Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Opens Up iPhone To Third-Party Browsers

Comments Filter:
  • No Flash (Score:2, Insightful)

    by alain94040 (785132) *

    Sorry, these are just different skins on top of the same Safari (webkit) engine. Of course, Flash is still forbiddden on the iPhone. It's sad, but there's a very good reason for it.

    Imagine if anyone could do dummy iPhone apps using Flash, put them anywhere on the web, with absolutely no control from Apple. There'd be popups asking you to enter your credit card every 10 seconds, ads left and right, etc. Users would eventually be fed up and find the iPhone ugly. I guess Apple cares too much to let that happen

    • Re:No Flash (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Friday January 23, 2009 @01:04AM (#26571041) Homepage Journal

      Imagine if anyone could do dummy iPhone apps using Flash, put them anywhere on the web, with absolutely no control from Apple. There'd be popups asking you to enter your credit card every 10 seconds, ads left and right, etc. Users would eventually be fed up and find the iPhone ugly. I guess Apple cares too much to let that happen.

      Does that happen with your non-portable computer (Desktop) running OS X & Safari?

      Does it happen with your more portable computer (laptop) Mac running OS X & Safari?

      So WTF do you think it will happen with your extremely portable computer (iPhone) running OS X & Safari?

      Don't visit malicious websites.

      If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it is people being able to develop & distribute Apps out of Apple's control.

      • Re:No Flash (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) * <.akaimbatman. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday January 23, 2009 @01:16AM (#26571105) Homepage Journal

        If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it is people being able to develop & distribute Apps out of Apple's control.

        Getting warmer. If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control. Remember, Apple still makes a lot of money off the iTunes Music and TV stores. They don't want to have competition from the likes of Hulu.com or NetRadio.com. Especially if users get the bright idea of streaming this data over a cell network. (ugh)

        The technology that worries Apple for apps is Java. Though I have to concede that J2ME apps tend to be craptastic. They're simply underpowered for a device as sophisticated as the iPhone.

        • If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control.

          Bingo - you're quite correct, but don't dimiss flash as a viable dev platform for many of the I-am-rich-style non-apps that make up the bulk of the appstore.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by AKAImBatman (238306) *

            don't dimiss flash as a viable dev platform

            As an app platform, Flash can't do anything that Javascript/DHTML can't. (See my sig for an example.) Except for multimedia.

            The apps in the appstore are there because the appstore provides a useful distribution channel to get apps in front of users. i.e. a "push" model. Apps on the Internet are much harder to find and require active searching by the user. i.e. the "pull" model

            • So when can I expect your Javascript/DHTML version of this [unitzeroone.com]? :D

              Seriously, though. It's not so much about what you CAN do in Javascript/DHTML, but how much you have to invest to make certain things a reality. I've been coding in Flex for the last year and I cannot imagine how much work I'd have to go through to reproduce some of the applications I've built in Javascript/DHTML, much less to have it work consistently on a variety of operating systems.

              • That? That's easy.

                http://lbi.lostboys.nl/blog/artikelen/canvas-in-full-3d/ [lostboys.nl]
                http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/wolf/ [nihilogic.dk]
                http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/canvas3dtexture_0.2/ [nihilogic.dk]
                http://blog.nihilogic.dk/2008/06/3d-javascript-chess-mouse-support.html [nihilogic.dk]
                http://www.kaarellumi.com/asylum/html/dyn10.htm [kaarellumi.com]
                http://acko.net/files/projective/index.html [acko.net]
                http://wiioperasdk.com/ [wiioperasdk.com]

                I have seen 3D experiments that do environment mapping like you showed, but I'm afraid I don't have them handy. Of course, I doubt either Papervision 3D or a Javascript 3D

                • From the very first link:
                  Canvas is currently supported by all browsers except IE. Although various techniques are available for bridging this gap, this engine is probably a few bridges too far to ever work without native support or a plugin.

                  From the second:
                  Works in at least Firefox 2.0.0.14 and Safari 3.1.1 (a bit buggy, and the latest webkit nightlies don't work well). Opera is best with the beta. No Internet Explorer support.

                  And the third:
                  Please use a canvas-enabled browser (Firefox, Opera or Safari).

                  That

                  • IE is currently the only browser without Canvas support. There is a solid solution using Java applets for emulation. (Current excanvas solution uses VML which isn't fast enough.) The *problem* is that IE is not worth supporting. The longer developers bend over backwards for it, the longer it's going to hang around. That's why my game redirects you to a nice "get a real browser" page rather than using the Applet I developed [dnsalias.com] for high performance Canvas emulation. I just can't make myself support that POS any

                    • It's only within the last year that JS has started to gain some serious development traction.

                      Clarification: It's only within the last year that JS has started to gain traction as a serious platform for application development. In result, many of the "cool" demos are experiments that push the envelope rather than efforts to create something useful.

                    • I really can't believe you so casually dismiss lack of IE support. Clearly you're not talking about commercial software. Because if you took that tone around my boss, you'd be in for a rude awakening. I think you've just made my point for me on why Flash is the better way to go if you're actually in the business as a business.

                    • I really can't believe you so casually dismiss lack of IE support.

                      As I said, it is easily fixable. I'm just on a mission to make sure that it dies rather than being supported. If someone wants to pay me to create something with IE support, I most likely will. But even then I work hard to ensure standards compliance to assist in phasing out IE. IE's market share has been dropping like a rock as of the last year, and I intend to see that it gets there.

                      If that shocks you, then I'm sorry. IE is a piece of crap

                    • I don't disagree with your opinion of IE, but I do disagree with the reality of marketing a product that either doesn't work on IE or requires them to download and install something non-standard to run it. IE still has the lion's share of the installed base, plus there's the fact of all the older browsers that won't be getting upgraded or replaced anytime soon. Flash slips in a bit under the radar both with home users and business users, since you don't actually have to change the browser to update Flash.

                    • And even with that remaining 30%, a much smaller percent (we're talking single digits) are using next-gen javascript engines that are necessary to make the 3d stuff usable that can be done in Flash six months ago.

                      FWIW, 100% of the alternative engines can do it on modern hardware. The exception I mentioned was a fill-rate limited device. The problems there had nothing to do with the JS engine. (Which is actually quite fast.) Even then, wiioperasdk.com attempts to provide a 3D engine for the Wii. Has been sin

                    • Thank you for the conversation. :-)

                      And thank you for not calling me stupid, which seems to always happen when I have a back and forth disagreement of opinion on slashdot that goes over two exchanges. Stay classy.

        • by WiiVault (1039946)
          I think it is a little less sinister than you think. Apple has a lot to gain from avoiding highly proprietary stuff on the web. Yes I know H.264 is not OSS, but compared to Flash or Silverlight it is certainly more accessible. Apple has a lot to gain from avoiding an Adobe or MS powered web. Despite the recent Apple hate, they are certainly better off with a more open web than the web of 2002.
          • by WiiVault (1039946)
            Yeah dickish to reply to one's own post, but let me remind folks that Flash on the Mac, just like Linux is a disaster, Silverlight is also an afterthought. I didn't mean to suggest that Apple is altruistic, but they are smart, and with the way that these 3-rd party plugins work, I don't blame them for saying fuck off.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by AKAImBatman (238306) *

            Yes I know H.264 is not OSS, but compared to Flash or Silverlight it is certainly more accessible.

            Flash supports H.264 codecs. So in that respect, it actually works with Apple's designs for multimedia. Flash is also a pseudo-open platform, making it reasonably appealing to implement on any platform. Of course, the only reason why anyone feels it's a must-have is because of the multimedia capabilities. e.g. If you look at the Wii, the overriding purpose of Flash support on the Internet Channel was Youtube su

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jeff4747 (256583)

          If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control. Remember, Apple still makes a lot of money off the iTunes Music and TV stores.

          What's that? I couldn't hear you over the music streaming to my iPhone using the Pandora radio app.

          • Here's a screenshot of Pandora. Note the third button down: http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080710/iPhone-menu_270x502.jpg [com.com]

            (For those too lazy to click: "Buy from iTunes")

            • by jeff4747 (256583)

              Yep. It also has a button "Buy from Best Buy".

