Mozilla Exec Claims Apple is Hunting OSS Browsers 539
Rob writes with a link to a Computer Business Review article on the negative impact Mozilla COO John Lilly sees Apple is having on Open Source. Lilly claims that Jobs' recent discussion of Safari on Windows is an attempt to create a duopoly of browsers (IE and Safari), with Firefox and the rest on the outside looking in. "The graph 'betrays the way that Apple, so often looks at the world,' Lilly said. 'But make no mistake: this wasn't a careless presentation, or an accidental omission of all the other browsers out there, or even a crummy marketing trick,' he said. 'Lots of words describe Steve and his Stevenotes, but 'careless' and 'accidental' do not. This is, essentially, the way they're thinking about the problem, and shows the users they want to pick up.'" We discussed an analyst's opinion on this subject this past Friday.
The shoe is on the other foot (Score:2, Funny)
In more ways than one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac's main selling point and or claim to fame is that it is easier to use than a Windows based PC. That means that the regular Mac buyer is someone who finds a Windows based PC too hard to use.
Why is ease of use only for computer illiterate people? Power users want ease-of-use too, so they can be more productive, and get more work done.
Anyway, how do you explain the vast proportion of Mac users who have been using their machines professionally in cutting-edge industries for years? Heck, for a long time, it was one of the few serious machines for digital imaging and publishing, because only Macs had Photoshop and coulor management. They are also popular in the scientific computing field. These
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S:
Such a person would not be the type to download and install Firefox on their own.
This also shows some ignorance. Not only is Firefox very popular on the Mac, the market for shareware and independent applications is much healthier on the Mac than on Windows. If anything, Mac users are much more avid downloaders of new and different software than the average Windows user. You can ask some software developers who started developing for the Mac after years of Windows development to testify to this. They usually find that their downloads of demos and trial versions skyrocket when they
Apple on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's asinine that two different users cannot each run iTunes at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a fucking travesty is what that is.
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Damn. I knew Slashdotters were hard up for female companionship, but this is over the top. Why don't you just stick to porn and wanking like the rest of us?
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't you just stick to porn and wanking like the rest of us?
Because it's not as fun and a lil Elton John and Moulin Rouge is worth having access to a sex partner?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
kashani
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because modern computers can easily handle multiple users, perhaps? Because I can set up one decent machine running Win2k3 and several cheap-ass XP boxes RD'ing into the decent one (I would ahave said "one decent Linux box and several diskless remote X servers, but considering iTunes' fabulous Linux support...)? Because I just want to, and don't really need a better reason?
So you can listen to two songs simultaneously?
A
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you have an older PowerMac, then right? Scully was more your cup of tea?
I've never seen this itunes error, and I use fast user switching all the time. On OSX it just simply works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps Apple could use something designed for multiple accesses and updates by different programs... like a database.
Seriously, everything's in a giant XML file? +1 to readability, but -5 to scalability.
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Same base reason why DRM sucks really. A company starts out and thinks up 5-10 ways that people are "allowed" to use something and shuts everything else off. Then they wonder what the hell is wrong when the masses start complaining that it's not doing what they need it to.
Mozilla execs (Score:2)
On not being #3 (Score:4, Insightful)
In computing, you can be successful as #2, but the #3 player usually loses out and disappears. (Remember Amiga? Commodore? DEC? Ask Jeeves?) If Apple wants their browser to have any commercial significance, they have to pass Firefox.
Re:On not being #3 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Competition (Score:3, Interesting)
I use FireFox on my MacBook. I wish it were a bit more stable at times. I like WebKit. Opera was nice, but not always us
Nothing to Worry About... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it was even that - it was more like trying to show the relative market shares of the two browsers, without complicating the chart by introducing other elements (Opera, Firefox, IceWeasel, Konq, Lynx, Links, etc ...).
In other words, this is a tempest in a teacup.
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
What Apple sells is a particular computing experience. To have people develop web apps for the iPhone they need the browser platform it runs on: Safari. So Safari on Windows lets non-Mac users develop iPhone applications (similar to OS X's Dashboard).
