SuperSite Blog

Pingback from  » Apple Releases Safari 3.1

Pingback from  Airline Travel » Apple Releases Safari 3.1

Kleenex sales spike everytime Apple PR releases something for the iBoi's.

I used to think the same thing, but Safari is actually a very useful browser, especially if you use OS X since it integrates nicely with other standard OS X apps such as mail.  For the average OS X user Safari does just fine I think. It come with the OS and it works well (I don't know how fast it is as compared to Firefox or IE 7).

http://www.chipnit.com

There is little 'point' from the perspective of a user that allready has what they need in their current browser.  It's good that there's more choice, but quite how Apple expect to 'push' this at people escapes me right now.

Safari doesn't really bring anything new to the browser party - and that's something that it really _needs_ to do in order to gain attention.  There's plenty more room for innovation.

I personally prefer Safari in OSX to firefox.  I prefer the native fit-and-finish in the UI and it's superior speed and resource utilization and the .mac bookmark syncing.  I have virtually no issues with site compatibility that firefox can help (since the sites most likely to be broken are IE-only anyway).

But then, I don't use or see much need for extensions.

Safari on windows has a pretty simple objective: allow windows-based web developers to access the same rendering engine as the iPhone.  It secondarily allows those people that on windows that really like Apple's design approach to extend their use of Apple software to web browsing, but that's a niche after-thought.

I think Apple could be putting together a suite of applications for Windows users that gives them a taste of the mac experience as a carrot towards the switch to mac.  And itunes and Safari seem to be showing they're at least competent at Windows software development (zdnet does confirm Apple's claim that Safari is the fastest browser on windows).

I think you need to add up iTunes, Safari, QuickTime, Airport Utility with the key hub: Apple software update.  iTunes is a trojan horse to Apple Software Update, which is a very simple mechanism for Apple to role out new Windows software on a large scale.  I could imagine a time when Apple rolls out an API layer that enables some mac software to be cross-platform while retaining the Mac look-and-feel as safari seems to do.  

Ultimately, this suite of software is an on-ramp to Apple hardware sales.

"iTunes is a trojan horse to Apple Software Update"

good choice of words there ;)

....whenever you install Quicktime standalone on a Windows PC with the Apple Software Updater, it only lists the iTunes+QT package when there's an iTunes update - even when there isn't an update for QT!!!  talk about viral cross-marketing!

i smell the stink of Google's toolbar-bundling tactics wearing off on Apple.

Paul: I think Apple just raised the bar for future IE and Firefox releases with HTML 5 and CSS 3 support (Web fonts, CSS animations).

While the IE team is focusing on CSS 2.1 (which they should have implemented years ago) and Firefox is fighting memory holes Safari is quietly innovating.

Lets face it: web fonts are a designer dream. So far special fonts needed flash, png, silverlight or other tricks to appear on web pages. You can buy a font for $10-$35 and get rid of hours, maybe days of work in third party tools.

Waethorn...

I could say the same thing for Windows itself and Windows Update.   The reality at this point is that more users are downloading iTunes out of specific choice then they are receiving Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer out of specific, educated choice to use those applications.

I understand as a poweruser, that you don't want stuff installed unnecessarily, but you need to understand that the battleground for access to windows users isn't an equal playing field.  If you have a browser, media player, search engine or many other types of applications, you're working against the built-in MS tools which are leveraging a monopoly.

So there's the explanation.  It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's understandable.

Paul, can you really say apple's speed claims are hyperbole without any effort to show they are not true?

"The reality at this point is that more users are downloading iTunes out of specific choice then they are receiving Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer out of specific, educated choice to use those applications."

Let's get one thing straight shall we?  People don't "choose" iTunes - it's their only choice because they "chose" an iPod, which is just the common vernacular today for a term that represents an "mp3 player", much like "Google", "Kleenex", and "Coke" represent "web search", "tissue" and "cola", respectively.

