-
Website
http://john.jubjubs.net -
Original page
http://john.jubjubs.net/2007/06/14/a-pictures-worth-100m-users/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
dria
5 comments · 1 points
-
johnlilly
18 comments · 1 points
-
Busby SEO Test
3 comments · 1 points
-
Robert Accettura
2 comments · 7 points
-
prem123
10 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
To learn that Apple's goal is entirely antithetical to that is sad, and a bit disturbing.
War Firefox going above 25%
Apple is about simplifying things. In the second chart, Jobs merely showed a simpler representation of where Safari is going; that it will have 20% marketshare one day. :-)
Perhaps someone can explain the importance of this to me.
So, let me suggest that perhaps the reason Jobs didn't announce going after MS market share is because of the relationship between the two companies. The deeper you go into the archives between MS and Apple, the darker it gets, yet both Jobs/Gates sat together laughing at D5. Maybe, just maybe, Jobs isn't trying to destroy Mozilla, but is instead trying to keep minimal tension with MS. Possibly?
But seriously, I think you're kind of over reacting here. Shouldn't you be happy there is another player in the market now? I mean FF is still only at 15% so we all have to work together here to keep toppling IE. I dont think steve sees you as the enemy. You make your web browser for 3 platforms but no one accuses you of trying to take over the world. Lighten up and dont freak out just because a big name company is going to Winders too.
I can love their products and have issues with their view of the world (not to mention their strategy & tactics), and I'm just highlighting the problem for everyone, as I think it's a little bit subtle.
Are you suggesting instead that Apple make a mediocre browser that will capture only so much market share so as not to dominate the market that Firefox is attempting to dominate? Is that what you do a Mozilla? It doesn't seems so. Mozilla, both in marketing and in the way it makes Firefox, has been attempting to capture all of Microsoft's Internet Explorer's market share. Mozilla has not blushed to tell everyone that Firefox is vastly superior to Explorer and that all user of Explorer would be well advised to switch to Firefox. So it is alright for Mozilla to attempt to dominate the market by making the best browser. But that is not alright for Apple?
Why, because Mozilla is a not for profit, open-source project, while Apple is a for profit company? Well, those aren't the rules and never have been. If Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, or anyone else can dominate a market by making the best product or service, then that is what it is entitled to do and is expected to do. We want people to do their best in competing in the market. That means trying to make the best product or service and trying to win. So quit whining and let the games begin.
Nobody is criticizing Apple for being a for-profit Business. The real problem in the presentation was that the 'Outcome' graph makes it look like Apple aims to specifically eliminate 'non-microsoft' competition.
I mean, looking at the graphic, it seems like the Democrats blaming the Green Party and other independents for stealing votes from them in various districts during the 2000 election.
So I guess the ideology Jobs has (Perhaps unintentionally) sent us here is something like, "Of the 22% of browser share not controlled by the Repub.. err, Microsoft, we are losing out to independent useless can't-winners! Curse them for stealing our piece of the pie!"
Look at his track record and you'll see that I'm right.
Stop looking for things that obviously aren't there.
Sounds like a sour-grapes piece to me.
1) A larger footprint for Safari means more search field related revenue from Google for Apple. This isn't a trivial revenue stream for them (nor for Mozilla, if what I understand is true). This reason by itself would financially justify the move to a Windows port.
2) Apple is encouraging people to use the Safari engine to write web-apps for the iPhone, so why wouldn't they release it to Windows to encourage people to do this? The iPhone will work with iTunes as the client software on Windows PCs. Now people based on either OS can develop value for the iPhone by having access to the web engine that it uses.
Granted, I'd love to have Linux versions of iTunes and now Safari so my current iPod and (hopefully) new iPhone will be platform agnostic, but I already own a couple of Macs and PCs.
The ironic part of all of this for me is that my MacBook Pro is the most agnostic piece of hardware that I own. Sure, I run OS X on it, but it's also my main Windows box thanks to Parallels and BootCamp. I just threw out my old Fedora box in favor of installing Ubuntu on Parallels.
Maybe Apple sees the world in a closed-experience, us-or-them view of the web, but I can literally install any major browser or internet application for Mac, Windows or Linux on a single piece of hardware. As an Apple customer, I sure don't feel very limited. Just my $.02.
And you are right - the target in second figure definitely are the "smaller" alternatives. I just wonder why would he like to do a thing like that. Also, it seems a little ironic that the "thinking big" still means "apple small, microsoft big".
And, in case you hadn't noticed it, Apple's real target is Microsoft. The net effect is likely to be fewer "Internet Explorer Only" sites - and that's good for everyone.
What's the problem? Competition? The one who makes the better browser wins.
After reading Macworld's coverage of it, I honestly thought that you, John, must be an idiot. After actually reading the post, I realize that I was mistaken. You have some good points. I disagree with you about what I think Steve Jobs was speaking about, but at this point the only person who really knows is Steve, and that isn't about to change.
Oh, and I am writting this in the Safari 3 Beta, which I am quite impressed with so far. It isn't perfect (that is what "Beta" means after all) but it is pretty good already.
Now, if Jobs had shown the second graph with significant Safari marketshare at the expense of IE, it would be an outright declaration of war against MS. Put this together with my previous statement about MS Office and maybe, just maybe you can see a possible motive to express the message in the way Jobs did.
I do have to wonder.... If you asked Jobs if he preferred IE or Firefox, I think we all know how he would answer... Which is why I think that the obvious analysis that John has provided of this message is the wrong one.
John, I know your feelings are hurt.... but do remember.... my enemy's enemy is my friend.
(Sometimes it is better if these two friends don't brodcast their true relationship to the world, lest the shared enemy be better prepared for battle)
I live in Barbados
Overall, however, support for Safari means support for open standards, since Webkit is an open source project, and so Safari's growth is not really a significant threat to the open web, as alluded to by the author. It was disappointing that Apple PR, or Jobs in particular, felt it necessary to leave other alternative browsers out of the picture, and it does betray a pretty narrow view of today's software landscape. If Apple doesn't see open source development as competition, they're going to be in for a rude awakening, as it's pretty clear that it will be increasingly prevalent. Apple should really do a better job of addressing open source projects as potential competitors and partners, and to promote their unique abilities, such as centralized leadership, clear vision, and large development resources, as their means of competing with open source, instead of continuing to ignore it completely in their public discourse.
If Apple is to succeed in the general-purpose computing market in the next decade, it will be because they have learned to coexist with open source projects, leveraging them to make further progress where needed. As things like operating systems, web browsers, office suites, and other commonly-used software become commoditized and essentially free, Apple will have to address this by building on top of this commodity software, and use their centralized leadership and ability to make rapid progress in new directions to stay competitive. Software-driven consumer electronics gizmos are great and all, but Apple's strength in software would be lost if it didn't keep up with current trends, largely driven by open source development.
Apple's actions have been fairly consistent with this reality, as they have adopted a large number of open source projects and open protocols into their OS and software, and contributed a significant amount of work back to the community, but it's mainly their PR that's really lacking some depth on this issue. Apple will have to embrace open source development publicly as well as in the privacy of their internal software development. To be fair, it seems to be quite difficult for many MBA types to wrap their little heads around open source community development, and so it's unsurprising that Apple and others haven't really embraced this new reality. Eventually, in the not-so-distant-future, however, they are going to be forced to face this issue. As Linux has become a viable alternative OS, OpenOffice has become a viable productivity suite for businesses, Firefox has become a web standard, Apple will really have to work hard to drive home the advantages they can offer to consumers in the general-purpose computing market (which includes smart phones).
/rant
More of a declaration of war than the "Get a Mac" ads, where the PC is a clown?
The notion that Apple doesn't support OpenSource is so plainly wrong. Safari is based on WebKit which is based on KHTML. Apple puts back what it changes of KHTML back into the KHTML community. WebKit itself is OpenSource. Why should Apple make the whole of Safari OpenSource when it's nothing more than a wrapper for WebKit? No one asks for iTunes to be OpenSource when it's just a wrapper for MP4, WebKit, and various other technologies that are standards or OpenSource.
Of course the whole of Leopard's underpinnings is OpenSource but why does Apple need to open up it's layers that it owns? CoreFrameworks? Aqua? Why do these need to be OpenSource when they are part of a commercial package?
Don't get me wrong I use OpenSource all the time with GIMP and NeoOffice but to be truthful FireFox doesn't offer me that much more than Safari offers me. I just want a browser that I can go to the sites I want to go to. Safari offers me that out of the box with the exception of our call system but then FireFox can't offer me that either.
I love FireFox but on my Mac it's not the best option for me and on Windows at work it's not the best option for me either. It's a sad sad fact of life that no matter how good a product it is, if it doesn't satisfy people's needs then it's not going to be used.
That being said though, it's the only browser I use on my Windows machine at home. Once our call system gets upgraded (it's over 9 years old currently and sucks more than Paris Hilton's career - in more ways than one) then I will be using FireFox at work and nothing but FireFox at work.
Most Firefox users are more committed to their browser than the typical Internet Explorer user. Apple will get much of their increase of browser market share from the masses -- the same people who buy the iPods and iPhones. Some of these will be Firefox and misc. browser users, but the vast majority of those who will install Safari are folks who have never heard of Firefox, or who haven't bothered to download Firefox. Most are default IE users. So most Safari increase will likely come at the expense of IE.
