Safari for Windows?

[u2mr2os2]

A long term strategy

Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.

First, as I said, they won't (all) be free. This is simple since when you buy a Mac, Apple gets the profit, so including Apple software with that is fine for Apple. Making the software free for Windows doesn't make them money directly, so it won't be free for Windows. There might be a token free app to get people started, or like Quicktime, have a free version. The idea of charging way more for it on Windows than competing apps as a way to get people to switch to the Mac is dumb - they will just buy the cheaper competing app before they buy a whole new more expensive computer to get a deal on a few apps.

Now, one of the reasons a PC user wouldn't switch is because he uses many programs not available on the Mac. Obviously, MS Office, MS IE, Quicken, etc. are available, but there are others that are not. Given how crummy IE for the Mac is, it's not much of a reason to switch.

If Apple ported their apps to Windows, this gives the Windows users a chance to see how good Apple software is. Otherwise they are not going to see that. They are not going to buy a Mac just to try out Apple software. Think about Linux - people tried it because it ran on their existing PCs. If they had to buy a new expensive "LinuxBox" computer to try it, Linux would be nowhere today (and don't give me "it was because Linux is free", because many people paid $30+ for a boxed distro - much cheaper than a $1000+ computer). All Windows users have to go on right now is heresay about iPhoto, etc. are easy and good. But they have no idea where that ranks against apps they use, so they don't know how much better it could be.

If Apple apps are really better, then they should be able to stand alone on their own merit against Windows apps. The best way to prove this would be to port Apple apps to Windows. Surem they might lack a thing or two by not being on OS X, but they should still shine.

Once more people are using Apple software on Windows, then moving to a Mac with OS X would be not hard at all since it runs the same apps and is compatible with their data. This is a long term switcher plan. You could then lure them over to Apple hardware on the true merits of OS X since the apps would not be an issue. Like the apps, if OS X is really so good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and not be "good" only because it has these nice apps that come with it. Right now, no matter how good OS X is, many people wouldn't consider it since it doesn't run the apps they use.

The other good thing is the fallback position it would give Apple. Certainly along the way, they would be making a nice living on revenue for their apps on Windows. If the Mac hardware doesn't make it, at least they'll have a source of income as a good app vendor for Windows and we would still be able to use that nice software rather than it also dying with the Mac hardware.

 

[shadowfax]

Re: A long term strategy

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.

First, as I said, they won't (all) be free. This is simple since when you buy a Mac, Apple gets the profit, so including Apple software with that is fine for Apple. Making the software free for Windows doesn't make them money directly, so it won't be free for Windows. There might be a token free app to get people started, or like Quicktime, have a free version. The idea of charging way more for it on Windows than competing apps as a way to get people to switch to the Mac is dumb - they will just buy the cheaper competing app before they buy a whole new more expensive computer to get a deal on a few apps.

Now, one of the reasons a PC user wouldn't switch is because he uses many programs not available on the Mac. Obviously, MS Office, MS IE, Quicken, etc. are available, but there are others that are not. Given how crummy IE for the Mac is, it's not much of a reason to switch.

If Apple ported their apps to Windows, this gives the Windows users a chance to see how good Apple software is. Otherwise they are not going to see that. They are not going to buy a Mac just to try out Apple software. Think about Linux - people tried it because it ran on their existing PCs. If they had to buy a new expensive "LinuxBox" computer to try it, Linux would be nowhere today (and don't give me "it was because Linux is free", because many people paid $30+ for a boxed distro - much cheaper than a $1000+ computer). All Windows users have to go on right now is heresay about iPhoto, etc. are easy and good. But they have no idea where that ranks against apps they use, so they don't know how much better it could be.

If Apple apps are really better, then they should be able to stand alone on their own merit against Windows apps. The best way to prove this would be to port Apple apps to Windows. Surem they might lack a thing or two by not being on OS X, but they should still shine.

Once more people are using Apple software on Windows, then moving to a Mac with OS X would be not hard at all since it runs the same apps and is compatible with their data. This is a long term switcher plan. You could then lure them over to Apple hardware on the true merits of OS X since the apps would not be an issue. Like the apps, if OS X is really so good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and not be "good" only because it has these nice apps that come with it. Right now, no matter how good OS X is, many people wouldn't consider it since it doesn't run the apps they use.

