Safari for Windows?

serpicolugnut

serpicolugnut

OS X Supreme Being
The rumor has started...

So, what do you think?

Keep in mind that by bringing iTunes to Windows (and the iTunes Music Store), Apple will have to make webcore windows compatible (KHTML is platform independent, so it's not a huge deal). But in doing this, Apple will have already brought a good bit of Safari's core technology to the Windows platform... Why not go the extra mile and bring the whole application?

I think it would be a great thing. A quality, fast, standards compliant browser available for both Mac and Windows (and maybe Linux too?) will only increase Apple's browser market share, and make life easier for Mac Safari users.

There is no downside, I believe, to current Mac users as Safari isn't so much a "mac only" advantage, like the iApps are.
 
Ugh, who would want it?
Really though, for the infrequent times that I must use my Dad's PC, it would be cool!
 
The best Apple can hope for is about 3% marketshare with Safari. Even that is unattainable, as out of the 3% of computers that are Macs, less than half are OS X/Safari capable.

So, immediately, Safari is bumping it's head against a glass ceiling. For Apple to sway website developers (non Mac heads) to support it, they have to show that it's worth their effort. Many web developers don't waste their time with Mac users. They view the entire Mac market as too small to worry about.

However, with a Windows port of Safari, Apple could almost instantly double Safari's user base. The best estimate puts IE for Win at about 90% usage, with the other 10% using various flavors of NS or Opera. Realistically, most of the people in the 90% camp will never bother switching from IE for Windows so long as it comes bundled. But out of that other 10%, Apple could easily trump NS and Opera to become the second biggest browser developer.

Apple could derrive income from a Safari for Windows by partnering with Google. Google is worried right now about Microsoft launching their own Google like search engine. Having Apple as an ally and a browser with Google set as the default serach engine (from the toolbar, of course) would be in Googles interest.
 
i don't think porting Safari to windows will be as successful as porting iTunes. iTunes obviously has major advantages over Safari. Safari has no real benefit to Windows users. Most will argue about speed and other features the IE lacks, but the reality is that most will not switch to use Safari, when IE is all they have ever used.

iTunes, however, will be well accepted. It gives Windows users a major reason to use it.

Until Safari proves it can make money for you and pay your bills, it will have no benefit to Windows users.

peace.
 
Originally posted by huck
i don't think porting Safari to windows will be as successful as porting iTunes. iTunes obviously has major advantages over Safari. Safari has no real benefit to Windows users. Most will argue about speed and other features the IE lacks, but the reality is that most will not switch to use Safari, when IE is all they have ever used.

iTunes, however, will be well accepted. It gives Windows users a major reason to use it.

Until Safari proves it can make money for you and pay your bills, it will have no benefit to Windows users.

peace.
Click to expand...

Actually it will matter on the speed of Safari Vs. the speed of IE for Windows. Netscape isnt used that much because the browser speed is much slower than IE when you are using Windows. And the eye candy isnt much to be proud of either with Netscape, website's look much better if you view it through IE in Windows. As for Opera, I'm not sure I've never used it and I probably. I'll be more than happy to port on over to Safari if the speed is either the same or faster than IE.
 
Originally posted by boneske
Actually it will matter on the speed of Safari Vs. the speed of IE for Windows. Netscape isnt used that much because the browser speed is much slower than IE when you are using Windows. And the eye candy isnt much to be proud of either with Netscape, website's look much better if you view it through IE in Windows. As for Opera, I'm not sure I've never used it and I probably. I'll be more than happy to port on over to Safari if the speed is either the same or faster than IE.
Click to expand...

I hear people say the speed thing all the time. I don't understand it - I haven't been able to find any difference in the speed or responsiveness of Netscape (or Mozilla, in my case) vs. Internet Explorer 5/5.5/6 in Windows. I do notice differences in launch time, but I tend not to hold this against Mozilla since it's only slow once (subsequent launches are never slow for me, though I rarely close it), and I know they're not trying to embed Moz into the OS...

I don't know what you mean by "eye candy", but the number of sites that I notice that are displayed/act differently for me is well below 1% - certainly fewer than the ones I see act different in Safari (especially) or Camino. Usually it's that things don't work because I have popup blocking on or they've written some silly JavaScript that doesn't work well in IE, let alone a browser that supports standards...

