More than a browser.

June 14, 2007 9:14 AM

Safari: innocuous browser alternative or sneaky way for Apple to build its homegrown platform on top of Windows?Through suggestions and bundling Apple is installing more on your PC than just a browser.
posted by clevershark (44 comments total)

Is there any irony in the fact the page doesn't display well on Safari? I'm getting a wayward right bookmarks column covering the text.
posted by humblepigeon at 9:17 AM on June 14, 2007

It's strange because it was written by a guy who swears by his iBook (or at least used to!).
posted by clevershark at 9:21 AM on June 14, 2007

He's assuming a window window size, I think. It looks fine for me if the window is wide.

Apple gets a lot out of Quicktime and Webkit. Between iTunes's popularity and now Safari, Apple is setting up their long term game well.

I'm most excited about web apps like onetrip.org (safari only) that only have to load once. Once it loads, it deals with everything on the client side, and cookies you so when you return you don't lose your state. I'd like to see more apps like this, even outside of Safari/iPhone.
posted by jragon at 9:25 AM on June 14, 2007

*wide window size
posted by jragon at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2007

Upon first attempt, I got the "Safari can't open the page" error. Opened fine the second try.
posted by luminous phenomena at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2007

It's strange because it was written by a guy who swears by his iBook
"At", not "by".
posted by Wolfdog at 9:58 AM on June 14, 2007

And Apple patched those security holes this morning.

Safari 3.0.1 has been released. Check Apple Software Update.
posted by drstein at 10:02 AM on June 14, 2007

Safari: innocuous browser alternative or sneaky way for Apple to build its homegrown platform on top of Windows?

Given that the blog post linked to shows screenshots of the dialog boxes in which Apple asks you if you want to install additional software, and in which the description of the software is longer than the description in that blog post, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it "sneaky".
posted by mendel at 10:10 AM on June 14, 2007

As an apple fanboy, I just can't see the real point of Windows Safari. First of all, what a letdown for Mac users in terms of a WWDC surprise, second what a letdown for developers who wanted a real SDK for the iPhone.

And now that they've put this out there, it's just something for people to point at and say, see, Apple sucks! Their (beta) software is buggy and insecure! It tries to load all this other software on your machine and nag you all the time! (Just like most Windows stuff, but hey, now it's apple's fault.)

see: Quicktime. QT is light years ahead of other types of media, especially WMV, in terms of compression compatibility, editing, metadata, streaming etc. but most Windows people will tell you it sucks. Why? Cuz the QT player for windows sucks. It loads other software (iTunes) on your machine. It takes over functions you didn't ask for. It can't work perfectly on old or cheap hardware. It has to compromise its design to work in the windows enviroment.

Really, all this "invading Windows" stuff just doesn't seem worth it. Let people come to you, Apple.
posted by fungible at 10:11 AM on June 14, 2007

Safari won't work on Windows 98 SE, I don't hear well enough to use an IPhone or iPod, and I can't afford an iBook. Apple keeps failing to make me happy.
posted by davy at 10:17 AM on June 14, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

As an apple fanboy, I just can't see the real point of Windows Safari.

Well, they had already migrated it to Windows regardless (think iTunes store), so might as well make the finished product available, and maybe gain a few more curious peeps. Plus since Safari is the tool people will use to develop iPhone software it makes sense to make it available to Windows people too. Finally, I think it's a baby step before iPhoto comes out for Windows, 'cause there's no real photo gallery software for Windows besides Flickr and Picassa, and both of those seem limited to the web savvy, so Joe Blow who's got an iPod and Windows will soon have iPhoto to manage his software, Safari is just a half step in that direction. At least, that's my hunch.
posted by furtive at 10:22 AM on June 14, 2007

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes available Leopard's new Finder (especially its "album view") on Windows, of all places. Heheh, maybe that's the buddy-buddy stuff between Apple and Google that's been rumoured about. It's all about how to relegate Microsoft to just an OS and office suite provider, 'cause once they are just that, there are plenty of more viable alternatives.
posted by furtive at 10:28 AM on June 14, 2007

second what a letdown for developers who wanted a real SDK for the iPhone.

Agreed. I was looking forward to buying one (and finally having a cell phone that works with a Mac without fuss!) but the lack of being able to write homebrew stuff takes a lot of fun and motivation out of paying the premium for this device.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:29 AM on June 14, 2007

second what a letdown for developers who wanted a real SDK for the iPhone.

