Samsung L870 Uses 'Safari'

[edesignuk]

Yup, you read that right. We're not talking about just any Webkit-based browser, Samsung's long-rumored L870 slider features Apple's Webkit-based, Mobile Safari browser. A first outside of the iPhone. The 13.5-mm thin phone pumps Symbian v9.3 and S60 3rd Edition Feature Pack 2 at its core with a 3 megapixel camera, 2.4-inch QVGA display, FM radio, Stereo Bluetooth, and microSD expansion. Unfortunately, this pup is tri-band GSM with single-band UMTS/HSDPA 3.6Mbps support so it'll be heading to Europe around the August time frame.Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/28/samsung-l870-s60-slider-features-mobile-safari-browser/).

Fancy that!

[Project]

Did Apple license it?

[philgilder]

Did Apple license it?
if they didnt, prepare for no more samsung L870

anyway, other nokia phones, such as the N95, have safari based browsers (maybe theyre the webkit based ones) but this is the first to call it safari

[Mykbibby]

This is such a lame move on Apple's part. Being the fanboy that I am, I have been very supportive of every move Apple has made, but this is crazy. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING EL JOBSO?!?!??!? :confused::confused::confused:

[kdarling]

Ask yourself why Microsoft licensed the business critical Exchange stuff to Apple, instead of keeping it for Windows Mobile.

Because it makes Exchange that much more a standard.

So why would Apple license Safari?

[neven]

This is most likely a WebKit-based browser (which Apple needn't license out in any way). It's not "really" Safari "like on the iPhone" - this thing doesn't even have a touch screen.

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Samsung today announced the L870 Symbian-based phone. Interestingly, spec sheets obtained by phoneArena.com (http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/Samsung-L870-is-Symbian-S60-slider-with-Safari-browser-article-a_2834.html) (via Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/28/samsung-l870-s60-slider-features-mobile-safari-browser/)) specify that the phone uses the Safari web browser.

The default web browser of the S60 platform is indeed a WebKit-based browser developed by Nokia (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/06/13/nokias-browser-based-on-safari/). The "Safari" designation, however, would seem to indicate some cooperation with Apple, as Safari is an Apple-registered trademark.

Regardless, the move appears to be yet another win for the Apple-supported WebKit rendering engine. Recently, Adobe has announced that the Air platform is utilizing WebKit (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/25/adobe-releases-air-flex-3/), and Dreamweaver CS4 (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/27/adobe-dreamweaver-fireworks-and-soundbooth-cs4-public-betas/) will be using WebKit for its Live View feature.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/28/samsung-l870-uses-safari/)

[paddy]

Another blow to Windows mobile, what harm. :o

[Syrus28]

I was waiting for you guys to run this story...:D

Doesn't it seem weird for :apple: to let Samsung use the supposedly best mobile browser? I mean, usually :apple: keeps their best programs to themselves. Although I wonder how performance would be affected, running on Symbian instead of Mac OS X.

[wideholic]

Samsung's japanese company right?

[Syrus28]

Another blow to Windows mobile, what harm. :o

Actually, there are a number of promising webkit based browsers being developed on Windows Mobile also. While not holding the "Safari" name, the performance could very well be comparable.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Could it be that Apple is finally starting to see the long-term bigger picture for putting market SHARE above keeping it all as Apple profit? Now if they could only cooperate with a select clone maker or two to provide the missing links in their PC chain, they might be able to start to capture exponentially higher PC sales from switchers.

[cheekybobcat]

Ah, another slap to the Windows Mobile face. So sweet :)

[w00master]

This is such a lame move on Apple's part. Being the fanboy that I am, I have been very supportive of every move Apple has made, but this is crazy. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING EL JOBSO?!?!??!? :confused::confused::confused:

Wow. I'm speechless. Do you have candlelight services everynight for El Jobso?

:rolleyes:

[Dimwhit]

I can't think of a reason for Apple to NOT do this. Seems like a smart move.

[princealfie]

awesome this is cool!

[Hattig]

Seems like a sensible move, marketing wise, to get the name of Safari out there. In addition if you're tweaking your website for mobile users, you'll certainly do Safari first now because it will have the bigger market. I'm sure Apple would have had some input on the interface and usability. Maybe all Symbian phones will soon come with "Safari" branded webkit browsers.

[SqueegyX]

Mozilla and Apple need to get together. As a web developer it would be so much easier if we only had to support a single rendering engine. And efforts into both Webkit and Gecko seem somewhat duplicated.

