Another reason for offering Safarin on Windows, as suggested by the gang at TWiT.tv, is the revenue from the Google search box - a nice deal that has worked well for Firefox.

Interesting, and quite probably correct. If iPhone sells well, ATT will pretty much belly up to anything else Apple sells. That's the ATT way.

Interesting take on the Safari annoucement, Bob. Reading between the lines, you think that Safari will tie in to the Web Services that AT&T will provide. Are you implying that Safari will have special functionallity that only works with AT&T web services? Why not use open standards that will be supported by Firefox and IE (although not as well...)

I am also always surpised by the tone that anonymity encourages. Don't people realise that other people (with feelings) read messages that they send to support email? They are usually very nice (and surprised!) when you call them back!

Another advantage of the web based programming of the iPhone is that of using open standards. Suddenly you tap into the existing developer base instead of pushing a new set of technologies, platform, SDKs, programming language. My understanding is that the current state of development on phones is rather dismal. There are few standards.

This also matches well with Google's philosophy on development (Schmidt's on their board). Don't swim upstream. Go with the forces of the web.

I think Safari for Windows makes it easier for web developers on the PC to write applications that will work on the iPhone and that's it. It may also have a halo effect of attracting users to the Mac, but I don't think that is the only motivation.

One more plausible theory is this:

One of the main selling points of the iPhone is the web experience - touted to be similar to that with a desktop.

Now the iPhone runs "a version" of Safari (that supports AJAX and what have you).

The platform for applications on the iPhone will primarily be - you guessed it - Safari.

If you don't want a lot of people messing around Safari on the iPhone - what better playing ground to have than Windows (apart from the huge installed base - %age points of which are significant) - Steve hopes to spawn a breed of developers and applications that are first tried out on Windows and then on the iPhone....

That would be a master strategy - as it has the "best of both worlds" approach - Controlled development environment for the iPhone and yet an open development environment for the Safari!

More mind boggling thoughts for me to cope with.

I know the IPhone is going to be huge but can't we get some excitement around http://openmoko.org/ and the FIC phone for developers this is so much better. I'm really not convinced by safari is the way to develop for the IPhone. I guess I can go back to Utopia now.

finally I don't sound like a hermit howling in the wilderness. I went one step further however. I do think that once Safari is a stable release, once iLife debuts for Windows, and once AT&T has shipped the iPhone that all of these things will ultimately lead to an explosion in Mac sales. Yes, by explosion I mean only a market share of 20%, but that is by various estimates two to four times as much business as Apple has now. No one would ever call that a failure.

Apple is the only company to make a user-friendly *nix. That will mean huge money at some point, and Jobs is hoping that is soon.

Safari on Windows exists due to the iPhone, for two reasons. First, anyone who uses Safari anyhow will be happier with their iPhone experience (so, just like iTunes/Windows exists to enlarge the iPod market, Safari/Windows exists to enlarge the iPhone market). Second, Safari needs to garner enough market share to make web developers explicitely consider it, as they already do Mozilla/Firefox. This also improves the iPhone experience.

Of course, it's also possible that there will be a direct iPhone/Safari connection of some sort, for instance doing site sign-in and setup on Safari, but using it on iPhone.

I think the partner benefiting from this move is Google, not AT&T. Google desperately needs a platform to popularize its suite of existing and future web applications, and the iPhone is the perfect fit. Apple and Google can work together to make Google's apps and Safari work as one - something Microsoft would never be willing to do.

Perhaps what Apple will get in return is the much needed distribution network for high-def video and IPTV through Google.

j.b. has it right - Safari on Windows is simply about giving PC developers a platform to develop applications for the iPhone on, without having to work directly on the iPhone itself.

You're right on about the negative commentary. Why do people bother reading your column at all if they only disagree with you?

Of course, some people actually get some kind of sick kick out of out-geeking Bob. That's all well and good, but there's no need to do it rudely. What happened to civil discourse?

I think this is an interesting idea. As a customer of both Apple and at&t, I wonder whether Apple could potentially iron out some of the bugs from their existing Microsoft IPTV "solution" which I hear is not working well.

Bob, as usual you have many astute comments. But I'd like to point out that WWDC stands for World Wide Developers Conference. Before remarking that Steve had nothing of substance perhaps you should look at the developers' content of the conference, of which there is plenty.

Thanks.
Jim

I'm also appalled by the comments on last week's column, and even more appalled by the admonition that Cringely received death threats for past columns. Lesser persons would have stopped living normal lives in the same situation. Anonymous threats are the worst kind, because you don't know who to watch out for and they can't easily be assessed for their imminence.

About Google wanting Safari in more places: not if it still has a limited implementation of Javascript and missing "Design View" (i probably have the name wrong but it's the ability to set styles for wysiwyg editing in input fields ala Google Docs).

Google Docs doesn't even support the fully stable Safari 2+, and features in the maps and other Ajaxian features are always last to arrive for Safari. So I think that it has very little to do with Apple's decision, and Steve took a iPhone development tool, and kitted it out to look like Safari for the WOW factor.

As a web developer, which Google is also at the moment, more browsers are more work to do before delivery, and more costs or compromises to complete a product that everyone can use. Making things work the same way on FireFox and IE67 is enough of a hassle.

Expanding on Mika's comment, I think Safari on windows is a tie-in with Google. I think it was on BlackFriars that I read that Apple gets a fee each time someone searches with the Google box in Safari. Expanding the number of Safari seats increases revenue for Apple. Maybe not much this year but it could be a few hundred million next year. Also, Google cooperating with Apple ensures Google a way to place their apps on windows. And if it is Safari running on OS X, iPhone and Windows, so much the better.

I'm skeptical about your argument that Steve capriciously decided to release Safari for windows at the last minute. Steve may kill products at the last minute on a whim, I doubt he releases new products that way. Once something is released it means Apple has taken on a lot of responsibility. Steve seems like a careful guy about that.

Recall that this was a developer audience. Apple's solution to the iPhone SDK issue is "you can just write web apps". Problem: modern web apps are fairly browser dependent, the browser is Safari, Safari doesn't run on Windows, and you've just lost 95% of your potential developers. Solution: port Safari to Windows. Bonus: make a big deal out of it.

Another thing to mention is that a version of Webkit has probably been running in iTunes on windows since it launched (so you can buy the music), so it should have been fairly easy to throw out the iTunes interface and add bookmarking and RSS capabilities to re-skin it as Safari.

All this logic is goofy, yes you can have safari on windows, but the point of it is so they can have bookmarks to transfer to the iphone. Thus the iphone will probably fetch some of that data at sync time regardless of windows or os x, to speed up the loading of the pages you load most.

First, I am not anonymous! I also have a unique last name so it makes it difficult for me to hide.

Anyway, have no idea why people are complaining about Safari, it works just fine for me!

