Weblog of a “Switcher”

Daring Fireball Linked List: April 2008:
"Counterpoint ★

Darby Lines:

Apparently Apple needs to also not check the box to install Safari by default. Again, the take home message here is that Windows users are so fucking confused by a checkbox that they can’t be trusted with the horrible responsibility of installing a browser."

(Emphasis added by myself)

Update: I originally titled this: Great quote from John Gruber (Daring Fireball). I later found out that the quote was actually from a Mr. Darby C . Lines that runs the site The Angry Drunk. (Sorry Darby!)

(Via Daring Fireball Linked List: April 2008.)

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple, apple software update, darby, darby c lines, darby lines, Daring Fireball, Gruber, lines, Software, the angry drunk, update

At first read, Adobe had me thinking that they had decided to treat Macintosh as second class citizens for some strange reason. I recently read that Adobe was going to release it's next version of Creative Suite including Photoshop in 64-bit and for Windows only.

I was shocked since it seemed to me that the majority of sales for Creative Suite comes from the Macintosh side. I really was left scratching my head at such move.
Then I read this short little blurb from John Gruber's Daring Fireball and found out why.

What happened? In short, Apple cancelled 64-bit Carbon:

As we wrapped up Photoshop CS3, our plan was to ship 64-bit versions of the next version of Photoshop for both Mac and Windows. On the Mac Photoshop (like the rest of the Creative Suite, not to mention applications like Apple’s Final Cut Pro and iTunes) relies on Apple’s Carbon technology. Apple’s OS team was busy enabling a 64-bit version of Carbon, a prerequisite for letting Carbon-based apps run 64-bit-native.

At the WWDC show last June, however, Adobe and other developers learned that Apple had decided to stop their Carbon 64 efforts. This means that 64-bit Mac apps need to be written to use Cocoa (as Lightroom is) instead of Carbon. This means that we’ll need to rewrite large parts of Photoshop and its plug-ins (potentially affecting over a million lines of code) to move it from Carbon to Cocoa.

It’s a great post; Nack does a good job dispelling any potential notion that this is a sign that Adobe’s commitment to the Mac is any way flagging.

It's a shame that Photoshop and other Creative Suite products are written in Carbon for the Mac. It probably got them into OS X very quickly some 7 years back, but not it's biting them.

On the other hand, you really can't blame them. Apple still has quite a few products in Carbon including iTunes and Finder. If Apple expects others to switch to Cocoa, they really should shine a light on the path and make the move themselves. With the news that Apple has dropped 64-bit Carbon, I suspect that Apple will be making that move soon for iTunes, Finder and the rest of the software that is still Carbon.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Adobe Creative Suite, Blurb, Carbon Technology, Class Citizens, Cocoa, Daring Fireball, Final Cut, Good Job, iTunes, John Gruber, Light On The Path, Lightroom, Macintosh Side, Nack, Os X, Plug Ins, Prerequisite, Scare, Strange Reason, Wwdc

I've been seeing a lot of griping about Apple's Software Update for Windows and it having Safari in it's lists of updates even when Safari for Windows isn't installed on that computer. (Yep Neil, I saw your Twitter response)

Here is my take on this for what it is worth...

The "Apple Software Update" program is a program that is installed when installing either of the three programs on the list in the above screen shot. iTunes, QuickTime, and/or Safari. It's a convenience program to allow you to keep those programs up-to-date without having to go to Apple's website every so often to make sure you have the latest. It's written fairly similarly to Apple's Macintosh "Software Update" program.

There has been a lot of griping about how Apple is trying to "pull a fast one" and sneak a copy of Safari onto Windows based computers by making it look like the user needs to update the program when in fact it's not even installed on the system. (Ok, so most of the complaining has been by either the Mozilla group, or Twitter posts...)

• SlashDot:
  Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install
• Twitter:
  Molly Wood
• Twitter:
  Response to Molly's tweet
• Daring Fireball:
  Apple Offering Safari 3.1 to Windows iTunes Users
• Waffle:
  Where By “Interesting”, I Mean “Annoying”
• Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows:
  Mozilla responds to Apple's dubious use of Software Update to push Safari
• Daring Fireball:
  Paul Thurrott on the Safari for Windows Software Update Thing
• Waffle:
  The Sliding Scale of Right
• Alivad.com:
  Apple’s dirty Safari installer …
• Brandon Live!:
  Apple is the new Borg
• rare pattern:
  Apple's in the wrong, but Safari really is the better browser
• Cow's Blog:
  Apple Safari Backdoor Install 'Wrong'
• on and on and on...

The complaints seem to be focusing on the fact that if Microsoft did this, they would get their butt's in all kinds of hot water, yet Apple is getting a free ticket to do what they want.

Now, it's very possible that this is Apple's way of getting Safari onto Windows based systems with little effort. After all, if a Windows user has an iPod or iPhone, they will probably be running iTunes and will be running this software update program to make sure that iTunes is up-to-date. So basically, Apple is taking advantage of this fact to try to get Safari installed on as many Windows based systems as it can.

