[d00d]

"And if the market as a whole comes to feel that way, then we will be less attentive to the times when our information may truly be compromised in some way."
I have no fear that people will always be looking out for this. Little Snith users are getting greater in numbers, not smaller.
"I think computers and networks are for the use of those who own them, and any use of those networks by software not regarded as communications-oriented should be disclosed to the user for his knowledge and consent."
Geez, I kinda thought that Dashboard Widgets were communication oriented. I get what you're really trying to get at, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as you're purporting.
"Yes, in isolation, maybe this particular case is of no consequence. But what about the next time?"
We deal with it then as is appropriate?
"And I dare say this is something we would all be happy about -- including those who in this instance think this is no big deal."
I have no problem with it. But I'm not going to get worked up about this incident at all.

[Steve_S]

This is all much to do over nothing. Shame on the press of sensationalizing this. It's a software update mechanism. Big deal. News flash everyone, not only do operating systems have built in software updates (Windows, Macs and yes, even Linux does this), but many individual applications do this as well. This is not an evil thing, it's not 1984 and it's not anything like what Microsoft is doing with WGA.
To those suggesting Apple should have mentioned it in the release notes. Yes, I agree. Additionally, I'd like to see it integrated with the actual software update rather than as an individual application. If you're really paranoid, then use something like "little snitch" and put your mind at ease. Apple is not evil for providing software update checks. Let's get past the conspiracy theories and move on already.
Steve

[danmusician]

There has been talk on this thread about "trust Apple," or "don't trust Apple." I never really thought about how much I do trust this company until issues like the music store and the widget thing came up.
I blindly followed the crowd and did the update. I did wait a few days after the update release to see if there were installation problems as in the past. When it appeared there were no major issues, I took the plunge.
I now realize that in the future, I need to wait a few weeks instead of a few days before installing an update - not just to be sure there are no bugs, but to be sure I'm not being "bugged."
One of my few complaints against Apple over the years is that they - or Jobs - seem to think that they know what I need better than I do. Many complaints have been written on these blogs over the years about machines lacking this or that port, etc, or how OS X lacked some crucial feature from the classic days. We thought we needed them, but Apple knew better. (Sometimes they were right, sometimes not.)
Well, it would appear that Apple believes they know what's best for us when it comes to putting trojan features in our OS as well.
It may be harmless now, but power corrupts. And this is a power that needs checked and balanced.

[pixelcruncher]

As someone who tries to convince my clients that running Final Cut Pro is the best solution for HD editing, I'm getting sick and tired of apps that do ANYTHING while I'm laying back a solid hour of HD programming. I shouldn't have to turn off my Airport but I do. I shouldn't have to disable Spotlight (and Apple doesn't make that easy) but I do. I shouldn't have to disable Dashboard (and Apple doesn't make that easy) but I do. I hear over and over that these little apps running in the background are no big deal - but they are. Turning them off cures 99% of my dropped frames. This is a big deal when you're pushing 1080i through your system. STOP! Please! Apparently I actually need all those CPU cycles!

[mackeyser]

While I agree that with the WGA furor (which is TOTALLY justified, imho) this feature should have been communicated, I think I get what they are doing.
They are seeing from the various polls on future buyers (within 6 months) that while Dell has seen dips of nearly 33% (from 60% of future buyers planning to buy a Dell to approx 40%), Apple is seeing jumps totalling 400% (from 4% to 16%).
I think this was a move to ensure that some mac-hater didn't pull a fast one using a malicious widget. A kind of free widget malware scanner, if you will. And while it was self-serving on Apple's part, it was both an acknowledgement that widget's can be misused and an attempt without all the info grabbing to do something about it.
True, it wasn't smart. However, it wasn't exactly dumb, either. More mac users means more developers, more third party products and a greater Mac ecosystem. I would have liked some notification and the ability to turn it off as well. That said, I agree with the editor that this was a minor thing. Moreover, I LIKE that the thinking is likely due to protecting the security of everyone's machine (even if only to reel in the many PC converts on the horizon).
As long as Apple NEVER goes WGA, and I think that is more than likely, than I'm okay with this kind of thing. Plus, I have DisableTigerFeatures, so my widgets never start in the first place....

[pdbreske]

I read this article and these comments, then walked outside and looked up. You know what? The sky isn't falling after all.

[jmincey]

"It's a software update mechanism. Big deal."
Steve, do you see a single individual in this thread or elsewhere who criticizes Apple for implementing a software update mechanism for the widgets? No? Then why are you deliberately mischaracterizing this issue? You know full well that this is about stealth versus disclosure. THAT is what the big deal is about.

[jmincey]

"Geez, I kinda thought that Dashboard Widgets were communication oriented. I get what you're really trying to get at, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as you're purporting."
Actually, I do think it's pretty cut and dried. I don't object to not being notified when a widget uses the network for part of its function. For example, if I call up a weather widget, it goes without saying that it must pull weather data from a source other than my own local computer. Communication is implicit in its function. The same goes for news headline widgets and many others.
What we are talking about here is not something intrinsic to the function of widgets or any other program. It's an "external" function Apple has chosen to impose in which it updates widgets without the knowledge of the user. So to Apple I would say, "Excuse me, but (1) I want to be informed about network activity and (2) I want to choose when I will and will not update software on my computer."
Now you don't object to that position, do you Derik?

