Promote new downloads via a software update application? Outrageous!
The blog world is now behaving all kinds of strange in its debate over Apple’s use of the iTunes Software Update utility to distribute new installations of its Safari Web browser for Windows users. Some are criticizing Apple for overstepping its bounds with its wee little application. Some couldn’t care less. Just for the record, I fall into the latter category. As if the debate should be taking place to begin with….
What’s most intriguing about the present hoopla is that none other than Mozilla’s chief executive officer, John Lilly, has emerged from his open source haven - which I much prefer to Apple’s own - to march tall with the anti-updater procession. His take is that it is okay to serve updates for installed products, but not so cool to push any unassociated code along with such updates.
I don’t see the problem. Do you? Sure, Apple is taking advantage of its ubiquity with the iTunes music software it markets to the world. But is it “wrong” to do so, as Mr Lilly claims? Hardly. If the company were to require the installation of Safari, that would be wrong. (Note: Apple does of course include Safari by default with Mac OS X, but that is not the concern here. It is Apple’s Windows-specific behavior that is in question.)
No, Apple isn’t being an exemplary citizen of the marketplace. I can’t really recall when it ever was playing such a role, to be honest. But when its the gameplay in the industry ever completely above-board? Has Microsoft been a stellar model of moralistic jurisprudence? Not really, no. It pretty much exploited every avenue and crevasse it could to drive its growth ever north. Apple is simply doing the same here. And it will likely accomplish its goal. Which is to expand its market share through the iTunes install base. And that’s a pretty darn big pool of users.
Smart move.
ShareThis