The other good thing is the fallback position it would give Apple. Certainly along the way, they would be making a nice living on revenue for their apps on Windows. If the Mac hardware doesn't make it, at least they'll have a source of income as a good app vendor for Windows and we would still be able to use that nice software rather than it also dying with the Mac hardware.

i don't think they have enough windows programmers to start porting their apps en masse, and i really don't think things would go as you suggest if they did start doing so. apps like iTunes, Safari, iChat... they all have counterparts in windows that are both free and better in many ways. Winamp3 is a great example of that. also, having their apps on windows, i think, is a stupid idea if they want to give an impression that apple stuff is stable. when you put it on XP, it will, for lot's of people, crash. there are just a lot of XP users that screw up their machines to no end, without even realizing it. and they will blame the apps they are running, which would then include Apple stuff.

also, why would apple need to port its oen apps to windows for users to have files that are mac compatible? there are relatively few types of files right now that don't open just fine on a mac.

I really don't think this is a good venue for the switch campaign.

 

[u2mr2os2]

Re: Re: A long term strategy

Originally posted by Shadowfax
there are relatively few types of files right now that don't open just fine on a mac.

True, but people do resist learning another application that does the same thing even if it is file compatible. Many people view learning a new app as a lot of work and so want to stick with the one they know, even if it is that shareware app of 1000 that came on a CD attached to a Windows magazine.

I'll grant you a little on the point about Apple software on Windows being not exactly top notch. However, there are a lot of competent Windows programmers in the world that can be hired.

I just think that if Apple keeps playing it safe by keeping its apps to itself, saying that they are better because they are on a Mac where they control the software and hardware, then PC users hear that as either an admission that the software by itself is not spectacular or that Apple is just saying that since the PC user would have to buy a Mac just to find out - he can't try a demo.

In the end, my cynical self thinks the switcher campaign is a lost cause. Sure you'll snag a few: fence sitters mostly. It's just that much of the Mac advantage is stuff that a PC user doesn't care about or can even see. Aesthetics: look at the cases they think are nice looking. Simplicity: "It only has one button? My PC mouse has 5! " Quality: There are far more choices for anti-virus software for the PC than for the Mac. Value: "with a PC, I can go to anyone for help with problems." Comfort: when PC users have problems, they know that nearly everyone else has the same problem, so they are normal, and it gives them something in common to talk about. Productivity: a PC user feels productive when they managed to solve or work around a Windows problem. Where's the fun in a computer that just works? However, the idea of it being a bit more challenging to find some software for the Mac is just too much bother.

 

[abdul]

Originally posted by zac4mac

Anybody remember how much trouble QT for Windows was a few years back? Now almost every PC I see at work has QT on it.

no. y dads got an ancient win 3.11 machine in the house that we found and that had quicktime on it.

what prob?

 

[GregA]

Originally posted by MacFan26
I would agree with this. If Apple does port Safari to windows, they might even consider porting more apps also. I have always used Apple software as part of the argument to switch, but if any windows user can use most of these applications, what's the point?

If Apple's applications became available on Windows, and you thought there was no point buying a Mac then, doesn't that say how important the OS and machine is to you?

I'm all for Apple 'stuff' everywhere - just make it stand for style and quality wherever it is and whatever it is working with.

 

[abdul]

quicktime on the pc uses some kind of html engine doesnt it? cos it brings up the hotopicks page straight away when connected.

is that html or just quicktime pictures?

and why is everyone slagging quicktime on the pc. i use it and think it good

 

[elmimmo]

Abdul wrote:
and why is everyone slagging quicktime on the pc. i use it and think it good

Try to use it on my Pentium 233 w 160 MB RAM. Surely mine is not any programmer's target platform, but in my PC Windows Media Player kicks QuickTime's bad ass. As a matter of fact I now do not allow any Quicktime plug-in or player to launch, since, besides not standing the awfully long time it takes to open up, once it has launched it becomes useless because it cannot play any movie at decent rates. Sure there are some high end codecs for WMP that present the same problem, such as DivX (and I do understand that most QT movies are Sorenson 3, which is also high end), but still WMP loads fast and plays, mpegs for example, perfectly nice, whereas QT chokes on everything I have tried.

