Mozilla CEO Blasts Apple for Bundling Safari with iTunes Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

The_Devil_Himself

die blizzard die! D3?
first of all who are those stupid 500,000 people requesting 'iTunes for windows' download?I mean who usees iTunes now?it absolutely sucks(dunno about macs but it sure do suck on windows).
 

sreevirus

Certified Nutz
ever used ubuntu :rolleyes:
Yep. And I've used openSuSE, Linspire and Mandriva too. But I wonder when did Mozilla ever arm-twist Novell or Canonical or Mandriva to put Firefox in their distros. AFAIK, it was the developers' choice to put Firefox, because it was the sanest choice that they had. Correct me if I'm wrong here. If I am wrong, I apologize. And there was always a choice if you were using a Linux distro. You could've used Konqueror (or for that matter Opera) if you were using openSuSE. And c'mon, an OS aimed for desktops just has to have a web-browser. Could you imagine MS not giving IE with Windows?

iMav said:
on topic the only issue i have with this is that everytime there is a small change i have to dwnld 50 something mb and now courtesy this the freaking size will go up :cool:
But that's not the point here. A critical update would have to be installed irrespective of the size. But this is different. Is Safari a prerequisite to run iTunes? No. Will the performance of iTunes be affected if Safari is not installed? No. Then could you even classify this as an "update"? I would say NO.

I presume you are a Microsoft fan (in fact, from whatever I know of you, you are one). :D So would you have liked it if you were using iTunes (just presume that you were forced to use it) and the Apple updating process installed Safari as the default browser over your favourite IE? I don't think your answer will be in the affirmative.
And as I said in my previous post, I don't think Mac users would've been crazy about it either if MS offered them IE as an "update". That is just not fair.
If Mozilla had given Thunderbird as an update to Firefox, even I'd have been really angry, because I don't need it. I can't count the number of times I've been pissed off whenever a toolbar came piggyback-riding with some softwares that I wanted to install on my PC. And what Apple is doing right now is not much different, if not equally bad. This is just not the way of getting your software installed on a computer.


The_Devil_Himself said:
first of all who are those stupid 500,000 people requesting 'iTunes for windows' download?I mean who usees iTunes now?it absolutely sucks(dunno about macs but it sure do suck on windows).
That is gross underestimating man. it would only be a minority of all iPod owners on earth who would actually take the pains to find an alternative. Even I had an iPod and the most logical choice that I had was to use iTunes. (another reason could've been laziness on my part). I would definitely admit iTunes sucked on my PC and I wasn't exactly fond of it because of many reasons (which I don't think I should elaborate here, because this is not a thread discussing that point). I sometimes really felt I was being forced to use it. (If Aayush is reading this, please note that it's a personal opinion, maybe it's just me, no flames please). But my grudge is not against iTunes. Some of my friends dote on it (and they are not even iPod owners). The point is I don't like the way Safari is given as a software update to a software whose primary function is to play music, not surf the web. If it's Apple's way of advertising it's product, then doesn't that make iTunes some sort of an adware like RealPlayer was?
 
Last edited:

kumarmohit

Technomancer
^^ ipod users

^^there are lotsa iPod managers(unlike zune :() other than iTunes which are ,IMO,better that iTunes anyday.

6 th generation iPod users/ 3rd generation nano users/ All touch users/ All iPhone users to be precise. The crypto system in these iPods does not allow them to sync with anything but itunes. and considering that there is no documentation incase of 6Gipod and3G nano, making alternative clients compatible is a big problem.
 

krazzy

Techtree Reviewer
Its not a big problem for broadband users. They can download it and choose not to install Safari. I, for one, wouldn't mind Apple bundling Safari, QuickTime or Steve Jobs's home videos with iTunes if I had a fast connection. But with my current slower internet, and with the already large size of iTunes itself, I'll be really mad if I had to wait even longer, downloading a bigger file, for something I won't be using and for something that shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom