[geeks] Apple applications phoning home

[Mark]

On 22 Oct 2007, at 08:24, Shannon Hendrix wrote:

> How is the Internet useless if a vanishingly tiny fraction of a
> percent of it is not available?

Erm WTFBBQWorldWideWeb? Every website in the world that has no  
trailing port number is accessed by sending an outgoing request to  
port 80... Moreover a lot of services like RSS also use port 80  
because they are handled via HTTP requests. I believe a lot of  
configuration swapping and setup on .Mac is handled via HTTP/HTTPS  
and swapping XML files. I REALLY don't understand your logic there  
I'm afraid, either that was a crass joke or...

> For that matter, what about those of us running LANs with no outside
> access?

If you block it permanently and unconditionally it just gives you a  
polite message saying it was unable to verify your .Mac settings,  
then resumes operation normally.

> But applications that won't run without a WAN connection are
> *BROKEN*, period, end of story.

It will, I am sure. I think you are just overreacting because you  
found out it makes a HTTP request when you open the Prefs pane, you  
tried to block it, and that stopped it working and you *think* it's  
broken, when in fact it's your interference (blocking the port or  
whatever) that's stopping it working, not the software itself, or the  
OS. The main part of the app runs fine regardless for starters, and  
the Prefs pane works fine also, as Apple designed it.

I'm sure you'd get the same answer from Apple, and they might even  
have been a little more polite, but I like to tell people how it is  
in terms they understand ;)

For the record on a LAN with no internet access, it issues a polite  
messager about not being able to access .Mac. If I remove my .Mac  
login from the machine it says it can't find my login information  
(logical), now I'll conceed - the fact it gives you an error even if  
you don't have a .Mac account configured is wrong - no .MAc = shut up  
I don't have .Mac IMHO, but it doesn't stop the app working in any  
way. It also gives the warning only 1 time per application running,  
so if you leave it open then it won't keep bugging you every time you  
alter the prefs (why you'd need to I dunno).

However, I can't confirm this is the case if you NEVER had a .Mac  
account configured as I do have one, and naturally it's configured on  
all my Macs, and suddenly removing it when I have a load of stuff  
setup to use it might have caused some ripples t hat stopped it being  
un-detected. I did reboot and it still did it. Regardless, the app  
isn't *broken* it's just a little bit presumptuous, and then  
disappointed, then gets on with life :) At no stage have I  
encountered a situation where the Preferences pane would not open at  
all.

> I blocked a dozen times at least trying to elicit just such a
> respond.  Never got one.

What software/hardware are you using to 'block' it? Little Snitch is  
just a very compact and useful packet sniffer and firewall app. I  
don't rely on it for security, more just to see what stuff is doing  
(especially Abode and Microsoft stuff).

> That's not necessary for setting preferences.

It *is* because it loads you preference regarding .Mac sync from the  
central .Mac config server, if it can.

> It's a design flaw and a bug.

It's a design flaw, mostly the presumption that Mac users have .Mac  
accounts (a dangerous assumption given a good percentage of Mac users  
I know think it's a rip, TBH I only keep mine because I like the e- 
mail address it annoys the fan-boys, I have a funny story about that  
but that's for another time :) ). I wouldn't say it was so much a bug  
as a slightly over-zealous feature.

>> Also FWIW Address Book is OS X's frontend for any LDAP, Exchange or
>> Apple Open Directory (also uses LDAPv3 IIRC) address books you have
>> on your LAN/WAN so it is not *just* a local address book, it is very
>> much a network address book utility as well.
>
> ...all of which have nothing to do with preferences, and in my case,
> none of which are turned on so it has no need for network access for
> those things.

I know, I was pointing that out to some less well informed members of  
the list. Please bear in mind you are not the only member of the  
conversations held on this list :)

> Your points are valid in the situations you mention, but not for the
> original post.

Yes, true, see above.

> Any application that phones home when it doesn't need to is broken.

It does need to, you just don't use the features that want it to...

> I should be the one that decides what it does and does not do.

Hmmm... welcome to the world of Apple. They decide what you want,  
based on what the screaming fan-boys tell them they should have. I  
personally have lost a lot of faith in them in recent years. Don't  
get me wrong, I still love OS X, and I wouldn't let my Mac Pro go for  
anything, and think it's one of the best OS/hardware combos around at  
the moment, and it's getting better every time, but the more I use it  
the more I get frustrated by stuff I never really wanted to do things  
I never really need, but unlike Windows you *can* usually safely  
ignore it, or turn it off. This instance is just one tiny thing. When  
you start getting into a discussion this big about a problem this  
small you *know* the OS is pretty good, because there's really  
nothing major anyone can talk about that's wrong anymore ;)

I'll let you know if it's still in Leopard when I get it, or wether  
they altered that version of Address Book to stop it doing it, then  
you can upgrade with complete peace of mind :)

-- 
Mark Benson

My Blog:
<http://mdblog.68kmac.org>
68kMac.org:
<http://www.68kmac.org>
Visit my Homepage: <http://homepage.mac.com/markbenson>

"Never send a human to do a machine's job..."