Surely if you've got a P4>2GB you will not see any difference between both.

And BTW, in such an ancient PC as mine, IE 5.5 does noticeably fly comparing to Firebird.

 

[GregA]

Originally posted by Flynnstone
This could be great !
One thing I feel Apple is missing is a way to port Cocoa apps to Windows. As a developer, I prefer to develop one code base if possible. But Cocoa is very different from anything on the PC (except ... is it GNUStep?).
So ... if Apple ports iTunes and Safari and anything else to Windows, then they must likely have a method to port Cocoa to Windows. Perhaps an announcement at WWDC.

That would be excellent. Especially if it's seamless.

Originally posted by CJYetman
Someone please explain to me why Apple would spend one cent and/or one second on porting a free app to Windows... and don't say look at iTunes, cause they're making money off of iTunes through the music store, even if the app is actually free.

If Apple made a cross platform development easy - they could use their own applications to test the seamlessness, and prove how easy it is - this is good advertising.

While I think Safari (if it gets ported) may turn out to be written using a cocoa on windows - the webcore might instead actually be part of the cocoa environment (much as they're saying it'll be built into X10.3).... the same goes for quicktime's core functions. A full app like Appleworks might be more of 'proof' of seamlessness.

If it REALLY is easy to write an app in cocoa and compile to Mac & Windows, then it costs Apple very little to have all their (cocoa) apps available on Windows. And if developers see how easy it is to write apps this way, we may see more developers. Maybe Safari could be made Apple-open-source as an example application.

ps. As for free Apple iApps on Windows?, if a pc user subscribed to ".mac" could we give them iPhoto & iCal ? .mac is revenue generating, and iPhoto must give Apple a cut for upload prints, just as much as iTunes does for downloading songs.
pps. YellowBox (now Cocoa) used to work on HP/UX, SunOS, etc. Why not do Linux and really turn some heads and get people talking.

 

[JJTiger1]

Re: A long term strategy

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.
-snip-

I totally agree.

Competition is GREAT.
-
... now if the zealots would be so kind as to mind their ways, and view the big picture... it's not just a matter of invading the Dark Side by showing the Evil Empire the folly of their ways.

Apple must offer viable solutions to everyday computer tasks.

First: QuickTime. Then iPods.
Why not iTunes and Safari?
Maybe then they will be in the market for a cheap eMac so as to have a proper iPod mothership?
-
JJ

 

[DeusOmnis]

iLife

I want to see apple selling a windows version of iLife. They already have the programers now, under the iTunes and Safari cover. They can just use those programmers to quietly make iLife, w00t!

After a windows user gets a taste of the magical apple, they'll have to have the whole thing!

 

[sparks9]

IE 6 is perfect for pc. no need for safari.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by sparks9
IE 6 is perfect for pc. no need for safari.

well that's a bit of an overstatement. i mean, the popup blocker is definitely a valuable feature that those schmucks at MS left out (i'll bet someone is paying them not to implement it), but they have Mozilla, Firebird, and so on for that.

 

[MacKid]

Re: A long term strategy

Originally posted by u2mr2os2
Here's how Apple porting apps to Windows is a good thing.

First, as I said, they won't (all) be free. This is simple since when you buy a Mac, Apple gets the profit, so including Apple software with that is fine for Apple. Making the software free for Windows doesn't make them money directly, so it won't be free for Windows. There might be a token free app to get people started, or like Quicktime, have a free version. The idea of charging way more for it on Windows than competing apps as a way to get people to switch to the Mac is dumb - they will just buy the cheaper competing app before they buy a whole new more expensive computer to get a deal on a few apps.

Now, one of the reasons a PC user wouldn't switch is because he uses many programs not available on the Mac. Obviously, MS Office, MS IE, Quicken, etc. are available, but there are others that are not. Given how crummy IE for the Mac is, it's not much of a reason to switch.

