Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Apple

Microsoft Kills Off Mac IE, Blames Safari 1128

aliebrah writes "CNet reports that Microsoft will not release any more major upgrades for Internet Explorer on MacOS. They cite competition from Safari as the reason for this decision, and say that Safari is a better browser for Macintosh systems. Ironically, they also say that they can't compete with Apple, because Apple has better access to the underlying operating system." Yeah, that must be rough. Today's SlashDotFunQuiz is to predict the order in which, impact when, and years until these other Mac products get the axe: Media Player, MSN Messenger, Office, Outlook, and Virtual PC.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Kills Off Mac IE, Blames Safari

Comments Filter:
  • Completion? (Score:4, Funny)

    by CptChipJew ( 301983 ) * <michaelmiller AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:06AM (#6198557) Journal
    They cite competition from Safari as the reason for this decision

    The best part is, Safari isn't done yet.
    • Re:Completion? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Uart ( 29577 ) <[moc.ytreporp-yt ... [ta] [kcabdeef]> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:21AM (#6198637) Homepage Journal
      Microsoft felt that customers were better served by using Apple's browser, noting that Microsoft does not have the access to the Macintosh operating system that it would need to compete

      When is Microsoft going to realize that tying their products into the operating system isn't synonymous with competition.
      • Re:Completion? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by vidnet ( 580068 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:32AM (#6198692) Homepage
        Are they complaining about a lack of test macs at Redmond, or they actually admitting that you need access to the underlying system to be competitive?

        The latter is one of the things they've been saying isn't true in court, no?
        • Re:Completion? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:22AM (#6199241)
          Yes, but Microsoft is basically setting up a claim of "You can beat us in the browser wars, you just have to create your own operating system too." IE wins on Windows, Sarfari rules the Mac, and Mozilla is the browser on Linux... other players like Opera and Netscape are doomed to the minor leagues.
        • Not smart (Score:5, Interesting)

          by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:45AM (#6199353) Homepage
          You know, that's the sort of thing they may regret saying during the next DOJ/MS antitrust trial. There will be another one, of course...we all knew that right? ;)
      • Re:Completion? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kraksmoka ( 561333 ) <grantstern@gma i l . com> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:06AM (#6199162) Homepage Journal
        hold the phone! i'm using the omniweb 4.5 beta, which is using the apple web core stuff, the same internal apple api and kit that safari is built on.

        yes, that's third party access to the mac OS. its open source now, COME ON!

        microsoft is playing this one like a dissociative lunatic, they are the ones that don't give access to shit, accusing apple of doing (which they aren't) what m$ has done for years. maybe its to convince people that just don't know about the current state of affairs that this is being forced on them by apple. sheesh!

        • by EccentricAnomaly ( 451326 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @12:30PM (#6199949) Homepage
          Apple should port Safari to Windows along with all of the Cocoa libraries. Tell developers that if they develop in Cooca, a windows port is just a re-compile away. Without Cocoa on Windows, you not only have to re-write everything you have to change languages too!

          Windows actually started as a set of libraries for DOS programs to add GUIs. The library's popularity helped Windows beat out GEM and OS/2 and achieve total world domination. Apple could pull a similar trick with Win-Cocoa.

          If apple ported the Cocoa Foundation, AppKit, and WebKit to windows, Linux, Solaris, etc. a lot of developers would develop in Cocoa simply because of how wonderful Cocoa is.... and even if Cocoa apps ran under Windows and Linux, they would still run best on OS X on a Mac ....same strategy as the iPods....
    • by TheMidget ( 512188 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:37AM (#6199012)
      Add the following lines into your .htaccess:

      RewriteEngine On
      RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} MSIE.*Mac [NC]
      RewriteRule .*
      http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-1017126.html [R]
  • by ksdd ( 634242 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:06AM (#6198558)
    Now if they'd only do the same for the Windows version of IE...
    • Perhaps they'll just call it quits altogether.

      "Steve, we've had a good run..." - Bill Gates
      "Aww come on, I was just havin' some fun" - Steve Ballmer
      "I want to get out while we're still ahead" - Bill Gates

      or something to that effect.
    • by bluesangria ( 140909 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:21AM (#6198638)
      Um, basically, they are going to. This little paragraph here:
      "On the Windows side, Microsoft has said that it will stop development of standalone versions of Internet Explorer, instead evolving the browser as part of future updates to the Windows OS."

      That link embedded in the quote leads to Microsoft abandons standalone IE. [com.com]

      Of course, evolving the browser into the WinOS may or may not have significant impact on all those pages that are IE specific. All I can say for sure is that, of the 3 browsers that I use on OS X, (Safari, Netscape,Explorer) Explorer is by far the slowest and buggiest of the lot.

      blue
    • by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:25AM (#6198659) Homepage
      They kindof did -- IE 6.1 is the last standalone release version of IE for Windows.
      • by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:35AM (#6199312) Journal
        "They kindof did -- IE 6.1 is the last standalone release version of IE for Windows."

        I think that these are all pieces of a bigger picture. I say that MSFT is using Safari as an excuse for something that was part of their business plan all along.

        I say they don't want to release more standalone IE for Windows or Mac because their next 'integrated-with-OS' version of IE will contain proprietary and hard to duplicate features that will complement features in the next major MS SQL Server and IIS releases. I expect them to campaign hard for banks and other 'security conscious' entities to make the online access to their services exclusively use the new 'advanced security features' of the latest Microsoft products. They're hoping the ignorant bank managers would fall into the trap.

