Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

I thought I was done blogging about Apple Software Update, having removed QuickTime from my system completely, and sworn never to install it again or watch another QT or MOV file.

But nooo, someone had to spoil it by telling me what Apple Software Update did next.

If you're unfortunate enough to have QuickTime installed with Apple Software Update, you'll already have seen it.

Not only is Apple going to offer you iTunes and QuickTime as an "update" (despite you not actually having iTunes installed in the first place), they're also going to offer you Safari, the feature-light Apple web browser, as an "update" (again, even though you haven't installed it). And they're going to check the box, so if you think you're just updating components you fetched for yourself, you'll accidentally install this one, too. And they're going to ask you every boot until you disable the check - and then they'll just re-enable the prompt next time they have a patched version to release.

What next, "we suggest you update to Bootcamp and Mac OS X, please wait while we install, and don't mind the reboots"?

Seriously, Apple, this just makes you look seriously unethical. You can't get people to install Safari legitimately, by enticing them to voluntarily download and install it, so you have to sneak it in by implying it's an update to QuickTime. What does that say about Safari? You can't even give it away? You have to foist it on the unwilling?

Grow up.

I suggest we call this behaviour Retro-Bundling.

Bundling, of course, is when you buy a piece of software, or download it for free, and along with it comes Firefox or the Google Toolbar. Irritating, especially if you don't want them, because half of your time in getting the software down was taken up in downloading something that you're going to say "no" to. But at least you only have to say no that one time - or when you download the next version.

Retro-Bundling, then, would be when, after you already have the software of your choice installed, its manufacturer decides that they'd like to have bundled something else onto your system, so they try to slip it in the back door without you noticing.

I am glad to say, to judge from comments at other blogs, that I'm not the only one that thinks this is utterly reprehensible behaviour. Perhaps this is the way things are done in the Apple world - you just sit happily back as your vendor dumps more and more product into your lap.

Consider this - how would you have reacted, if next time Office for Mac was checking for updates, it came back and offered to update Word, Excel Internet Explorer and Silverlight? Even though you didn't have those last two on your system. Oh, and they were selected automatically, and the default button press would install them all.

Update: Someone mentioned to me that Microsoft does indeed offer Silverlight on Windows Update to Windows users even if you don't have Silverlight installed already. That sucks, too. It's not quite as heavy an application as Safari and iTunes, but it's still wrong to offer "updates" that consist of an application you don't have. Actions like this will cause people to stop accepting updates as a regular part of their computing schedule - and that can't help the health of their computers.

Published Fri, Mar 21 2008 21:15 by Alun Jones
Filed under: , ,

Comments

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

I totally agree with you. Apple really pushes me to install updates for software I haven't installed. Can't even remember a real update since I've installed bootcamp.

Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:38 AM by Pieter Joost van de Sande

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

Windows Update does not try to force Silverlight on you - it's an optional component.

IE7 on the other hand is a "security update", so it is selected by default. Fortunately, the "ignore" option seems to be respected.

Monday, March 24, 2008 1:04 AM by KT

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

That's a good point - and an important difference. Silverlight is not checked by default (unlike Safari, iTunes, QuickTime, etc), so users have to take action to install it, more than simply "yes, go ahead and install updates".

IE7, by comparison to Safari, is an update to IE6, which you already had installed. Safari is an update to ... nothing - it's a completely new program.

Monday, March 24, 2008 7:38 AM by Alun Jones

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

IE7 is NEVER an update to IE6, unless you think Vista is an UPDATE to XP.

IE7 introduce different respects in architechture and function to IE6, which was considered as 'weakness' compared with FF & Safari, but not in security. All of the security reasons MS persuade can be solved via patches, not a 'fresh new install'. Especially the 'update' is 25mb, larger than the original 20mb IE6 install.

And by the way, why should I have IE bundled with my Vista, if I don't use it other than 'Windows Update'? European court has made the judgement, it is 'illegal'.

Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:44 AM by aladdin

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

Vista is a newer version of Windows, just as IE7 is a newer version of IE.  Whether you want to call this an "update" or an "upgrade" or something different is really just nitpicking.

Sunday, April 06, 2008 5:46 PM by Harry Johnston

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

Of course, this is "Evil" because Apple gives you the option of installing their software, but Microsoft, which never gives you even the option to not install their software, gets a pass.

Kinda hypocritical for you to be constantly bashing apple, when microsoft is much worse.  At least Apple presents it as an option.

For years Apple has offered me iPod updates as part of software update and I haven't installed them because I didn't use an iPod with my machine.  I just unchecked the box and never thought twice about it.

To see windows users up in arms about this policy is hilarious!  Its so hypocritical that is almost over the top.

Really, this is all about the fact that Apple is kicking ass in the marketplace, taking massive mindshare and not a small amount of marketshare. That's what you're really mad about.

But its not too late, you can still switch.

Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:26 PM by Jay

# re: Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple

With all due respect, Jay, that's bollocks.

Why am I attacking Apple lately? Because lately, Apple has intruded on my machine.

I've attacked Microsoft for other reasons when they intrude into my machine. Perhaps you have something in mind when you say "Microsoft is much worse. At least Apple presents it as an option." Where have Microsoft installed new software onto an existing system just because I approved installation of the default updates?

To address your comment about mindshare - I'll readily agree. Apple's marketing is amazing in its power to convince people. Microsoft lags way behind - what users 'know' about Vista UAC, they've mostly learned from the Apple adverts, rather than from Microsoft. It's all rubbish, of course, but it's an amusing message that sticks with them.

If, however, Apple truly had a better browser, a better music store, a better video viewer, they wouldn't need to do this retro-bundling to guile people into installing their crap. People would go and beg for the software if it was better than they already have.

What I'm really mad about is that I can't manage machines in my enterprise if they're running Apple software, because I have to tell the users "Oh, and remember not to install X when it's offered, because we don't use that."

Where's Apple's enterprise software update management story? They don't have one.

As for switching - as I've mentioned before, I am required to use a Mac at work for various strange reasons, and every time I try to use it, I get infuriated.

Install an update, and you have a dialog hanging around on screen demanding that you either Shut Down or Restart. No "delay" or "postpone", no way to dismiss the dialog, and if focus changes at the wrong moment, you might accidentally hit one of those buttons.

Every update requires a restart, and QuickTime seems to need a restart update once a month, if not more often.

You need to firm up your argument. Are you arguing that Apple is better than Microsoft? Then don't go with the "but officer, that big truck is speeding too, why don't you arrest him?" defence, because it doesn't work.

Are you arguing that Apple is following Microsoft's lead? Then don't make vague points without directing me to examples, because I can't find the information that makes your point. Perhaps I don't understand your point.

If I install Visio, I don't get Zune software thrown at me, even as an option. Even when Microsoft tries hard to push Silverlight, it's on an opt-in basis, rather than "yeah, you have to remember to uncheck iTunes and Safari every time you get a QuickTime update to install".

Give me a halfway decent argument, because I have nothing to respect in your arguments to date. So far, all I get is "stop picking on Apple, because in some undefined way, Microsoft's just as bad" - not even worse, "just as bad". Put up or shut up.

Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:43 PM by Alun Jones

# Apple Changes Update Policies - Still No Biscuit

As I have mentioned in other posts ( Retro-bundling - another suck of the Apple , MacBook Air debuts;

Friday, May 09, 2008 11:32 PM by Tales from the Crypto

# Zune – So Nearly Perfect, it Hurts

For a while now, I’ve been listening to the BBC radio on my MP3 player – even wrote a program to download

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:17 AM by Tales from the Crypto

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
If you can't read this number refresh your screen
Enter the numbers above: