Slashdot Mirror
Apple Picking a Fight it Can't Win With Safari
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."
Bloggers think they matter again!
It's not about winning. Giving how Apple has decided to let apps be developed for the iPhone, 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.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
"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." a statement totally disproved by the fact that IE is still the #1 PC browser and it's a pile of crap with holes so big you could drive not just a Safari, but the whole of the African plains through it.
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.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Is it just me, or is every article I've ever read concerning an Apple product launch predicting the "imminent doom and demise" of said product, followed by hundreds of people saying "But this time it's true"? After the first decade or so it gets boring, even for non-fanboys.
Apple didn't release Safari for Windows to compete - it was released so that people can develop their Web 2.0 apps for iPhone...
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.
My mom says I'm cool.
- 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?I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Much as the haters will disagree, Steve Jobs hit a home run on this one. The Windows crowd probably won't be satisfied, but by releasing Safari on Windows, Apple gets plenty of free exposure AND plenty of criticism which they can use to build a better browser on OSX. Apple most likely isn't hoping that Windows users will pick Safari over other browsers; they just want Windows users to download and try it out. And if the download numbers AND the blog buzz is any indication, it was a huge success.
Oh no! A buggy beta!
Windows users accept crap software as a matter of course. Why else would IE be so popular?
Well, then - Windows is just going to have to change, isn't it.
As they say...
Conquer anger
with lack of anger;
bad, with good;
stinginess, with a gift;
a liar, with truth.
They must be right no one could make a browser thats better then IE.....except for maybe Apple, Mozzilla, Opera, Konqueror.
I'm not really an apple user, love the interface and such, just never made the switch. I am, however, a Linux user and take great pride in making my work-enforced Windows laptop look and function a little more like my home Debian machines...
With the Intel Platform now standard for Mac, the transfer of Safari to Windows was far less work than it would have been in the beginning.
If nothing else, it does give the Apple-philes a way to do the same and stay with the warm Apple-feel if they're needing to work in a Windows environment. Ever get stuck having to use IE and get annoyed when you hit +L?
~Star
--- no sig to see here... move along.
Microsoft has got the same crap for doing bad ports for Apple. Eventually they stopped trying to port apps to that platform. Maybe it became too much of a pain. I expect Apple to not have learnt from Microsoft's mistakes here and will do the same. Do I really expect Apple to keep up doing this and release frequent patches to the Windows port, and doing a Safari 4 and 5 for Windows too? I don't really think so.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Anyone who believes that Apple is really out for browser marketshare in the Windows world just doesn't get it. Safari is on Windows as a tool for iPhone developers, or should I just say web developers, to use standards that will work on the iPhone. Even without considering the "third party support" for the iPhone, the rest of the web still needs to look ok on the iPhone in order for the web browsing features to be worth a damn. Maybe grabbing some larger portion of the browser market is a way to encourage developers to test their sites on Safari, but it is not the main focus no matter how Jobs may have portrayed it.
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 some sort of fight that Apple isn't even trying to win, or am I mistaken?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
They seem to think Apple's reasoning for releasing Safari on Windows is to somehow take on Internet Explorer on its own turf. However, this is not the case.
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 environment.
Besides, Apple would rather have Windows users buying Macs instead of having these users mooch the freebie software off them.
8==8 Bones 8==8
FUD.
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.
There may be another reason besides iPhone development that Safari has been brought to Windows. If you are a Mac user, you should know that Safari still doesn't work on a lot of websites, forcing you to use an alternative browser. Perhaps if Safari even got only 5% market share on Windows, the combined amount of safari installations out there would be enough for most commercial sites to make sure their pages are safari compatible. This would benefit Mac users as well, and drive more people to stick with Safari instead of installing Firefox, Camino, or Opera.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
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.
+5 Hilarious
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
Although Steve didn't say it, I'm pretty sure the primary motivations for porting Safari to Windows were to allow Windows web app developers to test for Safari compatibility and iPhone compatibility.
On the Mac, I use Camino, so I'm not a Safari fan. That said, on Windows I do prefer Safari over Firefox or IE. Its just much faster than Firefox. And despite the initial failings, I tend to trust its security over IE6 or IE7.
That said: I do question the wisdom of Apple using its "brushed metal" interface on Windows for both iTunes and Safari. It feels like the equivalent of Word 6 for Mac (which felt like a Windows app).
Apple has the advantage Microsoft does. They have the ability to bundle. Just bundle it with iTunes or any of their other windows software that's more popular. Make it the default browser at the time of install and I bet you a lot of people will leave it as their default browser. It's underhanded, but no less than anything Microsoft has ever done.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Athens wasn't some pussocracy where "missteps [were] forgiven". It ruled a Greek empire by serial mass murder, like anyone else, even though it was eventually defeated by its infamously singleminded military rival Sparta. It invented the democracy on which ours is loosely based, featuring corrosive public (and private) debate that defined our arts of rhetoric and logic.
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.
--
make install -not war
I basically boot into OSX to test stuff in Safari. My MacBook Pro is essentially a Vista laptop, and the best PC I have ever owned. Now that Safari works in Vista, i have no compelling reason to boot into OSX. If someone comes out with a vista laptop as nice as a MacBook Pro, then apple will really have something to worry about. Safari on Windows means OSX has become less compelling for me!
It's all about making more bucks trough the Google sponsored search box.
FTFA: John Lilly, Mozilla's chief operating officer, focused on the part of the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) keynote where Jobs spelled out existing browser shares of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari -- 78%, 15% and 2%, respectively -- before displaying another pie chart that showed Safari with about a quarter of the market, IE with the remainder.
I've posted that already. Here's the link (with screenshots), if you don't want to read my previous comment.
Steve Jobs wants to push Firefox out. Period. It doesn't have anything to do with opening a development platform for the iPhone. Stop making those excuses! Apple is going to bundle Safari with iTunes and QuickTime in hope of massive market penetration, and in their vision, there is no room for alternative browsers.
I'm a linux user myself but I actually like Safari on Windows and the UI criticisms aren't valid at all given the number of windows app that use their own toolkits. Furthermore, not only have Microsoft's default themes always been absolutely hideous but Explorer is a bloated POS. I have a couple of Windows VM images that I use for testing and the first thing I do is install a proper window manager like bblean.
I don't understand all this childish anti-safari rhetoric and hand waving, it's a web browser ported from a better designed platform and nobody is being forced to use it. The only explanation I can think of is that the PC faithful realize it's giving everyone a taste of how simple the computing experience can be.
...it is a fight in which they have nothing to lose.
Hello, Pot? This it Kettle. You're black! Seriously, you seem to be fairly unforgiving....
SJ: "Look, Billy, we're gonna be releasing Safari for Windows."
BG: "Why bother, Stevie? You really think you're gonna do us any damage with that?"
SJ: "Nah. It's really more an iPhone thing."
BG: "Whatever."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Vegeta, what is the download level of Safari for Windows?
IT IS OVER ONE MILLION!!!
Oh, we have nothing to worry about. Clearly a failure.
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
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. True, Bill gates is afraid that Apple is trying to "fix the web" and neutralize IE as his lock-in tool, but couldn't there be more to Apple's strategy than that? Might this be a shakedown cycle for the core libraries on Windows for some other purpose? After all, Vista finally has the plumbing. A revival of the YellowBox? Or the introduction of some CoreAnimation-based web technology that would simultaneously allow for 1) a more dynamic iPhone SDK (look at the pins drop in the google maps demo) and 2) something to compete with flash. I guess these thoughts are inspired by the All Things Digital interview with Jobs and Gates. Steve seemed to be very interested in conquering rich clients that leveraged services from the cloud.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
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?
"...any company that makes even the smallest error..."
Umm, ever hear of Microsoft? They may be one of the world's most hated companies, but their customers haven't turned on them in droves. A handful have switched to OS X or Linux, but for the most part people still use MS products.
Sent from my iPhone
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.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Company ports software to new platform.
PUBLIC OUTRAGE OH NOEZ
No matter why they ported it or how good it is, there's no problems. If people like it, but couldn't use it before due to the lack of a Mac, they can use it now, and there will be much happiness. If people don't like it, it's not like Safari's out to murder your IEfox, is there?
I find it interesting that people are justifying Apple's move to release a buggy beta just because it's supposed to be a "development environment". However, had any other company done so, everyone would be crying foul. I thought the point was to develop to standards. Suddenly, nobody seems to care about that. Since the iPhone is running Safari which should be a FULL standards compliant browser, why can't developers use another standards compliant browser? Is my AJAX better than your AJAX? The other point everyone is missing is how the release was presented to the world. This wasn't an obscure paragraph somewhere written for developers. This was Steve Jobs standing in front of the interenets, hailing the greatest browser ever. As many reviewers have shown, he basically lied when he showed that Safari was faster/better than Firefox and IE.
every non-IE browser out there is a victory for web standards in general.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Safari adds an option to the mix. With hundreds of gigabytes available, it costs nothing to add Safari to your existing list of browsers. If you choose to uninstall your other browsers you may have an occasional problem.
Safari is new in this environment and relatively new overall. How long has it taken Firefox and Exploder to reach their current state of development?
Why the vitriol? It seems that there are some knee-jerk reactions, both positive and negative, by certain people to anything new, especially if it comes from Apple.
...omphaloskepsis often...
The inability for Safari to have plugins keeps me firmly rooted in the Firefox cause. I enjoy Adblock Plus and Tab Mix Plus. I can't get that kind of functionality on Safari.
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 things right but they aren't immune to failures.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Too many years of having to do it the windows way. This is nice.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
If Apple integrated faster versions of their software into Safari then I would pick it up.
Might make a good "gateway" application to buying more Apple products.
"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."
Oh yes! I know, just like what happened to Microsoft when after years of good service, they had a security flaw on windows. Poor Microsoft! Those demanding PC users! they can't forgive a mistake!
Your ad could be here!
In the very first post, yet! Bravo!
-- Boycott Shell
So of course he might have a few of his own prejudices.....
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.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.
If the windows world was as cold and unforgiving as you say, microsoft would have been buried long ago. They've made many blunders and missteps, but are still around. So much for that theory.
Does John Lilly's ranting about the horrors of "corporate-controlled, duopoly-oriented, not-the-Web thinking" strike anyone else as amusingly hypocritical when he's an executive for one of the current duopoly of corporations that control ~95% of the web browser market, and his company's flagship browser is arguably less standards compliant than the new entry he's railing against.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
But... but... Apple has been telling me all these years that their programmers are uber-experts who "create it right the first time". So anyone saying Safari is both buggy and insecure HAS to be lying.
I mean, it's not like Quicktime or iTunes on Windows is a buggy, insecure piece of crap.
Oh wait... they are. Well then, I'm really confused, because Apple is always saying they are secure. Apple wouldn't lie, so the world must be broke.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I'm not going to bother reading the F article, because based on the summary alone I can tell the author misses the mark. This is primarily an iPhone SDK for Windows. Apple would probably be happy with a 1 or 2% marketshare boost due to Safari on Windows. I highly doubt they expect to be the dominant browser in a year or 2.
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
I didn't read the press-release.
I just assumed that you'd promote a beta browser to get apps ready for the iPhone.
Apparently they did want Safari to compete. In that case, I'm thinking they rushed it.
Thanks for the info.
My mom says I'm cool.
The 90's called they want their statistics back.
2007 IE7 IE6 IE5 Fx Moz S O
May 19.2% 38.1% 1.5% 33.7% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6%
So how much is this 'war' costing Apple? They simply recompiled Safari and released it for free on a web server, at a total cost of what - $10,000? It is probably the cheapest Apple advertisement campaign ever.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
And there's another problem with Lilly's browser!
Firefox will only spell-check textareas, not plain old <input type="text"> fields, like the subject field!
It's all his fault, I tell you!
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
"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."
This must explain why people keep using Windows, right?
Neither are Apple's Quicktime Player or iTunes. They've been around for years and we don't hear anybody whining about those, now do we?
Oh, and that list of gripes? Safari for OS X doesn't do any of that either.
Well, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
As usual, it sounds like the crowd who likes their $thing One Specific Way is furious that $new_app doesn't behave exacty like $thing. Boo hoo.
Actually, Firefox has its troubles too. While I agree that a lot of people would switch to Firefox if they tried it once, it has a few problems that can make IE the more attractive of the two. a) It still is a memory hog.* b) It loads painfully slow.* Slower than Safari, in fact. c) Visual styles don't work properly. d) It doesn't work with the favourites menu in the start menu. e) Bugzilla shows that there are security bugs in there that haven't been patched for over a year now.
It has more issues, but these are the most important, and the reasons I won't switch anytime soon. Considering the Firefox source code is a horrible mess (according to one of the developers, I haven't taken a look myself), and the Konqueror code base is nice and clean, it is very likely that when I'll switch from IE, it won't be to Firefox. Konqueror will be ready much sooner (or even Safari, if they can do something about the crashes and the missing extension support).
*Before anyone asks: no, I haven't installed any extensions. I have extensions in IE though... (wrote them myself).
I think Safari is going for the segment of the market that Phoenix and Camino originally aimed for; the users who want a simple browser that just displays web pages, isn't a huge security hole (okay, the Windows version seems to be failing at that so far) and stays out of their way.
Opera and recent versions of FireFox, on the other hand, are aiming at users who want to tinker with their browser and tune it to their needs. I don't use FireFox, because I don't want to have to hunt for pugins and I don't use Opera because I don't want to have to spend time turning off all of the extraneous UI elements. I just want a window, with tabs, that displays web pages.
In spite of all of the feather-ruffling that seems to be going on, I don't really see FireFox and Safari as competitors. I might recommend that my mother switch from Opera to Safari, because it's a simpler UI, but most of the FireFox users I know don't really use FireFox, they use a load of extensions that happen to run on FireFox. A browser that doesn't run those extensions is no use to them. It's all about which features you value more. If you like a simple, clean UI, use Safari. If you like customisability and flexibility, go with FireFox. If you like being in a botnet, go with IE.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I see a lot of people are using the "its for developing iPhone apps" defence, however I had a look around on Apple Safari for Windows site and there is NO mention of that being the purpose. Instead, what I see is a list of reasons why I should be using Safari instead of IE or Firefox and (already debunked) claims about Safari being much faster than IE or Firefox.
So the author is correct, Apple have made a severe error here. Safari for Windows is not a viable alternative to either IE or Firefox, and its poor design, lack of usability and severe security issues have done a lot of damage to Apple's reputation as a brilliant marketing company.
To those of us who are not dyed in the wool Apple zealots, you all sound like that iraqi minister of information saying one thing while something completely different is happening right behind him.
- anonymous to avoid the wrath of apple zealot moderators
Please top hyperventilating. Lilly got it wrong and so are you.
Is bundling Safari with every iTunes and QuickTime installation - and those range in hundreds of millions - also a playful joke, and they have no intention of doing so?
Of course they're going to do this. Now: ask yourself whose marketshare this will hurt more, Firefox or IE? Remember: those who have Firefox, have it because they purposefully went out and got it. Whereas almost everyone who uses IE just uses it because it's whatever the computer came with. The second population is much more likely to switch to Safari than the first. And, that's a much bigger population.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Safari won't kill IE? Boo-hoo-hoo!
Jobs said 10 years ago, the Apple vs. Microsoft mentality is a lost game. The game was won by Microsoft years ago.
Safari on Windows is all about new things, even if they currently represent niches.
Like allowing web developers to support Safari on MAC without having to own a Mac.
Like allowing iPhone users to enjoy a similar web experience on their Windows PC.
Like allowing people who hate Microsoft to use a great web browser on their least favorite OS.
... your two article sources which outline the browser's supposed problems have some pretty strong comment sections which reasonably refute many of the authors' assertions.
Mike Elgan...
Who?
'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.
Lucy in the skyyyyyyyyyy wiiiith diamonds!
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.
True. True. Wolves are rarely known to take prisoners.
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.
Oh noes! Two nanocultures are not happy with a beta release! One Infinite Loop must be in flames!
The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough.'
Well, I'm sure the Safari developers could fix this by breaking as many things as they can for the next release.
Elgan also expects that the Firefox faithful will fight the Safari influx
Or their brain cells will function and realize anything that reduces IE dominance can only be good for the web.
a theory that has been supported by comments from Mozilla executive John Lilly,
Who?
who criticized Steve Jobs' 'blurry view of real world' just after Jobs announced Safari for Windows."
Oh, Jobs! I know him! He's worth, like, THOUSANDS of dollars! I guess if he sharpens up his vision he be worth, like, TENS OF THOUSANDS!
Summary: Zzzzzzzz....
If I could only turn my back on the smallest errors that I find in MS products. Maybe it would help me forget the trult large ones. Get a grip dude. There is no Windows vs Mac world anymore it is only an internet world.
"Madness? THIS. IS. AAAAAAPPLE!"
(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"
All this "but Safari is an iPhone SDK" crap is silly. It is cognitive backpedaling in the face of a less than stellar product launch by a company that people want to be the great savior of computing. How can you reconcile the fact that Apple wants the browser is mostly an SDK with the fact that Jobs himself said he wanted to increase Safari's market share? From another perspective: if Microsoft was releasing a new browser, and it flunked some of its security tests, NOBODY would allow people to get away with saying, "but, its just beta software" or "its just the SDK for people writing AJAX apps." (Sit down, junior, with the, "but the rules change when you're a convicted monopolist" rhetoric that people love around here. They do and they don't. A browser is a high-profile application, and thus should be held to a very high level of scrutiny by any company.)
The other thing that is highly amusing lies in how people took my criticism of the Safari UI. You see, every Mac user gets all whiny when an applicaton is merely 'ported' to their platform without taking into consideration the 'unique nature of the Mac'. They despise the non-standard interfaces, the disregard for Apple's human interface guidelines, and the general feeling of clunkiness. And, they are right in feeling this way. Then Apple does the same thing, merely porting Safari to Windows. And their decision to ignore look and feel standards on another platform is actually defended by people. They fail to see that the thing they hate so much is being done to other people. And this isn't a massive gap in usability we're talking about, this is small enough to be annoying. (Watch, some nit-picker will come up and say, "what's the big deal then?" Amazing how people's standards change depending on what they are discussing.)
Windows=PVP Apple= you know
Mr. Elgan has some definition of winning here that, in all probability, doesn't coincide with Apple's definition. Since neither we no Mr. Elgan knows what Apple's definition is, let's consider some of the possibilities:
1) Apple is trying to increase the market share of Safari to make it a more attrictive platform for web-developers to tailor thier websites for. In this case, if we consider the personal computing market as a whole, Apple only needs to get about 5% of Windows users to use Safari to double the Safari marketshare. Doubling marketshare is pretty big win for the kind of minimal investment represented by Safari on Windows.
2) Apple is using the Safari codebase as a trial baloon for some other, larger, Windows targeted software (maybe a Windows target in XCode?). Again, only a small penetration into the Windows userbase represents success for the effort.
3) Apple is delivering a development/test environment for iPhone to a huge pool of potnential developers. In this case, we would not expect most of the developers to use Safari as their regular browser, but they would use it when developing web pages for either iPhone or Mac clients. Again, total markter penetration (in this case, the market of web developers using Windows) doesn't need to be very large to deliver a huge benefit to Apple (greatly increase the number of people developing iPhone and Mac capable web apps).
Winning, at least for Apple, doesn't need to mean kicking MS off the web browser hill, in the same way that winning in the personal computer market hasn't, aparantly, had to mean capturing more than 5%-10% of the market. Apple seems to be doing very well with their minority share of the personal computer and laptop markets (admittedly, their share occupies the higher end of the price range, which doesn't hurt). Apple doesn't seem to think about these things as zero sum, as many other people seem to.
just a ghost in the machine.
Some merit perhaps. Outside of a few shining lights like Opera, compare the Mac and Windows freeware and shareware markets sometime. There is a LOT of VERY high quality stuff for the Mac. It's not a market where you can release crap and expect it to be well received.
I don't particularly like Safari, but I think if more people use more browsers other than IE and FF, it can only be good. And I trust Apple will at least make an effort towards standards-compliance.
It could also be that, if you start using Apple apps (on non-Macs), it makes the move to the Mac just a bit easier and more gentle. By removing barriers to entry, they could gain ground as people see Vista and flock to OSX.
Yes, any market that is 75% Internet Explorer must have very very high standards.
If only Steve Jobs, whose only claim to fame is inventing and marketing several novel types of computers to millions of schools, scientists, artists, media companies, and individuals and enabling his customers to earn a living using the computers from his company, if only old Steve was a smart as someone like Mike Elgan, whose website features articles about a coffee-maker that can read your mind, a wi-fi aquarium, USB flash drive in the shape of rubberized Japanese food, and so on, then Mr. Jobs would realize how truly hopeless it is to port a web browser based on open source libraries and Cocoa to Windows. I mean, come on!! How can Apple be so stupid?! First they port their OS X, iLife, and all their entire hardware line from PowerPC to Intel without incident, and now they want to port software to Windows? The easiest operating system to develop for on the planet Earth? Don't they understand what kind of people they're up against?!! Mr. Jobs, are you listening?????
> The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough
That is not the problem, that is its greatest feature. Same as iTunes.
Did you bother looking for Safari plugins, or did your PC-minded ass wrongly assume that features don't exist unless they're shoved in your face? Also, you must not be very perceptive to Maclike design if you're still "firmly rooted in the Firefox cause" after using it on OS X, horrible PC port that it is. And you call yourself a Mac fanboy. Just fucking GTFO.
I'm sorry but no. If you can put up with Windows, you can put up with anything.
... I'm going to take their iPhone and ram it down their throat. What the hell is "Web 2.0"? Who cares! If ever there were a purely marketing-driven BS meme that's already gotten way too stale, it's this one.
Dog is my co-pilot.
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.
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
I Who would even think that Apple is aiming for browser dominance. You guys never get it. Safari on windows is simply so people can develop for iPhone.
Even so, you guys said the same thing about the iPod and the iTunes music store. And you were wrong.
The main question raised by Safari's arrival on Windows seems to have already been answered, that is to provide a development environment on Windows for the iPhone.
.coms, .govs and .orgs which we are every day increasingly more familiar with. As the range of facilities we access with the browser increases, I find an analogy with the motor vehicle becoming increasingly more relevant. At present the choice of browsers available are limited, with almost communist levels of variety: IE or Firefox account for almost 95% of the market, with an incredible 1.1bn users online. Any new presence in the browser market must therefore be a good thing for us users and a smart move for Apple?
I wonder though; how many open source applications do you trust with your credit card details?
The web browser is the facade and user interface to the
As a commercial and hopefully more secure web browser, i.e. someone to sue (sic), I welcome Safari to the fray on the Windows platform.
In the past we have seen speculations about Google launching their own "gBrowser", somehow optimized for their own web-based applications.
Could Safari play that role? How do Gmail, the office suite and the other Google offerings work with it (on Windows)?
Pfff, just what we need, loads of hysteria over a browser that is only a week out in the wild.
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.
--------
* Sigh *
Let's not forget that nearly ALL of the Apple-to-Windows ported programs are not "Windows-like" in their apperance, organization of menus, or shortcut keys.
Basically all Adobe/Macromedia products do not follow any Windows convention at all. Am I the only Windows user that is horribly frustrated by this?
-David
If I had mod points, I'd mod you funny.
That's the first time I've heard someone say a closed source app is more secure in years. About the only thing that is better closed is a password.
You do realize that Safari's basis, WebKit, is open source, right? http://webkit.org/
I do agree more choice is good, if it means developers focus more on standards than implementations.
Because everyone knows that what the world needs is a another internet browser for Windows.
Perhaps Apple isn't really entering the browser war at all. Maybe Apple's taking on of the mobile phone market needs a Windows presence with Safari in order to win that. Another possibility is that Apple's dominance of the online entertainment marketplace and their upcoming movie strategy requires their browser to in place on machines that will use their service. Another possibility is that Safari for Windows is a diversionary tactic. Steve Jobs has proven over the last ten years that while he may make the occasional mistake, he isn't stupid. My guess is that Safari for Windows has far broader implications than merely trying to win converts to an application.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
users turn like rabid wolves on any company that makes even the smallest error,
"Microsoft doesn't listen to us, so we'll attack anything else that moves"?
