefox is the default browser on startup" preference.

Thanks, Rory. Corrected.

@Zimmie: Unless the behavior has changed in the 2.1 release, "Ignore Selected Updates" only applies to the current version. So the next time iTunes (or Safari, or whatever it is that you don't have on your machine) releases an update, it pops up the "New software!!!" message all over again, and you have to tell it to ignore that update.

"What would happen to us (Microsoft) today if we tried to install IE8 with the Zune software for example. Me thinks we wouldn't get away with that one too well. So as far as I know, standards of computer etiquette are not unique to the company."

@Jason Burns

Well, the last time I looked, Microsoft requires you to have Internet Explorer 6 or above to use a Zune so I don't think you're in a position to start pointing fingers. You don't have to have Safari to have an iPod, iPhone or iTunes...

Franklin H. Carr III, Firefox's update is there to patch security vulnerabilities. More annoying than the update would be having your online credentials stolen, your bank accounts raided, and your machine turned into an attack bot to do the same to others. If you're not using Firefox, you won't see that update and if you are using Firefox, you'd better get that update (and the updates offered to you by all of your other Internet connected software) or you could find yourself a lot more annoyed.

This sounds suspiciously like a petty marketshare grudge wrapped in irrelevant criticism.

Users are not as stupid as you're making them seem -- Software Update, even with the new box, is very cleanly designed, making very clear that Safari will be installed. In the interest of full disclosure, it's this very same attention to detail that makes me use Safari.

Eric, nowhere have I said that users are stupid. The overwhelming majority of users aren't stupid. They're busy. They're distracted. They're in a hurry. They're afraid of being insecure. There are a million reasons why people might click OK when prompted with a Software Update dialog without supposing they'll find themselves with entirely new software.

It's just a bad practice, made somewhat better by the update from Apple that at least clearly labels Safari as a new software offer.

If, as I think we both agree, most users are actually quite smart, then why not make "install a new program you didn't ask for" something the user has to opt in for rather than opt out. It shouldn't be terribly difficult for smart users to understand that if they do want to take advantage of Apple's offer to install new programs on their machine, they check a box and say "OK". At the same time, it makes things just a bit easier for the majority of people who really just want a security update for their already installed software and don't want to have to read the fine print before accepting that security update.

- A

Petty, indeed. Apple only makes three products for Windows, anyway. This is unlikely to require scanning through a long list anytime soon. Besides, Adobe and Google have me well trained in the art of un-checking pointless updates and installs.

@Susan Just to let you know -- Safari actually *does* save your open windows and tabs. It just doesn't restore them without asking (ironically, given this current criticism). To restore Safari windows and tabs, just choose the menu item "Reopen All Windows from Last Session" under the "History" menu. I'm hoping that the Safari team implements a preference option to have this automatically happen at the beginning of each new session á la Firefox.

Scott, isn't that a tacit admission that you'd rather not be un-checking boxes and the the common case, for you at least, is to interrupt the install process to engage in a defensive activity to prevent something you don't want from happening?

Do you suppose that every person who has installed QuickTime because some website required it or installed iTunes because their iPod required it, is also as "well trained" as you in un-checking boxes to avoid software they didn't ask for?

Or are you suggesting that they should and will over time themselves become well trained in the practice of interrupting a desired process to avoid something undesirable happening.

And you consider this a good state of things? That the common use case is the one not catered to by the installer? That people must train themselves to avoid having unrequested software installed on their systems.

Wow. You're a lot more forgiving than I am. I expect software makers to build the best products they can and to make them as usable as possible. I expect software makers to optimize for the most common use case and to avoid putting obstacles in the way of users accomplishing the task they set out to accomplish.

I guess because I make software for a living, I expect a little more from software vendors. I have some friends that are like that about movies. Because they're in the industry, it's kinda difficult for them to enjoy watching movies because all of flaws and shortcuts are so immediately obvious that it's just difficult to find pleasure in watching.

- A

Interesting. I was told that "total bullshit" by several Apple employees myself. Maybe it changed between when I was told and when that post was made. Or maybe the people who told me didn't know what they were talking about.

In any case, thanks for being rather a dick pointing it out. I've been supporting Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix since the 0.3 days. Apparently it's time for me to move on.

I take it Asa that you are leading the push at Mozilla to have the "Make this the default browser" option unchecked by default? Right now you guys are doing something even WORSE. With Apple you might get unwanted software that won't do anything. With Firefox you launch the browser once, don't unclick the button and suddenly every time you click a link Firefox is launching instead of IE. Personally i think you are being really nit-picky about this part of the argument (I agree that the Updated/New software sections should be seperate and that Apple WAS in the wrong there).

It sounds like too much and unnecessary envy...

I previously commented but I have some more things to say... First of all, Asa needs to stop deleting peoples' comments. There has been at least 3 deleted already. People should be entitled to free speech, even though you can do whatever you want since its your blog. You should allow people who say not-so-nice things about you also comment. Plus, Asa responds to people in an extremely condescending manner. I just want to say that Firefox 2 sucked for Mac, but at least Firefox 3 is better... Also, there's nothing to forgive (as you said in your comment at 3:28). Safari is a great browser and they are just allowing (not FORCING) people to experience it. Just like you can remove comments from YOUR blog, Apple can check whatever the hell they want on THEIR program! You have wasted your time complaining and I am only commenting because I want to refute the claims that people have made, and enlighten people to things that they may not know...

"And you consider this a good state of things? That the common use case is the one not catered to by the installer? That people must train themselves to avoid having unrequested software installed on their systems."

Absolutely. I think it's far worse to blindly auto-update. I think it's far worse to push tens of updates because of minor tweaks. Yes, I want to be able to ignore Firefox updates that concern phishing because it interrupts my browsing but I don't go to unsafe sites, but I can't: it's install now or later with no explanation of what the update is.

Let's not pretend that the user is not overtly selecting to update/install. This isn't happening with no warning (particularly now). There is no littering with unnecessary and unwanted software unless you are completely ignorant.

The entire notion that update apps should only work one way, they should always be trusted and applied immediately, and that's it is a huge mistake. It is the product of Microsoft's poor security prior to Vista. That does not mean everyone should behave this way. Each software developer has its own level of trust. I really don't need Mozilla to be the software developer that dictates those terms to everyone else.

You can pretend this is an independent issue from having default browser checked and packaging apps through deals with Google and others, but it is not.

I think it's funny you say you may be able to allow Apple SOftware Update back on your computer, but it's not that you aren't smart enough. So it is solely politics. I may have to uninstall Firefox because of your bundling partnerships.

Meh.

Sorry, I can manage to click the little checkbox if I don't want it. Not a big deal. And I'm on Tim F.'s side with the whole auto-update Firefox thing too. I'll take a DOUBLE HELPING OF SAFARI thanks.

Brandon, when people come here and call me or others names, I'll delete their comments and ban them from returning. I've done it lots before and I'll continue to do it in the future. As you've correctly acknowledged, this is my weblog and I'll decide what's acceptable and what's not. Name-calling and racial, misogynistic, or other bigoted slurs aren't welcome here and neither are their producers.

I've banned two people today and deleted their comments. I'm clearly not doing it to people for having a contrary opinion or position, or most of the comments in this post would be gone. But when people decide that it's OK to come here and troll, I'll happily show them the door.

- A

Tim, I disagree with you about Software Updates installing new software and requested and installed software asking to become the default handler for it's content types. You won't see me complaining about Apple's iTunes, QuickTime, or Safari all engaging in that practice. I rather appreciate that those programs, when I've requested them, offer to do what I explicitly installed them to do. (possibly with one exception out of the hundreds of file type handlers that are swtiched -- and that's QuickTime grabbing a couple of my PhotoShop file types but that's not a big deal and it's definitely a very small minority case.)

I think you're conflating two very different use cases here, either because you and I just see things differently or because you're trying to confuse the discussion or score debate points.

As for allowing Apple Software Update back on my Windows machines, that has nothing to do with intelligence or smarts. It's about inconvenience. I've got more important things to do than fight with unwanted software.

Yes, I am sure that Mozilla Firefox would never sink to these levels (sarcasm).

Unless things have changed in the past three weeks, here's my experience with Firefox on Windows:

I launch Firefox.
-> Firefox says "Hey, there's a Firefox update! Do you want to install it?"
-> I click in the negative. (Didn't notice if there were any checkboxes.)
-> Firefox says "OK no problem, we'll install them the next time you launch Firefox."
-> I'm like, what? Hopefully I'll just be able to decline the install on next launch.
-> Launch Firefox again.
-> Firefox says "Hold up, I'm installing those updates, remember?"
-> I'm like, screw you, I need my browser now, not after you do the crap that I didn't want you to do. Dammit!

You may think Apple is wrong with this whole Safari vs. Software Update "debacle", but damned if Firefox isn't completely ass-backwards. I tell it that I don't want any updates, and it installs them anyway. There may have been a checkbox during the process above that I missed, but the fact remains that I told it "NO," and it didn't respect my choice.

Compare to Software Update (original behavior). It offers Safari, I say "NO" by unchecking the checkbox (as opposed to pressing a button, in Firefox's update case). Guess what happens? Software Updates DOESN'T INSTALL IT.

[Seriously, what if there was a Firefox update that, after being in the wild for a few days, people reported to cause all manner of issue with Windows? I'd read about it, launch Firefox, remember that "no, that latest update is funky," tell it "NO, don't update," and it'd install it anyway on next launch.]

So when is Firefox going to change *its* behavior?

"I think you're conflating two very different use cases here, either because you and I just see things differently or because you're trying to confuse the discussion or score debate points."

No, I think it is the same issue. Not trying to win brownie points, this is what I really think. (As I said, I prefer Updater introducing new methods of delivering software, I have a different level of trust in Apple than I do in others, and I am consistently happy with companies marketing their products as long as I have the option to deselect -- I am for informed computing, not encouraging ignorant behavior.) That's why I can consistently see this situation as exactly the same as file association check marks and default apps and not have a problem with it. But your view isn't and can't be consistent. I think you only disagree because one practice your company doesn't do and the other it does do.

Firstly, you say you are installing an application to do just that. I don't. Rarely do I install software to take over functions. I frequently have two or more apps that work with the same files; I never want a new app to change what I've already set. That explanation simply won't hold water with most of us. I could just as well say I installed Software Updater to install new software so there's nothing wrong with that. Same weak explanation.

Second, separating the issue of how you believe all updaters should function the same way -- clearly, we disagree on that -- you've said that keeping it checked it's just a subversive attempt to propragate stuff you don't want, that the user shouldn't have to think, shouldn't have to stop to consider what they are doing. How is that any different from leaving default browser or changing file associations? It's not.

Well I am glad that you are not deleting comments with opinions converse to yours, but you still have not acknowledged some major comparisons that other users here have brought up here such as the comparison to the annoying Firefox default dialog box. If you want to make such a big deal about the difficulty of unchecking a box, then in interest of fairness, also address the issue of people who do the same thing as in the Safari situation and click OK without reading what it it that they are agreeing to, and Firefox the default browser (See post on 3:11). There is a very similar connection here, and I think you should address that. Also, you said that software makers should "avoid putting obstacles in the way of users accomplishing the task they set out to accomplish." How is Apple, by any means, putting obstacles in the way of users using iTunes. Adding another program is unrelated, and not an obstacle in the way of the task of using or downloading iTunes.

So does it really make that big of a difference if its auto checked or not? If was left un-checked people would complain that they had tried to download the update 10 times and it never worked (when in reality they just hadn't marked the checkbox). Additionally, I have to say that I'm not surprised that a Mozilla blog would rather a competing browser be harder to install.

I want to also say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people "have lost trust in Apple" and even more ridiculous that people "have uninstalled iTunes and Software Update." Is it really that big of a deal that feel they have to uninstall iTunes too, especially since they can expect Safari to be Software Update in the future and can uncheck it [and not end up surprised with Safari]? I am getting this is from the comments here and elsewhere. If people are commenting then obviously they have read the post, so they can expect Safari to be there in the future and uncheck it. 1 second. Seriously people!

Is leaving the checkbox checked any worse than Sun having Google products automatically checked during Java updates?

I don't hear any screaming about Google Toolbar being installed because someone didn't notice they had something new to uncheck... at least you can close Safari, Toolbar just eats your system resources up...

"With that change, I think I'd be pretty happy to let the Apple Software Update service back on my Windows machine."

Forgetting the companies and competition involved here, and speaking as a developer, this is exactly the kind of user I don't want. Someone who takes the attitude that "You're lucky I'm using the software you provided for free" kind. You shouldn't write software to please the people who think *they* are doing *you* a favor.

Consider this: Microsoft offers Silverlight through its Microsoft update system, but it's unchecked by default and clearly labeled as something new, not something that's already on your machine. In many ways, Silverlight is a greater threat to Mozilla than Safari, because it represents an attempt to take an open system for web applications (HTML+CSS+DOM+JavaScript) that can potentially work with all browsers -- including Safari -- and replace it with a closed system under Microsoft's control.

And yet never once have I seen Asa, or John Lilly, or any other official Mozilla rep complain about the fact that Silverlight is offered through Microsoft Update.

Maybe I've missed those posts. Or maybe it isn't just fear of competition.

I think it's that, for once, Apple got it wrong and Microsoft got it right. Sure, it's a man bites dog story, which is part of why it's gotten so much attention.

Hmm. I just let Safari install. And you know what? It sat there, completely harmless. It didn't set itself as the default browser. It didn't automatically run. It simply sat there.

Oh, what a huge security risk that was! What a huge loss in trust! Blah, blah, blah.

So, anyway, my next step was to download Firefox. And guess what? The first step of that was to run a custom executable! Oh my! Of course, the Firefox installer can do whatever it likes at this point.

Then I got through the Firefox installer. And right there, a checkbox, defaulted to on: Launch Firefox now.

Next step: Import from Microsoft Internet Explorer? No. Stay out of my data. Oh, look! The default is also on.

Next step: Change your homepage? No, stay out of my settings. Oh, look! The default is also on.

Click a couple times, and Firefox is asking me if it should become my default browser. Oh, look! The default answer is YES.

Fix your own defaults first.

@Andy, I've heard people mention this before, but I don't recall ever seeing, much less having to uncheck, an "Install Google Toolbar" box when updating Java. This is running the auto-updater on several Windows 2000 and XP machines. Are you doing something different from me, or has my subconscious been unchecking the box every time without it even registering in my brain?

The most I remember is seeing an offer on the JRE installer (not the auto-update) to download OpenOffice, but it was something where if you just kept clicking Next it would leave it behind. I don't even remember whether there was anything to click on, or whether it was just an ad early in the wizard.

@andrew, you said "Yes, I am sure that Mozilla Firefox would never sink to these levels (sarcasm)." so am I to assume you think that Appple has sunk to some level here?

@Just in D, If you're not going to accept Firefox security updates, I recommend you switch to a browser whose security updates you will accept. You're not only taking serious risks with your own data by running a browser that's out of date, but you're potentially contributing to the spam and malware epidemic if your machine is compromised. Security updates are not meant to be easily dismissed. (Though you can turn them off from your Firefox preferences.) That's a very different thing from new software installs.

@Tim F. I just disagree. When a user installs a new browser or a new media player, (or a new image editing package or a dvd player or just about any program) the expectation for the overwhelming majority of people is that the new program will be invoked when the user goes to open a set of file types or protocols. It cannot do that if it isn't registered with the OS to handle that set of file types or protocols.

When a user installs a browser or a media player, it is not the expectation of the overwhelming majority of people that when it updates it will default to installing entirely new programs on their machine.

The checkbox direction should not be motivated by politics or revenue or any other outside factor. It should be motivated by "what does the user expect from this interaction."

I didn't install iTunes so that WMP could continue opening all of my mp3 files. It's really just a matter of figuring out what the real user expectation is for the transaction.

