[modeless]

This is how Chrome has worked since forever, and it's a good thing. Asking the user for confirmation for security updates leads directly to users running known-insecure versions of software. If you don't want auto-updates, use Chromium.

[1337p337]

...Or a different browser.

Seriously, though, Google is used to web development, where they control the software and the machines running it. A new version of GMail rolls out, and everyone gets it. Like in the case of Buzz, this isn't always good, but it makes developers' lives easier.

But desktop applications are a different game. Almost any time you take control away from the user, it's bad. New version of the browser introduces a security flaw? Sorry, you've been automatically upgraded. Hate a new feature? See previous answer. Security hole found in the Google Updater daemon? Oops, we gave it admin privileges and ran it without telling you.

Has Google created so much good will over the years that people don't scream about this the way they would about similar behavior from Microsoft/Apple/DemonizedCompanyOfYourChoice?

[patio11]

Users of b2c software are incapable of making decisions about their security, and should not be asked to.

[sesqu]

An update procedures takes up noticeable amounts of CPU time and bandwidth. Automatic updates means your system slows down arbitrarily, often with no indication as to why. Users are able to make observations at the level of "since I installed software X, my computer doesn't work properly anymore" and interpret that as a virus infection.

Maybe they can't weigh the downsides of new and old versions, but they can weigh the downsides of now and later. Usually they go for later, which is a different problem.

[1337p337]

A pretty dim view of users, but does that mean that Chrome is not for technical people? It's for an audience that is too dumb to be capable of understanding auto-update? (This audience, incidentally, does not exist: users aren't that dumb.)

In either case, the Right Thing was discovered long, long ago: sensible defaults. Users who don't understand the software needn't worry, and those that know what they're doing can make the appropriate decision.

It bugs me to no end when developers take this parental tack with users, as if we were not only responsible for producing the software, but also for ensuring the user doesn't do anything to harm themselves. Put an are-you-sure dialog box in the way, but don't try to force anything on your users. Even if you know better, you're over-stepping and your second-guessing of the user is misguided.

[modeless]

> Almost any time you take control away from the user, it's bad.

Right, that's why the App Store has been a huge flop, and its closed model isn't being duplicated by everyone who's making an OS these days as fast as they can run their copy machines.

(Yes, I know that the App Store does prompt users for updates, but in all other respects it's a much more tightly controlled system than PCs, and users love it.)

[1337p337]

Prompting, rather than running a daemon that does it automatically, is the entire point of what I said. Adding functionality isn't taking away control unless you have to color outside the lines to disable it.

[gaius]

Imagine the howls if Microsoft had done this...

[drdaeman]

Howls of joy because we won't have any IE6 systems left? ;)

[edanm]

It's not about Google vs. Microsoft. The world has simply gotten smarter about such things, and most people now accept auto-update as a good idea.

[rmc]

It would be brilliant! If MS did this then IE6 would have dissappeared long ago!

[rmc]

I use Chromium installed with apt. All my software on my computer gets updated automatically :)