Apple Picking a Fight it Can't Win With Safari 589
Ian Lamont writes "Mike Elgan has an analysis of Apple's successes and concludes that the release of the Safari browser for Windows not only goes against the Apple success formula, but is doomed to a vicious failure: 'The insular Apple universe is a relatively gentle place, an Athenian utopia where Apple's occasional missteps are forgiven, all partake of the many blessings of citizenship, and everyone feels like they're part of an Apple-created golden age of lofty ideas and superior design. But the Windows world isn't like that. It's a cold, unforgiving place where nothing is sacred, users turn like rabid wolves on any company that makes even the smallest error, and no prisoners are taken. Especially the Windows browser market. ... While security nerds were ripping Apple for a buggy beta, the UI enthusiasts started going after Apple for the look and feel. Here's a small sample. Apple can expect much more of this in the future. The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough.' Elgan also expects that the Firefox faithful will fight the Safari influx — a theory that has been supported by comments from Mozilla executive John Lilly, who criticized Steve Jobs' 'blurry view of real world' just after Jobs announced Safari for Windows."
Oh look! (Score:5, Insightful)
The blogger has no idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The insular Apple universe is a relatively gentle place, an Athenian utopia where Apple's occasional missteps are forgiven, all partake of the many blessings of citizenship, and everyone feels like they're part of an Apple-created golden age of lofty ideas and superior design."
that phrase in particular is utter crap and an invention necessary to justify the argument
It's funny that the author clearly has no idea on Apple at all. In fact the Apple audience are known to be excessively vicious to the Apple company, suing it for the slightest of issues. E.g. Right now apple is getting sued because some users believe the pixels on their displays "sparkle" a little bit.
Apple have -never- been in some kind of tech utopia where it's audience has willingly blind sided all their mistakes. Geeze, people still wave newtons around at Jobs during keynotes in silent protest.
Also, while the blogger believes that no one is interested in safari.. it seems to be downloading it's pants off. (So it seems that people are even interested in just having a look, which is contrary to this impenetrable wall of windows browsers that they author conveys.)
I think the author needs to get used to seeing safari around, especially once iPhones start browsing the web.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the author are referring to the Apple fanboys that go on messageboards and discussion-sites (like, say, slashdot) and defends Apple to the teeth, claiming that the safari-browser is really catching on, despite a bogus downloading number and the mountains of criticism it it has gotten. You know, the type that claims that apple fans really are the greatest computer users ever, that they do hold apple up to a huge standard that apple (and only apple) can possibly meet! It's not only apple that's the gr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One could say the same for linux users and their operating systems, particularly on slashdot. ;)
I acknowledge that I am quite the Apple Fanboy, but there's a good reason for it. I've used Windows (3.1 to XP Pro), Linux (from Gentoo to Ubuntu), Open & FreeBSD, and a few other operating systems that I presently can't recall. I haven't looked back since purchasing my MacBook. While I won't contend that only Apple can give me this experience, I do contend they're the most successful thus far.
Furthermore,
Why Apple really released Safari on Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Apple really released Safari on Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
If that is the reason Apple did it then it was a blunder of and epic level.
Safari on the PC is currently inferior to IE and FF!
It doesn't look like a native application.
It lacks a spell checker.
It lacks ad blocking.
Love it or hate it it doesn't use Windows font rendering.
It didn't import any of my bookmarks.
No Linux Version unless you count Konqure.
If you think I hate Safari on Windows you are wrong. It does seem to run javascript heavy sites very fast and I have not had any real compatibility issues with it. It looks like it has a very standards complaint rendering engine as well.
It may get people coding for standards instead of IE. Firefox has helped with that a lot but there are still idiots that code only for IE!
So why Safari? My guess is to offer a Windows environment for widget development but also to give Microsoft a poke in the eye for dropping IE for the Mac. Consider this a shot over the bow warning Microsoft that if they snub the Mac enough that Apple will start attacking Microsoft on their home turf. Maybe Apple is working on an Office killer? Microsoft is having enough trouble with OO.org. Imagine if Apple started improving OO?
Vista is a disappointment, I don't think the latest and greatest office is setting the world on fire, the Zune isn't making big headway with the iPod crowd, and the new IE while an improvement isn't a FF killer. The last thing Microsoft needs is Apple adding it's talent to OO.org!
I keep hoping that Apple will fix the problems so that we do have a lovely third browser choice for Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was really interesting, in that he has no idea what he's trying to say.
Safari on windows will do exactly what apple wants: Get another ~1% of the market-share, make things easier on native apple users, and create a nice alternative to FF/IE/Opera/Gecko
I repeat (Score:4, Insightful)
IT'S AN IPHONE DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM.
IT'S AN IPHONE DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM.
Goddamn tech journalists and their ratings-driven "story templates." People are reading way to much into this. Safari for Windows is an iPhone development platform, not picking a fight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The number of places I felt some respect for their ability have really bummed me out recently. Leo Laporte's rant on the latest Macbreak Weekly about how it's some new lock in for non-open standards was very disappointing. This article is just a Dvorak style 'bash apple and draw attention to me from the fanboy's' type article, not worth the bandwidth.
It's always amazing when Apple announces something new with little/no detail behind the motivation and everyone assumes their either going to Die, or tr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That really bothered me. And he and Andy Ihnatko [cwob.com] kept going on and on about until Merlin Mann [43folders.com] was basically like "Um, do we have any reason to believe its proprietary?" (links added in case people don't know who they are). Leo's usually not like that, and it surprised me, a lot. I wonder what pushed him in that direction.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Informative)
So Steve wants to claim 25% marketshare in the browsermarket and kill Firefox, Opera and the rest in the process. When they release a version that will work for me I'll be happy as that means I can test websites for compatibility without having to buy a Mac. However if they are trying to gain a 25% marketshare they have a very long way to go and I very much doubt they can squash Firefox out of the picture so easily.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Interesting)
How?
The iPhone and mobile browsing.
Mobile browsing has been the red headed step child of the internet. It sucks. The iPhone seems like it will remedy that, and no other company seems to be in a position to compete with it, or will be in a position to do so for some time. That means that Safari will likely become a standard for mobile browsing, as long as the iPhone emulates the iPod and becomes a massive hit. What we will then have is a market in which Microsoft cannot compete because the iPhone will not run IE, just as the iPod did not use WMA. The iPhone will do for mobile internet what the iPod did for digital music... or at least that is Apple's bet. The iPod didn't establish a closed standard for digital music (and won't once Steve realizes his dream of DRM free music). What the iPod did was killed Microsoft's attempt to force Microsoft software as the standard.
I predict that mobile browsing will become indispensable to ordinary people in a way that it isn't now (I never use the web on my Winmobile phone because it sucks). If it is indispensable, then site designers will have to code for it, and that means abandoning an IE only policy. Imagine the hate calls banks will get along the lines of "Hey mofos!!! I can't check my bank balance on my phone!!" THAT will be the effective end of IE as a standard.
Safari for Windows, is, as I said below, just an insurance policy to make sure that whatever works on the iPhone will also work on your desktop (in case Microsoft tries to make things difficult by making iPhone sites display funny).
Microsoft better hope for one of two things. Either (a) the iPhone is a flop; or (b) the iPhone is a success, but mobile browsing never really takes off. Would you want to bet against either one?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone knows that mp3 is OK, but the quality is not as good as AAC or WMA at similar bitrates. Would you rather have improved codecs in an open format like AAC or a format controlled by Microsoft? I'll take the open format thanks.
I'm starting to wonder if Jobs believes he can dethrone Microsoft. I don't mean that he thinks that Apple will replace Microsoft, but that Apple will force third party developers to open standards and free us from the tentacles of the Redmond beast. He's already done it with music. Now he seems to be trying internet browsers. What next?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it won't. Apple makes its money from hardware sales. Steve Jobs knows this and knows he is in no position to cannibalize Apple's primary source of income with such a maneuver.
In effect, he'd be saying "This Mac experience that we sell people for a couple thousand dollars? Now we're selling it to you for a couple hundred." Does that sound smart to you?