I will say that Apple seems to be doing more for web standards than Mozilla these days. Firefox on Webkit would be cool.

[speakerwizard]

They will be using a web-kit based browser and have deliberatley mis-lead to get coverage, and it has worked, and you fell for it.

[Anonymous Freak]

I was waiting for you guys to run this story...:D

Doesn't it seem weird for :apple: to let Samsung use the supposedly best mobile browser? I mean, usually :apple: keeps their best programs to themselves. Although I wonder how performance would be affected, running on Symbian instead of Mac OS X.

Well, WebKit (the rendering engine at the heart of Safari,) has been running on Symbian for some time as an "official (http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/S60Webkit)" port (it's been on Symbian longer than Windows.) Nokia's "N-Series" line uses a WebKit-based browser. This is just "news" because it is using the Safari name, as "Safari" is a trademark of Apple, but the underlying WebKit core is open source, and needs no direct approval from Apple for ANYone to use it. Microsoft could base their next version of Internet Explorer on WebKit, and Apple at this point couldn't do anything to stop them. (WebKit is based on KHTML, and as such, both use the BSD license.)

[longofest]

If true, they are asking for getting sued by Apple for trademark infringement. I'm not ready to just blatantly say that they are misleading people, although it is a real possibility.

Besides, I think most people reading these boards are interested in the "real" mobile Safari ;) iPhone

[Small White Car]

Now if they could only cooperate with a select clone maker or two to provide the missing links in their PC chain, they might be able to start to capture exponentially higher PC sales from switchers.

If you could buy a $1,199 iMac or a $1,199 clone, why would you buy the clone?

Oh, unless you mean the clones would be priced LESS than Macs, in which case you're talking about killing Apple's revenue and destroying the company.

The first way seems pointless and the second way seems suicidal. I'm not sure which way you meant it, but neither seem very attractive.

[longofest]

Microsoft could base their next version of Internet Explorer on WebKit, and Apple at this point couldn't do anything to stop them.

Somehow, I don't think Apple would want to stop them. Wouldn't that be an awesome PR victory :D

[gkarris]

What? :confused:

That's OUR browser!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(runs off screaming....) :eek:

:D

[pik.]

Samsung's japanese company right?

Korean.....:rolleyes:

[twoodcc]

i say this is good news

[Yvan256]

Somehow, I don't think Apple would want to stop them. Wouldn't that be an awesome PR victory :D

It would also be a web-coder victory. No more IE headaches! (well, in a few years anyway). ;)

[indiekiduk]

"Webkit" != "Safari"

Apple's lawyers will be all over this trademark violation, can't wait!!! It is unfortunate some Japanese press release translator will feel the pain over this.

[ArtOfWarfare]

hmmm...

well, the issue I see with this is that any critism for the phone's web browser will obviously be directed at Apple.

I don't think the software alone makes the mobile web browsing experience so popular on the iPhone (although it does play a key role.) I think the hardware (the high resolution touch screen) plays a much larger role.

...

But if Apple wants to start porting Safari, could they give it to the Wii? The Wii's web browsing experience is total bull. It's missing tabs. And plugins to play QuickTime among other things. Inquisitor wouldn't hurt a bit either. (Especially considering how slow it is trying to type on the onscreen keyboard.)

[elppa]

I suspect this whole thing is an oversight by whoever put the brochure together.

Mozilla and Apple need to get together.

No, competition is healthy. The last thing we want is one single rendering engine. Gecko has so far proved inadequate for use on the mobile (where the only real players are Opera and Webkit). Why would Webkit team want all that cruft shoved into their nice, clean code-base?

As a web developer it would be so much easier if we only had to support a single rendering engine. And efforts into both Webkit and Gecko seem somewhat duplicated.

I've never had much of an issue supporting both. There are some minor differences, but overall if you follow the best practice you should be fine targeting both.

I will say that Apple seems to be doing more for web standards than Mozilla these days. Firefox on Webkit would be cool.

True, especially with all the new HTML 5 support. Maybe one day Firefox will drop Gecko and move to Webkit and find a way of taking their plugin architecture with them! I feel it is unlikely though. And I wouldn't want it to happen either — competition is healthy.

[BongoBanger]

Since Apple are actively trying to push Safari - the recent iTunes on Windows thing springs to mind - it wouldn't surprise me if they are licensing Safari to third parties.

S60v3 uses a variety of browsers - the Nokia N95's native browser is OK but Opera mobile is better. It'd be great if Safari becomes an available download too.

As for a blow to Windows Mobile, well not really: S60 is a completely different OS.

