Redefining "updates"

So I'm working on a staff member's computer today, and they've got this older CD based program that requires Quicktime in order to use, but the version on the CD is too old to work with Vista. OK, no worries, we'll install the latest version and hopefully it'll fix it up. Which is what I do. I grab the Quicktime only installer (that is, the one that isn't bundled with iTunes) and install it. When it asks about Apple Updater, I think "yeah, that'd be useful" and so install it also. That way, he'll be kept up-to-date.
Later on, I'm working on the machine doing some other stuff, and up jumps Apple Update. It has 3 updates for me to install - an update for itself, and update for Quicktime, and... iTunes. As in, it has the iTunes+Quicktime installer listed, with a check in the checkbox ready for me to obediently click "Install".
Now, last time I checked "update" meant to take a piece of software you've already chosen to install and replace the required files to bring it into line with the latest version. Not to install a piece of software that I've purposefully avoided installing onto this person's laptop. Your average user probably wouldn't even check - they'd just install whatever Apple Update told them they needed. Can you imagine the kind of fall out Microsoft would get if they tried something like this? A pre-selected Windows update installs their prefered brand of picture viewer? They've already had to pull Media Player out of the EU version of Windows because apparently bundling a media player with your OS is anti-competitive.

Anyway, gripe of the day. Enjoy.

Quicktime is lame

This post was originally constructed in August this year, and was saved as draft. I've added the last paragraph and published. Trying to get rid of some half-written drafts I have. Expect some more soon-ish.

Just a short (edit: not short) Mac bash this morning:
So I turn on my PowerBook this morning, and Apple Software Update comes up with some updates for iTunes and Quicktime and stuff. So I take a look at the update for Quicktime and observe the following:

QuickTime 7.2 addresses critical security issues and delivers:
- Support for full screen viewing in QuickTime Player

Now, this is a feature that has been in, oh I don't know, EVERY other media player since forever. Apple has witheld it up until now, because they want you to pay for Quicktime Pro which DID have this feature. So, to sum up - a feature that has been in every other media player forever is finally introduced into Quicktime today (well, within the last week), negating the need for you to pay Apple extra for it. If you had bought Windows 95 in 1996, you would have got this feature for free, and it's been a staple in Media Player, and every other media player for Windows or Linux (or 3rd party for OSX for that matter) since forever. WHY this wasn't included in Quicktime boils down to greed on the part of Apple.

But hey - this is what I've come to expect from Apple. Upgrades to their IM client are advertised as features of their paid OS upgrade. As opposed to, you know, almost every other IM client which gives you feature updates FOR FREE and for the most part already have MORE FEATURES then iChat. But still, Apple users will use iChat. And this is where I get confused - WHY!?!? And this is not specific to iChat - an advertised improvement in Leopard is having stationary in Apple Mail. Again, there are free mail clients available that do this, and everything else Apple Mail does already - and they're FREE. And sometimes, they WORK BETTER. Just try doing a simple out-of-office notification in Mail. My boss does when he's out of town - I have to check it every day to ensure it hasn't gotten confused and started sending emails to itself.

The list goes on - and features advertised as revolutionary (*cough* Time Machine *cough*) are just the equivilent of pre-existing features in Windows/Linux with a pretty UI. Previous Versions, anyone? In Vista, they've even made it exceedingly simple. Right-click on any file, and:

You can do this on a folder, and actually open and work with previous contents of that older. And if you use Windows Backup, it will record the fact that there are previous versions on specific backups and display them in the list. Revolutionary! Next year's OS, today!

Anyway - this pargraph I'm now typing months after I originally created this post, and as it turns out the great Leopard is held by the Mac zealots in my office as being buggy and unreliable, and as such, no one has upgraded their work machines to it due to software incompatiabilities with Filemaker, which I believe have just recently been resolved with a second patch (that is, they patched it once to get it just to run, and now they've patched it again to get it to work properly). Good times.

Mac OSX: Success breeds malware

It’s always been claimed by Mac advocates that the lack of Mac OSX malware was not to do with the fact that malware writers were logically targeting the largest OS population, but rather was to do with the fact that OSX was inherently more secure.

It seems that with the rise in the population of OSX users, people are starting to exploit it, proving the previous assertion false.

Reading this article, this vulnerability is equivalent to the one that allowed the infamous Blaster worm on Windows to propagate – that is, a remote exploit that gives the hacker root access to deploy any code they wish to the compromised system.

My company has numbers of clients who run Mac servers that are open to the wider world sans any kind of firewall. We even have one I know of that you can get remote access to their server without a password. We've advised them that's a bad idea, but they believe their Mac will remain secure. It's a product of the misinformation by Apple that because presently there are no major threats, that the situation will continue. Hopefully, people will begin to realise that being under the radar only provides you security while you're small enough to fit there.

If you use a Mac and you're reading this - be smart. OSX is not magically all-secure. Firewalls and virus protection are good, good things.

Postscripts:
@Nathan: I certainly wouldn't describe this post as "whiny". Maybe "gloatish"? lol.
@Frances: More mind-bent philosophy/less computer-nerdish technobable post is coming soon, I promise. :)

iPhone, and "The Device Formerly Known As iTV"

So the Church of Steve all got together overnight to be told what new tech they should get excited about. Here's the run down of the keynote:

1.) iPhone. This year, for US zealots.
2.) Partnerships involving iPhone - Google and Yahoo. Singular/AT&T for carrier.
3.) *TV, where "*" represents an Apple symbol. From here on, called AppleTV.
4.) "Apple Computer Inc." now called "Apple Inc."