Apple does not care if only developers use Safari on Windows. As long as there's a lot of iPhone apps to download. Having people browse the web with Safari on Windows does nothing for Apple's bottom line. But as a development platform it's critical to their latest product.
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's marketing was always extreme, and that is their style for as long as Jobs is on top.
This achieves few things:
- The core of Mac users become even more devoted to the Apple brand (it's sort of like a cult, it doesn't matter sometimes Jobs says ridiculous things).
- The rest of the world sees Apple as arrogant, sometimes foolish, but always and always interesting nonetheless.
- Which on the other hand makes Apple a great news material, and gains it a huge media coverage.
So the bottomline: they're doing what they have to, to survive. The "reality distortion field" of Jobs isn't a myth - it's very real, and the guy's doing it to get the exact effects he gets.
Apple always tries to create its own bubble where it competes with mythical collective enemies such as "The PC", "Microsoft", "The rest of the Phones", "The rest of the browsers". To support this bubble, you need the extreme kind of marketing Jobs does, otherwise it falls a apart and Apple will have to compete in the real market like any other company.
Jobs uses bubbles in his own company as well. Many people know that he would separate his employees in "buubles" and let them "fight" each other (in their work) to full exhaustion (such was the case with Apple II and Lisa teams). The other team is the enemy, and you gotta do everything humanly possible to support your own bubble.
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean by extreme? It's always seemed fairly sedate and understated to me, with the exception of the raucous iPod ads. Remember the Mac ads when Jobs came back? They were all elegant, and barely even dared to "sell" the products - they were mostly just sparse shots of the product on a white background, with little elaboration.
I think the marketing of Microsoft and Dell are much more extreme. The Windows Vista ad is ridiculous - as if people actually say "Wow!" at a new version of Windows. Or there's the Microsoft ads that talk about how they empower people to conquer the universe. Or the Dell ads, with their SUPER COOL!! CHEAP!! BUY NOW!!! AMAZING FEATURES!!!!
All of those examples seem much more extreme that the comparatively quiet and friendly Apple advertising.
Why should it matter? I use Apple products because they work well. Should I use something different just because Jobs occassionally puts his foot in his mouth? I don't understand why anyone would choose a computer or software based on the personality of the CEO, rather than the usefulness of the hardware and software.
Geeee, that's all a fabrication. It's not like Dell or Microsoft have ever acted antagonistically towards Apple, or "declared war" on them. Oh wait, they have. The other players have just as much, or more, of a problem with this mentality than Apple. Just look at all the big-noting over companies trying to create an "iPod killer," for example. If anything, Apple is happy surviving alongside the other players, where the likes of Microsoft and Dell aren't happy until they crush all the competition. To them, being in second place means losing. Apple's definition of victory is totally different.
I have a MBP... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you meant Mail(.app). In that case, I'd have to rate your opinion-making skills as "weak". Mail is way better than Thunderbird. It has everything T-bird has, but with polish and proper system integration. And a handy "bounce message" function that essentially tells automated spam systems to sod off. Thunderbird still has a ways to go before it's at the level of flexibility and polish of F
1996 called (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ever use Mail.app for IMAP? For multiple IMAP accounts? If you didn't have problems with IMAP you are lucky.
I've used Mail.app for a while with IMAP. There were workarounds I had to do to get it to work with 1 account and that was problematic enough even after the workaround. With 2 accounts it was unusable.
I switched back to Thunderbird as well, at least it has working
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
Film at 11.
Film at 11? (Score:3, Funny)
Comparing to the market leader (Score:2)
Get over it, take close to 50% marketshare, and then you'll be in the comparison.
It's really all pretty pointless, though, because I don't think the point of Safari on Windows is really to gain mar
Imminent Death of FireFox Predicted. JPGs at 11. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Imminent Death of FireFox Predicted. JPGs at 11 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Imminent Death of FireFox Predicted. JPGs at 11 (Score:2)
And this is valid how?
CC.
