I don't think that was ever Apple's goal. I think (please correct meif wrong) there reason for that was a parallel move to eventually moving the iTunes Store in iTunes to being WebKit based.
Opening up WebKit was the brilliant move. The most important thing is that WebKit is used on more devices than any other browser engine. No longer will Safari on Apple devices not be supported by the internet at large... though I did come across a government site just last month that would only work in IE or Firefox.
Recall that Safari for Windows was released in 2007 alongside the iPhone. The goal was to open up an alternative to IE 6, so that sites would have some reason to use standards. Apple also wanted Windows users to be able to render pages with WebKit so they could deploy web apps on the iPhone. And there was some intent to help spread QuickTime and Bonjour.
As it turned out, the iPhone was bigger than expected and iOS is now the largest mobile platform, allowing Apple to dethrone Flash faster than expected. Apple doesn't need a Windows browser to spread QT (iTunes does that, thanks to the iPod) and cross platform use of Bonjour isn't Apple's primary focus anymore, given that its already ubiquitous, and that Apple can now create its own weather.
Additionally, Google released Chrome the following year, allowing Apple to focus on its own business while Google spent the resources to bring and update WebKit to Windows. Suddenly, half of the IE/Firefox world is now occupied by WebKit browsers, and Apple isn't even having to do all the work to maintain those.
Unlike iTunes, Apple wasn't making sales with Safari for Windows. Although Apple does get ad revenue from Google related to searches, probably similar to what Mozilla gets for Firefox (likely a proportional share of ~$50 million a year).
That makes Safari on Windows a low priority, given the opportunity costs of working on Safari for Mac and iOS. But there's also little reason for not making a Windows port available, given that Apple needs to keep WebKit up to date in a cross platform fashion anyway.
Recall that Safari for Windows was released in 2007 alongside the iPhone. The goal was to open up an alternative to IE 6, so that sites would have some reason to use standards. Apple also wanted Windows users to be able to render pages with WebKit so they could deploy web apps on the iPhone. And there was some intent to help spread QuickTime and Bonjour.
As it turned out, the iPhone was bigger than expected and iOS is now the largest mobile platform, allowing Apple to dethrone Flash faster than expected. Apple doesn't need a Windows browser to spread QT (iTunes does that, thanks to the iPod) and cross platform use of Bonjour isn't Apple's primary focus anymore, given that its already ubiquitous, and that Apple can now create its own weather.
Additionally, Google released Chrome the following year, allowing Apple to focus on its own business while Google spent the resources to bring and update WebKit to Windows. Suddenly, half of the IE/Firefox world is now occupied by WebKit browsers, and Apple isn't even having to do all the work to maintain those.
Unlike iTunes, Apple wasn't making sales with Safari for Windows. Although Apple does get ad revenue from Google related to searches, probably similar to what Mozilla gets for Firefox (likely a proportional share of ~$50 million a year).
That makes Safari on Windows a low priority, given the opportunity costs of working on Safari for Mac and iOS. But there's also little reason for not making a Windows port available, given that Apple needs to keep WebKit up to date in a cross platform fashion anyway.
Plus when they launched Safari on windows it was soooooo slow, everyone that used it quickly stopped again. Releasing a browser like that, you only have 1 opportunity and all windows users that tried it will never try it again.
Plus when they launched Safari on windows it was soooooo slow, everyone that used it quickly stopped again. Releasing a browser like that, you only have 1 opportunity and all windows users that tried it will never try it again.
Javascript is one area where I do agree with the use of virtual machines, since the web is "the" cross-platform platform.
In the 2000s people got carried away with virtual machines and tried to put them in *everything.* And you had people like John Siracusa from Ars saying Apple was doomed if they didn't move ObjC to a VM.
But these days people realize "horses for courses." Microsoft are moving native apps back to Win64 and away from .NET, even as they continue to improve their Javascript VM. And how long before Google deprecates Java on Android for in favor of something native, even as they improve V8?
