Securosis

Research

Lessons On Software Updates: Microsoft and Apple Both Muck It Up

I know this is going to sound intensely weird, or somewhat disturbing, but I’m fascinated by how we treat software as a product. It’s kind of a mashup between content like movies and music, which we sort of purchase, but are really just licensing to use, and “hard” products like TVs, hammers, and decorative toilet paper dispensers. Most software companies just sell us a license to use their product, with all sorts of onerous (and potentially unenforceable) restrictions is what we politely refer to as “End User License Agreements”, or EULAs. We only call them that because “Non-Consentual Ass Fuck” doesn’t have as legitimate a ring to it. But there’s a HUGE difference between software and media. Media is passive- we read it, watch it, and listen to it, but it doesn’t affect anything else it touches. A bad book doesn’t screw up your library, and a bad CD doesn’t ruin your CD player. Software, on the other hand, deeply affects our work and personal lives. We install software on systems running other software, and one bad error in one little program can ruin our entire system, corrupt data in other applications, or even damage hardware. Because software is so different than other products, it exists, in essence, in a state of perpetual recall. A sizable portion of the technology industry is dedicated to pushing updates to our software. In some cases these updates change functionality, adding new features. In other cases these updates fix security or other product flaws. For a media file it would be like buying the original Star Wars on DVD, then later updating it will all the improvements Lucas made like emasculating Han and having Greedo shoot first. For physical products it would be like plugging my DeWalt compound miter saw into the wall to add a variable speed feature, or to extend the length of the finger guard. This is an intensely new way of buying, selling, and owning products. One I’m not convinced we fully understand the implications of yet. Let’s turn back to software, keeping in mind that many products today, from MP3 players to phones, now ship with updateable software. As I mentioned before, we tend to lump updates into two categories: Functionality changes: adding or changing features Fixes- repairing security or functionality flaws Ideally these updates benefit the customer by improving the product, but in some cases the update goes in entirely the opposite direction. Vendors can even use updates to deliberately remove functionality you paid for. Take a look at the Pioneer I o; its FM feature to listen to XM radio using your car stereo was completely removed during a software update (Pioneer forgot to get FCC approval). We thus have two situations we’ve never really encountered before in the world of buying and selling stuff. Updates can change how a product you paid for works. Updates can change how other products you paid for, on the same system, work. This is a powerful change to the concepts of product ownership and customer relations and comes with certain responsibilities. Over the past few weeks we’ve seen two of the biggest technology names in the world totally muck it up: Microsoft and Apple. One of the cardinal rules of software updates is that you never force an update. The change you’re pushing might change vital functionality, and, to be honest, it isn’t your right to change my system. That’s called cybercrime. It appears Microsoft messed up and pushed out a “stealth” update for the Windows Update feature of Windows XP. This update installed itself even if you told Windows not to install updates. Worse yet, it essentially ruined the Windows Repair function of the system. Press aside, Microsoft probably opened themselves up for some lawsuits. Another rule (probably more of a best practice) is that you should separate security and functionality changes in updates. This is something Microsoft generally does well these days (except for Service Packs) and Apple does extremely poorly. Security and other flaw updates should be separate from functionality updates because while a user may not want to be hacked, they might not want to change how their product works to be safe.This would be like turning in your car for a recall around a defective airbag and having the speedometer changed from miles to kilometers as a “bonus”. Apple updated the iPhone with critical security updates, but these updates are bundled with serious functionality changes. Thus if I don’t want a little Starbucks logo to appear on my phone every time I walk past one, I have to leave myself vulnerable to attack. Nice one Apple. I really do think we’re redefining the concept of ownership, and the privacy advocate in my is worried things are swinging in the wrong direction. Device manufacturers are practically engaged in an all out war with their own customers, and most of it is driven by the content protection requirements of the media industry. Here are a few recommendations when dealing with software updates: All updates should be optional Don’t bundle security updates with functionality updates Don’t break unrelated applications If you’re an application, don’t change the underlying platform Clearly notify customers what features/functions will change with the update Or to be a little clearer- don’t force updates, don’t take away functions, tell people what you’re doing, and don’t break anything else. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.