Slashdot Mirror
Apple Terminates Safari Seed Program
coolmacdude writes "This morning Safari beta v67 was leaked to the Internet. Because this is the third time it has happened (v62 and v64 were leaked), Apple has apparantly had enough and decided to terminate the seed program that provided unreleased beta verisons to selected developers. In a email sent to all developers and posted on Mike Wendland's blog, Apple says:
'Due to Safari 67 postings to the internet, we have closed the Safari Seed project. We know that the majority of you are not responsible for the leaks to the internet, and we sincerely appreciate your feedback, time and effort with this project.'"
More testers = more bugs found = better product.
How many "beta" releases of Windows have been on the net over the years? At least MS was smart enough that these types of leaks aren't that bad a thing. In fact, it is excellent viral marketing if anything.
I know that Apple probably has good reason not to make the various beta releases of Safari available to the public, but I think they are missing out on a good marketing opportunity here. These Safari releases are keeping everyone interested, or they're keeping me interested anyway. Plus, people can see the new features as they are implemented and maybe once a favorite feature is added, emails about getting that feature will reduce.
Smeghead every day of the week.
Who cares? It's just a browser that's going to be released for free in the future anyways. And it's based off of Free software at any rate.
I consider this to be a small ethical violation on the part of the individual who leaked the beta, at least compared to many other things. Nevertheless, Apple had placed their trust in a group of developers, and some jerk decided to violate that trust. However small of a violation that this may be, as compared to, say, murder, I would still like to see that individual publically flogged.
Surprisingly, not everyone follows the open source mantra. There are legitimate reasons for not wanting to provide constant releases. One is confusion among a less educated (some might also say intelligent) user base - people getting what is effectively a beta and don't know it end up bitching at Apple. This makes them look incompetent, and can cause problems for their image.
Apple has good reasons for wanting to keep their stuff under wraps until they ship. This doesn't make them wrong, unenlightened, or the enemy.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
What's up with these developers? It's like they're desparately trying to be one of the "cool kids," leaking the code to the Internet. "Yippee!"
So, in an attempt at trying to upgrade their status to being picked only second to last in gym class, all the legitimate developers who respect agreements they've made have to suffer.
Nice going!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
You make it sound as if Apple is doing people a favor by giving out unfinished software. What they are really doing is off-loading testing to unpaid outsiders.
Now its too late.
Good. So maybe they'll hire testers, pay them, and have them come in. No leaks.
There is a big trade-off between getting a decent sized community to test a product and allowing a not-yet-debugged product out into the wild.
As a developer is it very valuable to have a willing group of people willing to test and feedback on not-yet-ready-for-market products. Unfortunately if these releases then get a wider distribution to people who don't understand that the app us a work in progress (as has happened with safari), any problems (which would be solved before an official release) reflect badly on both the product and the developer.
Given that the betas are being leaked, and Apple's reputation for quality of its products, I don't think they had any option but to cancel to program. I also welcome their move for other reasons:
As a web developer, one of the major issues I face is not just making a site compatible with the major browser releases (which in itself is a problem), but also with all the betas that are still being used. Many beta releases (or should have been betas) have quite significant bugs which are *very* difficult to work around. For example, I still see hits from people using betas of Netscape 4.
Once a pre-release product makes it into the wild, many of the initial users will continue it use it since 'it works for me'. Of course, if this browser doesn't work with a site due to bugs or incompatibilities in the browser, its the sites fault - from the users perspective - and my clients if the user complains. These almost-right products seem to persist almost forever.
Actually, they already do. By default, Safari has a toolbar button that sends a bug report, along with an optional screenshot/code snapshot, to Apple. In fact, this is one of the reasons why they choose to release the beta, so they could iron out all the bugs without having to the test all of the pages out there.
However, there is no need to get bug reports for a product that they know is unstable or incomplete (the post-v60 builds). If they posted one of those publicly, not only would they get a backlash for releasing an extreemly unstable build of their product, such as the first beta, which had a nice "feature" that would automatically delete ~/ for you, but all of their bug reports would be for a build which is still incomplete. Instead, they could just post their more complete, milestone builds, and get feedback which is much more beneficial to the developers.
No, someone must go through every bug report, and eliminate the ones that are for already known problems (with a public beta you potentially could end up with thousands of people thinking they are the first to find some problem that seems obscure). Then you have to eliminate the ones that aren't really problems (the copy and paste shortcuts are confusing by design since those who use them will use them often enough for the pain of memorizing strange key combinations is less than the pain of having to easy to remember short cuts that are harder to use on the keyboard). Next deal with the miscolanious problems (user didn't plug computer in, got a corupted download, has no net connection, and other problems that are either stupid user, or other stupid problem not related to the program).
Really what it needed is a few QA testers who can test everything, but that isn't possiable. Not even Apple with control of all supported platforms can do it. A public beta might seem like a hope that the gain is less than the costs. In reality a public beta is generally a way for marketing to get a almost working version out before it is ready for release, and the bug reports that might come in are worth much less than the hype.
I'm actually surprised that they didn't use steganography to uniquely identify each copy of the browser that they release to their individual, "select" developers. That way they could release the dogs of war on that poor soul.
:)
On another note, it's sad to see something like this ruined by what is probably a small number of bad seeds.
My blog
This made me laugh.
Dude, you preface your statement with a literal 'I'm about to talk out of my ass', and then of course you do so.
Apple is a failed monopoly
Every company but Microsoft is a failed monopoly. What is your point? Or, are monopolies good on Saturdays? I forget.
Your mightily aged Mac trolls are telling, too. Listen, you don't like it, that's fine. But you don't even know what the hell you're talking about by your own admission. So, seriously, why are you posting? You're nothing but noise in here. Karma-to-burn norwithstanding.
Blah blah blah, you love your PCs. Wonderful. Run along now.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
It would be trivial to add an embedded key to every copy that goes out, then you can trace the exact guy hwo is giving them out!
The problem with you theory is that people (read joe sixpack) are going to associate a problem with an Apple product with Apple, not to whoever the got it from. So if a unstable browser with their name (see Safari->About Safari) on it is released by them, or anyone else, it makes it look to the public (once again read joe sixpack) as if Apple cannot write good software, which isn't good for Apple.
Maybe instead of discontinuing this program, Apple should have quietly started watermarking the private builds of Safari. A different watermark for each developer they give a sneak peak too. Then when it's leaked, they'll know who did it.
Of course, they may do this already, and just decide not to divulge that information... Just a thought anyway.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
This the the equivalent of Jesus bitch smacking all the disciples 'cause Peter was a little to loud in his preaching. Hopefully one day Apple will realize fanatics who leak information about their products should be encouraged. After all, any press is good press, especially if you have a demonstrably inferior product.
-dameron
Seriously dude, the average person on the street isn't like us. They talk about the war, and reality TV, and 401ks and the like. They don't care when a developer's beta release program gets cancelled. For God's sake, I just read this whole message board and I could care less.
I see that I need to explain how the world works. It's all about customers. Apple is a company. It therefore has to make this thing called money.
The entire reason for developing Safari is to get more customers for Apple. Safari is 'free' but it also convinces people that they need a Mac.
As I said in the original post, they've cancelled this program because they're worried about people seeing betas and then losing them as customers. I also pointed out why that reasoning is flawed.
Apple is a profitable and successful company, despite not following your advice. Whereas Be, who ditched their proprietary hardware and moved to the commodity x86 platform as you advise went straight down the tubes. I guess now we know why you're whining on Slashdot instead of running a computer company.
There are many Safari users who use those v62-v67. Why? Because they believe the new versions will resolve some issues.
Just give out the nightly builds like Chimera / Camino does. Those Safari users using the unreleased versions will enjoy the nightly builds and help fixing and finding the things that need still adjusting in Safari.
Anyone remembers Steve releasing Safari in MWSF? "Open source" ...
I'll bet if you did a "study" of version 1.0 of product with public betas and without, you'd find that the ones with public betas have fewer bugs.
As to whether they are doing anyone any favors, I suspect that corporate IT departments like public betas because it gives them the chance to test the product before some bozo in management demands it be installed immediately the day it's released or the world will come to an end.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
It may or may not conform to GNU's idea of 'free'... and we can argue back and forth about whether that's basically because GNU has always been determined to hate Apple, from day one, and will always be, no matter what Apple does.
But it doesn't matter, because he didn't say 'free'. Not as in beer, not as in speech, not as in political prisoners.
No, he said 'open source'. And, why lookie here... Apple's license is on the official list of 'open source licenses'.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
So stop with the trashing already. He said it was open source, it is open source.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Contrast the way Apple has "managed" the Safari development with the way the mozorg folks have done with Camino and Mozilla.
Apple releases a couple of "beta" releases, fires up interest and demand, and then nothing happens (from a public perspective) for a relatively long time. Given that it is beta software, there are a lot of things that need fixing -- the more people liked the initial rollout, the more demand there is for improved releases. But only frustration is available.
OTOH, look at the Mozilla camp. There are milestone builds on a frequency on months wherein an attempt is made to level-set at a certain level of stability, and nightly builds that are expected to be fraught with bugs, but steadily progress towards the next milestone build. This method serves the people who want stability and predictability above all else, the bleeding edge lunatics who want the newest thing out, bugs and all, and the developers, who benefit from having the largest group of testers that is practical.
