Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Safari for Windows?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iLife for Windblows?
Ok, here's what first came to my mind when readin the article: what if apple ported its iApps for windows and then asked money for them? I don't know how it would work.. I myself wouldn't buy anything because there are free apps (not as good as iApps though) around..
Don't know if this is good or not.. it just sounds a bit stupid to give out all our great apps because then people wouldn't switch to mac anymore. or maybe if they port just a couple of apps (QT which is as terrible on windows as wmp is on mac, iTunes & Safari).
Ok this is quite a messed up reply, but it's the best I can do right now
Ok, here's what first came to my mind when readin the article: what if apple ported its iApps for windows and then asked money for them? I don't know how it would work.. I myself wouldn't buy anything because there are free apps (not as good as iApps though) around..
Don't know if this is good or not.. it just sounds a bit stupid to give out all our great apps because then people wouldn't switch to mac anymore. or maybe if they port just a couple of apps (QT which is as terrible on windows as wmp is on mac, iTunes & Safari).
Ok this is quite a messed up reply, but it's the best I can do right now
Could be the best switch plan ever
Hold on - just think me out.
Apple places iTunes and Safari for Windows - the cost of doing this is made up from the Music Store.
Then, they go ahead and put over iDVD and iMovie too. BUT! - these two applications cost money for Windows folks, to the tune of $200 - $300. And while they don't run as quickly/cool as under OS X, there's still Windows people paying for them.
Then Apple comes along with iWork - on OS X, it costs you $99. On Windows, it costs $300 (because they have to port all the OS X tools over to justify the cost).
Now, you're a Windows person who has gotten hooked on iLife, and you're finding iWork works as well as MS Office, only it's a bit cheaper and more intuitive (I'm assuming here, of course).
You see a iMac for $1500 - only it comes with iLife and iWork for *free*. All of the sudden, you think - "Hey - instead of paying $1000 for a PC and then buying that iLife stuff and iWork stuff I like, I could just get an iMac and get it cheaper. And my iPod could work over that firewire stuff and be faster/better than the USB 2.0 stuff."
It's a totally "out there" idea, but I think if Apple does it right and charges for the Windows versions of their products by not a *huge* amount, but enough that if people like them they'll see that switching to OS X is actually cheaper (which I've always figured, since by the time you compute all the goodies you get in OS X that work well, plus a well designed machine, it's about the same as a Windows box cost wise), we could get more "Switchers" out there.
Just an idea, I could be wrong - but who knows.
Hold on - just think me out.
Apple places iTunes and Safari for Windows - the cost of doing this is made up from the Music Store.
Then, they go ahead and put over iDVD and iMovie too. BUT! - these two applications cost money for Windows folks, to the tune of $200 - $300. And while they don't run as quickly/cool as under OS X, there's still Windows people paying for them.
Then Apple comes along with iWork - on OS X, it costs you $99. On Windows, it costs $300 (because they have to port all the OS X tools over to justify the cost).
Now, you're a Windows person who has gotten hooked on iLife, and you're finding iWork works as well as MS Office, only it's a bit cheaper and more intuitive (I'm assuming here, of course).
You see a iMac for $1500 - only it comes with iLife and iWork for *free*. All of the sudden, you think - "Hey - instead of paying $1000 for a PC and then buying that iLife stuff and iWork stuff I like, I could just get an iMac and get it cheaper. And my iPod could work over that firewire stuff and be faster/better than the USB 2.0 stuff."
It's a totally "out there" idea, but I think if Apple does it right and charges for the Windows versions of their products by not a *huge* amount, but enough that if people like them they'll see that switching to OS X is actually cheaper (which I've always figured, since by the time you compute all the goodies you get in OS X that work well, plus a well designed machine, it's about the same as a Windows box cost wise), we could get more "Switchers" out there.
Just an idea, I could be wrong - but who knows.
iTunes 4 does not currently use Webcore because Webcore is still in beta. The Webcore code is presumably embedded into the app.
I suspect this will change when Webcore is finished.
Distributing Safari for Windows would be a bizzarre move - surely pointless when there's no shortage of great Windows browsers. It's quite possible that Apple will include Webcore code in the Windows iTunes, but surely more likely that they'll use the Explorer APIs.
I suspect this will change when Webcore is finished.
