Comments on: Safari for Windows… but WHY?

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:02:26 +0000

Check out the new Safari-centric website for more information about Safari on Windows. Lot of infos, incase you want to check out Safari.

http://www.safariwin.com

By: Tahmid

Tahmid — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:34:34 +0000

Safari isn't very good, it doesn't support a large variety of softwares and has trouble opening web pages, the page comes out quiet slow at times as well so overall in my opinion i think that mozilla firefox is better than safari.

what do u think?

By: Jerry Gartner

Jerry Gartner — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:13 +0000

I believe that the release of Safari for Windows is mainly a case of riding the wave of iTunes and iPhone publicity. I did want to note too that iTunes download numbers are skewed as the auto upsell – I mean update – for Quicktime (free version) has been bundling iTunes with Quicktime for nearly a year now, with no option to pick one or the other. If you want a current and patched version of Quicktime, you have to get iTunes as well. That is, unless you go to the apple website – there you can get a full download of the most recent version of Quicktime without iTunes, as well as all of the latest marketing from apple.

By: JFSN

JFSN — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:23:04 +0000

This product launch has a yawn factor approaching that of Lotus Development's rollout of 'Agenda'. I am so bored with all things computer, software and internet. SSDD.

By: HutchTech

HutchTech — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:03:26 +0000

This makes perfect sense. If they eventually port Finder and some other native apps to Windows, eventually someone will feel comfortable enough to make the switch. I also believe that the upcoming iPhone/Safari/3rd Party app issues are another reason behind the port--if you make an app that can work in Safari and on the iPhone you can keep both your Mac and Windows users happy and up-to-date.

Hutch

By: Neil Anderson

Neil Anderson — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:08:35 +0000

Safari is the browser on the iPhone. Lots of PC folks will buy an iPhone. If they're already familiar with how to use Safari so much the easier to make the sale. "Hey, it uses the same browser as my PC."

By: John W. Redelfs

John W. Redelfs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:11:25 +0000

I think you are right, Om. More than you know. But Safari on Windows is just a small part of the strategy. I became a "switcher" just a couple of months ago after I purchased Apple's fastest top-of-the-line laptop, the 17" MacBook Pro. After nearly 13 years of cursing Microsoft for its buggy and poorly designed software, I switched because of the iPod, iTunes, Unix and an Intel CPU with Bootcamp which eliminates most of the risk of switching over. Of course I can run Safari now, but for now I'm sticking with Firefox. Anything that will introduce Windows users to Apple's superior product's will make more switchers.

By: Dirk Gently

Dirk Gently — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:12:11 +0000

The Mac look is beautiful. Many skins mimic this look on both Windows and Linux, it's simple yet elegant. The idea of weening people towards a real Mac is spot on.

The more people try and love the look of a Mac, the more chance they have of falling into the "when this one gets replaced, I want a real Mac instead of a pretend one" mentality.

I found an excellent third party skin (it's much more than that) which turns your Windows into a Mac (visually) with the object docks, icons, sounds, cursors, login screens etc. It's completely free.

http://www.flyakiteosx.com/

My guess is that the intent behind this is the same, to get people into Macs. There are screenshots on their site of every part of the program (all fully modular so you can use which parts you like and leave others on install).

My question would be to Mac users, just how close is this UI to a real Mac? Underneath it's still Windows with a new outfit on.

By: trugiaz

trugiaz — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:01:34 +0000

i still think it's a great achievement though, but on one side still thinking that as a good marketing tool as well (to promote apple product) but still it's a great, wonderful achievement. Btw i'm using Safari when i'm commenting this and it's great even though it's beta

By: David Raho

David Raho — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:43:22 +0000

Some interesting points. Like you I was surprised to learn that Apple would do such a thing. I am one of those who thinks that diversity is a good thing but also less is more. i tested the browser and found it worked faster than IE7 but without all the bells and whistles. I have since uninstalled it because it cannot compete with Cleartype technology for display clarity and offers nothing that Firefox or even Opera or Netscape can't provide. In addition it didn't allow my Thinkpad to scroll down using the middle button (annoying). I know its a Beta but really!!***&&^%

I am not convinced by the 'easy switch' argument as those people don't tend to be the kind of people who switch browsers at the drop of a hat either. I'd love a Mac paked full of lovely Mac apps and if Steve Jobs is feeling generous please send him my way.

By: irfanhab

irfanhab — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:06:57 +0000

I think Safarr's release on Windows has been a disaster, and will likely turn people away from Apple. Up till now people had this impression that since Apple controlled the entire stack, their software was more secure, this certainly is not the case!

By: random8r

random8r — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:28:54 +0000

... oh yeah, and it'll also commoditize the operating system at the same time as putting the (pardon the pun) spotlight on Apple in general, thus getting more people aware of Apple's computers (rather than iPods only)... and we all know the OS is vastly superior in pretty much every way.

By: random8r

random8r — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:25:22 +0000

Let's think for a second...

As a developer, it's pretty nice and easy to develop software for the OS/X platform.

In order to put this software "out there" in PC-land, and knowing Apple fairly well, they'd have to build quite a few of the same Core technologies on the Windows platform. Not so hard now Apple is running on Intel. No doubt in Apple land they've got their own private XCode running on Windows for making windows apps. (Just like Microsoft do for their Office apps - have you tried using standard keyboard shortcuts like option-left arrow in Word lately?)

Yeah, so what?

Well, a bit down the track, once they've ironed out the bugs in this framework, they could release it with the next version of Windows/Mac XCode - in other words, they'd be making it "Mac Easy" to make mac-windows cross-platform capable software.

What does that mean?

It means for Windows developers, they can develop Windows software much more easily AND they have a FREE alternative to microshit's version of "Dev Tools"... (ie VERY easy to develop for windows).

It also means for Windows developers that they get to leverage ALL of Apple's "cool shit" as Apple build their "Core Layer" on top of Windows.

It also means (for Windows developers) that they get to develop for Mac for no extra "Charge" so to speak.

But also, it makes it really really really easy to develop Windoze software for Mac people. They just click a box (same as when we want to dev for PowerPC vs Intel).

So the end result is ... for developers, it's "Mac Easy" and "Mac Fast" and now MUCH CHEAPER for EVERYONE to write good quality software which looks nice (because interface builder makes it harder to build bad interfaces) that is cross-platform compatible.

So it will further technology, but it will also further Apple, because they get a HUGE chunk of ALL pies.

It's marketing genius.

It means they can then go ahead and release all their iApps for Windows for free, without having to support it (necessarily). When people have problems, they can convert them to Apple customers. They only support their own hardware.

It means they can release their Pro stuff for Windows, too. So, you could potentially get Final Cut Pro or Logic Pro for Windows, along with every single piece of software available on Windows AND Mac.

Once that's done, the software is a commodity. Once the software is a commodity, people will pay attention to the hardware. Then they'll see that Macs are awesome quality in terms of hardware, and more people will buy Macs. Not just more, but a TRUCKload more.

It also means that (potentially) when people get their taste of using Apple products in Windows land, they'll really want their entire OS to be like that.

Apple essentially is trying to get a massive hold on the market through the "back door" so to speak. Through the developers.

I've been saying this for about 4 years now. It's what I'd be doing if I was running Apple, and so far everything they do is in alignment with this idea.

By: Cosmic Ray

Cosmic Ray — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:44:05 +0000

The simple fact is that there is no "single reason," but there are lots of good arguments for doing this, and, I suspect, very few reasons for not doing it. Whatever additional cost in bringing Safari up to snuff on Windows will add to the quality of the product, enhancing the value of Apple stock in the larger market. (Of course, the fact that Safari is actually faster than IE and FF doesn't hurt at all !)

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:47:50 +0000

Simple: so sites work in Safari. In order for sites to work on the iPhone, they need to work in Safari. Most web devs below tier 1 test only to FF and IE--that is partially why so many mac users use FF. So in order to get people to test their apps for iPhone they need a bigger installed base of Safari. If they get their parrot-heads (a polite reference to Jimmy's 100,000 core fans--everything he sells they buy--not meant as derrogatory) all to install an evangelize they have a chance to notch that 5% Jobs quotes (2.5% is more like it) to 10%--a sufficient level to make you think twice about testing against it.

Also, the bar for testing it, since Windows is still the most common dev platform, is now a new app, not a new machine.

Darn, now I can't convince my boss to get me that iBook for testing purposes...

By: Anti-Jake

Anti-Jake — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:23:16 +0000

Jake speaks sideways. What I'm about to say is true, but Safari is more "true internet" that IE ever was. IE does not implement W3C standards correctly and IE almost always implies Windows computers. So really, IE does not provide a true internet experience. IE support that web developers implement are tuned to mistakes in IE. That said, Safari users will encounter difficulties.