Re:Imminent Death of FireFox Predicted. JPGs at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay nobody seems to have picked up on the obvious flaw with this statistic - the w3school's site (from which the data on which this prediction was based) is a (poor imho) web developer's resource. Naturally with an audience that has an intrinsic interest in browsers and standards Firefox (and other alternative browsers) it will show up in statistics generated disproportionately to it's actual usage in the general public, it also explains the adoption rate of IE7 being very high. These statistics are useles
Apple is Hunting OSS Browsers (Score:4, Funny)
Unfounded (Score:3, Informative)
The exec also highlighted Mozilla's attitude about market share: "We've never ever at Mozilla said that we care about Firefox market share at the expense of our more important goal: to keep the web open and a public resource,"
I don't see how Safari and IE will be causing problems. The nature of the web/internet is that it's open (except in extreme cases, of course). If Apple/MS does something nasty, the community will cry foul and move to an alternative, or make one themselves. Isn't that how mozilla got started?
Personally, I'm more worried about careless legislation and government regulation, and politicians who may still refer to the web as the Information Superhighway. yeah, I'd trust those guys to be in charge
Who gives a shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet (Score:2)
Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember: more competition is always a good thing.
By the way, Safari isn't even the best browser on OS X (that honour goes to Camino) so I really can't see how it will have much impact on Windows.
Well this should be fun (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Linux and Microsoft fanboys want to join me in the Asbestos Lounge, the popcorn and beer are on me.
The deadliest game! (Score:2)
Shhhh... be werry werry quiet... im hunting bwowsers
It's the simplicity, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS/TFA make a critical logical error. They state that nothing Jobs does in these presentations is accidental, because we all know how meticulously planned they are. Therefore, if nothing is accidental, then the omission must be a sign of Apple's malevolence toward open source. QED!
Bullshit. The graph doesn't necessarily 'betray the way Apple looks at the world', it betrays they way apple wants the shareholders, newspapermen and fans to look at the world. Their ongoing conceit (diff than deceit) has always (From the late 90's on) been, we are competing against this giant monopoly, here we are, the valiant underdogs. True or not, this is the image (RDF) that has been provided. Apple's recent success may cause people to forget this, to assume that the marketing message is different now. An assumtpion like that would have to come butressed with facts, not shoddy logic.
Does this mean that Apples wants to make nie with open source, or acknowledge the contributions of open source, etc? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that a graph is really a coded browser battle plan to get rid of FF. Apple would be perfectly happy competing for a plurality in browser market share, especially if it meant that users would/could be intimately familiar w/ the iphone interface out of the gate.
Negative? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like a decade of free positive publicity.
Mozilla can take the competition. If it can't it shouldn't be in the game.
Are we supposed to feel bad for Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox has managed to get a 25% marketshare against Microsoft, on their own OS. Hell, I'm typing this from Firefox on a Mac right now, because I like the addons. If Safari is trying to "edge out" Firefox, they just need to make sure Firefox is a significantly better browser. If it's not, well, you can hardly blame Apple for making a better product.
No, not really. (Score:4, Informative)
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's main target by releasing Safari on Windows is Internet Explorer; they want to basically get newbies who have tried iTunes or have iPods and liked it, and might be willing to try other Apple stuff. They aren't going after Firefox users, so a comparison of Safari v IE v Firefox makes no sense. Hell, why not include Opera as well, and OmniWeb, and Lynx! It'll be one confusing motherfucker of a pie chart, but by god Norwegians, both the people using OmniWeb and text-mode fetishists need representation too!
To me, this smacks of "Yoo hoo! Over here! Firefox still exists! Yes! Wooooo! Give us publicity too!". And he's somehow extrapolated a simple omission from a pie chart into a hatred of open source software in general. Very nice.
(Not that I think Safari for Windows is there yet, it's nice but not wonderful. I still use Firefox if I'm use Windows, but prefer Safari under OSX.)
They are going somewhere else (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, didn't know FireFox was ONLY competing w/IE (Score:5, Insightful)
The more competition, the better, I say! May the best man win, and all that. I didn't realize Firefox was being strictly worked on as a project with a goal of defeating IE, and no other players were ever supposed to "interfere" with that mission!?
