Aleksandar • Vacić

iOS bits and pieces

That annoying neighbor

Apple’s approach to Windows - that whatever exists there is crap and it’s our mission to offer a glass of water to those in hell - continues with interesting push technique.

First there was iTunes - yet another media player, one of many with its own idea about the interface. Microsoft is not less guilty here, with each new version of Windows Media Player bringing yet another graphical experiment that has no connection to actual OS interface. Then, with iTunes 7 (can’t really remember which minor version) came Apple’s Software Update. It controlled QuickTime and iTunes, since they came bundled together.

Now it seems that Safari is being pushed through it, even when you did not have it at all. John Gruber finds that interesting, Paul Mison concurs, while I more agree with Waffle’s take (site seemingly down at the moment of writing) that this is despicable move. In essence, this is no different than Yahoo toolbar being packed along with Adobe Reader; or the notorious free Real Player download with dozens of other apps getting along with it. Or any other crapware stuff that you get and have not asked for, like various Live-related apps and settings when you install MSN Messenger.

It’s really amusing to read this part in Mison’s post:

Who else would do this? Google? Microsoft? But I’m not going to mention those, especially the latter. I wouldn’t want to have to mention the way the Windows Live Messenger installer offers to install Windows Live Writer, Windows Live Photo Gallery, or the Windows Live Kitchen Sink, would I?

Defending Apple’s trojan horse by pointing that Microsoft does the same shit? Wow, how amazing. Mison is not the only one using this stupid argument. For the complete “jiminy!” effect, John Gruber actually sides with this reasoning, while just one spot below the link to Mison’s blog he makes fun of Sony offering a fee for removal of the crap they install on their VAIOs by default. It seems that crapware is crapware only when not bundled by certain company. Jolly.

The bad part of all this is that all three of Apple applications are far from good Windows apps. Yes The-Angry-Twat, they are bad Windows citizens, for more reasons than one. iTunes is the resource hog on Windows - I clearly remember that whenever it was running it would take the most CPU %, even compared to likes of Photoshop or Visual Studio. Quicktime is the least responding media player + puts that idiotic icon in the systray without asking you first. These should be resolved first and this is where Apple’s attention should be.

It’s all made worse by another side of Apple’s approach to Windows users - complete disrespect for the UI.

Safari interface on Windows is utter crap. It does not belong there. If you want to create Windows application, follow the Windows UI. This is applicable to any company, be that Microsoft, Apple, Adobe or whoever. Anything else is an insult to anyone actually caring about good UI.

I don’t understand how people that berate Firefox for not being enough Mac-like can even think that bringing Mac OS X interface to Windows is good idea. It boggles the mind.

I really wonder what would happen and what would be the reaction to Microsoft publishing IE for Mac, but with complete set of Vista UI elements.

I fail to see why would average Windows user actually use Safari - its set of UI elements looks completely out of place and is so unfamiliar that turns people off. Windows applications have status bar, they have visible window frame, they have clear distinction between title bar with windows controls and the menu bar below it. I’m certain that, had Apple actually used standard Windows UI controls, Safari would be much more stable than it actually is.

Apple applications on Windows are like an annoying neighbor with big SUV that’s always parked in two parking places. And one day instead of him learning to park, he brings along an ugly, pinkish trailer.