Safari for Windows Downloaded Over 1 Million Times

ClaraBow writes "Apple reports that it took Apple just two days to reach 1 million downloads of its newest Safari Web browser for Windows. If these downloads manifested into regular Safari users, then we just might have a third major browser on the Windows platform. If Safari can obtain a 10% market share on Windows, then it would further weaken IE's position and give standards-based browsers more leverage with developers."

Competition

[desenz]

I might be way off, but it seems more likely to me that Safari will be grabbing its marketshare from firefox, not IE.

Re:Excellent news :-)

[thomas.galvin]

A new browser - that will target a different userbase to FF & divide the market up a little more, will make the web a better place for everyone.

Absolutly, and I think that's the only market that will really go for Safari. I'm a Mac guy, but I use Camino at home and Firefox at work. Safari doesn't have anything great that will make me switch. But, if it's bundled with itunes, I can see a lot of people who use IE because it's the default making the switch.

Re:It makes me wonder...

[Gothic_Walrus]

These statistics make me wonder if Konqueror 4 [konqueror.org] will become another large competitor on Windows.

It won't. The only reason Safari took off like this is because Apple is behind it.

Oh come on

[bcmm]

If these downloads manifested into regular Safari users...

I think a very large number of people, including myself, downloaded it just to see what it was like and have no intention of actually using it.

No competition for IE

[Krommenaas]

Safari is no competition for Internet Explorer, since noone who is able and willing to download and install another browser is still using IE. It's main competitor is Firefox, but I can't imagine many FF users switching to Safari as it confirms every prejudice I as a Windows user have about Mac software: it looks grey and it works against me (e.g. no ctrl-enter, can't resize it easily).

Canabalizing FF?

[HockeyPuck]

It's safe to assume that a certain percentage of windows users will never download a different browser b/c a) they don't know about alternative browsers b) IE is good enough c) don't care. How many of those users that don't fall into the above catagories downloaded firefox and then in the past couple of days downloaded Safari? Could sarfari be canabalizing FF users? Are we just seeing 'churn' here whereby people go from FF to safari and back again?

I highly doubt these 1million were users that have never used a third party browser.

Unfortunately...

[Dan East]

Unfortunately, the type of computer user that would download and evaluate different web browsers are the type of users that have likely already switched to Firefox. So if these people stick with Safari then it will be mostly at the expense of Firefox.

The majority of people I know that use Firefox do so because I either told them to download it, or I downloaded and installed it for them. They will use whatever program gives them internet access that has a convenient shortcut on their desktop or quick launch menu, and as long as webpages and stuff appear when they click on things then that's what they will use until they replace their computer.

Dan East

Flawed assumption

[OpenSourced]

If Safari can obtain a 10% market share on Windows, then it would further weaken IE's position and give standards-based browsers more leverage with developers.

That is, supposing it gets the 10% market share from IE, and not from Firefox, for example.

1M downloads != 1M users

[brundlefly]

Nobody can know for sure, but many suspect that this isn't one million accountants and ebayers downloading Safari. It's more likely a combination of curious iPhone developers, eager Apple fanboys, and a bunch of your average browser-tier developers.

No story here.

Re:Excellent news :-)

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Except Firefox was not new except in name, it had an established user base that wanted to try it immediately

That's why I made the comparison. FF 1.0 went from 0 to a huge userbase very quickly. For Safari to get downloads in the same ballpark is fantastic. Imagine what's going to happen when they bundle it with itunes.

Downloads aren't users

[caseih]

I downloaded Safari right away just because it was there. I ran it, thought, oh that's nice. Maybe good for testing browser compatibility some day. Then went back to Firefox. Same thing with everyone I know who downloaded it. Certainly Safari on windows will never be anyone's primary browser. But it will certainly find uses. Testing web pages, iphone development, and of course embedding the engine in iTunes (did it use IE up til now?). Jobs claimed Safari was the best web browser on all platforms. I call BS. Even almost all mac users I know use firefox or camino because they need features and capabilities that safari just doesn't have. As far as features go, Safari is at the very back of the pack (worst). Even IE 7 is much better in terms of extensions, core feature set. Safari for Windows is the Steve Jobs reality distortion field at its finest.

