Safari on Windows, Leopard Debut at WWDC

comm2k writes to mention that Apple has announced a Windows version of Safari along with Leopard, the new version of Mac OS X at this years World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco. "He said Safari was 'the fastest browser on Windows', saying it was twice as fast as Internet Explorer. A test version of Safari for Windows XP and for Vista is available for download from the Apple website. Apple is hoping to replicate the success of iTunes, which has proved enormously popular on both Macs and Windows machines."

Comments

All of the major news

[daveschroeder]

* Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) - ...of course. This was the main focus of the keynote. A "feature complete" version of Leopard was demonstrated, and all WWDC attendees receive the current, feature complete beta of Leopard and Leopard Server. Demos, movies, and more information about all of the many new features are available here. No one outside of the conference will receive these builds (but can be expected to receive later seeds). Leopard is still on track to ship in October. Leopard is $129, or $69 edu/govt (as usual). Free/cheap upgrades to Leopard will likely only for hardware purchased within month prior to its release (also as usual). (See also Leopard Server).

Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server press releases with more info.

* iPhone third party development - iPhone, previously thought to be completely closed, will have development possible via rich "Web 2.0" applications. Details on this are a little sketchy, and it's not what some hoping for a full iPhone SDK wanted, but it appears that all external app development will happen via web apps. However, it also appears such apps will appear as and have the look and feel of other iPhone apps. While this is news, it appears analysts are interpreting this as "new bad news", even though there was no expectation previously that iPhone would be an open platform, since it appeared that it would be closed, and this announcement is actually a positive development over the previous situation. iPhone is also still in schedule to ship on June 29 at 6pm via Apple retail stores and AT&T corporate stores. Still no news on specifics for online sales, preordering, etc.

Press release with more info.

* Safari Mac OS X and Windows - Safari is now available, in its 3.0 beta form, on Mac OS X 10.4.9 and Windows XP/Vista. At first glance, Safari is much, much faster than it was previously on Mac OS X, and includes a range of new features. This is the same version of Safari that will ship on Leopard and (essentially) iPhone. Safari is now also available on Windows; this is obviously going to be used as a channel of development for iPhone, since all external iPhone apps will essentially be Safari web apps.

Press release with more info.

* No new hardware, but the Apple Store and the rest of the Apple web site has a new look (which was why the Apple Store was down, which some see as an indication of new hardware announcements).

* Keynote summary

* Keynote archive will be available later today here.

Re:All of the major news

[mr100percent]

EA announced at the WWDC that they will be porting games over to the Mac, and having simultaneous releases from here on.

Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear PC users,

It's no secret iTunes turned to shit as soon as Apple had to start catering to PC users. It was version 4.1, if memory serves, around the time they let you cavedwellers into our music store. The demand for PC compatibility is the major reason iTunes is still a Carbon app, according to insiders, when every other iApp has since been rewritten in Cocoa to behave like a decent Mac application.

Now there's Safari 3's bastard child, Safari 3 for PC. Although the Mac flavor sits gracefully on the desktop with its Cocoa brethren, the Windows version sticks out like a cold glass of Metamucil in the men's room at Penn Station. Technical limitations of Windows ensure Safari looks shittier even than most other PC applications. It won't be long before the fecal tide comes sloshing to Safari on Mac, as happened with iTunes before. You PC users, crashing the party again with your filth.

Frankly, we think Apple should revoke PC compatibility from across its entire product line. Only when the last PC user is forced from our platform shall we enjoy freedom, again and at last, from your tasteless, backwards demands.

Love,
Mac users

Re:Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Mac User,

Whenever Apple ports and application to Windows, they always make it slow and buggy. First they tormented us with Quicktime - a slow player by all standards, which had the audacity to attach itself to every media file on the system, even files it could not play. As if that wasn't bad enough, it crashed more than Windows Media Player.

