Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Jun 2007 09:26 UTC, submitted by TB
Internet & Networking "Apple's Safari is making its way to the Windows platform with the serious intention of making a dent in the market. As brilliant as the people are at Apple, I can't help but laugh at their, to put it politely, delusion. Before I ramble on too much, here are my five reasons why Safari will fail on the Windows platform." My take: Safari on Windows isn't here to take over the Windows browsing market. It's here for the iPhone.
Thread beginning with comment 249189
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by Kroc on Wed 20th Jun 2007 09:55 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Very poor reasons in the article, but I tend to agree with the title. Apple really are being far too arrogant at the moment over Safari as a browser on Windows.

It'll go the way of Opera - downloaded millions of millions of times, used once, and then uninstalled.

But you can bet Steve will be on the stage next year touting how great it is that Safari has had millions of downloads, even more than brand-x browser, but totally fail to realise that it's regular users who matter, not downloads.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by makc on Wed 20th Jun 2007 10:03 in reply to "RE"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

And probably you have a looot to learn about marketing ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Wed 20th Jun 2007 10:07 in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Bundling Safari with iTunes and installing it automatically, akin to MSN Messenger installing Toolbars, desktop search and all tons of sh!t is marketing, how?

Apple don't have to market Safari/Win, they only have to bundle it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE
by cyclops on Wed 20th Jun 2007 10:23 in reply to "RE"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I'm *tired* of the word "arrogant" used to describe a company you are trying to knock. You could replace it every time with the word "confident", and companies should be about their products. I'd describe Apple as innovative, in this instance I think its a *necessary* that they have a Web browser for windows.

Everyone knows that control of the web is what all main companies want.

Apple are trying to get control of the web through its lifestyle type applications.
Microsoft is using its OS to get control of the web.
Google is trying to control the web through its web applications and Firefox.
...Even Red Hat are trying to get control through their web Desktop.

I can't see how you could measure their failure, simply having a product available is a success in itself.

Personally I fail to understand what is so bad about competition. I would actually prefer if they started putting real pressure on those that count so IE is not the default browser on Windows. IE6 is still the default browser on computers and that is shocking.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by shykid on Wed 20th Jun 2007 10:59 in reply to "RE"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

There's a big difference between "confident" and "arrogant", and I'm afraid Apple is rather guilty of the latter: Apple has a complete disregard of its competition on Windows, even going so far as to say it won't exist soon enough, and it's touting the superiority of its browser--when it has little to no edge on what other Windows browsers already have.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by Wintermute on Wed 20th Jun 2007 11:00 in reply to "RE"
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

With Apple arrogant is the correct word to use. They think that just because a product is made by Apple it will become a success. Isn't that that the definition of arrogant?

I mean look at the Apple TV, it sucks as a set-top box. You can only use iTunes to stream stuff and they didn't add support for MPEG4 ASP, let alone a plugin framework to let you run whatever codec/container you want.

Even the iPhone, it's all fluff. No 3G support, no real SDK, just shitty mini-apps (like people on this site mentioned: when you code Skype in AJAX then you get to call this these scriplets applications). For anyone but an Apple fanboy or someone clueless about technology, the iPhone is simply an over priced feature phone.

This is called arrogance...

You'd describe them as innovative, but most people tend to be more sceptical than your average Apple fan. So what kind of innovation are we seeing from Apple?

Time machine? WOw, now I can buy an external HD. iPhone? Damn $500 for a feature phone! Apple TV/ love the Xvid support and in built torrent support! Spaces? Shit I've never seen anything like that on any platform!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by Nelson on Wed 20th Jun 2007 14:39 in reply to "RE"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Their Applications for Windows are just plain horrible.

They ignore the Windows Visual Style, that's a big no-no when it comes to User Interface design. It looks awkward and performs often slower than an Application which doesn't draw the Non client Area.