Distributing Safari for Windows would be a bizzarre move - surely pointless when there's no shortage of great Windows browsers. It's quite possible that Apple will include Webcore code in the Windows iTunes, but surely more likely that they'll use the Explorer APIs.
Re: No way...
Personally, I don't buy it. Yes, iTunes4 is (obviously) not using WebCore as a shared library (if it were, it would have to include it in its resource bundle as WebCore is not an OS shared library yet! You don't need to list all the dylib data on iTunes to see that!)
That doesn't mean that the presentation code from WebCore was not statically linked into iTunes though. Using the WebCore shared library would have meant that iTunes would either have to put a copy of said shared lib into the system (can not rely on Safari being present, and Safari uses a "captive instance" of the shared library within its resource bundle) or contain the entire lib (3.3MB in Safari). Either way, this adds 3.3MB to the download (possibly more if other Safari frameworks were used). If iTunes instead compiled against the WebCore code statically, gcc could remove unused code and leave only those portions which iTunes actually uses.
Thus, there is a more than feasible method for iTunes4 to be using WebCore, and here's the motive: rewriting code is bad. If Apple is not reusing their own code, they are in very sorry shape developmentally. Given the software they've put out, I do believe that they have some engineers working there with a head on their shoulders. Reinventing the wheel for no cost gain is bad, very bad. Entire development teams have lost their jobs for less.
Huh? What exactly is the "UNIX way of doing things" from a developer's perspective? I mean, UI and configuration issues aside (which don't in themselves affect performance), why would KHTML/Windows be different from KHTML/Linux? KHTML relies on the Qt system libraries (KDE basis), which exist (although for a fee) on Windows and, last I heard, ran quite well on Windows.
The thinking (not saying it is correct goes that if Apple is porting a huge chunk of Cocoa to Windows (necessary for iTunes4, so the thinking goes) then it might as well use this development effort in more than one product.
And, IMHO, what I love about Safari is not the Cocoa interface (although I don't mind that!) or the engine itself (although it is shaping up to be one of the best for standards compliance, and its performance is great!), but the fact that it gives Apple an "in" do innovate in the browser space. Snapback, while no replacement for tabs, is a very nice feature. The bookmarks pane, IMHO, is an improvement in bookmark management. I expect to see more UI innovations coming from Apple here, and those innovations are just as likely to bear fruit on Windows as on OS X.
IMHO, completely different concepts. Tabs allow grouping. The Windows Task Bar has no grouping cpabilities whatsoever (except "by application", making all windows of a particular app into one button with a hidden menu to get the actual windows). By the same reasoning, tabs are not important in Safari because a right-click on the Safari icon in the dock lets me switch instantly to any Safari window.
Tabs are organizational, not just "single-button window switching".
That goes without saying But that doesn't mean we can't have a great application on there!
I look foward to reading it ...
Personally, I don't buy it. Yes, iTunes4 is (obviously) not using WebCore as a shared library (if it were, it would have to include it in its resource bundle as WebCore is not an OS shared library yet! You don't need to list all the dylib data on iTunes to see that!)
That doesn't mean that the presentation code from WebCore was not statically linked into iTunes though. Using the WebCore shared library would have meant that iTunes would either have to put a copy of said shared lib into the system (can not rely on Safari being present, and Safari uses a "captive instance" of the shared library within its resource bundle) or contain the entire lib (3.3MB in Safari). Either way, this adds 3.3MB to the download (possibly more if other Safari frameworks were used). If iTunes instead compiled against the WebCore code statically, gcc could remove unused code and leave only those portions which iTunes actually uses.
Thus, there is a more than feasible method for iTunes4 to be using WebCore, and here's the motive: rewriting code is bad. If Apple is not reusing their own code, they are in very sorry shape developmentally. Given the software they've put out, I do believe that they have some engineers working there with a head on their shoulders. Reinventing the wheel for no cost gain is bad, very bad. Entire development teams have lost their jobs for less.
Huh? What exactly is the "UNIX way of doing things" from a developer's perspective? I mean, UI and configuration issues aside (which don't in themselves affect performance), why would KHTML/Windows be different from KHTML/Linux? KHTML relies on the Qt system libraries (KDE basis), which exist (although for a fee) on Windows and, last I heard, ran quite well on Windows.
The thinking (not saying it is correct
goes that if Apple is porting a huge chunk of Cocoa to Windows (necessary for iTunes4, so the thinking goes) then it might as well use this development effort in more than one product.And, IMHO, what I love about Safari is not the Cocoa interface (although I don't mind that!) or the engine itself (although it is shaping up to be one of the best for standards compliance, and its performance is great!), but the fact that it gives Apple an "in" do innovate in the browser space. Snapback, while no replacement for tabs, is a very nice feature. The bookmarks pane, IMHO, is an improvement in bookmark management. I expect to see more UI innovations coming from Apple here, and those innovations are just as likely to bear fruit on Windows as on OS X.
IMHO, completely different concepts. Tabs allow grouping. The Windows Task Bar has no grouping cpabilities whatsoever (except "by application", making all windows of a particular app into one button with a hidden menu to get the actual windows). By the same reasoning, tabs are not important in Safari because a right-click on the Safari icon in the dock lets me switch instantly to any Safari window.
Tabs are organizational, not just "single-button window switching".
That goes without saying
But that doesn't mean we can't have a great application on there!I look foward to reading it ...
I know this may seem very bad...
But to every cloud there is a silver lining
You see if Apple port Safari to windows, it will have positive side effects for Mac users.... = Web pages will move to increase compatibility and in turn reward us, as net companies see Safari as big player they actually begin to recognise that it is there and they need to sort some possible compatibility issues out.
On the other hand, by holding iApps(etc) back... Apple can help market share and inevitably fight back....
Maybe I am a little confused
But to every cloud there is a silver lining
You see if Apple port Safari to windows, it will have positive side effects for Mac users.... =
Web pages will move to increase compatibility and in turn reward us, as net companies see Safari as big player they actually begin to recognise that it is there and they need to sort some possible compatibility issues out.On the other hand, by holding iApps(etc) back... Apple can help market share and inevitably fight back....
Maybe I am a little confused
Re: Apple is becoming greedy
Seriously! Can you believe they actually want to INCREASE market share by introducing Windows users to the great world of Apple. I mean, letting windows people buy iPods led to Apple doubling the number sold?? WTF? Man I'm glad I'm not a stockholder because this whole trend of Apple making money and making inroads into the computer market is just unacceptable. As a business, it is a bad decision to try and make more money. They should stay a niche product and an also-ran. WTF are they thinking?
</sarcasm>
-p
Seriously! Can you believe they actually want to INCREASE market share by introducing Windows users to the great world of Apple. I mean, letting windows people buy iPods led to Apple doubling the number sold?? WTF? Man I'm glad I'm not a stockholder because this whole trend of Apple making money and making inroads into the computer market is just unacceptable. As a business, it is a bad decision to try and make more money. They should stay a niche product and an also-ran. WTF are they thinking?
</sarcasm>
-p
It's funny how people easily panic into thinking that Apple is going to port everything to Windows and abandon the Mac.
The logic is simple:
- iTunes need a browser. Since Mac iTunes uses Safari, therefore the programming uses Safari (or KHTML) conventions, it's logical to program an iTunes for Windows using the same conventions - less rewriting of code. Hence, create a Safari for Windows.
- Why not use Mozilla/Phoenix? Apple has no control over the program. And if the program changes, Apple has to rewrite iTunes.
- Why not Internet Explorer? Oh, puh-leeeze, everybody knows why not.
- Will Apple release Safari for Windows and earlier that iTunes? Most likely. Why? So the users can beta test it.
- Will people migrate en masse to Safari? Unlikely, but if Safari can keep the speed (startup and page loading), tabs and pop-up blocks, plus improve on the security and plugins (that's for Mac Safari too), quite a number will use it. And the less the monopoly IE has, the better.
- Having a presence, and a significant one at that, on Windows is more likely to make users to think to switch for their next PC purchase.
With the ability to record to AAC, less will hopefully use WMAs. If only we could get rid of WMV and RA/RM as well!
The logic is simple:
- iTunes need a browser. Since Mac iTunes uses Safari, therefore the programming uses Safari (or KHTML) conventions, it's logical to program an iTunes for Windows using the same conventions - less rewriting of code. Hence, create a Safari for Windows.
- Why not use Mozilla/Phoenix? Apple has no control over the program. And if the program changes, Apple has to rewrite iTunes.
- Why not Internet Explorer? Oh, puh-leeeze, everybody knows why not.
