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 249198
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by cyclops on Wed 20th Jun 2007 10:23 UTC 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 Clinton on Wed 20th Jun 2007 21:06 in reply to "RE"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Safari's compliance with CSS standards alone make it a much better choice than IE.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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 milles21 on Wed 20th Jun 2007 13:48 in reply to "RE"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Why is this 500.00 such a big thing is it me that only remembers that some carriers offered the blackberry for 500.00 dollars. Seems to me that everyone is overly critical of Apple. there are no current phones on the market that currently do what the iphone does and that is including crappy AJAX features you are referring too. The storage again not a phone on the market that offers 4GB-8GB. Google Maps, with the ease of use of the apple iphone. Email yes other phones have this but we are talking complete package. and currently the iphone has it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by Adam S on Wed 20th Jun 2007 14:00 in reply to "RE"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

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.


BUNK! That's YOUR bias. Apple FANS support Apple and believe their products will become successful. Apple has never said that they think that since it's an Apple product, it will be a success. You do NOT know what they think.

Every company ought to ONLY release a product if they think it's going to be a success, don't you agree? It would be ridiculous if companies released something they thought was going to be a failure.

Your post shows a distinct dislike for Apple (and arguably, Apple fans).

As far as Apple is concerned in this overly-semantic discussion, this is "confidence", plain and simple. I really hope you get modded down - your post is not insightful, it's just biased.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by Moochman on Wed 20th Jun 2007 20:46 in reply to "RE"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

For anyone but an Apple fanboy or someone clueless about technology, the iPhone is simply an over priced feature phone.

You seem to be forgetting that Apple's success is not due to simple fanboyism, but rather the fact that they make intuitive, easy-to-use interfaces to their hardware and software, which make life easier for the common man. No amount of features or specifications on a competing product can make up for that factor. The simplicity factor.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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 mallard on Wed 20th Jun 2007 15:27 in reply to "RE"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

>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.

Even Microsoft ignore Windows' visual style. Office, Media Player, IE7, Visual Studio, they all use custom UIs.
In Windows Vista, you can almost pick any two bundled applications and find two different UIs.

>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.

Elementary? I trust that you make a living writing web browsers then?
Seeing as Safari is secure on the Mac, the Windows bugs were obviously introduced during porting. Not knowing exactly how that process goes, I can't really comment on how "elementary" these mistakes are.

My guess (and it is just a guess) would be that the port is based on the old OpenStep for Windows (OPENSTEP Enterprise) APIs. To get a modern Cocoa app to run on that would require the writing of Windows versions of several Mac OS X frameworks.
It is likely that these frameworks are currently in a very early state of development and therefore include many "elementary" bugs, such as buffer overflows and the like. (When porting software, it is common to write "minimally-functional" libraries in order to get the application running, then go back and improve the stability/security/performance of these libraries at a later date, often when preparing a final release).

Reply Parent Score: 3