[stagi]

I think this is great news, get the safari name out there more!

[Padraig]

After reading some of the comments on Engadget I had to check my user-agent string for my Nokia e51. The last line is what's interesting..

AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413

Makes me wonder about certain web traffic stats.

[ArtOfWarfare]

I think this is great news, get the safari name out there more!

I'm pretty sure the iPhone and Windows version were doing that just fine with that.

I really think they're risking it by letting another phone company use it... unless Apple is being allowed to oversee some portion of the quality assurance... it seems very possible the other company will cut corners and screw up the hardware so that Safari won't run smoothly.

[cmcbridejr]

Samsung's japanese company right?

No, Korean.

[bloodycape]

How is this a bad thing for windows mobile users as we got three different versions of opera(opera 8, 9 and mobile), skyfire, IE, Minimo beta, and deepfish. We got so much choices that equal and in some ways best Safari(after all we can use adobe flash on our devices). But, yeah competition is great for us consumers and I am looking forward for more advancements. I would not be surprised we see this hacked and working on Nokia and possibly even Sony Symbian based devices.

[bronco75]

I can't think of a reason for Apple to NOT do this. Seems like a smart move.

agreed. If Apple is helping port Safari around to different mobile devices, it just makes developing to safari that much more important, and then Ipod/phone devices will benefit. iPhone will not be put out as the key interface benefits will still be there, and the iPhone SDK will allow killer apps unique to the Apple mobile line.

And Anything to move closer to the W3C standards and away from IE7 is a good thing, and if smartphones are the way to do it, then let's all of us welcome our new cell phone overlords.

[bronco75]

How is this a bad thing for windows mobile users as we got three different versions of opera(opera 8, 9 and mobile), skyfire, IE, Minimo beta, and deepfish. We got so much choices that equal and in some ways best Safari(after all we can use adobe flash on our devices). But, yeah competition is great for us consumers and I am looking forward for more advancements. I would not be surprised we see this hacked and working on Nokia and possibly even Sony Symbian based devices.

Using flash is a good thing? (see isc.sans.org today)

[Dagless]

That's pretty odd news. I'm hoping it works well, Safari is my fave browser.

[trunkster]

Samsung's japanese company right?
Haha is that suppose to be a joke because a lot of Korean products are copies of Japanese? I'm not trying to be racist here, it's just a lot of Korean products have been known to be illegally copies Japanese products, just Google it.

[gnasher729]

If true, they are asking for getting sued by Apple for trademark infringement. I'm not ready to just blatantly say that they are misleading people, although it is a real possibility.

Since that should be obvious to even the worlds dumbest executive, I would assume that Samsung has Apple's permission to use the "Safari" name.

[Prom1]

Um, not sure if anyone posted this info or informed longofest, on this.

BUT Webkit is NOT only founded by Nokia, nor created by them. Something I get tisick about because they always state this ... yet "they" (Nokia) contacted Apple to develop it with them.

http://webkit.org/ (WebKit Open Source Project)

Welcome to the website for the WebKit Open Source Project!

WebKit is an open source web browser engine. WebKit is also the name of the Mac OS X system framework version of the engine that's used by Safari, Dashboard, Mail, and many other OS X applications. WebKit's HTML and JavaScript code began as a branch of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE. This website is also the home of S60's S60 WebKit development.


Cheers.:apple:

[cmcbridejr]

Haha is that suppose to be a joke because a lot of Korean products are copies of Japanese? I'm not trying to be racist here, it's just a lot of Korean products have been known to be illegally copies Japanese products, just Google it.

I've always agreed myself.

Samsung is the Korean Sony, and Hyundai is the Korean Honda.

Those Korean companies produce similar products and target the same market as their Japanese counterparts.

However, the products are typically of less quality standards and lower price point to the consumer.

[zap2]

Samsung is the Korean Sony, and Hyundai is the Korean Honda.


However, the products are typically of less quality standards and lower price point to the consumer.

I'm argue that Samsung point. That BlackJack was a FINE WM phone!

[panamajack]

Haha is that suppose to be a joke because a lot of Korean products are copies of Japanese? I'm not trying to be racist here, it's just a lot of Korean products have been known to be illegally copies Japanese products, just Google it.

.... just like the Japanese did before them on the American automobile, JUST like the USofA did years ago against the British, just like every other culture in the history of man! China's 5000 years of history shows plenty of periods of native innovative countered by periods of importing technology and making it their own (aka, "infringing IP").