Recall that Safari for Windows was released in 2007 alongside the iPhone. The goal was to open up an alternative to IE 6, so that sites would have some reason to use standards. ...
Um-m-m, no. The primary reason for releasing Safari for Windows was that Apple recognized that it was leaving money on the table by not having Safari on Windows. It had absolutely nothing to do with promoting QuickTime. QuickTime had been ported to Windows more than a decade earlier. It received a huge boost with the port of iTunes to Windows because iTunes brings QuickTime along for the ride.
You appear to be asserting that Apple and Google are collaborating with Google taking the lead in bringing WebKit to Windows leaving Apple to concentrate on MacOS X. This is fantasy. If Apple and Google were working together, then it would make no sense for Google to bifurcate HTML5 support with Google opting for its proprietary WebM media format. WebM is supported by Mozilla, Opera, and Google, but not by Apple. And yes, Google is very actively developing Chrome for MacOS X. Apple is very actively developing Safari for Windows. There is simply no evidence to support the division of labor that you fantasize about.
As for Bonjour, you have to be kidding. Bonjour dramatically eases the installation of certain printers on Windows. However, I am aware of no purchasing decision of any kind that is based on Bonjour for Windows.
WebM is supported by Mozilla, Opera, and Google, but not by Apple.
I hope Apple does eventually support WebM to avoid getting left flatfooted by YouTube's conversion to WebM. Everyone and their uncle has announced support for it except Apple and Microsoft. Users can install third party software that offers support on Mac and Windows but plugins are not allowed on iOS so there is nothing users can do to enable WebM on their i-devices.
I hope Apple does eventually support WebM to avoid getting left flatfooted by YouTube's conversion to WebM. Everyone and their uncle has announced support for it except Apple and Microsoft. Users can install third party software that offers support on Mac and Windows but plugins are not allowed on iOS so there is nothing users can do to enable WebM on their i-devices.
Apple is backing Vimeo in Mountain Lion. I see no traces of YouTube anywhere. I would expect the YouTube app to be replaced, perhaps with Vimeo, in iOS 6.
I don't Apple including WebM at this point is an issue. iOS-based devices are still on par with Android OS-based devices in unit sales but even if we count only smartphones there seems to be a huge discrepancy about data usage between the iPhone and Android-based smartphones. It's almost like Android-based smartphones aren't being used much for their internet capabilities in comparison to the iPhone.
That's a bullshit argument. Not supporting everything that masquerades as an open standard doesn't mean you are against open standards. There is still a lot of doubt that WedM won't have legal issues. Should Apple add support and then get sued because it didn't do its due diligence and take the necessary precautions? What is gained by Apple supporting every open standard that crops up?
Let's not forget that Apple opened up WebKit which is by far the most installed browser engine in the world. They are committed to an open and unified web because it helps their bottom line. Google on the other hand is using WebM to fracture the web because it helps there bottom line. There is no altruism here. Google isn't using WebM because it's free and open, they are using it to as a power play to gain more control for web video under the guise of being open... which is what they are doing with Android.
What is gained by Apple supporting every open standard that crops up?
You are absolutely right. There's much more to be gained by withholding a few patents deemed essential to a developing standard.
With the W3C (not Google) claiming the patents may not be able to be worked around if valid, and are therefor essential, imagine the club that Apple could have at it's disposal. They can use standards-essential patents in a lawsuit without technically breaking their pledge not to use them as weapons since they won't contribute them. Best of both worlds!
Which part of the 'Open Standards' phrase don't you understand? WebM is neither.
Not to mention, of course, the patent issues that need to be resolved.
It's been proposed as part of a free unencumbered open-standards video codec if I understand correctly. The "patent-issues" to be resolved are with the license-for-pay H.264 standard, of which Apple is a major partner along with Microsoft isn't it? Google is addressing their unspecific patent threat with agreements between WebM proponents not to sue each other over video standards.
