Apple keen to push Safari 3.1 on Windows users

[Hairbautt]

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/picture.php?albumid=25&pictureid=3392"If you run iTunes or QuickTime or any Apple software on your Windows PC, but not Safari, you might have seen an uninvited guest show up in the Apple Software Update earlier this week. Yes, Apple thinks you need yet another browser. They tried to slip the new Safari 3.1 in for iTunes owners, a move that has some Windows users up in arms.

The program is usually used for updating Apple software, and so getting new software with the deal wasn't something a lot of users expected. And users who don't do anything but the default, are basically going to be getting software they didn't plan to have."

:source: Source: Neowin.Net (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/03/22/apple-keen-to-push-safari-31-on-windows-users)
:view: View: Mozilla CEO: Apple's Safari-To-Windows Distribution Scheme Is Wrong (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080322/tc_cmp/206905256)

[Chewie]

Heh, another fucking drive-by.
Apple must surely be nearing the bottom of the barrel by now.

[Hairbautt]

I already hate the fact that they forcibly package iTunes and Quicktime together as I stick to Quicktime Alternative for less bloatware.

They're just not offering options to users anymore...Kind of reminds me of Nero.

[raspberry1331]

Except that Nero softwares are crap, while Apple makes nice programs.

Not that I'm saying that bundling them together is a good idea, just Nero is really much worse than Apple on the whole.

Tough Steve Jobs sometimes takes the parking place for the disabled, and doesn't give his money to starving African children, so hard to decide after all.

[IdolEyes787]

One of the very reasons that I won't buy an iPod is I resent not having freedom of choice.If you want to buy,you can only buy from us kind of thing
Apple may have great engineers working for it but everything else about the company has become very heavy-handed.
For a business that seems to want to market itself as a Microsoft alternative , they show very little that differentiates the two at their core.

[nicho]

The reason for bundling QT with iTunes is that all video content on ITMS uses QT technology. And Safari is IMO the best browser out there. Lighter and faster than Mozilla, Opera etc. Tho i understand your views on the subject.

[LostInParadise]

why would you opt for safari over firefox

[Pudge]

Because you're insane. That's the only reason I could think of. Thank god I didn't run Itunes yesterday, or else I would've downloaded this without a second thought.

[tesco]

The reason for bundling QT with iTunes is that all video content on ITMS uses QT technology.
They could include the quicktime codec with iTunes without having to include the whole quicktime program.;)

[$we]

cool, another reason not to get itunes. *adds to list*

[DasFox]

I already hate the fact that they forcibly package iTunes and Quicktime together as I stick to Quicktime Alternative for less bloatware.

They're just not offering options to users anymore...Kind of reminds me of Nero.

I thought you could get them separate, and if not you can always unpack them and take out whichever you want, that's what I always did before... ;)

[Hairbautt]

I already hate the fact that they forcibly package iTunes and Quicktime together as I stick to Quicktime Alternative for less bloatware.

They're just not offering options to users anymore...Kind of reminds me of Nero.

I thought you could get them separate, and if not you can always unpack them and take out whichever you want, that's what I always did before... ;)
Too much work and before you could get them seperate, but not anymore.

By the way, nicho, there's a Quicktime Alternative that excludes the bull.



I already hate the fact that they forcibly package iTunes and Quicktime together as I stick to Quicktime Alternative for less bloatware.

They're just not offering options to users anymore...Kind of reminds me of Nero.

I thought you could get them separate, and if not you can always unpack them and take out whichever you want, that's what I always did before... ;)
Too much work and before you could get them seperate, but not anymore.

By the way, nicho, there's a Quicktime Alternative that excludes the bull and is still compatible with iTunes. And yea they could totally just include the req. codec in iTunes.

[MagusDraco]

The reason for bundling QT with iTunes is that all video content on ITMS uses QT technology.
They could include the quicktime codec with iTunes without having to include the whole quicktime program.;)

Aww but that'd be smart. And they can't give out the codec like that.


If nothing else it'd ruin quicktime alternative.