A Translation of "Apple's Windows Invasion"

A translation from Windows-speak of selected portions of "Apple's Windows Invasion":

News Analysis. Apple Software Update is the Mac maker's back door to the Windows desktop.

Apple have been trying to get in the front door for ages, and now, like evil hackers, they're using back doors. I don't choose these phrases lightly, you know.

The Apple updater offered installation of new software, not something that had been there before. Whoa.

This is clearly some amazing level of technology I have never seen before!

Apple distributes its software updater with iTunes. Adobe is among the other developers that also distribute software updaters with some products.

Other developers, you say? Like who?

But Apple has taken an interesting approach: using its updater as a Trojan horse for promoting software not already installed on the Windows PC.

Who else would do this? Google? Microsoft? But I'm not going to mention those, especially the latter. I wouldn't want to have to mention the way the Windows Live Messenger installer offers to install Windows Live Writer, Windows Live Photo Gallery, or the Windows Live Kitchen Sink, would I?

I mean, it looks like Apple are behaving just like every other developer on the platform, but I can't say that if I want to get my page views up.

Apple's approach is atypical. For example, I use Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox on my Vista PC. Mozilla's software updater automatically downloads Firefox updates, but it doesn't prompt me to download Thunderbird, which isn't on the laptop.

I'm pretending not to remember Mozilla's long journey away from Netscape's obsession with bundling everything with Navigator, and I'm certainly not going to mention that Firefox is a not-for-profit, unlike Apple.

The strategy of using the updater to deliver other Apple software is an aggressive encroachment into the Windows desktop. It's smart business, but is it good for enterprises?

Yes, never mind consumers, what about enterprises? I can truly think like Microsoft!

There are reasons why IT organizations use tools like WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) to control and manage software updates. But what about rogue updaters that come with products like Adobe Reader, Firefox or iTunes?

Rogue updaters, running around, scrumping apples. Get them off my lawn.

Policies can be set to restrict new software installation, but not every IT organization uses them. And where should that line be drawn? It's one thing to let employees install iTunes and something else for Apple Software Update to offer another Web browser.

It's OK to let your employees listen to music, but woe betide they have another browser.

Enterprises should be concerned about rogue browser installations, for reasons I shouldn't have to state. Safari is fairly new to Windows and has yet to really show that it has can muster the security to withstand the associated attacks.

Unlike Internet Explorer, whose security record is very well known indeed.

Mac OS X is a quaint neighborhood where little Safari was safe. By comparison, Windows is a gang-ridden ghetto: life is survival, and it's tough going.

I'm really selling Windows here, don't worry.

Apple has plenty of reasons for pushing out Safari to Windows users:

Google is Safari's default search provider, and Google pays. There's good money to be made in search.

Unless you're running MSN. (Oops, shouldn't have said that.)

Apple's iTunes software uses Safari as the browsing engine.

I'm sure it does, despite iTunes predating Safari. I mean, it wouldn't make any sense for Apple to have another specific browser engine for something that's not even HTML, would it?

There are hidden PC-to-iPhone and iPod Touch synchronization benefits and obvious iPhone SDK benefits with Safari on the computer.

Hidden benefits, like bookmark syncing. Very well hidden. Let's not mention that, unlike Internet Explorer Mobile, the iPhone will sync with a competing browser. As for the iPhone SDK, I'm talking about the one that involves writing web pages, not the real one, because that's not even available on Windows.

Additional software further propagates the Apple brand.

Just like the aforementioned Windows Live™ installer.

Apple one-ups Microsoft with a presumably more standards-compliant browser than the Internet Explorer 8 beta.

Presumably? I am high as a kite.

I'll selectively call out the last point. Microsoft brags about improved CSS support and limited HTML 5 support in IE 8, which won't likely be released until next year (yeah, that's the timing I got from Microsoft). Apple claims support for CSS animations, HTML 5 multimedia and Web fonts. Today. Not someday. And it's available without asking.

Wait, if I say all of this, why did I say "presumably" not "measurably"? I need another cup of coffee before I finish this.

Microsoft talks about software plus services. Looks to me like Apple is using a service to push software deep into Microsoft-controlled territory.

Yes, using a software updater to offer another application is exactly like Messenger being crapped up with ads, or having to pay a fee every year to use a product.

Enterprises should worry about other developers adopting this kind of practice. But as a competitive tactic, Apple is wisely leveraging its limited resources.

I know why Apple do this, as do you, but I'm going to write this anyway, because those poor little enterprises need help in being convinced this is all a nasty attack on their precious IT staff.