"If you have a browser, media player, search engine or many other types of applications, you're working against the built-in MS tools which are leveraging a monopoly."

so you're saying that it's ok for Apple or any other operating system vendor to try to break in and steal the monopoly away from Microsoft by following their business practises (read: their software bundling practises), but not for Microsoft to maintain theirs eh?

you write like FSJ.

"Paul, can you really say apple's speed claims are hyperbole without any effort to show they are not true?"

Short answer, no he can't because then he'll have to "blog" that IE7 is a memory whore and he doesn't want to hurt his friends feelings who work at Microsoft for writing code that resembles a final project in college in terms of performance and memory usage.

Sacred, you said it for sure. IE 7 slowed my laptop so much that I reinstalled XP and then had to block IE7 so that Microsoft wouldn't sneak it in in one of the automatic updates. When they first rolled out IE7 thru auto-update, many of us found out that it was not compatible with using the browser to view images [xray, MRI, CT, PET, etc...] from the hospital, which is how we take call. They were screwed and took hours to remove it or reinstall. They just updated the IE plug-in so that it is now compatible, but it is dog slow on older computers. Of course, I prefer FF on my Mac.

First off,

I missed Paul's dig about "ceaseless hyperbole", but it's more of the same biased hatchet action.  Safari is the fastest browser on the market with the most elegant UI and with 3.1 is once again the most standards-compliant.  Not sure why Paul sees stating independently verified facts as hyperbole.

Waethorn....

"so you're saying that it's ok for Apple or any other operating system vendor to try to break in and steal the monopoly away from Microsoft by following their business practises (read: their software bundling practises), but not for Microsoft to maintain theirs eh?"

Umm... that's, technically, what the LAW says and the COURTS have said.  Bundling products isn't illegal.  Bundling products when you have a monopoly as a means to extend your dominance into new areas is.  So, yeah, it is "ok" from a legal standpoint for Apple and Adobe and Google to "break in"

As for your bizarre attempt to turn iPod into a generic brand mark like "Xerox Machine"... lucky for Apple, there's no indication that that has happened yet.  Everyone knows that iPod is specific to Apple's player and they are buying iPods at rates that continue to amaze me.  Apple has managed to GAIN marketshare throughout each year including the most recent quarters, despite improved rivals.

I can only assume, since you're a pretty pathetic apple-bashing hack, that this generic charge is an effort to dismiss the iPods insane dominance.  Whatever, dude.  NOBODY mistakes Zunes or Sansa's or Zens for an "iPod" except maybe 80 year olds.  No kid on earth asked for an iPod for christmas and was satisfied to receive another brand instead.  NOT ONE.

As for the "choice" being about the iPod and not the software... I agree.  But whatever.  They're part of the same product package.  The iPod is worthless without software to fill it and iTunes is the best.

Sorry, dude, but Paul will stand by iTunes as the best media management app on any platform.  He's said it many, many times and he's right.

I'm sorry you're just so incapable of anything other than blind hatred of all things Apple and must resort to such tortured "arguments".

John...  its amusing (in a sad, embarrassed for you sort of way) to watch you post.  When you're not handing out glasses of Kool Aid, you're leveling personal attacks ("pathetic", "hack") and resorting to hyperbole ("NOT ONE" ...link please?) to try and make your case.

Of all the people here to call others out on their "blind following" or hatred of ANYTHING, you're certainly one of the least qualified.

"So, yeah, it is "ok" from a legal standpoint for....Google to "break in""

O RLY?!?

so it's ok for a monopolistic web advertiser to break into the application business??

....keep sticking up for those Apple partners tho.

"Apple has managed to GAIN marketshare throughout each year including the most recent quarters, despite improved rivals."

actually, you should track those numbers a bit better there pal - Apple's iPood sales are levelling off.

"As for the "choice" being about the iPod and not the software... I agree.  But whatever.  They're part of the same product package."

....now try to tell that to EU antitrust regulators.

"Sorry, dude, but Paul will stand by iTunes as the best media management app on any platform.  He's said it many, many times and he's right."