What I am annoyed about, now I have Opera, (love the speed dial feature), Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer. I am trying out Safari, I am stuck with Explorer, I use Firefox most of the time, and Opera I love because it allows me to quickly and easily copy text from websites (remember text?)

I would like to hear you speculate why the Keynote was so dull. Not once did I hear Steve say "and now for the secret features I promised six months ago". Did he purposly not want to upstage the iPhone launch or is this all there is? I think the iPhone OS is a really fine tuned instument, but Leopard is just all over the map and sloppy compared. I don't understand why he is not focusing on the detail and making an insanely great OSX desktop version.

If Leopard was as great as OSX iPhone then he would get switchers buying those expensive Macs like crazy.

I think everyone is missing the point about the reason for the iPhone's use of 2.5G instead of 3G for data. The iPhone is designed to support iTunes video. AT&T wants no part of movie and TV show downloads on their network. What next, bitTorrent support?

AT&T and the other ISPs are terrified that they will be found out, that they really do not provide unlimited internet service.

Safari allows Windows users to "play" as if they were using a Mac, and get used to it maybe, before saving the money to purchase.

Firefox makes a browser for Windows 2000. Why won't Apple make Safari work for Win2k?

I've no desire to further line Microsoft's pockets with further purchases of bloatware. It would be nice to have a version for we low budget occasional Win users so I wouldn't need to buy another bloated OS.

Fortunately, there is still Firefox, which is in many ways just as good as Safari anyway.

Safari needs to catch up with the capabilities found in other browsers. Safari 2.0 doesn't work with several business-to- business websites I must use nearly every day. As a Mac user I grit my teeth when websites assume we all use IE 6 or IE 7 and I'm stuck with IE 5.2 from 2003. Fortunately these websites will usually tolerate the now obscure Netscape 7 browser for certain types of secure mode interactions. Firefox works better than Safari 2 at several other websites I have to use. When will we see the universal browser?

I watched the video of Steve Job's WWDC presentation today and he is promising total website compatability and blazing speed for Safari 3. Perhaps I have been exposed to his famous reality distortion field yet again. After twenty years I should know better.

I believe that AJAX on the iPhone IS the killer app.
Currently third-party applications for cellphones are almost all java-based. This means that the developer has to deal with every combination of phone and java libraries shipped with them, the installation issues and the fact that when a major bug is found everyone affected must re-download and install the app.

On top of that, storing the app on the phone takes up space that could be used for songs or movies :-). AJAX apps are kept on the server. Bugs need be fixed only in one place and everyone gets the fixed version the next time they run it.

This may kill java on the cellphone. The real question is will the browser on the iPhone have access to the more interesting features on the phone? For instance will AJAX developers be able to use GPS (or triangulation) to offer location sensitive applications?

If so, you've turned every web developer into a potential iPhone app developer. Compare that to the relatively small number of java cell phone application developers and the utility of the iPhone will be orders of magnitude greater than any other non-AJAX capable phone.

Of all the theories I've heard about Safari for Windows this has to be the most convoluted, difficult-to-comprehend one yet.

"...it IS about performing a massive cashectomy on AT&T. But to Apple's credit the company doesn't want anyone to see this as theft, but rather as a technical triumph, simply because when AT&T's exclusive is over in five years, Apple will want to do similar deals with all of AT&T's competitors."

What does this even mean? Theft? Huh?

This theory is so ridiculously off-the-wall, I don't even know where to start.

Let me just say two things: I've been tryng out Safari/Win on all sorts of sites since Monday evening and it hasn't crashed once since the very first startup (which I believe was actually a hangup with Bonjour). It renders all sorts of pages much faster than IE or Firefox, both of which I use regularly.

As for the Universal Browser, only MS will be capable of doing such a product since it is their non-standard junk that trips up all the other browsers. I think we're better off getting all web developers to stick to the open standards, then we'd quickly have browsers that can work on all sites. By the way, Safari seems to handle the standards best of all.

Someone estimated that Safari for Mac brings in around $25M per quarter because of the Google search bar; a widely-used Safari for Windows could easily bring in much more than that, so it's a very nice side business for Apple.

$100M here, $100M there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Safari = Search. Google = Search. End of story.

Apple has nothing to lose here - not sure what all the hype is all about.

Regarding AT&T - the triple play threat is looming from all ends of the spectrum. Going with an operator - while they still have power - is the clear way to go for the next 5 years. After that, it's anyone's game.

Presumably there is some implementation of the Next Step (capitalized however...) framework underlying the Safari and iTunes applications. Might the Safari release be a test of how well this works cross-platform? My experience of Mac programming is that it is far, far easier than Windows development. NS gives you so much more. Now - if there is a cross-platform framework that's got to be good for Apple. Combined with the Cider-enabled EA announcement, might the theme of the keynote be "you can get your stuff working across both Windows and the Mac, so come and buy a Mac"?

I think this grand theory is ripe to be cut down by Occam's razor. While the cause and effect as you describe it may very well be true, you list much simpleR explanations of Apple's behavior right up front in your article. Rather than some convoluted plan to get AT&T hook, line and sinker, I'll put my money on Apple's reasons being those.

Hi Ian, I am now totally addicted to your 'The Pulpit' podcast, thank you. But curiously New
Scientist magazine dropped their podcast recently, I was a little surprised. Anyway, I
thought you might comment on the Wall Street Journals Executive Conference on May 31 during
the month of June, but all was quiet! Your silence was deafening as the primary commentator
of the corporate jousting between Gates and Jobs' . The URL for your research into, the
candid discussion between Jobs and Gates.
http://www.thelastminuteblog.com/2007/05/30/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-on-sta- ge-together/

The Pulpits all yours Ian.

Wishing you well. Paul : ) Melville, Perth. Western Australia.

Re sent:
Hi Ian,
I am now totally addicted to your 'The Pulpit' podcast, thank you. But curiously New Scientist magazine dropped their podcast recently, I was a little surprised. Anyway, I thought you might comment on the Wall Street Journals Executive Conference on May 31 during the month of June, but all was quiet! Your silence was deafening as the primary commentator of the corporate jousting between Gates and Jobs'. The URL for your research into, the candid discussion between Jobs and Gates.

http://www.thelastminuteblog.com/2007/05/30/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-on-sta- ge-together/

The Pulpits all yours Ian.

Wishing you well.
Paul : )
Melville, Perth.
Western Australia.

um, safari for windows is beta. so yea it's buggy.

Here is my explanation for the comments on last week's article. I believe they are from people who have come to your site via the Digg effect.

My point is these are new people to your column and your style of writing. That's why you see comments about how this or that is so far fetch and beyond what everyone else is saying.

Ff you haven't read comments on digg, let me just say its in the same tone and nastiness as those left on last week's article.

