backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by ArchiesBoy.. on Apr 13 at 5:51 PM


Apple's EULA, as pictured here in Windows XP says you can't install Safari on non-Apple hardware, meaning that Apple has just massively violated its own EULA.  (Source: DailyTech)
Safari for Windows is having some serious issues that deserve a second look.

Fueled by Safari's release on Windows last June and strong Mac sales, Apple's Safari browser has been making modest inroads in the browser marketshare competition, moving up from around 4.6 percent around 5.7 percent between April 2007 and February 2008, according to Net Applications.  It even was able to best the Acid3 test, showing off its compatibility prowess.

However  Safari has run into some troubles.  Apple made the dubious decision of trying to coerce iTune's 500 million users into installing Safari along with the normal iTunes update, via a pesky dialog, which comes with the install Safari option checked by default.  Mozilla blasted Apple for this tactic, saying it "borders on malware distribution practices". 

Now someone has humorously pointed out that in its promotional zealousness, Apple appears to have unintentionally encouraged massive violation of and made a mockery of its own End User License Agreement (EULA) for Safari.  EULAs are supposed to set clear legal guidelines for terms of use and help consumers know what they can and cannot do (i.e. you cannot install this software on everyone in your neighborhood's computers).  Apple's EULA states that Safari can be installed on "
a single Apple-labeled computer at a time", forbidding non-Apple-marked hardware Windows machines, and the updater itself states that "Use of this software is subject to the original Software License Agreement(s) that accompanied the software being updated."

So apparently Apple has succeeded in massively violating its own EULA, a possible first of this scale, depending on the number of accidental or intentional Safari downloads.  Lawyers point out that concerned citizens need not fear about legal action from Apple.  Jonathan Kramer, a tech attorney who runs Kramer Telecom Law Firm states, "We call this an impossibility issue, you can't enforce a term that's impossible."

Amidst this embarassing debacle, new reports are coming in that Safari is faring rather poorly on Windows XP, with many users experiencing crashes.  Windows XP users who felt smug about Windows Vista bugs, may find an unexpected new source of problems-- Apple.  Apple's support forum is being flooded by angry posters complaining that their XP version of the Safari browser is broken.  Says SakJosep, one such poster, "When I try to start Safari 3.1 in Windows XP, it crashes right away."

OllieK92 echoes the previous posters sentiments, stating, "I have this problem too, I have no idea what it is."

Some users are reporting that the browser simply will not open.  The thread on the problems has received over 1,000 views well before receiving much media coverage, making it clear that the problem may be afflicting many users.  There have also been scattered reports of Safari not running on Vista, though XP has received many more such reports.  Of the Vista problems, most posters said the previous versions worked properly, but that the update to the current version, 3.1 broke the browser.

Ironically, the new version of Safari-- 3.1-- had mostly received glowing reviews.  Many reviewers lauded its better speed, security, search tools, and improved support of HTML standards.  However all is not sunny in Cupertino as it appears that Apple may be in for some more criticism amid poorly though out attempts to leverage its iTunes user base as a means of pushing the browser, and from some pesky bugs that have cropped up.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: so?
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/27/2008 3:11:59 PM , Rating: 5
No, you're right-- why should companies have to write sensible legal documents?? Secondly, what does Sony have to do with anything??

Firefox 3 has very little memory leak issues. I've found it pretty fast and efficient on Vista 32. I don't think "Firefox people" are terribly worried about Safari, imo. And did you not read that Safari also reportedly has problems on Vista?

And your statement about it being time to switch from XP is funny. What if you don't have a faster computer. I know plenty of college students that don't have 600-1,000 to go out and blow on a decent laptop. XP is still very viable for some users. I switched to Vista, but I see the logic on both sides.


RE: so?
By JAB on 3/27/2008 4:13:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
sensible legal documents
Oxymoron dont your think? If you look hard enough for mistakes you can find one simple as that if people here looked that hard on all company it would be a different matter but extreme effort to find any fault in those to complays here kind of blows your indignity out the window. Even if you are not doing it you lie in the same bed and share the lice.

Apple is putting a new and very serious effort into upgrading Safari with nightly updates? If the Firefox crew doesnt sit up and notice that they have a bigger problem.
They wont steal many Firefox users but they might steal many of those sick of IE before they try Firefox.

The threat is not what they have now but how fast they are improving. Almost daily updates and fixes?

One example:
http://webkit.org/blog/168/gdi-text-on-windows/

Vista VS XP People rarely upgrade the OS on a laptop that is a strawman argument for XP no need for dirty tricks here do we? An extra GB of RAM and a budget video card does wonders for Vista. I would care a lot more about the Vista bloat if memory wasn't dirt cheap. 8gb is cheaper than 500MB 5 years ago. I an not recommending Vista without modern parts but most people here already have decent ones.


RE: so?
By arteekay on 3/27/2008 6:11:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple is putting a new and very serious effort into upgrading Safari with nightly updates? If the Firefox crew doesnt sit up and notice that they have a bigger problem.


You do know that Fx does hourly builds, right?


RE: so?
By teldar on 3/27/2008 6:06:23 PM , Rating: 4
Personally, I use XP as well, partially because I am a grad student and my wife is pregnant, we own a house, I'm living in another city 5 days a week renting an apartment.... The $600 for a new laptop isn't even a consideration. I don't even want to spend a couple hundred on a new desktop MB CPU and Memory at this point....

And as far as FF3B4 goes.... I endorse it whole-heartedly. It's a wonderful step forward even when compared to FF 2. If you all out there havn't tried it yet, I would recommend it.


RE: so?
By encryptkeeper on 3/28/2008 8:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still on XP, and I'm running FF beta 4 on my home machine. It's fast, it looks great, and it's as stable as far as I can see. There was a refresh issue when I first installed it where moving the mouse around the screen and right clicking would leave the previous menu on the screen, resulting in 3 or 4 right click menus on the screen at one time, but I haven't been able to duplicate it since. I installed the Opera browser, but I haven't even fired it up, FF3 is just too good.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki