-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Why not public domain?
- I disagree here on one thing it's not malware it's a browser and a very useful one at that. i actually prefer it over firefox any day in my opinion it would not bother me one bit if it took...
- Huckle rules! I was a big fan of the Richard Scarry books as a kid...now that I'm a parent it's interesting to see how the world of Busy Town is still so similar to ours in some ways, yet...
- never been to tokyo, i guess you had a good time there Maybe posting some pics or something Anyways, best of luck, I love your blog Cheers
- wonderfull book, got the chance to read it a little, its splendid
Jump to original thread »
Steve Job’s keynote at WWDC this year inspired some and was disappointing to others — but, as usual, it was interesting & entertaining. I’ve always liked Apple’s products, and spend an embarrassing amount of my own money on them. So I&%
... Continue reading »
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
To learn that Apple's goal is entirely antithetical to that is sad, and a bit disturbing.
1 year ago
1 year ago
War Firefox going above 25%
1 year ago
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. :-)
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Perhaps someone can explain the importance of this to me.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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!"
1 year ago
Look at his track record and you'll see that I'm right.
Stop looking for things that obviously aren't there.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Sounds like a sour-grapes piece to me.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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".
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
What's the problem? Competition? The one who makes the better browser wins.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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)
1 year ago
I live in Barbados
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
More of a declaration of war than the "Get a Mac" ads, where the PC is a clown?
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
If the choice was 'would I rather offend Mozilla or Microsoft?' I know I would 9 times out of 10 pick on Mozilla. Sorry.
1 year ago
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 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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?
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
mike
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
I sincerely doubt Apple is after FireFox and Opera etc.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago