[griffman]

Ideally, I prefer the open source approach to change notification: a big list of things, typically grouped into two (or three) categories: new features, bug fixes, and (sometimes) improvements to existing features.
I realize it's unrealistic for Apple to include such a huge list in the top-level document. However, I would like the link they include to the "more info" document to be a more detailed document.
As for what goes in the top-level document itself, it seems pretty obvious that if you're going to be asking the machine to go out to the net on its own, a user should be made aware of that fact. The link you provided contains things I think should be included in the detailed Read Me, as none of them are at all controversial to the general public -- whereas "phoning home" clearly is. And yes, the line then is a bit gray, but erring on the side of too much info would be better than too little info.
-rob.

[MoeS]

No. It is a mountain out of a mole-hill.
If your only beef is that Apple didn't describe it enough for you - what the heck? I realize that as a major Mac publication it is status quo to rip into the company for every little thing, but articles like this just tell me that there are a lot of bored "journalists" over at Macworld. Your article wasn't warning people of a potential threat to our security - because there was none. It was simply playing off of the sensationalized misinformation of the cnet article.
You were "irked". Because Apple didn't explain the update in language you would have liked. Is Macworld edited by Lawyers?

[griffman]

"Your article wasn't warning people of a potential threat to our security - because there was none. It was simply playing off of the sensationalized misinformation of the cnet article."
Are you referring to my commentary, or Macworld's original news blurb? My article was an OPINION piece, not a news piece. The question asked was "How did I feel about the phone home issue?" I answered that question. Think editorial in the newspaper, not page one news story. Hence, since it's my opinion, it cannot be right nor wrong, it's just my opinion.
And I hardly ripped into the company -- I stated, in fact, that I think they're doing the right thing. I just wish they would have told us about it. And again, that's my OPINION. If you have a different one, you're free to express it. But please, don't take me to task for trying to play off sensationalized misinformation from a Cnet article (which I've never read, BTW). Someone asked me to write about what I thought about the situation, so I did. Case closed.
So how about it, what's your opinion on the phone home thing? That's what the article was supposed to inspire discussion about.
-rob.

[Nobody]

Could you confirm that this checks whether the widget is up-to-date? I can't find any such reference from Apple.
According to Apple's release notes re 10.4.2 it has nothing it said nothing about updates, but is a means to notify you that it is a third-party with the same internal identifier as an Apple-supplied widget. If this is true, a lot of what is being said is blatantly a lie and/or totally ridiculous.

[MacTel]

In reply to:

---

seemes like a thoughtful addition to an OS that Vista could only hope to be

---

Agreed, but they still need to fully disclose that they are making a call back to HQ. Further a user should be able to disable this feature and manually perform a check.

[frankt]

"Do you really want the configurability to opt-out of all of them?"
Yes I do. It's called personal computing. Some users may be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Other users want to know what is happening and why. All Apple had to do was to tell us what their intentions were and whether or not we wanted it done. If they had included just one small checkbox in the preferences this would not be an issue at all.