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."

Comments

Oh look!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloggers think they matter again!

They're Not There to Win

[pyite]

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.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[adam1101]

I don't know why this meme of "Safari, the iPhone SDK" has suddenly become so popular, but Jobs himself has said in his keynote that they really want Safari to get a much bigger market share. Interestingly, on his slides his projected market share gain came mainly at the expense of Firefox and others, rather than IE.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Simon Donkers]

Maybe when Steve Jobs showed a pie chart of the browsermarket and his vision in his presentation it was an indication of Apple's motivation.

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.

From Computer World.

So Steve wants to claim 25% marketshare in the browsermarket and kill Firefox, Opera and the rest in the process. When they release a version that will work for me I'll be happy as that means I can test websites for compatibility without having to buy a Mac. However if they are trying to gain a 25% marketshare they have a very long way to go and I very much doubt they can squash Firefox out of the picture so easily.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[pyite]

I don't know why this meme of "Safari, the iPhone SDK" has suddenly become so popular, but Jobs himself has said in his keynote that they really want Safari to get a much bigger market share.

I think you can throw that under the heading of Reality Distortion Field. 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.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Admiral Ag]

I don't understand the problem.

A lot of Windows users downloaded iTunes, even though they didn't have an iPod. A lot of people just like it (and of course many people hate it). The same will probably be true of Safari.

There are of course many things to fix, but it is a beta. I'm guessing there will be a few people who want a simple, easy to use browser without endless sets of extensions and widgets. I was that person years ago when a simple browser called "Phoenix" was released, and that's why I used it. Now Firefox is not the simple browser it used to be.

Of course /. posters and other tech people who love complicated software with millions of customization options aren't going to like it. But for many people less is more.

FTR I now use Omniweb, which was well worth the small registration fee.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[pyite]

You really think web developers are going to give a shit if their sites work on IE 5&6, Netscape, and Firefox but break/look odd on Safari?

I think they're starting to. Part of the thing is that it seems like a lot of the people who write a lot of crap and have decent readership of their blogs also happen to be Mac users. So, they get to a site that doesn't work, they blog about it, it doesn't look good, etc. etc. There's really no excuse to not make your stuff work with Safari, as it's *very* standards compliant. I can't really think of the last page I went to that didn't work in Safari.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[topham]

The company I work for recently (less than 2 yrs) had to purchase a mac so they could test a website they were developing against Mac browsers.
Due to the nature of the site a significant user base use Macs. The user base? People with money; and lots of it.

So tell me; who do you aim for as a market?

Re:They're Not There to Win

[jZnat]

I think it would have been a more interesting slide if he swapped Safari and IE's positions in the first chart to make the second chart, therefore putting Safari at 74%, Firefox at 20%, IE at 12%, and other at 2% or something like that. Now that would have been looking ahead! However, I'd rather we don't have any web browser taking that sort of market share ever again in order to promote open standards with an open process (which means the W3C has to open themselves up a bit to the public when developing new web standards).

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Grave]

If it renders properly in Firefox or Opera, 99.99% of the time it'll render properly in Safari. It's IE that causes problems, because it fails to follow proper standards. I've had to spend a silly amount of time trying to work around IE bugs, when my sites have been 100% correct in Firefox and Opera (and, now that I'm able to check, Safari).

If a web developer doesn't care when their site does break or look odd in Safari, maybe they don't really care that much about the enduser experience. Personally, I think if the browser has more than 1% of the market, it needs to work with my sites. 1% is still a couple million people. I'm not going to abandon that many potential visitors/customers by being an arrogant snob like you seem to suggest.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Admiral Ag]

I think I understand Jobs' reasoning. It's all about Web 2.0 and compatibility between desktop and mobile browsing.

Let's say the iPhone is a huge hit in the way that the iPod is a huge hit. Let's say it revolutionizes mobile web browsing (I think people spend too much time looking at the interface, the phone apps and the iPod app - the "real" internet "in your pocket" is the big deal). The iPod being a hit meant that iTunes became a standard on desktop PCs.

So if the iPhone is a success, people will spend a lot of time browsing sites on it, and people will write Web 2.0 sites for it. Simply put, if the iPhone is a mega hit, Safari becomes the standard for mobile internet browsing, and IE mobile is finished (I have it. It sucks anyway). I think this will happen. Safari marketshare is going to shoot up as more people use their iPhones to access the web (this is why I think that devs whining about the lack of an iPhone SDK is dumb. Web 2.0 is the way to go).

But no-one is going to spend all their time browsing on their phone. People will want to use the same 2.0 sites on their desktop machines. Do you really think that Apple can trust Microsoft or the Firefox devs to make sure that IE and Firefox will be compatible with all the sites that are aimed at iPhone users?

