MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Why? Firefox is at least as good.

Wow, didn't they say hell had frozen over when Apple released iTunes for Windows? What will be said if Safari is released for Windows? "Eh, big deal"

First post? LOL

I don't get the logic. iPhone has OS X/webkit. WIndows has iTunes, used for syncing with the devices (iPod, iPhone, Apple TV.) Where is the need for Webkit for Windows? Who benefits?

This could be true, but there would be more to the story than what this Wired blogger puts forth.

This is such a stupid theory. Why would the release of the iPhone mean Apple needs to make a Windows version of Safari? It's idiotic. Notice the article doesn't give any reasonable evidence to support this idea. Wired are a bunch of Monkeys.

Maybe because all those iPhone buyers who have a PC are going to be using Safari on their iPhone and will want to sync their browser?

I should add, iTunes itself incorporates some- or all- of webkit, used to render the iTMS.

> Why?

The article says it. Interoperability. iTunes is supposed to sync bookmarks from computer to iPhone. I suppose Apple could design it to sync IE or Firefox bookmarks, but there may be other new features for iPhone and Safari that would make it advantageous to have control of the device and software. With Apple, it's all about control.

Firefox is a great browser, and it is as good as Safari. Therefore, there is no great "keeping the 'Mac experience' unique to their own platform" advantage in keeping Safari Mac only. Creating a Windows version of Safari may be a good move at this point, and doing it on conjunction with the iPhone release will generate big interest.

If I understand things correctly, iTunes makes extensive use of WebKit. This means that there's probably already an internal build of WebKit for Windows. Beyond that, WebKit is based on KHTML, and anyone who wants can port KHTML to Windows.

The rumors that Apple is porting Cocoa to Windows go way back, and have been pretty much completely debunked: it doesn't make any business sense at all for Apple to release a version of Cocoa for Windows, because that eliminates one of the major selling points of the Mac. Developers would love it, especially if it was done with the usual standard of Apple software quality, but it would cannibalize Mac sales like nothing else has since the clones.

So the summary of the summary is, the author noticed the ancient rumor about Cocoa for Windows and a line in a vague Firefox roadmap, and divined Apple's strategy from those two bits of non-information. Brilliant!

I have said for a couple of years that Apple should do this. They need more software experiences to entice people over to the Macintosh platform. Users can currently experience iTunes + iPod on Winblows, and a web browser makes most sense as software item #2 to be ported. Apple can claim to be the white knight - swooping in to rescue Winblows users from the crappy experience of IE 7.

Go for it, Apple!

I can see iCal and Address Book for Windows as part of iPhone management software platform.

Doesn't seem to make any sense to me. There is no money in developing a web browser for Windows. They can easily port bookmarks from IE and Firefox for use in the iPhone. iTunes will be the central interface with the iPhone. What's the point?

Unfortunately for Windows users they are tied to keeping and using Explorer because you can't download Windows/Vista updates using a different browser. I've tried.

That doesn't seem legal -- but that's never stopped MS from doing anything.

You dn't need to port Cocoa to Windows in order to port WebKit.

Cocoa is "unportable" to Windows.

Why? Quite simple. In order for Apple to really make strides in the home computer market, they need to be more compatible with web sites. There are far too many sites that don't work with Safari and as long as Safari is Mac only, the browser market share will remain very low, which will discourage developers from working to make sites compatible, which will frustrate new Mac users that suddenly discover the site they love doesn't work on their new Mac.

By releasing Safari for the PC, they could easily double their browser market share in a week.

And let the rumors come back!

I think Apple should do this if it is true. It just makes sense to do it at this time. Windows users would have another fine piece of Apple software to use on their computers, and they would have another reason to give the Mac a serious look.

What about Windows Viruses penetrating a Windows version of Safari?

but as Apple becomes less a computer manufacturer and more a device manufacturer

--

If you think Apple is willing, or interested in giving up the PC business, you're on crack. Actually, their treatment of the new iPhone shows that Apple is doing the same thing they've always done: hardware+software to produce the sleekest and best experience.

Why does one have to trade off with the other? The company is already split in two... iPod and Macintosh...

This new phone falls very much in the middle of those two, so a third 'sector' might be in order, but by no means is Apple becoming less of a computer company, especially not when Mac sales are zooming upwards as they have been in the past 3 years...

Some people can't seem to get their heads around this zero-sum game thing.. the third option is that the company GROWS...

Much like Sony, except Sony had conflicting interests. As long as there are no conflicting interests, Apple can win on all fronts.

And if I know that, you can bet Steve knows that. Duh.

Who cares about Safari -- ICHAT ICHAT ICHAT FOR WINDOWS!!! That's the only other software that makes sense. Everyone I know is blown away when they see videoconferencing on a Mac -- I've honestly had friends buy a Mac because of it. If iChat was available on Windows and offered the same ease of use and look on both platforms, it would transform instant messaging. I'm sick of trying to video with Windows users when all their video solutions are awful OR we have to both switch over to Skype or Sightspeed or some other non-standard.

Of course, given how tightly iChat is integrated with Address Book and Mail, I'm sure that would present some problems... But I just want to see a Windows iChat experience that works as seamlessly as the Mac version.

