Safari for Windows… but WHY?

77 thoughts on “Safari for Windows… but WHY?”

  1. I think it’s obvious they need to get windows developers on the iPhone train, and Safari will probably be needed for testing apps.

    They don’t really care about average users (at least for now…)

  2. Cringley is a bit of a madman. Apple isn’t going to be able to co-opt AT&T. I think loads of people have somehow missed that the Safari 3 announcement was made at a DEVELOPER’s conference. The target audience was DEVELOPERs.

    Obviously Om Malik and Cringley and many others are not developers. If you guys were developers then you’d understand why Safari 3 is so critical and strategic to Apple’s ecosystem.

  3. Personally, I doubt Jobs and Co actually expect to pick up significant share — or convince PC users to switch to a Mac based on the Safari experience.

    The key is the iPhone, where the entire ‘3rd party API’ consists of it running full Safari. By making Safari easily available to PC developers they’ve effectively provided an environment for them to write iPhone apps without needing to buy a mac or iPhone just to see if it will work. I think they could just have easily labelled it ‘iPhone widget tester for PCs’.

  4. The main reason is that for Safari to work as the 3rd party app platform, web applications need to work with it. Currently, a lot of web apps do not work with Safari. Releasing Safari 3 to windows platform gives web apps developers as testing platform (there are far more developers on Windows machines than Macs).

    Secondly, the hope is that Safari can gain marketshare to make it worthwhile to web app developers to make their apps work with Safari.

  5. I choose to accept the most simple explanations. I think it is about the web browsing experience on Mac and the iPhone.

    There are still lots of sites that do not work well with Safari, and Apple encourages users and developers to report those sites so it can go to the developer to fix the problems.

    I suspect Apple must spend a lot of time on this problem and is concerned about the web browsing experience with Safari. By releasing Safari on Windows, they get a potentially much bigger audience using Safari for a relatively small investment. And more Safari hits in the web server logs will encourage web site developers to be more Safari friendly.

    By the way, John Gruber suggests there is a lot of money to be made from the Google search referrals

    So, Apple must spend money on Safari for Windows development, but they get revenue from Google search referrals and if the share of Safari increases, they reduce the amount of “web site bugs” that get reported and the amount of time their developers must test those and work with the site developers to get them fixed.

    Seems like a pretty good investment return.

  6. To ensure website/Web 2.0 compatibility
    In a world where websites are becoming even more important and with Web 2.0 and AJAX are now becoming complicated applications.

    As a Safari Mac user I’m very used of sites missing features (Gmail on Safari is missing Google Talk integration etc. etc.) and whilst it may be that Safari doesn’t support all the hooks that FF2 and IE7 has I’m sure that the simple fact that a lot of devs in companies (or at least the media companies I’ve worked on) work on Windows.

    So I think that it’s common for people to check IE7 and FF compatibility but not Safari compatibility. I worked on the website of a major UK broadcaster and we didn’t routinely check the site for Macs… As to why, I don’t know – a lot of people there were just Windows heads.

    But if these same devs can just fire up Safari on Windows, making their site work for Macs without a Mac is easy enough.

    For use in iTunes?
    In the age of Web 2.0 the iTunes Store pages are looking a bit tired – so if you have a cross platform web engine that could be used in iTunes and have lots of fancy web 2.0 things going on, that might be quite useful…

    And yes, I think that the ‘taste of a Mac on Windows’ will be important too – problem is that if you don’t like IE7, FF2 is so good that Safari is a bit superfluous to requirements…

  7. I saw if first on Gizmodo but it’s all around the place. The most logical reason for me is that if “3rd party apps” on the iPhone are going to be AJAX web apps viewed through the iPhone’s embedded Safari browser, your development options are going to be limited if only Mac users have access to Safari.

    Give Safari to Windows developers and you’ve just vastly increased your potential developer pool. If the iPhone eventually takes off on the Windows platform as well as the iPod has, Windows developers are going to want to get their web apps on the iPhone.