I do love how Safari for windows uses the nicer Cocoa font rendering. Really makes Windows' native font rendering look blocky and horrible. Does anyone know how to tweak freetype on linux to render the fonts closer to OS X? I already have hinting turned off and that helps, but the contrast of the fonts still isn't right (OS X fonts render a bit heavier, which I like on the screen).

I also personally don't mind the cocoa widgets either. Cocoa looks nice and is highly functional. That's all I care about. Although it definitely would look very out of place on Vista. But on XP, I think it's fine.

Backwards

[SuperKendall]

It seems more likley to me, that a casual user who is just roaming along using IE today and blissfully unaware of Firefox would be more likley to stuble upon or otherwise install Safari - especially if it's installed as part of the iPhone setup, but even just normal Apple marketing may reach them. Firefx users might rty it but are less likley to switch since it offers less over what they already have.

Re:For how long...?

[_xeno_]

I'm assuming you're referring to using it on the Mac. The article title is about "Safari for Windows" so I'd assume the OP is referring to using it under Windows, and not on the Mac.

That being said, I've yet to use Safari for Windows for more than, say, five minutes in one stretch. Firefox works better under Windows than Safari. Yes, Safari is faster, but it doesn't fit in with Windows quite right.

Mac users frequently complain about direct-to-Mac ports of Windows software, and how they don't fit in and don't use the right keyboard shortcuts and the like. Well, Safari for Windows is the same - just in the other direction.

Re:Oh come on

[MMC Monster]

Yeah. I almost downloaded it just because I was curious of how Safari would look on Windows. (I stopped the download when I started reading about how this was a real Beta and not a release candidate build that we (as of late) have called Beta.)

Perhaps Apple will make Safari an optional download when people download quicktime or iTunes. If so, they will likely get a lot of IE converts.

While a couple years ago I would have said that they would not get a lot of Firefox users. But since Firefox is now mainstream, they will likely get a lot of converts from people that think the Firefox icon is for the internet and have no idea what an application really is.

Re:Downloads aren't users

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm a little different than most, I have firefox on my mac, but i only rarly use it if i can not view a page in Safari. I prefer the clean interface over the fancy gadgets. If I need a gadget I can always pull it up, but seriously, If i just need to browse the web I would rather have a faster/cleaner browser without all the extra baggage. The same reason I ran Firefox under windows, but now i have a better choice. not everyone wants gadgets in there web browsers, some people just want there web browser well, to browse web pages!

Buggy As Hell...Sorry

[blueZhift]

Over a million downloads of Safari for Windows probably means a whole lot of disappointed people at this point. I personally have had nothing but trouble with Safari, textless menus and lockups. I finally gave up and uninstalled the thing. I know that betas are test versions, but honestly, Safari for Windows feels more like alpha class software right now. The general public should not be using this right now. I think they rushed this out in this bad condition because Steve Jobs wanted to talk about it and Safari as the host for 3rd party apps on the iPhone. It's always a bad thing when software is released to the public too soon in order to satisfy some marketing goal.

Re:KDE 4 Konqueror KHTML

[Goaway]

All your other blue-eyed optimism aside, this is particularly funny:

and won't go thunk in the night when Bill Gates "upgrades" things to break your work

You know, it's really open source software that's known for making arbitrary upgrades that break backwards compatibility (and keeping version numbers below 1 so they have an excuse - hey, it's just beta!), while Windows goes to great pains to preserve backwards compatibility at all costs, even at the detriment of the system as a whole.

Re:Dumb speculations

[Columcille]

But Safari as a browser is basically no good. It might work well with standards, but its usability is quite weak. I'd place it far behind both Firefox and IE7. I'm one of the 1 million that downloaded it, but I have little plans of ever actually using it except to possibly check how a page renders under it. Its features are just too lacking.

Re:It makes me wonder...

[azuretek]

Exactly, I think of that 1 million the majority of them are already firefox users and they just want to test it out, see how good/bad it is.

I did download it though I'm not using it as my main browser, I don't even use it on my powerbook.

Re:It may be even better than that.

[thegnu]

And while I might get flamed for saying this, I don't really care: If all this compliaince BS was actually to HELP developers, the OSS community would've adopted IE settings as the standard.

Because it's not consistent, and it's broken. It doesn't act as you would expect it. Microsoft is a member of the W3C, who decides on webstandards. Then, IE breaks them (Microsoft owns IE).