You said, "I think you only disagree because one practice your company doesn't do and the other it does do. " I can say that without a doubt if Firefox becomes a platform for advertising other Mozilla programs (something we're doing in a slightly different way with add-ons) that it won't be checking the options by default. When you open Firefox 3's add-ons manager today and the initial view displays a handful of recommended add-ons, none of them are going to be installed without an explicit opt-in.

@Brandon, see above for my addressing the default browser checkbox.

@Andy, I've never installed Java so I hadn't seen the opt out Google Toolbar but let me say here and now and on the record, I denounce that behavior 100%. Opt out installs for items that the user didn't request or didn't have a reasonable expectation of getting are wrong. Also, while you can close Safari, what about those folks that didn't notice their QuickTime updater just gave them a new background networking service (Bonjour) when they accidentally installed Safari?

@Kelson, you're absolutely right. This isn't about market share, revenue, or competition. This is about (though less so since Apple's improved things somewhat) doing the right thing by users and not making the software acquisition, install and update process even more confusing than it has to be in order to eek out a few extra installs. Labeling an entirely new program as an update to an existing program, including it, checked by default, with critical security updates for an installed program, is just plain wrong.

@Steven Fisher, you said "Oh, what a huge security risk that was!" Actually, as I said above, for people that didn't agree to and didn't already have Bonjour installed and running full-time as a background system process, this does increase their security attack surface. Now they have to worry about potential security holes in a new networking service running on their machine (if they notice it at all). Not to mention the much less severe, but no less annoying "one more system process running in the background on my machine."

If you're in the tiny, tiny minority of people who install a new Web browser and don't want to actually use that Web browser for, you know, browsing the Web, yes, you have a few more boxes to un-tick. But that's not the common case and Firefox is optimized for the common case and to meet user expectations. Apple's Software Update service was not optimized for the common case and to meet user expectations. There's a difference here that you are either simply failing to understand or that you're willfully ignoring because it doesn't suit your argument.

Ignoring user expectations and how they relate to the actual user interaction and software transaction, the whole point of this entire kerfuffle, makes it easy to construct all kinds of wild arguments that sound real good, but it's a dishonest kind of debate and one I'm not really interested in pursuing much further.

- A

That giant sucking sound is Firefox losing marketshare.

Heh, missed one.

@Stephen Washburn, you said "If was left un-checked people would complain that they had tried to download the update 10 times and it never worked (when in reality they just hadn't marked the checkbox)."

Actually, no. Most users do not have an expectation that along with updating existing software to fix critical security bugs (which reasonably should be checked by default) that new software will be installed. The _update_ is and should be checked by default. That's not what I'm arguing against. It's the "new software I didn't ask for" that should not be checked by default. If I want it, then I'll ask for it by checking the box. If I don't want to keep my computer secure, protecting my self and the rest of the Web, I can jump through a couple of extra hoops. They're just two very different examples with entirely different expectations and outcomes.

As for me wanting it to be harder to install competing software, that's just not the case. I work for Mozilla because I want computing and the Internet to suck less and to be easier for the hundreds of millions of people for whom it's difficult or impossible today. If that wasn't my goal, if my goal was seeing lots of people use my personally favorite product, I'd be somewhere else making a lot more money.

Here's an example of what I mean. I wish that Microsoft would have made IE 7 a critical security update to IE 6 and moved every single user they had from IE 6 to IE 7 because it has security features unavailable in 6. The benefits would have been two-fold. First, users would be more secure (their own personal data and credentials would be safer and they'd be less likely to be an unwitting participant in a botnet spreading spam or malware) and that would be a great thing. Second, there'd be one less non-standard browser out there that the entire Web development community has to waste billions of dollars in manpower supporting.

Unfortunately, Microsoft wanted to use IE 7 to try to get more people upgraded to Vista and to police pirated installs so they made it difficult for millions of XP users to get it and now we have an even more fragmented browser marked which increases the security and support matrix for Microsoft, for users, and for Web and application developers. That's bad for the Web and that's bad for computing in general.

Microsoft is Mozilla's only real competition on the Web today and I'd be thrilled to see their users having a much easier time moving from IE 5 and 6 to IE 7 (and all of them, please God, move to IE 8 the minute it's released.)

- A

With Firefox getting slower and slower and sloooower, I don't mind Apple (or Opera) pushing new and more reliable software.

Oooh, missed another.

@Garret, you said "Forgetting the companies and competition involved here, and speaking as a developer, this is exactly the kind of user I don't want."

I'm really confused by that statement. You're saying that if you produce a piece of software I like (perhaps even love) that you don't want me as a user if I don't also want some or all of your other software products advertising themselves to me at regular intervals? Am I misunderstanding you here?

Sofware producers should only cater to users who are willing to accept whatever the software producer wants to throw at them? What's the lesson you're suggesting we take away from your comment? I'm genuinely confused by your comment and would love it if you'd reply with a few more words on what you mean.

Or maybe your comment is spot on but you misunderstood me. To clear it up, and put the previous hypothetical into more concrete terms, I like (perhaps even love) iTunes. I use it for my several iPods, for playing lots of local MP3s, for making regular purchases at the iTMS, and even for playing CDs.

But I don't like dealing with an advertisement for Safari popping up every time iTunes needs a security update. I would accept that advertisement, though, because I like iTunes that much, and enjoy being able to keep it secure with critical security updates, if it wasn't an opt-out install.

See, I can keep iTunes up to date two ways. I can leave the Apple Software updater on my system and when it throws that pop-up, I can curse at the advertisment, uncheck the box next to Safari, then click OK.

Alternatively, I can be a little less safe and just grab the new version of iTunes from Apple.com when I hear it's been released and not have to worry about the advertisment or the occasional problem with the updater failing and requiring a full install anyway (about 1/3rd of the time, in my experience)

If Apple defaulted to the box unchecked, or preserved my unchecked state each time that iTunes update happened, I'd opt for the first mechanism for keeping iTunes safe and secure. But, because they don't, I've decided that I'm going to update my iTunes manually and avoid the confusing and annoying ASU service.

So, I like (maybe even love) iTunes. And by your argument, Apple shouldn't want me as a customer because I don't like Safari or the Apple Software Update service making me un-check the Safari box every time my iTunes needs an update. Am I getting your meaning here? Apple shouldn't want me purchasing a 2 new iPods from them every year? They shouldn't want my family purchasing hundreds of dollars of new music and movies from the iTMS each year?

Can you see where I'm confused by your statement?

- A

@Mark Miller, contrary to your claim, Firefox market share has been growing at a consistent pace for nearly it's entire lifetime and has been showing a rather pronounced uptick in growth over the last 6 months or so.

We're seeing approximately 700,000 downloads each day and we're over 160 million Firefox 2 users accounting for about 20% of the global internet usage.

But, in case you weren't aware, Mozilla is a public-benefit organization with a mission to promote choice (yes, promote choice) innovation, and participation on the Internet; so Firefox market share, isolated from that mission, isn't really very interesting.

It happens to be a great mechanism to promote our mission, probably the best lever we have to move that dial today, but there are lots of other ways that Mozilla is working to promote choice, innovation and participation and I can't see any of our activities, including spreading Firefox, being in conflict with more browser vendors gaining more market share at the expense of what was a Microsoft exclusive monopoly until Firefox came along.

- A

About 3/4 of those authors of the links don't agree" with you. They merely stated that the items are checked by default, and didn't pass judgement upon whether that's good or bad.

@Gomi said "With Firefox getting slower and slower and sloooower, I don't mind Apple (or Opera) pushing new and more reliable software."

Firefox 3 is actually quite fast. Unless Safari ships an update with serious performance work and unless Opera 9.5 gets a lot faster and ships really quick, Firefox 3 will be the fastest shipping browser, based on Apple's own SunSpider JS performance tests, when it ships in about a month.

In addition to that, Firefox is still well ahead of Safari and Opera in web compatibility (though trailing IE 6,) and based on the testing we've done it looks like Firefox will also be the most memory efficient browser shipping this year. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartp/2328802961/

But, Gomi, your point is an excellent one. Competition is awesome. Remember when there was only IE 5 and 6? That was from early 1999 through 2001, when Microsoft dissolved the IE team, until Firefox started to make a dent in 2005. What a long and painful period of no competition, no innovation, no choice.

Now we have IE 7, Firefox (almost) 3, Opera 9.x, and Safari 3.1 all competing and offering users a choice while improving the entire Web landscape and taking on some of the biggest security challenges with features like EV Certificates, Phishing Protection, Malware Protection, and a couple of really functional security update systems that are saving literally hundreds of millions of users from virus/trojan/worm/other nasty infestations.

Competition rocks! We should all be competing to be the fastest, most stable, most secure, most efficient, most compatible, most powerful user experiences possible and we should all be pushing each other on every one of those items. And we are!! Cool, huh? Competition is good.

You do make an excellent point. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

- A

@jimothy (really? jimothy spitzer?)

Yeah, some are neutral and others are in strong agreement. Making links is hard, I've got a bunch more to add that will further the skew that's supportive :-)

- A

"Go further"

Why? Firefox gets pushed down my throat when I download so many software packages. How about you guys don't push Firefox with google desktop!/

Jeez, does anyone associated with Mozilla/Firefox do anything OTHER than bitch incessantly nowadays?

@Andy
"Is leaving the checkbox checked any worse than Sun having Google products automatically checked during Java updates?

I don't hear any screaming about Google Toolbar being installed because someone didn't notice they had something new to uncheck... at least you can close Safari, Toolbar just eats your system resources up..."

No, you're never going to hear any complaining from Asa about that, since Google funnels massive amounts of revenue to the Mozilla foundation. We wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds us, would we. BTW, Apple has the same relationship with Google, and I'm none too pleased about it either.

"When a user installs a new browser or a new media player, (or a new image editing package or a dvd player or just about any program) the expectation for the overwhelming majority of people is that the new program will be invoked when the user goes to open a set of file types or protocols."

I cannot in any way believe you actually believe this. I have VLC, Quicktime, Real Player, DivX player and 3 other apps that can play most media files, that doesn't mean I want the last one I installed to play every filetype it can play. I have Camino, Firefox, Safari, and Opera as web browsers, I didn't install the last one to be my default browser. Admit it, you worked yourself into a hole. You did not disagree with the idea that, according to you, this is deceptive, you went with: this is desired. That's an absurd rationalization.

You have a notion of how an updater app should work. I and others have already expressed the sentiment that Firefox's behaves undesirably: you have no choice. Even if you postpone it, on relaunch it will invoke automatically -- no choice. Zero. This you think is laudable.

You've chosen to make Apple's choice a crusade. I won't make the connection to being concerned about Safari rising as a legitimate rival on Windows, but the fact remains... if you wanted to choose a crusade, it should have been 5 years ago and it should have involved Quicktime installing a systray object and so on. Or the pairing of iTunes with Quicktime via the Software Updater. A checked box next to Safari is not a legitimate beef.

I would seriously hope there is real discussion about Firefox FORCING -- and rarely do I think that word is used legitimately, but in this case it is true -- updates. WHY? Because I shouldn't be able to review and judge updates? You've chosen what is best for me? All updater software should operate exclusively for security purposes and should be applied without user intervention? Hell no!

Rather than moaning about a practice by Apple that pales in comparison to other practices by them that have been in place for years (QT installs with an icon on desktop, systray, (and sometimes unnecessary services)), this should be an opportunity to discuss Mozilla's practices as well. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that from you whatsoever. So, even though I won't mention it, yes, it does cause, for me, cynical thoughts about your motivation.

Darby, Firefox doesn't ship a browser with the Google Toolbar and because apparently you didn't read any of the comments above, I'll repeat myself:

@Andy, I've never installed Java so I hadn't seen the opt out Google Toolbar but let me say here and now and on the record, I denounce that behavior 100%. Opt out installs for items that the user didn't request or didn't have a reasonable expectation of getting are wrong.

Nope, you're never going to hear me complaining about the Google Toolbar. You certainly won't hear me denouncing opt out installs of the Google Toolbar just 6 inches up the page.

Try harder next time. Thanks.

- A

@Tim F, you said "I have VLC, Quicktime, Real Player, DivX player and 3 other apps that can play most media files....have Camino, Firefox, Safari, and Opera as web browsers"

I think that makes my point even more clearly than I had before. Thanks. You're a minority case, an extreme minority case and software vendors absolutely should not be setting their defaults for your use case at the expense of the ridiculously larger audience out there who aren't overloaded with overlapping programs like you.

Most people don't have 7 or more media players installed and in use. Most have 1 media player they use regularly and a decent minority might have two if you split audio and video. When it comes to browsers, most people use one browser as their primary browser and a decent minority might go to a secondary browser on the rare occasion that a page doesn't work in their primary.

Your use case is not at all representative of any significant number of computer users and it certainly shouldn't be the measure for desktop software vendors. You and I and very nearly everyone even paying attention to this Apple Software Update issue are far from "normal" and building products to satisfy this audience would most likely make them completely unusable or extremely difficult to the other 99% of the computer using population.

Thanks for reminding me about how out of the norm we all are. It really reinforces how much worse this Apple Software Update confusion is for "normal" people who aren't running half a dozen media players and a large handful of browsers.

- A

"Can you see where I'm confused by your statement?"

No, I can't. Should we really care that you really do love Apple and are probably blowing smoke? Sorry, I don't. Apple won't miss you, individually, as a customer if you need to make such a crusade that you no longer purchase products you love. Should we care that if you wanted to continue that love that a few times a year you'd have to take a half a second to uncheck a box? Because I don't. Because let's be honest, that's all it takes -- a few brain cells and half a second.

That's what Garrett meant: who wants a user without the few brain cells to be patient enough to consider what they are clicking on? I would imagine the time you've wasted on this issue already equals the amount of labor and effort that will be required of 5 years of Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari updates.

Seriously? I'm the rarity so that makes your absurd rationalization okay? Am I really supposed to believe that most users don't have more than one app capable of playing/opening a particular filetype? Am I really supposed to believe that most users intend for the last application installed to be the default? That's just quite simply stupid. You don't have to take my case of 7 apps. You just have to consider the fact that almost every one has overlapping applications. Hell, whether or not any user has more than one browser, you support browser competition, right? You'd like to see people testing multiple browsers, right?

"You and I and very nearly everyone even paying attention to this Apple Software Update issue are far from "normal" and building products to satisfy this audience would most likely make them completely unusable or extremely difficult to the other 99% of the computer using population."

So you admit that 99% of the population could give a shit and won't even care, but you're still pounding away at your keyboard as if this is a serious issue to anyone but yourself and your corporation's CEO?

By the way, I'd like to be clear: did you, essentially, agree that it is improper, according to your logic, for any software to default to selecting itself as the default application when you support competition in the marketplace? It sounded like you did, but then you dismissed me as the rarity or something. My follow up question is: do you think Firefox is actually being installed on any system without a browser, and do you really assume that that installation implies the user wants to be the default?

Oh, and bringing up worse Apple offenses, ones that I wasn't "lucky" enough to have been exposed to (having been a longtime user of both iTunes and Quicktime -- so the cross-promotion there never happened to me) doesn't really make a very good case for why I shouldn't care about the case I did run into.

Also, if you think this is me crusading, then you're clearly unfamiliar with me or my work over the last decade.

I've made three blog posts about this issue. Compare that with my real crusade, 10 years of working on an open source free software project to promote choice, innovation, and participation on the web, and I don't think there's really anything to talk about.

I made three blog posts about this issue, here, here and this one. That's three posts and about 600 words.

This blog turned 6 years old last week. I've made 2,700 posts totaling over 400,000 words that were not about Apple in that time. If you wanna find a crusade here at my blog, perhaps you'd spend a moment and actually look things over. You might find one, but it's not gonna be about Apple.

- A

Tim F., you're being obtuse.

I didn't say that most people had, installed, zero or one program for media or browsing. I said that most people _use_ one program and offered up that some potentially significant minority _use_ two programs, particularly where the functions are actually quite different like in audio and video.

I'm not going to continue to argue against the words you're putting in my mouth. If you'd like to quote something I've said directly and ask me for a clarification or to defend it in some particular way, feel free, but asking me to defend things I didn't say is just lame.

- A

From Asa:

"..Mozilla is a public-benefit organization with a mission to promote choice (yes, promote choice) innovation, and participation on the Internet..."

Hilarious. Do you really believe that?

From Justin D:

I launch Firefox.
-> Firefox says "Hey, there's a Firefox update! Do you want to install it?"
-> I click in the negative. (Didn't notice if there were any checkboxes.)
-> Firefox says "OK no problem, we'll install them the next time you launch Firefox."
-> I'm like, what? Hopefully I'll just be able to decline the install on next launch.
-> Launch Firefox again.
-> Firefox says "Hold up, I'm installing those updates, remember?"
-> I'm like, screw you, I need my browser now, not after you do the crap that I didn't want you to do. Dammit!

The hypocrisy is so thick, you can choke on it.

I installed Safari on WIndows and have never been so pleased with a such a simple and innovative experience.

You still have a lot to learn, pal.

"If you'd like to quote something I've said directly and ask me for a clarification or to defend it in some particular way, feel free, but asking me to defend things I didn't say is just lame."

Well, I'm going to paraphrase, but I don't think I'm wrong: you said most users either have only one application for a particular purpose or always intend for their last update to be their primary use therefore it's okay to use the deceptive practice of checking a box. No?

Meh, I don't care about your answer to that question. Do you think it's okay that Mozilla derives revenue from bundling opportunities where the user may not be aware that Firefox or other applications may be installed? Do you really rationalize all of Firefox's usages of checked boxes as: the user really, really wants it that way? Do you really think it's best that, even for security purposes, Firefox updates are unavoidable and automatic? Shouldn't we be having some self-reflection?

@Tim F.

"you said most users either have only one application for a particular purpose or always intend for their last update to be their primary use therefore it's okay to use the deceptive practice of checking a box. No?"

Nope. I didn't say that.

"Do you think it's okay that Mozilla derives revenue from bundling opportunities where the user may not be aware that Firefox or other applications may be installed?"

Mozilla doesn't derive revenue from bundling opportunities where the user may not be aware that Firefox or other applications may be installed. Mozilla's revenue comes from the Firefox builds you downoad from mozilla.com and there is no bundling going on there.

"Do you really rationalize all of Firefox's usages of checked boxes as: the user really, really wants it that way?"

I don't understand that question. I've argued that software makers should optimize for the most common use cases and with a focus on user expectations for those use cases.

"Do you really think it's best that, even for security purposes, Firefox updates are unavoidable and automatic?"

They're not unavoidable. See Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Updates.

They are "automatic" assuming that users don't change their settings. I do think this is the best thing, explicitly and specifically for security purposes.

I do not think it would be the best thing for non-security issues.

I support Microsoft's automatic security updates completely and hope that more software providers move to automatic security update systems. Individual users need the protection and a healthy Internet computing ecosystem depends on it. No computer is an island and the overwhelming majority of spam and malware is a direct result of software security not being maintained.

"Shouldn't we be having some self-reflection?"

Always. Mozilla is an open source project with tens of thousands of significant contributors all over the world building software and advancing the state of the Internet for a public benefit mission. As a group and as individuals I believe we are more contemplative of this mission and self-reflective on tactics and strategy than any other organization in the world shipping software at the scale we are.

I don't need for you to believe that but it is a key factor in why I've been working on this project for the better part of a decade and what keeps me here when there are many much more lucrative opportunities in more traditional "win at any cost" organizations.

I believe that the same is true for the overwhelming majority of people being paid to work on Mozilla and that our mission and the attitudes and values of the people driving that mission are why we've got tens of thousands of contributors all across the globe putting in considerable effort and delivering software to a larger consumer audience than any open source initiative in the history of computing.

We're succeeding exactly because we're not a "win at any cost, screw the user -- it's all about market share and revenue" organization. We're succeeding because we are committed to making computing and the Internet more useful, safer, more participatory, and more fun -- even if that be at the expense of winning or at the expense of market share or at the expense of revenue.

- A

"Mozilla's revenue comes from the Firefox builds you downoad from mozilla.com and there is no bundling going on there."

Do you really think that I'm so misinformed to actually believe this? Most of Mozilla's revenue comes from search agreements with Google and via partner bundling. Saying revenue comes from "builds you downoad" is a non-answer, one Bill Clinton would be proud of.

"I've argued that software makers should optimize for the most common use cases and with a focus on user expectations for those use cases."

You haven't argued that. You've argued that you know what's best for Apple and they should abide by what you say.

Otherwise, it's quite easy to arrive at: Apple has decided that anyone using any of their software may be interested in using other software they create and that's fair game if that's the use case they want to target. No?

By the way, do you really think you side-stepped the question of whether or not it's fair for Mozilla to presume it should be the default browser just because it's the latest browser to be installed?

"They're not unavoidable."

Thanks, good to learn. Not unavoidable, just pre-configured to be automatic and then buried under several layers of menus. Worse than or equal to a checked checkbox?

"I do think this is the best thing, explicitly and specifically for security purposes."

Thanks for deciding what is best for ME, but I thought you were all about user choice.

"As a group and as individuals I believe we are more contemplative of this mission and self-reflective on tactics and strategy than any other organization in the world shipping software at the scale we are."

