Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: win
The Enigma of Safari for Windows
The important part is that, at least for the moment, Safari's vision is stabilizing.
It’s quite an obvious fact that the first release of the Safari 3 public beta for Windows was beta in the very loosest sense of the word, with some venturing to label it “alpha” due to the amount of bugs that really should have been caught before opening up to the public. I’m talking obvious, it’s-right-there-how-could-you-possibly-have-missed-it bugs. The beta did come with a “report bug” feature and this was properly (over)used, but a report bug feature does not a strong case make.
At WWDC 07, Jobs announced the Windows port of Safari with several slides showcasing how much “faster” Safari was at rendering pages. Directly afterwards he dropped the whole “the Internet is the iPhone development platform” bombshell. At this point it seemed clear that Apple had chosen to port Safari to Windows to include more developers for iPhone apps, and wanted to gain some more marketshare in the process.
Once users got hold of the application itself, most were puzzled. Even in the context of the presentation they had either just seen or read about, the design of the browser seemed inclined for the iPhone developer far more than for the user. The font rendering from OS X was ported over (a huge departure from ClearType and completely unnecessary for browsing the web, though useful for testing, ) the windows could only be resized from one corner, and there was even a keyboard shortcut or two that couldn’t be executed because Windows keyboards don’t have an Option key!
It seemed to be designed for the Mac, a true in-place port that, while acceptable for developers who would only use it for a few minutes at a time, didn’t make a compelling case for use as a primary web browser. In fact, its lack of any truly distinguishing features from Firefox and Internet Explorer turned most testers away, denouncing the browser from ever ascending past Opera-levels of usage.
This continued through the first 3 updates to the beta, which were released relatively quickly but only really seemed to patch critical vulnerabilities. Then, after 3.0.3, nothing. By many accounts, the project appeared to have been placed firmly on the back burner. Leopard’s release came and went with the final version of Safari 3 included, and nothing for either Windows or Tiger users, just same old 3.0.3.
After a month with absolutely no word from Apple, it seemed as if the project had slowed to a stop. And why not? If Jobs’ goal for Safari was having a reliable test platform for iPhone/iTouch web apps on Windows, he’d certainly had achieved it. The rendering engine part of the browser worked well. But if that was the case, why give it the same treatment as a more consumer-oriented download such as iTunes, complete with its own series of videos showing off various features?
Then, Apple released another update to Safari. The update, 3.0.4, bucked the trend of small patches for a slew of new features and tweaks fully described neither by the changelog released along side it or the fact that was deemed a 3.0.x release. Besides updating it to match 
the look of Leopard’s “Illuminous” interface (I know the name’s still Aqua, but it hardly applies anymore,) the update brought in many features missing in the Windows port since day one, such as spellcheck and tooltips. Even better than this, the abundant crashing had been resolved. This build also moved Safari in a more Windows-friendly direction, adding support for resizing the windows at all edges and corners, among others.
That’s all well and good, but I’m having trouble discerning how Safari could fit into Apple’s overall plan for Windows software. There’s no product tied directly to the software like there is with iTunes and Quicktime (and before you say iPhone, developers can test their apps on the iPhone itself, there isn’t really a need for a separate browser there.) With this latest release, Apple’s goal does seem to be gaining some marketshare for the browser.
There’s really nothing wrong with that strategy. It certainly won’t be easy, especially since Safari for Windows hasn’t really made proven itself as having a unique quality that draws a small group of steadfast users, but whether Safari is poised for success in its goals or not is not a topic to be discussed here. The important part is that, at least for the moment, Safari’s vision is stabilizing.
 |
15 | 5593 |
| Liam | comments | views |
thinkback
You could consider Safari for Windows not so much a profit-driven move as much as extending Apple’s visibility.
1. There are probably a good number of Windows users who own iPhones, and if they get used to having Safari on the phone it’s likely many will want to use it on their desktop as well.
2. As you pointed out, it increases developer interest.
3. The more Apple software there is out there to try out and use, the more people will take an interest in Apple products.
I haven’t been able to try out Safari on Windows yet, but I’d wager that it already renders web pages much more accurately than IE. Apple’s strategy for market share has already shown success. Since it’s been released, Safari’s share has increased two or three points.
You could consider Safari for Windows not so much a profit-driven move as much as extending Apple’s visibility.
I’d say that’s Apple’s primary motive to Safari for Windows, aside from the whole web developer aspect.
| Nick | Nov. 30, 2007 | |
| 11:36 am |
It may be a little hard to see, but I think there is definitely an Apple product directly linked to Safari for Windows.....
Wait for it, wait for it....
iPHONE
It’s only browser is Safari.... We’re entering a wold where companies will want to be sure their website looks correct on iPhone.... Their development groups will need to test their site code in Safari… They could buy a Mac, but wouldn’t it be easier if they could just run Safari on their PCs?
As a Mac user and a Safari fan, I’m glad there will be more reason for our world to consider more than IE (and to a lesser extent Firefox) when designing and debugging websites.
Silly me....
I quickly scanned the article… I now see that you already mentioned iPhone… My bad. Sorry.
I’ll leave now with my tail between my legs… :p
1. iphone dev
2. income from google search
3. helps ease windows users into mac apps making switching easier
4. helps web compatability for the mac
5. probably will be packaged with itunes/quicktime and anything that losssens micosofts grip on the world helps.
5. probably will be packaged with itunes/quicktime and anything that losssens micosofts grip on the world helps.
I was under the impression that they bundled it with QuickTime, but apparently I am wrong. Instead, they give you the option of bundling QuickTime with Safari.
----------------
One thing I don’t understand: what’s preventing Apple from giving Safari for WIndows the drop shadow? Backwards-compatibility with XP? :s
| Nick | Nov. 30, 2007 | |
| 4:00 pm |
Windows Safari is a piece of shit, only dumbass Mactards use it or web developers to test pages against its bugs.
It sounds like you are commenting on a new Microsoft product. Version 1 has lots of issues but don’t worry by version 3 it will be much better....
Windows Safari is a piece of shit, only dumbass Mactards use it or web developers to test pages against its bugs.
And yet the writer of this article doesn’t own a Mac.
It sounds like you are commenting on a new Microsoft product. Version 1 has lots of issues but don’t worry by version 3 it will be much better....
That seems to be the case with a lot of software these days, regrettably. At least Safari is still technically in beta.
| Nick | Nov. 30, 2007 | |
| 4:42 pm |
It’s not just about Safari, there is WebKit too. It is the only HTML rendering engine that is open-source, cross-platform, compatible with existing servers, standard-compliant, fast and simple to embed. Besides, from a programmer’s standpoint, it’s a pleasure to use.
Firefox might be a superior browser but Mozilla doesn’t have a real embedding solution yet, and it will probably not come before 18 months. Apple has a real opportunity here to prevent Safari from being just the “Mac browser” or the “iPhone browser”. Already Google chose WebKit for its Android platform, other developers will probably follow.
Yeah, it’s amazing what someone who actually knows what they are talking about can bring to the table, huh? 
Nice post.
| Dec. 01, 2007 | ||
| 7:50 am |
I think it’s part of a move to push new product into the market that is seen as compatible with Windows. In the UK, we got the iPod Touch before the iPhone and as a product it made more sense. We have plenty of 3G phones so why take an expensive 18 month contract with a 2.5G phone?
However, a very portable browser (Touch) is fabulous. My guess is that the so-called Tablet Mac will actually be a larger Touch (the iPod Touch Xtra?) with 660 by 440 pixels (say) and a USB 2 port for printing. Or as a means of giving presentations on the road. Add programs as an option, but keep tight control over Software to stop viruses. Say iWork. Read and write Office files in iWork. Then release iWork for PC to encourage people to write presentations in Apple native software.
Remember, Steve Jobs doesn’t want to beat Microsoft in the desktop battle, he wants to change the game. iPod Touch / iPhone plus the operating system could do just that.
1.
any stats on how many downloads?
it’s always a good idea to have software for windows, just like itunes it can show windows users the abilities of apple technology. if we didn’t have firefox ms would control the web.