- Will Apple release Safari for Windows and earlier that iTunes? Most likely. Why? So the users can beta test it.
- Will people migrate en masse to Safari? Unlikely, but if Safari can keep the speed (startup and page loading), tabs and pop-up blocks, plus improve on the security and plugins (that's for Mac Safari too), quite a number will use it. And the less the monopoly IE has, the better.
- Having a presence, and a significant one at that, on Windows is more likely to make users to think to switch for their next PC purchase.
With the ability to record to AAC, less will hopefully use WMAs. If only we could get rid of WMV and RA/RM as well!
Ooooh, rumors, rumors delight! IF Safari is ported over to Windows, I'd be all over that...plus a great browser for the PC! Unfortunately, the unwashed masses just don't realize what a bunch of crap IE is. What has IE innovated? Umm...hmmm...yea, I'm out of ideas, too. It has barely changed at all in the past several years. No tabs, no search bar in the main window, and unless something has just changed, I don't know of IE being able to block pop-ups...the PC version of IE isn't even compliant with the Mac version! I find it kind of funny when PC users are using IE and a bunch of pop-ups fly across their screen and I mutter, "Oh, yeah, I nearly forgot about those...all of my Mac browsers have those annoying things turned off." Then the PC user says: "Well, I just have to download a program and it will turn those off." Oh, great. Just what I'D LOVE to do. To get extra functionality which should already be included, I'd have to download another program. That's like buying a car which has a gas pedal, but no brake, BUT you can buy the brake for extra.
But if Apple does start invading some space in the Windows world and makes some money for Apple, that would be great, too.
But if Apple does start invading some space in the Windows world and makes some money for Apple, that would be great, too.
Re: Could be the best switch plan ever
I think what is missing is expecting Average Joe Blow to think and analyze things. Seriously, if everyone thought and researched before making any computer-related product, would Microsoft even exist?
If I consider people who I used to work with, or even my parents, these are people who just work with whatever is slapped in front of them. "Well, everyone else is using Windows and MS Office, so we should, too." Until enough people finally wake up, understand more about computers, and realize that, yes, there is a better solution out there, people will continue on being ignorant and eating whatever s*** is being shoved down their throats.
But if Apple do make a Windows version of Safari, best of luck to them. If it means they can add on at least another million people to use it, great. But maybe it is being used as more of a tool to get a better foothold into the Windows market, then try and sell other products. Then again, maybe not. This is all speculation.
I think what is missing is expecting Average Joe Blow to think and analyze things. Seriously, if everyone thought and researched before making any computer-related product, would Microsoft even exist?
If I consider people who I used to work with, or even my parents, these are people who just work with whatever is slapped in front of them. "Well, everyone else is using Windows and MS Office, so we should, too." Until enough people finally wake up, understand more about computers, and realize that, yes, there is a better solution out there, people will continue on being ignorant and eating whatever s*** is being shoved down their throats.
But if Apple do make a Windows version of Safari, best of luck to them. If it means they can add on at least another million people to use it, great.
But maybe it is being used as more of a tool to get a better foothold into the Windows market, then try and sell other products. Then again, maybe not. This is all speculation.There are also the people who might use it because it's cool stuff from Apple. There are PC users out there who want Macs but can't justify the cost considering you can get a new super fast PC for $600. For me it's a non-issue because of OS X. But not everyone thinks like me/us.
Sorry to disillusion you, but it doesn't. Try running 'strings' against the iTunes executable.
Porting Safari to windows would probably be more work than porting the whole OS to x86. Windows doesn't have Quartz2D, it doesn't have a lot of the BSD communications API that Safari uses, and so on.
iTunes is a different story, because it can live pretty easily on any machine with QuickTime, which includes a lot (although not all, by any means) of what is now called Carbon.
The Apple Lifestyle
Apple has branded themselves as a lifestyle outside of any particular piece of hardware or software line. They've been doing this since the re-introduction of Steve Jobs.
My guess is that, if they do this, it will be to saturate any market they can with the Apple brand.
Apple has branded themselves as a lifestyle outside of any particular piece of hardware or software line. They've been doing this since the re-introduction of Steve Jobs.
My guess is that, if they do this, it will be to saturate any market they can with the Apple brand.
Firebird is my favorite Windows browser by far. Still, it is pulling teeth to get someone not-as-geeky to use it. Why? no, not because IE is bundled with the system. It is because Firebird's interface is clunky and takes a relatively long time to start up. Don't even get me started on the abortive disgusting UI that Mozilla offers as its default!