              • The point being that Pandora works WITH the iPhone and Apple's revenue streams rather than against those revenue streams like a radio webapp would.

                • by jeff4747 (256583)

                  My point being if Apple was really doing controlling the revenue streams, I would not have an option to purchase at Best Buy.

                  • Nonsense. Offering consumers options makes them happy. Apple knows that tight integration with their product ensures that a large number of them will use their store. It does not mean that they have to lock out every possible competitor in an attempt to create themselves anti-trust issues. Especially when the competitor's music doesn't operate on the very music device the user is surfing with.

                    In effect, Apple is competing in the market. They use their control not to lock out potential competitors, but rathe

                    • by jeff4747 (256583)

                      May I point out what you said several posts above:

                      If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control.[...]They don't want to have competition from the likes of Hulu.com or NetRadio.com

                      If they are threatened by alternative distribution systems, and they are using the app store to block said competition, then that "Best Buy" button would not be on the Pandora app. They'd only be allowed to put on a iTunes store button. So this can't be

                    • May I point out what I said in another post in this thread.

                      Let's be intellectually honest for a moment. Apple's actions are neither sinister or altruistic. They are simply good business. While my answer of "Flash competes" is the distilled answer, there is more to the story than that.

                      You may read the rest of the argument here: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/23/0539240 [slashdot.org]

                      Effectively you are attempting to commit me to a black and white answer that I did not commit to. For every answer there are

        • by uptownguy (215934)

          If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control.

          Hrm... While that might be true, I have downloaded/purchased official App Store apps such as:

          * Pandora Radio

          * Orb (allows streaming media from my own PC)

          (And those are just the official App Store apps... there's also a number of Cydia applications that can do this too.)

          I think that the iPhone is a fantastic platform. Having used Palms / PDAs of various flavors over the years, I can say

      • Flash still eats a ton of CPU and Memory on my brand new 2gHz Mac Book Pro. I can't imagine what it'd do to an iPhone.

        • by cbhacking (979169)

          Well, it works fine (unless you're running a particularly performance-intensive applet) on the 400MHz Nokia n800 (same processor line that the iPhone uses, 2/3 the processor speed, Debian operating system). It certainly decreases battery life while, for example, watching a video online... but it's possible to do so. It's the real thing, too; Desktop-capability Flash 9 (at the time, the most recent version available for any platform - they may have upgraded to 10 with the most recent firmware).

          Of course, it

          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            Well, it works fine (unless you're running a particularly performance-intensive applet) on the 400MHz Nokia n800 (same processor line that the iPhone uses, 2/3 the processor speed, Debian operating system). It certainly decreases battery life while, for example, watching a video online... but it's possible to do so. It's the real thing, too; Desktop-capability Flash 9 (at the time, the most recent version available for any platform - they may have upgraded to 10 with the most recent firmware).

            Funny, but oth

    • If their lack of support for flash on the iphone is related in any way for their pulling of flash support from quicktime, it's 100% pure laziness.

      Apple did not properly sandbox the quicktime engine, and instead of reworking it to be properly sandboxed (thus fixing the exploit threat) they simply pulled support for it.

      Lazy, Lazy, Lazy, and because of it I have a bunch of SWF files I can't convert to ipod video, and some of which are interactive and can't be converted.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Graff (532189)

      Imagine if anyone could do dummy iPhone apps using Flash, put them anywhere on the web, with absolutely no control from Apple. There'd be popups asking you to enter your credit card every 10 seconds, ads left and right, etc. Users would eventually be fed up and find the iPhone ugly. I guess Apple cares too much to let that happen.

      Pretty much anything you can do with Flash can also be done with JavaScript, Ajax, etc. The iPhone fully supports these technologies, in fact that WAS originally how Apple wanted people to do apps for the iPhone. You can find out more about creating web apps straight from Apple [apple.com].

      Apple has no problem with web apps because they access your device through a vetted application, Safari. The reason that Apple is being more cautious on native apps is that they don't want to make their device unstable or dangerou

      • by cbhacking (979169)

        Overall Apple has approved many thousands of apps and the percentage of apps that have been denied is small compared to that.

