Does that mean Webkit is the best option for developing a good mobile web browser? You see the new browser for BlackBerry.
As of right now, that seems to be the case.
I have not seen there new browser, are they not using WebKit as the base?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As I just said to Teno, MS has virtually unlimited funds to pour into any project they want to push. Despite their not having the best software with all that money, they do manage to outlast many of their competitors. If Mozilla had more than a small fraction of the sums MS can ladle into this, they could have done more. Apple also doesn't use the infinite funding model on a project the way MS does, or Safari would be much better than it is.
Having resources and spending them wisely too often seem to be at odds with each other. IE should be the fastest evolving, lightest weight browser out there if having money was the most import starting point. Of course, having very little isn't good either. Apple has done well with their spending which is one reason I continue to invest with them. They have made OS X a desktop and mobile OS and have made WebKit the de facto browser engine for mobiles, even if Safari for Mac OS X is slow.
I have not seen there new browser, are they not using WebKit as the base?
Having resources and spending them wisely too often seem to be at odds with each other. IE should be the fastest evolving, lightest weight browser out there if having money was the most import starting point. Of course, having very little isn't good either. Apple has done well with their spending which is one reason I continue to invest with them. They have made OS X a desktop and mobile OS and have made WebKit the de facto browser engine for mobiles, even if Safari for Mac OS X is slow.
The point is that MS doesn't need to have the best software. As has been said of them, it's good enough. That's all that really matters. Few companies care if the software they're using is the best. But they are concerned about long term support, and they know that MS will be there for that.
IE is getting better. It takes MS a long time to respond, but when they do, they often get it good enough so that people decide they'll live with it. There's evidence that IE's slide has slowed down, or possibly even stopped. Firefox has stopped growing, and Chrome isn't the only reason. Many people are moving to IE 8.
As far as mobile browsers go, only MS's own OS uses IE, or whatever derivative it is. Webkit seems to be taking over in mobile, and that's good, as it forms a standard, which happens to be a good one. Opera is different.
I don't find Safari on my Mac to be slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest browsers out there. It's in other areas that Apple is slow to add features.
WInMo has more marketshare than i would have thought. Perhaps it's not too late for MS to regain some ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't find Safari on my Mac to be slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest browsers out there. It's in other areas that Apple is slow to add features.
After using Chrome for the last few days Safari is slow. The app itself, mind you, not the browser engine.
I ended up going back to Safari today because I miss the visual history and hated the very limited history Chrome shows from the Menu Bar. If not for that I would have likely kept it as my default browser despite the other niggling issues.
I hope Apple makes Safari just as fast. I also hope they allow for separate tabs as a process and give an option for tabs on top.
PS: At TenoBell. I just saw the announcement for RiM to go with WebKit. I didn't think they'd get one up so quickly, though I don't see a demo and there is no date expect for "2010". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...blackberry.ars
We have to careful when we interpret numbers. Actually, it doesn't matter what the larger part of the public thinks, because this isn't aimed at the majority. I doubt that Apple really expects the majority of the population to buy one of these. That would mean that Apple would be quickly selling 100 million a year, and moving up from that, the way Gates predicted that by 2006 the majority of computers being sold would be Windows tablets.
What matters is that the portion of the public that might REALLY consider buying one has tripled from 3% to 9%, that could mean sales of 10 million a year. That's a realistic number.
In addition, if you read those numbers carefully, you'll see that the number losing interest is about the same as it was before, and the number that may be interested is more than before.
The numbers actually work out as:
Not interested before=== 61%
Not interested after==== 70%
Interested before====== 21%
Interested after======= 30%
So the not interested went up by almost 15%
But, those interested went up by almost 43%
Those figures are far more meaningful.
Ok seeing ALL the figures sure paint a different picture than I previously assumed. My apologies.
Quote:
I mean that you seem to want this to fail, and hope that by saying that it will, that you will convince enough people to not buy it, so that it will fail. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. Sometimes the screen name people choose is spot on in telegraphing their objectives. Wouldn't you say? Correct me if I'm wrong.