    This fits nicely for me. It also has the side-benefit of attracting the Mac-curious like me who are seriously considering making their next computer a Mac but just haven’t fully committed yet (actually, I have committed – I just haven’t been able to justify a new computer to my wife yet :> )

  8. I think the reason to release the Windows Safari is even simpler than that.
    Apple needs to have Safari working right on the majority of the sites on the Web, specially the Web 2.0 applications.
    What is the best way to increase the relevance of the Safari platform?

  9. I think you are missing the #1 candidate for the reason behind Safari for Windows: iPhone.

    Remember that iPhone uses Safari 3 engine behind the scenes, all over the UI. Also, they are allowing web apps as a first-and-half class application on iPhone.

    So, this is why: Safari IS THE SDK ‘LIGHT’, targeting the wider audience of developers in the world.

    Now, if you want to develop for iPhone, you just need Safari… 😉

  10. Apple released Safari for Windows to encourage development of web-based apps for the iPhone. And, at least three web-based iPhone apps have been released this week. So, the strateg may work.

    Converting IE or FireFox users to Safari or getting more web developers to test their work with Safari are just gravy, just icing on the cake. The iPhone is what made this happen and what really matters when it comes to Safari.

    Marc 🙂

  11. I’ve explained why I think they are doing so right after they released Safari at my blog so I assume I must be the first person with this view, if not the only. First, OSX isn’t nearly as secure as Windows becuase it’s not in the hands of poor Russian 15 year olds who have nothing better to do than try to hack systems so they can earn money. Second, the browser is the most easily hacked vector into the browser. When porting Safari over to Windows, Apple is “Hardening” their browser and will keep doing so until they feel comfortable releasing the real monster, OSX86, to best buy as a software package that users can upgrade and build all themselves. Of course you’ll still have the option of buying a very cool looking hand crafted Mac from Apple, but folks like me with two video cards will be able to boot into OSX as well.

  12. Dumb question – how many windows apps rely upon IE for web connectivity? Could a dual platform (dual browser) OS goal by Apple require a similar internet link?

    This isn’t a browser war, it is an OS interoperability war and Jobs let the cat out of the bag during the D5 interview that Apple really is a software company first, using great hardware to support it.

    Could Apple be using a browser (bundled with Quicktime and iTunes) as another incremental step to get more developer support ahead of the coming of a PC version of OS X? Hope so.

  13. Also: perhaps most of the iPhone interface is based on safari (even Apple said at the WWDC that the best way to build apps for the phone would be developing web sites), thus (who knows) we may even see a Safari for windows mobile mimicking (part of) the iPhone interface or a windows based development tool for the iPhone….

  14. Eddie has the developer issue dead on. A big part of this is getting web apps designed to work on Safari, which ties into the repeated emphasis on the iPhone having a full version of Safari.

    As with iTunes, it can enable people to use common functions across a PC and an iPhone. People get used to using Safari on the computer and their phone, which further ties them to Apple. It makes the iPhone more valuable. It makes the switch from PC to Mac easier.

  15. I think Marc hit the nail on the head.

    As an aside, all the years I worked in sales & marketing, I became pretty good at reading “casual” remarks + body language. Watching The Steve comment on .mac, I think there’s more to come down that avenue, as well. For computers not the iPhone.

    Like many newbies to the Mac side of the OS street, I slid into using iBlog+.mac for my personal blog. It’s so damned easy, I stayed with it. Since Monday and the WWDC, Apple must have started applying more server horsepower to .mac. Publishing runs noticeably faster.

    I agree with Om that .mac is a poor 2nd cousin – but, let’s see if the Google influence continues to grow.

  16. If there were a bunch of Apple Web apps that only worked (or only worked well) under Safari, would that explain this move?

    If they come out 6 or 12 months from now, isn’t Apple’s Windows browser a necessary step now anyway?

  17. This decision left me scratching my head as well. But I’ve taken it a bit further. Everyone is questioning why Apple has developed a windows version of Safari, but is it even smart/necessary fro Apple develop a browser for the mac platform (or even Microsoft developing IE for Windows)? Where is the revenue stream in developing a browser? Why not cede the market to the independents in Mozilla, Camino, and Opera? They offer a superior products for free and I’m sure Apple could edit version of the upcoming Firefox Mobile for the iphone. More here: http://attentionbandit.blogspot.com/2007/06/retun-of-browser-war-but-why.html

  18. I also Agree with Marc, but more specifically, they want to make sure that develeopers are writing code for Safari into their sites. Not just because of an iPhone, how many people actually do heavy surfing on a thing without a keyboard. This is more than about JUST the iPhone, Steve Jobs is not happy that Bill Gates took his cookie away, and now that Bill Gates is moving on to better things in life, Steve Jobs will try to take back what was originally his, the PC. I wonder how many chairs will be thrown then?

  19. One possible issue is the coming ogg video codec in Firefox 3 and (I think) Opera.

    If Ogg becomes widely supported, then the main video standards on the web will be Windows Media and Ogg. There’s very little room for three widely supported standards, so Quicktime will probably suffer.

    … Ami.

  20. It may be Google ad revenue, it may be a warm Welcome! to potential switchers, it may be a test environment for Windows-based developers (are therean left 😉 ), but I think the big plan is something different …

    The SDK for the iPhone is no SDK. The platform is Safari. So every iPhone “app” will work on Mac OSX and now on Windows too.

    It’s a new incarnation of Java’s motto “write-once-run-everywhere”.

    Bye egghat.

  21. I think Safari is just a vehicle to get underlying technologies widely distributed. As iTunes gets Quicktime on the box, iPhone/Safari gets Webkit and other core technologies installed.

    It’s an interesting chess match we’re watching.

  22. It’s not rocket science; safari for Windows gives web developers a way to test their apps against Safari, and most importantly for Apple, the iPhone.

    I’m sure Apple wouldn’t mind any extra marketshare they might happen to gain, as it would encourage more support for the browser… but I think it’s best to just think of it as a dev kit for the iPhone.

    I also think that Eddie LeBreton asks a good question above – why didn’t they just go with an Apple-branded Firefox, a superior browser which already has the developer support and cross platform mojo?

    On the other hand, I will say this – if this is a precursor to porting .Mac features to Windows, then it could go a long way towards enticing me to pick up a MacBook. The “Go To my Mac” VPN thing is killer – but I’m not about to go replacing my file server with a Mac. They need some way I can access all the files on my home network remotely, not just those that might happen to reside on another Mac.

  23. If Apple really wanted to tease potential switchers with how great using a Mac could be, one of the iLife apps would have been a better choice – get users hooked on iMovie, or giveaway iPhoto to solve management of people’s growing photo collections. Safari isn’t a great experience on a Mac and is definitely not a showcase of Apple’s elegance.

    People spend most of their time in one of two apps – a browser or an email client. If Apple can own even 1% of the browsers on existing Windows machines, they’ve effectively doubled the install base for Safari.

  24. I’s not just for developers, it offers an unifying experience to user of iPhones and their desktop. Its provides for a highly compatible browser for iPhone specific web resources. Like Windows iTunes is to iPods, Windows Safari is to iPhones.

  25. It should be pointed out that iTunes is a browser, albeit a very specialized one, and Windows users have had no problem at all using it. It will be interesting when someone surveys switchers and asks about how much iTunes contributed to their decision.

    This is simply step two in a Trojan horse strategy. One morning Microsoft wakes up and realizes there are soon to be Apple users all over the place inside their walled city.

  26. I agree with the comments about the iphone. If the infrastructure isn’t there the iphone would be a little over priced. The iphone is marketed as the ultimate mobile internet device, you better make sure it at least gives an first impression that way. Since a lot of web developers believe the illusion that the mac is the ultimate web development platform , based on the early Adobe days, now they can bypass their bean counting bosses and can work with/for Apple.
    Man Steve is really, really good. Makes me wonder how long the other Steve can hold out after Bill is gone, I don’t think Ray stands a chance against Steve the first. Let the games begin.

  27. Om, I wouldn’t count out Safari distribution. Apple has not been afraid to engage in the piggy back with quicktime and itunes.

    Itunes is a monster. If they start piggy backing safari on top of itunes under the “give it a try” banner you might be surprised how quickly apple grabs some browser share.

    He isn’t aiming at the firefox crowd but rather at the helpless middle who uses the default browser.

    I also seriously doubt it is a developer tool. All those developers are now on macs anyway 😉

  28. Agree 100% with your thinking, Om, and there’s an even more simplistic reason as well:

    Because they can.

    How many thousands of employees work at Apple now? How many do you think it took to create Safari on Windows? 5? Because WebKit is built the way it is, and because Apple is getting more and more familiar with building apps for Intel-based systems, this was not what Apple would call a big project. If you can create a new chess piece for a couple man-years worth of work and you’re already highly profitable, why not?

  29. I ran it for 15 minutes, watched it crashed, then uninstalled it.

    Seeing this was a developers conf and saying to the audience, “look at all the web based apps you can write for our browser which was a few percent of market share” was a disappointment. No SDK is going to murder the iPhone. The killer apps that make my Blackberry and Windows Mobile phones worth while aren’t going to be there, because by developing web-only third party apps, you’re relying on data service that may not be there. Games, RSS feeds, other apps while you’re on a plane? Forget about it.

    This is disappointing.

  30. OM I think you are correct in your theory. Continue exposure to Apple software to increase the likelihood of switching to a Mac.

    I think the exposure of iTunes/iPop and pre-hype iPhone must be doing some of this already. My local BestBuy has started selling Mac computers again, and have dedicated sizable square footage to the display. In retail terms square footage = retailers commitment to a product. They don’t give up square footage unless they believe there is a demand.

  31. One of the more interesing theories that heard was that Safari for Windows actually contains Rendezvous , meaning that every Windows PC with Safari will be able to share files and services with every iPhone in the same network …

  32. Safari on Windows – has been a net thrown out to the windows world to get more third-party apps for the iPhone developed.

    Its simple – Steve said that the iPone will extend to third-party apps vie the Safari Engine. It will be Safari browser that will run third-party apps on the iPhone.

    Now to get developers tghe one vast potential is the windows world and to get them to develop apps for the iPhone via the Safari engine is to give them the Safar browser as a first step.

    I mean if I develop apps for the iPhone and do not have an iPone, how can I test it – run it on the Safari browser on Windows.

    Of course the 2nd step would be to provide the detials of the Safari engine interaction with the iPhone internals (whatever needed for 3rd party app development) out to these vast number of Windows based developers.

    So Safari is teh catch-all to the developer community who want to write and test some web app for the iPhone too.

    Its that simple and effective of Job’s part ?
    I dont think its and IE vs Firefox vs Safari contest at all. Why get into a field which already has established players. Jobs is all about extending his iPOD and now the iPhone duopoly.

  33. I agree that Apple is looking for switchers. Many PC users looking for a new PC are frustrated that these PC’s come preloaded with Vista, and many of their applications don’t work with Vista at all. Many of the new PC’s don’t allow you to buy XP Pro instead of Vista either.

    Also, AAPL may have calculated whether it would be more profitable to sell the Leopard OS separately in exchange for lower Mac hardware sales, so that may be a good point for them to enter the PC OS market. (Mac hardware sales for 6 months ending 3/31 were $4.7bn … or @10bn/annually).

  34. Kill Two Birds With One Stone, guess that sums it up. Steve can convince the fence-sitters to get Mac experience, and lot of customers who’re gonna buy an iPhone on 29th will most likely be windows users, so here it’s a platform-play.

    But Apple will surely succeed in this effort. I blogged in august 2006 that Steve should release Safari for windows, my wish is at last fulfilled 🙂
    http://muddam.blogspot.com/2006/08/apple-should-release-safari-for.html

  35. Don’t trust those iTunes numbers too much – my mother had Quicktime on her PC to watch some trailer (she really only does text and image based web). Last time I visited her I found she had iTunes as well, no doubt because Apple’s software update tool for Quicktime pushes everyone to get Quicktime+iTunes (this is also true if you just want to download Quicktime).

    The interesting part is that she is profoundly deaf and has never used iTunes. So don’t believe there are really 300 million iTunes users out there – many of them are the result of Apple’s drive-by download policies…

    I do use iTunes myself and have an iPod, and it’s not bad, though the inability to set one profile for music and one for podcasts is really annoying. iPod is cute but the inflexibility and closedness is crap – let’s hope iPhone really does get a proper SDK not the “web 2.0 non-SDK” that’s no different to any other competent mobile browser (e.g. Opera on my Treo).

  36. To move away the attention from the fact that the iphone will not allow developers to build native apps.

    To try to strengthen the iphone development story: Safari is a universal application development platform. The problem is that Safari has a much more monolithic and closed architecture than Firefox. So in the long run, FF has much more changes to survive as a platform than Safari.

  37. i think comments above are correct: Safari for Windows is really about Safari for iPhone with “developers!” as the target — and then if you make that same platform on Windows, you get bleed-over and [small] market share for gratis.

    however, the other question on my mind is the one Walt Mossberg was toying around with earlier in the week — when is Apple going to press its advantage with iTunes on Windows, and start using it as leverage for other stuff?

    maybe this is a combined strategy — use the (hopefully large soon) iPhone market to push Safari as a dev platform, then use iTunes on Windows & Mac to push into Safari as well.

    then Apple can use two killer products — iTunes (now) and iPhone (coming) — to create a realistic 3rd place showing for Safari on Windows.

    still seems like a long road to travel for 3-5% market share on Windows, but then again that’s where Mac / iPod started too.

  38. It would be naive to expect that Microsoft would allow Apple to succeed in this. Expect serious flaws in their browser as it will never integrate into the operating system the way IE does.

    • Noga Rosenthal
  39. Om,
    I agree and disagree with most of the user’s comments. Like you I like to think of a simplistic yet logical explanation. I think it is two fold, the former being an immediate ROI and the latter being more strategic. Firstly I really think the immediate ROI is the approx. > $100 million $$$ (and not 30-50 million) in additional revenue through Google search bar. It is not huge but definitely something that cannot be ignore. This is a very good ROI effect you can have on your bottomline in a few quarters. The latter reason is fairly simple – Apple is betting is on lot of Windows users buying iPhone (just like iPod). This means those same users already have IE or Firefox. But guess what they will use on iPhone, Safari. Apple simply wants to make the same user experience a user has on an iPhone (bookmarks, history, tabs etc.) transition seamlessley onto their PCs (or Macs). You browse stuff on your iPhone through the day during lunch/standing in DMV/in a bus, you came back home in the evening and continue your browsing on your PC – same bookmarks, tabs, history, cache etc. Apple wants to keep the browsing feel and experience same….THAT’S IT !!!

  40. And oh one more thing – all the comments about windows iPhone developers needing to make sure the web apps work on Safari is ALL BS !!!
    These Web apps will be based on standards for crying out loud ! If you use standards it ought to work on Firefox, IE or Safari. There should be no testing that is required specifically on Safari. Infact if it does, then Apple would have failed on the promise of a standard Web browser.

  41. Let’s keep this thing real. The iPhone is not the real internet because for one the Safari browser is not supported as well as IE and FF. If the iPhone wants to hope to be a true internet experience Safari is going to need more support from developers. The carrot that dangles in front of developers is the iphone and all it’s 3.5 inch screen glory!! Too bad FF!! SJ is taking what’s his as he is the king in the consumer sector.

  42. I think that Apple is trying to acquire more users in a non-threatening way. Give users a smooth transition into the Apple world.

    Just like the AppleTV. It’s doing something simple, delivering content. But for all we know, tomorrow Apple could be releasing a tons of games on the AppleTV to rival the XBox, PS3 and Wii. See initially non-threatening.

    Sneak in, make the unaware user comfortable, then bang, your a Mac lover.

  43. What I heard in Jobs’ WWDC keynote was 1) that they have somehow extended the Safari browser on the iPhone so it can deliver native iPhone-like interactivity (whatever that actually means!) and 2) they are excited about this new web-based method of developing applications. Jobs also talked at the “All Things D” conference about how they’d be making up for the shortcomings of their .Mac suite of web-based applications.

    So my guess is that they’ll be building some snazzy web-based experiences that work in all browsers but work the BEST in Safari because they have full control over that platform. Think a web-based version of iTunes that does everything iTunes does now (CoverFlow, etc) but it runs within a browser. This would likely also give a big boost to iTunes and iPod sales with all the search engine traffic it would bring.

  44. 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.

  45. 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…

  46. 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 !)

  47. 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.

  48. … 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.

  49. 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!

  50. 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.

  51. 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

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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
  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.