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot FUD (Score:4, Informative)
A quick review of the MP3 players currenty for sale at Amazon and Best Buy shows that every MP3 player except for the iPods plays WMA. Maybe "nobody cares," but WMA was pushed very hard as a candidate for the leading digital music standard. It would not be unreasonable to claim that the main reason it failed to become the de facto standard is because of Apple's iPod and iTunes Music Store. (Which use AAC, a codec definition which is a standard.)
Also, although the market share of the segment is small, WMA-based stores do sell a lot of digital music tracks. See http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/30/Technology/Digit al_music_users_f.shtml [sptimes.com] for some music store market shares in 2006, giving WMA around 15%, MP3 around 10%, and iTunes (AAC) around 70%. (Yes, I know that a lot of digital music collections were converted from CD's in whatever format the user chose, but it is hard to measure those collections.)
Considering that total digital music sales were about 581 million digital tracks, that still means a lot of WMA tracks out there, about 87 million. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956655.html?c ategoryid=16&cs=1 [variety.com] Note that this gives AAC downloads about 406 million tracks downloaded, so it would also not be unreasonable to claim that many iPod owners listen to AAC. (Links do not specify region, but data appears to be U.S. only.)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago I worked for a major European telecommunications company who were convinced that, as they were as yet the only people offering a 'user-friendly web browser/phone', they were therefore in control of their market niche and ought to do rather well. Theirs was the definitive browsing experience.
It didn't fit well with the de facto state of the art at that time, and didn't display all those pages too well at all. The company was aware of this; therefore they 'reached out' to those web publishers who were seen as particularly relevant for the user group of said web browser/phone, and offered what was in effect SDK documentation: 'this is how to optimise user experience'. For some reason, almost nobody ever bothered to read said documentation. The general attitude was very much 'who cares about the id10ts who wasted their hard earned on this embedded crap?'
From this experience I took several lessons. Never assume you're a major enough player in the market to force anybody to do anything, unless you own 80% or more of it, and even then, you would be lucky. Very few people code for specific platforms, even where money is waved in front of them. Nobody except the users cares about user experience, except where it impacts on the bottom line (and in the case of a phone, you've already signed a contract before you start to learn about the little bugs). If you are going to offer any sort of guaranteed user experience, you would be best advised to ensure that you do not guarantee it on third party data.
At last year's WWW conf., there was a panel between various mobile web representatives discussing why the mobile web had not yet taken off. One (the Orange guy, I think?) pointed out that extremely high expectations had built up around mobile browsing. It wasn't so much that the current experience as of today's Nokia smartphone is particularly bad - it's more that there was a huge mismatch between expectation and experience. I get the impression that Apple really ought to talk to guys like this before they publicise the iPhone platform much further. They are making commitments that reality may not reflect -- which is pretty much a classic way of setting yourself up for 'limited success' in this arena.
I'll take that action (Score:3, Insightful)
I will bet against both for the forseeable future. Mobile "browsing" is now and always will be a novelty. Access to mobile information services is another thing altogether. With the possible exception of messaging (blackberry, sms, etc) that is an idea ahead of it's time. (immature application base)
The iPhone will fail because it too is a luxury novelty produc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Based Phones? 5.6%, not "most people" (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I bet he'd like that. But his software is on less than 6% of them now, and it's getting its ass kicked by Symbian. Ballmer will be quite annoyed if and when Apple ge
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Interesting)
Translation: don't assume that there's only going to be one model and one price point forever.
Secondarily, Apple may, like they do with Mac, be happy to simply dominate the high-end market. One set of numbers I've seen indicates that while Apple may only have 2-3% of the worldwide market for personal computers, they have %6 of the total US market and 26% of the high-end market.
Translation: define "dominate".
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you can throw that under the heading of Reality Distortion Field [wikipedia.org]. I think it's a ploy to take attention away from the sucky fact that the only "apps" they're allowing on the iPhone are web pages. Oooh, innovative.
A little more (Score:4, Informative)
Can you automatically pull up maps or dial phone numbers from pages you browse on your cell phone?
