To echo the sentiments of APGiuliano below, it's untenable for any developer to seize control of running apps on the computer of another user. This is not merely an inconvenience; this is a deal-breaker. I would never consider purchasing any software which engaged in this behavior no matter how good it may be otherwise.

So long as the Acqusition developer reserves to himself the right to seize control of the computers of his prospective customers, why stop with Safari? Why not forcibly run a streaming video of an Acquisition advertisement? Why not forcibly play a podcast touting Acquisition's features? Why not play a Powerpoint presentation which shows how the product surpasses the competition?

While this point is apparently lost on the developer of this software, the applications I choose to run on my computer will be at MY discretion and control. Apps consume resources and I will not have a third-party developer decide to run apps on my computer without my being able to determine the load on my system of that action.

APGiuliano is right to call attention to the uproar that took place the last time the developer took this action -- and now he does it again? Maybe it was an inadvertent -- perhaps this code was embedded in something else he used and he simply overlooked it. But if this was a deliberate choice, then I would like to know what marketing class teaches that alienating potential customers is a good way to generate new revenue.