        MSFT plans to try to get everyone hooked on these server products, thus requiring the Windows Longhorn OS to access the services because that's the only way you'll be able to get a browser that speaks the appropriate language. Essentially, they would be trying to force everyone to use Windows if they want to access the secure online features of their bank or stock broker. They way they would be using an operating system monopoly to marginalise other web browsing products in an effort for people to buy their own product.

        And I'm quoting myself here: Wasn't this what Microsoft was sued for before? Using their Monopoly on OSs to marginalise the web browser industry? Haven't they learned anything?

        Well yes, they have learned that they can get away with it.

        • by goon america ( 536413 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @12:17PM (#6199868) Homepage Journal
          And I'm quoting myself here: Wasn't this what Microsoft was sued for before? Using their Monopoly on OSs to marginalise the web browser industry? Haven't they learned anything?

          Yes: donate money to the right politicians.

        • by Nintendork ( 411169 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @01:41PM (#6200334) Homepage
          MSFT plans to try to get everyone hooked on these server products, thus requiring the Windows Longhorn OS to access the services because that's the only way you'll be able to get a browser that speaks the appropriate language.

          Microsoft will do what they can to stay on top of the OS market, but the server products are being pursued for a whole other reason.

          E-commerce.

          .NET's whole purpose is to make access to the services available to everyone, regardless of the platform. Microsoft has some smart people working for them and they realize that they can't put all their eggs in the Windows/Office basket. Microsoft knew that the Internet was the core technology for the future way back when Internet Explorer was first released. By pioneering the code and servers that Internet commerce relies on, they will remain at the top, regardless of the outcome of the Windows/Office future.

          Microsoft is simply expanding into other markets to ensure stability and future financial growth. Would you argue that the X-box is an attempt to lock people into using Windows and Office?

          -Lucas

    • But... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:57AM (#6198802) Homepage
      Now if they'd only do the same for the Windows version of IE...

      But they're one and the same, remember? You kill off IE, you kill off Windows!

      ...

      *rubs chin*

  • by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:07AM (#6198562) Homepage
    It was bound to happen. IE hasn't been updated for ages, and it's embarassingly out of kilter with standards, even in comparison to Internet Explorer for the PC.

    I suppose they want everyone to get MSN for Mac OS X if they want the Microsoft "experience."

    Woohoo! First post!

    iqu
  • I'm thinking ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scottj ( 7200 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:08AM (#6198565) Homepage Journal
    that Office will certainly be last. That's still a good source of revenue.
    • by dmayle ( 200765 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:36AM (#6198714) Homepage Journal

      I'd actually kind of hope that MSOffice goes sooner than later... If it does, than you'll see a mad rush from Apple to update OpenOffice to have Apple's legendary smoothness. Don't get me wrong, I use OpenOffice, but it's not quite there yet...

      Alternatively, they may already have something like this up their sleeves... Just look at Keynote...

      • by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @11:08AM (#6199448) Homepage Journal
        I'm thinking you're right.

        I don't think that Apple has the numbers of developers necessary to create an Apple office suite from the ground up. I suppose an alternate possibility would be to beef up AppleWorks into an industrial-strength office suite, incorporating Keynote and re-assimilating FileMaker Pro.

        However, Steve has opted to take a best-of-breed Open Source solution (KHTML *is* best-of-breed when compared to Gecko, the solid, time tested *BSD *is* best-of-breed compared to the still-evolving Linux) and build Apple software around it. MacOS X is the result of uniting NextStep and *BSD open-source code, Safari is the result of uniting the GPLed KHTML browser engine with in-house code.

        An Open Office completely tuned to use Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Display PDF and all the other goodies available to MacOS X developers would rock the house. It would have full compatibility with MS Office from Office 97 to Office XP, something AppleWorks never had. And Apple could give back a nice polishing job that nobody at Sun has the time, inclination or will to do.

        As far as an Outlook-killer goes...I could definitely see Apple taking Evolution and running with it in a similar fashion to what I am suggesting they might do with Open Office. They might even hire some of the people who worked on Entourage back to make it happen.

        The take-home message here is this: Apple does not need Microsoft anymore. Apple is no longer the teetering, smoking hulk that needed Bill Gates' checkbook to shore up while Steve Jobs did all the things he had to do to revitalize the Apple brand. Apple is now very content to have its niche. The comparisons to BMW and other luxury car makes is very apropos. Neither BMW nor Mercedes nor Rolls Royce nor Jaguar nor Ferrari nor Acura nor Infiniti nor Lexus have a very large chunk of the automotive market. But all do just fine for themselves.

        Bill Gates is going to have to just suck it down.
        • by idiotnot ( 302133 ) * <sean@757.org> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @02:12PM (#6200510) Homepage Journal
          Steve has opted to take a best-of-breed Open Source solution (KHTML *is* best-of-breed when compared to Gecko, the solid, time tested *BSD *is* best-of-breed compared to the still-evolving Linux) and build Apple software around it. MacOS X is the result of uniting NextStep and *BSD open-source code, Safari is the result of uniting the GPLed KHTML browser engine with in-house code.

          I find Safari nearly unusable on some pages I go to because of flaws in KHTML (I see 'em when I load up the dog that is KDE too...). I've gone back to Chimera, and rarely have a problem with a page rendering incorrectly. And Darwin isn't better than Linux -- it's a totally different system with totally different goals. Linux/*BSD are monolithic kernels with typical unix-like authentication and system calls. OSX is closer to BSD-lite, running the Mach microkernel, and using Mach IPC, etc. etc. Totally different systems.

          An Open Office completely tuned to use Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Display PDF and all the other goodies available to MacOS X developers would rock the house. It would have full compatibility with MS Office from Office 97 to Office XP, something AppleWorks never had. And Apple could give back a nice polishing job that nobody at Sun has the time, inclination or will to do.