"So AT&T will need a broad array of web services to offer its customers, most of whom will be using Windows computers, not Macs, which brings us back again to Safari for Windows"

Uh, no. Web services don't need a custom browser. And if there's one thing the IE/ActiveX debacle showed, it's that people resist being locked in when open, non-proprietary solutions exist. And we're clearly past the day when ISPs needed a private-labeled browser.

So what's AT&T paying for again? And why?

As a designer, and most Web designers being PC-based, I see an advantage in having a Windows version of Safari. Remember, the iPhone uses Safari/WebKit, and currently all those web developers on PCs may not test their pages on Safari, while they do on Opera. Now they have no excuse for their pages not rendering properly on the iPhone, except for the supposed absence of Flash. Moreover, all those PC developers who want to develop widget apps for the iPhone may not want to buy a Mac (they would if they were serious and there was no windows version of safari, though). Now they have no excuse for making their little niche PocketPC apps available for the iPhone. Take, for instance this example:

http://onetrip.org/

a simple shopping list widget for the iPhone made before the iPhone has even come out. And I can test it under Windows (it doesn't run under any other browser).

Another interesting theory that has come about is the revival of the Yellow Box for Windows, the porting of XCode which allows apps to be compiled for both Macs and Windows, either as a fat binary or individually for each platform.

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/14/yellow-box-seems-to-exist-but-only-for-apples-use/

The story is that they have had a Windows version of XCode internally for a while, and specifically have had WebKit etc ported. If Windows apps use WebKit, Apple will benefit just as they do by apps using QuickTime. Safari is the ultimate demonstration of what WebKit can do. Already some people have compiled win32 binaries against the supplied CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics in Safari.

http://pages.brianledbetter.com/

Establishing XCode along with their other Core toolkits has far wider implications than merely hooking AT&T on AppleTV services (though a deal bundling Internet connection and Video rental store could be profitable). Imagine if Games developers and other 3rd party developers took to XCode in sufficient numbers, it would make the pain and cost of porting their apps far less. Tick a box, and you have a Mac version. The hook could be the supplied Core libraries, which could make very slick apps relatively easily. Safari could be the first example. Remember when Steve said there was a big secret in the next release, and nothing much new beyond Safari was shown at WWDC07? Maybe they just didn't show off what's on the Developer CD...

I'm on Mac, and I'm trying the 3.0 beta. Not much to see except that I did notice a huge improvement in script execution times. No problems with it so far.

Quote:
'There are two theories being widely floated: 1) this is a challenge to Microsoft, and; 2) this is a strategic platform for Apple to offer its own web-based application suite.'

Yes, 2) could happen long-term with or without Google.

You forgot 3) in the short term: Safari makes a lot of ka-ching through the Google/Yahoo search box, Safari for Win is a profit center.

I can see two more Apple software products coming for Windows: iWork and iChat, the latter being more probable due to VoIP integration with iPhone 2.0

I'm on Vista, and I've only come across minor bugs to do with Vista's security. It has crashed, but no more than other apps under Vista, which to me on a brand new Dell is far less stable than XP. Some people have had trouble with Safari on XP. That said, I do prefer FireFox for a number of reasons, including Live Bookmarks and the add-ons (I'm also not much for the grey).


Incidentally, on the topic of XCode on Windows: Although it has been reported that Electronic Arts' return to Mac has been made possible thanks to TransGaming's Cider engine (ultimately based on Wine), what if their return and Id's announcements had something to do with XCode in the long run? I doubt Cider is a viable long-term solution. Some forum commentators pan the performance of games using Cider.

Safari 3.0: great execution on scripts, doesn't work well with many payment screens including the MasterCard verification system.

Video anonymity: Bob, there is a simple technical workaround - ski-masks.

Bob said: Still, I was appalled by the nasty tone of many comments.



There are many advantages to online interaction, but unfortunately this lack of civility and respect is on the increase. Bob is an intelligent and experienced commentator, and has put a lot of thought into the column. We don't have to agree with him, but we would do well not to jump into flame mode.


Simon

I'd been thinking the same thing about the AT&T / iPhone hookup. Given the low level of interest from most ISPs to do anything that might improve the customers experience, I'd have to say that this relationship bears watching. It also suggests that I'm not alone in thinking that 3G is overhyped and destined to join the Betamax on the garbage tip of history.

As to Whistlebox - not something that I'm interested in but I'd noticed over the years that Bob may be right, and he may be wrong, but he's never less than very thought provoking. The anger level that we see these days in web comments, road rage, and politics says something about todays society in the US ... generally that our lives are not as happy as we'd like them to be.

Robert, The real reason OSX is in the wild is simple. If people think Steve gave up on the OS wars they are kidding themselves. I believe that releasing the primary vector of any PC (the browser) into the hands of millions, is the primary reason to release Safari for Windows. In this way OSX does not earn a bad name for security, they let Windows take the heat, the browser starts getting "hardened" by fifteen year old Russians who will get paid 1,500 dollars by their uncle if they come up with an exploit for his bots, and then Steve Jobs does what he's been waiting his whole life to do. He releases OSX into the wild (best buy, Circut City) I just happen to know that OSX would sell as many copies as Vista if they include bootcamp in a easy to install (side by side) fasion.

Thoughts?

I think the primary aim of Safari on Windows is development of iPhone applications. This gives Windows developers a platform to test on. iPhone by itself will likely move Safari from number 3 to number two in browser marketshare. Putting Safari on Windows extends that and will help against the threat of IE on Windows only websites - which are still being made. Pushing people to make open Web 2.0 solutions instead of looking to Microsoft's Silverlight is also a big reason. I think this is a drive to get into the enterprise. iPhone uses .Mac, so why can't it open an Excel file living on your office PC when you are walking down the hallway and your boss asks you about the data. You wont have two copies of the file, just one on your PC or corp server, but you can get access instantly via the phone.

I don't think that road rage is about not being happy, or our country in particular. It is about the corruption that power brings, to which we ALL are susceptible.

We have access to powerful technologies. Web communications are instant, personalized, and generally open to everyone. You can read opinions of products on Amazon before buying. You can talk with others who hold similar interests, and so on. Very powerful.

But like other technologies, its power must be used responsibly, or it corrupts the user. The funny thing is, anonymous forum posters who are rude in text, probably don't talk that way. The driver of the SUV that cut you off probably wouldn't break in line at the movie theater. Perhaps even the drive-by shooter would hesitate at the face-to-face combat.

So is it the technology, or the power that comes with it, that breeds the arrogance?

I think that some abusers have thought it through, and are abusing technology in a premeditated way (SPAM, eBay scams, malware, and viruses). But many more people accidentally step over the bounds because they are seduced by their new technological power. It's human nature.

Why do you (anothers think) Mac OS X 10.5 is not a big deal for WWDC? Seems like its worthy of generating hype all by itself?

