Apple Promotes HTML5, First iPhone Game Demo in HTML5, and More

[HyperZboy]

The same thing don't even make a dent on the CPU graph on my macbook pro '08

I didn't bother to check the CPU graph, I just know the HTML5 video was impressive but jittery on a dual 2.0GHz CPU G5 with virtually nothing else running (oh and that's with an ATI Radeon X800 graphics card too, not too shabby for the time).

And the original iPhone is running at what? 400-500MHz? The latest 1GHz?

So that, along with some of the other HTML5 examples posted here shows me that HTML5 is not quite ready for prime time compared to Flash which is not jittery on my G5, but is very buggy no doubt.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't get it, Safari as the build they provide for OS X is webkit + Safari UI. If you want the browser (ie. webkit) on linux just build the damn thing. Yes, the UI will be using QT/GTK/whatever but the damn rendering engine will be identical.

It already exists. It's called Konqueror. Guess what, Konqueror was the first browser to use Webkit. Ever. Actually, let me rephrase that, Konqueror's rendering engine, KHTML, was picked by Apple as the rendering engine for Safari because of its high performance and clean OO code base. It became Webkit because the version they forked and modified would have made it complicated to merge back the changes into the main KHTML code base. This pissed off a lot of people that put a lot of work in KHTML. Eventually the heat died down and the KDE developers simply dropped KHTML to use Webkit because it had a bigger developer base and corporate backing (paid devs).

So please, stop with the "But you can build Webkit on Linux!", we know, we know better than you what we can and can't do with Webkit. We were there when Webkit was born, we used Webkit before it was called Webkit. We know its history and its origins.

Which brings us to :

The demos Apple posted have a safari restriction on them just to make sure people see the stuff Apple intended to, and not broken pages due to other browsers not implementing the features they are using *YET*.
If you build a webkit browser on linux and spoof the useragent you will be able to see the page just fine and dandy.

Wait, you're saying Webkit is the browser, but then saying Apple put a Safari restriction to make sure it displays properly ? Again useragent spoofing, welcome to 1999 and the Web. We're in 2010, useragent spoofing is retarded.

The fact is, Apple could've made their useragent sniffing for Webkit if they wanted to make sure that people weren't using Gecko or Presto based browsers, which both support the Canvas tag in a standard way. The current shipping versions of Chrome, Konqueror, Epiphany all use versions of Webkit that are NEWER than what Apple ships in Safari (yes, Safari is due for an update).

Apple didn't for 1 simple reason : Advertising. Plugging its own product.

So stop repeating all the nonsense you keep repeating because we'll keep repeating the same thing : There is NO SAFARI ON LINUX. Because there isn't. Never was. Never will be (unless Apple gets a brain fart and starts porting stuff like iTunes and Safari to Linux).

For the rest, if you want to see what HTML5 Canvas can do, there are sites out there, one of them is http://www.canvasdemos.com/. No need to rely on Apple, they aren't the first on the block to support HTML5, people were already jumping on the HTML5 wagon before Apple started pushing it.

 

[MorphingDragon]

DHTML is a standard, albeit, many standards rolled under a common name. Kinda like "HTML5" which is being used as an umbrella for many standards (MathML, SVG, HTML5 itself, WebGL, etc..). The difference being of course there never was a draft or standardised "DHTML" language per say.

DHTML is DOM/HTML/CSS. All of these are standardized, in different versions. The term came around the time of DOM 3.0, HTML4 and CSS 2.0. The fracturing it suffered is mostly because of Internet Explorer 6 and 7 that didn't implement specifications put forth by the w3c about 10 years ago. They had the time, yet preferred not to do it in order to retain control and try to seize the web for their own.

Luckily for us it backfired on them and they are steadily losing market share to alternative, standard based browsers that don't compete on vendor lock-in rendering engines, but on features, performance and stability.

For a time however, standard's based DHTML was weak and dying. Microsoft almost accomplished what they set forth on doing. Pheonix (Firefox's initial name) is pretty much the browser that saved the web, and the name was fitting considering it was rising from the ashes of the deceased Netscape (after AOL bought them and they became a "Web portal", they were on life support). Too bad that the Database company had to force the Mozilla foundation into changing the name.