How many people sent in bugs or suggestions for Safari? How many have seen even one of their personal hot buttons addressed? Virtually zilch, because Apple has been so stingy with new releases. OTOH, I personally have had several bugs looked at in Mozilla/Chimera(Camino), and feel a much stronger involvement with those products as a direct result of this.
I think Apple is missing the point about Open Source software -- it's not just that it's cheap, it also has closer ties to the user community, and as a result, probably better fits the needs of that community. You can take Open Source, develop in behind closed doors with an army of people, and still release it as an open source product -- but it's the dumb way to do it. It's how Microsoft would do Open Source.
A little knowledge of human nature and a smattering of statistics should tell you that this was almost guaranteed to happen, no matter what precautions (statutory or technological) were set against it.
Is Apple stupid for thinking this wouldn't happen, or did they plan on it?
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
end up hurting MS in the long in the run
You think rampant Windows piracy hurts Microsoft? If anything, it only serves to further their monopoly lock-in, thus forcing everybody else to use Windows just to be compatible with the pirates.
In the long run, piracy keeps the market saturated with Windows. If everybody had to actually pay for it, you'd see a ton of people switch to something cheaper (Linux, or whatever else, really), which would hurt MS, big time.
I swear to freakin' God, the geek crowd on the Internet has the most impenetrable tunnel-vision I've ever seen. How on earth could Apple lose customers by cancelling a beta testing program? Most customers know nothing of it, much less the "controversy" surrounding it being cancelled.
Get out a little more often.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Okay, a copy of the first tab-enabled seed magically found its way to my computer, and I played with it for awhile, but finally decided to stick with the official beta for my main browsing. Then, of course, I hear about this one, and it finds its way to my computer (amazing, really, its like my Mac reads my mind and downloads things I want without my permission!) But the Debug menu doesn't list tabbed browsing anymore!
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The GPL says:
So, distributing a derivitave work of Konqueror under any restrictions beyond those in the GPL is a violation of the KDE folks copyrights.
What gives?
-Peter
I think it does *now* - but at the beginning, it helped them lock in the Desktop market. I bet two "illegal" copies of Windows 95 were installed for every copy sold. And I think Windows 3.1 was even more so.
They don't need more market share now though. Now, they can start doing things like they do with Windows XP's activation to make it more difficult for everyone to install a single copy. Sure, you can crack it fairly easily, but maybe the next version of Windows won't be.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
If they buy a new computer whenever the next "must have" windows comes out they do.
Most of the ones I've installed for friends and family tends to live quite a lot longer, most ordinary home users aren't on the bleeding edge. You can usually run the next two "releases" (e.g. win95-98-me) until it gets impossible even for the unsavy home user.
I'd say the lock in at home is a major factor in the continued lock in at work. Not unlike how Nokia played their cards right by marketing to teen-agers, when Ericsson stayed with the corporate demographic. The sons and daugheters of the captains of industry ran around with cooler mobiles than their dads, a situation that ultimately couldn't (and didn't) last long.
Stefan Axelsson
If KHTML would be distributed exclusively under the GPL license, Apple would have to provide any code for released software that links against KHTML.
KHTML must be using LGPL (or at least something similar).
Why hasnt slashdot updated since 8:49p yesterday.. hehehe
I'd be very disallusioned if I was the guy who went to the plate and tried to convince management that the seed program could work.
I can imagine going to my management and saying "let's make nightly builds available". Management, whose job is to protect the company, would be (naturally) cautious. But with convicing, perhaps a limited "seed" build to select developers would be an excellent first step.
"These are people who believe in Open Source and Apple", I'd argue.
But after this fiasco, clearly I'd be wrong. And my management would walk away with the idea that open source developers cannot be trusted in this fashion.
Safari's tabs are much much better then Camino's
That made no sense.
Some people make no sense.
Darwin is orientated around Apple's HFS+ file system, which is a "modern" (ie only 15 years old ;-) FS that supports features like file forks and meta data (albiet in a "What we needed 15 years ago" sense.) That said, there's very little if anything in Darwin proper that actually uses these features, all of these are really for Mac OS's use.
Darwin is based on a microkernel-like kernel. It has a hacked version of Mach underneath, which has been changed to break some microkernel tenets in favour of better performance. The result is an extremely modular system which fits together very well.
And that brings me onto the final point: Some OSes have clearly been thrown together, others have been put together. Darwin is much closer to the latter than the former, there's a clear sense in every aspect of "This has been done this way because..." as opposed to many distributions of Linux where, quite honestly, the overall impression one gets is that a file is in a particular place, or an INIT script works they way it does, because that's where some hacker put it 5 years ago when they were just trying to get it to run, and nobody's ever thought of moving it since. Another OS, other than Darwin, that always gives me that warm fuzzy feeling is OpenBSD - I assume FreeBSD is similar but haven't successfully installed it. Darwin just seems to make sense.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.