Bad intentions (MS greed, thuggery, and disdain for users) are rewarded, and good intentions (it's hard to argue Apple's intention isn't to supply more and better browser options) are punished?
It makes one wonder where the Windows user base gets its education on standards of software quality, since Windows leaves the bar so incredibly low.
you had me at #!
"1. Control + Enter shortcut doesn't exist. Folks that are getting things done already know this little trick saves a few keystrokes by automatically appending the "www" and ".com" to any word (just type in yahoo and then press Control + Enter to see it in action). Without it, I have to waste more time typing in the complete web address - yuck!"
What browser is this person using? Typing "yahoo.com" in the navigation bar of either FireFox 2.x or IE 7 will result in the browser navigating to "http://www.yahoo.com/." Pretty certain this behavior has existed since at least FF 1.0 and IE 6. There's no "Control + Enter" shortcut, unless for some reason you type in the address and then move the focus to the viewing pane. Just try typing in "yahoo.com," press enter, 50% less keystrokes required.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
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 product. In an age of $50 feature rich cell phones, why would consumers choose a $500 option? Sure there will be those that like "cool" stuff, but business users are about the only demographic that can (en masse) justify a $500 phone, but they won't if it won't sync to Outlook. Even the novelty market may not accept it if the keyboard isn't accurate and responsive enough for rapid SMSing. (Touch screens never are) Plus there's a deluge of cheaper, (better?) competitive products from more established or more fashionable companies. (like the Samsung or Prada)
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
It looks to me like a bunch of folks are afraid of Apple's Safari achieving success on Windows. Especially the Mozilla folks.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
They have to give Mac fans a chance to understand the graph. If the chart had three sections, they wouldn't be able to use it to make their wet-dream jokes and claims as easily.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
The post says "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, " Is this meant to be ironic? Windows Lusers pay money buggy non-standard compliant software, they have to pay for the privilage of "beta testing", and wait years for bug fixes. If users turned "like rabid wolves" Microsoft would either by out of business or would have learnt the basic principles of reliable software design by now!
And yet Microsoft continues not only to survive, but prosper here. Someone ready to explain that one?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The parent is incorrect. Thanks to Apple's iPod and iTunes which default settings make all CDs ripped rip to the AAC format the overwhelming majority of music on all portable music players is in AAC format not MP3s. Since The iPod has around 78% of the PMP market that means most of the music on PMPs is in the AAC format, not MP3 and not WMA. So the grandparent is correct. Apple killed WMA. They also killed MP3. They both exist of course but they'll never be anywhere near as dominant as they once were. In addition any music downloaded and bought from the iTunes Music Store is ALSO in AAC format.
Next to die, Internet Explorer!
Man Apple is sneaky.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
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 to what that means.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Elgan is a worthless crackhead. Just the malware vulnerabilities alone that Microsoft and it's pathetic security inflicted on the world puts paid to his entire line of... well, his delusion. I was going to say "reasoning" but this rant is so clearly disconnected from reality it would be a gross error to imply there was any reasoning whatsoever behind this article. Isn't it enough to have an irrational fear and loathing of all things Apple without inventing false histories and imaginairy scenarios to justify said loathing?
Microsoft's entire history is one of lowest common denominator "good enough" kludge. The idea that crap does not survive in the Windows world is a pathetic and sad fantasy, at odds with the fact that much of the Windows world *is* crap.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
The thought occurred to me when Safari for Windows was first released that it was mainly meant for primarily Mac users so they'd feel more at home when using Windows.
It doesn't matter what Apple does, I read somewhere that they'll be out of business real soon now...
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
It's a nice move of Apple, because it eases cross browser tests. Web designers using a PC don't have to switch to a Mac to test their site on Safari anymore. They can test under Windows. Of course fonts are different under OS X, so at some point you will HAVE to test the site on OS X. But for everyday use its nice to have Safari for the Windows platform.
Strangely enough that encourages web designers to use Windows as their developement platform of choice. Because on OS X there is no IE...
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 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 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.)
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.
You kidding me? Microsoft regularly gets away with incomprehensible abuse of their customers, and nobody cares.
First... Microsoft would have been torn apart - literally - over the design of ActiveX and the way it's use in Internet Explorer. The MPAA/RIAA-favoring restrictions installed in the kernel by Windows Media Player from 9.0 onwards, now a standard part of the OS in Vista, would have led to WMP being religiously avoided by anyone concerned with freedom of speech. The layers and layers of security band-aids are hated by *everyone*, and yet people put up with it.
Compared to that, having a first public beta using Mac OS style window borders and controls is nothing.
The portable media player market is the House That Apple Built.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. Apple introduced the iPod into a crowded field of players that were cheaper and had more functions, and in many cases were better designed, and they still took it over. Itunes is a red herring... all the early media players except the very cheapest had their own management programs, and the iTunes Music store didn't come out until two years after the iPod.
But, speaking of iTunes, do you have the same issue with iTunes for Windows?
PS: you have Athens and Sparta mixed up. Athens was the city of the brawling philosophers where Socrates was killed for speaking his mind, and Sparta was the regimented and tightly controlled dictatorship where everyone did the same thing.
And if you think Apple doesn't get bashed for user interface decisions by Mac users, you haven't been paying attention.
Rather than providing iPhone users with the existing universe of largely IE-optimized applications and sites in a browser that supports existing standards, and telling iPhone application developers to just go ahead and build universally compatible apps that will also run on the iPhone, Apple feels the overpowering need to once again build and control a new, proprietary playing field.
No, you haven't been paying attention. Safari is more compliant with web standards than IE or Firefox, so universally compatible applications *will* run on the iPhone. The "IE-optimized" web pages written for "whatever IE does this week" and then ported over and over again to every new release of IE (and, if you're lucky, Firefox) may not work on Safari... but that's CERTAINLY not because they're written for a browser that "supports existing standards" or because they're "universally compatible".
The big problem on Windows isn't that the browser "market" is crowded, but because it's sparse. There's basically only three browsers on Windows besides Safari: IE, Firefox, and Opera. Until Safari, there wasn't a single really usable browser using the KHTML engine (the one that's designed from the ground up for standards-compliance rather than speed), and only Opera was designed securely (yes, Safari's design is fundamentally more secure than Firefox, let alone IE).
Windows users should be welcoming the introduction of a new competing browser... one that for all its warts can only serve to improve the quality and standards-compliance of the web.
So I didn't read all of the 227 posts above mine, but I did read a good number (which may or may not have been a bad thing to do before I decided to make my first post), and maybe I'm not thinking "power computer user"-ly minded enough...
But basically the entire point of that article was John Lilly being angry that apple removed Firefox and not IE from a pie-chart and essentially he wants to get back at steve jobs for it.
I love Firefox, I used it for the longest time on my PC, before I switched over to a mac. The mac was the first real experience I had with Safari, and I didn't like it at first, it seemed like something apple through together really quick so that it could say they had their own browser. I decided, out of interest of fairness (because, being a computer engineer I prefer to have most of my bases covered) I'd use it... and I grew to like it better then Firefox - it worked faster and integrated better with other apps in the OS, and I started to realize that I was using Firefox as a (frankly, great) replacement for IE more then out of necessity as a developer, and that safari suited my needs better then Firefox did.
That having been said, I don't think Firefox is going anywhere, I use it next to Safari for when a specific plug-in is needed, and I do think it was unfair and perhaps myopic of Jobs to have Safari eventually engulfing Firefox's and Opera's and "other's" part of the market share. It doesn't need to, and it likely (hopefully) never will. Its a simplistic browser that is designed for a simplistic user, which in my mind puts it in a class of its own, entirely separate from a browser such a Firefox which is a much more powerful web-developer tool.
I apologize in advance for any poor grammar, I was typing as I was thinking. And if something like this has been said in a previous post, I also apologize, as I said I didn't read everything. I just think that the Firefox response seems a little childish in a "hey!!!! You called me a bad name/didn't include me" sort of way.
This is so simple...
They just all suck.
suck suck suck.
I personally still use Mosaic 1.1 on MacOS 7.5.1 on a PowerComputing PowerWave 150, with a 100MB HD and 32MB of RAM, and apart from Flash related stuff and css sites, everything is perfect.