If Apple ported their apps to Windows, this gives the Windows users a chance to see how good Apple software is. Otherwise they are not going to see that. They are not going to buy a Mac just to try out Apple software. Think about Linux - people tried it because it ran on their existing PCs. If they had to buy a new expensive "LinuxBox" computer to try it, Linux would be nowhere today (and don't give me "it was because Linux is free", because many people paid $30+ for a boxed distro - much cheaper than a $1000+ computer). All Windows users have to go on right now is heresay about iPhoto, etc. are easy and good. But they have no idea where that ranks against apps they use, so they don't know how much better it could be.

If Apple apps are really better, then they should be able to stand alone on their own merit against Windows apps. The best way to prove this would be to port Apple apps to Windows. Surem they might lack a thing or two by not being on OS X, but they should still shine.

Once more people are using Apple software on Windows, then moving to a Mac with OS X would be not hard at all since it runs the same apps and is compatible with their data. This is a long term switcher plan. You could then lure them over to Apple hardware on the true merits of OS X since the apps would not be an issue. Like the apps, if OS X is really so good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and not be "good" only because it has these nice apps that come with it. Right now, no matter how good OS X is, many people wouldn't consider it since it doesn't run the apps they use.

The other good thing is the fallback position it would give Apple. Certainly along the way, they would be making a nice living on revenue for their apps on Windows. If the Mac hardware doesn't make it, at least they'll have a source of income as a good app vendor for Windows and we would still be able to use that nice software rather than it also dying with the Mac hardware.

All I want to say is THANK YOU because I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to finally say why Safari would actually do something on Windows that would be beneficial.

But I do have a question: If Apple starts making a habit out of porting apps to Windows (or even just a few), then what happens when PC users get comfortable with using Apple apps on Windows computers? The apps would have to be fully functional to get people to use them, but if there's no catch, and they don't know how good the apps are in OS X anyway, then what would make them switch? If they already have the apps they want/need, why switch?

 

[The Reaper]

i know you're all sick of the OSX on x86 rumors, but i just thought i'd put an idea i had for why apple would do this.

i'm sure you've all heard the argument that OSX on PC will make PC users switch, and then the counter arguments that people will see no incentive to switch if they have all the software. not to mention software developers not wanting to code for windows, OSX mac AND OSX PC. i think there is a solution. please, first read this in full before you form an opinion.

i think that apple will release a version of OS X for PC... and it will be FREE. then, when curious PC users are upgrading their OS, they will try the mac alternative, at pretty much no risk - they don't have to pay for it before they find out it doesn't work (of courst it will work, this is just as a reassurance).

this OSX version will have one simple purpose - to get PC users hooked on the OS. nothing else. OS X PC will need to do the following:

1. support all current Windows software. this can be done more easily than on a mac because the apps will be on a x86 chip (which they were written for). basically it will be like running classic, rather than running Virtual PC.
2. provide all of the apps that come with OSX (such as mail, adress book, iApps etc).
3. have all of the same features as the current mac version, including eye candy etc.
4. 3rd party mac software developers will NOT need to rewrite their apps for this OS. this is because this OS is almost like a demo - it runs all of your windows software, but in an awesome environment, complete with all of Apple's own free software (iApps etc) as well as any other non free apps that apple makes for this OS (keynote etc). note that 3rd party 'OSX for PC' support is NOT needed or recommended. basically, OSX PC has one underlying purpose: to make users see the flaws with windows, and make them dependent on the mac. i, for one, would never go back to windows.
   [/list=1]
   
   they will become addicted. THEN, apple will simply not upgrade the PC version... but keep upgrading the mac version of OSX. the PC users who got hooked will switch with their next computer upgrade. the whole process could take as little as 2 years before the benefits pay off significantly.

 

[MacKid]

LOL

Originally posted by GregAussie

pps. YellowBox (now Cocoa) used to work on HP/UX, SunOS, etc. Why not do Linux and really turn some heads and get people talking.

LOL I just wanted to point out something: do you really expect a bunch of people who won't even pay much (or pay at all) for a new computer to get a new OS (Linux) to pay for a new computer for the apps they already have?

 

[rjwill246]

An Apple a day....

Originally posted by GregAussie
I'm all for Apple 'stuff' everywhere - just make it stand for style and quality wherever it is and whatever it is working with.