Apple then comes out and adds iTunes. This "wonderful" piece of software runs several services in the background, some of which are normally not even needed/used, yet each sonsistantly sucks up several percent of a modern 2+Ghz CPU, and dozens of MB of memory. Added to the lackluster performance in comparison to other music players, like Winamp, this is not a desireable app.

Now Apple wants to "grace" us with Safari? Please, tell your computer company to be honest when it tries to get users to switch, and not provide us with software that slows down and gums up our Windows machines, so that we are deluded into thinking that Apple is better.

Re:Open Letter

[oyenstikker]

I am a web developer. Every time I have seen a problem with my pages on Konqueror or Safari, it has turned out that I was not following the specs properly. It is more a reference implementation than another browser to hack for.

Re:Open Letter

[elrous0]

Dear Mac Users,

We feel the same way about our game software. Why on earth companies like Blizzard would waste their time catering a bunch of Kool-aid drinking hippies, when they could be spending their time developing better content for us real gamers, is beyond me. Gaming communities have only went downhill since these companies abandoned their traditional user base and let a bunch of Prius-driving, artsy, self-righteous, cocky assholes into our ranks.

Therefore, I propose a truce. We knuckle-dragging rednecks will agree to forgo Mac software on our PC's if you hemp-sweater-wearing cult members will agree to give up our game software on your Macs.

Deal?

-Eric

Re:Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... in my experience, coding to IE was much easier because it was much better at interpreting how you wanted something to look like without worrying about being 100% 'standards compliant'. If a site didn't work in FF and worked fine in IE, that was more due to FF not knowing what to do with your code unless you put it together perfectly.

In other words, as a web "developer" you prefer IE because you can be lazy and sloppy and it lets you get away with it.

I don't think it's fair to bash IE for not complying.

Of course it is. Standards are supposed to make your life easier, because everyone agrees up front on how it all works and there is no need to worry about your customers using a browser you havn't tested with: it's all standards, right? Except that IE breaks that, because it doesn't understand a lot of very useful standards and a lot of web "developers" (Like yourself) are sloppy and lazy and write bad code (You again, by the way).

Stop being sloppy and lazy, is what I'm saying here.

Re:Open Letter

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Hmm... in my experience, coding to IE was much easier because it was much better at interpreting how you wanted something to look like without worrying about being 100% 'standards compliant'.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You don't have to worry about being standards compliant? How do you write pages? Do you just make up your own version of the standard and write to that and IE happens to read it magically, somehow?

When I generate code, I look at the spec and implement it, then I test it. I'm not always perfect at it, but I basically make things work the way the documented standard claims it should look. Then I test it. Generally it works in every browser (Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, OmniWeb, etc.) except IE. Then I try to add hacks to get it to look "okay" in various versions of IE all of which break the standard and all or which break it differently. I certainly can and do blame IE for being the only browser that can't work as the spec designates.

If a site didn't work in FF and worked fine in IE, that was more due to FF not knowing what to do with your code unless you put it together perfectly.

Generally, I find that when a site does not work in FF it is because I screwed up and did not get it to spec. Generally when it does not work in IE, it is because I did things right, but IE either implements the spec incorrectly and differently than all the other browsers, or because IE is 6-8 years behind the times and is still using a partial implementation of an ancient spec.

Either way, the only reason the 'standards' got put together was because the minorities needed some way to differentiate themselves from IE.

Are you trolling? The spec predates any implementation and MS participated in writing most of them.

More power to them, we need the competition, but I don't think it's fair to bash IE for not complying.

I think it is more than fair to bash the single largest, wealthiest company for failing to match the quality of a half dozen smaller companies and another half dozen projects funded by hobbyists. MS does not comply with the specs because it is in their best interests to derail the standards and hold back Web development to help maintain their OS monopoly. They are breaking the standards for personal profit and if you don't see that I have a lovely, historic bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

Re:Open Letter

[elrous0]

I'll tell you the same thing I told my wife. Baby formula only lasts a few weeks at most. But that new video card will be good for at least a year.