No, by no means am I saying it will or am wanting it to fail. It's just that I guess it just seems a bit odd that the iPad's success will really rely on app development. And I am 100% sure that the apps developed for the iPad will indeed be the driving force behind most of it's sales. I just wish that Apple put a bit more into it. But then again, you never know what they'll throw in in the next firmware update.
Oh and my "kill8joy" screen name I use everywhere. And funny enough it has nothing to do with my objectives or intentions. Back in highschool when I was taking typing classes, we had to set a password so I picked on that I only needed to type with one hand. Lame I know.
Quote:
It's tough to know where someone's coming from. I'm reading, in the same post from more than a few people, including you, from what I understand of what you're saying, that it's not different enough. I'd like to know why that would be a bad thing, if true.
What this is, is an extension to the iP/T platform. That's what it's supposed to be. It does more, as it's supposed to, while still remaining familiar enough to the large number of people who are used to the iP/T.
It's actually plenty different, was what I meant. I think what I was trying to say there was that Apple has released a product that is SO different that it makes other similar products (eReaders) look dull in comparison. Apple definitely knows that cool shit sells.
Quote:
You see, that remark makes it difficult to take the other remarks seriously, but I'll continue trying. The PC tablet failed because it's a terrible implementation of a tablet. Windows is the wrong OS for such a purpose. People don't need something like that on a tablet. MS never understood that. Now they're trying to shoehorn it into even less powerful devices, and it's even worse.
It's why Apple hasn't put the Mac OS into the tablet. It doesn't fit there. If the tablet was much more powerful, then with a revision of the GUI, maybe it would work. But otherwise it won't.
Was making a joke there, but I agree with you that there's just no way to give these things enough power to run a more desktop-like OS. Just not possible at this point. I guess I hoped Apple could do it somehow. Who knows, maybe an "iSlate" will be a Pro offering of the iPad, as is with the MacBook line now but with an overhauled OS.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with Flash. It has to do with those apps having to work with different OS's and different cpu's. Meaning that they're not full fledged apps on any platform. They're a compromise. They aren't fast enough because of the lag time from slow connections. They can't leverage any of the hardware, because they don't know what the hardware is, because they're so far abstracted from it, being that they mostly live in the browser. Opening and saving large documents over the web is also a pain, and as we're finding out, it's dangerous to do so.
It's going to take years before that becomes more than a curiosity for a large number of people.
WInMo has more marketshare than i would have thought. Perhaps it's not too late for MS to regain some ground.
After using Chrome for the last few days Safari is slow. The app itself, mind you, not the browser engine.
I ended up going back to Safari today because I miss the visual history and hated the very limited history Chrome shows from the Menu Bar. If not for that I would have likely kept it as my default browser despite the other niggling issues.
I hope Apple makes Safari just as fast. I also hope they allow for separate tabs as a process and give an option for tabs on top.
PS: At TenoBell. I just saw the announcement for RiM to go with WebKit. I didn't think they'd get one up so quickly, though I don't see a demo and there is no date expect for "2010". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...blackberry.ars
That's for MS's share in the US. Worldwide it's under 9%, possibly lower by more than a bit.
I don't know about that speed. In tests, Safari is still one of the fastest. Chrome on my machine doesn't seem to have much of a difference.
WInMo has more marketshare than i would have thought. Perhaps it's not too late for MS to regain some ground.
Your chart is a little misleading. It's an indication of the US smart phone user base, not market share of sales (directly).
As iPhone's sales market share has increased it's share of the user base will increase, but lag behind a little. I think iPhone's US market share in the US is around 30%.
However, the opposite is true for WinMo. I suspect it's US share to be under 15%. As Mel pointed out, WinMo's global share is less than 9%.
Windows Phone 7 (great name!) is a bold move from Microsoft, but you only have to look at that graph to see they had to do something! BTW the red line is going to fall even faster in the next 6 to 9 months.
Question. How many WinPho 7 licenses do you need to sell before you have a viable business?
Comments
Does that mean Webkit is the best option for developing a good mobile web browser? You see the new browser for BlackBerry.