If Safari is the iPhone development platform, I see the move to windows as a way to hope more iPhone / Safari compatibility in web apps, which Safari sorely lacks now.

Safari on Mac, is based on Webkit. Adobe AIR uses webkit, Adobe have been working on making webkit work better under windows. Would Safari on Windows be an option without the work done by Adobe?

As has been shown by Firefox, and the Flash player and in the future Adobe AIR, having multiple platforms gives more reasons for adoption and using it. Maybe Safari on Windows is opening up what has been a very closed shop to a more open world, and this is the start of having more Apple software available on non-Apple hardware. This is at the applications level not the OS. If I develop software I want as large a market as possible, with new RIA technologies such as AIR you have to be on the major platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux) otherwise you are reducing your chances of success. Abode does all 3 platforms MS does 2 directly and Linux maybe through partners. Now its Apples turn to cover multiple platforms.

Well, I've tried Safari twice now; once when it was announced and once again five minutes ago.

What I ended up with was a shell of a browser with no text for any labels or menus that was unusable. In fact it took me three machines before I could find one that actually worked. Strangely enough, only my underpowered laptop was able to successfully install while my high end desktop continually ended up in the no text zone.



And on the laptop, the Apple start page is STILL loading as I type this (In IE7, BTW..) This is a 'superior, faster browser'?!?! In the time it takes me to load a page in Safari, I can load an entire host of tabs in IE7 or FF. What a joke!

I think Bob is right on the money (as usual, Whistlebox detractors aside) and this ALPHA was rushed to the public for all the wrong reasons.

Why do I like reading your Blog? This entry made me understand why, because you have both a business and a technical outlook on technology which some techies don't have as evidence by the comments on Whistlebox. There are a lot of technology that flop because of usability problems and poor marketplace understanding. Keep writing with a 360 degree view of technology.

The Safari browser on Windows is about Google search. Like the Mozilla Foundation, AAPL will benefit from google paying for searches from the search box in Safari. Yahoo does the same.

Safari for windows was released for one reason only. iPhone, period. iPhone runs Safari. If you want a good web experience on the iPhone, then you would want the web sites you go to to work with Safari. Since Safari only works on a Mac, there are plenty of sites that still require IE or FireFox. (Zillow.com for example). By releasing Safari for windows, now web developers can actually test their web site without having to get a mac. By releasing Safari for windows Apple hopes that Safari would gain enough market share to be relevant so site like zillow.com start to support safari from day one and then will work with iPhone. So if you want your site to work on iPhone,Mac and Windows, Safari would be the least common denominator. Brilliant move.

A press news hook with Safari is your big idea? Or screwing AT&T is the other? So I guess when Vodaphone takes the iPhone to Europe Apple is screwing them as well. Steve could have introduced new colors of iSocks and it would have made news. The WWDC is not about major media press coverage, its about updating the developers. He announced Safari for Windows so developers could develop apps for the iPhone. That's it. Let Fox and Scully deal with the X-Files would ya.

A press news hook with Safari is your big idea? Or screwing AT&T is the other? So I guess when Vodaphone takes the iPhone to Europe Apple will be screwing them as well? Steve could have introduced new colors of iSocks and it would have made news. The WWDC is not about major media press coverage, its about updating the developers. He announced Safari for Windows so developers could develop apps for the iPhone. That's it. Let Fox and Scully deal with the X-Files would ya.

Jobs hopes for - on a Mac box or on a Windows box, to find more customers who like to look cool:

Safari + iPod + iPhone + iTunes +Apple TV = $$$$$$$

Notice no Quicktime. Notice Quicktime now made to disappear on apple.com

RE your comments in this column on the discussion generated by your Whistlebox column, a discussion that you, yourself, did not participate in:

I find it interesting that you are so anxious to save your readers "the trouble" of reading that discussion because, of course, far from the mindless flaming with no real-world development experience you suggest, they would, in fact, find a variety of valid points, from a wide variety of readers, deploying varying degrees of stridency but all, nonetheless, pointing out the very real weaknesses in your column.

If you are too sensitive to handle anything other than sycophancy, what is the point of having comments? It appears that, rather than benefit from your readers taking the time to warn you of a possible pitfall, you have decided to cover your ears and have another glass of the Whistlebox Kool-aid. Has it occurred to you that those of us who pointed out the flaws did so precisely because we are deeply familiar with this area of development?

Your column, your business, I don't really give a damn, but before you accuse Apple of attempting a "massive cashectomy" on AT&T you should, perhaps, consider the possibility that Whistlebox is attempting a massive credibility-ectomy on you.

Also, are you going to include your prediction regarding the success of video comments in your yearly prediction hit and miss count? I doubt it.

This might be ONE reason. It's not THE ONLY reason, as you suggest.

I would say all of the following (which you don't mention) are factors:

1. Apple will generate revenue from search with the Safari browser - that in and of itself would seem to be a good reason.
2. Safari on Windows means developers can use Windows machines to develop web apps for Safari.
3. Any apps that Apple develops for the iPhone can now work on the web without Apple having to support IE. They can pull a Microsoft and say "Please use Safari (or maybe Firefox) for Windows". So no one else can break their web apps by switching the browser on them.
4. If Apple is going to offer anything to the enterprise, even if it's SOHO, they can't completely ignore windows. So now that they have iCal and iCal server, and will start to build and offer more robust network apps and services (.mac with a dose of google), they will need a browser on the windows platform so they have a means to access these services that will always work on Windows.
5. The windows platform can't be ignored as Apple gets more traction. Steve does not want to demo on another company's browser on Windows.

This might be ONE reason. It's not THE ONLY reason, as you suggest.

I would say all of the following (which you don't mention) are factors:

1. Apple will generate revenue from search with the Safari browser - that in and of itself would seem to be a good reason.
2. Safari on Windows means developers can use Windows machines to develop web apps for Safari.
3. Any apps that Apple develops for the iPhone can now work on the web without Apple having to support IE. They can pull a Microsoft and say "Please use Safari (or maybe Firefox) for Windows". So no one else can break their web apps by switching the browser on them.
4. If Apple is going to offer anything to the enterprise, even if it's SOHO, they can't completely ignore windows. So now that they have iCal and iCal server, and will start to build and offer more robust network apps and services (.mac with a dose of google), they will need a browser on the windows platform so they have a means to access these services that will always work on Windows.
5. The windows platform can't be ignored as Apple gets more traction. Steve does not want to demo on another company's browser on Windows.

Bob,

I'm not sure I'm with you on this one. I just don't look to my ISP to provide the internet services I use. I don't use one from my current provider. That's the beuty of the net, there are so many options to choose from and the cream generally rises to the top.

The Apple TV as a settop box is interesting, but we will have to see where it goes. The interesting thing here is Apple's decision to do subscription accounting for Apple TV (and iPhone) so that they don't have to charge customers to add new features. What will those new features be?