Re:Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear PC Users,

We have received your request that we cease and desist using all computer technology popularized by PCs. You have little idea how long we have waited for a complete segregation of the PC and Apple world, and the chance to free ourselves from the yoke of relating to the hoi polloi!

Your request is feasible, on the grounds that the PC world conform to the same constraints and cease using all computer technology initially introduced by, or initially popularized by, Apple.

To that end, please stop using the following: 3.5 inch floppy disks; USB; Firewire; WYSIWYG software of any type; computer cases that are not puke-colored (technical term); computers for the purposes of design, desktop publishing and the like; graphical user interfaces; spreadsheets; any home or small business computer that is not A) assembled from a kit, or B) interfaced with through punch cards, audio cassette tape, blinking LEDs, and/or toggle switches.

Please enjoy computing with your Altairs! As an extra bonus, your operating system will be the cheapest and most stable Microsoft software yet developed!

Sincerely,

Mac Users

fastest?

[brunascle]

i'm pretty sure i can get lynx running through cygwin.

No, they aren't

[k_187]

No, Apple is not trying to replicate iTunes' success. Nobody on windows would give a crap if iTunes wasn't the main way to get things onto an iPod. From what info was given about apps for the iPhone, Safari is the SDK. Any greater market share for WebKit is just gravy.

THAT is Steve Jobs's "one more thing"?

[Caspian]

Safari for Windows?

Not a radical new 16-core desktop? Not a 19" Macbook Pro? Not a 30" iMac? Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution?

Nooooo, SAFARI FOR WINDOWS>

I must ask here.... what the fuck!? Who would care about this announcement? And I say that as a Mac fan!

Re:THAT is Steve Jobs's "one more thing"?

[daveschroeder]

This is WWDC. It is a developer conference, not a consumer conference. Its focus has always been software (although WWDC has occasionally been the forum for hardware announcements). Apple is doing more and more product introductions as they're ready (e.g., like last week's new MacBook Pro introduction), and less and less product introductions at conferences and "special events".

Everyone expecting brushed aluminum iMacs and new Cinema Displays shouldn't have expected that in the first place. And an Apple-branded virtualization solution? It's been known since last WWDC that Leopard wouldn't have integrated virtualization. With three different solutions already existing, plus Boot Camp, why would you even expect that, no matter how nice it would be?

And who would care about this announcement? This isn't just "Safari for Windows". Jeez. It's the channel for development for iPhone, since all of iPhone's third-party development will be as Safari web apps.

Safari is the iPhone SDK

[null-und-eins]

Safari for the PC is interesting for three reasons: (1) if widely adopted, it would force more web apps to become Safari friendly. Google apps, for example, often don't work with Safari. (2) Safari is the developemnt platform for iPhone apps. And by releasing Safari for the PC, the developer base just multiplied enormously. (3) Just the fact that iPhone apps are build from HTML and Javascript is going to shake up the mobile web scenario.

Re:OMG not another one

[Denis Troller]

So before that you did not care about Safari users? OK, I can understand that, just looking at the market share :) Don't worry anyway. My guess is that Safari on Windows has more to do with iPhone SDK than with "we want our browser everywhere". iPhone apps being safari based AJAX apps, Apple wants Windows devs to be able to code/test it as well as Mac devs. They definitely have their eyes on the business market (just look at the "salesforce" remark), and they know they *have* to make iPhone dev possible from windows machine.

Re:I can't get it working

[rlp]

Wow, they have replicated the experience of iTunes on Windows!

To Site Devs...

[daeg]

To those site developers that are having issues with Safari on Windows, you can enable the Safari Debug tools like you can on Mac. On OS X you would do:

defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1

in a Terminal window. Obviously that command does not work on Windows.