Perhaps there is a little more there than you think in the way of innovation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of Windows users downloaded iTunes, even though they didn't have an iPod. A lot of people just like it (and of course many people hate it). The same will probably be true of Safari.
There are of course many things to fix, but it is a beta. I'm guessing there will be a few people who want a simple, easy to use browser without endless sets of extensions and widgets. I was that person years ago when a simple browser called "Phoenix" was released, and that's why I used it. Now Firefox is not the simple browser it used to be.
Of course
FTR I now use Omniweb, which was well worth the small registration fee.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Simplicity is why I switched to Firefox and Opera from MSIE in the first place. And now both Firefox and Opera have expanded to become the same bloated fatware as MSIE. And Firefox has become just as buggy also.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Safari on Windows effectively serves as a development environment for non-OS X developers who want to deploy iPhone apps. And in the end, even 5% total marketshare for Safari is good because it pushes web standards just a little bit more.
If Safari is so standards compliant, why does would developers need Safari on Windows to develop for iPhone? Couldn't they just use another stan
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just from today's work, I can t
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they're starting to. Part of the thing is that it seems like a lot of the people who write a lot of crap and have decent readership of their blogs also happen to be Mac users. So, they get to a site that doesn't work, they blog about it, it doesn't look good, etc. etc. There's really no excuse to not make your stuff work with Safari, as it's *very* standards compliant. I can't really think of the last page I went to that didn't work in Safari.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
The company I work for recently (less than 2 yrs) had to purchase a mac so they could test a website they were developing against Mac browsers.
Due to the nature of the site a significant user base use Macs. The user base? People with money; and lots of it.
So tell me; who do you aim for as a market?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac developers: the butlers, the chauffeurs, the concierges, the maids of computerdom.
The real money is in selling to those who control install-bases of thousands of computers and devices. You can't even manage a device you can't put your own applications on. The iPhone will have zero presence in the enterprise market, and without third-party support, it never will.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:4, Funny)
Pros: Surrounded by women, overly paid for what people could easily do by themselves, short hours, get invited to client parties.
Cons: Surrounded by women, actually start believing in crystals, must shower before and after work, people think it is appropriate to cry in front of you, people will laugh at you in person.
Windows Developers- The Plumbers of computerdom.
Pros: People are respectful/fearful in person, good money, never ending work, showers optional.
Cons: Shit, corporate work is always better, urinal cake considered a workable solution, people laugh behind your back, never ending work.
Linux Developers- The Captain Kirk of computerdom.
Pros: Freedom, Cheetos.
Cons: Freedom, Cheetos.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
If a web developer doesn't care when their site does break or look odd in Safari, maybe they don't really care that much about the enduser experience. Personally, I think if the browser has more than 1% of the market, it needs to work with my sites. 1% is still a couple million people. I'm not going to abandon that many potential visitors/customers by being an arrogant snob like you seem to suggest.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe. Let's face it, people who buy Macs typically have more money than the person who's buying a $400 PC at Wal-Mart. If your target is the more affluent web surfer, then making sure your site works in Safari is probably worth your time.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say the iPhone is a huge hit in the way that the iPod is a huge hit. Let's say it revolutionizes mobile web browsing (I think people spend too much time looking at the interface, the phone apps and the iPod app - the "real" internet "in your pocket" is the big deal). The iPod being a hit meant that iTunes became a standard on desktop PCs.
So if the iPhone is a success, people will spend a lot of time browsing sites on it, and people will write Web 2.0 sites for it. Simply put, if the iPhone is a mega hit, Safari becomes the standard for mobile internet browsing, and IE mobile is finished (I have it. It sucks anyway). I think this will happen. Safari marketshare is going to shoot up as more people use their iPhones to access the web (this is why I think that devs whining about the lack of an iPhone SDK is dumb. Web 2.0 is the way to go).
But no-one is going to spend all their time browsing on their phone. People will want to use the same 2.0 sites on their desktop machines. Do you really think that Apple can trust Microsoft or the Firefox devs to make sure that IE and Firefox will be compatible with all the sites that are aimed at iPhone users?
Wouldn't it suck if you were using a great Web 2.0 interactive site on your iPhone and you got to your desk and discovered it didn't work properly with your desktop browser?