          If that were easy to do, the native port would be well-along by now. OO.o is big spaghetti code that doesn't necessarily translate well. Besides, it'd still be a crappy OSX application because it doesn't use ObjectiveC or Cocoa.

          As for Sun, you're right. But I think Apple would be wise to buy them out.

          As far as an Outlook-killer goes...I could definitely see Apple taking Evolution and running with it in a similar fashion to what I am suggesting they might do with Open Office. They might even hire some of the people who worked on Entourage back to make it happen.

          Except that you haven't been paying attention to Apple's philosophy regarding applications lately. They're almost adopting a unix-like philosophy where you've got small apps that do a few things well, and will work with each other. There aren't many functions that exist in Evolution which don't already exist in Mail.app, Address Book, iCal, iSync, etc. etc. Quit trolling.

          Apple is no longer the teetering, smoking hulk that needed Bill Gates' checkbook to shore up while Steve Jobs did all the things he had to do to revitalize the Apple brand.

          And if you think that MS bailed out Apple you also think that the Federal Government bailed out Chrysler. 150Mil from MS to Apple is now and was then chump change. What it did was get MS to commit to development for awhile, and provide an antitrust check to keep the Mac platform humming along until OSX was finished.
  • Linux? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bazik ( 672335 ) <bazik.gentoo@org> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:09AM (#6198570) Homepage Journal
    So when do they kill off Windows and blame it on Linux?
  • by visualight ( 468005 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:09AM (#6198572) Homepage
    There's no way the cult of Apple will ever disappear completely. The Apple crowd are the ones who produce most of the attractive media anyway. Maybe one day I'll stop seeing sites that require IE because of this decision.

    Is Safari a w3c compliant browser?

    • by Mikey-San ( 582838 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:20AM (#6198630) Homepage Journal

      WebCore/KHTML is getting there at a great pace. It has awesome support for most stuff, and as Microsoft says, it's better than IE/Mac.

      It has fairly thick CSS support, too:

      Woot, link! [macedition.com]

  • by peatbakke ( 52079 ) <peat@peaCOWt.org minus herbivore> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:10AM (#6198576) Homepage
    .. anything that doesn't make them money. Remember, they're ruthless business people, not ruthless idiots.

    (even though it can be hard to tell the difference)
    • x-box? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by doormat ( 63648 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:06AM (#6198836) Homepage Journal
      isnt the xbox losing tons of money?
      • Re:x-box? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tshak ( 173364 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @11:18AM (#6199498) Homepage
        IE has no potential to make money for MS on the Apple platform, so why would they continue it? XBox has the potential of profiting, and already drives profit for other departments (eg: Microsoft Games). Many business ventures have a 3-5year loss time, where no profit is made. IE has been around for a while, it's a commodity, and it's really not a product like it used to be when web browsers were a novelity. It's kind of like calling Explorer (the Windows file manager shell, not IE) a product and then making one on a competing OS. It just doesn't make sense.
      • Re:x-box? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by frankie ( 91710 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @12:49PM (#6200047) Journal
        Yes, Xbox (v1) is losing $1 billion/year. They're basically giving it away in an effort to kill off competing consoles. Expect Xbox2 to continue losing money while adding Media Center [microsoft.com] functionality.

        This will set the stage for Xbox3 to control the market for pervasive household computing. It will run your entire home and automatically re-order milk from the local grocery partner. Sure, a couple homes might burn down when they get 0WNED or BSOD. Luckily your MS-TV will filter such news by default, to protect your sense of well-being.

        Spending billions to gain a new monopoly over the course of multiple versions is standard procedure for Microsoft. They did it with Windows, with Explorer, with Office, and in Soviet America they'll do it with YOU.

  • there's a shocker... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GreenKiwi ( 221281 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:11AM (#6198588)
    Wait... when MS doesn't have unfair control over a market, the better product wins out?

    Too bad the goverment isn't going far enough to make them allow fair competition in the Windows market place.

    I don't want MS to be taken apart. Just that other companies need to have equal access to the underlying OS and protocols so that they can make products that compete.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:11AM (#6198590) Homepage
    "Apple has better access to the underlying operating system"

    I think they are confusing Windows and Mac OS X. The underlying operating system, Darwin, is open source [apple.com]. Or are they referring to the window manager? Why would they need access to the Window manager source???

  • by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:12AM (#6198592) Homepage Journal
    Speaking with Bugs Bunny voice:

    "Of course you realize this means... WAR!!!"

    (Steve J. hangs up and speed dials Apple Legal Dept. and DOJ...)
  • by Rommel ( 33210 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:16AM (#6198607)
    This move by Microsoft could be the beginning of standards acceptance by web developers. Too many sites require Internet Explorer to work. Maybe web developers will wake up and start supporting standards, instead.

    Alternately, this could spell big trouble for Apple. How will my Mom feel when she can't check her mutual funds using her Macintosh because the browser isn't compatible?

    Is this an example of a development community unwittingly aiding and abetting Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power?
    • by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:09AM (#6198855) Homepage
      I develop a lot of web applications- and just about every other web designer I know has the same problem that I do- Netscape 4.x.

      Netscape 4 was horrible at rendering CSS- an absolute piece of crap. I still have to take it into consideration when creating pages, but it adds a lot of time to my work.

      For anything that I do that is INTERNAL to my organization, I tell them right up front -"Use IE", because in reality that is the easiest way to say "don't use Netscape 4". Most of the cube dwellers have no idea there is anything else- and people that do know there are other choices ignore my suggestions anyway- which is fine.