Sorry, but you're wrong about this on so many levels:

"Apple iTunes is still a performance dog on Windows, and it is still the instrument of Apple's lock-in strategy, in which you are forced to use iTunes and its proprietary store's music and video formats in order to enjoy the iPod, the world's best selling line of portable media players. Worse still is the iPhone, which also requires iTunes of course. In fact, you can't even make a non-911 phone call with the iPhone until you sync it with iTunes. Yikes.....My issue with it is that so many people use it because they have to."  --Paul

"I'm sorry you're just so incapable of anything other than blind hatred....and must resort to such tortured "arguments"."

Pot meet kettle.  Keep beating that dead horse there....

Befusion,

You're right that I shouldn't have lost my cool with the "pathetic hack" slam.  Sorry W.  But "Waethorn"s inability to confront information or concede points is just incredibly frustrating.

I'm not here spewing hate though.  I'm simply defending my platform in posts that relate to it.  I'm critical of Microsoft's monopoly abuses, but I'm also willing to acknowledge their successes and strengths, unlike mr. Apple-basher.

Again, Paul's dig about "ceaseless hyperbole" sets the stage here, as Apple's claims regarding Safari's speed are legit.  It's the fastest browser on the market.  It's not necessarily "the best" for all users.  But it is the fastest and in my opinion has the most elegant UI.

I understand Waethorn's criticism of Apple's strategy with iTunes+Quicktime+Apple Software Update bundle.  It's a legitimate thing to grumble about I guess... though the apps are free and don't spew ads like so much of the trialware garbage out there on shelves of every computer retail store.  it doesn't bother me, but I get it.

Still, Waethorn is an unreasonable Apple-basher.  He comes into these discussions, drums up every criticism and divorces it from the wider context or the truth.  He's a cherry picker and poor arguer.  He'd earn my respect far more if he could stay with one point and have a discussion as I've had with other users, instead of descend into the rathole of cherry-picked line-by-line snark like "pot meet kettle" or "tell that to EU antitrust regulators" who, by the way, have not fined Apple a single nickel (to my knowledge) yet or found them guilty of anything (though they may, given that their a bunch of anti-american socialists).  I stand with Paul in defense of Microsoft against the EU's vague and vindictive bloodletting.

Above is a great example of Waethorn's dishonesty.  He lifted the critical part of Paul's iTunes 7.4 review conclusion as a refutation of my statement that Paul thinks iTunes is the best media jukebox.  But if you look at the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, it goes like this...

"That all said, as deals with the devil go, iTunes offers some appetizing fruit. Performance issues notwithstanding, I still find it to be the nicest jukebox out there for organizing my music collection, and I've never seen anything like it for podcasts. (Microsoft? Anyone out there?) And of course, I'm firmly in the iPod camp for good reason: Apple's devices are simply the best there is, and if using iTunes is the price one has to pay, then that's hardly a punishment. I use iTunes because I want to. My issue with it is that so many people use it because they have to."

Now... if Waethorn had any shred of intellectual honesty, he would weigh these discussions on both sides, conceding the positive while pressing his criticisms.  He has a right to hate Apple.  That's fine.  But his style of argument is limp, lame and dishonest.  Paul's conclusion here supports both our points in different ways.  He uses iTunes because he wants to, while at the same time bemoaning the lock-in.  But no.  Waethorn can't acknowledge my simple statement of fact.  Paul thinks itunes is the best jukebox and uses it because he wants to.  IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.

He totally dodged my criticism of his "iPod = Kleenex" nonsense and misdirected my iPod marketshare remark by talking about how iPod sales growth is slowing.  Well, W, if iPod sales slow, but they're still selling faster then the rest of the industry (which they are) and taking a larger share of the overall pie (which I believe they are) you've actually made no point, have you?

I hate DRM lock-in as much as the next guy.  My only defense of Apple in that arena is that they have solid history of making every effort to defend the consumer on price and seek DRM-free music from the labels and generally advocate the use of standards.  But there's legit criticism to be had here against Apple.  Of course, it applies to Microsoft equally, given the Zune's DRM lock-in and the fact that iTunes is the only cross-platform DRM'd media store.