Every so often I try IE again, then realize why I started using Moz in the first place - POPUPS. I can't stand it. My life has become so popup-free I forget what it was like before. That and tabbed browsing (use all the time) and superior just-about everything else, except plugin delivery...

Rip
 
I think that site compatibility is going to be the biggest issue. I still use Mozilla on OSX because some sites just won't work right (or look terrible) using Safari. On the Mac, you can get away with it, on Windoze you'll get nailed big time. People will try it once, and the first website they go to that doesn't work properly, they'll go back to their old browser.

The main thing Apple has going for it is it's name. People will try it just because it's an Apple product, but name alone won't carry it through since Windoze has plenty of other good browsers to choose from. I use Opera and Mozilla on Win2K and that gets me through almost everything (just a couple of weird sites, I fire up IE maybe once a quarter or so).

I don't know if it would be a big enough payoff for Apple. They would have to sink more development/support money into a Windoze version, and i don't know if it would worthwhile for them to launch a standalone browser. So there is a risk involved due to this extra expense without having that much payoff. Say Safari does capture 10% of the Windoze browser market, so what? That equates into zero revenue. Unless they have bigger plans to get into the Windoze software market (which has it's own issues), it's hard to see what they've gained (feel free to whop me with the clue stick if I'm missing something obvious here). Remember, M$ uses IE as a tool for desktop domination and to leverage vendors (software, hardware, and web sites). I don't see Apple being able to wield Safari in the same manner and thus deriving benefit.
 
Many users (Mac and Windoze) don't even know there are alternative browsers, so Apple is unlikely to reach the majority of Windoze users. Besides, both Safari and iTunes face stiff competition from M$'s products, so neither is likely to fare very well on Windoze.
 
OK, I'm going to whop you with the clue stick ;)
While it won't get Apple any revenue directly, it will give them Brand Name Recognition. People have heard of Apple, so if they see an Apple product for free download and it works on their Dell, then they will probably download it to see how we Mac users live.
If people download and like Safari, then they will think "Hey Safari is cool" and the next time their Dell ***** up, then they will say "Safari has never crashed, Apple's computers are supposed to be really good, I think I'll buy one and find out."
$2000 easily made for Apple.
Or maybe they need a new computer. They might think "Well, if Safari is so good, Apple probably makes good computers, I think I'll try one!"
Bingo, $2000 for Apple!
Or they might think "Safari is good, I wonder what [insert iApp name here] is like. Oooops, I'll need an iMac for that, I better go get one!"
$2000 for Apple again!
Same thing with anything Apple ports for Windows: Quicktime (already done), iTunes (this would be a super move, especially with that Music Store thingy), and maybe even iPhoto.
If Apple ports all of them, that could be a problem, but if they only do a select few, that would be a cool Switching technique.
On the other hand, it would be nice for us Apple users to be able to use a real browser when we are forced to use a PC.
 
All I have to say about Safari on Windows is "bah".

What possible strategic value does it have for Apple? It doesn't directly generate revenue (it's free). It doesn't indirectly help generate revenue (unlike, say, iTunes). Safari has no features that differentiate it from other browsers - its whole existance owes to the sad state of web browsers in OS X, and Apple's frustration with other browser vendors (and Apple's increasing "not developed here..." attitude). It doesn't help Apple increase market share, or insert technology into the Windows platform that would leverage or enhance Apple's Mac position (or position of any other product).

The web browser market is already over-saturated, especially in the Windows world. Spending the resources to port over Safari would be stupid.

This thread is silly and should be killed.

Rip
 
Ripcord: you evidently didn't read my post. While I actually agree with you, lets look on the Positive side of things, shall we? ;)
 
Originally posted by dlloyd
OK, I'm going to whop you with the clue stick ;)
While it won't get Apple any revenue directly, it will give them Brand Name Recognition. People have heard of Apple, so if they see an Apple product for free download and it works on their Dell, then they will probably download it to see how we Mac users live.
If people download and like Safari, then they will think "Hey Safari is cool" and the next time their Dell ***** up, then they will say "Safari has never crashed, Apple's computers are supposed to be really good, I think I'll buy one and find out."
$2000 easily made for Apple.
...
Click to expand...

