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 Pirks on 3/27/2008 8:23:31 PM , Rating: -1
Bon appetit with your pizza. My remark about twice the price was not about you then, it was about another idiot who said that.

Vista being useless just shows why Macs are getting so popular.

Yes, you can price larger and heavier notebook cheaper than MacBook, but it is cheaper because it's larger and heavier, so it's a fair deal.

Yeah, Windows has a lot of idiotic fanboys, that's true, some of them babble about "twice the price" just tad too much.

About objective standards - you can't be objective because you blindly ignore all the advantages MacBook has. Yes, you have to spend about a hundred dollars additional to equip it similar to that Toshiba, but other advantages like Leopard and minor convenience features like multitouch and magnetical latches etc easily compensate. What is important here is that you don't pay $100 extra FOR NOTHING as you are trying to prove. You can't prove it, precisely because Vista is a flop (just too buggy and not well tuned OS which needs a lot more time to mature) and because PC notebooks don't have all these nifty little things like magsafe. And in real life for average people, not tech geeks like you and me, these little features are definitely worth extra $100, and they don't care about the number of gigabytes or whatever.

If computers were measured only by number of gigabytes and gigahertz... it's the same as comparing cars ONLY by HP rating. You don't do this when you compare cars, so why are you trying to do this when comparing computers?


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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