      Since I started doing this, I have only had one non-Netscape 4 person who had a problem. He was using a very early version of Opera, all he had to do was upgrade.

      But on our public sites, I need to fully support Netscape 4, while it is breathing its last dying breath.

      I don't care what browser people use, as long as it has good CSS support!
    • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @12:23PM (#6199901)
      Alternately, this could spell big trouble for Apple. How will my Mom feel when she can't check her mutual funds using her Macintosh because the browser isn't compatible?

      The same way my mom feels when she goes to a site that is IE specific and doesn't support even the most basic of web standards.

      Mad.

      But, as she has been informed by her son on Microsoft's efforts to deliberately break software compatability and internet standards in order for force their customers to use their product rather than the product of their choice, her anger is aimed squarely at the web site (or more precisely, at the company it represents) and at Microsoft, not at GNU/Linux or her browser.

      She finds a competitor who is standards compliant and buys from them instead.

      And guess what. She loves her Linux box, and will "give it up only when they pry it from her cold, dead hands." She is living proof that Linux is more than ready for the desktop, and not only usable, but often preferred, by those who are not computer literate and simply want to be able to use a machine simply, and without random crashes or data loss. Something Linux gives her, and Microsoft hasn't been able to deliver in nigh 20 years.
  • As a side note .. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peatbakke ( 52079 ) <peat@peaCOWt.org minus herbivore> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:18AM (#6198616) Homepage
    Jimmy Grewal, the lead developer for Mac IE, is leaving Microsoft. He's an interesting guy, and a real Mac fan. Even his web site is running on an OS X server.

    His blog is pretty interesting, if you're into such things.

    http://www.jimmygrewal.com/
  • by 5.11Climber ( 578513 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:18AM (#6198618)
    That way, Microsoft will be forced to kill Windows entirely!

  • Office (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:20AM (#6198633) Homepage
    The death of IE, to be honest, shouldn't be much of an issue. Apple would have killed it in Panther anyway, surely...

    The more concerning thing is Office. Office v.X is excellent and all, but what happens when the new PC version comes out and Microsoft decide that they're bored of updating Office for the Mac - will they just kill that too? One of the key points of the Apple sales strategy is that Macs have Office - without it, things will become more challenging, I'd have thought.

    One could point out that anything different in file formats will break compatibility with older versions of Office on the PC too, but so what? It's all part of the Microsoft upgrade strategy anyway. PC users will always have the choice (albeit expensive) to upgrade. What if Mac users don't?

    Zealots will, of course, talk about OpenOffice and the Aqua port, which Apple could of course assist in the development of, but it's got a fair way to go before near-perfect, nearly-all-the-time compatibility is achieved.

    Will be interesting to see how this all plays out...

    iqu :s
  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:22AM (#6198648)
    IE for the Mac OS X hasn't undergone any significant upgrade for two years. Ironically it was once lauded as the most standards compliant browser around. Any talk of Safari killing it makes no sense at all as it's only been out for a few months and in beta form at that. Microsoft could have improved their browser significantly in that time (e.g. making it multithreaded instead of a straight carbon port), or making it more compliant with the look and feel of the OS.


    Anyway, Mozilla played as much part in its demise. I've used Moz since it's been available for OS X and aside from being slightly sluggish in early versions, it has always been a better, more stable, more compatible browser.

  • This is not good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by J_DarkElf ( 602111 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:26AM (#6198665) Journal
    MacIE was the best browser Microsoft ever made: it was nearly 100% CSS1-compatible, and shared none of the WinIE's vulnerabilities.

    Not to mention it had far better HTML (standard) support than WinIE, better PNG handling, a good DOM level 1 implementation, and support for ECMA 262, not "Javascript" or "JScript".

    Tantek Ãelik and team did a wonderful job, and it's a real bad decision by the Seattle Moloch to axe their one product you cannot complain about in all fairness.

    Microsoft should have based WinIE 6 on MacIE5.

    I hope the people that worked on MacIE are the ones that will build the next-gen IE, and not those incompetent hacks who made the Windows versions.
  • by scientistguy ( 627346 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:28AM (#6198677) Journal

    Damn, I submitted much the same yesterday, but probably a bit too late. Next time. Thereâ(TM)s a complementary piece [macworld.com] at MacCentral [macworld.com]. Also, thereâ(TM)s a bit of discussion at the MacNN board [macnn.com], most of which centers around Safari being able to seamlessly spoof IE 5 and future versions in using bank sites, online purchase forms, etc that are putatively restricted to IE. In any case, given that IE was the most bloated and slow browser available for OS X, this is no big surprise after the release of Safari.

    Nonetheless in the MacCentral story, Microsoft does state âoeMicrosoft and the MacBU continue to be committed to the Mac platform. We are excited about the new versions of products coming out like Office, Virtual PC, Messenger and MSN for Mac OS X. Our commitment hasn't wavered, it's just a matter of doing what's right to meet customer needs.â

    Whoopie, MSN â¦

  • by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:34AM (#6198699) Homepage
    ...is that Apple needs to get their act together regarding Safari, even more so than it is already.

    The number of people they have working on Safari is substantially less than what Microsoft has working on IE. Granted, the way IE is designed requires more people to begin with (it's tightly integrated of course and it is a highly sophisticated piece of software), but more developers means a better product made in a shorter amount of time, assuming their priorities aren't skewed (hint: security). Except for a difference in the level of integration with the OS, Safari is now to OS X what IE is to Windows, and Apple needs to treat it as such--a product as vital as OS X itself.