But with that said, thank you for sending me back to research a bit more carefully to understand that the current issue with Apple and the W3C is not over WebM. Much appreciated. Whether it was clear from my posts or not, I was mistaken in what part Apple is playing with WebM.
Wow! Google is really starting to look and act like Microsoft of yesteryear. So much for the open web, when all the technology Google wants to use is their own proprietary stuff. Yes, they may freely license and open source it, but that doesn't mean at some point in the future they won't close it up, just as they're beginning to do with Android now.
As opposed to Apple's use of Facetime and Airplay instead of already existing open standards? Where's the difference? And Google isn't truly closing up Android. It's attempting to head off fragmentation, you know that thing every Apple fan site screams will be the death of Android.
And since JavaScript is such a major portion of the web and has a dramatic affect on page performance, maybe it's time to consider replacements that may provide better performance. Other than fanboy allegiances, why does it matter where that new standard would come from?
As opposed to Apple's use of Facetime and Airplay instead of already existing open standards?
I don't think there is any open standard that can do what AirPlay does, and FaceTime is mostly a collection of proprietary standards to transmitting audio and video in real time.
Samsung is working on an AirPlay competitor that could work since they do offer phones, tablets, PCs and TVs.
As opposed to Apple's use of Facetime and Airplay instead of already existing open standards?
The only Airplay-like standard I know of is DNLA. And it doesn't work. The files have to be in exactly the right format, or they won't be in sync, will be blocky or just won't work at all. Files that work on one TV mightn't work on another from a different manufacturer. It's a real mess. At least with Airplay it works pretty much all the time.
I'm not aware of any open standard that is similar to FaceTime, care to link any?
Comments
I don't think that was ever Apple's goal. I think (please correct meif wrong) there reason for that was a parallel move to eventually moving the iTunes Store in iTunes to being WebKit based.
Opening up WebKit was the brilliant move. The most important thing is that WebKit is used on more devices than any other browser engine. No longer will Safari on Apple devices not be supported by the internet at large... though I did come across a government site just last month that would only work in IE or Firefox.
Recall that Safari for Windows was released in 2007 alongside the iPhone. The goal was to open up an alternative to IE 6, so that sites would have some reason to use standards. Apple also wanted Windows users to be able to render pages with WebKit so they could deploy web apps on the iPhone. And there was some intent to help spread QuickTime and Bonjour.
As it turned out, the iPhone was bigger than expected and iOS is now the largest mobile platform, allowing Apple to dethrone Flash faster than expected. Apple doesn't need a Windows browser to spread QT (iTunes does that, thanks to the iPod) and cross platform use of Bonjour isn't Apple's primary focus anymore, given that its already ubiquitous, and that Apple can now create its own weather.
Additionally, Google released Chrome the following year, allowing Apple to focus on its own business while Google spent the resources to bring and update WebKit to Windows. Suddenly, half of the IE/Firefox world is now occupied by WebKit browsers, and Apple isn't even having to do all the work to maintain those.
Unlike iTunes, Apple wasn't making sales with Safari for Windows. Although Apple does get ad revenue from Google related to searches, probably similar to what Mozilla gets for Firefox (likely a proportional share of ~$50 million a year).
That makes Safari on Windows a low priority, given the opportunity costs of working on Safari for Mac and iOS. But there's also little reason for not making a Windows port available, given that Apple needs to keep WebKit up to date in a cross platform fashion anyway.
Recall that Safari for Windows was released in 2007 alongside the iPhone. The goal was to open up an alternative to IE 6, so that sites would have some reason to use standards. Apple also wanted Windows users to be able to render pages with WebKit so they could deploy web apps on the iPhone. And there was some intent to help spread QuickTime and Bonjour.
As it turned out, the iPhone was bigger than expected and iOS is now the largest mobile platform, allowing Apple to dethrone Flash faster than expected. Apple doesn't need a Windows browser to spread QT (iTunes does that, thanks to the iPod) and cross platform use of Bonjour isn't Apple's primary focus anymore, given that its already ubiquitous, and that Apple can now create its own weather.