I can see all text, and if I look in source code view I can guesstimate images and stuff by title, and use my imagination to fill in the gaps.
Anyway, as per usual the real issue is what is the purpose of a web browser.
for myself its to view web applications and information pages, which hopefully are coded to the current web standards.
Anything else is not really necessary.
If gmail works properly, if I can pay my phone bill and use the latest 'Beta2.0' site I am good.
If i can connect to my bank and do banking I am good.
anything else is useless.
I use a specialized news reader for usenet, same for RSS, same for email.
Do I need a browser that has integrated gmail+flickr+myspace, twitter integration?
nope.
Do I need a browser to call home when something doesn't load, NOPE.
Do I need a fast, simple clear interfaced, UN-buggy, secure, lean, mean browser YES.
All the rest, really is bogus.
As far as Apple committing a couple of developer to a project that is already open source and distributing it, what exactly is the harm in it?
As far as this guy's commentary about it, what a bunch of BS, (the cold world of windows) ah ah ah, don't make me laugh.
the high standards and bug averse windows users...
pwahah ah aha ah aha ah.
what is this guy smoking.
These are the same users that keep using the most bug prone crash prone EXPENSIVE os, and the most crash prone security breach full browser, just because they are just too LAZY to look for an alternative.
Any argument to the contrary is just PURE BS to get click troughs which this guy has succeeded in doing by writing a totally bunk article which slashdot has picked up and therefore given him EXACTLY what he really wanted.
Content + Container; Content = Container; Content â Container... which is the question?
In the last couple of years, in which the great, red-eyed God Winblows has finally noticed things called Macs and especially iPods, I have heard a lot about how Mac people are fanboys living in a dreamworld for sissies. But this article makes it clear that Windows creates fanboys too. Only the Windows world is Hobbesian, where everything is a brutish competition, where nature is red in tooth and claw, where all alternatives are enemies to be crushed. Talk about a dream world. Only it's a nightmare.
One Windows fanboy doesn't like Safari because the scroll wheel on his mouse doesn't move in the way it does in Windows. Oh, the horror. And the window can't be expanded from any corner! Ay, the impious Apple! In much the same way, I read about the unimaginable pain of Windows users trying the Mac without a right-click! (Um, option-click, or get any two-button USB mouse.)
It's a free download. It had some real problems at the beginning. You now have at least three web engines you can use on Windows. Don't like it? Uninstall it. No charge.
I don't know the ultimate reason Apple wanted to make Safari for Windows, but I'd bet not many people would have thought 5 years ago that so many copies of Windows would have Quicktime on it by now, or iTunes, or now, Webkit.
I don't think Jobs thought he'd eliminate Firefox, either. What for? OS X coexists quite well with a number of browsers. I've got Safari, Firefox, Camino, Flock, Opera and OmniWeb on my computer. I use the first three, most of the time. Oh, and I have Internet Explorer 5.2.3, too, which is where Microsoft stopped development after Apple announced Safari. Crashes a whole lot now. I don't use it anymore, and it looks really shitty.
When Safari for Windows goes 1.0, I bet a lot of the objections people have to it will be gone. I have no idea how many people on Windows will use it as default, probably not many. But it might be worth keeping around, when IE is screwing up on some site and you want a standards-compliant browser.
There are only two competitors in the web browser market: Internet Explorer and standards-compliant browsers. From a web development standpoint, it doesn't matter which of the many standards-compliant browsers is being used: that's why there are standards. So this talk about Safari "stealing" from Firefox is bullshit. It doesn't make any difference.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
QuickTime Standalone or better, QuickTime Alternative v1.81 (a recent project went dead according to Codec Guide):
.mov files. In fact, HD trailers will play with much better performance with the open-source decoders that are included in KLCP than with QuickTime Player.
QTA (2)
Saturday - June 9
Some news websites have written that QTA is doomed because we removed links to it. However, we have no control over what the creators of QTA do. Even if they would decide to stop making new versions, which is likely to happen, this does not automatically mean that there won't be any trimmed down mods of QuickTime available in the future. Creating such a pack is no rocket science. So anyone with a few ounces computer skills can make something similar. In fact, many of such packs already exist.
QTA
Monday - June 4
Download links to QuickTime Alternative have been removed at kind request of Apple. Even though this site does not host any downloads, we have have decided to just remove all links, even indirect ones, and get on with life. QT is a slow and sometimes also buggy piece of software anyway.
The K-Lite Codec Pack is fully capable of playing
However, playing QuickTime content inside your webbrowser requires QuickTime to be installed. We will soon provide a detailed guide describing how you should install and configure QuickTime for the best user experience with the least annoyances.
Those who seek QTA can find it on dozens of other websites. There also exist several other packs containing QT components, just to name a few: QTLite, Vista C.P., ACE M.C.P., Storm C., MUSK C.P., Satsuki QT module, and even a binary C.P. addon for MPlayer.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not like the F/OSS world, no sir - we wouldn't begin a long, drawn out painful hate campaign if a F/OSS company makes even the smallest error... No, it's all love in the Community.
Windows users turn on any company that makes the smallest error? After all those years of patiently tolerating errors, insecurity, and instability, Windows users are now suddenly rabid wolves on software quality? And therefore Apple is toast because Mac users are world famous for not giving a rat's ass about quality?
Well, a blogger said it, so it must be true.
Every software maker denies any responsibility, be it Microsoft or some OSS programmer.
Also, if you tried to sue Microsoft, they'd have their lawyers keep you occupied until you have to file bankruptcy because you can't pay your lawyer anymore, never getting back your money.
Furthermore, if there is a problem with an open source application, you can
a) wait for a bug fix from the vendor,
b) wait for a bug fix from a third party or
c) write a bug fix yourself.
With a closed source application, you can only do (a), i.e. you are at the mercy of the vendor.
Indeed, with open source you can have a look at it, while you know about bugs in closed source only when the vendor tells you about it - and about backdoors you thus know never because they won't tell you and there will ever be less people who dare to look for bugs in commercial applications between being sued in the US for violating trade secret and copyright and being sued in Europe for using "hacker tools".
Also, you really should be other forms of payment instead of credit cards.
The interface is odd, and it feels clunky. Apple should just make Itunes 64bit and actually perform like a 2007 application should on a fucking quad core intel chip. Fucking Itunes runs like teleguard software under desqview on my old 286 when i was 15.
6. To get PC users to install QuickTime.
It's my understanding that Safari for Windows installs QuickTime, it's required for WebKit. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know for sure since I don't own a Windows box.
Almost everything Apple does is designed to drive QuickTime adoption in the PC market. QT is Apple's greatest asset and its key to wider success in media-driven markets. This is Apple's chance to get even for Microsoft wanting to "knife the baby." iTunes installs have driven QT installs on PCs, now Safari does it too.
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.
It's not innovative but it's ultimately correct. Why recreate Google Maps, Google Apps, Wikipedia, etc, when you could just use them? The only thing less innovative would be to do it the M$ way and have people buy yet another expensive SDK that's only useful for a single hardware platform and lets you start reinventing every wheel all over again. The only thing more innovative would be to release it all as free software so people could port what they've already done and make web pages that work. There is a zero chance the greed heads will ever agree to such a scheme as long as they control the airwaves, all recorded music and so on and so forth. The lack of an SDK is far a step into the future the phone and music companies will let Apple take.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I don't think Jobs thought he'd eliminate Firefox, either.
Well, he put up a slide showing Safari eliminating Firefox.
Either someone switched slides on him and he recovered nicely, or he really thinks he can eliminate Firefox.
I have no idea why he'd want to. It's Internet Explorer that's the problem, not Firefox.
But that's what he put up.
"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.
Apple is pushing Safari into windows to provide support for iPhone and standards based Web2 AJAX apps. More a framework than just a browser. Like the iTunes model.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
i agree, and neither users nor their money. i take that back $ mb the only thing in that dark world that IS worshipped.
Most people that buy iPhone will be Windows users. iPhone does not have IE. It has Safari, so it is important to get more people used to the idea that Safari is a real web browser. Without that, many people will have a mental block that iPhone does not have IE.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Here's a more accurate version of that quote:
sed -e 's/users/whiny, lazy, ignorant bigots/'
Come to think of it, I've come across very few windows users that don't fit any of that description.
iPod = iPhone
iTunes = Safari
iTunes Music Store = 3rd party Web 2.0/Ajax apps
The iPhone is going to be a hit, but Apple learned a few things about making a winning product into one that competitors can't compete against.