Wouldn't it suck if it was hard to sync your bookmarks between your phone and your desktop browsers?
By allowing Safari for Windows, Apple is basically saying: "All you other guys better support Safari, because it will rule mobile browsing. If you think that you can create trouble for the iPhone by making it hard for sites to be compatible with both the iPhone and Windows desktop browsing, then we're going to stop that by telling everyone that if their favourite sites work on their phone, but not their desktop, that they can download a browser that will make it work on the desktop. And added to that, we are going to make it super easy to sync bookmarks between Safari on the desktop and Safari on the phone. People will want a seamless experience between their mobile browsing and their browsing on traditional computers. Ignore this at your peril."
If Apple comes to rule mobile browsing, then it will be in a powerful position to determine web standards. Safari is insurance against others who might rock the boat.
Re:They're Not There to Win (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, let's say "HSDPA" instead of "3G", since 3G is more a marketing term than a technical spec. My (admittedly unconfirmed) suspicion is that Apple developed the iPhone with EDGE because they didn't know which carrier they'd actually sign up with in the States, let alone Europe. They wanted as wide a playing field as possible initially, because they knew it'd be a hard sell to get a carrier to meet all their demands as it was. Would I prefer HSDPA? Yes, even acknowledging the caveats that it's not available in nearly as many markets here, and also acknowledging that the markets HSDPA is already deployed in are big metro areas where you're more likely to find spots you can switch over to wifi.
Having said that: speed isn't everything. Maybe you think the iPhone will be "worse internet" than existing phones, but that depends on what phone you're comparing it to. I have a T-Mobile Sidekick and generally like it, and it's an EDGE-speed device. The iPhone will kick its butt in terms of user experience, because the interface matters a lot. If the Sidekick was HSDPA, would the EDGE-only iPhone still kick its butt? For many web sites: yes. If your mobile browser can't handle Google Maps, it doesn't matter much that it's failing to browse that site at five or six times the speed of the iPhone that's displaying it successfully.
I think (some) people keep failing to recognize what Apple's gambit with the iPhone is: they're betting that its "killer app" is the UI. There's nothing that the iPhone does that other mobile devices don't already do, but there's nothing that does those things the way the iPhone does. It could well end up being a high-profile collapse. But I think it's a fascinating gamble, and it's a variant of one that Apple has pulled off successfully more than once.
Yet they still use IE... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that the author is holding Apple to a standard that not even the mighty giver of life to all, Microsoft, (praise be upon it), is held to.
Bundle it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about iPhone (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't people take it for what it is? (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, the release of Safari to the Windows platform allows people to develop and test applets that should work on the iPhone.
Was there really a plan for Safari doing well against Firefox and IE?
It just seemed to me the best way to release a product that helps increase use of another product. Safari isn't going to make anybody any money. iPhone will make Apple a boatload of money if the product and attached cellular service are decent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
- To make it easy for web developers to test their sites with Safari.
- To make it easy for web developers to write iPhone web-apps.
- To remove the cap on Safari's market share, so that 'it must be even smaller than the Mac market share' is no longer an argument for not supporting Safari.
- To let potential switchers see that the Internet will work on a Mac, even though it doesn't have the big blue E.
- To ensure that Apple is the one bringing the first mainstream WebKit-based browser to Windows, now all the porting work has been done (by Adobe).
Which of these is the fight that Apple can't win?Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same problem; crashes every time I try to launch it. It gets only as far as displaying the menu and address bars. I've uninstalled/reinstalled it, to no avail. It crashes sometimes on my iMac as well. Safari definately has some issues that Apple should address.
-psc
Re:Umm, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Safari Beta 3.0.1 for Windows [webkit.org]
Several of the issues appear to be in the foundational libraries which Apple ported from Mac OS X and not in Safari or WebKit themselves. The beta is testing more then just WebKit or Safari on Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another rule of thumb.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect most actually-Beta (as opposed to "Beta") software doesn't have a shiny link on the front of the company's website to an equally shiny page boasting about how great it is (and with a notable lack of warning that it may crash your computer or help script kiddies hack you - in fact, it boasts about great its security is). Sure, the warnings are in the EULA, but how may people actually read that? Most Beta software also doesn't get the sort of publiclity that this did...