Absolutely!

If Apple can get Safari and iTunes for Windows on as many PCs as possible, it can only be to Apple's benefit even if the software is free. IT IS ADVERTISING if nothing else- and it certainly will be more than that! History has shown that Apple's absence in the PC user's world has done zip to get PC users to switch. The only other thing is to expose them to Apple product. It can't be done by hardware exposure... although the Apple Stores may be slowly changing that... but since Apple is both a hardware and software manufacturer, the only other reasonable and cheap way to get to the PC user is to DUMP software on him/her. Now, this may still do nothing, granted, but the current approach is not doing a lot either. Apple has nothing to lose by this sort of exposure and has much to gain. They need to take a leaf from the Micrsoft page and disable at least one desirable feature in each of the programs, making it only available under MacOS!!! just kidding

 

[u2mr2os2]

Re: Re: A long term strategy

Originally posted by MacKid
All I want to say is THANK YOU because I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to finally say why Safari would actually do something on Windows that would be beneficial.

But I do have a question: If Apple starts making a habit out of porting apps to Windows (or even just a few), then what happens when PC users get comfortable with using Apple apps on Windows computers? The apps would have to be fully functional to get people to use them, but if there's no catch, and they don't know how good the apps are in OS X anyway, then what would make them switch? If they already have the apps they want/need, why switch?

A good question. I think that Apple apps ported to the PC must be as fully functional as possible (there may be some things OS X gives them that Windows can't). This is because if Apple were to make them crippled, someone else will make or already have a product that will fill that hole and the Apple app will lose. Claiming that you can get the full functionality by buying a Mac is true, but is a totally ridiculous solution.

Most PC users are not going to switch until they are ready to upgrade their machine anyway. They are PC users. They are part of a market driven by price - not style. They don't just buy a new box right after they got a new one because the new one is a little easier to use. They hardly think about ease of use anyway because of the Windows conditioning. This is where I think MS was clever: spend years making Windows ubiquitous and crappy so that most everyone thinks this is how computers are and will always be, so that's why they don't really believe that a Mac is a savior. So if they never get exposed to a Mac or even Apple software, they will never know that things can be better. MS makes them think that MS is who can make things better by only improving Windows in small increments as needed to keep eyes away from the Mac or as people hear of Mac features that they think are nice.

So, if Apple procudes fully functional ports of their apps, and a PC user starts to use a bunch of Apple software, then why would he buy a generally more expensive Apple computer to have the same Apps?

Well, we know he won't do this until he's ready to upgrade anyway. Maybe he'll do it sooner if he can sell his PC easily, and some who can afford it or have the space would keep their PC for a while during the switch honeymoon.

However, what's clear is that no sensible person is going to switch if they are going to have to re-buy Mac version of a bunch of software. But, a new Mac already comes with most of that same sofware the Apple ported the the PC user was using. Some programs that don't have Mac versions will have to move to equivalents. Others, like MS Office, exist, but do not come with the Mac. These are the ones that can start adding up in order to switch to Mac versions. Some companies allow you to just get the Mac version for no cost. Others will require you to "upgrade" to the Mac version, but at least it's only an upgrade price, and you might have an older version anyway, so not too bad. Others will require you to totally re-buy the product, which will suck. Also, where the PC use will have to switch to a Mac equivalent program, they might allow a competetive upgrade.

What I think is that Mac software vendors should help in the switch effort by all offering free (or minimal) switching from their PC version (if they have it) or competetive upgrade pricing from an equivalent PC program. It's in their interest to have more Mac users after all.

Additional switcher thought: once more Mac users are out there, then the network effects start to help by there being more Mac users to be showing PC user friends their nice Macs and how they can really interchange data with them.

 

[zzal]

They need KHTML fot iTunes Music store...

Hey! Has anyone made the relation between the current news (apple’s looking for devloppers to port Safari to Windows) and the fact that, to port itunes to windows, thay actually need the music store to be ported too? And what is the engine for the display into iTunes? Surely not the HTML rendering engine of Mail.... And maybe simply using the KHTML code is not enough, they’ll need to port Safari to windows, or maybe in part....