Amen to that. One of the neatest gadgets in ages, but you can't actually control it yourself and make it do what you want. It's crippled to make Cingular more money.

The wireless companies in the US *really suck*.
posted by Malor at 10:38 AM on June 14, 2007

'cause there's no real photo gallery software for Windows besides Flickr and Picassa

Or Photoshop Elements... unless you mean free photo gallery software. But Apple gives away iPhoto to sell Macs. How would they justify giving it away on Windows?

It's all about how to relegate Microsoft to just an OS and office suite provider, 'cause once they are just that, there are plenty of more viable alternatives.

What? What??? Alternatives to Windows?

I don't have any particular love for windows but
a) Windows by itself is a fine business that makes a lot of money
and
b) what exactly am I going to run all my windows software on? Leopard?

Anyway, to the question of why release Safari for Windows? My guesses: One, because they can. Two, to make some sort of variant browser with specific features that enable tighter iPhone integration but that can also be run on the desktop. And three, the ad money from online search partners. Firefox generates over $50M annually, most of it becoming cash reserves. A browser is complex, but it ain't $50M complex. That's good money there.
posted by GuyZero at 10:51 AM on June 14, 2007

Declaring AJAX to be the iPhone SDK appears to be a desparate last minute way of appearring to appease developers in front of the press. They didn't have to do any work or open anything up, since the functionality demonstrated in the keynote has existed on the iPhone since day one. Given that, declaring it to be part of a dastadly plan to build a new platform seems a little stretched.

Also, the reason it installs Bonjour and Software Update is because both are used by Safari, an idea he doesn't bother to entertain.

think iTunes store

The iTunes store does not in the slightest use Safari.
posted by cillit bang at 11:03 AM on June 14, 2007

Before they foist this on windows users they should at least make a better browser than IE7.
posted by caddis at 11:04 AM on June 14, 2007

But Apple gives away iPhoto to sell Macs. How would they justify giving it away on Windows?

To sell iPhones.
posted by furtive at 11:04 AM on June 14, 2007

Safari on Windows is a huge pile of stink. Repleat with zero-day exploits, craptastic rendering and on some systems the installer just barfs.

Yeah, that's some quality coding there Apple. Obviously not quite ready for the big leagues.
posted by mstefan at 11:05 AM on June 14, 2007

but the lack of being able to write homebrew stuff takes a lot of fun and motivation out of paying the premium for this device.

SDK: hold my nose & purchase iPhone
no SDK:

		window.innerWidth += (320 - window.innerWidth);
		window.innerHeight += (240 - window.innerHeight);

and I'm done.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:06 AM on June 14, 2007

but the lack of being able to write homebrew stuff takes a lot of fun and motivation out of paying the premium for this device.

SDK: hold my nose & purchase iPhone
no SDK:

		window.innerWidth += (320 - window.innerWidth);
		window.innerHeight += (240 - window.innerHeight);

and I'm done.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:07 AM on June 14, 2007

Heywood Mogroot,

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but are you arguing that you prefer not having an SDK because you can simply ad a fixed width to some web app and have an iPhone ready page?

If they've said all along that the iPhone would have a real browser, wouldn't you be able to do this regardless of whether or not an SDK were released?

By not allowing others to access the cooler stuff on the iPhone, the world may never get a video of Matt flailing around with the iPhone making cool light saber noises.
posted by SAC at 11:21 AM on June 14, 2007

Poorly worded post — giving the impression that something nefarious is happening without the user's knowledge and approval.

But HEY, anything that can provide an opening for some Apple-hatin'. . .
posted by spock at 11:35 AM on June 14, 2007

Basic Art of War: if you can't beat overwhelming odds on the battlefield, infiltrate your enemy and degrade his dominance from within (among other simultaneous strategies). Both Jobs and Gates have that book memorized.

If Apple can make all kinds of interesting things happen in the Safari browser that make the surrounding WinOS look drab and clunky, it may change some minds.

"By not allowing others to access the cooler stuff on the iPhone,..."

I don't think the lack of a true SDK has been etched in stone. Apple's not stupid, if there's enough clamor for an SDK then they'll release one.

