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.

Fancy that!

[Project]

Did Apple license it?

[philgilder]

Originally Posted by Project

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?!?!??!?

[w00master]

Originally Posted by 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?!?!??!?

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

[Dimwhit]

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

[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]

Samsung today announced the L870 Symbian-based phone. Interestingly, spec sheets obtained by phoneArena.com (via Engadget) 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. 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, and Dreamweaver CS4 will be using WebKit for its Live View feature.

Article Link

[paddy]

Another blow to Windows mobile, what harm.

[Syrus28]

Originally Posted by paddy

Another blow to Windows mobile, what harm.

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.

[Syrus28]

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

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

[ehurtley]

Originally Posted by Syrus28

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

Doesn't it seem weird for to let Samsung use the supposedly best mobile browser? I mean, usually 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" 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]

Originally Posted by ehurtley

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

[gkarris]

What?

That's OUR browser!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(runs off screaming....)

[Yvan256]

Originally Posted by longofest

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Jacksteruk309]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

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

[sdds]

Originally Posted by ehurtley

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.

[cheekybobcat]

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

[wideholic]

Samsung's japanese company right?

[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.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

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.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

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.