Sorry, by singling out Koreans you ARE being racist, plain and simple.

[trunkster]

.... just like the Japanese did before them on the American automobile, JUST like the USofA did years ago against the British, just like every other culture in the history of man! China's 5000 years of history shows plenty of periods of native innovative countered by periods of importing technology and making it their own (aka, "infringing IP").

Sorry, by singling out Koreans you ARE being racist, plain and simple.

Sorry if I didn't write a 20 page report of the history of copyright. I was just saying that a lot of Korean products are copies of Japanese products, they do have original innovations too.

How about if I bring up Apple copying Xerox.

[dapodaca]

I've never had much of an issue supporting [Gecko, Webkit]. There are some minor differences, but overall if you follow the best practice you should be fine targeting both.


Agreed.

As a web developer I've seen Safari/Webkit behaving quite nicely along with Firefox/Gecko since Safari 3. I few months ago I was on a site build that had to "support" Safari 2.0.4, and therefore I had to work around some of its CSS bugs. As always, the real pain for all of us are IE6 and IE7. I will not detail their weaknesses since that is well covered.


No, competition is healthy. The last thing we want is one single rendering engine...
Competition. Yes, Safari vs. Firefox. And those two vs. Opera and whatever other rendering engines / flagship apps we can get into the melee. Anything we can do to speed the process of taking this lumbering behemoth of Internet Explorer and laying it to rest. It is and has been obsolete and *obtusely* non-standard for what feels like eons.

(to everyone) Perhaps you disagree. Maybe you think IE8 sounds like a good promise. Have you tried the beta? I did. It has this neat auto-recover feature for your session. You know, like Firefox has had for awhile now? Except that it has no way (yet) of gracefully failing. Default behavior. I discovered this when I took IE8 for a test drive on a site I had in QA. IE8 loaded part of the page and then crashed. Auto-recover to the rescue! Quick, load that last page! Crash. Repeat. Between each crash were 2, yes TWO *modal* dialogs informing me about what had happened and most unhelpfully presented choices that led to same condition. Has anyone at Microsoft read Kafka?? Yes, yes, this is beta software. But betas of other browsers have rarely seemed this bad. I mean, I have to use Task Manager in tandem with IE8 on the first site I load. Smooth.

[DiamondMac]

That's pretty odd news. I'm hoping it works well, Safari is my fave browser.

Agreed on the odd part

I didn't see this coming but am excited about it if it boosts usage for the browser

I still use FireFox the most but am 70/30 FireFox/Safari

I still get some crashes with Safari which annoy me a bit

[Stella]

hmmm...
But if Apple wants to start porting Safari, could they give it to the Wii? The Wii's web browsing experience is total bull. It's missing tabs. And plugins to play QuickTime among other things. Inquisitor wouldn't hurt a bit either. (Especially considering how slow it is trying to type on the onscreen keyboard.)

There's no reason why Wii Opera can't do plugins now - its likely due to the limited storage space. Apple would have to approve any QuickTime plug in, probably.


"Originally Posted by SqueegyX
Mozilla and Apple need to get together."

Apple rejected Gecko because its too bloated. Webkit was far lighter.

Nokia also investigated Gecko, but finally decided upon Webkit and produced a S60 browser - which is what this device uses. The Nokia webkit browser actually, at this moment in time, has more functionality than the iPhone does.

I've had webkit on my phone for coming up to 2 years, and its pretty damned good - very good rendering.

[stephenli]

Its not the first time for Apple to license its software on a mobile phone right?
The Motorola ROKR.

[jonnyz]

This is just the first manufacturer to list "Safari" on their spec sheet, more for recognition than anything. I bet the exact same browser will be used on all new Symbian 9.3 / FP2 phones. Why do I think this? Because the official user agent for my Nokia E51's browser (Symbian 9.2 / FP 1) is:

Version 1.0 21 May 2007
Valid beginning from version 1.00.0

User Agent Header: Mozilla/5.0(SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE51/1.00.000; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; )AppleWebKit/413(KHTML, like Gecko)Safari/413

-> http://nds1.nds.nokia.com/uaprof/NE51-1r100.xml

[Matthew Yohe]

Wow, Nokia really wants to ride on the coattails of Apple's success with Safari (webkit), as they use "Safari" all over their S60's promotional site.