No, DHTML is an umbrella term for any combination of a markup language and a client-side scripting language.

---

The only good use for user agent string detection is to redirect IE6 users to a get firefox page.

 

[Arnia]

I didn't bother to check the CPU graph, I just know the HTML5 video was impressive but jittery on a dual 2.0GHz CPU G5 with virtually nothing else running (oh and that's with an ATI Radeon X800 graphics card too, not too shabby for the time).

And the original iPhone is running at what? 400-500MHz? The latest 1GHz?

So that, along with some of the other HTML5 examples posted here shows me that HTML5 is not quite ready for prime time compared to Flash which is not jittery on my G5, but is very buggy no doubt.

Except that perceived performance isn't simply a matter of CPU performance. If the task can be accomplished by, say, a GPU core then a slower CPU (overall) could still perform the task 'faster'. This is one of the reasons why clock speed is a bad way to compare CPUs (and whole systems) with different architectures.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

No, i've been following (very loosely though) webkit since it was forked of KDE's codebase. The point i'm trying to make that there is nothing evil about all this. At this very moment we have flash on all high performance platforms so people are in no way or shape stopped from creating websites using it.

On the mobile side however we at the moment only have one choice, html 5. This spec is in it's current state not fully usable. Gecko, webkit, opera, ie etc are not in "sync" but they will be when it's mature (give it a few more months).

So what do we do? Sit on our hands and hope that Adobe will do a good job or start working on html 5? I prefer we work on html 5 which apple apparently is pushing hard.

I think this is a good thing.

Well working on HTML5 does not mean we have to ditch Flash outright. It will still be around for a long time on many websites and Apple customers will be the ones who miss out on it. There is no evidence so far that HTML5 will perform any better on mobile devices than Flash, and most of the demos of Flash on mobile phones show that it runs quite well. Of course a site like this one will ignore the evidence and focus on the negatives like the time the developer hit the back button and all the Jobsites thought the browser had crashed. There is also a tendency on this site to jump to conclusions when there could be other explanations e.g. saying a Flash video is crap when it is actually their connection to the site that is poor.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Thank you for proving my case for Flash on the iPad. I think you hit on practically every point I've tried to make against Steve Jobs' argument.

It's clearly a grudge match between Steve Jobs and Adobe and the consumer is caught in the middle.

Meanwhile Jobs famed Reality Distortion Field is in high gear and the fanboys are licking up his Flash trash talk like a dog to a bowel of water.

I honestly don't care how the magician pulls the tricks, just make the damn thing work and stop pretending that the lack of Flash is a "feature."

And yet there are people here on this site that are comparing the LACK of Flash to the floppy drive. Of course there was an optical drive to replace that at the time.

HTML5 does not completely replace nor is it at this time better than Flash and that means I can't go to a lot of websites I'm used to going to.

It's just that simple, people just want it to work, they don't care how the magician does the tricks, they just wanna see them!

This is not a grudge match in any way or form. Many MANY web Developers have been complaining about the inherent sour yoghurt of flash and have been predicting this for a long time. This is just the first time when somebody that has power has said anything bad about flash.

None of Jobs arguments are new, they've all existed since flash's existence. Hell, flash only became prominent because it was only slightly better than realPlayer.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Except that perceived performance isn't simply a matter of CPU performance. If the task can be accomplished by, say, a GPU core then a slower CPU (overall) could still perform the task 'faster'. This is one of the reasons why clock speed is a bad way to compare CPUs (and whole systems) with different architectures.

I really really doubt that the ARM processors in the earlier iPhones outperform G5 PPC even accounting for the MHz myth. Likewise for the mobile graphics compared to desktop.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, DHTML is an umbrella term for any combination of a markup language and a client-side scripting language.

Why are you repeating what I said ? DHTML is DOM/CSS/HTML (I doubt you could markup DHTML with SGML...). Even w3schools.com, one of the references for Web developpers refers to it as such.