[ladyuser101]

J-Man, stay with it. Apple approved should not mean Apple imposed or Apple limiting. They may offer but it should be my choice.
There may be widgets that harm my computer. I should be careful. There may be widgets that over ride some built in software limits (hacks if you will) and help my computing. It's my choice.
Has there been any mention about widget concept copyright or widget fees to Apple? Are rogue widgets able to act in Java ways or Active X ways to penetrate my computer? Do any widgets use Apple servers?

[Nobody]

Everyone here, including all of you so-called journalists, please read this GNU article in its entirety, and try your best to understand it without prejudice:
http://www.gnu.org/p...-you-trust.html
I feel this particular phone-home circumstance may be a very tiny test to see how much Mac users can be pushed to accept Treacherous Computing as the GNU article defines it.
In earlier posted replies to other articles at this site, I stated I have been working on a killer article that Ive already submitted to a few talk-show hosts I implicitly trust. The GNU article was already cited to them along with a lot of other evidence showing Apple is becoming more M$-like than you want to know.
It will be a very slow encroachment upon your Trust, imperceptibly slow, bit by bit your Right to Fully Control the machine you bought will be taken away.
very very very slow
so slow you wont notice it
I bet you dont know whats already inside your Intel-made Mac right now that should have you worried to the max about what will be intended for its use.
There is a purpose in all this that is not being told to you. I just dont know if its the right time to release my article. Every time I see something like this phone-home thing suddenly being forced on us, it might be soon to let it get published, before the really really big things conk us out which then would be too late to do anything about it.
Okay Ive wetted your whistles enough here.
---> IMO <---

[griffman]

"I bet you dont know whats already inside your Intel-made Mac right now that should have you worried to the max about what will be intended for its use."
I bet I do, as do many of the others who read here. And you know what? At this point, I don't really care. If/when Apple decides to do something with the chip, beyond protecting OS X from running on non-Apple hardware, then I'll decide what my next step will be.
I think you should publish your article so that all of us 'so called journalists' can have a chance to read and comment on it, as you, a so called reader, have been given a chance to do with our articles. Ain't name calling fun?
-rob.

[griffman]

"I feel this particular phone-home circumstance may be a very tiny test to see how much Mac users can be pushed to accept Treacherous Computing as the GNU article defines it."
I used to read everything that Richard Stallman wrote. Then I realized that my personal beliefs on most things are basically 100% opposite to his. So I no longer read, nor care about, anything he writes. Note that this is my opinion of his positions; I encourage others who have not read Richard's stuff to read as much of it as you need to in order to draw your own conclusions.
-rob.

[Philbert]

Wow, "covert" activity, "corruption" of power, "treacherous" computing, "worried to the max" ...
I'm going into the HAT business. I'll make a killing!

[jmincey]

Rob, I think you will agree that scifi's post outdoes me for a tone of "be afraid, be very afraid." As I read his post, I found myself bristling at its "people are out to get you" orientation, even though on its face it was sympathetic to my own position on this issue. I haven't yet read the article he links, but let me just say this:
In the United States, if not elsewhere, corporate intrusion into private lives IS on the increase. Philips in the Netherlands is now working on software which will (on compliant TVs) prevent the user from changing channels during commercial breaks. Now is this not absolutely outrageous and unacceptable?
The idea that an appliance is to be controlled by its owner is rapidly becoming quaint, and when I post such things on these forums, it gets pooh-poohed by others. When we take our rights and our privacy for granted, and when we are not vigilant, they will evaporate before our very eyes and be transferred to those with profit interests.
To the American ear in particular, charges of "conspiracy" are unthinkable. We consider ourselves too smart for that. We know conspiracies are far fetched -- by definition -- right? So we dismiss them out of hand and pat ourselves on the back for not being outsmarted by the nut cases who so easily fall prey to them.
But why are conspiracies so far fetched? Just what IS a conspiracy anyway? It's simply a plan devised by two or more people. That's it. Now is this what is really so far fetched in our minds that we are unwilling even to consider the possibility of it?
Now of course there are ridiculous conspiracy theories promoted by people who are either naive, paranoid, or with an agenda to promote. But not all speculation about conspiracy should be ruled out; and the irony is that those who regard themselves as too smart for conspiracies are the very people most vulnerable to them -- because their eyes (and minds) are closed.
Getting back to Apple, I don't consider this behavior an example of conspiracy -- this is a term used by others in this thread to unfairly discredit ideas which they oppose. And I certainly don't believe there is some inter-corporation, trans-national conspiracy to take over the minds and homes of individuals. THAT is truly the stuff of paranoia and science fiction.
But...
There is simply no dispute that our homes and computers are penetrated more and more -- and soon to be our televisions as well -- for the control of advertisers, marketers, and others who can make money from personal information. And I choose not to go down without a fight. I choose not to pretend that this is not a problem.
I realize that to a great degree the genie is out of the bottle, what with our credit card numbers floating all over the universe and our spending habits monitored and even the library books we check out are recorded. But I'm making a stand in regard to my computer. And all I'm asking for is that companies disclose what they are doing, and that we users not be so quick to excuse or give a pass to these companies when they fail to do so.
Now does this really strike you as an extreme position to take on this issue? If one day you don't have control over your own television and can't change the channels on the device in your own home, will that merely "irk" you as well, or would you not say a larger issue is at play -- namely that of your right to control the devices you own in your own home and to control what information about you is made available to corporations?