So think of increased Safari marketshare as an increase in standards-based browser marketshare and a decrease in proprietary Internet Explorer marketshare. Both of these changes are good for Firefox and the Firefox community.
Remember that as the diversity of browsers, particularly standards-based browsers, increase; and as their utilization increase; then Microsoft will have less influence in being able to dictate proprietary standards that break in other non-IE browsers. This is a good thing for everyone, including Firefox users.
Many, if not most, Firefox users will also download Safari because they are more open to non-IE browsers than the typical Windows user. Apple will also get most iPod, iPhone, AppleTV, and Mac users to also download and use Safari. Apple will be committed to Safari. This commitment will increase non-IE standards-based browser utilization which will indirectly benefit Firefox.
BTW The only reason Steve used that graphic is because no one at Apple actually thinks that Safari will kill off Firefox. My thinking is that they want to antagonize Bill Gates less. Apple has been poking fun at Windows with the PC and Mac guys, and of late have been taking all of Microsoft's cookies. Apart from their two cash cows: Windows and Office, Microsoft has been losing all of their other battles to others, mostly Apple, but also Wii and Sony. No one wants to kick someone while they're down, especially when they are still bringing in billions of dollars in free cash EVERY month. Don't be afraid because of Steve's graphic. Safari will benefit Firefox more than IE does. Steve is just being smart about not antagonizing a sleeping giant when not necessary.
Even a duopoly between a standards- based browser (Safari) and a proprietary browser (IE) will benefit Firefox more than a monopoly of a non-standards-based browser (IE). This is similar to the same way that Firefox utilization benefits Safari and all other non-IE standards-based browsers.
Firefox isn't going anywhere, so celebrate a new entrant that has more in common with Firefox and the monopolistic IE. Even in the unlikely event that Safari usage goes to 75%, the remaining 25% that use Firefox will find that websites will display better than those sites that had been designed especially for IE.
That's a good thing.
I disagree with one poster's opinion that Apple isn't public or forward with its open-source involvement. It is. It's core to its strategy, it's vital to its success, it has proudly advocated it, and continues to do so http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html .
No these slides are very much about "Apple's Open-Source pet, vs all other browsers, including non-open-source ones"
So ... Apple is throwing a slap at Mozilla's face. It's simply one open-source project posturing against another. The first slap was when Apple chose Konqeror/KHTML over Mozilla/Gecko for what would later become WebKit (http://webkit.org/), Safari's underlying engine. WebKit's been going mobile too: http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/S60browser/ . WebKit also happens to power commercial software, including a commercial web browser, OmniWeb: http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/. Tiger introduced Dashboard, largely powered by WebKit, paving the way for today's thriving Widgets ecosystem. And now WebKit's doing Windows in the form of Safari! That's quite a bit of ground covered since Safari's first public beta only 4 years ago.
I touched on WebKit and Widgets heavily because to me the big news isn't really Safari, it's rather the fact that WebKit's now running on Windows and it's ridiculously fast. Apple is injecting a web-technologies-driven applications framework onto Windows and handheld devices.
Sounds familiar? Yea, whatever happened to XUL?
Let's indeed look at Mozilla now. Look at how much adoption XUL has gained in the software marketplace? It's frickin' sad, because XUL is a billion times cooler in concept than sliced-bread, has been for like what, nearly a decade now? Without XUL, there would be no Firefox. Yet why do i not see more killer desktop apps being built with XUL by parties other than Mozilla?
Why did Nokia end-up going for Apple's open-source pet, WebKit, even after it had funded Mozilla's pet, Minimo?
Perhaps instead of making El Jobso's little spiel into this "Evil Corporation trying to take over the Web" controversy, you might consider Apple's provocation as a wake-up call, an ominous hint for Mozilla to get their sh1t together.
The RDF can go both ways.
Before Apple unleashed iPod, there *were* and *still are* plenty of music players on the market, happily serving their niche audiences. But they are and have been kind-of stuck where they're at.
If Safari and WebKit adoption on Windows, for some reasons, happen to make strategic sense to Apple, it's unlikely that Apple will beat the sheer inertia of a browser built into the guts of Windows. It could however very likely position itself as The Better Browsing Solution more effectively with its brand and Marketing Mojo, than Mozilla ever has with Firefox thru grassroots and word-of-mouth. That doesn't mean Firefox will die, it just means that right now, El Jobso's not seeing it much relevance in Mozilla's future.
If the choice was 'would I rather offend Mozilla or Microsoft?' I know I would 9 times out of 10 pick on Mozilla. Sorry.