I don't claim to fully understand what Apple is thinking here but think there are a number of contributing factors:

1) There is a funding model built in. If Google really is paying for searches driven through the dedicated search field then there is funding to pay for the engineering work and with share in the future generate profit too. Apple didn't get that pile of cash by paying for things that don't bring in revenue.

2) Demonstrate Apple's software acumen.Remember Safari was Beta for about a year on OS X before being released with an OS release. Safari is already fast and it will no doubt gain the polish Apple is known for. Another solid app on Windows will drive the brand and perhaps pull a few incremental switchers over to the OS X platform.

3) Help keep MS honest on web standards. It is more difficult for MS to completely ignore standards complient development when there are multiple browsers like FireFox and Safari out there with double diget market share. Having multiple complient implementations strengthen any open standard. If two browsers comply and one doesn't, the people behind the non-complient one either have transparently devious motives or look like idots.

4) Providing a single platform available 98% of the desktop market that also happens to include the forthcoming iPhone. This is what everyone is writing about and is important too. Along the same lines, a number of service vendors don't support Safari, and by extension the Mac, b/c Safari is Mac only. Without IE on OS X this is a vulnerability for Apple. If Safari gains significant share it is harder to ignore.

Here is my question: Was webkit already on Windows before the anouncement of the Safari port?

The iTunes app on OS X uses webkit to render pages from the iTunes Music Store. What does the iTunes app on Windows use today?

Who knows, the price of the webkit port may just be a sunk cost that Apple already paid and be software it needs to pay to maintain. If so, then Apple can leverage the investment by incrementally paying to port the browser itself.

The question isn't: Why Did Apple Write Safari for Windows? The question is: Why Did Apple Release Such a Crappy Version for Windows? That's the one worth knowing the answer to.

Current Apple developers like Adobe could also benefit from XCode becoming available for Windows, in that it becomes a lot easier to support two platforms, and less likely they would drop the Mac platform as other developers have in the past. Adobe obviously already has some streamlined way of developing their products simultaneously for both Macs and PCs for simultaneous release, and although I believe they currently use MS Visual Studio, they could just be persuaded to use XCode if a Windows version of XCode was demonstrated to be stable and produce optimised code for both platforms. A certain amount of initial effort in transitioning to the new IDE, but it could be worth it for them.

"... there are plenty of sites that still require IE or FireFox (Zillow.com for example)... site like zillow.com start to support safari..."

While your point may be valid for some ActiveX sites or sites using poor Browser sniffing, from my initial test in Safari 3 on that site, I don't see a problem. So maybe it's a bad example. As a web developer, I would like to see some examples of sites that don't work properly if at all in Safari 3.


"Notice Quicktime now made to disappear on apple.com"

It's under the Mac button now, notice the nifty iTunes-like scroll bar, strangely mixed in with their for-sale hardware and software. The discoverability of sections like the Trailers section is very questionable. I don't see where you navigate to it.

But of course, both iTunes and Safari offer a bundle with QuickTime and would be the most common way for people to get it these days, especially when they get an iPod with the iTunes CD. Don't worry, the QuickTime framework remains an integral part of Apple's strategy. I just wish it would work properly on my Vista Dell with nVidia's SATA controllers.

Why can't it be as simple as getting Windows users more user to Apple software. Windows users have iPods and run iTunes. Those Windows users need a browser (and later an e-mail client).

If Apple comes out with an e-mail client for Windows then it will mean they are just trying to sway people over to Macs. Bob, you dismissed the idea of Apple trying to "take down Microsoft." But Apple is always trying to woo Windows user over to the Mac... without trying to take down Microsoft.

After all, the next version of OS X is going to have Boot Camp already installed, and all of the current MacBook Pro notebook computers have DX10 (a Windows thing) capable video chip sets.

I know some people that literally do little else with their computer other than surf the net, e-mail, photos and music (read: iPod). These people could easily be converted to Mac users. A browser and e-mail client are all that's missing. If they switched to using an Apple developed browser and e-mail client then there would be no reason for them to use a Windows computer.

If Apple comes out with an e-mail client that runs on Windows it means they are wooing Windows user by tempting them with their software. And the reason they did it now... with all the bugs is because they expect the iPhone to be a huge success... even with Windows users.

I could be wrong. Unlike most of Bob's respondents... I know he is smarter than me, but I could be right anyway.

Enjoy!

Bob, you're right. We want to download our video, not stream it.

Actually, we want to multicast download our video, and we're waiting for the ISPs to deal with that. But we want to download not stream, because we want to pause, skip, and replay. We don't want to be locked into the stupid commercials - and we want to replay the clever/cute/cool ones. No kidding. Ask Neilsen.

Notice TiVos don't stream?

You're right, Bob. As usual.

ps - Not the first time AT&T/Cingular/AT&T has been the target of a cashectomy. They will bleed.

-rick

Let me dig deep and see if I give a crap about this.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Apple's not looking to get into a different business, they're trying to expand the SAME business that currently makes them money: Mac hardware sales.

They want to demonstrate their value to current Windows users/ potential switchers, and they're putting their brand where PCs are pointed the most, the internet browser.

That's it. Nothing complex about that.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Apple's not looking to get into a different business, they're trying to expand the SAME business that currently makes them money: Mac hardware sales.

They want to demonstrate their value to current Windows users/ potential switchers, and they're putting their brand where PCs are pointed the most, the internet browser.

That's it. Nothing complex about that.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Apple's not looking to get into a different business, they're trying to expand the SAME business that currently makes them money: Mac hardware sales.

They want to demonstrate their value to current Windows users/ potential switchers, and they're putting their brand where PCs are pointed the most, the internet browser.

That's it. Nothing complex about that.

I enjoy your perspective. As a side note, (maybe someone else mentioned it, I don't read user comments) the Safari browser could also be for the Boot Camp Windows installation. This way, even if you switch over, your browser would retain the same feel (although I'd probably just use Firefox on both installations myself). Thank you for the column this week.

Not that I really know anything, but my guess was Safari for Windows was all about doing a deal with Adobe to get the Flash player on the iPhone. Both AIR (previously apollo) and Safari are based on WebKit, and maybe Adobe wanted to see some higher usage stats for WebKit so that web site developers would take it seriously as a target and test their websites with it. On the flip side if Apple wants to work with all web 2.0 sites, it needs not just a good AJAX browser (which Safari is actually not that great at) but it also needs Flash support.

Seems like the iPhone won't ship with Flash support (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/12/no-flash-support-on-the-iphone/)
but that doesn't mean Safari for windows isn't part of deal in progress.

I think you're overthinking this one. The reason for the existence of Safari on Windows may be much more prosaic.

The iPod was already a hit with the Mac community, but it went *huge* after Apple came out with iTunes for Windows.