 

[shadowfax]

Re: They need KHTML fot iTunes Music store...

Originally posted by zzal
Hey! Has anyone made the relation between the current news (apple?s looking for devloppers to port Safari to Windows) and the fact that, to port itunes to windows, thay actually need the music store to be ported too? And what is the engine for the display into iTunes? Surely not the HTML rendering engine of Mail.... And maybe simply using the KHTML code is not enough, they?ll need to port Safari to windows, or maybe in part....

iTunes doesn't use the safari webcore? i was sure i'd heard it did... and it's in XML, i think,and i think they have very specific reasons for making it in XML.

 

[zach]

There are already rumors of Apple also porting iTunes. Think about it, people. Safari and iTunes for Windows. Suddenly, apple loses two good reasons to switch to mac. Neither iTunes nor Safari will be porting IMO.

I do believe, however, that Apple will produce a highly stripped version of iTunes so the music store can be acessed. Just enough so that people will say "hey, this is damn spankin', but i want the full version." So they go buy a mac. You know, just like unlicenced shareware.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zap23
There are already rumors of Apple also porting iTunes. Think about it, people. Safari and iTunes for Windows. Suddenly, apple loses two good reasons to switch to mac. Neither iTunes nor Safari will be porting IMO.

I do believe, however, that Apple will produce a highly stripped version of iTunes so the music store can be acessed. Just enough so that people will say "hey, this is damn spankin', but i want the full version." So they go buy a mac. You know, just like unlicenced shareware.

yeah, and iTunes to go with their iPods, because musicmatch sucks sucks sucks.

 

[gunnmjk]

It's obvious

I think it's OBVIOUS that Apple is porting Safari to windows. I mean, didn't they already announce that they are porting iTunes? What interface does the iTunes music store interact with again? oh yea, Safari's. So duh, it's only natural to make a standalone browser availible as well.

 

[shadowfax]

Re: It's obvious

Originally posted by gunnmjk
I think it's OBVIOUS that Apple is porting Safari to windows. I mean, didn't they already announce that they are porting iTunes? What interface does the iTunes music store interact with again? oh yea, Safari's. So duh, it's only natural to make a standalone browser availible as well.

it's not "only natural." iTunes doesn't use safari, it uses webCore. that's not safari. safari uses webcore. porting safari would ba a lot more work than porting webcore. i don't even know that you have to port webcore. so no, it's not "natural"or "duh."

 

[u2mr2os2]

This "share(hard)ware" idea

Originally posted by zap23
I do believe, however, that Apple will produce a highly stripped version of iTunes so the music store can be acessed. Just enough so that people will say "hey, this is damn spankin', but i want the full version." So they go buy a mac. You know, just like unlicenced shareware.

Honestly, do you all really believe people are going to buy a Mac just to get the few extras they might leave out of an iTunes "lite" for Windows? Let's see: hey, I just bought this $400 portable music player and it comes with Windows software to access ths music store to buy songs and do other cool stuff, except that it doesn't have Rendevous music sharing, integration with iLife apps and a few other things. Damn, I really want those few extras, but I need to buy an $800+ computer to get it.

Sorry, I don't see it happening.

I see some other software for Windows swooping in to fill that lack of functionality and steal the thunder from iTunes for Windows. That is why it must have full functionality. If it has anything less, then how are PC users ever going to know what a Mac is like? Or is the plan to have this "lite" version of iTunes frequently pop up with annoying banners telling how great it is if you only would lay down some big bucks on a Mac? I think that'd not only make me not want to buy a Mac, it'd make me think twice about an iPod if I were a Windows user.

 

[u2mr2os2]

iTunes for Windows

I'll also predict that they will also make iTunes for Windows available as a stand alone app as a lure to sell iPods.

This could be a free "lite" version since you won't have to lay down serious money on hardware to get it, this could have limited functionality. The full version could be a $20 item. It would let you do everything, but you'd have to get an iPod to make those AAC files you'd been buying from the music store portable. But this might be suitable for people who want to buy music but don't use a portable player.

With the advantage of the music store, iTunes for Windows could really take the market for Windows music player software if it doesn't skimp on features in the for-pay version. It should still be able to do MP3 and sync those to other players.