Here's my POV on these:

1.) iPhone
Firstly, expect a lawsuit involving Apple vs. Linksys and Cisco shortly about the name.
Second, we all knew this was coming. It's an iPod and a phone. Together. In one box. Now, out of everything announced at this keynote, this is the only thing of any real merit. The iPod brand is strong and the design recognition is also. iPhone adheres to the iPod simplicity of design and interface, and generally is an impressive looking device. Now here's where my praise of it ends.
Firstly, it's running OSX. I hate OSX. But aside from my personal distaste of it, putting a desktop OS on a phone seems like a bad idea to me. Memory management and OS functions surely are built with assumptions of cache/memory/processor/storage configurations that are just not possible in a phone. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
The next thing that irked me was Steve making a big ol' claim about owning the patents for multi-touch touchscreen interfaces. OH MY GOSH. While none of the linked videos prove that Apple don't own the patent, I'd like to note also I've seen video of HP and another company demoing multitouch screens in coffee tables at tech shows. I can't see that Apple's patent could be on anything other then their specific design implementation. Expect to see the competition doing simular things shortly, despite Steve's claims of exclusivity.

2.) Partnerships for iPhone
Google, Yahoo, Singular and AT&T (I don't know the relationships between the last two) were all showcased as providers with services for iPhone. Looks like they haven't done particularly much - I don't really understand it all, but Yahoo's push-email service seems... expected? a requirement? It's a shame my Exchange server at home will do this, and has been able to do this for quite a while - to ANY Windows Mobile phone, and I believe Palm ones too. Not impressed. But hey - nice that they've set these up for people who buy the iPhone. Seriously - I think iPhone is a reasonable offering, minus the OSX factor.

3.) The Device Formally Known as "iTV"
There was only one piece of information about this I don't remember being in last year's keynote, and that's that it will output 720p resolution via HDMI. Whoo. As I predicted previously, iTV *is* just an iTunes player.
Justin's official line on this product is that it blows. Why? Because you can do everything it does for cheaper, and without being locked in to Apple's iTunes/iPod model for content, and DRM scheme. And, as previously stated, it's yet ANOTHER device for your livingroom that does one very specific subset of what you need to do. It doesn't record TV. It doesn't play DVDs. It doesn't connect to your cable/satelite box. It sure as heck doesn't do anything with HD-DVD/BluRay technology. So why waste your money? Buy a cheap-ass hard disk recorder that will play back DivX/XVID/Mpeg4 content, and get your content from wherever you like. If you're willing to spend a bit more, a PC running Media Center (with AMD LIVE! for added value) and you'll get an easy to use system for displaying digital content in the living room that does a million bazillion times more useful stuff then AppleTV. Perhaps even a brazillian times more.
If you buy this product, you are nothing more then a zealot. So either suck it up and admit that Steve is your pimp, or be sensible and buy a device that is more then just a glorified expensive iPod with HDMI.

4.) The name change
Personally, I see this as an "about time" event. Apple's computer offerings have picked up some new sales recently, granted, but overall - it's not what's keeping them afloat as a business. In particular, Apple will claim OSX as a superior OS in one breath, and then say they're not a software company in the next. Let's be honest - Apple is now about consumer electronics, and one of those items just happens to be a shiney white plastic coated computer, which is now completely capable of running OS's other then Mac's OSX. For those of you who remember Dvorak's prediction that Macs would eventually be running Windows full-time, note that we're already halfway there. Every Mac in my office now has a copy of Windows installed on it, even though the users are all die hard Mac adherents. Why is that? Because they need Windows to run an effective business. It's just life, zealots, get over it. Windows dominates because it's a good OS, where "good" is not necissarily defined as being built on *nix. (Not saying *nix based OS's are bad... just that Windows can be good without being based on it) I have more points, but I really should get to work now...

Summary:
Less then impressive keynote, with one impressive device - iPhone. iPhone still needs to be identified as being functional as well as pretty before I'll give it too much credit. I guess we'll see.
Mac zealots to buy millons worth of iTVs, even though they already own multiple devices that do the same job.
Apple finally identify themselves as not being a computer company. Something Windows users have known for years.

They're On To Me!

Well, it seems Apple now hate me. Awesome. :D
Check it:

This is what I was greeted with when I followed links on Apple's website to their knowlegebase. I guess they must be on to my scheme to free the minds of deluded computer users from the grip of Steve.

Seeing I'm on a Mac-bagging train of thought, can I just sing the unpraises of Apple's iTV? While I entirely agree with bringing the computer to the living room TV, there are so many products out there that do such a better job of the small feature set this product is set to provide, and they do it without locking you into ONLY being able to use iTunes and ONLY letting you play content bought from the iTunes store. Not to mention they offer you a much, much broader feature set. Steve himself calles it an "iTunes player" in the keynote, and basically that's ALL it does. Plays stuff shared in your iTunes library on your TV.
Now, I've done a little bit of talking to people, and it seems to me that the number one problem that needs solving in the living room is not how to get your iTunes library onto your TV, but how to cut down on the number of devices, and therefore remotes, that you have to deal with. So wouldn't it be sensible to make a box that can do everything via just one remote? Not only that, but if that one remote had like a stupidly limited number of buttons on it, it would even fit in with Apple's "we make stuff for idiots" mentatlity that seems to permiate all their products.

But see, they won't compete there - because Windows Media Center already does the whole all-in-one thing, and does it INCREADIBLY well. It's just silly the way Apple go about things. Compete, Apple. Make a media center that does everything Windows MCE does, but better. I dare you. But they won't... the pansies. :P