The term Beta software used to be a synonym for 'Unstable, bug ridden and insecure'. Unfortunately Google has devalued the meaning of the term to the point where you and others seem to think it is normal for 'Beta software' to be stable, bug-less and secure. Not everybody has followed Google's lead in never taking products out of Beta state even after they are long since mature so you will have to get used t
What do YOU think Apple is up to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, there are 5 good excuses to release Safari, but I think that is what they are, just excuses.
I think the main reason, the real reason, is advertising. Everybody who reads "Why you don't need Safari" or "Safari vs IE" or anything like that at all is reading the equivilant to "Apple competes with Microsoft." Even people who never read anything more than a headline will think of Apple as a competitor next time they get ready to buy a computer. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of other good effects for Apple, but the core is that their main products, iPods, iPhones and Macs make more sales.
Go Apple.
Disclaimer: I do not own and have never owned a Mac (though I have used and supported them.) I secretly hope that Apple will release an i386 open source release some day.
Re: (Score:2)
this one [duggmirror.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
6. To advertise Apple and increase awareness of Apple products and services in general.
Again, as you rightly state, not a fight that Apple cannot win -- in fact this task has already been achieved.
Has to be said, all in all this has to be one of the worst thought out articles on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me go out on a limb here and say that anyone that has Safari already knows about Apple.com. How else would they get the fucking browser?
And why does IE still hold about 80% of the market (Score:5, Insightful)
Unforgiving the smallest error? Let's check the market share of IE again ...
Seriously, I wouldn't expect Safari to become a major force on Windows, I don't think that even Apple expects a lot. But to claim that the Windows world is driven by quality while the Apple world is cozy is just stupid. IE was crap for years and Firefox is still at 10% market share. Most people stick with what they know (usually Windows), so the amount of "switchers" we see is a sign that quality actually can work for people who look somewhat further, but most people never do.
Re:And why does IE still hold about 80% of the mar (Score:3, Insightful)
Unforgiving the smallest error? Let's check the market share of IE again ...
That statement does have some merit if you are a third-party Windows development house. Windows is MS' own personal playground so they have more latitude to make a hash of things. This isn't true of anything that directly competes with either an MS product or one of the biggies like Adobe and Intuit. The people behind Opera seem to understand this.no competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really news, not really unique to Windows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People use IE because its there. but look what Apples doing...bundling Quicktime/iTunes/Safari in one download. a whole lot of people are going to have Safari..there already...b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The bundling is awful. The only technically required bundling is QuickTime with iTunes, since iTunes depends on QuickTime. At least now it's fairly public what you get - I remember when you had to hunt around for the "QuickTime only" link. Those kinds of tricks aren't just Microsoft-bad, they're Real-bad.
Safari for Windows is a blessing for web developers. Up until early June, three of the four m
Is Apple really trying for market share? (Score:2)
I didn't think that Apple was trying to get marketshare in the Windows browser world. Safari is there to provide a means for developing iPhone apps was my understanding.
Is Elgan trying to create
Not Really... (Score:2)
Most likely, Safari was released on Windows to promote the iPhone. Sort of a way of saying "this is what you *could* be getting if you had an iPhone". Also, Apple knows Windows-based iPhone developers are going to want to take advantage of their so-called "sweet solution" for 3rd party apps. Safari provides these developers with the necessary runtime env
Fear Uncerntainty Doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
I will use Safari frequently for development. And when I can (in an upcoming release) specify a proxy server (to get rid of advertisements) I will use it more often.
I am not an Apple fanboy, and I even had font issues with Safari on Windows. The problem is now fixed.