As of right now, that seems to be the case.
I have not seen there new browser, are they not using WebKit as the base?
As I just said to Teno, MS has virtually unlimited funds to pour into any project they want to push. Despite their not having the best software with all that money, they do manage to outlast many of their competitors. If Mozilla had more than a small fraction of the sums MS can ladle into this, they could have done more. Apple also doesn't use the infinite funding model on a project the way MS does, or Safari would be much better than it is.
Having resources and spending them wisely too often seem to be at odds with each other. IE should be the fastest evolving, lightest weight browser out there if having money was the most import starting point. Of course, having very little isn't good either. Apple has done well with their spending which is one reason I continue to invest with them. They have made OS X a desktop and mobile OS and have made WebKit the de facto browser engine for mobiles, even if Safari for Mac OS X is slow.
As of right now, that seems to be the case.
I have not seen there new browser, are they not using WebKit as the base?
Having resources and spending them wisely too often seem to be at odds with each other. IE should be the fastest evolving, lightest weight browser out there if having money was the most import starting point. Of course, having very little isn't good either. Apple has done well with their spending which is one reason I continue to invest with them. They have made OS X a desktop and mobile OS and have made WebKit the de facto browser engine for mobiles, even if Safari for Mac OS X is slow.
The point is that MS doesn't need to have the best software. As has been said of them, it's good enough. That's all that really matters. Few companies care if the software they're using is the best. But they are concerned about long term support, and they know that MS will be there for that.
IE is getting better. It takes MS a long time to respond, but when they do, they often get it good enough so that people decide they'll live with it. There's evidence that IE's slide has slowed down, or possibly even stopped. Firefox has stopped growing, and Chrome isn't the only reason. Many people are moving to IE 8.
As far as mobile browsers go, only MS's own OS uses IE, or whatever derivative it is. Webkit seems to be taking over in mobile, and that's good, as it forms a standard, which happens to be a good one. Opera is different.
I don't find Safari on my Mac to be slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest browsers out there. It's in other areas that Apple is slow to add features.
I don't find Safari on my Mac to be slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest browsers out there. It's in other areas that Apple is slow to add features.
After using Chrome for the last few days Safari is slow. The app itself, mind you, not the browser engine.
I ended up going back to Safari today because I miss the visual history and hated the very limited history Chrome shows from the Menu Bar. If not for that I would have likely kept it as my default browser despite the other niggling issues.
I hope Apple makes Safari just as fast. I also hope they allow for separate tabs as a process and give an option for tabs on top.
PS: At TenoBell. I just saw the announcement for RiM to go with WebKit. I didn't think they'd get one up so quickly, though I don't see a demo and there is no date expect for "2010". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...blackberry.ars
We have to careful when we interpret numbers. Actually, it doesn't matter what the larger part of the public thinks, because this isn't aimed at the majority. I doubt that Apple really expects the majority of the population to buy one of these. That would mean that Apple would be quickly selling 100 million a year, and moving up from that, the way Gates predicted that by 2006 the majority of computers being sold would be Windows tablets.
What matters is that the portion of the public that might REALLY consider buying one has tripled from 3% to 9%, that could mean sales of 10 million a year. That's a realistic number.
In addition, if you read those numbers carefully, you'll see that the number losing interest is about the same as it was before, and the number that may be interested is more than before.
The numbers actually work out as:
Not interested before=== 61%
Not interested after==== 70%
Interested before====== 21%
Interested after======= 30%
So the not interested went up by almost 15%
But, those interested went up by almost 43%
Those figures are far more meaningful.
Ok seeing ALL the figures sure paint a different picture than I previously assumed. My apologies.
I mean that you seem to want this to fail, and hope that by saying that it will, that you will convince enough people to not buy it, so that it will fail. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. Sometimes the screen name people choose is spot on in telegraphing their objectives. Wouldn't you say? Correct me if I'm wrong.
No, by no means am I saying it will or am wanting it to fail. It's just that I guess it just seems a bit odd that the iPad's success will really rely on app development. And I am 100% sure that the apps developed for the iPad will indeed be the driving force behind most of it's sales. I just wish that Apple put a bit more into it. But then again, you never know what they'll throw in in the next firmware update.
Oh and my "kill8joy" screen name I use everywhere. And funny enough it has nothing to do with my objectives or intentions. Back in highschool when I was taking typing classes, we had to set a password so I picked on that I only needed to type with one hand. Lame I know.
It's tough to know where someone's coming from. I'm reading, in the same post from more than a few people, including you, from what I understand of what you're saying, that it's not different enough. I'd like to know why that would be a bad thing, if true.
What this is, is an extension to the iP/T platform. That's what it's supposed to be. It does more, as it's supposed to, while still remaining familiar enough to the large number of people who are used to the iP/T.
It's actually plenty different, was what I meant. I think what I was trying to say there was that Apple has released a product that is SO different that it makes other similar products (eReaders) look dull in comparison. Apple definitely knows that cool shit sells.
You see, that remark makes it difficult to take the other remarks seriously, but I'll continue trying. The PC tablet failed because it's a terrible implementation of a tablet. Windows is the wrong OS for such a purpose. People don't need something like that on a tablet. MS never understood that. Now they're trying to shoehorn it into even less powerful devices, and it's even worse.
It's why Apple hasn't put the Mac OS into the tablet. It doesn't fit there. If the tablet was much more powerful, then with a revision of the GUI, maybe it would work. But otherwise it won't.
Was making a joke there, but I agree with you that there's just no way to give these things enough power to run a more desktop-like OS. Just not possible at this point. I guess I hoped Apple could do it somehow. Who knows, maybe an "iSlate" will be a Pro offering of the iPad, as is with the MacBook line now but with an overhauled OS.
It has nothing to do with Flash. It has to do with those apps having to work with different OS's and different cpu's. Meaning that they're not full fledged apps on any platform. They're a compromise. They aren't fast enough because of the lag time from slow connections. They can't leverage any of the hardware, because they don't know what the hardware is, because they're so far abstracted from it, being that they mostly live in the browser. Opening and saving large documents over the web is also a pain, and as we're finding out, it's dangerous to do so.
It's going to take years before that becomes more than a curiosity for a large number of people.
Can't argue with an intelligent statement.
WInMo has more marketshare than i would have thought. Perhaps it's not too late for MS to regain some ground.
After using Chrome for the last few days Safari is slow. The app itself, mind you, not the browser engine.
I ended up going back to Safari today because I miss the visual history and hated the very limited history Chrome shows from the Menu Bar. If not for that I would have likely kept it as my default browser despite the other niggling issues.
I hope Apple makes Safari just as fast. I also hope they allow for separate tabs as a process and give an option for tabs on top.
PS: At TenoBell. I just saw the announcement for RiM to go with WebKit. I didn't think they'd get one up so quickly, though I don't see a demo and there is no date expect for "2010". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...blackberry.ars
That's for MS's share in the US. Worldwide it's under 9%, possibly lower by more than a bit.
I don't know about that speed. In tests, Safari is still one of the fastest. Chrome on my machine doesn't seem to have much of a difference.
WInMo has more marketshare than i would have thought. Perhaps it's not too late for MS to regain some ground.
Your chart is a little misleading. It's an indication of the US smart phone user base, not market share of sales (directly).
As iPhone's sales market share has increased it's share of the user base will increase, but lag behind a little. I think iPhone's US market share in the US is around 30%.
However, the opposite is true for WinMo. I suspect it's US share to be under 15%. As Mel pointed out, WinMo's global share is less than 9%.
Windows Phone 7 (great name!) is a bold move from Microsoft, but you only have to look at that graph to see they had to do something! BTW the red line is going to fall even faster in the next 6 to 9 months.
Question. How many WinPho 7 licenses do you need to sell before you have a viable business?
Your chart is a little misleading. It's an indication of the US smart phone user base, not market share of sales (directly).
How is it misleading? It says platform share right in the image and the hyperlink says in installed base in the article.