After all that talk about Apple pushing the Safari “update” on Windows users (here and here), as it turns out, it’s actually “illegal” for Windows users to install it! Read the first sentence in the image below and you’ll see what I mean:
It very clearly reads in Apple’s License Agreement which you have to agree to before downloading Safari, that “This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.” The last time I checked, my Dell computer had no Apple label to be found on it! It looks like Apple needs to take some time to review all of their agreements now that they’re branching out and offering software to Windows users.
What’s even more funny is that when the License Agreement pops-up, it warns to read it carefully. Well, by reading it carefully it was discovered that PC users really aren’t supposed to be using it! It says in big bold/all caps:
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (”LICENSE”) CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE.
Maybe Apple is pushing Safari so hard because they’ll threaten all of the Windows users later on that they must switch to a Mac or face being sued? 
It looks like us software users aren’t the only ones that don’t read the agreement, apparently those who write it don’t read it either. This was clearly an oversight by Apple, and we imagine it’ll be fixed soon.
Source: The Register - Thanks for the tip Max!
Enjoyed the post? Subscribe to our feed to get a daily dose of CyberNet!
Related Posts:
- Safari Browser Stats for March are…
- A Safari Web Browser For Windows…Kinda
- Hide the Safari “Update” Notification in Windows
- Apple Pushes Safari "Update" on Windows
- Are we going to see Safari in Windows? Nah…
And that’s why I don’t use Safari on my Windows XP machine, I wouldn’t want to get sued by Apple for breaking the agreement.
honestly, an oversight is an oversight:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ar.....fixes.html
Obviously some one reads these agreements, or we would be reading this article here. I for one do read agreements, but only because it is part of my job to know what is permissible under the agreements so we can maximize our investment in software. Most however could care less about the agreements. I guess they took an already existing agreement, changed a few words and called it good. That’s kind of funny, it shows how over worked most people really are. Whoever did this was probably being pushed to get something out and so here we go. What a crazy world it is sometimes…
True, but it’s still pretty funny. If Microsoft did something like this people would be laughing until they passed out.
I’m sure they are just using the same agreement from the days that Safari was not available on Windows. I wonder if Internet Explorer says something similar which would make it illegal to use under Wine on Linux.
No offense but unless you were kidding, I think that was a stupid comment. Apple themselves made a version of Safari specifically designed for Windows and put it up for download. If I’m not mistaken they’ve also announced this, so how do you expect them to sue yo?
That’s what happens when you copy and paste.
Talk about performing an illegal operation!
This is really weird on part of apple, first of all they push the updates stealthily and now they would sue us for not reading the EULA. This is really pathetic Apple.
Sloppy legal team.
They’re lazy, copy and paste…
If you did not know it, most these agreements get rehashed after the first one and put together by an IT team not legal; then legal takes a look and signs off on it. Unfortunately lots of things like this can make it through the cracks following this method. I have had to hash through some legal agreements and make something and have lawyers look at it to say ok so we could implement it. I guess it’s a case of getting what you pay for; $25 bucks an hour for IT versus $160 per hour for legal.
I think the little winking smiley is a generally accepted symbol for “kidding”.
I find that the funniest part of it all
On top of it all the phrase “Apple-labeled computer” is not something lawyers would use, as it leaves open loop holes and they’d more likely use a more specific term like “brand name Apple computer” or something to that affect. This leads me to the same conclusion that Ieland came to, that it was likely an IT team or something of the nature who was charged with altering the EULA, and likely wasn’t even reviewed by a legal team, likely to save money if they only have a very few minor changes to make to it.
Nonetheless, an ironic and amusing oversight.
One of the best inventions in the history of the computer…and it comes back to haunt so many people.
That’s a good point… I guess I could make an “Apple label” for my computer.
Along with the fact that they’ve made no effort to make their software look like its running under Windows as opposed to a Mac this proves that Apple care little about actually fitting in with their chosen OS.