4 posts from March 2008

When I first thought about writing a translation of the Apple's Windows Invasion piece by Joe Wilcox, it was Thursday morning, and nobody else seemed to be overly bothered about the details of the updater; John Gruber, for example, where I first saw the piece, merely linked to it saying, effectively, "well, that's interesting". However, on Friday morning, there was a bit more commentary, so I decided to put something out; well, it was a bank holiday, and it was quiet; why not?

As the day went on, there actually seemed to be a bit of a storm (admittedly, one in a small teacup, sized about the same as the overlap between iTunes and Windows users) growing about the feature. A fisking is more set out to tear down than to build up, and I've had time to think about it, so here's some further thoughts on the subject.

Were you trying to make any points with that post?

Firstly: Microsoft, and others, either push software through their updaters, or have updaters that are otherwise rubbish. Secondly: I just boggled at the line "Apple one-ups Microsoft with a presumably more standards-compliant browser than the Internet Explorer 8 beta" - has Wilcox never seen an acid test? However, even that was nothing compared to the arguments that Safari may be insecure, when IE 6 certainly was.

Generally, I thought the piece was far more alarmist than it needed to be.

Do you actually approve of Apple having their own software updater?

Not really. In an ideal fluffy happy kitten world, Windows and Mac OS X would have an open infrastucture for software updates, where applications could all use the system's libraries to pull down upgrades when needed. Nobody would have an excuse for an updater like Adobe's, which can't seem to manage what Apple call "combo updates" (want to take Acrobat from 7.0.1 to 7.0.9? Well, please install 7.0.5, reboot, 7.0.8, reboot...), and Mac users wouldn't have fifteen applications bundling (sometimes outdated) copies of Sparkle.

Of course, this could go horribly wrong (see the proposed iPhone app store), and as Mark Pilgrim points out, Linux has this sorted out already. Also, note I said "open infrastructure" - I'm not exactly keen to have every app have to pass through Apple or Microsoft before you were able to distribute it.

As it is, we do not live in an ideal world, and I'd rather have apps that were up to date than ones that weren't.

Would it make a difference is the checkbox for Safari were off by default instead?

I'd already installed Safari 3 betas on my Windows machine, so I didn't realise that the 3.1 update I was being offered was either being pimped to people who only had iTunes, nor that it was enabled by default. I don't have a problem with the first: I know that real people don't know about software releases the way the Twitterati do.

However, I think I do agree with the critics of the decision to install Safari by default, even if, as Tom said in the comment on my piece, it makes Apple just like everyone else in the Windows world. Boot Camp doesn't install crapware, for example (although apparently it does install the software updater we're all talking about), and Macs don't come with Intel Inside stickers. It would be nice for Apple to be able to take the moral high ground on updaters, too.

Anyway, for all the hullabaloo about Google search kickbacks, what good are they if nobody ever uses your app? There's a saying to do with honey and bees - or is it bears - which, if I could remember it, would be appropriate here.

So the iTunes+QuickTime bundling is bad, too?

Actually, no, I don't think it is. If you don't have QuickTime installed, video previews, and more importantly, video downloads, don't work. I think Apple is justified in bundling the two to a single download. The same goes for the background processes that make the iPod work on Windows; not installing those would be lead to an incredibly bad user experience.

One thing I've seen mentioned that also annoys me, though, is the way the stupid tray icon for QuickTime is reinstalled every damned time you update the library. There's no good reason for it to overwrite its preferences every time, and I wish it would stop doing so.

Did you realise that comments on your translation post were disabled?

Not until I posted this, and double-checked the sharing settings, no. I imagine this post means that there's not much more that people want to say, but you never know. Comments are now fixed for Vox members on both this and the previous post. (Oops.)

When is Easter next year?

Sunday 12th April, which should at least mean it isn't snowing outside.

Does this mean you're done wittering?

Yes. Shoo.

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.

Today, John Gruber linked to the just-out-of-beta video site, Hulu. Paid for by NBC and Fox, it allows you to catch up on TV shows online, via a Flash-based video widget that can be embedded on your own site. The videos are pretty good quality, and there's a good selection. Unfortunately, 95% of the world's population can't really use Hulu. Sure, they can browse it, and see what's there, but when you get to a video, it displays a message saying "this video is currently not available in your region". (The link was updated while I was writing this post to note that very fact, but I've seen other commentary which blithely ignores it.)