If I own stock in Apple, my interest is directly attached to Apple generating revenue and/or in other ways increasing the value of my stock. In other words, I'm interested in Apple treating business as business, and community as community. In the world of business, #1 and #2 are all that matter. #3 still makes money, but they don't have leverage, nor do they control enough of the market to be considered a threat.
Be happy w/ your #2 spot, but recognize that Apple isn't looking at this from the perspective of "How do we beat Mozilla?" and instead "How do we beat Microsoft?"
That said, I would have *MUCH* rather the slide suggested something more to the effect of Safari representing what Internet Explorer represents, and the other portion listed as "Other". Why? Because nobody aims for second place. They aim for first, and deal w/ being second/third/fourth/fifth and so forth for as long as have to. Anything else, and you've lost your *competive* edge, and when it comes down to it, *THAT'S* what is most important.
Competition.
1) Steve said he wants a big piece of the market share, this means his first goal is money not to create the "best browser of this world"
2) The browser benchmarks are fraudulos, tests were probably made by/with the apple marketing team.
The company puts to much weight on the devoted users which trust(&love) apple by default and that is just stupid.
HE IS SELLING SOMETHING. Steve Job's knows more about the "IT" world than anyone here. Have you made any big innovations? Nope...so just go back to your corner and cry some more.
You are a moron. Safari has tabs and a Google toolbar, among others.
Let me guess - you think Macs can't use multi-button mouse, either, right?
Not everything NEEDS to be open-source, ok? It's perfect when there is MORE CHOICE, ie you can buy the software or you can get the free alternative.
Freedom of choice usually equals better end result, but sometimes a company like Jobsian Apple comes along and thigns get upside down and myself for example I will be happy giving my finnish euros to S. Jobs so he can continue providing some rock n roll to this nerd society or culture or whatever.
mike
1. In one stroke Apple have removed the incentive for probably 80% of their prospective customers to purchase an Apple computer.
2. They're not going to be able to compete with existing Windows based browsers.
3. Apple exists largely on hot air and myth making. By allowing consumers to substantially test their products without paying a sucker fee, Apple are putting their image at risk.
Bookmark this post:
Safari will flounder on Windows for a few years, then it will be quietly withdrawn.
i dont understand the fanaticism behind mozilla. although i understand the anti-IE sentiment after we were stuck in an era of stagnation thanks to Windows arrogance and OS monopoly. I suppose Open-source allows everybody to develop the platform and allows it to be in a perpetuate state of development but hey, that doesn't inspire me enough to love Mozilla so passionately. I'd like to get paid to do tedious work.
Jobs doesn't have a deluded perspective on the world he just wants a larger market share of the internet browser. Sure he didn't include Firefox in the future equation. So? Point being? Maybe he made a little error, maybe he doesn't realise the significance of Firefox. Can you blame him? he shipped itunes over to windows and that virtually spelled the end for winamp the most popular alternative music player to windows media.
You can't blame a man for having a little success go to his head. And with the obsession over iphone Steve is probably trying to capitalise on the success of it. Its going to be a fully functional internet browser. Before your product releases what do you do? Fix Bugs. If someone likes a product of yours what do you do? try to sell them a little more cake.
its a win win situation for apple, moving safari unto the windows platform was a smart move on the basis that it helped fix bugs for the release of iphone, and it may expand apple software further into the windows world.
Me, I use SeaMonkey. When it pukes, I use Safari. I keep trying to use Firefox, but it always fails at some vital task or another. The latest is that it will neither display, nor pass PDF files to another program to display, and there is no way to change the default download and ignore default. I've installed it three times now, and each time I've run into something like this. When it is as useful as Seamonkey or Mozilla, I'll try again. Maybe the ninth time will be the charm.
I sincerely doubt Apple is after FireFox and Opera etc.
Compare when Jobs made the "we're coming after you, buddy," comment about Dell with a slide of Michael Dell in a bullseye target(!). Nobody had to read any interpretation into that. Or the Macworld Expo keynotes where Jobs targeted competitors to iTunes, specifically Target, making a joke about it being the next company for iTunes to pass.
Jobs doesn't make coy allusions to threats in keynote slides. He made no comments about killing Firefox in his presentation. That slide was briefly thrown up with nothing really said about it. Also, why would Apple intentionally subtract Firefox's entire share, leaving IE's share unchanged? That slide was a bit sloppy, but reading anything into it is really grasping for straws.
Mozilla is an important ally to Apple in its efforts to build standardized web development. When bloggers make comments like "make no mistake: this wasn’t a careless presentation," it's a sign they are being dramatic idiots and trying to portray some fluff as the center of the universe.