So, yeah, another stupid long post from yours truly.  I'm sure Waethorn won't address my points, because I'm pretty sure he'd have to admit I'm right on some of them and he'd rather just redirect.  To me, that makes him a hack.  But I will try to keep that kind of thing softer.

Here's Paul blog posts for the next six to nine months, regarding Safari.

Today-- Safari is the worst browser on the market, it is slower than Apple claims, prone to crashing, and lacks key features needed by power users.

Two months from now-- Safari still sucks but I find that I am using it on the Apple since IE is not available and it is faster than firefox, but still lacks key features that power users like me desperately need.

Four months from now-- I've installed Safari simply to test it on Windows, it seems slower than IE and Firefox and am only using it for test purposes.  I am however using it exclusively on my mac, as the interface is the same as my iPhone.

Six months from now-- Safari is faster than IE and Firefox (I finally took the time to accurately test it and it is indeed marginally faster than IE and Firefox.), it still lacks key features but I find that I am using it more frequently as it provides a unified web browsing experience.

Eight months from now-- Apple has fixed most of the flaws in Safari and even though it still lacks key features I am using it nearly exclusively.

Regards

Joe Dokes

The point is for it to innovate, the way Apple does. And for Microsoft to then copy. Same with the iPod, iPhone, Mac.

I'll try to be 'impartial' - I am a Firefox user on all of my computers from the Win XP boxes, the Linux boxes and the Mac boxes. (I don't use Camino as I can't use standard Fx extensions.)

That said, Safari is not a complete dead duck of a browser. A month or two ago I commented that Safari marketshare on the websites I run was not as high as some like to make out. This month (March so far) it runs at just under 10% -- that's pretty remarkable. I am guessing iPhone stats are counted in that but even so, that's very good.

Having tested 3.1 on both Mac and XP boxes, it seems to be much of the same. Decent browser and fast, in fact even on an iMac DV (400MHz G3!) it's not entirely bad too. On Windows the performance could only go up on the early beta releases which were buggy as hell. The one thing I would love Apple to do is to stop using their quasi-OS X interface on Windows, use standard Windows APIs for the interface. In soime respects I think that drives down take up for Safari on the Windows platform.

Finally Safari does have a point of existing -- choice. A market with two big competitors is good, with three it's great and that's much more competitive than the browser market will have been perhaps at a pinch since '95/'96 when the small player was Mosaic (having been the biggest), Netscape and MSIE 2. With Safari supporting more of the CSS3 specification, and HTML5 elements, coders are going to want to make use of these and eventually a critical mass will happen where there will be the haves and have nots--those that stick with IE6/7, Fx 2 and Safari 2/3.0 will no have rich HTML 5 pages and extended CSS trickery and modern Javascript engies, and those who do and those will be the pack leaders running Fx 3.0, IE 8 and Safari 3.1.

I personally think this is fabulous because the web world has needed this competition to really shake off the IE 6 inertia.

And very very finally -- for many on Windows let's not forget that Internet Explorer ***is*** the Internet to a heck of a lot of people and it doesn't even enter their minds that they could run something else. Safari is the same for Mac users who don't realise otherwise, it is the Internet. Period.

So Safari does have a place. But then if you're doing things within prescribed standards; whatever client the user chooses (or not) they should be able to access your content and site without undue changes to the layout or overall functionality. The days of checking if you're running NN3 and then spitting out document.write 'Sorry this site is IE 3 only' are long gone.

That said I'll stay with Fx 2. THe eBay andFirebug extensions are so good, not forgetting...

Drylight.  In all fairness, Microsoft does innovate sometimes, and they also are sometimes the ones that enter the market and demonstrate early mistakes. It's risk taking they deserve some credit for, like with Media Center.  They got there way ahead of Apple and have made it better and better.