This isn't even a scenario that's real comparable to iTunes - despite that getting thrown around as a comparison. With iTunes, Apple was releasing it as a vehicle to sell music on their store. In that regard, the whole thing was a commercial venture - and it simply made sense to allow the vast number of Windows users a "front end" to be able to purchase Apple's music, instead of keeping it just for the 5-7% of the marketplace that uses Macs.
With Safari, on the other hand, it may become useful or required as a development tool aiding in building apps for the iPhone
who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called competition. (Score:4, Insightful)
I use OSS because I like the way it works. If it doesn't work well enough, I use something else. Firefox isn't going to stay my browser of choice if there is something out there that does the job better.
Now I'm not really fond of Safari, but if it runs fast, loads fast, doesn't hog system memory, I'm going to start using it. End of fricking story.
The Geek Came First (Score:3, Insightful)
Geeks spawned the Firefox movement and they will support it as long as it is the best.
Darwinism (Score:4, Insightful)
But the good news is, Mozilla can survive, and it will, if it is good enough to compete against Safari and IE and Opera (and whoever else wants to toss their hat into the ring.) And presently, it is that good. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. And if and when it does, I'll gladly adopt whatever the best browser is on that day, just as I've ditched Netscape 1.x through 4.7, IE 3 through 6, and all the rest I've tried over the years. Right now I like Firefox.
Oh come off it! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's it. There's no story. Safari on Windows doesn't hurt anyone except maybe Microsoft. Just because Jobs didn't take time out of his keynote to stroke the collective Firefox ego does not mean Apple is "hunting" Mozilla.
The exec also highlighted Mozilla's attitude about market share: "We've never ever at Mozilla said that we care about Firefox market share at the expense of our more important goal: to keep the web open and a public resource," he said.
The subtext being that Apple somehow is contrary to this. As if releasing a browser (based on an open source rendering engine) which actually has better adherence to standards than Mozilla browsers is going to make the web less open and public. Sorry folks, but that is a dead end.
Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
What Apple brings to the table is competition. Opera gave up on Windows and is busy in the embedded market. Konqueror is great, going nowhere in the Windows world. IE 7 showed the world that the IE team still have their heads up their butts, so without another great browser on Windows there's no serious competition for the Firefox team, and thus nothing to keep them from going the way of Mozilla. Now that Firefox actually has a decent browser with a big name behind it to compete with, maybe we'll see Firefox development focus on fixing bugs quickly, becoming Acid2 compliant, etc.
OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway - how is Safari-the-WebKit-engine worse than Firefox-the-Gecko-engine? If anything I'd like to see more standards compatible browsers and then there's a chance we can defeat evil MSIE. Gecko-is-the-standard did not play well last time when Netscape gone under and Microsoft won the first browser war, right?
It's NOT about domination! (Score:3, Insightful)
By releasing Safari for Windows, Apple is investing in Safari's relevance. The smart Windows users have it easy: run FF most of the time, until you come across a really dumb or poorly-authored website, then just use IE when you really need to load that page. Mac users don't really have that option. If it doesn't render properly in Camino/Firefox, try it in Safari - if that doesn't work, maybe try OmniWeb, but chances are you just aren't gonna view that site on a Mac.
Apple doesn't make money from Safari. It was developed for OS X because its then-default browser, IE, sucked. And they based Safari on KHTML, an open-source engine totally separate from Mozilla's. This is great stuff! Two separate OSS teams coding for standards-compliant browsing!
But back to my original point about relevance: I still have the Tiger version of Safari, but I mainly use Camino because it seems to generally be a bit zippier, and it works with the new Yahoo! mail UI while Safari doesn't.
--- what??? you heard me right - a major web player like Yahoo! is developing web apps and putting more priority on Gecko than OS X's, and iPhone's, default browser. Sure, Firefox has more marketshare than Safari, but for iPhone users who can't change their browser, and for OS X users who are not inclined to change their browser, this is a huge problem that undermines the value of Apple's products.