If it turns out that iPhone also needs a desktop component (say, for synching bookmarks, addressbooks, or maps) then there has to be a desktop application for that purpose. This could be iTunes... but it could be another more general purpose cross-platform application with an open-ended architecture able to handle any other app Apple decides to throw into the iPhone mix down the line. My guess is Safari is going to be the desktop part of the iPhone and included (with synch plug-ins) with every iPhone shipped.

To get even broader coverage, some time in the future when you go download your iTunes for Windows, in addition to Quicktime you may find that the 'full bundle' also comes with Safari. Jobs pretty much hinted as much when he mentioned the number of iTunes downloads.

The main benefit Apple gets out of Safari/Win is that web designers won't have an excuse not to build Safari-friendly sites. And if it's Safari-friendly, it's iPhone--and by extension, Mac--friendly. There's really no downside to Apple having a cross-platform version of Safari out there (consider that it already runs on four separate platforms: Mac, Windows, iPhone, and AppleTV.)

You also mention that you think Safari was built in Apple's labs as an exercise in Intel compatibility. I disagree. Porting a Mac product to Windows is much more than just switching compiler code output from PowerPC to Intel. To make an app work identically under both platforms is a really hard problem, since the underlying OS APIs are so completely different.

I've developed cross-platform browsers. It's bitchin' hard to keep them synched up without getting sucked into platform-specific APIs. I really don't think doing Safari for Windows was as trivial as you make it sound.

There's another window of oportunity here too. AT&T (SBC) provides a tabbed browser that uses IE APIs broadband customers that use XP. There is no Vista replacement at this time. IE7 doesn't need much help in the tab department but other features of the AT&T browser like portable favorites and auto logon are still missing. Going to a Safari base instead of IE might be just the ticket for this.

The whole AJAX thing is kinda strange to me because I don't quite understand why ATT would change from their current model of making money off their internet access.

Right now they charge the customer twice for content. Once for the customer to get internet access on their phone. Every customer has to pay a access fee to get GPRS, or EDGE, or just access to the mobile web.

Many people (yes, many) then use the ATT/Cingular online mobile store to buy ringtones, wallpapers, and of course j2me software. Remember that most people don't understand that you can just goto any website and it will work, and also don't understand how to get their phones to download any mp3 as a ringtone. Most software sold is games. So basically ATT is making money twice when you buy a web app. They don't charge anymore for the bits on per bit rate, now it's all you can eat up to a certain amount I think.

Regardless, this new model of AJAX web apps really cuts out a large part of the current model of being able to sell the customer on demand content since it's harder to sell AJAX apps to people. Also it's much harder to write games since the games now demand that they run in a browser.

EA, Namco, etc. already released games for the iPod and there is a good chance that they already have something up their sleeve for the iPhone as well. They will probably get the same kind access to the hardware that they have with the iPod and thus be able to write games that run native to the hardware rather then being forced into a AJAX/Java prison. This will just mean that there will not be much to choose from for us normal people.

Maybe this is the beginning of the outsourcing of the store from ATT. Since I'm sure that eventually you'll be able to goto the iTunes music store from the iPhone and buy/download songs. Before iPhone, ATT ran that store for their old phones, maybe they want to get rid of that part of their business and this is the experiment to see if it can work?

AppleTV? Download vs. stream? Somehow I think they wouldn't do it unless they can find a way to force you to watch commercials...

Safari on windows is definitely a trojan horse that will be used a la iTunes to deliver services.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a new service released from AT&T that requires safari. The iphone will be a revolutionary device, but it doesnt need safari as a development/testing tool.

It could also be a pure ego trip - Steve competing on Bills prime turf.

I could easily see steve spending 1mm to release Safari on windows just to goad Bill and his precious IE Browser. It doesn't have to be successful to be effective.

I don't get the point you Bob are making. Are you saying that Safari as a browser requires less bandwidth and therefore is a better fit for AT&T copper based network?

A disgusting and pathetic column, my opinion of Robert has dropped precipitously.

First we have a pointless discussion on Safari for Windows which argues that it is intended to provide completely unspecified insanely great web services for AT&T, pointing to a hypothetical appleTV settop box deal. Now we never expect a Cringely article to have much relation to reality but this time it didn't even try.

Then there's the vote, which presents a completely false dichotomy, either you're going to try Safari or you're an M$ fanboi n00b. Nowadays, using a defective web browser poses a serious risk to your system and your privacy. Given the gaping security holes in Safari for Windows and generally slipshod implementation, it's unlikely that Firefox users will switch over.

But now the truly disgusting portion. After presenting a slipshod column, we get told that harsh criticism is a result of our anonymity, and once this is stripped from us, we'll all be nicer to Cringley. More than a whiff of the jackboot!

I've followed your writing for years, and often defended it in other forums. No more. From now on, you're simply Dorvak Lite in my eyes.

You've missed the point. Safari for Windows, like iTunes, installs QuickTime. QT is Apple's crown jewel, everything Apple does on Windows is designed to drive installation of QT.

I disagree to an extent. More than it is about AT&T I thin it is more to do with Google (for now). IMO Apple is gunning for the precious $$$ that you can get from the Google search toolbar. Firefox gets a huge amount added to their revenue just from all the $$$ earned from Google search bar. Apple wants to see >100 million $$$ added to their botomline. Safari's marketshare is at 5% now. Even if they gain a modest 3% - 4% increase in the next few quarters, that's a sizeable amount added to their bottomline.

I disagree to an extent. More than it is about AT&T I thin it is more to do with Google (for now). IMO Apple is gunning for the precious $$$ that you can get from the Google search toolbar. Firefox gets a huge amount added to their revenue just from all the $$$ earned from Google search bar. Apple wants to see >100 million $$$ added to their botomline. Safari's marketshare is at 5% now. Even if they gain a modest 3% - 4% increase in the next few quarters, that's a sizeable amount added to their bottomline.

I think you're right but that, at bottom, it's even a little simpler. This is Apple's code projection platform into the Windows world. Without Safari, Apple has to worry about compatibility and support for the technical details of its projects and products. With it, they can say to customers, "Download Safari and it will work."

iTunes for media. Safari for code - applets, java, etc.

Remember when Netscape said that the browser would make operating systems obsolete? That may go too far, but this is evidence that it wasn't totally wrong either.

I think it's all about iLife, dot mac and Google. There's still an opportunity to turn iLife into a windows software suite that's every bit as ubiquitous as Office. Morph dot mac into a Google environment and tightly integrate into iLife and game over for other wannabes.

I didn't really understand what Bob thought was the reason for Apple to release Safari for Windows. At best it seemed like he thought Jobs did it simply for a slide bullet at WWDC. I highly doubt that is the extent.

I agree that Bob has been slipping. In the past year his posts have often been ever more political (not evident in this post, thank goodness) and the technical and business analysis seems much more sketchy. I can go to any number of political blogs to hear how our country has gone to hell in a handbasket. I don't come here for that. I too have used and defended Bob's technical positions in the past but I haven't read one in months that was good enough for that. Perhaps there is some complacency at work, here.

I will continue to come here to read as the topics remain interesting. Either the opinions in the past were better researched or Bob's sources are of less quality. In either case, his opinions are no longer what is bringing me back.

"web services to offer its customers, most of whom will be using Windows computers, not Macs, which brings us back again to Safari for Windows -- a product Apple had no choice but to build"

I was beginning to wonder if anybody else realized that with Safari on the iPhone, a compatible means had to be devised so the Windows world didn't go into convulsions, because their new iPhone didn't allow them to pass info.

On the other hand, I would almost have enjoyed a repeat of a Y2K scenario. However the lack of Address Book, among others, will still cause some consternation.

Oh, The Humanity

I like your theory Bob, although I thought it made sense for Jobs to announce both that developers would start working for the iPhone through Internet Applications and Safari for Windows in the same breath.

There are many developers that write apps for Internet Explorer only so if they want to consider writing for Safari on the iPhone or just use W3C specs, they now are at least aware that a major company besides Microsoft will offer a browser in Windows. If they will commit to other browsers besides IE, it's comforting for them to see that Apple will expand their market.

There still seems to be some fall-out from the digg-invasion this week, but it looks a lot better. I'm fairly new here, and I don't go re-reading Bob's previous columns (if possible). Furthermore, my memory is bad at remembering details so I can't make assumptions on how Rob's writing has deteriorated or not.
My point is: if you don't like this topic, like yow, don't post a comment. It is true though, that anonymity is a nice cover.
Also, yes the poll blatantly disregards Firefox users that don't use other browsers, like me, but I don't go flaming Bob about it. I'm fairly sure there's lots more IE-only users so his poll is aimed at those.
I will continue to read Bob's column as it keeps me informed about things I normally don't hear or read anything about.

Bob Michiels

PS: The comment preview doesn't seem to recognize my line breaks. I hope that doesn't mess up this message.

I don't think of the iPhone as a phone, it's simply another Apple appliance that does internet (really really good), handles music, movies and photos, and happens to have a camera and a phone. It's almost like a pocket version of M$FT Surface, only much cheaper. At $499-$599 plus the two year AT&T contract, I don't see this iteration taking off immediately like the iPod, but I'm absolutely certain future iterations will replace the iPod (except maybe the chiclet-like Shuffle). Eventually in five to seven years, Bono is going to feel like a chump for buying 25% of Palm and not trying to get a seat on the Apple Board Of Directors instead. This device will eventually bury Palm (unless Palm can come up with a Linux-based clone of Apple's device) AND eat Sony's, Motorola's and Nokia's lunch. Perhaps Apple will partner with RIM, just to really shake things up. You never know.

There are two reasons which weren't mentioned for Safari to be released by Apple: Webkit is open source and is already being worked on by others to be a browser on Windows.It just makes sense for Apple to release it as an Apple badged browser if for no other reason than branding and marketing. The other reason is the iPhone. If third party apps are being built on Safari, developers may as well test on their desktop before deploying to the iPhone.

Nobody buys a Mac just to get Safari, so why not build a Windows version? Any software that gives Apple access to more PC users without competing with their own sales is a no-brainer. And maybe more web designers will start testing their sites on Safari (I certainly will), leading to a better browsing experience for new Mac users.

In a nutshell:

Safari for Windows is to the iPhone as iTunes for Windows was (has been / is) to the iPod.

Cringely: Maybe Apple intended to do a Safari for Windows or not, but I'm guessing they had a version running in the lab as an exercise in Intel compatibility.

This makes no sense. "Intel compatibility" is MUCH easier to achieve than "Windows compatibility". And anyhow, Apple has years of experience with both, so they would not need to do "exercises" in it.

Does this undermine your overall thesis? I don't know. I stopped reading when I realized that these speculations are as lightly researched as the ones about IBM layoffs.

Bob, normally you're on the money here, but AT&T's IPTV platform is designed around multicasting, NOT downloading.

Sure, there's DVR capability, but it's only designed to capture the multicast packets and store them locally (DRM-encrypted of course) for later playback. And it's ALL encrypted six ways from Sunday, thanks to MPAA mandates from the content providers.

As for unicast content - Video-On-Demand.

So, if Apple wants to bring forth a better, more elegant model for IPTV delivery, they'd best step up, because Microsoft and AT&T have been spending the last three years getting all the pieces to fit. We're already servicing 11 metropolitan markets, with more to come this year and next.

G Erhard
Irving TX

More about Safari and iPhone - same general take and also a simulation of Cringley's Triumph of the Nerds - 2.0: The Internet....

Sounds good!

>Mac OS X 10.5 still isn't ready to ship.
What's the purpose of a WWDC? To show a new operating system and new programming environments/techniques so that, when the OS will be available, applications will work and will use the new advantages.
So the time table is very reasonable. I think that Apple realizes, that it has to be more mature and reliable to its developer community.

>Mac OS X 10.5 still isn't ready to ship.
What's the purpose of a WWDC? To show a new operating system and new programming environments/techniques so that, when the OS will be available, applications will work and will use the new advantages.
So the time table is very reasonable. I think that Apple realizes, that it has to be more mature and reliable to its developer community.

Why not add to people being civil rather than joining the dark forces. I'm sure that in your vocabulary recesses you could have oncluded other words than "P----d off."

Why not add to people being civil rather than joining the dark forces. I'm sure that in your vocabulary recesses you could have oncluded other words than "P'd off."

Amazing! I tried to submit an entry which included your uncivil words and got this message from your site:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again

Why not add to people being civil rather than joining the dark forces. I'm sure that in your vocabulary recesses you could have used other words than urinating similar to the ones you did.

Amazing! I tried to submit an entry which included your uncivil words and got this message from your site:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again

I changed it and abbreviated it and still got the message.

Why not add to people being civil rather than joining the dark forces. I'm sure that in your vocabulary recesses you could have used other words other than the ones you did.

Amazing! I tried to submit an entry which included your uncivil words and got this message from your site:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again

I changed it and abbreviated it and still got the message.

Why not add to people being civil rather than joining the dark forces. I'm sure that you could have used other words other than the ones you did.

Amazing! I tried to submit an entry which included your own indecen words and got this message from your site:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again

I changed it and abbreviated it and still got the message.

I disagree with everything Cringely says about Safari and its role. Apple doesn't give a rat's south pole about AT&T, they are simply using them as a way to get the iPhone out into the market. The future is not proprietary switched networks, and in ten years the "legacy" mobile carriers will be history. iPhone's future is IP. It is V0.9 of the fabled Dynabook.