    Safari always had the feel of a side project, a "just in case" plan. Well, "just in case" has arrived, and it's time for Apple to get serious.
    • by David Leppik ( 158017 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @01:54PM (#6200411) Homepage
      I'm not at all concerned that Apple will be hurt by competing against an overwhelming army of Windows developers.

      In my experience, more developers just means a bigger project-- whether the task is big or not. Big projects are multi-fasceted, with lots of internally extensible components. The extensibility may be useful, but often it just serves to make it possible for lots of programmers to work on it independantly.

      One good example of this is operating systems. Windows XP is huge. It feels huge. The design is centered around trying to make its zillions of features accesible-- using wizards, generic tree views, AI that tries to second-guess you etc. And I'm not talking components like device drivers-- I'm talking the higher level OS features. This is typical for huge projects. OS X does pretty much the same things, yet the design feels simple. Where Windows uses generic components (tree views, etc.), OS X frequently uses a GUI specifically designed for each particular feature. The Preferences window resizes to exactly fit a component, rather than leaving holes to fit unused features. These are signs of a small project. The sort of tight coordination required for that degree of polish-- the appearance that every decision passes through one look-and-feel tyrant-- doesn't scale.

      An extreme example of something that feels huge (which I actually use) is NetBeans, Sun's open source Java IDE. Everything is done with a generic component, which makes everything feel thrown together and nothing is easy to find. There's no designer choosing what features to point out and which ones to bury.

      A web browser has two fundamental parts: standards handling (HTML, HTTP, XML, CSS, images, etc.), and the GUI. In the case of standards handling, Apple is borrowing from KDE-- so they have Linux geeks worrying about compliance for them. That sort of thing is done well by a large, distributed group.

      Apple's principal contribution is an Cocoa wrapper for the web libraries and a GUI. Each of these tasks are best suited for a small group. They each succeed best when they have the consistent feel of having been designed by one person.

  • Ironic indeed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by haggar ( 72771 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:36AM (#6198713) Homepage Journal
    Ironically, they also say that they can't compete with Apple, because Apple has better access to the underlying operating system.

    Are they admitting that the only way Microsoft can compete with other software manufacturers, is by having access to the operating system's sourcecode, to which other's don't? And is there any doubt left that MS in fact used this unfair advantage against Wordperfect and Lotus?

  • Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:40AM (#6198723) Homepage Journal
    After seeing that they "can't compete with Apple":

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    I'd say "How do you like them apples", but it's too obvious a pun.

    To be half serious, it was obvious this was coming - they've been in maintenance mode on IE/Mac since MacOS X 10.1 (fall 2001) - the only updates they've done since then have been for security/critical bugfixes. Until Safari, Mozilla/Camino was the only real option for a forward-looking browser.

    Also, apparently there's a IE release coming out Monday, after which it's over except for the aforementioned security/critical bugfix patches. If IE breaks on 10.3, for instance, it's a pretty good bet that a fixed IE will ensue - elsewise their browser share in the Mac market goes to 0% real quickly.
  • Uhhhhmmmm, okay: (Score:5, Informative)

    by SwissMike ( 592866 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:41AM (#6198725)
    "Today's SlashDotFunQuiz is to predict the order in which, impact when, and years until these other Mac products get the axe: Media Player, MSN Messenger, Office, Outlook, and Virtual PC."

    So, what are our alternatives?

    Media Player: VLC [videolan.org], MPlayer for OS X [sourceforge.net]

    MSN Messenger: Proteus [indigofield.com], Fire [sourceforge.net]

    Office: Apple Works [apple.com], Keynote as Powerpoint Replacement [apple.com], Open Office [openoffice.org], AbiWord [sourceforge.net], Gnumeric [sourceforge.net]

    Outlook: Apple Mail.app [apple.com], iCal [apple.com], Evolution [sourceforge.net],

    Virtual PC: Ya, well, maybe sometime RealPC [fwb.com] will appear after they settle with Microsoft [slashdot.org]. But who uses that stuff anyway?

    Last but not least, Internet Explorer: Safari [apple.com], Camino [apple.com], Mozilla [mozilla.org] and maybe soon again Omniweb [omnigroup.com], thanks to WebCore. (Yes, i left out Opera & iCab)

    Okay, did i miss something? ;-)
    • Re:Uhhhhmmmm, okay: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:50AM (#6199368) Homepage
      I'm looking forward to Apple's version of Office. Keynote is a PowerPoint destroyer; PowerPoint looks hideously amateurish in comparison. If the rest of their suite is half as good, Microsoft is going to face genuine competition in the office market for the first time in decades.



      Windows Media Player is so bad it merited a Perversion Tracker Review [perversiontracker.com]. (Perversion Tracker is a site that primarily pokes fun of inept shareware applications).



      Looks to me like Apple is beating Microsoft at its own game. Certainly the QuickTime player is a pleasure to use, and Windows Media Player is not.



      I find Microsoft's comments about integration into the operating system to be bizarre. The reason other browsers have passed IE have nothing to do with their integration with the OS, or lack thereof; features like tabbed browsing, popup blockers or superior font rendering have absolutely nothing to do with tight OS integration.

      In my opinion, the only way a browser should be integrated into the OS is in the help viewer, which can use the same rendering engine. I believe Apple is in the process of doing this with Safari, and I think it's a great idea. But it does nothing to prevent other companies from making a better browser, if they can do it.



      D

  • by Khan ( 19367 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:43AM (#6198737)
    I've seen the new version running on WinXP via a Microsoft tech. The best quote from him was "We would have bought VMware but, VirtualPC intergrated so nicely into our OS that we decide, what the heck". This was followed by a quote from a VM manager to us that up until recently, MS was their largest customer including running an unreal amount of ESX servers. For those of you not familiar with this product, it is a custom Linux install running some truly outstanding server software.

