Or it could be a mistake.

I guess that's one way of doing it..

At least users can hide the update. Granted, your average run of the mill user is going to install this anyway I think. I went ahead and installed this on a few client machines, runs well so far.

So now users will have IE, (probably) Firefox, and Safari if they have iTunes / Quicktime installed.. how-day...

You don't have to install it. You can ignore it.

Probably a logic error on the SW developers who work on that at Apple. I *assume* (only an assumption) that there is a core code base that is common between them and that the logic assumes Safari is there as it is on the mac.

Actually, the Software Update on Mac OS X reads the main /Library/Receipts/ folder to see what's been installed already. If it doesn't find a previous install, it won't ask a Mac User to install an update. For example, if you don't have any "Pro" applications installed, SU will not ask you to install the "Pro Applications Support" updates. The Apple Software Update has never asked anyone with a Mac to install new software they didn't have before.

It could be sneaky push technology trying to get users to adopt "updated" software that's not already installed. But maybe chadpengar is right and there's more to Safari than just a standalone browser. After all, Apple's all about Solutions (capital "S" and rarely has standalone products).

Who'd have thought (originally) that iTunes would ever play and sell/rent movies, that Safari would run on an iPod/iPhone (or Windows?), that software would be sold & distributed through iTunes, and that iTunes would use Safari's WebKit to deliver elements of the iTunes store that are more web-like than traditional media players used to be back in the day. Mix in AppleTV and you have a ton of interaction with numerous software and hardware components.

With AppleTV able to rent movies w/out a Mac, and iPhone able to download music/programs w/out going through iTunes, it gets even more complicated.

Maybe we'll see Safari do significantly different things and interact with other "pieces" than it has in the past...even if it's just a delivery mechanism for WebKit.

Maybe some of those iPhone/iPod touch programs/games could be alternatively bought/run on Safari for Mac and Windows? Who knows?

It could be sneaky push technology trying to get users to adopt "updated" software that's not already installed. But maybe chadpengar is right and there's more to Safari than just a standalone browser. After all, Apple's all about Solutions (capital "S" and rarely has standalone products).

First, chadpengar was talking about shared code on the apple updater, not Safari.

Second, Safari is JUST a stand-alone browser. Regardless of whether it has software used by other products (windows or mac), Safari itself is an application.

One of the problems of 'sharing' code between apps is that you can't update one without it affecting all. So getting Safari 3.1, and it has a bug, that then screws up Mail, as well as anything else using WebKit.

Third, Apple has tons of stand-alone software. iTunes, Safari, FCP, Soundtrack, etc. Who'd have thought (originally) that iTunes would ever play and sell/rent movies, that Safari would run on an iPod/iPhone (or Windows?), that software would be sold & distributed through iTunes,

OK, and what does any of this mean? Apple should be allowed to push Safari to Windows users because they use Safari on an iPhone?

And do you really think Apple thought all of this when they first made everything 5-10 years ago?

and that iTunes would use Safari's WebKit to deliver elements of the iTunes store that are more web-like than traditional media players used to be back in the day.

Well, iTunes has always used webkit, AFAIK. And how is the store being more 'web-like' a good thing? In fact, the reason iTunes became good is that it IS NOT web-like, but more like a real application (as most stores of the time, and even now, are through a browser, and, as such, are web-like. And that's why people don't like them).

With AppleTV able to rent movies w/out a Mac, and iPhone able to download music/programs w/out going through iTunes, it gets even more complicated.

No, it isn't complicated. iPhone and AppleTV are difference devices with different code bases and different update mechanisms. They'd have nothing to do with the Apple Software update program.

Maybe we'll see Safari do significantly different things and interact with other "pieces" than it has in the past...even if it's just a delivery mechanism for WebKit.

Maybe some of those iPhone/iPod touch programs/games could be alternatively bought/run on Safari for Mac and Windows? Who knows?

Yes, because that's just what people want. Programs designed around an iPhone screen on their 15" MBPs. You do realize you can run real applications on computers, right?

And who would want to buy a program for their computer like they do for the iPhone/iPT, with all the restrictions Apple places on them?

If Microsoft or Adobe did this, Mac users would flip. There's definitely a group of PC users that would find this extremely annoying, but then they probably avoid putting any Apple software on their computer anyway. Trial software gets stuck on PCs all the time, I guess Apple figures it can't hurt if they join in.