        Citation needed. This kind of statement, without supporting evidence, sounds like either wishful thinking or fanboyism.

        • by Lars T. (470328)

          Overall Apple has approved many thousands of apps and the percentage of apps that have been denied is small compared to that.

          Citation needed. This kind of statement, without supporting evidence, sounds like either wishful thinking or fanboyism.

          So name those thousands of apps that have been denied, or your post smells of hateboism.

        • by Trillan (597339)

          According to CNBC, there are over 15,000 applications in the iPhone store: http://www.cnbc.com/id/28691281/site/14081545 [cnbc.com]

          I'll accept that the number that have been denied is not "small" compared to that if you can provide more than 1,000 apps that have been rejected permanently. That would be about 6%. I think that's a fair "small."

    • by jo42 (227475)

      FairSoftware.net -- where geeks are their own boss

      Please stop spamming /. with your web site.

      • by mmkkbb (816035)

        I was about to tell you to shut up and turn off sigs but I see that the dude actually pastes that into the body of each comment. Laaaame.

  • by tsa (15680) on Friday January 23, 2009 @01:11AM (#26571079) Homepage

    This is exactly why I hate the App store. Apple has far too much control over its iPhone, stifling competition and hindering progress The iPhone is just a little computer that you can make phonecalls with. If Apple started to sell Macs on which you could only install new software using iTunes and the App store nobody would buy them. Then why is it OK for the iPhone to have this construction? I bet if the App store didn't exist we would at least have a beta version of FF for the iPhone now.

    • by jo_ham (604554) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .999mahoj.> on Friday January 23, 2009 @02:06AM (#26571383)

      That phone platform exists - it's called Android.

      If you don't agree with Apple's business model for the iPhone, you are free to not purchase one, or use the apps on the app store.

      This is slightly different to the usual "well if Microsoft did this, everyone would moan!" and you're right - they have tried, and very few people bought smartphones (compared to the prevalence of the iPhone).

      If you don;t like it, don't buy one. Don;t buy one, knowing full well ahead of time the way Apple handles software on the iPhone and then complain bitterly after the fact that it's not they way you *think* they should do things.

      If you want to do it yourself, you can jailbreak your phone and carry on as normal.

      The iPhone is a specialised device, with a specific distribution model for its features and applications. It is not a computer (in the sense of a tiny PC - I know that it literally is a small OS X box), it is a phone, with pds-style functions. Apple can choose to lock it down as much as they like - either people will buy it or they won't. So far, it is selling almost faster than they can make it, so buying and installing apps via the store obviously is not a hindrance to the people who are buying it.

      • by tsa (15680)

        I didn't buy an iPhone (the App store is just one of the things I find wrong with it) and I'm following the development of the Android with much interest. I can't wait until it's available here in NL so I can see what it is exactly, but then my trusty Nokia has to break down first before I will buy it.

      • This is slightly different to the usual "well if Microsoft did this, everyone would moan!" and you're right - they have tried, and very few people bought smartphones (compared to the prevalence of the iPhone).

        Actually, no, Microsoft didn't try this. Ever.

        Microsoft treated the Windows Mobile platform like any other Windows -- you can install whatever software you want on it, and it doesn't really matter how you get it there. It has a browser, so you can just download apps that way, from any website, no restriction.

        Contrast with the iPhone, and... you get the idea.

        The advantage of Android is, it's probably much friendlier to use than Windows Mobile, much of it is open source, and the preferred method of developmen

        • by cgenman (325138)

          I believe granparent's point was that the open and available nature of Windows Mobile was not sufficient to make people like it. People moaning that smartphones would be great if they were only open platforms generally forget that the great majority over the years were, yet that wasn't enough to set the world on fire.

          Apple wanted a friendly way to distribute applications on the platform, and their network partner needed a way to ensure that they can continue to charge ridiculous rates for SMS and laptop pa

          • by jo_ham (604554)

            That was exactly my point, thanks.

            For the record, I own an iPhone, and I use the app store. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the way Apple is doing things, but for now, it's not bad enough that I would choose not to use the iPhone.

            Would i love it to be open? Sure. Does it really matter to me at the moment, given the way I use it? Not enough to stop me getting one.