From what I saw in the demo, the iPhone web app interface does allow web developers to at least grab all the fun control systems in the device, or at least is giving the devs pre-created objects and scripts that mimic the iPhone's controls?

Let's not dis the platform too much before it's let loose. Remember how many people dissed the iPod and the whole Apple Store concept? I like to sit back and watch what happens. Plus, I own stock in Apple, heh... :)
posted by zoogleplex at 11:48 AM on June 14, 2007

SAC: I kinda prefer working in DHTML/CSS over native API, especially when every pixel is important @ QVGA.

One thing: I'm going to laugh my ass off when Microsoft ships its Silverlight browser plugin for the iPhone.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:50 AM on June 14, 2007

Why release Safari on Windows?

Because it makes it 95% easier for web developers to validate against Safari.

Many current Ajax applications do not run in Safari. If the Ajax developers want to fix that, they need to buy Macs for all of their programmers, add them to their QA team, etc. It's a pain in the b***, especially given the fact that Safari is only used by 5% of the population.

But if validating against Safari is as simple as adding some software to your existing Windows boxes... well, then it's easy enough to bother with.
posted by alms at 12:02 PM on June 14, 2007

and I'm done.

I write applications in lots of frameworks, including web frameworks and "desktop" frameworks. I'm of the opinion that AJAX is a poor substitute for what can be done with a proper API that can access the phone's innards.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:06 PM on June 14, 2007

There is a huge amount of stuff you can't do with just AJAX. The only local data you get would be cookies. I mean come on. Try writing a video game in Ajax. What if I wanted to write a program that took advantage of the iPhone's interface, or it's camera. I couldn't. I couldn't write something that would work offline, like an ebook reader.

Not having a real SDK = super-crippled. AJAX just isn't there yet, and I'm looking and it seems like it doesn't even support Flash, and certainly not Java.

Heywood Mogroot,

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but are you arguing that you prefer not having an SDK because you can simply ad a fixed width to some web app and have an iPhone ready page?

I think he's just saying he can make a web browser window for himself and get just as much utility as buying the phone. That would be on interpretation.

The phone is a mac, and it's running MacOS. I'm not a mac fan boy at all (I hate the company). but if I could use the phone the same way I could any Mac, I would seriously consider buying it.
posted by delmoi at 12:13 PM on June 14, 2007

cillit bang: The iTunes store does not in the slightest use Safari.

No, but it uses WebKit, no?
posted by mkb at 12:25 PM on June 14, 2007

What if I wanted to write a program that took advantage of the iPhone's interface, or it's camera.

Indeed — for example, I'd love to write an app that grabs snapshots and sends them directly to my Flickr/Picasa/etc. account. I imagine something like that would sell like hotcakes for a buck or two.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:28 PM on June 14, 2007

Dave Hyatt, lead Safari developer:
"Just to clear up a common misconception, iTunes does not use WebKit to render the music store. What you see when you visit the iTunes music store may look "web-like", but it isn't HTML, and it isn't rendered by WebKit."
posted by cillit bang at 12:31 PM on June 14, 2007

since apple write the os and safari they can modify safari to do anything- so i don't think the ajax apps need to be limited.

my guess is that safari is going to be a platform for running extra fancy web apps and that's why they ported it to windows.
posted by bhnyc at 12:34 PM on June 14, 2007

I think he's just saying he can make a web browser window for himself and get just as much utility as buying the phone

yeah, that too, though modelling the touch UI with just a mouse is a bit challenging. . .

the iPhone is actually HVGA, but given the high DPI it works out to 300 x 200 in Photoshop studies on my LCDs.

Apple undoubtedly looked at how it totally slaughtered Palm with just the stupid iPod in 5 years, and decided a true handtop platform has more snakes than ladders.

Plus maintaining a monopoly on the real apps no doubt has an immense revenue upside for Apple.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:37 PM on June 14, 2007

I'm going to laugh my ass off when Microsoft ships its Silverlight browser plugin for the iPhone.

I expect that it'll support Flash/Flex/Apollo first, especially since Apollo uses WebKit.

Apple undoubtedly looked at how it totally slaughtered Palm ...

Apple didn't slaughter Palm. Palm slaughtered itself, with no help from Apple or even its competitors.

since apple write the os and safari they can modify safari to do anything- so i don't think the ajax apps need to be limited.