Is this evil? Eh, I can't really say. Personally, I use Safari now more and more since Firefox seems to be getting slower and buggier by the day. I have tried other Windows based browsers like Opera and Netscape, but none are really as speedy as Safari is. So giving Windows users another choice to me seems like a nice thing. Just my opinion here.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand. I can't speak for other platforms when it comes to their update software. I can speak to Microsoft and Windows Update. I still have a couple of Windows boxes laying around here running XP. There have been several times when Microsoft has decided to "update" my computer without my permission. I don't run Windows Update in such a way that it is supposed to update my computer no matter what. I like to make sure the updates I am installing are ones I really need. Yet, I know of at least 2 times when my Windows box has been rebooted by a software update that happened without my telling it to update.

With Apple's Software Update mechanism, I am given a list of programs that need to be updated, each with a checkbox in front so that I can tell the program that I don't want to update a specific piece of software at that time. Further more, I can tell the program that I don't ever want to see a specific update again, by using the Tools menu and selecting "Ignore Selected Updates".

Now, I don't see Safari in the list at all:

So, I really don't understand why all the complaining. It's easy enough to ignore software that you don't want to install. It's not hiding the fact that it's going to install/update the software if you click on the "Install n items" button at the bottom. Plus, installing Safari doesn't change your default browser, home page setting, browser search engine, etc... All perfectly benign.

I have seen install programs on Windows that sneak all kinds of junk on to your computer and don't give you even the slightest option to not install it or even tell you that it is going to install it except in that nasty piece of text called the EULA.

So, calm down folks, it's really not that bad and if you really don't want it, ignore it or even better, remove Apple Software Update from even running on your Windows system and you will never have to worry about it again.

Update: (8:18pm) I just cleaned up the links to other sites talking about this topic and moved them off to a list.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple Macintosh, Apple Safari, Apple Software, Based Computers, Cow, Daring Fireball, Free Ticket, Hot Water, Hub Bub, Macintosh Software, Molly Wood, Paul Thurrott, Quicktime, Rare Pattern, Safari For Windows, Software Update, Supersite For Windows, Twitter, Waffle, Windows Software

Gruber has a post up on his site Daring Fireball about the new iPhone SDK and Apple's decision to not allow iPhone apps to run in the background...

Daring Fireball: The Flip Side of the Multitasking Argument:
"As I wrote this morning, I don’t think the ‘no background’ policy implies any spite or shortsightedness on Apple’s part. It’s simply the result of Apple’s decision to focus first and foremost on maximizing battery life and performance. Other mobile platforms, such as Android, may well have different priorities."

Now, I found out the hard way today that iPhone apps running in the background can kill the battery in a hurry. Apparently, an Apple application was running in the background for over 7 hours. I didn't know this and when I went to turn on my iPhone, I got nothing. I tried several ways to activate my phone only to get nothing.

I finally held the power button down for a few seconds and found out that my battery was down to a very small percentage left. Definitely in the red.

Fortunately I was at home and could plug the phone in to charge it back up. If I had been out, I would have been screwed.

Update: I feel I should point out here that up until this incident, I have not had any problems with my charge. I usually run about 1 day before needing to recharge. Usually that is about 2 hours of usage and 18 hours of standby time. This was the first time in the almost 9 months I have had the phone that the charge of my phone had all but drained out in less than a day.

Back to the original post:
Now, I can appreciate Apple's reluctance to allow apps to run in the background. However, I think they need to take a note out of their own rule book and fix their own apps so that they don't run in the background draining the battery of the phone.

You see, I don't know what I had done to cause the battery to be drained so quickly, but looking at my usage time, I saw that it had been running for over 7 hours. Now I know I hadn't been running my phone for over 7 hours. It was fully charged at 7am, and when I went to use it at 4pm, it was all but dead. I would have been using the thing pretty much all day.

So, Apple, fix your own apps please. I really can't have my phone die on me if I'm on the road. It's the biggest reason I have a cell phone in the first place. For emergencies!

Update 2: One of the author's of Twitterific: Craig Hockenberry, has more insights into why multitasking on the iPhone is a really bad idea.

(Via Daring Fireball .)

written by Dave M. \\ tags: 9 Months, Apple, Apps, Battery Life, Daring Fireball, Flip Side, Gruber, Hurry, iPhone, Mobile Platforms, Multitasking, Power Button, Priorities, Reluctance, Sdk, Several Ways, Shortsightedness, Spite, Standby Time, Usage Time

Austin Heller: Promoters: "Austin Heller: Promoters

In December of 2006, John Gruber wrote a lengthy post last year questioning the ethics of the first MacHeist bundle, called The Iniquities of the Selfish. […] So, it does seem odd to see MacHeist advertising running on [Daring Fireball] - which makes me think the deal for the supporting developers might finally be fair.