There will be a good bit of synergy between iPhone and Safari and that requires Apple bringing the app to Windows.
Aside from all the bandying about, I like being able to use Safari in windows.
For a mac user, the windows UI is at least as unintuitive as the mac UI is for windows users. Thus, the ability to use the same browser when I'm in windows is a huge plus for me.
As an example, Safari autocompletes URLs automatically. I type "gm" and press enter to get to gmail. In firefox, I always end up visiting GM's website first.
So yeah, conspiracy theories aside, I like it.
Steve and Apple can claim they are not like MS, they give their users freedom and choice. Here is your freedom and choice right here, two companies who can have the browser market and guess what closed standards and good luck to anyone who does not run MS or Apples Browser OS. I know everyone likes to villify MS for obvious reasons, but Apple will do the same if the shoes were reversed.
I absolutely hate windows mobile, but thinking that the iphone is going to ever have greater marketshare than windows mobile shows a lack of understanding about a lot of the people who are buying these phones.
With the release of windows mobile 5 and exchange 2003 SP2 over the past couple of years, anyone who has an up-to-date exchange server can provide over the air sync / direct push (for email, calendar, tasks and contacts) easily to any mobile user without the need for an additional server software (ie blackberry goodlink). MS has even copied the blackberry remote wipe feature.
I think the people who are buying and will continue to buy windows mobile phones are business users who are on an exchange server - and can run the cost of their data plan through their business - and I think that's a lot of people.
-Random access voicemail? Brilliant but not a killer app.
-Widescreen Video iPod? I'd love one but that's a toy (and a bit flawed since it can only hold four or five movies anyway on what pre-subsidy is a $775 device) I'm looking at an Archos 605 for movies for when I travel)
-Real browsing? Cool for certain, but not adequate reason to dump the blackberry or as a killer of windows mobile (windows mobile can render full webpages too even though it's not as cool as apple's solution)
-The "calamari experience?" - yes I have google maps on my phone too - not as cool as apple, but not a killer app. (again windows mobile can do this too of course, not a killer app)
Incidently, the iPhone is the most glorious consumer device ever created, and I'd love the buy one to replace my blackberry, but even giving the multitouch typing virutal or whatever it is called the absolute benefit of the doubt, there is nothing about the iPhone that would justify me giving up access to my calendar and the rest of my outlook information. I have a Sprint blackberry so I'd also have to give up my unlimited tethered EVDO USB laptop internet access.
They want to give a feel of mac to the windows world, not to copy the windows experience.
You can't take the sky from me...
FireFox isn't going away, that's for certain. Steve Jobs doesn't want FireFox to go away. But he can't tell you what he does want. Fake Bill Gates can tell you what Steve Really wants. Safari, FireFox, Opera, and the Nokia WebKit (same open source core as Safari) will all pass the ACID test. Together they will form a standards compliant base of web browsers that add up to about 1625% of web browsers today, but maybe 25% or more of web browsers by WWDC 2008. See the *real* pie chart that Steve Jobs expects to show next year at The Secret Diary of Bill Gates.
You know what they say, smart people learn from their mistakes and wise people learn from smart people's mistakes. I have no doubt that Steve Jobs is one smart man and at times, can be very very wise as well. Whatever it is he is trying to achieve with the introduction of Safari for Windows, he has done some of us Netizen a great deal of help (and hope, at the same time). Personally, I welcome Safari for Windows a great deal. Especially having it installed in all of my computer labs. The thought of not having to frequently clean up the plug-ins or add-ons in Firefox and IE is just a blessing. But I think, most importantly, for me at least, it introduce us to web standard compliance. Other than that, I just love the raw speed at rendering the pages...
Clearly he hasn't been paying attention. Fake Bill Gates has been paying attention and talks about Steve Jobs' secret strategy for Safari for Windows. Elgan totally misses the point, but then, so do most other pundits.
First, it means another browser which is standards-compliant that can take some share % from IE.
Second, Apple are more known to the general public than Firefox or Opera. If anything, it will open the public's eyes that there is more than one choice in web browsers.
Third, this is Apple's free Windows SDK for the iPhone.
The only (huge) mistake Steve Jobs made in his Keynote was that pie chart where Safari took the % shares from everybody *but* IE. He should have shown a second pie chart where Firefox was increased, the "others" were increased, and Safari took 5-10% of IE on top of Firefox and others.
people lament that Apple didn't release an iPhone SDK. however, they did - it's Safari. that's the only reason they ported it to Windows. this isn't a bid for browser market share; it's a bid for mobile developers.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
Why would I defend crappy products like Microsoft's? I'm not going to.
I raised several points in my comment, most of which everyone has ignore. Please, have a go at them.
Ah, so now Safari isn't running natively on Win32, so it is all okay. Got it. I'll bring that point up when someone complains about the interface on a Mac app now. It will be nice to see how the opinion is magically different.
:)
And Apple should bundle iTunes and Safari together. I don't see any issue with that. If people want to subject their machines to such ugliness, they can do so much quicker.
What Apple realized early on, is that they could NOT replace mp3 as a format (nor would they necessarily want to, everyone supports mp3)... so mp3 lives (and thrives), but so does AAC (as most purchases now are AAC, not mp3).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I don't see where you get that MP3 wasn't killed as well. I mean nothing is 100% dead, not even WMA but not only are all the songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store in AAC, but most of the already owned/shared/copied CDs ripped onto iTunes are in AAC format. So where does that leave MP3s? With every other non-iPod PMP? Thats 22% of the market but even there all of that 22% doesn't belong to MP3s because with some music services, such as Rhapsody you only get the songs in WMA format. So I'm seriously interested in why you think MP3 isn't dead right now.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
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.
The above quote seems to be proven wrong by the third word in it.
You don't need it. Just hit Enter. BTW, although I consider myself an experienced PC user (no Mac experience at all), I do not know this shortcut key. I dare say a very small percentage of people know about it.
I can't imagine how difficult it is. On the contrary, I often found myself mis-resize the windows. I did waste some time to resize it back, since generally I like to have fixed-size windows (esp. true for browsers, in order to test standard resolutions).
It turns out the author confused plug-ins with add-ons. Plug-in support is there, but add-ons are few. I do not think add-ons are a blocking issue, since people are using Internet Explorer without add-ons most of the time.
This is even not worth rebutting. This is the reason why Web developers need Safari on Windows and why it is beta.
I can't understand why it is an issue. If only you click on Bookmarks - Show All Bookmarks, you will see all the imported bookmarks immediately.
This varies between people. I like the look of Safari, and I believe Safari on Mac will have fewer bugs and less memory footprint. So it will not affect when I am to buy a Mac (I don't have one yet, but am considering buying one).
you think safari, which is basically mozilla with a mask, is going to whomp The Original Zilla and MSIE all by itself? I'll bet apple doesn't. safari is probably the devkit for the iPhone. you know, as in "let everybody interconnect and make my little toy another billion seller?"
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Buggy beta" is redundant. Excuse me, waiter... my soup is wet.
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
Safari is the BEST browser for my Mac OS Panther. Firefox has been the BEST browser on my Dell Laptop (note: "has been") After only using Safari for 3 days on my Dell LT, I can easily say: Safari is the FASTEST AND BEST browser on my Dell laptop. (TRY IT------YOU'LL LIKE IT!) >>>gadgetman37
>>>Tom
Well, you are forgetting that Apple hardware sales are growing at a rate faster than the industry, but they are nonetheless a declining percentage of overall Apple revenue. Apple increasingly "makes its money" from the iPod and iTunes Music Store, and soon, from the iPhone. At some point, Apple will be able to afford taking the risk. If these trends continue to the point where general purpose computers make up, say, only 1/3 of Apple revenue, and they think they can capture, say 10 percent of the desktop computer market if they offer their software on, say, the top 5 PC platforms, would they take the risk? If they could double their market share by partnering with only one of the top three, would they do it? At some point, desktop hardware sales as a percentage of overall revenue will fall to the point where the answer will be "yes." Microsoft undoubtedly is aware that Apple could make this decision any time it feels it would be worth the risk. Does Apple have a secret team of people who write device drivers for Dells and HPs? Can Steve Jobs wake up one morning and decide "now is the time" and make an announcement and ship the product within six months?
"... the Windows world [is] 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."
...
... i say if apple wants to have a go at it , great . if safari/win flops , they might learn something and try again . if it succeeds , then microsoft and mozilla might learn something from the experience . what i don't see is the part where the consumer loses . choice is good , remember ?
right . the windows browser market is such a meritocracy untouched by the hand of the monopolist that firefox's market share was able to rise to 78% versus internet explorer's 15% . oh , wait - it's the other way around
sheesh
WMA on the other hand is pretty much dead as a de-facto standard, as there are many devices in the market that don't support WMA (mainly, iPods).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
god, what an imbecile
The Internet is an incredible contribution to humanity, the US doing for the world today what Rome did for Europe 2000 years ago: the Internet is the modern day equivalent of the road.
But do you think there are more enemies of society working for Microsoft? Or living in one of the 50+ nations who have entered military conflict with the US in the last 63 years?
If they fail, bad luck to them.
I think of this as a "Apple's version of XULRunner". Build your App for the iPhone. And now it will run on Windows and OSX too. Add a bit of modified HTML (or even better different CSS for different media) for the bigger screen. Done!
Even if every small move by Apple is viewed as the next big revolution, well, most of them aren't. They are just small steps. Like this one: Giving developers for iPhone Apps access to two more plattforms at virtually no added costs. Development for this new platform makes a lot more sense than before.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Standard Windows phones will show phone numbers in messages underlined, clicking on them would result in dial out. And if you keep address with your contacts, then after installing google maps you'd get Map Location link as one of the menu options.
So, it's all there. Just ugly and not very polished, which is the number one thing that Apple does well -- take ideas floating around in ugly implementations and polish them well enough to make it easy to use
Hyperom.com
Well, there have been well over a million downloads of Safari for Windows at this point, which leads me to believe that Windows users are curious. I think most of them also realize it's a Beta, not a general Ready for Prime Time release, so they don't expect perfection.
And in any case, Apple isn't out to win a browser war. There isn't a war, or even any battles. Apple's tilling the ground for the release of the iPhone with its Safari-like browser and web apps, and it wants to make sure that Windows developers start checking their web sites for compatibility issues. If a lot of people decide the like Safari, that's great, but it's not the priority at the moment.
As for all of that other claptrap about starry-eyed Apple Mac users drifiting in a dreamy utopia, the man knows nothing beyond the sleek, stylish ads that apple runs if he thinks that's the world that Mac users inhabit. They are anything but bucolic.
I'm hoping this is simply the first [well, second if you count iTunes] of many iApps that Apple will release for Windows.
:- Dabe
One word: iChat. iChat for Windows would be the oft-fantasized Video Phone; people would use it and it would 'Just Work'.
And once people start seeing that Apple software -- iMovie, Keynote, etc. -- works just like (nay, better than) their previous Windows counterparts, they won't be as afraid to switch ships.
It's silly to say Apple is "stupid" for expanding into the larger market. If you can run the full suite of Apple iApps on Windows on Boot Camp on your Apple Hardware, that's pretty much the Holy Grail for most folks...
--
If you're going to flame me, it'd be more convincing if you weren't hiding behind the AC tag. Yes, I looked. None existed (at the time I made my switch). I switched from Safari to Firefox after I got frustrated with accidentally closing a tab and not being able to "undo" it. That's when some friends of mine pointed me to Tab Mix Plus and Firefox. It works and does what I need it to do. Safari does very well on what it was intended to do: be a working no-frills web browser. I'm a power user and need something more. As always, to each their own.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
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". Has anyone considered for a moment that the iPhone might fail? It's the only phone to hit the market at an enterprise/business pricepoint without offering any of the relevance of the enterprise market. The market is not the high-end smartphone market; it seems to only be gunning for the disposable income and must-have-gadget OCD market.
I think they're selling this device to the wealthy, non-technical, and/or "Apple people".
Apple just unveiled an extremely glitchy KHTML-based browser to the Windows market with a bloated interface that counteracts all the visual perks of Windows and claimed they would take IE's market.
They might just be "wrong". You know. Wrong. Like as in Apple might go the direction of... Apple in the past? They're continuously making non-essential, non-interoperable, and non-accessible technology. Apple could easily get eaten alive by the green computing movement. No one else seems to be worried- because a $150 cell phone with the same functionality will always sell better.
For those of you who haven't driven through the WHOLE country; 3G has not arrived yet in the US- the market is bigger than New York and San Fransisco.
iTunes + Safari = hardly using any other Application on the Windows computer.
.Mac were somehow enabled for Windows users who use Safari - then Apple would be channeling
Now if
every single iPod / safari user into it's camp.
one
click
at
a
time...
You're forgetting that the iPhone has WiFi. On average, people in the United States spend far more time in WiFi hotspots than they do in 3G hotspots (because there are so few). Lack of 3G in the first version will not hurt the iPhone. When AT&T finishes rollout of their HSDPA 3G network at up to 14.4 Mbits/sec, future generations of the iPhone will support it. Lack of 3G in the first U.S. version of the iPhone will not much affect iPhone sales. Future versions of the iPhone will have 3G. It's very likely that the European version of the iPhone, due in the fall, will support 3G, due to widespread availability of 3G networks in Europe.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
That's a very US centric point of view you have. The internet wouldn't be the internet if those other countries didn't participate.
And the code contribution process of any significant open source project has many eyeballs ensuring security.
I'd really like to evaluate Safari on Windows, but unfortunately it won't stay up long enough for me to do anything. It crashes, and crashes, and crashes... I can't get it to run. I don't seem to be alone. I've googled and I've found a lot of people having similar problems, but no solutions. My impression, therefore, is that this Beta is crap. Apple has gotten away with putting out a lot of crappy software (like iTunes and Quicktime -- iTunes wouldn't work until I found out that it was incompatible with early versions of Quicktime, and that one had to uninstall Quicktime, find an older version of Quicktime, install and uninstall in, and then reinstall iTunes to get it to work... -- Apple thinks this is reasonable !?!?). But Safari is the worst. What is especially galling is Apple's marketing of Quicktime as "the best browser for Windows". Safari isn't even the best browser for the Mac. I was thinking of getting an iPhone, but now I have to reconsider, seeing as Safari will probably be the browser that it uses...
If all of those people who downloaded Safari for Windows, actually installed and tried to use it, then fans of Firefox or IE have nothing to worry about. The Safari Beta can't even browse a website. It looks nice, right before it crashes. This is the worst piece of crap Apple has put out since the Apple III. Actually it's the worst piece of crap Apple has ever put out.
The share of the market which belongs to Windows Mobile is actually quite small, particularly compared to Symbian's industry dominating share upwards of 70%. It turns out that most people (well, all people with a margin of error of only 5.6%) don't seem to be obsessed with obscure Windows Mobile "business" features that are hard to set up and expensive to maintain (Exchange Server integration), on phones that don't work all that well. Here are some interesting articles on the market share of cell phone platforms.
Apple iPhone to exceed Windows Mobile by 2008?
Smartphone
Symbian tops Smartphone OSes, but challenges loom
Linux trounces Windows Mobile in Smartphone shipments
Smartphone market share
Your discussion of killer apps on phones seems ingenuous. Random access to voicemail, real web browsing, and an easy to use Google maps function all three appear to be of great interest to non-geek folk interested in the iPhone. Several business people who are heavy cell phone users have told me, without prompting, that the random access voicemail feature alone will spur them to buy an iPhone. Salespeople are really jazzed about all three features, including the Google Maps. They have maps and web browsing on their smart phones today, but they are not happy with the non-ease of use of current devices. And they get lots and lots of voicemail, and they've known for years that they wanted random access to it. Exhange Server integration, well, it never comes up in the discussion until a geek ask about it. Nobody (a number of people approaching zero with a margin of error of 5.6%) cares about Exchange Server integration with their phone.
