To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Safari on the iPhone / iPad.
WebKit being open doesn’t matter - because the compiled WebKit binary on iPhone OS is up to Apple. If they don’t want feature X, then feature X doesn’t go in. Apple don’t have to lock down WebKit to lock down the web.
I agree that it’s unlikely that another browser will be 99%. But what about H.264? That has a complete and total monopoly across the web and devices. H.264 is where IE6 was. As explained in the article, I think Safari on the iPhone OS will veto features Apple don’t like and that the App Store will inhibit choice (if it hasn’t already).
webkit from apple is the only rendering engine on apple's mobile devices hence apple is in absolute control over what web technologies will be supported on their devices and they have a potential here to be where microsoft was with IE6.
But apple business model does not scale and iphone/ipad will most likely never dominant enough to command the web to be tuned to its features and bugs.
It is fairly easy to give examples of where IE6 domination hindered the web Can you show of example of where h.264 did the same? h.264 concerns only those who are starting to be too big to matter or to those concerned with free software philosophies.
Most FOSS audio/video players can encode and decode the codec and most online contents are served through flash.
Most if not all practical problems about h.264 on the web will be solved by VP8.Hardware support of the codec will start rolling soon, all major browser will support it, flash, too will support it
Apple just accelerated the push towards html5, i doubt they will have the muscle to corner the html5 world to their liking, chrome is there to make sure that wont happen
I simply dont have a concern about the web anymore. Nobody will be able to will the web to their liking anymore and there are too many players and this will only force the web to gravitate towards the least common denominator, ie standard bugs, behaviors and expectations.
Which does not imply its relevance.
(Also, "open source == free" logical fallacy.)
Google's best interest lies in Google-controlled and Google-monitored access to the web.
I don't know whether this relates to your comment, and you're probably already aware, but, FWIW, AAPL has already filed for a patent on webkit: http://pulse2.com/2010/05/23/apple-files-patent-for-webkit/
KHTML is prior art for webkit (since webkit is actually a fork of KHTML), as is, to a lesser extent, Trident, Presto and Gecko.
Patents are supposed to be awarded only for new inventions. Where is the innovation in webkit? Webkit wasn't even the first to be standards-compliant to the acid3 tests level, Presto was.
Finally, given the patent provisions in the GPL, and also given the fact that KHTML code (on which webkit is based) is GPL code, then even if Apple do get a patent for webkit (stranger things have happened), then Apple are obliged via the provisions of the GPL to give every downstream recipient of Webkit unrestricted license to use that patented invention.
Whomever runs that site is an idiot. If s/he spent 5 minutes fact checking s/he would realize that Apple applied for a trademark, not a patent.





Member since:
2006-11-14
Safari will be the next IE6.
Are you talking about safari or webkit?
Safari as a web browser is not going anywhere anytime soon and its existence only serves to force web developers to aim for lowest common denominator and hence will prevent anybody from locking up the web.
webkit is developed in the open and apple cant lock it down even if they wanted to.
Google's best interest lies in people having free access to the web. They join the cellphone business to guarantee this access. They will enter the ipad space with devices running android and chromeos soon.
Nobody will be able to get commanding power microsoft had with IE6 over the web. There are simply too many powerful players at the moment.