When they announced Safari for Windows, I was excited. It seemed like a good standards compliant browser and any competition is welcome.

What I have a problem with, is Apple touting this as the "Fastest bested omgyougottahavethisthing web browser" and then delivering this steaming pile of shit to users.

On it's website, they say it's the most secure browser yet HOURS after it's beta release bugs were found. I realize that all Beta applications have bugs, but the mistakes they made were so elementary that they simply cannot be excused.

The pages render faster imho, but at what cost? Usability? It's cool that Safari is lightweight, but it would be better if it had a few more things that more modern browsers like Firefox have.

With the security update, they seemed to have fixed a few of the bugs and made some of the crashes go away but it's still pitiful in comparison to even IE7.

Apple is a great company, and over time they'll give this some elbow grease and make it work.

Until then however, they simply cannot say this is even near the best browser.

So I disagree with the point of the article that "Safari will fail on Windows", that's untrue it's a good browser once you see past it's initial pitfalls due to it being a Beta release.

I think that after a few months maybe a year or so, we'll begin to see the browser Apple wanted us to see when they showed it off at their Apple convention.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by Laurence on Wed 20th Jun 2007 12:04 in reply to "RE"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It'll go the way of Opera - downloaded millions of millions of times, used once, and then uninstalled.


I'm sure millions of Opera users (including myself) would disagree with that reference ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by Kroc on Wed 20th Jun 2007 14:19 in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Whilst Opera is a great browser, it's market share is the fact. It's still below Safari, and Opera runs on three platforms.

As a web developer, I think Opera is a great browser, but when I was a Windows user it was only something I used to test with, and have always preferred Firefox over it, even IE before that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: OPERA
by Wemgadge on Wed 20th Jun 2007 16:42 in reply to "RE"
Wemgadge Member since:
2005-07-02

Opera still defaults to identifying itself as IE6 running on WinXp regardless of whether you run it on *nix or Windows, so Browser ID generated statistics don't tell the whole Opera story. As long as Opera continues to masquerade there browser ID**, the only way that we can get any accurate idea of Opera's use is from pageviews on the Opera default search page and from download numbers from Opera servers.

**which they first started doing back in 2001 due to MS messing with stylesheets on pages when the site detected an Opera browser http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/18/2222204

Reply Parent Score: 2

about Opera
by fejack on Wed 20th Jun 2007 13:04 in reply to "RE"
fejack Member since:
2006-06-12

Opera did'nt make it on the desktop, but they've got a hold on the wearable devices market. Somewhere along the way, they made a smart move when they started porting it to the prominent wearable OS' like Windows mobile and Nokia's S60. Since then, it has been endorsed by moblie phone heavyweights.

It makes sense for Apple to make Safari available for testing purposes, however, being ported to Windows, it might never render pages or behave like it would on a Mac.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by kaiwai on Thu 21st Jun 2007 08:25 in reply to "RE"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It'll go the way of Opera - downloaded millions of millions of times, used once, and then uninstalled.


I tend to disagree; I would use Opera all the time, but I have a feeling that most end users suffer from the same issues I suffered from - constant annoying bugs and incompatibilities with websites.

I'm was running Opera on Solaris, but given such absolutely huge bugs experienced when trying to update my blog with Blogger, I just gave up and moved back to Firefox 2.0.0.4.

What will kill Safari won't be IE, or Firefox, or something else; what will kill it will be if end users can't browse the websites they want. Yes, it might be 'good' for the iPhone, but a the same time, if all they were wanting was just 'iPhone' compatibility - why offer it as a mainstream download - why not just off a 'compatibility tester' instead.

Unlike iTunes which has no real competitors, Safari will be up against IE and Firefox. If they don't fix the Safari experience on their desktop, it won't be pleasant on the iPhone - it would be arrogant to then assume that if end users are unhappy about websites, by virtue of Safari being on the iPhone, the website owners are going to suddenly change their whole website for the sake of compatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 2