Your use of the term "fanboy" is technically incorrect. The parent post relies almost entirely on hypotheticals to elucidate a point regarding possible reasoning behind Apple's Safari for Windows move. Furthermore, calling the parent a "fanboy" is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Please endeavor to raise the level of discussion here, and avoid cheap shots. If you don't have a point to make, read and think more before you post. If you do have a poitn to make, don't undermine your credibility by including ad hominem attacks with your argument. Although there are those here who reward such childish behavior with mod points, there are people here who mod down for inappropriate use of the term "fanboy".
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Apple need web2.0 applications for iPhone.
They must run on Safari, and Safari is weak on Web2.0 technlogy.
So you *need* Safari for Windows, if you want someone will write some app safari-compatible....
Good luck Steve!
-- Giovanni Daitan Giorgi http://gioorgi.com http://www.siforge.org
Safari for XP won't load on xp on Virtual PC for PPC with 512 megs ram Firefox does so no problem ea
I'd say that Apple's not expecting a lot, in public. Similar to the XServe, they weren't proclaiming that they'd seize the server market. They said they had a product and would listen and learn and improve, and that's when a company can be scary good. Listen, improve, release, repeat. It is precisely what MS is _not_ doing currently.
One of the things that strikes me about a lot of the CIO/"enterprise" prognostication is a sense of permanence to whatever an impression is. Apple clearly sees an opening and just because 1.0 isn't what it could be, people seem to conveniently forget there can be a 1.1, 1.2...
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
"The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough." What??? No, that's not even close! The real issue is that SAFARI DOESN'T EVEN WORK AT ALL! It's a piece of crap that crashes with a safari.exe error upon EVERY load if behind a proxy. And since proxy settings are disabled there's no way to go in and turn it off even if you circumvent the proxied network. This is the only time it does NOT crash, but like I said there's nothing you can do to turn off the settings to make it work. Firefox is here to stay, Mozilla has made a secure foundation that functions efficiently, not like Crapple's Safari. Get your shit fixed, then come and try to play ball in the Windows market. Until then, stop touting your poorly designed products as if they are the next best thing since sliced bread, Mr. Hand Jobs.
Really, Apple could've saved time effort and effort by taking the money they've been dumping into Safari and invest it in FireFox contributions and developments instead. But no, they're suffering the Not Invented Here pathology which is resulting in them making another (not-nearly-compatible-enough) browser with its own security flaws that they have to fix, the bugs that they have to own, and the testing that they're trying to inflict on any web developers that will do them the honor of claiming to support them.
Recall, if you will, that Opera actually told web servers (by default) that it was Internet Explorer just to make the servers give them data as if they were MSIE because nobody was treating Opera as capable and competent of its own accord. Safari's going to be the same way.
Which is kind of sad because a link from a Mac site (Daring Fireball, iirc) was the only place I saw anybody show concern on how to make web pages accessible to Opera on the Wii.
On the Mac, when you take the computer out of the box, it already has one of every kind of software on it. A third-party solution has to be better than what's included on the Mac before the user even considers buying it. For example, there is no Photoshop Album for Mac because we ALL have iPhoto, there is no need.
It's true that symbian has tons of marketshare and I should have included that fact and everything else you included for that matter in my post (even if some of the data is from 2004/2005,) because my point is that it is extremely unlikely the iPhone's safari browser is going to become the standard for mobile browsing anytime soon, and the only explanation I can think of for the parent's enthusiasm, for which I see no basis in current reality, is a misty eyed love of Apple Corporation.
The killer app factor is ancillary to that point, and I wont even rehash it with you.
And the code contribution process of any significant open source project has many eyeballs ensuring security.
And how many identifying vulnerabilities when there is money to be made?
Again, I don't think you understand how the process works. It is entirely open only in transparency, and operates in a network of trust. A random stranger cannot just commit code to Firefox, or any significant project. It takes a considerable amount of trust building to get commit status, and once you are in, multiple people will see and examine your code, because code is interdependent.
Exactly. The Mac market isn't the place the author describes, where mistakes are forgiven and your software can suck. If you're a third party developer you need to either do something better than Apple did it, or fill a niche that Apple hasn't. Even if you're filling a niche, you'll be held to some pretty high standards.
I'm not opposed to OSS, I think it creates a very positive dynamic for the creation of new software with commercial opportunities.
Even so, when I'm about to rush to make an online purchase, I can't help wondering "Who did the last commit in the keycode in Firefox? What about the networking code? Maybe I'll use IE or Safari instead.", even though I'm using Firefox most of the time. Was it someone accountable to a company or just an email address?
Maybe this is off topic, perhaps the real issue is digitial identity online.
That's about how I thought it worked. Most of my knowledge of how OSS development functions has been discerned from notes on the cathedral and the bizarre and experiences with Bugzilla.
That said, you don't need commit status to recognise a vulnerability, most OSS projects allow source download without registration.
As someone else has already mentioned, there are safer forms of payment than credit card, paypal, even paypal SMS I'm sure are very safe, if you register your card or phone details in IE or Safari of course!
Any open source project, by nature, will allow full access to source code without registration.
What value does registration have, anyway?
This is a bug, not a feature. Over time, the incidence of exploits will get very low. Whereas with a closed source app, they can always be hiding somewhere.
And it's about as easy to find an exploit via a reverse engineering tool on a closed source app. As well, many app exploits come from system wide exploits, so it's not so much sleuthing as it is watching for these vulnerabilities and trying them in an app. Many exploiters are more "script kiddies" than real experts. The real experts tend to have earned their knowledge and are not inclined to be irresponsible with it, though no system depends on this fact.
IT'S AN IPHONE DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM.
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Lol! I'll have to agree! I don't want to foster any more cyclical debate!
You list "does not look like a native app" as a Safari disadvantage. This is surely an advantage.
I doubt Apple is snubbing MS because of IE. I expect Apple would be more than happy if nobody ever ran IE on a Mac again.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
While everyone provides the zoom feature, IE 7 does it right, while I love all the browsers I use on a daily basis, IE 7 is the only one on Windows that zooms out correctly and keeps image ratio!!!
Apple seems to be testing their build of OS X supporting DLLs,
so that ANY Macintosh OS X software could run Within Windows XP / Vista.
This
Has
Interesting
Consequences.
iLife, iWork, etc etc - working on windows...
Hmm... interesting...
So I just joined Slashdot and the first article I read is this one, and then about 50 random posts. The gist of it seems to be that everybody has an opinion much like another thing that all people possess and that there is some question as to whether Mike Elgan is smarter then Steve Jobs. Personally I think he just wanted to write a headline that would that would have the same affect as stamping on a nest of angry little ants. His writing reflects a clear bias as one would expect when writing for a PC dominated magazine. Surprise surprise. Now since predictions and haruspication seem to be all the rage I wave my hands around in a theatrical manner and exclaim the following augury. 1. iPhone will be a bigger hit then predicted, even by Apple themselves. 2. Safari will blithely ignore all portents of doom and claim 10% of PC marketshare in the next 24 months and 5 days. 3. Steve Jobs will show up outside Mike's house one night and bludgeon him to death* with a MacPlus full of bricks. 4. ComputerWorld magazine will replace poor Mike with another writer that has a surprising PC bias. So I see why you all do this now. It's mildly amusing and a great way to procrastinate for 5 mins. Be nice. I'm new. ~ Hyperwolf * - Portent of death of Mike Elgan was purely for theatrical purposes and no harm (imagined or real) is intended of said individual.
On that small sample page that was linked, if you take a look at the bottom, the comments have equally good counterexamples for most of the arguments given at the top. I think it is a great idea, and if people have problems with not being able to resize from all sides, then they have bigger problems.
Funny i thought IE was a mental block...
iTunes
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
Ogg Vorbis is totally open for *anyone* to implement. Apple could've done that, since the specification was ready many moons ago. Ogg Theora (the video part) took a little longer, but it, too, is ready. Both of the Ogg formats are of exceptional quality, especially compared to MP3/MPEG4, at similar bit rates.
That's not because Symbian is awesome compared to Windows CE or whatever is called now.
It's because everyone knows that being parter to MS is the most direct way to be absorbed, destroyed or similar.
If MS had a monopoly on cellphones OS, the hardware companys would be screwed, and they know it.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.