Quite some of you read my initial post on that – and I like the comments I got. Now, it seems that I am not the only one being angry:
For the record, I think Apple is dead wrong in the way it's gone about using its iPod monopoly to expand its share in another market. Ironically, an excellent model for how this update program should work already exists. It's called Windows Update, and it embodies all the principles that Apple should follow.
And: Apple Software Update (btw John is the CO of Mozilla). It seems that John and me are in agreement:
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.
[I'll make 2 points that I want to make very clear: (1) this is not a criticism of Safari as a web browser in any way, and (2) I have no objections to the basic industry practice of using your installed software as a channel for other software. This is specifically a criticism of the way they're using the updating system. I'd much prefer to be writing about Firefox, but this practice hurts everyone and is important to note.]
A comment to this blog post: If Microsoft did the identical action, install some non-user-selected software using their software update channel, there would be cacophony across the Internet.