Mike Elgan can go back into his hole - I don't give a crap what FUD he wants to spread. It sounds like there is not enough fresh air circulating in his mothers basement... either that or he is endorsing company blog "clog" spam.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps it's still about the Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
LS
It's about OS X, not Windows (Score:2)
Pussy Critics (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't a pussocracy, either - smart people there survive up against Microsoft's monopoly by their wits, in the market, periodically revolutionizing it. Getting Athens and Apple so wrong discredits the rest of Mike Elgan's analysis. If you're going to argue from caricature analogy, only cartoons will be persuaded. If you're making such a discreditable attack on an absent target too busy to spend time debating your niche, you're a pussy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He probably meant to say, "Olympian" rather than "Athenian", although even the Gods had their problems.
From my perspective... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, get over it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
could be something else (Score:2, Interesting)
The most amusing aspect of romanticizing the cold cruelty of the windows world is how none of it seems to be directed it Microsoft itself. Or, at least effectively directed at microsoft.
That aside, I think it's premature to pretend that we know the strategy of the Safari/Windows release at this point.
"Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough." (Score:2)
Safari is not on Windows to grab marketshare in the Windows browser marketspace.
Safari is on Windows so that apps written for Safari on the iPhone can also be run on Windows. Apple is beginning to do what Microsoft greatly feared Netscape was trying to do, i.e., make the underlying OS disappear and make the browser the application platform.
Isn't that what all these Web 2.0 AJAX apps are all about?
Who cares if they 'win' (Score:2)
I hardly use Safari on my Mac in the first place (Score:2)
That said - Safari isn't here to win the fight right from the start. iTunes required a bit of time and effort on the part of the Apple developers to turn it into the powerhouse media player that it is today (both on Mac and Windows).
Yes I'm a Mac fanboy but hell, I'm typing this on a Windows laptop using Firefox. Apple gets many thi
I'm just glad I have another alternative (Score:2)
Elgan used to be the editor of Windows Mag (Score:4, Insightful)
One more browser on Windows doesn't hurt anything. Because Safari is based on K, it's tougher to smack down with silly code crunches, although they shouldn't have released it until they tested it JUST A BIT MORE. How embarrassing to release a browser that has to have six patches on its first freaking release day.
But Elgan is wrong about Apple. His background at Windows Magazine and HP's in-house organ haven't given him much insight into the seige mentality at Apple. It's plainly been a survivor mentality with a few stellar successes and a few big craters. I wouldn't leave it to Elgan, however, to comment on Apple's mentality when he's clearly been a bit of a stooge of the Windows mindset.
Look at iTunes, QuickTime, and other cross-platform Apple successes, just like Microsoft has theirs (Office and Entourage for the Mac). More competition is good.
A zero cost advertisement 'war'... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Madness! (Score:5, Funny)
(Cut to shot of Mike Elgan getting kicked down a well)
LILLY: "The thousand domains of the Windows Empire decend upon you! Their popups will blot out the sun!"
JOBS: "Who the fuck are and why you in my parking spot?"
POGUE: "History will remember that one browser stood against a the pile of shit that was Internet Explorer"
Not Windows Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not the problem, that is its greatest feature. Same as iTunes.
Excuse me? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the people are willing to live with Microsoft's products, I'm sure they will be more than happy with those of Apple as well, and quality doesn't seem to be the most important factor today.
Hysteria all around us (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do we need all those fortune tellers? "Why Microsoft's Zune scares Apple to the core" is of the same author (a former editor of Windows Magazine). The other guy, a man who wrote "Has Apple tripped up with Safari?" had his previous blog entry explaining how to run XP Solitaire under Vista!
Should it really mean that Safari has a chance then? hmmmm. Being standards compliant is one of the virtues of the little beast.
Hey folks, it's just one amongst the browsers. Mac OS X runs more than a handfull of browsers. Do we hear mac addicts scream in agony over so much choice? No. So why go berserk over Safari for Windows?
Move on, use your browser and be happy.
Does anyone else smell fear? (Score:3, Insightful)
it's an iphone SDK (Score:3, Insightful)
geez, get over it, safari is the iPhone devkit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. If you put CPU specific code in a browser, you should just shoot yourself and admit failure as a developer and/or software engineer. In addition, Safari's rendering comes from WebCore, which is a combination of KHTML (from the KDE folks) and KWQ (which Apple wrote as an adapter). KHTML was running on multiple platforms way before Apple decided to use it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)