    Since server integration is the next big money maker for a LOT of vendors, I'm sure that MS will use the "no one uses V-PC on Macs anyways so we're redirecting our R&D to the Windows version" excuse here shortly.
  • by Unominous Coward ( 651680 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:44AM (#6198745)
    This is not such a bad thing.

    It means that as long as Apple retains its current market share, there will be a sizeable portion of internet users browsing the web without IE, which will hopefully result in less browser-specific coding by webmasters.
  • A good thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unoengborg ( 209251 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:55AM (#6198792) Homepage
    This is very interesting since many web desingers still prefer mac.

    If IE is history on mac we can expect them to make web pages that works in safari.

    Now, remember that safari is based on khtml, perhaps we can get a larger percentage of websites that can be read in other browsers than IE.

    This could be a very good thing.
  • by Doomrat ( 615771 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:56AM (#6198799) Homepage
    Needing access to the underlying OS is just a poor excuse. Mozilla is a far better browser than IE, and that works on just about every OS imaginable, so presumedly you don't need to low level OS know-how to make a top notch browser.
    • by cmore ( 62212 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:07AM (#6198839)
      I started using Mozilla a long time ago on Mac OS X, even though IE came with the OS. It is FAR faster and has far fewer bugs than IE.

      Then Chimera/Camino (which uses the Gecko engine with a native Mac front end) came along, and really set the bar for start-up, rendering speed and elegance. It was the most popular browser on the Mac for a brief period of time (until Apple released the first Safari beta).

      So... the open source makers of Camino didn't need any private access to the OS to make a browser than blew IE out of the water.
  • by mrdlcastle ( 254009 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:58AM (#6198807)
    They say competition from Safari, but I believe the most important statement is "Some of the key customer requests for Web browsing on the Mac require close development between the browser and the OS, something to which only Apple has access,"
    This is the argument that they made about their browser and their OS. What better way to bring credibility to their argument that stating that another OS will be better served with a browser that closely integrates with its OS.
  • The Office thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:01AM (#6198821) Journal
    Most here, obviously in light of the fact that MacIE is such a piece of crap, are more worried by the thought of MS killing Office for OSX. People claim that MS will break support for older versions of Windows Office on Windows because they don't care.

    Wrong, they have to care. About 10% of all Office users are still using Office95, about 20% still using Office97, about 40 to 50% still using Office2000. (Office2000 can open OfficeXP documents without many problems). Not that many moved to OfficeXP. A new office that cannot save old Office compatible documents will not get many customers. MS will not willingly shoot themselves in the foot.

    Your Office X will remain compatible for a number of years yet, no worry. After that you can switch to OpenOffice.
  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:13AM (#6198873) Journal
    After all, Microsoft won't release another stand-alone browser [com.com] for Windows either. They're really pushing for an operating system that let you browse the Internet instead, where perhaps the browser component of the OS might happen to be called Internet Explorer. The browser in Windows Longhorn will probably not be downloadable separately, and Microsoft will get complete freedom to do whatever they wish to do in that browser to make it necessary to upgrade to Longhorn to use certain services.

    And according to this news post...

    "Ironically, they also say that they can't compete with Apple, because Apple has better access to the underlying operating system."

    I guess there's the proof; they can't integrate the browser into the OS on a Mac. So long, Apple.

    Not that I think Mac users will suffer a huge loss. Perhaps it will even turn the tide in a positive way since webmasters will no longer have an excuse to make IE-only sites if they wish to make it run on Mac's. Sure, Mac users are in minority, but they're not in such a small minority that I would suggest any serious web developer to simply ignore them.
    • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:29AM (#6198970)
      They're really pushing for an operating system that let you browse the Internet instead, where perhaps the browser component of the OS might happen to be called Internet Explorer.

      In a related story, DrJooz and his hax0r budz cross off MacOS X as a happy hacking playground with the statement "Without direct access to the underlying OS via the browser Mac OS X is just going to too secure to be any fun."

      It is widely anticipated that Microsoft's plans to run Windows browsing services in Ring 0 will provide DrJooz and his friends lots of fun and games.

  • Fantastic news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:46AM (#6199067) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft just gave up a big chunk of IE marketshare. With some sites, especially ones that appeal to artistic/creative types, they've basically reduced their marketshare to 50%.

    Now, if 50% of your users run IE, and the other 50% run an amalgamation of Mozilla, Konqueror or Safari, Opera, and *, this will force developers to consider web standards.

    Businesses may have been able to justify ignoring 5% of their market, but you can't ignore 50%.

    Assuming that this isn't just a Microsoft plot to clobber Apple into accepting something, this is fantastic news indeed.

  • by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:35AM (#6199308) Homepage Journal
    Since we know that IE loved to make its own standards, which causes other browsers to choke or have the site reject them because they aren't using IE, I'm more worried that Mac users may lose a browser that had a fighting chance of accessing pages made by the MS webmaster drones (that is, a webmaster that does not assume non-MS users will access the site and uses proprietary code in the page that only IE/Windows understands).

    The good thing is that Apple's new web browser team is very ferocious in adding features. The first thing many screamed about when Safari came out was tabs, and now, they're there, along with other features. Apple could take a lesson from the Omni Group and its browser OmniWeb, which had a preference that could make the browser say to sites that it was IE/Windows, IE/Mac, or other browser to fake it out and allow access. From there, Apple should add preferences to give Safari as many IE compatibility elements as possible--better, add them as options that the browser can sense when you go to pages that use IE/Windows features that normally aren't compatible. The user can opt to switch on these features from a modal dialog that appears on downloading the page to make things work a bit better.