Apple's strategy: push Safari out to everybody who might be downloading iTunes. Include it on CD with every iPod sold. Make it install on Windows by default unless the user unchecks a box. Suddenly, Safari is in the hands of zillions of Windows users, and companies like Yahoo! take notice: "We'd better make our apps work with Safari!"
Mozilla should not feel threatened, excepting that Firefox will now have to compete on its merits, instead of just being "the alternative browser". Users who have installed Firefox on Windows already know how to choose their own browser, and they won't go to Safari without a reason.
Lilly's comments are ABSOLUTELY sour grapes, because he doesn't want to compete with another free (as in beer) product. When he sayd that the web is owned by people and not companies, he fails to mention that Safari's web rendering component is standards-compliant and open-source.
So, to summarize:
- Apple NEEDS Safari to be recognized as a major browser.
- Safari will likely continue what Firefox has been doing: chipping away at IE's dominance.
- Those who have switched from IE will choose between Safari/Firefox (and KHTML/Gecko) based on product merits. Plus some people will just use Safari because iTunes told them to.
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has this decidedly anti-free thing going on. The best offence for Apple at this time would be to show how many free projects like apache, samba, BSD, KHTML they are involved in.. or share interoperability of open standards. Instead Apple is totally sile
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree that Apple are lacking in their support for open source - Apple run their projects as open source when available (you can't open source company secrets and as a result they don't open those older projects to the community). They also use open source throughout their operating system. (http://www.apple.com/opensource/) details some of their open source efforts in osx. Whether directed by apple or otherwise. Apple have also been disproportionately light on litigious affairs with open source vendors. Particularly important when you consider that the expose feature in OS X is actually patented by Apple. (Despite this many enjoy it in ubuntu and other xgl implementations.)
Turning a blind eye and only engaging in litigation where contracts with partners (usually the music industry) require them to do so is an often unrecognised merit to the company's management.
http://www.macosforge.org/ lists many of the bigger apple led open source projects.
Also including all the standards compliant browsers on the slide isn't a good idea for a whole world of obvious reasons. (It's not got much to do with a need for being in the limelight.. it was an apple developer conference, apple -is- in the limelight there.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Apple can open source any of their own IP they want to. They just don't want to.
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Funny)
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Not about market share (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA. They don't want the market share. They want to keep the web open, as stated in the Mozilla Manifesto [mozilla.org].
Anyway, they do have the market share. Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve. It will also help web developers realize they can't develop for only one or two browsers, but instead should develop according to standards unless they want to turn away significant fractions of visitors. I see only good coming out of the release, regardless of what Jobs' intentions are.
Re:Not about market share (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm reasonably certain that there are more Firefox users on Windows than there are Apple OSX users, period. That's not meant as a slam against Apple, but I don't think Firefox has too much to worry about. I think Safari on Windows will likely be used mainly by developers looking who want to be able to test web pages on Safari without using a Mac...
Re:Not about market share (Score:5, Informative)
Then what are they crying about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Safari rigorously follows the standards, helping keep the web open for all standards-based browsers. Mozilla should be thanking them.
Re: (Score:3)
while I agree that the grandparent poster probably should have read the whole article, dosnt it seem kind of strange to be saying that you are happy that apple is releasing the brower on the one hand and complaining that they might be trying to take out your market share on the other hand?
Frankly I think this whole thing is paranoia. Just because jobs only chose to talk about IE (the predominant browser on windows) in his talk and on his slide, does not indicate that he is "hunting" OSS Browsers.
Re:Not about market share (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if Safari doesn't improve *significantly*. Right now, Safari has been widely reviewed as crap-ola on Windows. Just releasing a browser doesn't mean that it's going to become a standard. If nobody ends up using it, then Safari won't have any impact at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. More elegant UI (I admit, this is mostly preference. Firefox isn't bad, and *much* better on Windows at this point. Safari needs a lot of UI work on Windows.)
2. The Google search bar (now the Google or Yahoo! search bar). Yes, Firefox has a search bar that supports more browsers, but it doesn't have a drop down list with my previous searches.
