@norberg or any other Google Chrome/Keystone engineers:
WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app?
Update notification -> User confirmation (or an OPTION for auto-updating) -> Download status.
Why do you insist on installing things into our startup sequence without our permission? If your intent is to "protect" users, increase the nagging. I'd be fine with Chrome refusing to load any website until Chrome is updated to the latest version.
Even Apple, who is notorious for making users' decisions for them, lets us choose when to update apps and operating systems.
Obviously they could have a consensual and transparent updating mechanism. This was not some sort of oversight.
Google's software is a cascade of lies and deceptions.
Think about this: when you start to tamper with Keystone agent, it never says anything to you, it just silently reinstalls itself somewhere else like spyware.
It will keep asking over and over for root access, without explaining why. They make it seem like your installation is incomplete without root access, but that is a lie. It will function fine running out of ~/Library/ as /Library. But there is no way to make it stop asking.
Google Earth, Google Drive, or many other Google products will re-install Keystone agent.
If I try deleting it, then that means I probably want it gone. They should prompt me to repair it or leave it alone.
You would think that Google would want to show off their updater. Even just a growl notification that an update has occurred.
But it makes sense why they don't want users thinking about it. If they were more transparent, they would say:
We've installed this software that will monitor your filesystem and make irreversible changes whenever we feel like it. Sometimes we will break things, but most of the time we won't and if we do break something, we will fix it. It is possible to disable, but you will have to search for it, because you will never discover it yourself. Oh, we could just have a checkbox in Preferences, but we want to make you work for it. And all you are doing is requesting that we stop updating, but we'll still be running.
it's telling that you're still willing to put up with all of this despite what appears to be several really, really angry posts about it.
you have tons of complaints in this thread about google's "bad behavior" but you continue to put up with it to by patronizing the company and their tools, without even apparently asking the question, "do i really need chrome?" or whatever. have you asked yourself why you keep their software on your computer if it's such a headache?
i'm sure i'll get the typical "but there's nothing better!!" response and there may not be, but it's telling of you personally that you are willing to get so upset with all of this and then... keep on keeping on.
Are the issues I've brought up not worth being frustrated about? Do you think I'm a hypocrite for complaining about the thing that I use?
What would you suggest I do?
I use Chrome sometimes. Firefox is bad in its own way, often emulating the worst of Chrome. Like, at least the Keystone agent is unobtrusive and you don't even know it is there. Last time I checked, Firefox's Updater.app is just as disrespectful to the user, but it is horribly inefficient and clumsy.
> WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app?
Because that's how you end up with software that isn't updated, running old insecure versions.
As a user, I like it when my apps automatically update without me having to worry about it. The frustrating part about the Mac App Store is how it still makes you worry about updating apps.
> The frustrating part about the Mac App Store is how it still makes you worry about updating apps.
Wait, what? The Mac App Store updates your apps automatically in background (I know bc sometimes it tells me it can’t update a particular app until I exit it)
> I know bc sometimes it tells me it can’t update a particular app until I exit it
that's the part I find annoying. Contrast to iOS which doesn't have this problem. Obviously the model on iOS is a lot different (more restrictive backgrounding, apps are build to handle shutdown at any time), but its still a minor frustration I have with MAS.
While Sparkle is nice to have a standard way of updating apps, it makes the user worry about updating apps because it pops up dialogs and prompts you to download and install. I would much prefer it just update things for me automatically. If at all necessary, the Chrome approach of "hey, Chrome's been updated. next time you open the app you'll get the new version".
You can do this with sparkle! Our app that uses sparkle runs silent automatic background updates. No prompt for install needed! We could pop a changelog after update, to let the user know there has been one, but most often we don't.
You see a download bar on app icons in the Dock and Finder while they are updating, then a badge (blue dot prefix before the name) on recently updated apps.
Rarely (i.e. on new user accounts) it may ask you for the iCloud account (if it was a purchased app, I think) or administrator password (after some major OS installations).
How is that frustrating and "making you worry" about updating?
It seems like you haven't used the Mac App Store or have changed the default to manual updates.
MAS will download updates automatically, but it whinges and demands you tend to it if the app is open. Contrast to App Store on iOS, or Chrome, which just does everything in the background.
Obviously the model here is different, but its still a minor frustration to me.
This honestly. I've considered getting my parents a Chromebook because they're not technically literate (by their choice) enough to manage a Windows install. Non-automated updates is part of how we got into supporting IE7 forever. If updates were optional, they'd be on the same version I originally installed for them. This non-technically literate demographic is much larger than any of the vocal minority on HackerNews.
Those of us who are fine with running slightly outdated software are probably safe from whatever minor vulnerabilities we might be exposing ourselves to. Regardless, the choice should always be left up to the user. It doesn't have to be one way or the other to make you and me both happy—there can be an "auto-update" setting and a "never check for updates" setting.
100% agree. I shouldn't have to go to war with Google to use their product on my update terms. It's my machine, not Google's. They can ask that I update but they cannot demand.
WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app?
Update notification -> User confirmation (or an OPTION for auto-updating) -> Download status.
Why do you insist on installing things into our startup sequence without our permission? If your intent is to "protect" users, increase the nagging. I'd be fine with Chrome refusing to load any website until Chrome is updated to the latest version.
Even Apple, who is notorious for making users' decisions for them, lets us choose when to update apps and operating systems.