    The waning of IE/Mac isn't good for people like myself who try to make Macs fit better in the enterprise. PC/Windows users aren't used to choice in the browser world, so IE is their only browser, and Netscape is now a rarity in business circles. Many business-related pages are created with the various MS tools, and many webmasters are unaware that there is a Mac version of IE, much less the fact that it works much like its Windows counterpart. This change will mean that techs will have to educate the webmasters of Safari's differences to get business pages to work--not that such explanations get lots of results anyway.

    The positive news is that Safari generally holds its own in compatibility more than any other browser, and has even shown more compatible than IE/Mac in some of my trials at work, which I why I use it almost exclusively today. Will the loss of IE/Mac throw Mac users back in a web-access Stone Age? Probably not, but you never know what some whacked out ideas have to be added as features in some feature MS webmastering tool that work only for IE/Windows.
  • by bedouin ( 248624 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:44AM (#6199345)
    It's kind of funny, because for the average Mac user there's a stigma before even using MS products that they're buggy and unreliable. You would think the MacBU would've went out of their way to alter that reputation. For example:

    Windows Media Player for Mac - Feels like an absolute piece of Beta software. Moving the window, resizing it, or moving other windows on the screen usually makes the video disappear in WMP. Occasionally I run into a file that simply won't play in it. Since MacBU isn't working on a browser anymore, how about some Windows Media Plugins for Safari, and player that does more than "kind of work?"

    IE for Mac - Great in OS 9; so slow that it was almost unusable in OS X. In comparison to other browsers it felt more like a beta release. Right to left language support was never attempted in any version, even after it was available with the release of Jaguar last year.

    Office for Mac - For the most part, I have no complaints about Office X, and even think it's worth the money. My only complaint is it can't handle right to left languages, so exchanging Arabic or Hebrew documents with Windows users of Office is impossible. Fixing this would probably require a simple patch, one that could've been released a year ago since Jaguar was released. Also, my experience has been that Office X isn't nearly as stable as its Windows counterpart, so I chronically save any important documents (more so than I would if working in Windows). On a 800mhz PowerMac Office X still feels incredibly slow.

    MSN Messenger for Mac - Works as advertised. The new version is actually great. I'm suspecting it's related to their release of MSN for Mac though, so that's probably why it's polished so nicely. With AIM and MSN supposedly merging, perhaps iChat users will be able to converse with MSN Messenger users too. If that happens, the importance of MSN Messenger on Mac may decrease.

    The only significant thing MacBU has released this year has been an MSN client -- something the vast majority of Mac users could care less about. Instead of fixing important pieces of software, they decide to release their equivalent to AOL on Mac. Good versions of their most important products (Office, WMP, IE) might actually showcase how stable OS X is, and how friendly the Mac environment is in comparison to Windows. Of course, that wouldn't be good business for MS. Even though the MacBU supposedly operates independent of MS in Redmond, it still seems to make sure Gates' bottom line is always fulfilled -- make the Mac look like an inferior platform. MacBU hasn't released anything for OS X except buggy, unpolished, beta-like software (notice I left the OS 9 versions out of this).

    Just to go back to the Arabic and Hebrew support in Mac Microsoft products for a second. For the longest time MacOS was the only choice for word processing in right to left languages. There were two things in my opinion that moved Arabic speakers from Mac, to Windows. The first, and most obvious, was that while MacOS supported the language, no browsers did. MS could have easily fixed this problem when they began working on IE for Mac, but never bothered. Secondly, Word documents became a de-facto standard, and while the PC version of Office supported Arabic, Mac Office didn't. On top of all that, instead of using the agreed upon standard for Arabic characters, Microsoft created their own. The result is total market domination in the Middle East, though I guess that's not too frightening since no one in the ME actually pays for Windows or Office anyway.

    If Apple (or any other company for that matter) can release a product better than Microsoft Word, I'll use it in a second. Unfortunately OpenOffice just doesn't feel right to me (yet). It almost seems that Microsoft never expected Apple would release their own browser; perhaps they were expecting Mac users to remain dependent on the inferior Mac IE for a much longer time, and Apple's success with Safari has on
  • by wowbagger ( 69688 ) * on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:50AM (#6199371) Homepage Journal
    This is part of an interesting pattern of MS killing off competing products, esp. on competing platforms.

    I submitted a story (which was rejected) about this little gem:
    Microsoft has purchased the RAV antivirus program, and will discontinue the Linux version [computerworld.com].

    Now this is interesting: they kill IE for Mac. They kill a product that allows a Linux/Sendmail based system to scan for viruses before they are delivered to the end user.

    Question: has MS lost all fear of anti-trust action, and begun the final offensive against all competition?

    Do bears excrete in the forest?
    Do trolls post on Slashdot?
  • by pajamacore ( 613970 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @11:13AM (#6199475)
    There was an article on MacEdition [macedition.com] a few weeks ago in which CodeBitch talked about tabbed browsing.

    The most interesting part of the article [macedition.com] though, was the graphic [macedition.com] halfway down the page that showcased the browser shares of Mac Edition visitors from November 2000 to March 2003.
  • Underlying System (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nuintari ( 47926 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @11:15AM (#6199481) Homepage
    They don't have access to the underlying system....

    This is hilarious for two reasons:

    1. The well documented API provided by Apple is pretty nice from what I have seen, and heard from, from developers for the platform. Ever seen MS documentation? Lots of it... too much of it, and none of it is worth reading enough in a mad quest to find something relevent.

