People who find out how awesome Apple software is may be inclined to try the Mac, expecting more awesomeness. Many people will end up loving and buying the Mac as a result.
Honestly, I think that's pushing it a bit.. I just can't see any Windows user trying out Safari and saying "oh my gosh, it's fantastic, I need to buy a Mac." Of course I use Safari as my main browser, but to me, it's basically just a browser.. I really don't think there is anything that special or innovative that sets it apart from other browsers.. So they say it's "faster," but I personally don't notice any difference in speed between Firefox..
It's ridiculous to suggest that 3 times gain is due to the Apple Updater; the upward trend is only slightly changed at the date of the update push. The 3.0 version was a beta and the 3.1 the first stable release version; it's hardly surprising that it quickly gained a larger market share.
We'd all like to believe that people do things by consideration rather than being spoon-fed but that's not the case, hence they're still using Windows. All Apple did was hook into their already well-defined behaviour. Go Apple & give that MBA a bonus.
Recheck your math. % .21 is a lot of computers using your browser. A whole lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun
Honestly, I think that's pushing it a bit.. I just can't see any Windows user trying out Safari and saying "oh my gosh, it's fantastic, I need to buy a Mac." Of course I use Safari as my main browser, but to me, it's basically just a browser.. I really don't think there is anything that special or innovative that sets it apart from other browsers.. So they say it's "faster," but I personally don't notice any difference in speed between Firefox..
OK I don't have figures so I'll make 'em up but if global sales are circa 180-200m PCs and refreshes are 3-4 years on average that's over 500m PCs out there. 0.21% is just over 1m and 660K of those weren't using Safari but were using iTunes.
Using iTunes as a one-off (because they had to) wouldn't do it alone but I'd say opening that second eye will sell quite a few Macs at refresh time and that .21% doesn't look like a plateau to me.
Don't you all think this opens the door for MS to do the same with it's apps on OS X. Apple would not have a case to block it when they had done it on Windows.
Don't you all think this opens the door for MS to do the same with it's apps on OS X. Apple would not have a case to block it when they had done it on Windows.
Don't you all think this opens the door for MS to do the same with it's apps on OS X. Apple would not have a case to block it when they had done it on Windows.
With what apps? It's not like Microsoft even competes in the free app market on the Mac anymore. Other than Messenger, what are they going to offer, surely not Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.
Oh, come on, upsetting many people for that 0.14% market share?
There are many ways to increase your market market, especially when it is 0.07%. Slipping it in and upsetting customers is not a good way.
Whichever MBA thought of this "brilliant" idea should be fired.
As an IT administrator in a fortune 500 company I am constantly building and updating dozens of PC's a month.
What Apple did is not different than other PC Software industry leaders.
For example take any Windows PC fresh from Dell or HP and add Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat or AIR from Adobe.
During every installation you will be prompted if you want to install Google Desktop with the option DEFAULTED to INSTALL.
That is just one Software Vendor, I have seen this to be with an ever increasing tactic of software vendors by adding Google Desktop with there install/update packages.
I hear of no dissent for Google on this anywhere, so I find this argument from people hypocritical and because it is an Apple product.
I am not saying where it is right or wrong, rather be upset industry wide or refrain from criticism at just one company.
I agree with someone else, Apple should bring iWork to PCs. iWork makes profit. Safari...costs money to develop and is being given away. And it's just plain mediocre. For whatever reason, they don't seem to add features to it or improve on it or debug it at all, it's gone nowhere in years. Clips was the coolest thing they've added besides RSS and Tabs back in 2.0. That's just not impressive. I use FF 3 for now, until Safari stops being slow and buggy.
I agree with someone else, Apple should bring iWork to PCs. iWork makes profit. Safari...costs money to develop and is being given away.
I think there are a few valid reasons for Safari for Windows to exist. Apple most likely makes at least some money from Safari. The first is, search engine revenue. Google pays the Mozilla Foundation to the tune of $25 million a year. These are, at least in part, the kickbacks from whenever someone clicks a paid sponsor link when you use the search engine bar. So Apple can probably more than pay back their cost of development. Then there's also an easy means for developers to get a copy of Safari to test their sites against. No longer is "don't have a Mac" an excuse for a site dev to not test Safari.
Just agreeing with all those posting that there's nothing shifty here about what Apple did. It's standard practice!!!
Don't believe me? Let's see, go to Adobe's site and download Acrobat Reader. Guess what? Yup, good ol' Google Toolbar is selected by default to be installed.
It's everywhere folks.
Doesn't make it right, now does it... It's a deceptive and manipulative practice that no software company should engage in, especially Apple.
people who don't know how to unclick something in plain sight deserved to be tricked.
now come at me.
And I suppose everyone you know reads everything that pops up on their computer. I thought not.