          • by gad_zuki! (70830)

            I dont think 99% of iphone buyers even understand the difference between closed and open development. The iphone is popular for its form factor, UI, and Apple branding. For most of these people its their first smartphone. The idea that users are clamoring for a closed app store is borderline ridiculous.

          • People moaning that smartphones would be great if they were only open platforms generally forget that the great majority over the years were, yet that wasn't enough to set the world on fire.

            I'm not suggesting that it's automatically enough to make them great. I'm only suggesting that the newer, better class of smartphones would be much better if they were open -- and there is no reason the iPhone couldn't be.

            Apple wanted a friendly way to distribute applications on the platform

            Look at Android. It has an App Store, too. It also allows third-party development and distribution, if you don't like their App Store. And I'm guessing their App Store doesn't have rules like "Thou Shalt Not Port a Scripting Language".

            and their network partner needed a way to ensure that they can continue to charge ridiculous rates for SMS and laptop pairing.

            There you go. That's the real reason.

        • by origamy (807009)
          Some cell phone companies block users from installing *anything they want* in their Windows Mobile devices (AT&T for instance). In the end it's about the user experience, and their perception is that these phones do not allow installation of apps, unless you purchase them from the carrier's website.

          You may say that unlocked phones allow installation of any app, but then, their price is not as attractive to the end user as the subsidized iPhone price is.

          Cell phones and PDAs in America are simply a mo
      • by gad_zuki! (70830)

        >"well if Microsoft did this, everyone would moan!" and you're right - they have tried, and very few people bought smartphones (compared to the prevalence of the iPhone).

        There's two things wrong with that statement. The sales of blackberries, palm, and WM smartphones was huge before the iphone and still is.

        MS never tried to lock down apps. Youve always been able to develop for WM or palm. Theres no WM app store.

      • by MikeFM (12491)

        I actually bought an iPod because IMO it is a PDA (probably the best one I've seen). I'm thinking of buying either an iPhone or an Android phone too. I'm leaning iPhone because I can then write apps for all it's functionality without learning a new platform from the iPod. If there was an iPod-level device (not requiring phone service) running Android and every bit as good as the iPod I would have considered that more. I do think the exclusivity of the iPhone platform is a benefit as a software developer too

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GF678 (1453005)

      I bet if the App store didn't exist we would at least have a beta version of FF for the iPhone now.

      If the App store didn't exist the iPhone wouldn't be as popular as it is. By having total control, Apple can ensure applications on the store are up to their standards, conforming to certain specifications like the GUI. This ultimately provides a higher quality app selection (in theory).

      Of course, you're a geek, so you don't think like a normal person (no offense, just how I differentiate). But Apple obviously

      • If the App store didn't exist the iPhone wouldn't be as popular as it is.

        True.

        By having total control of the app store, Apple can ensure applications on the store are up to their standards,

        Fixed that for you.

        This ultimately provides a higher quality app selection (in theory).

        In practice, it also provides exactly the quality, style, and kind of app selection that Apple wants, which is not always what the customer wants.

        Just look at every single slackening of their rules, and see an instant mad gold rush, with consumers eating it up. For example: Apple relaxed the vulgarity rules, and people rushed to buy fart apps.

        Don't you think it would be even more popular if you could do anything you want with it, not just anything Apple wants you to do?

        • by GF678 (1453005)

          Don't you think it would be even more popular if you could do anything you want with it, not just anything Apple wants you to do?

          Unfortunately I'm shackled with a geek perspective on things so I honestly don't know. It SOUNDS like it should, but given how damn popular the thing, I'm kinda thinking Steve Jobs knows what he's doing by keeping it locked down.

          On the other hand, what percentage of people who buy an iPhone jailbreak it? If we can find out these details and it's significant, then you might have a

          • Mine was jailbroken around Christmas-time, for two weeks. I wanted 'net access, and the easiest tethering options were all for jailbroken phones.
            Now that I'm back around stable connections, I'm pondering reloading the firmware. Apart from winterboard and other theming tools, I can't find any real purpose to have a jailbroken phone if you don't need the unofficial tether.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by tlhIngan (30335)

              Mine was jailbroken around Christmas-time, for two weeks. I wanted 'net access, and the easiest tethering options were all for jailbroken phones.
              Now that I'm back around stable connections, I'm pondering reloading the firmware. Apart from winterboard and other theming tools, I can't find any real purpose to have a jailbroken phone if you don't need the unofficial tether.