When the blogger is John Lilly, or say any executive, its a sign that company should have a blogger policy to prevent upper management from looking like fools to the public.
So what? Apple is routinely making fun of MS. Remember the Mac vs PC ads, the "Redmond, start your photocopiers" banners at the WWDC. Steve Jobs showed a graph comparing the iPod and Zune market share during his Macworld keynote, and poked fun at MS, etc.
danieleran: "That slide was briefly thrown up with nothing really said about it."
Showing a slide with only Safari and IE, Jobs said: “That’s what we’d love.” What? To kill Firefox, Opera and all alternatives? I wouldn't read too much into it, it must be a misunderstanding. But the slide is a bit of a PR blunder.
Anyways, you're right, and I'm glad he couldn't pull it off anyways. Still I wonder about that. That sends such a particular message, and Steve, I read, takes the keynotes details seriously. I wonder if someone's getting fired for this, or he really was sending a message.
Regardless you're not the only who was shocked to see it. I thought to myself, 'Snap! Apple just served the (non-IE) browsers; what a slap in the face!'
But of course, this simply degenerates into another 'render-engine-war' which no-one every wins. Apple is going to be pouring money into WebKit support because it *must* have it working on all platforms. You should ride on its coattails...
Firefox is a great browser, it has its own solid reputation. Don't turn this into a conspiracy.
I never used to like firefox, always preferred Opera. Then one day I heard about the ad block addon, so I had to try that out, then I started looking around the addon section, and well, opera got deleted from my system, and I just love firefox, and that is where firefox sets itself out from apple's browser, from opera, and IE. The addons allow people to experince the net the way they want to, to create the browser that gives them the best experince.
It's a goal, and a very high-set and difficult to reach goal. Firefox will never die in all likelihood. Sure, Apple may take away a few Firefox users. But every day Firefox will get more.
http://www.xitimonitor.com/en-us/browsers-barom...
(link from the 'article')
Another amazing fact, is that Safari for win32 has(d?) problems with national alphabets! Hello, Europe is a big market share too!?
Windows feels like the wild, wild West by comparison. I use Firefox on both systems. When you look at the iPhone you see the real Jobs, not think different but think like MS of old, one browser and total control of software/hardware. This little candy will sell well but the future is the phone that lets the customer choose how to interface. Jobs sees a future far more scary than his Keynote display. With the iPhone only using Safari he hopes for one platform, one phone, one MP3 player. I will not buy an iPhone for that reason alone.
Seriously, no one reading this post cares what browser Joe Commenter prefers. All the assertions that building the best browser will naturally result in becoming the leading browser by usage is not only beside the point, but clearly wrong by historical evidence. John is not freaking out because Apple is now a bigger competitor - quite to the contrary, he is encouraging the increase in browser options. John's point is clearly made in his post - please do the world a favour and read it before commenting.
The point concerns the picture painted by the two sector pie chart. It's a seriously tasteless portrayal that is worth discussing. Regardless of whether you're a fan of a particular browser, the two browser picture is a unfavourable result. Remember Netscape vs IE, when each browser started implementing browser-specific extensions? It was not a pretty scene. I suspect if Netscape had it's own OS foundation to leverage and promote, things would have been even uglier.
As for John's other point, the lack of appreciation for reality in the pie chart really is a concern. It really is a slap in the face for anyone who is, in software terms, pro-choice. The irony is that these people also form the passionate majority of Apple customers. People like John, and like me.
Apple didn't escape its near-death experience by complaining about Microsoft; it did it by producing superior products. If Mozilla were to produce a really superior browser, then I'd use it. As things stand, I don't believe that's the case.
(Hi John!)
I don't care who says what numbers are out there. I know from experience that every single friend I have uses Firefox on their home desktop and/or laptop. Many of my co-workers have switched to Firefox and I convert more every year.
Probably, Apple is able to reach some IE users which Firefox doesn't... If Safari is less worth than Firefox, you should not fear it.
Oh, and I use Safari because of its brilliant font rendering.
Webkit is going to have a 100% compatible presence on PCs Macs and iPhone, if Apple get their act together, which they have demonstrated they can do with iPod.
If Firefox doesn't get with that program, then they'll sure they'll be an open platform defending the rights of the brave and the free, but they won't be compatible with the apps that start appearing.
Webkit is the platform. Safari is just one application wrapper around it. In the same way that MSHTML is the browser engine, and Internet Explorer is just a crappy application around it.
This has nothing to do with Mom and Pop surfing MySpace and everything to do with real Web 2.0 capability
Aren't we tired yet of drinking this kool-aid? For sure I am.
If there are any browser that takes market share from Firefox, this is Opera! Opera 6 & 7 are the fastest browser with the lightest requirements, that i ever seen before... except lynx of course. ;)
But Firefox is an open source project, this is the main difference! Open source mean innovation, power, flexibility.
That's it in a nutshell. Ultimately, that's the prison that Apple and Microsoft builds and that Linux helps you escape from. It might be more comfortable sometimes to stay in prison, like when you want to open a .doc email attachment made in Word, or view something made with the most recent features of Flash, but ultimately it's a boring, one-dimensional (or two), anemic world.
Firefox has probably been the best example, so far, of how open source is the better way.
I'm an avid Safari and Firefox user and think that all these wars of words are silly. The good thing is that it does lead to better browsers. :-)
If it weren't for Firebug, it wouldn't be half as well adopted on the Mac platform.
Fix it, and maybe Mozilla will increase its share of the Mac market, not decrease it.
It is his method of simplifying a graphics he also had rename this 4/3 pie-chart element to "All Other Browsers"
But in the Apple comunity their is always this fight between
good (Apple) and evil (Microsoft)
I want a straight forward simple internet browser and that is where Safari comes in. Its simple, straight forward options although I would like a few more, but its simple and does what its made for surfing the internet.
Its not choked down by launch times, Profiles for a browser, or getting pested by embedded first launches by tabs opening or webpages opening to advertise its self. With Safari you can set your homepage and its set then even after upgrades.....Firefox you get pested and sent to a Mozilla webpage on every upgrade with any ways of stopping it.
I switched from Firefox to Safari when I moved to 10.4 and love the move I made expecially since Firefox 2.0 bloatware was released. Hopefully 3.0 will fix the issues I have with Firefox but I doubt that.
-Dan
jobs is so clever no one even understand what is he thinking.
he just released the safari for the windows to get the web developers aknowledge the browser as a web standard so that his iphone has no problem to access web pages all around the web
apple does not make any product if they dont profit unlike mr. gates
OS X is and has been a third-class citizen with regard to the Firefox platform, and as long as that remains the case, I welcome and encourage alternatives to Firefox on this unfavored platform, and if said choices migrate out more power to them.
Don't throw OS X users your leftovers from the windows port and then complain when Apple tires of it. Microsoft did it with IE, and you do it with Firefox. More power to them for putting some effort into their platform, and doing it with an open source core.
Also you showed a genuine lack of grace and culture by whining about how Steve views the world. You may be correct on Steve's view (and it may have been a marketing ploy) but if you and your Mozilla peers were more focused on just creating a fine product, you wouldn't have anything to worry about from Safari. People will choose the better product and if you aren't so afraid that Safrari is better, you sure didn't show it. Instead you sounded like a whiny little child.
Any PR exec worth their salt would have told you that you should have welcomed the increased diversity and talked about how you looked forward to the healthy competition Apple would provide for Mozilla and Microsoft. You could also have talked about how Apple is helping you spread the word about standards-compliant websites. You did mention it once or twice but in now way did you stress that. Instead you focused on whining about duopolies and how Apple is trying to take over the browser market. Or if you couldn't bring yourself to praise and welcome them, you should have kept your mouth shut. Our mothers were right when they said, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." Lilly, you should have heeded that advice.
-Aslam
P.S. All you really needed to say to both praise and smack them down while coming off as the leader that you are and showing a bit of class all at the same time was, "I praise Steve and Apple's bravery. Come on in, the water's warm."
P.P.S. You need your PR or Public Strategy people vetting your blog posts because in your position of authority you can't assume that this little sandbox doesn't have consequences.
I do not see, how Public Strategy people come to a private blog? If you want to live in a censured world (and web), move to China, and let everyone else the right of deliverance.
Also you showed a genuine lack of grace and culture by whining about how John views the world....
In the first chart Jobs displays the current breakdown of browser market-share. Then he explains that even if Apple could acquire *all* the browser marketshare on the Mac, they could only ever get the non-IE portion of the pie. This is what he intended to portray by the second chart. However, the second chart is a mistaken representation of his spoken point. If it were consistent with his speech it would still show a sliver of non-IE Windows-based browsers.
The intent of his speech and chart was to illustrate (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) that Apple can't get any further market-share without moving into the Windows application space.
So there was a conceptual glitch in the charts. Or you could say that while the second chart represented browser market-share on all platforms, the second chart represented Windows only.
Of course Apple neither expects nor wants to displace all other third-party browsers. Again, that was not the point of this part of Steve's presentation. He was merely saying that "even if Apple *could* gain all the non-IE mindshare out there, the pie chart would still be overwhelmingly dominated by IE" and for this point I think his charts were effective.
So John Lilly is misinterpreting and misrepresenting Steve's presentation in order to produce FUD. And I for one find this ironic considering the original reasons for the Mozilla Project to exist in the first place. Namely, to combat Microsoft's monopolization and FUD-spreading ways.
Has Mozilla become so caught up in its own projected insecurities that it now has to emulate Microsoft?
Apple's browser is not going to convert Windows users to the Mac line, and having used all three browsers, no one is going to switch to Safari as their main browser if they already use Firefox.
Roughly Drafted addresses your misunderstandings better than I can here so do yourself a favour and go read it.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07...
Cheers.
As a user of Safari on the Mac I can honestly say it has it's plus points and it's minus points like any browser.
It's support for JavaScript until this new beta was a little sparse and it didn't support SVG until this beta either. It also suffered a few memory leaks. But besides these it is an amazing browser. Font rendering is the closest to how the fonts were meant to display by their creators (even though they will look better in Leopard with it's resolution independance once higher resolution screens are produced), Photos with colour profles will display as intended for the first time. It's simple (not in your face interface which is functional but leaves plenty of real estate for the website to display in. All good points and can obviously make the competition squirm a little. (I aimed that one at IE by the way).
Now onto the charts. The first chart obviously is a close - best you can do - representation of US browser market share. These figures sort of exist but it's not really possible for them to be accurate. Installed base is the best way to represent browsers in the real world.
A pie chart is also not the best way to show how many installed copies of each browser are on people's computers. Real figures are not that clean. Many people have installed and regularly use more than one browser. As we all know, browsers have things they are good at and things they suck at. So in real terms the second chart might not actually represent Browser market share at all. Maybe it just represents the hopeful installed base for Safari and for comparison purposes the installed base of the current most widely used browser which unfortunately is IE.
So it shows around 20% of people hopefully evntually having Safari installed on their machines. And around 80% of people having IE installed (again just for comparitive reasons).
You see, Apple are about creating great products, stirring up the pot and waiting to see what happens. In contrast, Microsoft are about creating mediocre stuff, then using FUD and dodgy deals with vendors to kill all competition. That's why they are getting fined billions every year due to Anti-Trust lawsuits.
As far as Apple is concerned it's all about getting web developers to take Safari seriously and code for it so sites work well for all Mac users and the iPhone. If you think anything else then it's understandable paranoia but not really justified.
I suggest you ring Steve Jobs and ask him if he means to kill Firefox of if he views you as an ally in the war against IE. Then get him to explain his simple view of the browser world.
You need to remember that you have a link to Firefox on the OS X software downloads area of Apple's website. Would Microsoft do this on their site? I think not.
John, Firefox supports standards very well, so does Opera, so does Safari. IE on the other hand does not. If web developers eventually see that around 20% of people use Safari sometimes, 20% of people use Firefox sometimes, 15% use other browsers that support standards sometimes and 80% of people use IE sometimes they will have to code sites to take into consideration there are 50 - 60% of people (or more) using alternative (standards compliant) browsers to IE with it's suport for MS proprietary standards and shoddy support for standards it will signify a big move away from IE for users in general and hopefully start a potential rebellion among web developers (like me) to go for standards based only web development. Personally I can't wait to stop having to use conditional comments and a second stylesheet for IE. It will save me no end of lost earnings. This is good for Firefox, Apple (because of the iPhone), open source in general and especially good for web developers that care about the W3C and web standards and the progress of the Internet that Microsoft has forced to stagnate for so long with it's forced monopoly.
I can see why you might get a little paranoid though John as you have a lot invested in Firefox.
Remember John. For browser makers like you it's about the Google hits generating revenue. For developers it's about "painless markup and CSS" that's why so many idiots develop for IE. Because of the numbers of users. But for the end user, it's about being able to view websites on their computers, phones and other connected devices.
If Gecko and Webkit gain in market share then IE will lose market share.
I suggest you team up with Apple, consider Webkit as a possible project to join and use it or the next version of Firefox then you can help with the particular standards based stuff you are excellent at that the Webkit project might lack in and at the same time benefit from better font rendering, support for colour profiles in images, Better SVG integration etc. That way you could eat into IE's share of the pie between you. At the moment you have around 15% installed base. Joning with Apple may give you both 25 - 30% each. IE will be left with just the silly asses that rely on the flaky (security liability) of their Active-X riddled corporate intranets.
Think about it and seriously, Ring (or email) Steve Jobs.
That way you wouldn't know who it would displace which is more realistic anyway.
Just my 10 pennies worth. (I had my £100 worth on the last post).
"Safari on Windows is a collosal mistake for many reasons.
1. In one stroke Apple have removed the incentive for probably 80% of their prospective customers to purchase an Apple computer.