"open source components that are used by Apple's Safari Internet browser"
http://www.s60.com/business/whatss60/builtinapplications/webrowser/techinfo

"S60 includes a built-in web browser based on the WebCore and JavaScriptCore open source components that are used by Apple's Safari Internet browser."
http://www.s60.com/business/s60forbusiness/enterprises

"S60 works with many open source communities on a variety of projects. Examples of these include the Web Browser for S60, included in S60 3rd Edition feature pack 1, which is based on the WebKit Open Source project » that also provides the browser engine for Apple’s Safari browser."
http://www.s60.com/business/developers/developingwithS60

[mdriftmeyer]

Folks this is Nokia using Trolltech [which they own a majority stake] who ported WebKit to Qt Libraries.

Duh.

You aren't going to get Apple Safari with Cocoa and specifics to OS X in this browser. You'll get the latest WebKit for Qt in this browser.

[BongoBanger]

Folks this is Nokia using Trolltech [which they own a majority stake] who ported WebKit to Qt Libraries.

Duh.

You aren't going to get Apple Safari with Cocoa and specifics to OS X in this browser. You'll get the latest WebKit for Qt in this browser.

Err... this is a Samsung phone, not a Nokia. Whilst Nokia do have a majority stake in Symbian they aren't the same company.

[boss1]

I would imagine most of the positives to this story come from those who don't remember or weren't around when Apple fell flat on its face because of this type of behavior.

But that was then and this is now? Well not really. The same factors that adversely effected the value of Apple software back then still are relevant today.

If anyone feels inclined to debate this however I will agree that what might have changed slightly is the impact of those factors moving forward given Apple's current position in the market place. But thats it.

If market share is what Apple see's as in their best interest at the moment then this is definitely the way to go.

As long as we agree that that putting quality software inside cheap hardware degrades the consumers perceived value of said software. There's no getting around it. Not only that but consumers eventually don't see why they should spend money on Apple hardware if they can use the software on a cheaper piece of hardware without chucking the bucks in Apple's direction. Apple knows this and so I'm puzzled .

If X = Increasing market share in this fashion and
Y = the digression of perceived value of Apple products...
I end up with a big X on my line chart.

[miketcool]

Grab your Samsung handset and call me crazy; but the more web devs you have for Safari, the more it benefits ALL Safari users. Perhaps in the future having a majority of web developers working with Webkit could benefit Apple? Seeing how everything is going online, this would be good for, oh lets say, market share.

[deathshrub]

Korean.....:rolleyes:

Eh, half of dozen to one, six to the other.

[Matti]

Err... this is a Samsung phone, not a Nokia. Whilst Nokia do have a majority stake in Symbian they aren't the same company.

The phone runs on S60 flavour of Symbian, and Nokia owns and controls S60.

The Webkit based browser that comes with every S60 phone is also developped by Nokia.

[ingenious]

Eh, half of dozen to one, six to the other.

right. so i'm sure all the brits on here wouldn't mind being called americans or vice versa... :rolleyes:

same with koreans and japanese or any other "similar" people group.

as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," so is similarity.

you can't just shove someone's nationality or ethnicity in his or her face...

</soapbox>

[Pwned]

Iphone rumors/news sure are quiet today...

[michaelvoigt]

Webkit is free, and can be used by anyone right? Samsung can take the source and do as they please.

So, :apple: probably figured that Samsung could just take WebKit use it and get no credit. So if they offered the Safari branding that would be better then nothing. Probably better then Samsung taking the source code and calling it ... hmmm... Excursion or something

:confused: I really don't understand open source sometimes? 100's of programmers time and effort given away for free? Large corporations taking the source code and profiting ..... The open source movements depending on free labor and these large corporations don't contribute as much as they take...

[classicmac1988]

Looks like the story on phone Arena.com has been updated.

http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/Samsung-L870-is-Symbian-S60-slider-with-Safari-browser-article-a_2834.html

[sushi]

Samsung's japanese company right?
No. Korean.

Korean.....:rolleyes:
Yep.

"Webkit" != "Safari"

Apple's lawyers will be all over this trademark violation, can't wait!!! It is unfortunate some Japanese press release translator will feel the pain over this.
Agree.

As a web developer I've seen Safari/Webkit behaving quite nicely along with Firefox/Gecko since Safari 3. I few months ago I was on a site build that had to "support" Safari 2.0.4, and therefore I had to work around some of its CSS bugs. As always, the real pain for all of us are IE6 and IE7. I will not detail their weaknesses since that is well covered.
This is another reason why having another company like Samsung using WebKit (and maybe Safari) is good news.

Too bad IE does not follow the standards.

Eh, half of dozen to one, six to the other.
Hardly.