              Here's one reason - MxTube [mxweas.com]. Lets you download YouTube videos onto the device for watching later. That way you csn watch the wifi version wh

    • If Apple started to sell Macs on which you could only install new software using iTunes and the App store nobody would buy them.

      Check out the AppleTV [apple.com].

      Seth

      • by cbhacking (979169)

        I realize that there probably are people buying those, but I've not once seen one "in the wild" (outside and Apple store). I've seen Zunes, I've seen Android-based phones, I've even seen a PS3 or two. Not a single AppleTV, though - and I actually know quite a few Mac fanboys.

        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          I'll admit that I've been seriously considering getting one. All the shows that I want to actually watch are moving to Friday night timeslots (BSG, Terminator TSCC, Chimp Eden, and Dollhouse). Since I'll not be at home to watch them most of the time iTunes is looking to be a perfect option to just watch them the next day. Only thing is without such a device (or a laptop hooked up to the TV), I'm stuck watching them on my computer screen. Now I've got a 24" LCD, and very good speakers on my system, but s

    • by itsdapead (734413)

      The iPhone is just a little computer that you can make phonecalls with.

      No, its an appliance with a phone, media player, web browser and email client that you can also download approved games and other applications.

      Plus, the App store doesn't seem to stop people doing cool geeky things: E.g. there are a already a couple of free remote control apps for MythTV (native apps, BTW - not webapps) up there. Its frustrating for a slashdotter not to be able to just write code for it, but its not really for slashdotters.

      Of course, one thing that also gets overlooked is that you don't n

    • by MikeFM (12491)

      As a developer I appreciate how easy the iStore makes it for customers to find my apps. The hurdles to developing for iPod and iPhone are frustrating but make for less competition which weeds out a lot of the crap so people can find me easier. So not all bad.

  • by caspy7 (117545) on Friday January 23, 2009 @01:28AM (#26571173)

    Let me clarify this before the hundreds of comments talking about Opera and Firefox "Coming to the iPhone!".
    All of the browsers listed are based on Webkit, the rendering engine for Safari (in fact, I think they're all simply embedding Webkit).
    It is highly unlikely that Apple will allow a browser based on other technologies any time soon.

    Sorry to smash your hopes and dreams.

    • And people have already been doing this for some time. You simply embed a UIWebView in your app. All Apple has really done is decided that your stupidly simple app with a UIWebView taking up the whole screen is no longer verboten.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cbhacking (979169)

      In other words, Apple is allowing apps that are used for browsing, but has not gone back on their "no third-party software that can execute other software" i.e. a competing JavaScript engine (or Flash, or Java, or even Bash...)

  • I predict ruin (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by jonaskoelker (922170)

    [...] Apple's discreet decision to open the iPhone to 3rd-party browsers, by allowing them to appear on AppStore.

    I predict the competition will either ruin Apple, or introduce software that decreases the user's smug factor, to the detriment of all iPhone users.

    I mean, Apple's infinitely wise decision to keep competition out in the first place was for the best of their customers, right? Right?

    </snark>

  • From http://appshopper.com/utilities/incognito [appshopper.com] Incognito is an anonymous web browser for the iPhone and iPod touch. Now you can browse without leaving a history of any kind. Simply close the browser, and Incognito will erase the entire session!
    Now you will no longer have to clear Mobile Safari's history just to hide a single entry, which rendered the URL auto-completion useless!


    Are they kidding? Deleting browser and URL history might be as leaving less traces on that device, BUT for me, browsing anonymo
  • Safari on iPhone, much like it's desktop counterpart needs work. The only thing that ever encouraged Apple to innovate is competition. It's uphill battle against Windows has brought many welcome changes to OS X, as well as may new apps to meet customer need (like Safari). I see a browser war on iPhone producing a better Safari for both platforms.

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.

Working...