3. Close buttons for each tab in each tab (yes, I know Firefox finally got on board with this in v2.0)
4. In
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not terribly useful, though, because auto-complete is faster -- and Firefox's autocomplete also takes advantage of Google's suggestions feature to show me a list of searches I haven't even made yet. (Maybe Safari's does too... I haven't tried it, because Apple hasn't released a version that will work on any of the operating systems I use.)What's the point? If I want to close a tab, I middle-click on it, which is the default behaviour in Firefox. It's more convenient, because I don't have to hit a tiny close button, I can aim for anywhere on the tab. It's safer, because when I just want to select a tab, I can click anywhere on it with the left button, and not risk accidentally closing it. And it leaves more room on the tab for the name of the site.
Hey, it's not my fault if you bought a computer that only came with a one or two button mouse.
That said, I'd use Safari as well if I could - some sites don't work properly in Firefox, and Konqueror is painful to use. Sadly, Apple haven't released a Linux Safari, so I don't have that option.
Re:Um... what? (Score:5, Informative)
So you're not Apple's target audience for Safari on Windows anyway.
what part of this picture [flickr.com] and this picture [flickr.com] is everyone having such a hard time comprehending? Apple's target audience, is all the users that don't use IE. Steve Jobs has clearly shown this.
Here's what I'm referencing. [jubjubs.net] Jobs says: "Well we dream big. We would love for Safari's marketshare to grow substantially. That's what we'd love." Steve Jobs doesn't just want Safari available so people can test their websites quickly at their same Windows box, he want's all of the market share from Opera/Firefox/etc. If his graph would've shown market share eaten up from IE there wouldn't even be these discussions going on, but instead what we see is an inside look into Steve's view on how he wants the market to change.
Really very good catch ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Mac but "superior" is a matter of opinion. Apple is introducing another browser to Windows. Like Firefox and Opera, it has better standards compliance that IE. I see this as a good thing or all browsers. If Safari can take more of IE's share, it may force companies to code to standards instead of IE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As Microsoft's shown, best way to introduce a user to a new program is to force it on them...
Re:Um... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I specifically downloaded Quicktime *without* iTunes, because quite frankly, I don't want iTunes. When there's an update for Quicktime, the updater pre-checks iTunes for download and installation. The same thing happened when I updated Safari.
I suspect that in the future, any updates for iTunes or Quicktime for Windows users will also contain the pre-checked box for Safari as well.
It's just a checkbox, but the default action of most users is to just keep clicking next until the funny little window is gone.
To me, it's underhanded.
Re:Um... what? (Score:5, Funny)
Knock down drag out no holds barred browser war, np.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Every time I point out Apple's brutally monopolistic worldview, my posts get modded down.
Yeah, you'd think a person who doesn't know what a monopoly is would be modded up when making comments about them, huh?
Down with FOSS!! Long live Apple!!
Umm, Apple is a FOSS contributor. Webkit (the engine behind Safari) is LGPL and Apple is one of the largest contributors.
No wonder the only way you get modded up is as "funny" your opinions are a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes Apple is high cost and other times it's actually lower than its competition. It really depends on the machine and softwa
Re:what Apple/Jobs should do is: (Score:4, Informative)
So apple spends no time/money, opens a new source of google search bar revenue, AND gets a wider iphone "sdk"
Safari on windows was a success before Jobs announced it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm...it is open source...well sorta.... (Score:2, Informative)
"Safari uses open source software -- for its web page rendering engine, Safari draws on KHTML and KJS software from the KDE open source project. Being a good open source citizen, Apple shares its enhancements with the open source community"
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantry is fun (Score:3, Funny)
Technically that wouldn't be a Darwin Award, as they hadn't done anything particularly stupid to get themselves killed, they'd explicitly set out to kill themselves.
(Sorry.)
(No, really... sorry.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it was Safari. Take it from someone who followed Acid2 from the time it was announced. Even this list of Acid2 in major browsers [howtocreate.co.uk], made by an Opera employee, credits Safari with making it there first.
The scrollbar controversy you're thinking of was with Konqueror and in iCab. Safari developers (well, mainly