DOM doesn't specify a scripting language indeed. DOM is simply an in-memory representation of the Document Object Model so that you can manipulate it. It specifies an API spec to do so (things like getElementById). However, besides IE and their VBScript, you'd be hard pressed to find a browser that doesn't push Javascript as the scripting language for the web.

Again, MorphingDragon, I was clarifying your point, we both said the same thing. DHTML itself is not a standard because DHTML is not a language. Why are you feeling attacked and feel the need to respond with ignorant banter to try to show you are right and I am wrong ?

None of Jobs arguments are new, they've all existed since flash's existence. Hell, flash only became prominent because it was only slightly better than realPlayer.

That's disingenious. Flash became prominent because back in 1999, there was no way to make rich web content with animations, sound and vector graphics. Web games launched Flash. Even as late as 2007, with DHTML, you could barely pound out a web game using the standards and usually, the performances were very subpar.

Video ? That was late in the game. Flash was already ubiquitous when Flash video landed. Before Flash video, there wasn't any video on the web. No wait, there was, it just never worked right unless you had the right combination of plugin/moonphase.

People were/are against Flash not because the plugin itself was bad or the language or the platform was bad. It wasn't. If it was bad no one would've used it. People are against it for 2 reasons. First, Macromedia then and Adobe now is the only controlling entity. Adobe is trying to fix this by publishing specs so people can make their own implementation. The nice folk at the GNU project are working on one, Gnash. This is a work in progress and might not be here in time if the WhatWG and W3C complete HTML5 and it becomes widespread first.

The other reason for the Flash hate out there is Flash being used where it shouldn't be used. Text-based websites don't need to be run under the Flash runtime. It screws up browser navigation (back/forward/reload) and prevents linking to specific content. Flash is good for displaying some content on a page made of HTML, like Games/videos/animations. Not for your navigation buttons/menus/content pane. Don't think Devs won't abuse Canvas in this way when it becomes ubiquitous. The problem is hardly ever the tools, it's most always the content creators.

Heck, just in this thread some guy was saying it was retarded that you had to use code to make Canvas display text with a floating image on the side... Dude, why the hell are you trying to use Canvas for that ? DIV and IMG with a little CSS did all that back in 2002...

 

[MorphingDragon]

Why are you repeating what I said ? DHTML is DOM/CSS/HTML (I doubt you could markup DHTML with SGML...). Even w3schools.com, one of the references for Web developpers refers to it as such.

DOM doesn't specify a scripting language indeed. DOM is simply an in-memory representation of the Document Object Model so that you can manipulate it. It specifies an API spec to do so (things like getElementById). However, besides IE and their VBScript, you'd be hard pressed to find a browser that doesn't push Javascript as the scripting language for the web.

Again, MorphingDragon, I was clarifying your point, we both said the same thing. DHTML itself is not a standard because DHTML is not a language. Why are you feeling attacked and feel the need to respond with ignorant banter to try to show you are right and I am wrong ?

"DHTML is a standard, albeit, many standards rolled under a common name."

I don't think its humanly possible for one to contradict themselves so much in one post.

I don't think you're using banter right either.

 

[HyperZboy]

This is not a grudge match in any way or form. Many MANY web Developers have been complaining about the inherent sour yoghurt of flash and have been predicting this for a long time. This is just the first time when somebody that has power has said anything bad about flash.

None of Jobs arguments are new, they've all existed since flash's existence. Hell, flash only became prominent because it was only slightly better than realPlayer.

I'm not arguing against HTML5 nor am I a technical expert on this. I barely know how to write the original HTML codes! LOL

I'm just saying, people just want to go to their favorite websites and have it work. For the most part, Flash works, although better on a PC than on a Mac.
And not available at all due to Steve Jobs on the iPhone or iPad.

HTML5 just simply isn't up to speed compared to Flash yet.
I'm hopeful for the future though. But none of the HTML5 examples have wowed me yet, at least on this G5, which has all brand new hard drives, memory maxed out and dual processor. It shouldn't be jittery on even this old beast so I find it hard to believe the same video will work on my iPhone or somebody's iPad.

 

[macsmurf]

Works well here (Chrome is currently my primary browser on OS X) so perhaps we can figure out what's happening on your system.

Try going full screen. The transition is choppy.

Good software engineering, as would be required with Flash anyway, can isolate those quirks into modules which can be reused. The video player you posted is a good example of such a general, reusable module. You don't need to re-implement everything yourself every time. You can use libraries of functionality you just drop into your pages.

Except it doesn't work well in Chrome.

Sources for those numbers? I've never found that it takes substantially more effort to work across Gecko, WebKit and Presto than just one of these. IE is a different matter, but for reasons entirely separate to these effects (and more to do with general development work).

Pure guess, I'm afraid.

Can I ask you for a criterion for 'readiness' then? What would be needed for it to be considered ready, because I feel we have very different thresholds here. Note, I am not talking about completely replacing Flash (such all-or-nothing attitudes simply stoke passions without appreciating the realities of software engineering) but rather when should it be used at all?

I'm actually talking about replacing Flash for certain funtionality. As long as we can't service a large percentage of customers and there is no advantage in HTML5 I just don't see the point. You've mentioned some advantages but I'd much rather maintain the code in one version instead of two built with different technologies. The notion of "degrading" to flash is a bit strange.

I do acknowledge that iPhone OS browser do not have flash so HTML5 makes sense for this segment.

My comment was relating to the notion of native apps written in Flash and compiled via Objective-C.

Yes. Having several languages compiled to native code seems to work on other platforms.

There may be an excuse for it, and it may not be arbitrary. Just because you and I can't see one, does not mean one doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that it does, but I'd be leery of making such absolutist statements.

There is nothing absolutlist about Apple intentionally screwing companies over that have invested a lot of time and money supporting iPhone OS. That is simple fact. As for the reason, we can only speculate, but I find it amazing that you are unwilling the critisize Apple because "they might have a good reason" or "the world is more complicated that you think". I don't think that "Jobs works in mysterious ways" and he is outside the concepts of human reasoning about good and evil

I find I learn more if I presume that everyone is (mostly) reasonable until proven otherwise. I also find people tend to be calmer and more collected if I treat them rationally and provide evidence for my position without insulting them for holding theirs. Pragmatically then, for me, it is better to think of people like that even if they were utterly irrational and unreasonable in their opinions.

Well, the people I'm talking about never return to explain themselves even it you ask them nicely.

 

[Gepper]

I didn't bother to check the CPU graph, I just know the HTML5 video was impressive but jittery on a dual 2.0GHz CPU G5 with virtually nothing else running (oh and that's with an ATI Radeon X800 graphics card too, not too shabby for the time).

And the original iPhone is running at what? 400-500MHz? The latest 1GHz?

So that, along with some of the other HTML5 examples posted here shows me that HTML5 is not quite ready for prime time compared to Flash which is not jittery on my G5, but is very buggy no doubt.

The difference in our cases are that my video stream is being offloaded to hardware, same will happen on the handheld devices. And your G5 could have it too if apple added support to your driver which is not likely (not sure if your gfx card can do it either).

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

This is not a grudge match in any way or form. Many MANY web Developers have been complaining about the inherent sour yoghurt of flash and have been predicting this for a long time. This is just the first time when somebody that has power has said anything bad about flash.

None of Jobs arguments are new, they've all existed since flash's existence. Hell, flash only became prominent because it was only slightly better than realPlayer.

What were the alternatives to Flash? If Flash was such a poor technology how come so many websites use it and it's on so many PCs around the world? There are other ways to do things than Flash but if a developer has chosen Flash for a task where it was not the best choice then that's a bad developer not Flash's fault. Flash met the needs of certain types of web experience and was the best choice for a long time. Perhaps HTML5 can better it but that is still some time away.

 

[Arnia]

Wait, you're saying Webkit is the browser, but then saying Apple put a Safari restriction to make sure it displays properly ? Again useragent spoofing, welcome to 1999 and the Web. We're in 2010, useragent spoofing is retarded.

Whilst I'd prefer they made more general demos, and cannot understand why they didn't, I wouldn't presume it was 'retarded' to restrict to a particular browser. I think a good question to ask would be why they made that decision. It is easy to dismiss a decision as 'stupid', and it doesn't allow us to understand much more than we did before. Trying to understand their reasoning, even if it is in error, may tell us a lot more about Apple's pressures and biases and thus let us make more accurate predictions about future decisions (as well as giving us some information we can incorporate into our own decisions).

The fact is, Apple could've made their useragent sniffing for Webkit if they wanted to make sure that people weren't using Gecko or Presto based browsers, which both support the Canvas tag in a standard way. The current shipping versions of Chrome, Konqueror, Epiphany all use versions of Webkit that are NEWER than what Apple ships in Safari (yes, Safari is due for an update).

Not all WebKit versions deployed, even more recent ones, have all features turned on. Chrome, for example, does not support CSS 3D Transformations.

Apple didn't for 1 simple reason : Advertising. Plugging its own product.

Given our lack of knowledge, I'm not sure why you're so definite about this. I'm not saying that it isn't the case, but there could be other explanations (or even multiple actual reasons). If this is their reason, then it seems a bit more cack-handed than I'm used to from Apple's marketing. This makes me suspect that the issue is more complicated than you are making out.

For the rest, if you want to see what HTML5 Canvas can do, there are sites out there, one of them is http://www.canvasdemos.com/. No need to rely on Apple, they aren't the first on the block to support HTML5, people were already jumping on the HTML5 wagon before Apple started pushing it.

Well, to be strictly accurate, the canvas tag is an Apple invention (used initially for their Dashboard system). Likewise, many of the CSS features used on the demos are Apple inventions (like CSS Masks, CSS 2D Transformations, CSS 3D Transformations and CSS Transitions). I wouldn't call it relying on Apple, however, to appreciate these demos. They're much like any other tech demo; very controlled examples to demonstrate a single thing under narrow circumstances. I wish they'd made them more broadly viewable, but I'm not going to insult them. It is counter-productive and just gives a bad impression, if nothing else.

 

[KnightWRX]

"DHTML is a standard, albeit, many standards rolled under a common name."

That is what it is. DHTML is many standards. The term refers to these many standards. To say DHTML isn't standard is disingenious. Albeit means "Conceding the fact".

I was agreeing with you, now you're attacking me.

Well, to be strictly accurate, the canvas tag is an Apple invention (used initially for their Dashboard system). Likewise, many of the CSS features used on the demos are Apple inventions (like CSS Masks, CSS 2D Transformations, CSS 3D Transformations and CSS Transitions). I wouldn't call it relying on Apple, however, to appreciate these demos. They're much like any other tech demo; very controlled examples to demonstrate a single thing under narrow circumstances. I wish they'd made them more broadly viewable, but I'm not going to insult them. It is counter-productive and just gives a bad impression, if nothing else.

I know the history of Canvas, but thanks for pointing it out for others that might not have known. Firefox has supported it since version 1.5, another thing people might not be aware of. HTML5 isn't some kind of new 2010 thing.

The problem with what Apple did here is that they tout HTML5 as an open standard not locked to single a vendor and then go and pull a stunt like this. If some of the demos had required Safari specifically, they could've just locked those demos with a clear message of "Safari is currently the only browser to support viewing this demo, download it here and here..." and the demos that were more general could've been available to all webkit or all HTML5 supporting browsers.

That would've been putting your money where your mouth is. Promoting HTML5 as an open standard. This is my only issue with their demos.

 

[Gepper]

It already exists. It's called Konqueror. Guess what, Konqueror was the first browser to use Webkit. Ever. Actually, let me rephrase that, Konqueror's rendering engine, KHTML, was picked by Apple as the rendering engine for Safari because of its high performance and clean OO code base. It became Webkit because the version they forked and modified would have made it complicated to merge back the changes into the main KHTML code base. This pissed off a lot of people that put a lot of work in KHTML. Eventually the heat died down and the KDE developers simply dropped KHTML to use Webkit because it had a bigger developer base and corporate backing (paid devs).

So please, stop with the "But you can build Webkit on Linux!", we know, we know better than you what we can and can't do with Webkit. We were there when Webkit was born, we used Webkit before it was called Webkit. We know its history and its origins.

Which brings us to :



Wait, you're saying Webkit is the browser, but then saying Apple put a Safari restriction to make sure it displays properly ? Again useragent spoofing, welcome to 1999 and the Web. We're in 2010, useragent spoofing is retarded.

The fact is, Apple could've made their useragent sniffing for Webkit if they wanted to make sure that people weren't using Gecko or Presto based browsers, which both support the Canvas tag in a standard way. The current shipping versions of Chrome, Konqueror, Epiphany all use versions of Webkit that are NEWER than what Apple ships in Safari (yes, Safari is due for an update).

Apple didn't for 1 simple reason : Advertising. Plugging its own product.

So stop repeating all the nonsense you keep repeating because we'll keep repeating the same thing : There is NO SAFARI ON LINUX. Because there isn't. Never was. Never will be (unless Apple gets a brain fart and starts porting stuff like iTunes and Safari to Linux).

For the rest, if you want to see what HTML5 Canvas can do, there are sites out there, one of them is http://www.canvasdemos.com/. No need to rely on Apple, they aren't the first on the block to support HTML5, people were already jumping on the HTML5 wagon before Apple started pushing it.

First, konqueror was decent but far away from good when apple forked it, people still preferd gecko on KDE back then. So don't pretend apple was a bunch of *******s when they forked it. It didn't affect the KDE team one bit (except for the fact that they got alot of work done for them)

For your other blabbering, people have already proved in this thread that the demos don't work correctly in other nonbeta browsers.

 

[Gepper]

Well working on HTML5 does not mean we have to ditch Flash outright. It will still be around for a long time on many websites and Apple customers will be the ones who miss out on it. There is no evidence so far that HTML5 will perform any better on mobile devices than Flash, and most of the demos of Flash on mobile phones show that it runs quite well. Of course a site like this one will ignore the evidence and focus on the negatives like the time the developer hit the back button and all the Jobsites thought the browser had crashed. There is also a tendency on this site to jump to conclusions when there could be other explanations e.g. saying a Flash video is crap when it is actually their connection to the site that is poor.

No it's true that it might perform just as bad, but at least *anyone* that cares get a shot at fixing it.

 

[HyperZboy]

Except that perceived performance isn't simply a matter of CPU performance. If the task can be accomplished by, say, a GPU core then a slower CPU (overall) could still perform the task 'faster'. This is one of the reasons why clock speed is a bad way to compare CPUs (and whole systems) with different architectures.

I fully understand what you mean and totally agree, but my G5 is tricked out totally from new high performance SATA drives to memory maxed to 3Gb.

It plays WoW ok.

I find it hard to believe my G5 can't play that HTML5 video without skipping, yet an iPhone or iPad will? Please.

Maybe I'm wrong, but is that really possible? I think not.

This HTML5 vs. Flash argument is getting old.

In the end, consumers don't care about the nuts and bolts of it all.
They just want the damn thing to work!

 

[MorphingDragon]

What were the alternatives to Flash? If Flash was such a poor technology how come so many websites use it and it's on so many PCs around the world? There are other ways to do things than Flash but if a developer has chosen Flash for a task where it was not the best choice then that's a bad developer not Flash's fault. Flash met the needs of certain types of web experience and was the best choice for a long time. Perhaps HTML5 can better it but that is still some time away.

RealPlayer is probably the only competition that is worth mentioning.

Flash was only partially better than real in terms of performance, and real lacked a dev suite.

 

[Gepper]

So please, stop with the "But you can build Webkit on Linux!", we know, we know better than you what we can and can't do with Webkit. We were there when Webkit was born, we used Webkit before it was called Webkit. We know its history and its origins.

Who are "we" and why are you sure you know that better then me?

Apple didn't for 1 simple reason : Advertising. Plugging its own product.

Give me one reason why apple would do this? Exactly how do apple gain anything by having the entire world using safari?

 

[KnightWRX]

First, konqueror was decent but far away from good when apple forked it, people still preferd gecko on KDE back then. So don't pretend apple was a bunch of *******s when they forked it. It didn't affect the KDE team one bit (except for the fact that they got alot of work done for them)

Typical Apple fanboy. The KDE team was overjoyed when Apple picked them. KDE users of the time were giddy in knowing that they now had corporate backing.

People preferred Gecko because KHTML was a constant work in progress. When Apple picked them, KHTML had pretty much the same CSS/DOM support Gecko had. It wasn't far away from good, it was better than Gecko in some ways (the code base was much cleaner since it was built from the ground up and Gecko was a mish mash of old and new code, with parts rewritten and other parts ripped out of Netscape's carcass).

The reason Gecko was preferred was because there were still quirks in the rendering between both browsers and Gecko was simply more available (Windows/Mac/Unix vs just Unix) and you could be sure that would you saw was what users of other platforms were seeing. Also, useragent sniffing (ah!) that basically made it so Konqueror got served the back burner pages made for the "others..." case instead of its own CSS or even the Gecko CSS. Konqueror around version 1.0 already had a Menu option to spoof the useragent. A god damn menu option, not some deep hidden command line hack.

Back to Apple and Webkit, the KDE devs wanted to work closely with Apple, to make sure that both Safari and Konqueror kept the pace together. Apple closed up and worked for months without feedback to the KDE devs. When they finally shipped and released their source code, it wasn't possible to merge back without months of work on KDE's part.

This pissed off quite a few people. Users of KDE and developers of KDE. To say it didn't affect the KDE team one bit is blind Apple love. Apple didn't play it right. Of course, they were a new player in the open source movement in those days, some bumps were to be expected. It all worked out eventually.

Who are "we" and why are you sure you know that better then me?

I've been using KDE since version 1.0, when I switched from Enlightenment DR15...

Since when have you been a KDE user ?

RealPlayer is probably the only competition that is worth mentioning.

Uh ? how does Realplayer do animations and Games with vector graphics and sound ? Realplayer is simply a movie player.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Give me one reason why apple would do this? Exactly how do apple gain anything by having the entire world using safari?

They get money from Google for using it as the default search engine. If the entire world was using Safari I imagine they could get a lot more.

 

[HyperZboy]

They get money from Google for using it as the default search engine. If the entire world was using Safari I imagine they could get a lot more.

BINGO!

(bells go off, whistles, balloons fall)

We have a WINNER!

But seriously, Apple has staked an interest in both HTML5 and Safari and does have money to gain by beating Adobe's Flash and also Microsoft in the process with Google dollars. This is true.

It's called marketshare. But keep in mind, Mac marketshare worldwide is going up WITH Flash support, not despite it like the iPhone and iPad.

If I were an iPad buyer right now, I think I'd be a bit disappointed by my lack of web ability on such an expensive device.

 

[Gepper]

This pissed off quite a few people. Users of KDE and developers of KDE. To say it didn't affect the KDE team one bit is blind Apple love. Apple didn't play it right. Of course, they were a new player in the open source movement in those days, some bumps were to be expected. It all worked out eventually.

Yeah and as i said, it didn't affect the KDE devs one bit as apple didn't deprive them of any resources. How do you think conqueror would have looked like today if apple choose to make safari from scratch and close it? And to say that konq was very usable is mildly amusing. it was far from equal to the mainstream ones on compatibility.

I've been using KDE since version 1.0, when I switched from Enlightenment DR15...

Since when have you been a KDE user ?

I started using Linux '94 (redhat briefly (4.x if i remember correctly) then slackware) and i do remember enlightenment, it was at .12 or .13 and a pure hell to compile (no packages avaliable). I used (or tried to) KDE before it hit 1.0.

Did i pass your dick measurement test or should i submit a blood/**** sample somewhere?

 

[Gepper]

They get money from Google for using it as the default search engine. If the entire world was using Safari I imagine they could get a lot more.

Eh? Care to provide a source?