The two countries and their culture is very different.

right. so i'm sure all the brits on here wouldn't mind being called americans or vice versa... :rolleyes:
That would be fun to see. ;)

[mrgreen4242]

Apple should consider releasing a couple "iPhone apps" for Palm OS. Mobile Safar and Mail would be the big two. Why? Because it would kick Windows Mobile in the nuts.

Yes, the iPhone is a better device than either WM or PalmOS smartphones, but there's a ton of Treos out there, and it's the established competitor to WM (and it's losing that battle).

Propping up Palm with a couple of "killer apps" would weaken Microsoft's grip on the mobile device market letting Apple get more of a foothold into an area that they are already doing very well at.

Give away Safari and Mail and maybe some other iPhone like apps for Palm OS and I see it as more of a gateway to replacing your Palm with an iPhone than making the Treo an iPhone competitor. It's like the iPod/iTunes/Safari for Windows "halo" model - it really does work* - for handhelds.

* My wife uses a PC and she often says "I wish everything worked like iTunes". She'll get a Mac when her PC finally bites it, but the thing seems to be built really well (it's a Dell). Shes had it for about 4 years and I tossed in more RAM right when she got it and put in a cheap ($50) 120gb HDD about a year ago when the old one dies. Eventually the motherboard or at least the CPU will start to fail and it'll be cheaper to replace than fix and I'll get her an old MacBook or something... anyways, that was too much background for a completely unrelated topic, sorry.

[question fear]

Apple should consider releasing a couple "iPhone apps" for Palm OS. Mobile Safar and Mail would be the big two. Why? Because it would kick Windows Mobile in the nuts.

Yes, the iPhone is a better device than either WM or PalmOS smartphones, but there's a ton of Treos out there, and it's the established competitor to WM (and it's losing that battle).

Propping up Palm with a couple of "killer apps" would weaken Microsoft's grip on the mobile device market letting Apple get more of a foothold into an area that they are already doing very well at.

Give away Safari and Mail and maybe some other iPhone like apps for Palm OS and I see it as more of a gateway to replacing your Palm with an iPhone than making the Treo an iPhone competitor. It's like the iPod/iTunes/Safari for Windows "halo" model - it really does work* - for handhelds.


Except Safari and Mail are two HUGE draws for using an iPhone, that's #1, and #2, why give a competitor two of your great apps? Especially Palm, since I would wager a bet that the iPhone is stealing a great deal more of their marketshare than any other smartphone maker. Palm has stood stock still for the last 5 years, their OS is basically the same with minor changes, and so people are moving from Palm OS to other platforms. Apple doesn't want to give people the chance to stay on the rival platform because they would have bought an iPhone but hey, Palm has Safari so why bother with the expense and headache of a platform change?

Besides which, Palm OS is so old and creaky I highly doubt it could run Safari or Mail effectively. It can barely run a cellular radio and a bluetooth radio without hosing one or the other regularly.

If Apple really wants to poach Palm users, they should be on the phone with the guys at Styletap, begging for their Palm emulator to move to the iPhone. THAT will get some serious interest from all those people who have Palm apps they can't give up, but want an iPhone really badly.

[jvlog]

no one has mentioned that the processor in the iPhone is from Samson, as is the the cinema display. witch leads me to believe this might be some sort of trade off. like in exchange for the 620Mhz ARM for the iPhone  has to license a version of safari to Samson, although this seams vary uncharacteristic we might see more colabs between  and Samsong in the future, if the iphone doesn't move to the Intel atom.

[macbattle]

Apple should consider releasing a couple "iPhone apps" for Palm OS. Mobile Safar and Mail would be the big two. Why? Because it would kick Windows Mobile in the nuts.

Yes, the iPhone is a better device than either WM or PalmOS smartphones, but there's a ton of Treos out there, and it's the established competitor to WM (and it's losing that battle).

Propping up Palm with a couple of "killer apps" would weaken Microsoft's grip on the mobile device market letting Apple get more of a foothold into an area that they are already doing very well at.

Give away Safari and Mail and maybe some other iPhone like apps for Palm OS and I see it as more of a gateway to replacing your Palm with an iPhone than making the Treo an iPhone competitor. It's like the iPod/iTunes/Safari for Windows "halo" model - it really does work* - for handhelds.
How is that a kick in the nuts to MS, when there is at least 2 palm emulators out there for us WM users. Not to mention some of the people who were former Palm users(who are looking for more) are now either using a WM phone(a lot of being a WM based Palm) or moved to BB. So if Apple did that wouldn't that increase the usage of the Palm emulators? Then again Palm is suppose bring a new OS out in 2009 or something and if that pans out then there could be software compatibility issues I would think.