Sometimes the boot is on the other foot. Last year, the BBC launched iPlayer, a video site paid for by the BBC that allows you to catch up on TV shows online, via a Flash-based video widget that can be embedded on your own site (sounds familiar, huh?) Of course, just like Hulu, it uses geolocation on IP addresses to limit the people who can use it; only UK users can watch video. The fact that there's a very good reason for this (almost everyone in the UK pays the TV licence fee; nobody outside it does) doesn't stop commenters (and even authors) from whining about it almost every time it's mentioned. (To be fair, the comments on that particular post are pretty smart.)

In fact, over the last week, there's been a nice old flap about the fact that the just-launched iPlayer for iPhone (take that, Hulu!) was (ab)used to allow the download of non-DRMed movies to computers. I'm somewhat surprised at how little attention this got from the (American) Mac blogging community. For example, Ars Technica covered it the day after the Telegraph. The Telegraph, I ask you! (For the latest, Ashley Highfield's blog post is worth a read; apparently 3% of iPlayer viewers are using an iPhone or iPod touch. Impressive.)

To be clear, I don't have much of a problem with the fact that Hulu is US only, or with the fact that iPlayer is UK only; I realise there are commercial pressures and that, although the Internet goes everywhere, products don't. (Just like most geeks, I wish they did, but I also wish that I could eat chocolate cake every meal without getting fat, but that's not going to happen either.*) My problem is with people assuming that, just because something is available to them, it's available to everyone they care about.

Mind you, I did have a bit of a think about the issue of region locking this week. Firstly, a commenter on a picture of Hulu said that censorship sucks, but then, I don't see it as censorship. Secondly, I read a post about the increasing filtering of YouTube videos by geolocation. It mentions that taking YouTube down tends to get noticed (part of the Cute Cat theory- if you haven't read that writeup of a talk from Etech, you really should), so countries are now asking Google to filter particular videos for their countries, and it seems as if, faced with a ban on one hand or allowing censorship on the other, Google are sometimes doing as those regimes want.

Notice that I'm happy to call what YouTube are doing censorship. What's the difference, then? I think it's the fact that YouTube was built as a global video site; anyone could see anything. Specifically blocking particular videos for a particular location, at a government's request, is out of the ordinary, and "censorship" feels right. (Studios taking down a video for everyone is on the line; I can see how it gets called that, but I wouldn't use the term myself.) iPlayer and Hulu, on the other hand, have never pretended to offer their services outside a particular location,** so it's more of a commercial decision; call it "region locking", or "geographic filtering", perhaps. I was glad to be able to find a self-consistent position. Isn't that what being a detail-obsessed nerd is all about?

* Except breakfast. That would just be wrong.
** Well, both allow a certain amount of browsing; it's difficult to choose between that and just locking the entire site away.
*** Remind me to rant about how much better than Twitter Jaiku is sometime, and how utterly unfair it is that it's called a "Twitter clone" when it launched, with more functionality, months earlier. Why didn't anyone use it? Because it came from Finland, a place that's not only not the US, but where they don't even speak English as a native language. Of course nobody had heard of it.

Launched today at Etech, Fire Eagle is a new Yahoo service that lets apps easily store and retrieve your location. Its big selling point is that it can take almost any input (postcodes, addresses, cities, lat/long pairs) and then give a heirarchal output to apps, with levels of precision that the user chooses.

Unfortunately, while almost all of these levels ("country", "city", "exact") make sense whichever country you're in, there's one that doesn't. In the UK, "postal" will return a full postcode, which locates you to a building (at best) or a street (at worst). In the US, by contrast, it reutrns a five-digit zip code, which covers about 5000 people, and is obviously far less revealing. (I've no idea what it does outside these two countries, but I'd love to know.)

Now, obviously I can work around this in a couple of ways. Firstly, I could be fuzzier about the location I give to Fire Eagle, but this is silly; then nobody gets the better data. Much better, then, to use one of the other choices that are offered, but this begs the question; why have the postal option at all?

Still, it's early days, and as well as looking forward to seeing how the service (and its uses) evolve, I'm hoping there'll be a few tweaks for international consistency within the service itself.