Am I missing something that would make this un-doable?

Think virtual machines. As VMs become more commonplace the OS will disapear into the background. What we use will be a series of 'components'. Webkit/Safari will be just another 'component', along with Windows Presentation Foundation (whatever that is) and all the other Windows stuff. Mac OSX will then be the 'glue' that holds these components together. Effectively it will be 'embrace and extinguish'.

Look at this a WebKit port as another step along the way and it might make more sense.

It's true. iPhone runs Safari. You can synchronize your bookmarks. Windows users will have the option to use the mac browser. Embrace-extinguish. They'll use iTunes, Safari. . . why use winblows at all? Maybe we'll see iLife for windows just as we see office for mac?

And here I was hoping Apple would keep some iPhone integration Mac-only to drive Mac sales. Still possible, I guess.

This reminds me of another rumor about iLife coming to windows. Both of these are BAD idea because it takes away from the superior Mac experience. If the Mac represents "greener pastures" then porting our software to windows makes Mac a lot less green. I don't think it would encourage windows users to consider the Mac, if anything it would encourage them to stick with the status quo of crappy windows because they'll also get our best software as well.

Bullshit, WebKit and Firefox are two completely different projects.

Who cares about Safari -- ICHAT ICHAT ICHAT FOR WINDOWS!!! That's the only other software that makes sense. Everyone I know is blown away when they see videoconferencing on a Mac -- I've honestly had friends buy a Mac because of it.

Which is why they should not port it to Windows. This piece of software (much like iMovie, iDVD and iWeb, are pieces of software that do things that the PC doesn't do (at least not as well).

With Safari, you just have a web browser. It basically does the same thing as the other browsers. Also,having Safari on a Windows machine will help them gain market share in the browser market; which means something. Even if iChat took 99% of the market on Windows machines, it has no net gain, no value. As a Mac only app, it has the wow factor that can draw in new hardware customers.

what an idiot, why go to the firefox site to find information about a port of webkit to windows, when it's all over the webkit site itself ?

by the way, the port of webkit to windows is NOT done by apple, AND webkit is not enough to make safari run on windows.

I was watching the keynote with no sound and got to carefully look at the effects Steve used on the keynote, and not listening (beeing distracted) to what he was saying. As a photographer I know from experience that most of the time people LOOK at things, but dont really SEE them. I was not able to replicate the effects used in the keynote in the current version of "Keynote" so we were probably also given a preview of iWork 07 and did not noticed it, but not so few people complained loudly that there was nothing said about the Mac. Dont just look at things, try to SEE them and if possible beyond the obvious.

I'm sure that the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place soon enough and iLife 07, iWork 07, Leopard and iPhone will create a very "nice"package. Like the other phones looked dated AiP (After iPhone) I'm certain Vista will also, sooner than later. Is it really necessary to port Safari to windows do do that?

There were some slots open on the home screen of the iPhone, who knows what will be in them between now and June?

why stop there? Why not port the iLife suite, too? Make much of the Mac software available for Windows, in the end I believe it'll make more Windows users want to use Macs.

"Firefox is a great browser, and it is as good as Safari"

Then why do the Radio button in Firefox look like PC crap?

That's just what we need. A lot of Mac software that looks just as shi*ty as their PC version.

A lot of Mac software that looks just as shi*ty as their PC version.

---------------------

Umm.. Hate to burst your bubble, but web browsers is one area where Apple didn't exactly "innovate." Safari came along after a slew of other PC web browsers and there wasn't much difference between what Apple did vs. the PC guys. There are even a large segment of Mac users who use browsers other than Safari.

I'm with you, Macster1.

1) I like Firefox's plugin architecture, but Firefox doesn't work with .Mac.

2) Safari is faster—not by much, but it is faster.

3) Safari looks better (those radio buttons must be from Windows 3.1 or something)

4) Safari bookmarking rocks


I'm not sure if these 4 reasons are enough to convince some PC user that just switched from IE to Firefox to switch again to Safari.

NoSound: no, I saw - not only look at the :D I also saw Steve giving a sign of iPhone before talking about it
I noticed something with the keynote, but I never really used it much, so I thought maybe there's a way to do that effect.

Furthermore, those who said there was no mac are dumbos.
iPhone is running Mac OS, so that's a Mac there!

"Hate to burst your bubble, but web browsers is one area where Apple didn't exactly "innovate."

Hate to burst your's... Mosaic was the first browser and was available for the Mac before for the PC... then Netscape etc.

Then M$hit came out with IE, which was a lousy browser and with millions of mindless M$ lemmings they took over the Web and destroyed an emerging standard.

Apple iPhone have safari (browser) bookmarks, iTunes and iPhoto synchronization, and it's compatible with both windows and macs. I've said it before that Apple will release iLife for windows and safari. If not, Apple has to figure out which browsers to sync the bookmarks and which photo program on windows to sync them.

Look at this way, at $79 a pop, Apple still makes a lot of money by selling iLife to both macs and pcs.

They'd be better off putting their effort into porting iChat for windows.

Macster1, you need to re-read my post. I'm not talking about who made the first browser (and it wasn't Apple,) I'm saying that with Safari, Apple didn't re-invent the web browser. Safari was (and is) very similar to every other web browser before it. And BTW, Mosaic was not made by Apple.

So there, your bubble is burst!

I can see no benefit to Apple by porting Safari. Ain’t gonna happen unless there is a business reason to do so. The iPhone will sell itself, so no need there.

Unless it is to utterly obliterate IE, and wipe it from the face of the earth. Then it might make business sense.

@Drunk Cheney

You can download Windows updates in Firefox (XP at least, I will never be able to speak for Vista) using the IE Tab extension, which will launch specific browser pages in their own Internet Explorer tab within Firefox.

It's not truly using a different browser, but at least it helps limit your exposure to IE's mediocre, godless heathen interface and security.

Cocoa is "unportable" to Windows.

Then explain this:
http://www.gnustep.org/resources/sources.html#windows

"Unless it is to utterly obliterate IE, and wipe it from the face of the earth. Then it might make business sense."

Not a bad idea. This would help the adoption of web standards, and make it easier to tailor websites to both platforms.

Maybe Apple are doing some deal with Google (and/or Yahoo!) and will keep it exclusive to Safari. Something like web-aps to run on the iPhone - and also of course on a users desktop or laptop box. Then it becomes necessary to port Safari to Windows.

Get a F'king Mac and then you will have Safari.

Amen, DanoX - I can't see any compelling reason for a Safari port to Windows. There's no money in it, only a lot of hassle as frustrated Windows users try to get Safari to work on whatever mishmash of software and hardware they have cobbled together. It would be much easier to sync bookmarks from IE or Firefox and photos from the "My Photos" folder than to waste time with a browser port.

Maybe Thought Process is right about getting Safari's numbers up.
Maybe it will be needed to update the iPhone also.(iTunes makes more sense)
Maybe iChat will be needed for videocalls to Macs AND PCs.(after 3G update)
Maybe iCal and Address Book will be needed for syncing.
This would get many to use Apple software besides iTunes.
People would then want to try more....
iWork and iLife and the others would need to stay a Mac experience.

Why? Firefox is at least as good.

I'd argue that Firefox is way better than Safari. Even on the Mac, itself. It works with everything and the choices in add-ons are practically infinite. Safari seems a bit snappier, but I would expect that from Apple software. If someone would ever optimize Firefox like Camino, you'd have the greatest browser ever..

Safari isn't such a big deal, it's a great browser, but not a wow experience.
iLife on the other hand is a WoW experience - people won't switch to macs for Safari they will for iLife.

I wouldn't mind seeing Safari for Windows. It's better than Internet Explorer.

Apple would also be returning the favor to Microsoft. If you recall, Microsoft provided IE for the Mac before Safari was available.

To make it an option for Windows users, Apple can just bundle it with iTunes. Imagine, with tens of millions of iPod users already out there, that's a lot of potential converts to to the total Mac experience.

Safari for PC for Free. That could be a new benchmark and utilize some form of security that works! People would download the hell out of that. If it worked, they'd want more Apple software.

At some point Apple may find the tipping point where a massive desire for Mac Mini computers occurs in the market place. I own two, they're some of my favorite Macs. As Apple TV takes off there's a LOT of upside here for Apple Inc.

There seems to be some confusion here about what "Cocoa", "Safari" and "WebKit" are (as usual).

I'm not really an expert, but my understanding is:

1) Cocoa (or its predecessor) was already on Windows back when NeXT/Apple was making WebObjects for Windows. Remember "YellowBox" (the former name for Cocoa) and how it was going to supposedly run on Windows? Apple decided not to continue with this path, however, for reasons others have mentioned.

2) WebKit means 2 different things: it's the API framework in OS X that safari and other apps can use to render web pages, AND it's the browser engine itself (contained within that framework), which is open-source and based on KHTML.

3) The browser engine in WebKit is not really Cocoa technology, as it began life on Linux in the KDE project as KHTML. I doubt those folks wrote KHTML in Objective-C. The fact that WebKit is used on mobile phones and stuff is an indication that it's something more "common denominator" like C++.

The NeXT development environment was available as "OpenStep Enterprise" on Windows NT, shortly before Apple bought NeXT. It's still the best product of its kind ever shipped on windows, with the possible exception of some smalltalk products.

HOWEVER...

There's a lot of code that's come along since 1997, including a complete replacement of Display Postscript and Renderman with Quartz 2D and OpenGL, and bringing up today's AppKit on Windows would be rather more work than it was to just bring up OS X on Intel.

Offering Apple's crown jewels on Windows makes no sense. There's not enough revenue available for it to be worth Apple's time. The only companies that stay in business selling development tools are Microsoft, and a handful of third-parties who entire yearly profits combined don't amount to a rounding error on an Apple quarterly report.

-jcr

I can see two reasons Apple might want to release a port of Safari.

1- If Apple wants to release a commercial suite for web development, define it in terms other than IE-friendly and be taken seriously they have to support a Windows client.
2- Like was posted elsewhere, even a small number of Windows adopters would significantly increase Safari's share of the Net- diluting Microsoft's non-standard BS.