Additionally, Google released Chrome the following year, allowing Apple to focus on its own business while Google spent the resources to bring and update WebKit to Windows. Suddenly, half of the IE/Firefox world is now occupied by WebKit browsers, and Apple isn't even having to do all the work to maintain those.
Unlike iTunes, Apple wasn't making sales with Safari for Windows. Although Apple does get ad revenue from Google related to searches, probably similar to what Mozilla gets for Firefox (likely a proportional share of ~$50 million a year).
That makes Safari on Windows a low priority, given the opportunity costs of working on Safari for Mac and iOS. But there's also little reason for not making a Windows port available, given that Apple needs to keep WebKit up to date in a cross platform fashion anyway.
Plus when they launched Safari on windows it was soooooo slow, everyone that used it quickly stopped again. Releasing a browser like that, you only have 1 opportunity and all windows users that tried it will never try it again.
Plus when they launched Safari on windows it was soooooo slow, everyone that used it quickly stopped again. Releasing a browser like that, you only have 1 opportunity and all windows users that tried it will never try it again.
That's more than a touch hyperbolic.
In the 2000s people got carried away with virtual machines and tried to put them in *everything.* And you had people like John Siracusa from Ars saying Apple was doomed if they didn't move ObjC to a VM.
But these days people realize "horses for courses." Microsoft are moving native apps back to Win64 and away from .NET, even as they continue to improve their Javascript VM. And how long before Google deprecates Java on Android for in favor of something native, even as they improve V8?
Recall that Safari for Windows was released in 2007 alongside the iPhone. The goal was to open up an alternative to IE 6, so that sites would have some reason to use standards. ...
Um-m-m, no. The primary reason for releasing Safari for Windows was that Apple recognized that it was leaving money on the table by not having Safari on Windows. It had absolutely nothing to do with promoting QuickTime. QuickTime had been ported to Windows more than a decade earlier. It received a huge boost with the port of iTunes to Windows because iTunes brings QuickTime along for the ride.
You appear to be asserting that Apple and Google are collaborating with Google taking the lead in bringing WebKit to Windows leaving Apple to concentrate on MacOS X. This is fantasy. If Apple and Google were working together, then it would make no sense for Google to bifurcate HTML5 support with Google opting for its proprietary WebM media format. WebM is supported by Mozilla, Opera, and Google, but not by Apple. And yes, Google is very actively developing Chrome for MacOS X. Apple is very actively developing Safari for Windows. There is simply no evidence to support the division of labor that you fantasize about.
As for Bonjour, you have to be kidding. Bonjour dramatically eases the installation of certain printers on Windows. However, I am aware of no purchasing decision of any kind that is based on Bonjour for Windows.
WebM is supported by Mozilla, Opera, and Google, but not by Apple.
I hope Apple does eventually support WebM to avoid getting left flatfooted by YouTube's conversion to WebM. Everyone and their uncle has announced support for it except Apple and Microsoft. Users can install third party software that offers support on Mac and Windows but plugins are not allowed on iOS so there is nothing users can do to enable WebM on their i-devices.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
I hope Apple does eventually support WebM to avoid getting left flatfooted by YouTube's conversion to WebM. Everyone and their uncle has announced support for it except Apple and Microsoft. Users can install third party software that offers support on Mac and Windows but plugins are not allowed on iOS so there is nothing users can do to enable WebM on their i-devices.
Apple is backing Vimeo in Mountain Lion. I see no traces of YouTube anywhere. I would expect the YouTube app to be replaced, perhaps with Vimeo, in iOS 6.
I don't Apple including WebM at this point is an issue. iOS-based devices are still on par with Android OS-based devices in unit sales but even if we count only smartphones there seems to be a huge discrepancy about data usage between the iPhone and Android-based smartphones. It's almost like Android-based smartphones aren't being used much for their internet capabilities in comparison to the iPhone.