John Gruber doesn’t seem like one to disregard his beliefs for sponsors, so I imagine they exchanged some emails about the treatment of developers with MacHeist II.

Edit: Gruber writes about his advertisers and sponsors:

Advertisements aren’t endorsements. They’re promotional messages from the sponsor, not me. In short, an ad is an ad, and what I write is what I write.

He goes on to day that the MacHeist is a good bundle for consumers, but not such a great deal for developers, although he has no information about this year’s MacHeist bundle.

(Via cameron i/o.)

To Cameron and others...
John Gruber is not God. He's just this guy, you know... (Sorry, couldn't resist the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy line)

He likes to post his opinion so that he can make money off his website. However, his posts are just "his opinion" and not fact.

MacHeist is a great way for developers to get their programs into users hands. Not to mention the fact that since the bundles probably have programs that the purchaser already owns, there is a good chance that the purchaser will give away the duplicate licenses to friends and family. I say this since I just purchased the MacHeist II bundle and I own just about half the software in the bundle. So I'll be giving the MacHeist bundle software I already own to friends and relatives.

If I truly use the software I have just purchased, I'll be upgrading the software when the next version comes out. That means more money for the developer. Plus there is the word of mouth thing. I'll be singing the praises of the software to others and giving the developers free advertising. Not to mention the advertising they are receiving by just being involved in the latest MacHeist.

Why John Gruber thinks this is bad for developers, I don't know. Maybe he was slighted by a bundle in the past or something. I can't say. All I can say is that, in "my humble opinion" he's completely wrong about these software bundles and folks reading his blog posts should not pay attention to such ramblings.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Advertisements, Advertisers, Bundle Software, Cameron, Daring Fireball, Developers, Endorsements, Ethics, Galaxy Line, Good Chance, Guide To The Galaxy, Hitchhiker, Iniquities, John Gruber, Macheist, Promoters, Purchaser, Relatives, Singing The Praises, Word Of Mouth

Us users should be able to make ringtones out of our music without any concerns from the RIAA at all...

Slashdot | Apple, the RIAA, and Ringtones: "'Apple's interest in defending the rights of the consumer has cost them a lot of grief in the ringtone market.'John Gruber of the Daring Fireball cites Engadget, which reported that the RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so. It won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't derivative works, meaning they didnt infringe on the copyright of the songwriter.' The piece goes on to explain the tense relationship between Apple content holders regarding ringtones and other pieces of IP, such as in the recent withdrawal of NBC.'"

So based on that decision, it sounds like we, the music loving public, should be able to make a ringtone out of any piece of music we purchased without paying any money at all.

I would think that such wording also means that the very talented people that make Mashups should be allowed to do so without any hassles of the RIAA as well.

Now, I'm sure that this really says that the RIAA isn't responsible for paying artists any amount of money. Which is what it has been doing for years.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Amount Of Money, Apple, Content Holders, Copyright Office, Daring Fireball, Derivative Works, Engadget, Grief, Hassles, John Gruber, Loving Public, Nbc, Piece Of Music, Relationship, Riaa, Slashdot, Songwriter, Weren

I don't often agree with Mr. Gruber and Daring Fireball, but boy do I agree with him on this topic: The Ringtones Racket!

During Apple's press event introducing the new iPods, Steve Jobs told all the Apple Zombies in the audience that iTunes would sell ringtones for way less than other vendors. The audience went nuts, as it usually does when God (Mr. Jobs) says just about anything. Yes, you can buy ringtones from the iTunes Store for the low everyday cost of $1.98! Even if you already own the CD that the song you want to make a ringtone out of, you "have" to buy it from the iTunes Store in order to turn it into a ringtone. This is quite a racket indeed. First you bought a CD, then you have to spend 99¢ to buy the song again, so that you can then pay yet another 99¢ for the privilege of cropping out as much as 30 seconds of that song to make a ringtone.

Mr. Gruber says that we should feel no remorse in making our own ringtones and using tools like like MakeiPhoneRingtone or iToner to move the ringtones to the iPhone. I fully agree which is why I purchased iToner. I probably would have used the free MakeiPhoneRingtone tool, but it wasn't out when I purchased iToner. I don't really mind. Ambrosia Software did a great job with iToner and is well worth letting them know it buy giving them $15. Plus, I would much prefer giving $15 to Ambrosia Software then 99¢ to the RIAA!

It's becoming clearer and clearer that the RIAA needs to get their act together. If they don't I get the feeling that they are going to lose more and more musicians over time to produce and promote their own music rather than selling their soul to the RIAA. At least that is what I personally hope will happen.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple Press, Audience, Daring Fireball, God, iPhone, Itoner, Job, Mr Gruber, Musicians, New Ipods, Nuts, Own Music, Privilege, Remorse, Riaa, Ringtone, Ringtones, Steve Jobs, Using Tools, Zombies