But... again... what Microsoft gets so very wrong is fundamental user issues.  They don't seem to "get" what people want (or will want) the way Apple does.  Who was asking for song "squirting"?  Nobody.  And yet out comes Zune with wireless sharing as it's marquee feature.  Xbox 360 delivers a very solid home theater experience... except that their terrible engineering means that it's WAY too loud to watch movies on, and the anti-consumer, carnival-life "Microsoft Points" system alienates anyone with a brain.

And Apple doesn't always "innovate" in the sense that they create a new concept.  Apple ultimately is a company built on quality execution of products that answer a real consumer need.  Microsoft still remains a platform company built on selling OEM's on solutions to problems that often don't (yet) exist.  Tablet PC anyone?

"Tablet PC anyone?"

Medical and education markets, anyone?

Dipsht,

I'm not saying that tablet is a bad idea, or doesn't have a few tiny niches, but if you compare Bill Gate's "vision" for tablet PC as the mainstream laptop for the masses and it's reality in the market, you have to admit that the tablet in it's current form doesn't solve enough problems for people to care.

I'm not sure why that is, other than the fact that most people don't stand all day with their computers and are faster and better at typing than writing.  

Technically, the iTunes and iPod lock in strategy is one hundred percent illegal. There is no competition because no other media players can access the iTunes service to give it true fair competition. Also, I cannot access another store if I wish to use my iPod with any other service to give it true competition. I would still have to download iTunes, download all the media files from a competitor as an MP3 or other file format that the Pod uses. Then I would be forced to use iTunes to sync it.  By the very definition of our free market rules and regulations, the practice is illegal. Its just that the Bush Administration and its Department of Justice refuses to challenge Apple. The Administration does not want to upset businesses with useless things like regulation, litigation, or the rule of law.

If or when the democrats win the presidency, I expect Apple will come under greater scrutiny. Just because your behind in one industry, doesn't give you a legal cart blanche reason to have a monopoly in another. Many lawyers also feel that way about the EULA agreements. Its just no lawyers have really gotten a good case and a client with the balls or money to challenge Microsoft or anyone else.

As a consumer, I should have the right in a free and fair market economy to use Zune Player at the iTunes store. The reverse is true for an iPod at the Zune store. Just like with the video game industry, there are a majority of games available on all consoles with the exception of first and third party exclusives.

The same rules of bundling also applies to Apple. Why should Apple get bundling rights and that gets Microsoft introuble but not Apple? If Justice is truely blind and a level playing field is the end goal, the Apple cannot violate the spirit of the law to achieve parity with Microsoft. That concept is a cornerstore principle of American laws. Besides the practices issues which have been resolved, most of the reason Microsoft has a monopoly is because the consumers choose Microsoft as the best choice. The Windows Operating Systems have enjoyed 15 years as the consumers top choice. Even after litigation, settlement, and oversight, Microsoft is number one. Regardless of the problems, even after all the anti-trust suits, Microsoft is still number one. Why? Debatable as it maybe, its still the best OS for businesses, PC gamers, and eventually that trickles down to the average consumer. Windows PC's are the most cost effective with performance and sales data to back that up historically.

The point I am making is that the spirit of our laws and the legal writings on it make it clear. Everyone must follow the same set of rules. You can't get a murder or rape pass because of your race or the company you work for. What happened to you 10 or 50 years ago doesn't matter in our law. Apple and Google's bundling practices violate the law. They should be subject to legal review, judicial littigation, and oversight just like Microsoft.  If Apple's products are so good, they can offer them through online and media advertisement. If its good, they'll get downloaded.

"few tiny niches"

Education is a tiny niche?  It makes such perfect sense, to be taking notes on your Tablet PC, and there are an awful lot of students out there, so that is still a very ripe market for such a change.

"solutions to problems that often don't (yet) exist."

Isn't that what a visionary company is supposed to do?  Note that I'm not going to make the assertion that MS is the supreme innovator, but the Tablet PC is quite a good product, and solves a lot of problems that exist.  And with a high quality OEM like Fujitsu, they have a wide variety of models for every purpose.