At 03:03 PM 04/05/2008 -0400, Tom Piwowar wrote
>If apple wants to communicate why not do it the normal expected way via
>email? I already said no to them that time, now I have to do it again?
>An updater is not for communication, it's for updating, I'm just
>commenting it would be nice if they listened. Why bother asking for my
>email if they are going to use the updater to 'communicate' ?
You really think spam is better? Don't we constantly warn people not to
download and install software offered to then in email?
I think the updater route is better, safer, and much more efficient.
If someone at dinner asks you more than once if you want a second slice
of apple pie do you slam the table and storm off in a huff? You objection
seems petulant to me. Should Apple be required to keep a database of
refusenicks?
No, but consumers should ALWAYS have the option to "opt in" rather than
"opt out". Leave the stupid check boxes _unchecked_ unless someone opts to
check them when installing updates. Having all the boxes checked
automatically is pushy marketing...something I will always shy away from.
Sue
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