So does that mean that you are wiling to consider unchecking Firefox as the default browser upon installation and will champion that cause within Mozilla or will you thinly pretend to not understand that question and/or pretend that in the "use case" scenario everyone wants FF to be the default and wouldn't rather start from the position of not having any pre-existing defaults altered?

Asa, either you didn't address it or I missed where you did, but I'd like you to explain why "Make this my default browser" being checked is ok, but "install this app" is not. Given that the first actively changes the behavior of how my computer works, while the second doesn't I'm personally more bothered by the first behavior. I'm sorry, but like lots of other people here I get the feeling this is a turf war more than an actual issue worth raising a ruckus about. If you are willing to state that you ALSO disagree with having the browser default check box checked on your own product I will accept that you are arguing against that type of behavior in general.

Oh, and while your at it, could you pass along this suggestion to the appropriate:
For the password remember dialogue box that pops up, the options are Yes and Cancel. They should be Yes and No, becuase the question is "Do you want Firefox to remember this password". I can't recall if the don't ask again box is checked by default on that one...

"Do you really think that I'm so misinformed to actually believe this? Most of Mozilla's revenue comes from search agreements with Google and via partner bundling."

Um, I guess I could have been more clear. Mozilla's revenue comes from the traffic generated by the builds of Firefox downloaded from mozilla.com. And no, partner bundling is not a significant revenue source for Mozilla. Mozilla's revenue comes from its search partners included in the builds of Firefox downloaded from mozilla.com.

"You've argued that you know what's best for Apple and they should abide by what you say."

Nowhere have I argued that it's best for Apple. I'm not terribly concerned about what's best for Apple. I've argued that it's best for users. There's a big difference there and you're putting words into my mouth again to avoid responding to what I actually said.

"By the way, do you really think you side-stepped the question of whether or not it's fair for Mozilla to presume it should be the default browser just because it's the latest browser to be installed?"

I didn't think anything of the sort. You're really good at inserting words and motives into other people's mouths and minds. To answer that question, I do believe that the majority of people who seek out, download and install Firefox intend to make Firefox their browser. I wouldn't object to moving the dialog to the end of the first run experience rather than the beginning so that the users who aren't sure yet could use the browser for a session before making that decision. If enough other people making Mozilla happen agree, it will probably happen. I didn't say, so don't go putting words in my mouth yet again, that it was the the case for every user, just the case for the largest group of users and it's certainly not out of line with the expectation of most users.

"Thanks, good to learn. Not unavoidable, just pre-configured to be automatic and then buried under several layers of menus. Worse than or equal to a checked checkbox?"

Apples to oranges or oranges to apples? I made it very clear and I doubt there's much dispute in the software industry and among software users that installing new software and applying patches to critical security vulnerabilities in software that's already installed and being uses are two very different things. That such a simple concept is either outside of your grasp, or that you're not willing to honestly engage on that point, continues to points to the uselessness and wastefulness of this debate.

You continue to put words in my mouth that I didn't say (or type) and you continue to attribute motives to me without even a cursory knowledge of my relevant history and involvement with just the sorts of issues being discussed and you refuse to even respond to the most basic premises of the debate like the difference between bits of user interface in a critical security update for installed and in use internet-connected software and never installed and unrequested software. Unless you can discuss these issues less dishonestly, I really don't see what either of us or others reading this will benefit.

"Thanks for deciding what is best for ME, but I thought you were all about user choice."

No one's decided what's best for you. Mozilla has decided what's best for the largest number of its users in the most common use cases and with careful regard to users' expectations around those use cases.

There will always be exceptions, sometimes many of them, and you, the exception, are free and able to decide differently than the default.

- A

"There will always be exceptions, sometimes many of them, and you, the exception, are free and able to decide differently than the default."

By unchecking the box?

It seems I've discovered this discussion a little late! But anyway, I'm a complete Apple fanboy, and I love almost everything they do. That doesn't stop me, however, from being subjective. For example, although a 2G internet phone might be acceptable in the US, here in Europe for something like the iPhone not to have 3G is just silly, so I don't yet have one.

I also disagree with Apple's decision to have Safari come in with other software updates, but not to the point where I'll cast aspersions upon Apple, Mozilla, or anyone else! I like Safari a lot, and use it in Mac OS X, but I use Firefox for occasional browsing on Windows because Safari for Windows confuses Parallels' Coherence feature, and also because it's just plain confusing. The recent modification of Software Update for Windows makes it infinity times clearer that Safari is something the user doesn't already have installed, because before it was completely unclear.

It seems that there is some effort here to imply that Firefox's software update mechanism is somehow broken, just as bad as Apple's, or maybe even malicious. How I see it, this couldn't be further from the truth. A lot of people who use the internet, and more specifically web browsers, aren't exactly savvy to security issues. My mum, for example, uses Firefox quite a bit, but won't install updates - if she gets asked to she'll deny it and call me. Or rather, she'll mean to call me, and a lot of the time it'll be a few weeks before I hear about it. Pretty much the only thing she'll allow to update itself, if it asks, is a virus scanner.

I think that needs a bit of explanation, to not make me or her sound like complete idiots. When normal families first started getting the internet at home, things were much safer than they are now, in the public perception. We used Windows 95 and IE3 IIRC, and I think we had AOL. By today's standards, all horribly old, insecure, incompatible pieces of software and I think I would just die if I saw such a system in use today. We didn't have antivirus,