Instead, open %APPDATA%\Apple Computer\Safari\Preferences.plist in your favorite text editor. Add:

<key>IncludeDebugMenu</key>
<true/>

and save it. Restart Safari. You now have a nifty "Debug" menu in the top menu bar, complete with the Javascript Console.

I'm totally getting the Ultimate version.

[Onan]

I enjoyed Jobs's sniping at recent Windows versioning:

"We've got a basic version, which is going to cost $129. We've got a Premium version, which is going to cost $129. We've got a Business version, $129. We've got an Enterprise version, $129. And we've got the Ultimate version, we're throwing everything into it, it's $129. We think most people will buy the Ultimate version."

A Kick In The Balls For Microsoft

[WombatControl]

Ballmer is going to be throwing a lot of chairs today...

Safari for Windows is the biggest threat to IE ever. The reason is simple: it's going to be bundled with iTunes. If Apple really wanted to kick Microsoft in the balls, they'd make the iTunes installer put Safari as the default browser -- or give it as an option during the install (with the default being yes, natch). That means suddenly, everyone who buys an iPod ends up using Safari as their default browser instead of IE. If Safari transparently migrates over their bookmarks and settings, a lot of those people, if not the majority, would be likely to stuck with Safari.

It's the same "bundling" that got IE as the majority browser used against Microsoft for a change. All of a sudden, WebKit is the platform for web development on Macs, PCs, and the iPhone. That would would definitely cause a lot of heartburn in Redmond.

Apple has a chance to give Microsoft a major kick in the balls... the question is whether they'll go that route or not. They're doing exactly what Microsoft has always wanted to do -- dominate an entire ecosystem from desktops to laptops to mobile to the television. This is what Bill Gates has been trying to do for the past 20 years, and Apple has done it in just about 5. It's an incredibly smart move on Apple's part, and a major blow to Microsoft's hegemonic ambitions.

Re:A Kick In The Balls For Microsoft

[hlimethe3rd]

If there's one thing iTunes needs, it's a bigger, clunkier installer with more bundled software. That way, after installing (or even just upgrading) iTunes, not only will you have to spend time hunting for all the settings in QuickTime to get it out of your way, but also Safari. Yes, I think this is a great idea.

Re:Safari on Windows....What's in it for Apple?

[MasterVidBoi]

Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?

It is not to put money in the bank, it is a tool for Apple's survival (and they are in danger).

Microsoft is pushing WPE/XAML hard, and if PHB's start thinking that they can gain access to all these flashy new features while only alienating 10% of the users (those alternate platform wierdos), they'll go for it. If Firefox+Safari can push IE's share on windows down into the 60-75% range, then it distrupts Microsoft's intention to replace the web standards with their own proprietary technologies.

If Microsoft's plan succeeded, Apple would find itself with a consumer OS that couldn't view a lot of compelling content... (this same idea also neatly explains why Apple got into the media business, long before anybody had any idea that it would be so amazingly successful: otherwise, the world would have gone entirely to Windows Media, and apple's platform would have been left out in the cold).

Re:I agree 100%

[Incadenza]

I'd definitely have to disagree with the assessment that Microsoft apps for the Mac are "the best;" that may well have been true in the past, but the current incarnation of Office for Mac is, without a doubt, the most bloated and ridiculously clunky 'productivity suite' I've ever had the misfortune of trying to use.

You clearly have never used Office 98 for Mac. This was the only Office version for Mac that truly failed in the martketplace, and fairly so. This was when Microsoft tried to shove a Windows interface and a horrendeous back-end (extensions, extensions, extensions) down the throat of Macheads. Did not work. Even included some incursion of Clippy as a happy bouncing Mac. The horror, the horror, the horror.

Ugly

[Schnapple]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in how Macintosh/Mac OS X users whine and moan when an app doesn't match the UI of the Macintosh, to the point where many developers don't think it's worth the effort, but then when Apple ports something to Windows, they keep the ugly, brushed metal, doesn't-act-like-or-match-anything-on-Windows interface?