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 777 on 3/27/2008 10:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm just waiting for the Apple die-hards out there to flame this article and everyone who reads it for saying Apple is not the best company on the face of the earth and who obviously makes better products that are simply superior to everything else out there and the only reason not everybody uses them is because they are stupid.


I mostly use Apple computers but I also use pc's almost as much, I do prefer apple, so does this make me a Apple diehard? I have no intention of flaming this article or your possible hatred of Apple. I think both computers have their strengths and weeknesses and trust me Apple does some things I don't like and it seems they screwed up here big time, so to that I say don't use Safari. I have used Pc's that have been complete piles of crap especially the cheap ones everyone always compares to Apple. Also all of Apples hardware is not twice as much, compare the Macbook Pro laptop line and there are some pc vendors who make laptops you have to pay more for to get what you get in a Macbook pro. Just go to Newegg.

I wish the Apple haters would get off their rant and get over it, if you don't like them than don't use their hardware or software, no one forces you to buy or download any of their products. Just as know one makes me use a pc, well I do have to at work, but so what, I don't go around flaming some of the sh--ty hardware from pc makers or some of the bogus software that comes from microsoft. It's personal choice and that's great we have that, it just seems like some on dailytech have a seething hatred of Apple and those that use them.


RE: so?
By beyazkeyat on 3/27/2008 11:14:00 PM , Rating: 1
Well, it's not so much that we hate Apple users, it's the ones who act like assholes because they own Apple products. As far as the PC's go, they're the same hardware, they both have problems, and they both come out with some crap software. Apple just charges more for their hardware. ;) But no, I wouldn't call you an Apple diehard at all. You'd be flaming it up if you were and blaming the problems on MS :D

(And there's laptops on the "Windows side" that yes do cost too much [I'm looking at you, Alienware] But, who wants SLI on a laptop? I mean really.)


RE: so?
By Pirks on 3/28/08, Rating: -1
“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














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