2. They’re not going to be able to compete with existing Windows based browsers.
3. Apple exists largely on hot air and myth making. By allowing consumers to substantially test their products without paying a sucker fee, Apple are putting their image at risk.
Bookmark this post:
Safari will flounder on Windows for a few years, then it will be quietly withdrawn."
This is so laughable Simon.
1. A prospective customer does not refrain from buying a Macbook or iMac because Safari is available on Windows! Safari does not make OSX, it is simply one of the many compelling features offered. The design and integration of both the hardware and software is what makes the mac a mac. Maybe I'll switch to Vista because of Safari :-)
2. Why not? Why is not conceivable that the engineers at Apple could write a piece software than can compete with IE. IE is trash, it's used primarily because it's a default. Tabs were only added last year and touted as a great new feature!!!
3. Do you use any Apple products? I thought iTunes was free? I struggle with the notion that any company could exist on "hot air" and "myth making" for this long. You certainly don't give Apple consumers any credit.
There is no guarantee Safari will succeed, based on the reasons you have given I see no reason why it would fail.
Sorry I had to reply to this even though its off topic.
To John's Post
All it does is highlight the difference in interpretation of this pie chart. The only fact is Firefox has a much greater share of the browser market than Safari.
I can see why Safari entering the market is such a concern for Firefox. Safari will be the default browser on the iPhone, so many users (10+ million by 09) will become accustomed to it and it's nuances. If we look at the number of Mac users total say 20 million (probably 30m by 09), an increase of this amount represents a significant jump in potential Safari users.
Of course not all Mac (desktop, laptop) users are Safari users, but all iPhone users will be.
iPhone exposure is what will drive Safari adoption, a pleasurably browsing experience on the phone will make it much easier to "sell" the browser to windows users. The fact that there is very little difference between the desktop and phone experience is where Apple will gain.
If the iPhone is half as successful as analysts believe, 100m Safari users is closer than we think.
hugs from brasil. :)
And i think that Steve Job should be using those anti-PC ads at all. Come on, who gave finanicial support to Apple when it was about to close down? Who promised to help Apple rise up again? Who???? It is none other than Microsoft! IT IS OUR FAVOURITE BILL GATES! Without his help, Apple and its iPod and Mac OS X would have never gone this far! I can still recall how ashamed Steve Jobs was when Microsoft stood up and support them financially. What a pity that Apple do not know how to appreciate Microsoft's help!
Apple cannot force people to use Safari. It's OUR choice to pick which browser we think best suit our needs. Lilly seems to have forgotten that.
Stop whining, John. If you can't, quit. You won't do Firefox and the community around it any good.
Chance that this was just SJ's slide designer making things up: 99%
Really, the existence of FireFox only helps Apple. No way do Apple want to damage that. You've read waaaaay to much into a single slide.
Great browser by the way! Considerably better than Safari ;)
But Apple likes business....
Here an interesting arcticle:
[i]The NeWS version of UniPress's Gosling Emacs text editor was the first commercially available product to pioneer the use of multiple tabbed windows in 1988. It was used to develop an authoring tool for the Ben Shneiderman's HyperTIES browser (the NeWS workstation version of The Interactive Encyclopedia System), in 1988.[2] HyperTIES also supported pie menus for managing windows and browsing hypermedia documents with PostScript applets. Don Hopkins developed and released several versions of tabbed window frames for the NeWS window system as free software, which the window manager applied to all NeWS applications, and enabled users to drag the tabs around to any edge of the window.[3]
Six years later, in 1994, BookLink Technologies featured tabbed windows in its InternetWorks browser. The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997. These were followed by a number of others like IBrowse in 1999, Opera in 2000 (with the release of version 4), Mozilla in 2001 (through the MultiZilla extension in April of 2001 and a built-in tabbed browsing mode added to Mozilla 0.9.5 in October of 2001), Konqueror 3.1 in January 2003, and Safari in 2003. As of 2006, most graphical web browsers support a tabbed interface, including Internet Explorer 7. Software, such as the freeware AM Browser, is also available to add a TDI around earlier versions of Internet Explorer. OmniWeb version 5, released August 2004, includes visual tabbed browsing which displays preview images of pages in a drawer to the left or right of the main browser window. Avant Browser, Maxthon and Slim Browser are some of the most popular tabbed browsers using Internet Explorer's rendering engine.[/i]
Personally I think Firefox is a great browser - gracias grande; whenever I use *IE or other* computers I download it for others and 7 times out of 10 it stays. I am surprised that there are so many sour-grape related comments here, kind of indicating that most of the people who read No Logo aren't spending much time in online discussions.