The AJAX model still requires HTTP requests and responses, which is a huge limitation. Data has to come from somewhere.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:51 PM on June 14, 2007

Is there a correct term for the kind of pre-release trashing the iPhone is getting right now? If not then may I suggest "Zuned".
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Speaking of Zunes...
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:02 PM on June 14, 2007

Given that the blog post linked to shows screenshots of the dialog boxes in which Apple asks you if you want to install additional software, and in which the description of the software is longer than the description in that blog post, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it "sneaky".

I'm quite aware of the screenshots and that the user has the option of not installing the extra components, but clearly Apple is using Safari as a way to strongly hint to potential users that while they're installing this they should probably install all that other stuff as well. It's not like Microsoft sneaking in IE7 and WGA Notifications by masquerading them as "essential updates" when they're anything but -- I'll grant that -- but clearly Apple wants the Safari user to install a lot of their other technologies at the same time. It wouldn't be the first time that Apple uses that strategy either; install Quicktime without iTunes and the updater will nag you periodically to install iTunes by masquerading this new product installation as an update to QT.

The typical user is most likely to just install everything that's suggested. Apple knows this all too well. The assumption probably does not hold true of someone who downloads technology previews and betas, but altogether I think that there's a case to be made that getting those extras (like Bonjour and iTunes) installed on a user's PC is the real goal of releasing Safari in the first place.

It makes sense when you consider the exploit information that started coming out within days of the preview release. It just doesn't seem ready for prime-time.

Obviously Tristan sees this bundling in a fairly positive light, but I really dislike that sort of product strategy, which is why my title doesn't quite mesh with his article. I also intensely dislike the tie-in that Microsoft did between Halo 2 for Vista and Xbox Live, and the way that the game will pester you with warnings that you aren't quite getting the full experience until you sign into Live. I think there's a similar dynamic at play with Safari, which is why I take up the contrary position.
posted by clevershark at 1:04 PM on June 14, 2007

Fer chrissakes. Never buy a Rev. A version of any Apple hardware product. Period. A brand new product category? Yikes.

This product launch is way more about selling cool than capable. Cool is nice. Mr. Jobs, call me when you get it worked out.
posted by spitbull at 2:12 PM on June 14, 2007

It's a pain in the b***

You -- you self-censored butt?!
posted by evilcolonel at 3:42 PM on June 14, 2007

"Never buy a Rev. A version of any Apple hardware product"

My Apple TV has been working fine. Same with my Mac Mini. And my iPod Nano.

;-)

It's not *all* bad, you know..

Safari on Windows doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. There are already a half dozen browsers for the Mac, so I suppose that another one for Windows won't hurt either.
Might piss off web designers, but oh well.
posted by drstein at 5:54 PM on June 14, 2007

Safari on iPhone is pretty castrated. I suspect they just don't have their shit together enough yet to let us all start muckin around with the innards of it. Not sure how people are gonna develop games for the phone either.
posted by captaincrouton at 6:22 PM on June 14, 2007

First, thanks clevershark for the link love :)

humblepigeon: The page displays fine on Safari here on my macbook. You must be using a 12 inch macbook or powerbook and I did make a decision that I wouldn't support that size based solely on how few people accessed my site with browsers using that small a window.

Wolfdog: I swear both at and by my mac hardware :)
posted by TNLNYC at 8:08 PM on June 14, 2007

My Apple TV has been working fine. Same with my Mac Mini. And my iPod Nano.

Sssshhhh. They might hear you. I admit I bought a black Macbook in Rev. A because the intel switch negated the conventional wisdom. But I regret it. The build quality is crappy and in 3 months I've needed to replace a drive and a logic board.

I've owned dozens of Apple computers and managed labs full if them since my first Mac 512KE in 1988. I let other people beta test the new products now.
posted by spitbull at 7:11 AM on June 15, 2007

TNLNYC wrote: The page displays fine on Safari here on my macbook. You must be using a 12 inch macbook or powerbook and I did make a decision that I wouldn't support that size based solely on how few people accessed my site with browsers using that small a window.

The powerbook 12, ibook 12, and ibook 14 all have 1024x768 displays. I rarely open my browser wider than 1024 and I have a 17 inch macbook pro.

Are you one of those people who only washes their hands when someone else is in the bathroom?
posted by ryanrs at 11:54 PM on June 15, 2007