[sdds]

Microsoft could base their next version of Internet Explorer on WebKit, and Apple at this point couldn't do anything to stop them. (WebKit is based on KHTML, and as such, both use the BSD license.)

This would be about the smartest move MS did in years. And a heaven sent for web devs. No more IE hacks, no more proprietary MS "standards", no more gobshite.

[A grain of salt]

I've always agreed myself.

Samsung is the Korean Sony, and Hyundai is the Korean Honda.

Those Korean companies produce similar products and target the same market as their Japanese counterparts.

However, the products are typically of less quality standards and lower price point to the consumer.

Apple products have many Samsung components including chips and hard drives. The CPU of the iPhone I believe comes from Samsung as does most of the flash memory in iPods.

Korean products have had a bad name in the past and the companies have reacted accordingly by improving quality dramatically. I think you will find the lower price point is a tactic to garner more market share rather than a quality issue. Hey, 50000000 Koreans can't be wrong. They use nothing else but Korean products.

[cmcbridejr]

Apple products have many Samsung components including chips and hard drives. The CPU of the iPhone I believe comes from Samsung as does most of the flash memory in iPods.

Korean products have had a bad name in the past and the companies have reacted accordingly by improving quality dramatically. I think you will find the lower price point is a tactic to garner more market share rather than a quality issue. Hey, 50000000 Koreans can't be wrong. They use nothing else but Korean products.

I agree with your statements about quality and market share - Samsung is now the #1 manufacturer in the world for televisions (due to providing quality at a more competitive price), and Hyundai is starting to get great reviews by trustworthy automobile review publications (also due to improving quality at a competitive price).

However, at this point in time, I will still shell out a few extra bucks for a proven product, like a Sony television or Honda engine. Why? You don't see professionals using Samsung cameras (that use similar technologies to produce images on televisions), and you won't find Hyundai in autoracing (where most automobile innovation stems from.

There is a major difference between being innovative and mimicing with a lower price point. For example, look at Apple's iPhone versus the sudden abundance of look-a-likes that are cheaper.

[gnasher729]

Since that should be obvious to even the worlds dumbest executive, I would assume that Samsung has Apple's permission to use the "Safari" name.

Seems I was wrong. According to TheRegister, Samsung had _no_ permission to use the name "Safari" and is now removing it from all their materials.

[cmcbridejr]

Seems I was wrong. According to TheRegister, Samsung had _no_ permission to use the name "Safari" and is now removing it from all their materials.

Yeah, I just read the same at Engadget:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/30/about-that-samsung-l870-safari-browser-thing/

[Jacksteruk309]

Folks this is Nokia using Trolltech [which they own a majority stake] who ported WebKit to Qt Libraries.

Uh no. Webkit comes from KHTML which was written with the Qt libs by KDE. Apple then decided to take the source and remove all the Qt from it so that they could use it in OS X. I don't think Trolltech actually had anything to do with the initial development of KHTML or Webkit.

Just wait til Mozilla 2.0 comes out. Then there'll be real competition in the mobile browser world ;)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If you could buy a $1,199 iMac or a $1,199 clone, why would you buy the clone?

Oh, unless you mean the clones would be priced LESS than Macs, in which case you're talking about killing Apple's revenue and destroying the company.

The first way seems pointless and the second way seems suicidal. I'm not sure which way you meant it, but neither seem very attractive.

Man are you short-sighted. No wonder Apple can't seem to get past that 5-8% market share hurdle. I mean, why in the Universe would you want to bring over say 300 million PC users to the Mac operating system over say 5 years time with Apple getting 30% off the top of those sales (becoming standard practice for them it seems) when they could INSTEAD directly sell 50 million Macs instead? Why get 250 million MORE potential users of iMac, Logic Pro (or Express), Final Cut, etc. etc. when we can have 250 million LESS? Yes, killing Apple's revenue and DESTROYING THE COMPANY. Give me a flipping BREAK.

This is NOT the same Apple with zero interest and an AWFUL operating system from 15 years ago. Back then Microsoft was just coming onto the scene with Windows95 and then 98 whereas right NOW, Apple has a HUGE opportunity given the MASSIVE UNPOPULARITY of Microsoft's VISTA clunker OS plus its never-before capability of being able to run XP or Vista IN ADDITION to MacOSX or even at the same time (Fusion/Parallels). Add onto that Apple's huge popularity with the iPhone and iPods and Apple has an opportunity it hasn't had since the mid-80's to grow leaps and bounds in the PC market and over-take Microsoft within 10 years.

But it flat out CANNOT do that selling the numbers it's selling right now. It either has to ramp up its lines and productions and offer the MISSING tiers in its line or it's going to just flat out give Microsoft time to correct its errors and nothing will change in the long run.

Short-sighted Mac users keep talking about stupid things like why would you want a tower if you could have an iMac like the iMac is something great. I own PCs and tower Macs and I have to tell you some of us don't WANT a damn laptop stuffed into a flat-screen monitor!!!!! How many? Well, let's look at the popularity of such systems in the PC market (yes they DO exist over there). They represent 1-3% of all PC 'desktop' sales and that's being MIGHTY generous. That means 96% of all desktop sales in the MAINSTREAM computing market are NOT all-in-one laptops-in-a-monitor systems. Who would pick a 'clone' over an iMac?? I sure as heck would! A LOT of people would. You keep thinking like a LONG TERM Mac user and NOT like a mainstream PC user. Now maybe you PREFER the Mac community to be small and cliquish (Hey, I run Linux too and I KNOW a LOT of Linux users LOVE feeling superior to the general computing population by knowing nerdy Linux shell programming and some aschewing GUIs entirely. It's snotty-computers-are-us all over the place. Many Mac users like feeling 'smarter' for "just working" instead of "computing". Well lad-ee-dah. Guess what? Different people have different needs. You can't base marketing assumptions on niche markets. And that's what Apple has been in the PC world in the past. A tiny niche.

But what some of us see is HUGE potential right now for Apple stop being a tiny niche in the computing world and play off their huge popularity in the phone and ipod worlds and start getting MacOSX all over the place.

What is missing from Apple's lineup? The #1 home user desktop environments out there are in the $300-800 range. Apple's purely delusional entry-level computer known as the Mac-Mini only cuts it for people willing to hack it into home entertainment centerpieces or other niche uses. It's USELESS compared to the same computer you could get for $700-800 in the PC world. That's just a fact.

You've also got a HUGE gap between the prosumer and Pro Mac markets. There's something slightly ridiculous about the notion that to get a Mac that can simply run a current Mac or Windows game well, you have to spend over $2200 that just smacks of 1990's Macintosh. Actually, it's a LOT worse. Most current Macs can't do 3D worth a darn PERIOD whereas at least back then you could expect a NEW Mac to have SOME value in those areas. The problem is that the $1000-1900 Mac range are all iMacs and Macbooks and have NO 3D capability what-so-ever. This is done ON PURPOSE to try and FORCE you to buy a high-end $2000+ Mac. Guess what? Not everyone on this planet can AFFORD a $2000+ Mac. You talk about cannbalizing sales? How can you cannibalize something that does not exist when the person cannot or will not buy a $2000+ computer PERIOD? That's called a *LOST SALE* not a cannibalized one. I can vouch for myself there again. I upgraded my old PowerMac a bit instead and bought a brand new $800 PC instead last November which lets me run the Windows software and Windows games I wanted to run through Boot Camp, etc. on a new Mac, but COULD not in the same pricing range. Until the following January/February range, you couldn't even get a decent 3D card for a Mac Pro no matter the price range.

But these things don't matter on a Mac you might cry! Mac users aren't intersted in 3D or gaming or anything of the sort! They're happy just doing iMac and then going to bed! Well once again, you're talking OLD Mac and not thinking ahead to the future. Heck, even Steve Jobs touted the return of Electronic Arts to the Mac, but then did NOTHING to support that return and so it's going nowhere once again. There's a HUGE GAPING WIDE HOLE in the Mac lineup. Other than extreme gamers (who expect something DIFFERENT for their $2000-3000 than what a Mac Pro offers), gamers do not buy $2200 PCs to play Halo3. They just don't. Not when an $800 PC will run it and all their home office and business software just fine.

So really, no I don't expect someone like you to see the big picture I'm talking about where Apple has the predominant OS and Microsoft is a has-been. You only see the past where Mac is a niche market for so-called yuppies with too much cash on their hands and too little interest in learning what makes a computer tick. Hopefully, Apple won't be so short-sighted. They have many options they could explore and I don't mean just licensing the OS for ANY clone maker. They could make a specific deal with just someone like Dell to fill a niche they're not willing or interested in filling and dictate their terms to Dell. No way does it have to be a disaster. It'd only be a disaster if they went back in time to the OLD Apple of little interest to anyone and did it all wrong again.