This is how viruses get installed... a message pops up, user confirms, boom, virus installed. In this case, it's Safari on Windows. This is something I never thought Apple would stoop to.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if the box were unchecked by default. Offer new software all day long using Apple Software Update, as long as the box is unchecked, I don't care.
I think those numbers are more realistic. A quarter percent just seems like a lowball figure. On my sites, I see between 3% and 12%. Firefox generally gets about 3x that
I think it's a debatable claim. I use Firefox because it does certain things the way I want it to, but Safari has been more stable for me than Firefox 2. FF3 beta is pretty good though, it fixes most of the issues I have with Firefox.
I primarily use Safari because I couldn't live without the find (which is vastly better than even firefox, which is good too). I've had no compatibility issues far as web pages go so I'm happy there. Only bummer about Safari is no PicLens 6 support, but they are working on it & once they have it I'm done with Firefox.
Firefox users all love the plug-ins, but to be honest I've never found a plug-in I use enough to move away from Safari, I just like Safari stability far too much.
There is a strategic reason why Apple needs Safari on Windows - to keep Microsoft technology from dominating the websites.
Web has been a great equalizer for Mac. People complain less about "not enough apps run on Mac" these days because a lot of the commonly used stuff went to the web.
For example, Silverlight. It is a MS technology (competing against Flash) working in IE. At this moment, it is not the greatest, but has potential.
What if it becomes a great technology and a lot of webmasters start to use it instead of the standard technoliges (plain old server side scripting, or Flash)? What if Microsoft then drops the Mac support? (similar to what happens to Windows Media)
When websites use some unique technology which only works in IE, people will again more likely to buy Windows computers, and that "Mac has less apps" argument will come back again with a different form - "Fewer websites work in Mac".
Of course, there is Firefox...however, you cannot count on a third party for your core business, so Apple is pushing Safari for Windows as a strategic move to make sure web doesn't become a MS platform.
I primarily use Safari because I couldn't live without the find (which is vastly better than even firefox, which is good too). I've had no compatibility issues far as web pages go so I'm happy there. Only bummer about Safari is no PicLens 6 support, but they are working on it & once they have it I'm done with Firefox.
Firefox users all love the plug-ins, but to be honest I've never found a plug-in I use enough to move away from Safari, I just like Safari stability far too much.
For some people, it just takes one plug-in. For me that might be FXIF, which lets me look at the EXIF data in an image. The plugin for Safari to do what AdBlock and FlashBlock does is more complicated than it needs to be, in my opinion.
Comments
People who find out how awesome Apple software is may be inclined to try the Mac, expecting more awesomeness. Many people will end up loving and buying the Mac as a result.
Honestly, I think that's pushing it a bit.. I just can't see any Windows user trying out Safari and saying "oh my gosh, it's fantastic, I need to buy a Mac." Of course I use Safari as my main browser, but to me, it's basically just a browser.. I really don't think there is anything that special or innovative that sets it apart from other browsers.. So they say it's "faster," but I personally don't notice any difference in speed between Firefox..
It's ridiculous to suggest that 3 times gain is due to the Apple Updater; the upward trend is only slightly changed at the date of the update push. The 3.0 version was a beta and the 3.1 the first stable release version; it's hardly surprising that it quickly gained a larger market share.
We'd all like to believe that people do things by consideration rather than being spoon-fed but that's not the case, hence they're still using Windows. All Apple did was hook into their already well-defined behaviour. Go Apple & give that MBA a bonus.
McD
Recheck your math. % .21 is a lot of computers using your browser. A whole lot.
Honestly, I think that's pushing it a bit.. I just can't see any Windows user trying out Safari and saying "oh my gosh, it's fantastic, I need to buy a Mac." Of course I use Safari as my main browser, but to me, it's basically just a browser.. I really don't think there is anything that special or innovative that sets it apart from other browsers.. So they say it's "faster," but I personally don't notice any difference in speed between Firefox..
OK I don't have figures so I'll make 'em up but if global sales are circa 180-200m PCs and refreshes are 3-4 years on average that's over 500m PCs out there. 0.21% is just over 1m and 660K of those weren't using Safari but were using iTunes.
Using iTunes as a one-off (because they had to) wouldn't do it alone but I'd say opening that second eye will sell quite a few Macs at refresh time and that .21% doesn't look like a plateau to me.
McD
Don't you all think this opens the door for MS to do the same with it's apps on OS X. Apple would not have a case to block it when they had done it on Windows.
MS have done their dash - that's why we're on OSX
Don't you all think this opens the door for MS to do the same with it's apps on OS X. Apple would not have a case to block it when they had done it on Windows.
With what apps? It's not like Microsoft even competes in the free app market on the Mac anymore. Other than Messenger, what are they going to offer, surely not Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.
Oh, come on, upsetting many people for that 0.14% market share?
There are many ways to increase your market market, especially when it is 0.07%. Slipping it in and upsetting customers is not a good way.
Whichever MBA thought of this "brilliant" idea should be fired.