Microsoft helps make standards. Microsoft breaks standards. So, to reiterate, it's unfeaseable, and a stupid idea is why.

Re:It may be even better than that.

[dangitman]

If all this compliaince BS was actually to HELP developers, the OSS community would've adopted IE settings as the standard. I mean, why not?

Because the standards are there for a reason, and IE's implementation is broken. It might not be a big deal in the short-term - but if we pander to people who break the standards, where does it end? In 10 years, we have a thoroughly broken "box model" just because Microsoft uses a broken model today? It's about consistency and logic, not expedience. And if we start caving to Microsoft today, what does that bode for the future? they will just be more brazen, because they can expect any changes they make to be be added to the standards.

Re:Apples extra spice ...

[SplatMan_DK]

Personally I would agree with many of your points. But you overlook several important things, and make a lot of very bad errors for a "researcher". The most important one of them is so obvious, that if an employee from "a UI research group" submitted a report to me with such an obvious error I would fire him. (I guess that kinda fits that you would fire a graphical designer who submitted Safari as an example of his work?)

You seem so focus on the ideas and opinions you have picked up in your job as "part of a UI research group" that you totally ignore the point in my first post. And that makes you a horrible researcher - with all respect. You should be a little more willing to LISTEN if you are so proud of being "in a UI research group" (you ARE pretty proud of that, right?).

My own opinions aside (and I already admitted to using FF on all my 3 platforms), the non-technical users I know *DO* think that Apples UI is sleek and user-friendly. As a researcher it is not your job to tell them they are wrong - it is your job to investigate WHY they have that opinion, and which good things can be extracted from that.

The next time you hear someone state "I know a lot of people who think Apple makes good and userfriendly apps" you should investigate. Not engage in heavy criticism colored by your personal opinions.

No matter how much you mock Apple or their software on the Windows platform, it will not change the fact that a very large group of common end-users I know actually think that Apples look'n'feel is better than many other applications. That is not an issue for debate - it is a simple observation of their views on software.

And therefore...

[Space cowboy]

... from a Mac user's perspective, looks about as appealing as old 80x25 terminal text. Text on a PC looks anaemic and blocky compared to properly-rendered text on a Mac.

Now this is just my opinion, and let's face it - it's all totally subjective anyway - but there's no way I'd be happy with that sort of text output.

Simon.

Re:Dumb speculations

[gig]

> [Safari's] features are just too lacking.

The lack of features in Safari is a FEATURE. Same way iPods have only two controls (scroll wheel, hold switch).

If you don't think so, then for you there is Firefox. It has more features, and you can add further features with extensions.

It's a beautiful arrangement because I know from experience that you can author Web pages for one or the other and they will work in both. If half the Web used Firefox and half Safari we would have a very healthy Web API to work with.

Re:Apples extra spice ...

[SplatMan_DK]

People with real technical insight use whatever suits a particular purpose for a particular task in a particular situation.

Personally, I am a Windows, OSX and Linux user. I use the platform that suits my needs in different situations.

Your statement makes you sound like a short-sighted religious type, who refuses to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different platform... like a member of a fanatic sect who mocks or offends other people's choices. It's almost like OS racism. ;-)

If you want to promote what you believe to be the one-and-only platform, you better start taking diplomacy lessons ... mocking others will only alienate yourself and the platform you think you are "helping".

Re:Dumb speculations

[Tickletaint]

Safari also has plenty of hidden settings and tools that you can configure by opening up its property list file. (Or the registry in Windows, I guess?) If you want to go even further, it's not like there's a shortage of extensions [pimpmysafari.com]. Progressive disclosure at its finest.

Among Safari's unique tools is the Web Element Inspector [webkit.org], which is to fucking die for. Nothing I've seen for any other browser even comes close.

Re:standards are not bullshit

[dangitman]

If it doesn't look the way it was designed to look, then it doesn't "work".

You clearly don't understand authoring for the web. It's not about how it looks, it's about conveying information. What does "how it looks" mean for someone who is blind, and uses a screen reader? Even in Internet Explorer, users can change the text size, or base CSS, which will change how your site looks.

If you want everything to look the same, you should be a graphic designer, not a web designer. Wepages are supposed to look different for different viewers, based on their preferences.