Wouldn't it suck if you were using a great Web 2.0 interactive site on your iPhone and you got to your desk and discovered it didn't work properly with your desktop browser?

Wouldn't it suck if it was hard to sync your bookmarks between your phone and your desktop browsers?

By allowing Safari for Windows, Apple is basically saying: "All you other guys better support Safari, because it will rule mobile browsing. If you think that you can create trouble for the iPhone by making it hard for sites to be compatible with both the iPhone and Windows desktop browsing, then we're going to stop that by telling everyone that if their favourite sites work on their phone, but not their desktop, that they can download a browser that will make it work on the desktop. And added to that, we are going to make it super easy to sync bookmarks between Safari on the desktop and Safari on the phone. People will want a seamless experience between their mobile browsing and their browsing on traditional computers. Ignore this at your peril."

If Apple comes to rule mobile browsing, then it will be in a powerful position to determine web standards. Safari is insurance against others who might rock the boat.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[seaturnip]

Underlying draw calls change the HTML rendering path how? I don't see why Safari would have a different compatibility profile on Windows than OS X, plugin-dependent features aside. Firefox renders the same between operating systems to my knowledge.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Oktober Sunset]

A lot of windows users downloaded iTunes because they bundled it with Quicktime, and you had to find a tiny link the size of an ant's toothpick to get Quicktime on it's own. So all the poor chumps who just wanted to watch some .mov file had to download iTunes even tho they didn't want it.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Admiral Ag]

This is going to happen. Apple killed WMA as a standard. Safari is going to kill IE as a standard.

How?

The iPhone and mobile browsing.

Mobile browsing has been the red headed step child of the internet. It sucks. The iPhone seems like it will remedy that, and no other company seems to be in a position to compete with it, or will be in a position to do so for some time. That means that Safari will likely become a standard for mobile browsing, as long as the iPhone emulates the iPod and becomes a massive hit. What we will then have is a market in which Microsoft cannot compete because the iPhone will not run IE, just as the iPod did not use WMA. The iPhone will do for mobile internet what the iPod did for digital music... or at least that is Apple's bet. The iPod didn't establish a closed standard for digital music (and won't once Steve realizes his dream of DRM free music). What the iPod did was killed Microsoft's attempt to force Microsoft software as the standard.

I predict that mobile browsing will become indispensable to ordinary people in a way that it isn't now (I never use the web on my Winmobile phone because it sucks). If it is indispensable, then site designers will have to code for it, and that means abandoning an IE only policy. Imagine the hate calls banks will get along the lines of "Hey mofos!!! I can't check my bank balance on my phone!!" THAT will be the effective end of IE as a standard.

Safari for Windows, is, as I said below, just an insurance policy to make sure that whatever works on the iPhone will also work on your desktop (in case Microsoft tries to make things difficult by making iPhone sites display funny).

Microsoft better hope for one of two things. Either (a) the iPhone is a flop; or (b) the iPhone is a success, but mobile browsing never really takes off. Would you want to bet against either one?

Re:They're Not There to Win

[DrEldarion]

Apple killed WMA as a standard. Wait, I thought nobody gave a shit about WMA and everybody listened, and still listens, to MP3?

Re:They're Not There to Win

[davmoo]

I love tech, but I'm going to surprise you and agree with you. I want a browser that browses web pages...and nothing more. I don't want it to handle my email, I don't want it to handle RSS feeds, I don't want seven hundred and eleventy million plugins. I just want a fucking browser.

Simplicity is why I switched to Firefox and Opera from MSIE in the first place. And now both Firefox and Opera have expanded to become the same bloated fatware as MSIE. And Firefox has become just as buggy also.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Admiral Ag]

Yes, but what would have happened if online sales of music were dominated by WMA. Microsoft would effectively control the paid online distribution of music. Ask yourself how much that would suck. People disliked that Apple had to use a proprietary format to sell music online, but we now know that they didn't want to. I don't think I would say the same about Microsoft. If the format is not proprietary to them, then its not in the interest of Microsoft to promote.

Everyone knows that mp3 is OK, but the quality is not as good as AAC or WMA at similar bitrates. Would you rather have improved codecs in an open format like AAC or a format controlled by Microsoft? I'll take the open format thanks.

I'm starting to wonder if Jobs believes he can dethrone Microsoft. I don't mean that he thinks that Apple will replace Microsoft, but that Apple will force third party developers to open standards and free us from the tentacles of the Redmond beast. He's already done it with music. Now he seems to be trying internet browsers. What next?