    2. 2/3's of the OSX system is open source BSD license(actually, I think Darwin is converted to some apple open source license that is very open still, but I could be wrong). But either way, how much more open do they need it?!?!?

    Then of course there is that whole, 'whats good the goose is good for the gander issue' with IE vs Netscape and underlying code knowlage advantages.... it all just makes MS look very very dumb.

    But yeah, Safari is a better browser than IE. But does this mean that Chimera should quit now because if MS can't make it in the market, then no one can!
  • by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @11:25AM (#6199536)
    The OS X version of IE is a wonderful broswer, aside from the lack of tabs. It is faster, more stable, and all around better than the Windows version.

    But we don't need it. OS X has an excellent port of Mozilla, which after over a year of use I can attest is excellent. Safari is also a nice option for users who want a less bloated browser, assuming that those users can tolerate that nasty brushed metal theme.

    OS X users have two great browser options, we don't need IE. The only group who needs IE on OS X is Microsoft, and Microsoft has turned tail and run away after getting a nice ass-kicking in the OS X browser war.

    OS X continues to prove that Open Source software is not just a niche market for programmers and sysadmins. Now we just need to educate Windows users about the great alternatives to Microsoft's products, and start beating down Redmond's doors.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2003 @04:27PM (#6201069)
    Microsoft felt that customers were better served by using Apple's browser, noting that Microsoft does not have the access to the Macintosh operating system that it would need


    Looking at IE, I wonder if MS lacks access to the Windows OS too

  • from zeldman.com (Score:5, Interesting)

    by seney ( 244786 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @06:53PM (#6201648) Homepage
    13 June 2003 :::
    5 pm est
    R.I.P.

    The rumors flew all day, but we held off writing about this until we had it from an unimpeachable source. Jimmy Grewal is a key member of the Mac Internet Explorer team and a stand-up guy. He confirms that IE5/Mac is dead.

    There is much that could be said. IE5/Mac, with its Tasman rendering engine, was the first browser to deliver meaningful standards compliance to the market, arriving in March, 2000, a few months ahead of Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 6. On a mailing list today, Netscapeâ(TM)s Eric Meyer said, âoe I donâ(TM)t think people realize just how much of a groundbreaker IE5/Mac really was, and how good it remains even today.â IE5/Mac introduced innovations like DOCTYPE switching and Text Zoom that soon found their way into comparably compliant browsers like Navigator, Konqueror, and Safari. And all but Text Zoom eventually made it into IE6/Win, Microsoftâ(TM)s most compliant Windows browser to date (and the last one they will ever make).

    Bafflingly, after attaining dominance on both the Windows and Macintosh platforms, IE stopped evolving. In the past three years, its existing competitors at Netscape, Opera, and the open source Mozilla project greatly improved their browsers, and new competitors flooded the market, but IE/Win and IE/Mac stayed as they were.

    This might sound like the complacence of victors after throttling an opposing army. But inside Microsoft, nobody was slacking off. Our friends there, we knew, were working on improvements, particularly in the areas of CSS and DOM support. Yet no significantly new browser version ever came of their activity. IE6/Win still had trouble with parts of CSS1, still did not support true native PNG transparency, and still did not incorporate Text Zoom. IE5/Mac, which had worked well in OS 9, became flaky under OS X, and a minor upgrade did not fix its problems. Even die-hard IE5/Mac fans began switching to Camino, and, when it arrived, Safari.

    Those who switched may have done so on the basis of features like tabbed browsing or popup blocking. Some in the development community may have switched because of the improved standards compliance in Gecko browsers like Camino and Netscape. But mostly, we think, the switchers were behaving instinctively.

    With Camino or Safari, you felt you were using a living product that was continually improving in response to user feedback. Microsoftâ(TM)s browser engineers were busy working on something, but their activities took place behind a (figurative) corporate firewall.

    Over the past weeks, the stories we and others have been covering (including the unavailability of an improved version of IE5/Mac outside the subscription-based MSN pay service, and the news that IE/Win was dead as a standalone product) painted a picture of a product on its way out. And now we know that that is the case.

    We know that, after spending billions of dollars to defeat all competitors and to absolutely, positively own the desktop browsing space, Microsoft as a corporation is no longer interested in web browsers. We know that, on the Windows side, it will eventually release something that accesses web content, but that âoesomethingâ will be part of an operating system â" and that operating system wonâ(TM)t be available until 2005, and probably wonâ(TM)t be widely used before 2007. Whether the part that formats web pages will be more or less compliant with W3C recommendations than what we have now, we donâ(TM)t know. Neither do we know whether the unnamed thing that handles web browsing will support CSS3 and other specifications that will emerge during the long years ahead in which Microsoft offers no new browser.

    From here, as it has for several weeks now, it looks like a period of technological stasis and dormancy yawns ahead. Undoubtedly the less popular browsers will continue to improve. But few of us will be able to take advantage of their sophisticated standards support if 85% of the market continues to use an unchanged year 2000 browser.

    But enough, and enough, and enough. We are glad of the latest versions of Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, and Omniweb. But on this grey and rainy day, this news of a kind of death brings no warmth. :::
  • by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @02:05AM (#6203038)

    Checking one's work in IE is very important for Mac web developers. Most people don't use Gecko or KHTML based browsers.

    No doubt, WinIE is fairly different from Mac IE; however, it sure was nice to have -some- sort of Tasman browser on Mac OS.

    Now Mac IE's dead, VPC has an unstable future, and MS is taking the developers of RealPC to court.... eeeeeehhh... this doesn't look like a great time to be a mac web developer :(.

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.

Working...