Safari is Apple's answer to Microsoft's .net and Live intiative. Besides serving as the anchor for iPhone development, I suspect we will be able to rent iLife apps on iTunes soon and Safari will be the gateway that polices the deal.

I don't get this no 3G on the iPhone & ATT. This weekend, I went to the local ATT shop to have our mobile phones changed to our new area code. When i got the new SIM cards, both of them proudly advertised 3G!!! In fact, the 3G moniker was all over the store. I had in fact thought that ATT didn't have their act together with 3G, but these guys told me it was working fine if you have the right phone (like my wife's recent RAZR, but not my 2-year old Treo).

What's that all about? Certainly with the lead time Apple had, announcing the ATT deal back in January, they could have got this phone on the ATT 3G network. I must be missing something, but whatever it is, it's stupid. Now, to be honest, the lack of 3G is not a deal killer for me, because I would probably use the wifi in airports and coffee shops most of the time anyway, but it sure would be cool to have 3G anywhere, especially since I'm already paying $40 /month for ATT's EDGE data plan.

Anyone know what's going on here?

The iphone will sell nicely to the hip crowd and the academics to which it is targeted. It will be a margin product and have no larger effect on the market. They will get a lot of early adopters, there will be a flurry of homegrown apps/services developed for it, and then it will fade into the noise.

Safari is just to make it so you can test your apps with iphone connectivity. Testing probably showed that the iphone had too much trouble rendering regular websites optimized for ie and most likely it scared the hell out of AT&T/Cingular and Apple. Jobs announces it like some big thing, but it is really just about trying to get people to test their sites/services with the iphone, and possibly a hail mary pass hoping for a little bit of carbon apps development by the masses.

The problem with the safari approach is that it is such a weak platform. Adobe has flash/flex, MS silverlight, javafx etc. Apple's "OS X" phone will never be able to compete with this stuff, which has a real developer community and much larger coverage.

Jobs has his little fiefdom - the business can only scale as much as his ego. That is Apple's core problem.

AT&T is focusing on developing strengths in some select areas - it will find a partner/merger to acquire the bandwidth it needs.

The caching model might work if you can get people to subscribe to tv shows so they are delivered at off hours. The problem is that everyone will want to watch the sopranos when it is released, not after it gets around to being downloaded to you. I bet Jobs has a schedule for listening to the Beatles and watching movies - so with his giant ego he thinks everyone else should. Pray Mercy for the Apple employee who suggests otherwise.

This is nothing more than Steve Job's up to his usual tricks - he can't seriously invisage large swathes of Windows users switching to Safari, because he's a smart guy.

Sure, you'll get the unpleasant fanboy-ism from that small minority who adopt, and they can have an almighty flame war with anyone else who cares (I can see it now: Firefox Sucks! Safari Sucks! IE Sucks!), but the rest of us just don't care what browser we use.

More than anything else, I see this as an attempt by Apple to say "Hey, we're a computer company who also do iPods!" rather than the current view those without the know see of "Hey - I just heard that the iPod company also do computers!"...

I never before used my mobile phone for anything but, well, as a phone. A few weeks ago, I actually took some photos with my new cell phone which I wanted to keep and thought I could simply download them to my Mac via bluetooth. After several hours searching on the web, I discovered that Verizon does not want me to have access to any files on my cell phone save for my contacts (which until recently, I would have had to pay an additional fee to retrieve; thanks iSync). I'm no fan of AT&T, but in my meager experience I can't say that Verizon or Sprint is really any better as a carrier of choice.

I'm looking forward to the new iPhone. It may not be perfect, but it's going to push cell phone technology a lot further ahead with it's well-organized and easy to use interface.

Actually there was a nice little controversy at WWDC when Jobs failed to include (as he did last year) the Carbon API as a means of writing 64 bit apps in Leopard. Last year support was announced and apparently the engineering is about done, but Apple management has decided to remove this support before Leopard ships. Perhaps it's to push everyone to Cocoa by hinting strongly that Carbon will wither and eventually die. In any event, virtually all the big cross-platform apps (e.g., MS-Office, Adobe CS) use Carbon so this has people wondering. The developers who actually starting planning and/or coding based on last year's information are less than completely happy.

"At some point this column will probably have a video version. Then it is a short jump to video responses using a service like Whistlebox. When that happens, I wonder how many readers will be as critical on video as they are today in text?"
No-one is going to reply in video. And even if they do, the other readers (viewers ??) will not watch that. It's hassle enough to go through written womments, forget about going through video messages. Viewing the column... maybe, viewing the comments... Never!

You ask, perhaps rhetorically, "When [video response] happens, I wonder how many readers will be as critical on video as they are today in text?"

They'll adapt. Think hooded muslims, beheading westerners on video. You'll see a lot of that sort of thing.

> Carbon API as a means of writing 64 bit apps in Leopard

No, what really happened is that the "Carbon" moniker is being retired along with some pieces of it that are both rarely used and can be re-implemented in Cocoa very quickly. For example, one is the menu manager, but Cocoa builds menus for you, it is painless.

Many parts of what used to be Carbon are now in pieces marked Core, where they are used by Cocoa one level up. The idea of being a Cocoa programmer or Carbon programmer has given way to being a Mac OS X programmer.

> AT&T
> Safari for Windows

Safari for Windows is a distraction. In 5 years, PC's will be less than half the Web. Right now it is just playing Coke to Firefox's Pepsi, just like it did on the Mac. You can do everything Steve Jobs tells you to do regarding Safari, use it, develop for it, port your phone craplets to it, because if you wake up next week free of RDF and decide you never want to use an Apple product again that Steve Jobs is crazy then you can switch to Firefox and all the code you made or Web sites you visit will all just work. It's the same as making iPhone apps ... if you bet on the iPhone and it fails you still have an app that runs on the Web.

Safari for AppleTV is much more interesting. If they've come up with a good 10 foot Web interface that is even better. So is Safari for iPod video, it may need both the touch screen and remote control. Clearly if iPhone is $499 they can leave out the phone and email and swap the flash disk for high-capacity magnets and get 'er done for $399 or less. That is what iPod video was priced last year.

The thing to notice right now if you're not a Web developer is that there are only two Web 2.0 browser engines: Gecko and WebKit, which are Firefox and Safari respectively. That is all we have. You can't create an OS kernel or a browser engine in less than a few years no matter how much money you have or how many coders. Microsoft stopped making Web browsers entirely for 5 full years, IE Windows is a zombie, it has no Web 2.0 characteristics. It is also half as fast as the first beta of Safari on Windows. It is also hopeless tied to the PC, it's not running on a phone any time soon.

For an example of what I'm talking about, try and run a Mac Widget outside of Dashboard. You can run them in Safari, no surprise, but you can also run them in Firefox on any platform. And NOWHERE ELSE. That is a preview of Web 2.0.