Re:They're Not There to Win

[garoo]

I think this is unlikely.

Many years ago I worked for a major European telecommunications company who were convinced that, as they were as yet the only people offering a 'user-friendly web browser/phone', they were therefore in control of their market niche and ought to do rather well. Theirs was the definitive browsing experience.

It didn't fit well with the de facto state of the art at that time, and didn't display all those pages too well at all. The company was aware of this; therefore they 'reached out' to those web publishers who were seen as particularly relevant for the user group of said web browser/phone, and offered what was in effect SDK documentation: 'this is how to optimise user experience'. For some reason, almost nobody ever bothered to read said documentation. The general attitude was very much 'who cares about the id10ts who wasted their hard earned on this embedded crap?'

From this experience I took several lessons. Never assume you're a major enough player in the market to force anybody to do anything, unless you own 80% or more of it, and even then, you would be lucky. Very few people code for specific platforms, even where money is waved in front of them. Nobody except the users cares about user experience, except where it impacts on the bottom line (and in the case of a phone, you've already signed a contract before you start to learn about the little bugs). If you are going to offer any sort of guaranteed user experience, you would be best advised to ensure that you do not guarantee it on third party data.

At last year's WWW conf., there was a panel between various mobile web representatives discussing why the mobile web had not yet taken off. One (the Orange guy, I think?) pointed out that extremely high expectations had built up around mobile browsing. It wasn't so much that the current experience as of today's Nokia smartphone is particularly bad - it's more that there was a huge mismatch between expectation and experience. I get the impression that Apple really ought to talk to guys like this before they publicise the iPhone platform much further. They are making commitments that reality may not reflect -- which is pretty much a classic way of setting yourself up for 'limited success' in this arena.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[shmlco]

How much was the first high-end iPod? $499, right? Now, today the most expensive fifth-generation model is down to $349, while the cheapest models are $79 (shuffle) and $149 (nano).

Translation: don't assume that there's only going to be one model and one price point forever.

Secondarily, Apple may, like they do with Mac, be happy to simply dominate the high-end market. One set of numbers I've seen indicates that while Apple may only have 2-3% of the worldwide market for personal computers, they have %6 of the total US market and 26% of the high-end market.

Translation: define "dominate".

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Watts Martin]

But the iPhone does "real" internet WORSE than existing phones. The iPhone doesn't support the modern standard for mobile internet, 3G...

Well, let's say "HSDPA" instead of "3G", since 3G is more a marketing term than a technical spec. My (admittedly unconfirmed) suspicion is that Apple developed the iPhone with EDGE because they didn't know which carrier they'd actually sign up with in the States, let alone Europe. They wanted as wide a playing field as possible initially, because they knew it'd be a hard sell to get a carrier to meet all their demands as it was. Would I prefer HSDPA? Yes, even acknowledging the caveats that it's not available in nearly as many markets here, and also acknowledging that the markets HSDPA is already deployed in are big metro areas where you're more likely to find spots you can switch over to wifi.

Having said that: speed isn't everything. Maybe you think the iPhone will be "worse internet" than existing phones, but that depends on what phone you're comparing it to. I have a T-Mobile Sidekick and generally like it, and it's an EDGE-speed device. The iPhone will kick its butt in terms of user experience, because the interface matters a lot. If the Sidekick was HSDPA, would the EDGE-only iPhone still kick its butt? For many web sites: yes. If your mobile browser can't handle Google Maps, it doesn't matter much that it's failing to browse that site at five or six times the speed of the iPhone that's displaying it successfully.

I think (some) people keep failing to recognize what Apple's gambit with the iPhone is: they're betting that its "killer app" is the UI. There's nothing that the iPhone does that other mobile devices don't already do, but there's nothing that does those things the way the iPhone does. It could well end up being a high-profile collapse. But I think it's a fascinating gamble, and it's a variant of one that Apple has pulled off successfully more than once.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac Developers- The Yoga teachers of computerdom.

Pros: Surrounded by women, overly paid for what people could easily do by themselves, short hours, get invited to client parties.

Cons: Surrounded by women, actually start believing in crystals, must shower before and after work, people think it is appropriate to cry in front of you, people will laugh at you in person.

Windows Developers- The Plumbers of computerdom.

Pros: People are respectful/fearful in person, good money, never ending work, showers optional.

Cons: Shit, corporate work is always better, urinal cake considered a workable solution, people laugh behind your back, never ending work.

Linux Developers- The Captain Kirk of computerdom.

Pros: Freedom, Cheetos.

Cons: Freedom, Cheetos.