As an IT administrator in a fortune 500 company I am constantly building and updating dozens of PC's a month.
What Apple did is not different than other PC Software industry leaders.
For example take any Windows PC fresh from Dell or HP and add Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat or AIR from Adobe.
During every installation you will be prompted if you want to install Google Desktop with the option DEFAULTED to INSTALL.
That is just one Software Vendor, I have seen this to be with an ever increasing tactic of software vendors by adding Google Desktop with there install/update packages.
I hear of no dissent for Google on this anywhere, so I find this argument from people hypocritical and because it is an Apple product.
I am not saying where it is right or wrong, rather be upset industry wide or refrain from criticism at just one company.
I agree with someone else, Apple should bring iWork to PCs. iWork makes profit. Safari...costs money to develop and is being given away.
I think there are a few valid reasons for Safari for Windows to exist. Apple most likely makes at least some money from Safari. The first is, search engine revenue. Google pays the Mozilla Foundation to the tune of $25 million a year. These are, at least in part, the kickbacks from whenever someone clicks a paid sponsor link when you use the search engine bar. So Apple can probably more than pay back their cost of development. Then there's also an easy means for developers to get a copy of Safari to test their sites against. No longer is "don't have a Mac" an excuse for a site dev to not test Safari.
Just agreeing with all those posting that there's nothing shifty here about what Apple did. It's standard practice!!!
Don't believe me? Let's see, go to Adobe's site and download Acrobat Reader. Guess what? Yup, good ol' Google Toolbar is selected by default to be installed.
It's everywhere folks.
Doesn't make it right, now does it... It's a deceptive and manipulative practice that no software company should engage in, especially Apple.
people who don't know how to unclick something in plain sight deserved to be tricked.
now come at me.
And I suppose everyone you know reads everything that pops up on their computer. I thought not.
This is how viruses get installed... a message pops up, user confirms, boom, virus installed. In this case, it's Safari on Windows. This is something I never thought Apple would stoop to.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if the box were unchecked by default. Offer new software all day long using Apple Software Update, as long as the box is unchecked, I don't care.
I think those numbers are more realistic. A quarter percent just seems like a lowball figure. On my sites, I see between 3% and 12%. Firefox generally gets about 3x that
I think it's a debatable claim. I use Firefox because it does certain things the way I want it to, but Safari has been more stable for me than Firefox 2. FF3 beta is pretty good though, it fixes most of the issues I have with Firefox.
I primarily use Safari because I couldn't live without the find (which is vastly better than even firefox, which is good too). I've had no compatibility issues far as web pages go so I'm happy there. Only bummer about Safari is no PicLens 6 support, but they are working on it & once they have it I'm done with Firefox.
Firefox users all love the plug-ins, but to be honest I've never found a plug-in I use enough to move away from Safari, I just like Safari stability far too much.
Web has been a great equalizer for Mac. People complain less about "not enough apps run on Mac" these days because a lot of the commonly used stuff went to the web.
For example, Silverlight. It is a MS technology (competing against Flash) working in IE. At this moment, it is not the greatest, but has potential.
What if it becomes a great technology and a lot of webmasters start to use it instead of the standard technoliges (plain old server side scripting, or Flash)? What if Microsoft then drops the Mac support? (similar to what happens to Windows Media)
When websites use some unique technology which only works in IE, people will again more likely to buy Windows computers, and that "Mac has less apps" argument will come back again with a different form - "Fewer websites work in Mac".
Of course, there is Firefox...however, you cannot count on a third party for your core business, so Apple is pushing Safari for Windows as a strategic move to make sure web doesn't become a MS platform.
Recheck your math. % .21 is a lot of computers using your browser. A whole lot.
I decided to recheck his math for him (later, i'll tell you where you went wrong or maybe it will be obvious after my rechecking his math)..
Lets say we have 1000 people browsing.
0.21percent of that is 0.21/100 * 1000 = 2.1 people.
Know where you went wrong?.. you thought 0.21 percent means multiple whatever number by 0.21..
but the author of the article did not say apple has 21 percent of market share (21 percent is same as 0.21)..
he said 0.21 percent which is same as 0.0021.
If you have 1 billion people surfing, that would work out to 2.1 million.
I would hardly call 0.21% significant in any circumstance.
you check your math.
I primarily use Safari because I couldn't live without the find (which is vastly better than even firefox, which is good too). I've had no compatibility issues far as web pages go so I'm happy there. Only bummer about Safari is no PicLens 6 support, but they are working on it & once they have it I'm done with Firefox.
Firefox users all love the plug-ins, but to be honest I've never found a plug-in I use enough to move away from Safari, I just like Safari stability far too much.
For some people, it just takes one plug-in. For me that might be FXIF, which lets me look at the EXIF data in an image. The plugin for Safari to do what AdBlock and FlashBlock does is more complicated than it needs to be, in my opinion.