Let WebM be the MicroDVI of video formats.
Apple looks like they are trying their best to throw up roadblocks to WebM. Commitments to open standards and the W3C be damned.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
That's a bullshit argument. Not supporting everything that masquerades as an open standard doesn't mean you are against open standards. There is still a lot of doubt that WedM won't have legal issues. Should Apple add support and then get sued because it didn't do its due diligence and take the necessary precautions? What is gained by Apple supporting every open standard that crops up?
Let's not forget that Apple opened up WebKit which is by far the most installed browser engine in the world. They are committed to an open and unified web because it helps their bottom line. Google on the other hand is using WebM to fracture the web because it helps there bottom line. There is no altruism here. Google isn't using WebM because it's free and open, they are using it to as a power play to gain more control for web video under the guise of being open... which is what they are doing with Android.
What is gained by Apple supporting every open standard that crops up?
You are absolutely right. There's much more to be gained by withholding a few patents deemed essential to a developing standard.
With the W3C (not Google) claiming the patents may not be able to be worked around if valid, and are therefor essential, imagine the club that Apple could have at it's disposal. They can use standards-essential patents in a lawsuit without technically breaking their pledge not to use them as weapons since they won't contribute them. Best of both worlds!
Apple looks like they are trying their best to throw up roadblocks to WebM. Commitments to open standards and the W3C be damned.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
Which part of the 'Open Standards' phrase don't you understand? WebM is neither.
Not to mention, of course, the patent issues that need to be resolved.
Which part of the 'Open Standards' phrase don't you understand? WebM is neither.
Not to mention, of course, the patent issues that need to be resolved.
It's been proposed as part of a free unencumbered open-standards video codec if I understand correctly. The "patent-issues" to be resolved are with the license-for-pay H.264 standard, of which Apple is a major partner along with Microsoft isn't it? Google is addressing their unspecific patent threat with agreements between WebM proponents not to sue each other over video standards.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20056579-264.html
But with that said, thank you for sending me back to research a bit more carefully to understand that the current issue with Apple and the W3C is not over WebM. Much appreciated. Whether it was clear from my posts or not, I was mistaken in what part Apple is playing with WebM.
Wow! Google is really starting to look and act like Microsoft of yesteryear. So much for the open web, when all the technology Google wants to use is their own proprietary stuff. Yes, they may freely license and open source it, but that doesn't mean at some point in the future they won't close it up, just as they're beginning to do with Android now.
As opposed to Apple's use of Facetime and Airplay instead of already existing open standards? Where's the difference? And Google isn't truly closing up Android. It's attempting to head off fragmentation, you know that thing every Apple fan site screams will be the death of Android.
And since JavaScript is such a major portion of the web and has a dramatic affect on page performance, maybe it's time to consider replacements that may provide better performance. Other than fanboy allegiances, why does it matter where that new standard would come from?
As opposed to Apple's use of Facetime and Airplay instead of already existing open standards?
I don't think there is any open standard that can do what AirPlay does, and FaceTime is mostly a collection of proprietary standards to transmitting audio and video in real time.
Samsung is working on an AirPlay competitor that could work since they do offer phones, tablets, PCs and TVs.
As opposed to Apple's use of Facetime and Airplay instead of already existing open standards?
The only Airplay-like standard I know of is DNLA. And it doesn't work. The files have to be in exactly the right format, or they won't be in sync, will be blocky or just won't work at all. Files that work on one TV mightn't work on another from a different manufacturer. It's a real mess. At least with Airplay it works pretty much all the time.
I'm not aware of any open standard that is similar to FaceTime, care to link any?
Does current webkit have this performance boost
It does not, nor does Safari 5.2. I imagine it won't come until 5.3 or later, if at all.
it does not, nor does safari 5.2. I imagine it won't come until 5.3 or later, if at all.
damn your everywhere. Thx