Re:They're Not There to Win

[Kjella]

Well, if we're redefining "open" to mean "not patented" then you may also strike MP3. Perhaps you were thinking of some definition of free?

Re:They're Not There to Win

[cloricus]

I'm sorry but have you ever seen a Blackberry? They have no 3rd party apps or support yet they have huge market share and every manager on the planet wants one. I think you are basing your assumption outside reality.

Yet they still use IE...

[nattt]

"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.

It's all about iPhone

[herman0221]

Apple didn't release Safari for Windows to compete - it was released so that people can develop their Web 2.0 apps for iPhone...

Why can't people take it for what it is?

[attemptedgoalie]

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.

Umm, what?

[TheRaven64]

Safari on Windows has five purposes:

1. To make it easy for web developers to test their sites with Safari.
2. To make it easy for web developers to write iPhone web-apps.
3. 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.
4. To let potential switchers see that the Internet will work on a Mac, even though it doesn't have the big blue E.
5. To ensure that Apple is the one bringing the first mainstream WebKit-based browser to Windows, now all the porting work has been done (by Adobe).

Which of these is the fight that Apple can't win?

Re:Umm, what?

[UbuntuDupe]

And when it crashes every time on startup, how does it accomplish any of that?

Re:Umm, what?

[shawnce]

Take a look at the following and make sure to file defects...

Safari Beta 3.0.1 for Windows

Several of the issues appear to be in the foundational libraries which Apple ported from Mac OS X and not in Safari or WebKit themselves. The beta is testing more then just WebKit or Safari on Windows.

Re:Umm, what?

[owlnation]

you could also add, since the default home page of safari is to apple.com, and since this move got lots of free Apple advertising ...

6. To advertise Apple and increase awareness of Apple products and services in general.

Again, as you rightly state, not a fight that Apple cannot win -- in fact this task has already been achieved.

Has to be said, all in all this has to be one of the worst thought out articles on /. this year.

And why does IE still hold about 80% of the market

[chriss]

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. ...

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.

no competition

[TRRosen]

They must be right no one could make a browser thats better then IE.....except for maybe Apple, Mozzilla, Opera, Konqueror.

Fear Uncerntainty Doubt

[BladeMelbourne]

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.

Perhaps it's still about the Mac

[LS]

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

Pussy Critics

[Doc Ruby]

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.

What do YOU think Apple is up to?

[ancientt]

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.

Elgan used to be the editor of Windows Mag

[postbigbang]

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.

A zero cost advertisement 'war'...

[flyingfsck]

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.

This is Madness!

[Quiet_Desperation]

"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"

Not Windows Enough

[gig]

> The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough

That is not the problem, that is its greatest feature. Same as iTunes.

Excuse me?

[toetagger1]

(Windows 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

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.

Slashdot FUD

[clearreality]

Your post may have been mainly humorous, but it bears a thoughtful response based on the moderation.

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.)

A little more

[SuperKendall]

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.

The blogger has no idea.

[catwh0re]

"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.

Why Apple really released Safari on Windows

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

Re:Why Apple really released Safari on Windows

[LWATCDR]

Ummm... Just how many people around the world use Opera on their cell phones but have never seen it on a PC? A lot of people use Treos and most of those don't run IE. The W models do now but a lot of them don't.
If that is the reason Apple did it then it was a blunder of and epic level.
Safari on the PC is currently inferior to IE and FF!
It doesn't look like a native application.
It lacks a spell checker.
It lacks ad blocking.
Love it or hate it it doesn't use Windows font rendering.
It didn't import any of my bookmarks.
No Linux Version unless you count Konqure.

If you think I hate Safari on Windows you are wrong. It does seem to run javascript heavy sites very fast and I have not had any real compatibility issues with it. It looks like it has a very standards complaint rendering engine as well.
It may get people coding for standards instead of IE. Firefox has helped with that a lot but there are still idiots that code only for IE!

So why Safari? My guess is to offer a Windows environment for widget development but also to give Microsoft a poke in the eye for dropping IE for the Mac. Consider this a shot over the bow warning Microsoft that if they snub the Mac enough that Apple will start attacking Microsoft on their home turf. Maybe Apple is working on an Office killer? Microsoft is having enough trouble with OO.org. Imagine if Apple started improving OO?
Vista is a disappointment, I don't think the latest and greatest office is setting the world on fire, the Zune isn't making big headway with the iPod crowd, and the new IE while an improvement isn't a FF killer. The last thing Microsoft needs is Apple adding it's talent to OO.org!

I keep hoping that Apple will fix the problems so that we do have a lovely third browser choice for Windows.

I repeat

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.