I understand your logic, I just don't agree with it. Apple already is generally known as having superior hardware and software. Where they keep getting beat down is over price and market share (hardware/software support, FUD over long term viability, etc). I just don't think having a "nice" browser to going to get someone over that hump (well maybe a few someones, but certainly not enough to warrant the expense). After all, when they walk into Frys or CompUSA and the salesman says, well you can still have Safari on this $800 2.5ghz Dell (including 17" lcd) or you can spend $800 for a 800Mhz crt based eMac (or $1800 on a 1Ghz 17" iMac), the consumer will be hung up, as they always are, on the bottom line and dazzled by numbers. The sales person will demo the photo editing, movie editing, and cd ripping/copying software on the Dell (and yes, once they're installed and configured they are fairly easy to use) and say "see, you can do that too" and then "and if you really want firewire, we'd be more than happy to add that for an additional $100 ($5 their cost) and you're still ahead". Like it or not, that's how the average conversation goes.
 
Originally posted by dlloyd
Ripcord: you evidently didn't read my post. While I actually agree with you, lets look on the Positive side of things, shall we? ;)
Click to expand...

dlloyd,

Your message showed up while I was writing mine, so my post was in no way directed to you =)

However, after reading it, I don't agree with your post at all. =)

I'm not going to start by arguing that Apple doesn't need "Brand name recognition", at least not like this, but even if it did, that Safari isn't the place to do it. If Apple is trying to build a rock-solid app to wow over the general public, Safari won't be it. As I said, Safari doesn't differentiate itself at ALL (where is the innovation???), and will be buggy (prediction) and incompatible with sites, even if it is 100% standards-compliant (since a large # of website developers DON'T build sites to be 100% standards-compliant). It's silly to think that anyone will say "wow, Safari is fast. That must mean Macs are cool. I'll drop $2k to see if they are!".

Quicktime for Windows, on the doesn't serve as "brand-name recognition" (which I can only interpret as meaning "Advertising the Apple brand") either. It's a necessary evil to allow Apple to deliver its Quicktime format (and the products that generate and deliver it) to the masses (you know, the other 95%). Without Quicktime for Windows, webcasters wouldn't be buying Xserves and Quicktime Streaming Server to deliver videos.

Itunes for Win enables the Apple Music store to the masses. Ipod for Windows enables apple to sell Ipod to the masses.

Safari has no underlying Apple technology that it's enabling, and absolutely NO good business reason to invest the resources in porting it (and Apple doesn't have a lot of spare developers lying around to work on pointless projects, they have more important things to worry about). Instead, we already have 11 posts in a thread about it with silly business cases for the product because some French rumor site says that it got an email from someone saying they think it might happen someday.

I'll concentrate on the positives - Itunes for Windows will be very cool, a shot in the arm for Apple and let me play my music on my non-Mac PCs =)

Let me say again - if any apps are going to be ported, it's not going to be Safari. That'd be as pointless as porting "Mail". Instead, I might expect to see iChat, Apple Remote Desktop client, etc. I don't expect to see many of these ported because Apple likes to lock you into the Mac platform, and provide as many "incentives" as they can to go Mac (which would be eroded if they started porting their best apps to Windows). I don't expect to see apps like iPhoto ever appearing either, even for a cost - Apple isn't an application development house, and they're not going to build products simply to selll to the masses. There's always a larger strategy involved.

Rip
 
Ripcord and binaryDigit: I personally think it is very unlikely that Apple will port Safari, so I guess in a way I disagree with myself. :) I was just trying to give one possibility on how things might work out if Apple were to do so :)
 
hahahaha pretty cool
i KNEW itunes was coming for windows! i made about 3 threads over the past couple of years about it.
That's weird....... maybe iLife windows is around the corner...
 
when safari catches up and releases 1.0 and subsequent 2 and 3 editions, it will be the 2nd best browser by far. Arguably the first.

macintosh ambassador as well
 
iTunes for Windows can use the IE API of Windows. No need for their own browser.
 
iTunes for Windows can use the IE API of Windows. No need for their own browser.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But by using the IE API in iTunes for Windows, Apple will be kow-towing to Microsoft "interpertation" of web standards. Also, I doubt Apple wants to rely on anything Microsoft, as Microsoft will be a serious competitor to the iTMS.

So while it is definitely possible for Apple to use the IE API for iTunes/Windows, it's highly unlikely...
 
Safari for Windows will never happen. End of story. Mark your calendars, May 26, 2003, Mindbend said it matter-of-factly...not going to happen.
 
My opinion on this as well as iTunes is one/two less reasons to switch to a Mac.. instead of bringing iTunes they should just make a Windows client you can download the music through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top