Safari for Windows may well get better render times than Firebird (it renders faster than Mozilla main), but I would hope that it retains the Mac elegance (but brushed metal really doesn't work on Windows ...)
You are right, they are wrong. Firebird (and Mozilla proper) had the integrated "google bar" long before Safari debuted. In fact, the configurability of Firebird's google bar is still miles ahead of Safari's (I personally like being able to use the same text to search a given page after using it to search Google) ... but, of course, you pay for features with complexity, and you pay for complexity with unfortunately fewer users ...
THE THING I WANT TO KNOW IS. . .
Why? I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm just posting on impulse? What is a practical reason for it? iTunes doesn't use Safari for the Music Store. It uses the same engine, but not the program itself. SO, WHY?
Why? I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm just posting on impulse? What is a practical reason for it? iTunes doesn't use Safari for the Music Store. It uses the same engine, but not the program itself. SO, WHY?
I think you are all missing the point of developing Safari for the Mac. The same that system wide font rendering services, image displaying & importing services, sound playing services, etc are a must have for any OS with a GUI since ages ago, for some years now it is also a must to have system wide HTML rendering services for whatever developer that might need it in their app.
There are gazillions of applications in Windows that use Internet Explorer's HTML rendering services, starting by the Windows Help System. It is Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service", that is key to Windows because so many applications expect it to be there, and make good and fair use of it. Internet Explorer, "the browser", is just once in that zillion of applicatioins that use Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service".
Must have as a system wide HTML rendering service might be, the one in OS X version < 10.3 sucks at an incredible indecent level. Curiously, the same example application I put when talking about Windows exists in Mac OS X too, its help files, and, oh boy, how limited they are.
Safari, "the browser", is just the Apple's excuse aimed to the masses for it to appear like it is moving at full steam ahead from Windows making its OS the best, and while it might be the best in usability (it definitely IS in my opinion), it has many shortcomings in features such as this comparing to Windows.
Up until now Mac OS X did not have one of the features that is definitely a must have for any modern and mass oriented operating system. And it still sort of does lack it since it is not something that the OS has off the shelf, yet.
iTunes for Windows? What would be so bad about it using Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service", the same as a massive ammount of other applications do, and that do very well with that BTW.
There are gazillions of applications in Windows that use Internet Explorer's HTML rendering services, starting by the Windows Help System. It is Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service", that is key to Windows because so many applications expect it to be there, and make good and fair use of it. Internet Explorer, "the browser", is just once in that zillion of applicatioins that use Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service".
Must have as a system wide HTML rendering service might be, the one in OS X version < 10.3 sucks at an incredible indecent level. Curiously, the same example application I put when talking about Windows exists in Mac OS X too, its help files, and, oh boy, how limited they are.
Safari, "the browser", is just the Apple's excuse aimed to the masses for it to appear like it is moving at full steam ahead from Windows making its OS the best, and while it might be the best in usability (it definitely IS in my opinion), it has many shortcomings in features such as this comparing to Windows.
Up until now Mac OS X did not have one of the features that is definitely a must have for any modern and mass oriented operating system. And it still sort of does lack it since it is not something that the OS has off the shelf, yet.
iTunes for Windows? What would be so bad about it using Internet Explorer, "the HTML rendering service", the same as a massive ammount of other applications do, and that do very well with that BTW.
Makes more sense than Safari for Mac
Makes more sense than Safari for Mac.
That may sound stupid, but stay with me...
Safari in of itself for the Mac only makes sense in terms of other integrations...ie iTunes, Sherlock, and other iApps.
To simply launch a browser for the Mac would've been retarded. I didn't see this at first, but now that I see where they're heading, it makes sense that Safari is one component in all that is Mac.
It would've made no sense as a "better browser" initiative. This is because under this role, the best Safari could do is dominate as the Mac browser...this would've been a bad thing...no revenue from this, but a responsibility to update a product since there's no competition.
But with what they're doing with Safari, it makes sense instead of working with third parties.
Now with Windows, it makes even more sense. It's not about competing with Explorer, it's about offering revenue generating services to the Windows platform. Doing so not only will make them money, but it will ensure that Macs get to participate...and first/better at that.
--kevine
Makes more sense than Safari for Mac.
That may sound stupid, but stay with me...
Safari in of itself for the Mac only makes sense in terms of other integrations...ie iTunes, Sherlock, and other iApps.
To simply launch a browser for the Mac would've been retarded. I didn't see this at first, but now that I see where they're heading, it makes sense that Safari is one component in all that is Mac.
It would've made no sense as a "better browser" initiative. This is because under this role, the best Safari could do is dominate as the Mac browser...this would've been a bad thing...no revenue from this, but a responsibility to update a product since there's no competition.
But with what they're doing with Safari, it makes sense instead of working with third parties.
Now with Windows, it makes even more sense. It's not about competing with Explorer, it's about offering revenue generating services to the Windows platform. Doing so not only will make them money, but it will ensure that Macs get to participate...and first/better at that.
--kevine
Re: Re: No way...
Well, there are no symbolics that would indicate that WebCore is statically linked. That's not a 100% foolproof determiner since the internal symbols could be stripped. However, iTunes does link to the HTMLLib rendering library in Carbon, which is a lightweight HTML renderer that is currently used by Apple Help. Given that iTunes HTML needs are pretty simple, it could easily be using that, without the need for the code bloat that introducing a statically linked WebCore would add. It would make sense for iTunes (and Apple Help) to use WebCore in the future when it's part of the OS (I'm guessing Panther), but I don't think there's any convincing evidence that points to it being used today.
Well, there are no symbolics that would indicate that WebCore is statically linked. That's not a 100% foolproof determiner since the internal symbols could be stripped. However, iTunes does link to the HTMLLib rendering library in Carbon, which is a lightweight HTML renderer that is currently used by Apple Help. Given that iTunes HTML needs are pretty simple, it could easily be using that, without the need for the code bloat that introducing a statically linked WebCore would add. It would make sense for iTunes (and Apple Help) to use WebCore in the future when it's part of the OS (I'm guessing Panther), but I don't think there's any convincing evidence that points to it being used today.
Apple could get Safari out into the open if they just had it install automatically when you install iTunes4 for Windows. That way it's on there desktop and people might test it. And I know a bunch of people that dont have a Mac because of cost that are waiting for iTunes and if Apple came out with Safari for Windblows then I'm sure they would give that a go to.
Re: Apple is becoming greedy
Okay, let's get this straight: you are going to boycott Apple products until they stop charging for them?
This is implied by what you said because your first and last gripe was that they are being greedy and charging for more and more things. So it seems the "Mac spirit" means giving stuff away. Great for you - bad for them, since it would ultimately mean the death of them.
Okay, let's get this straight: you are going to boycott Apple products until they stop charging for them?
This is implied by what you said because your first and last gripe was that they are being greedy and charging for more and more things. So it seems the "Mac spirit" means giving stuff away. Great for you - bad for them, since it would ultimately mean the death of them.
Re: Apple is becoming greedy
plus, try and understand, these are rumors. the only apple product you mentioned that is PC-compatible is the iPod. the other two are still and may ever remain mac-only.
also, since when has apple become prideless? they're one of the most arrogant corporations in america. good gracious!
you should statr your own computer company and try to make money without selling things.
plus, try and understand, these are rumors. the only apple product you mentioned that is PC-compatible is the iPod. the other two are still and may ever remain mac-only.
also, since when has apple become prideless? they're one of the most arrogant corporations in america. good gracious!
Not free
No one said that even if they ported other apps to Windows, that they wouldn't charge for them. Quicktime pro costs money. "Free" iTunes will enable music store revenue. A Safari port will likely be there to support iTunes under the hood so that Apple has control over it rather than being yanked around by MS with the IE HTML engine and its security problems. This means that Safari as a browser front end might not appear, but the engine would be there in iTunes.
No one said that even if they ported other apps to Windows, that they wouldn't charge for them. Quicktime pro costs money. "Free" iTunes will enable music store revenue. A Safari port will likely be there to support iTunes under the hood so that Apple has control over it rather than being yanked around by MS with the IE HTML engine and its security problems. This means that Safari as a browser front end might not appear, but the engine would be there in iTunes.
Re: Not free
but why bother to port an entire browser? they just need to include the safari webcore framework in iTunes, like they do on the mac. you do realize, of course, that iTunes 4 will work with the apple store whether you have safari or any other browsers or not, right?