I want to be wrong about this, but I'm afraid Apple's marketshare will drop even more with this move by Microsoft.
I can hear the sales staff now at CompUSA, or BestBuy, or wherever:
"Well, if you want to use the internet, you can't use a Mac cause there's no browser supported by Microsoft. So if you want full use of the internet--online banking for example--you need a PC."
Even if such a statement is only *partially* true, it's probably enough to scare off potential switchers.
okay, take this with the huge grain of salt that is intended, because i admittedly do not know very much about the back end of web sites (databases, etc.), but...
predominantly, when something advertises itself as only working with IE, it's the back end, such as .asp pages or using frontpage add-ons to do its heavy-lifting. i worked with someone who coded our company's time-tracking software completely in .asp and access (yeah, i'm not kidding -- it was offline more than it was on for the first six months), and he just about wanted to fly to redmond and fling his cd's at the development team.
he had to do so many things to work around IE's own shoddy support (and how they would change it between SP's with little-to-no documentation) that he swore he would work as a street performer before he ever did such a thing again. but unfortunately, the site does not work correctly under netscape 6 (he never tried under 7 -- by then, it was too late), and fell apart under opera.
anyway, so that probably explains the majority of "IE-only" websites out there, which is pretty laughable, considering the fact that people are trying to run these e-commerce sites off ms-powered back ends, when they are arguably the biggest security risks on the planet.
hey, anyone bust out laughing when ms promotes automatic virus checking in upcoming versions of their products? they're basically saying "yeah, our security is as leaky as a screen door, but, rather than start over or fix everything up, we're just gonna do damage control from your desktop." AOL's doing essentially the same thing, with auto-virus checks on your email, AND ways to "decrease those annoying pop-up advertisements." i love the wording on that commercial - "we don't actually stop them, and since some of our sponsors use them, we shouldn't really talk tooo bad about them..."
god, the more i know about the business behind our computers, the more cynical i get.
anyway, out of about 30 products Adobe offers, about half work on Macs, most of which are legacy from the heady days of the early 90's.
[quote]I want to be wrong about this, but I'm afraid Apple's marketshare will drop even more with this move by Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctw:
I can hear the sales staff now at CompUSA, or BestBuy, or wherever:
"Well, if you want to use the internet, you can't use a Mac cause there's no browser supported by Microsoft. So if you want full use of the internet--online banking for example--you need a PC."
Even if such a statement is only *partially* true, it's probably enough to scare off potential switchers.
They do that now anyway.
Remember way back in the late 90's when we thought the internet would level the playing field for independents? What a joke that has become.
Apple should now release a knock-out version of Safari for Windows. Innovate. Make it fast. Provide tabbed-browsing. Keep it open. Give it to the banks to enable cross-platform development and testing.
I doubt Apple will have success convincing PC users to switch to Safari, but they may have luck if they can get a Windows version of iTunes out quickly. Think of all the PC users who will download the software, then use the built-in Web Browser to access the Music Store. Better yet, think of them using QuickTime to view the music videos. A rather ingenious way of bringing Apple Web software to the Windows masses. But they have to get it out fast!
A lot of web sites that say they "require" IE don't actually use IE-specific features. The reason for the IE requirement is that the web site's developers didn't want to have to worry about testing their web site on other browsers. It's easier and cheaper to just test on IE.
If a web site hasn't been tested on anything except IE, the company behind that site may simply be trying to avoid support hassles -- the site might work just fine on Mozilla or Safari or Camino or Opera, but no one knows if it does or not, and rather than let every browser into the site, they decide it's easier to turn non-IE users away than deal with unknown potential problems.
One way around this problem (I believe Opera does this, although I've spent very little time using Opera) is to have your browser spoof it's HTTP user agent string -- that is, masquerade as another browser.
If the IE-only web site phenomenon really begins to be a major hassle, Safari could implement the same spoofing trick. What would be nice is if the spoofing could be tied to specific web sites, so that Safari wouldn't have to play this masquerade full time.
If the IE-only web site phenomenon really begins to be a major hassle, Safari could implement the same spoofing trick. What would be nice is if the spoofing could be tied to specific web sites, so that Safari wouldn't have to play this masquerade full time.
The problem with spoofing is that you register as a IE user and that's not helping in the long run.
The problem with spoofing is that you register as a IE user and that's not helping in the long run.
I realize the tradeoffs, and that's why I'd want to be able to limit the spoofing on a site-by-site basis, rather than doing it globally. Safari would still be proudly announcing itself as Safari to most of the web sites you visit, helping to build those browser usage statistics in its favor.
Of course, spoofing doesn't help the problem of reinforcing an IE-only web site's own impression that going IE-only is the best choice. At some point, however, you have to look to the user's immediate experience of the web rather than worrying about "The Cause". If someone can't pay their bills online with Safari, they're not likely to simply go back to writing checks by hand, saying "That'll show 'em!". They're going to:
1) Use Mac IE instead -- which might cease to be an option if somes web sites start demanding IE 6.0 or later, and which might not be an option now if a web site demands a Window's version of IE.
2) Use Windows IE.
In either case, the IE-only web site is still going to be tallying up IE users.
I'm hoping that Microsoft's discontinuation of IE as a stand-alone product on the Windows platform might prompt more effort in the online world to be browser neutral, but I suppose that the effect could be limited to promoting longer support for older versions of IE.
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
There aren't many, but judging from stuff I've seen posted here and there, I guess Java 1.4.1 in OS X isn't quite complete, and some applets don't work in sarafi because of that.
ctw, iTunes does not have a built-in web browser. The iTMS is a bunch of xml, well outside the confines of html. Its interface is browser-like but it's not a "web" interface strictly speaking.
Quicktime could be a trojan horse of sorts if Apple can somehow convince content providers to use it more. Problem is, if it says MS on it, it already got a leg up, and MS has already sabotaged QT on Windows before.
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
I don't think that outright rejection happens too often, but the web site for managing my 401K is one site that simply turns you away with a "This site requires Internet Explorer" message if you use any other browser.
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
I wish that was my experience. Maybe the situation is better in the US where Macs have some presence. Try these:
I'm yet to find an online car configurator I can use in Safari. I come across these sites many times a day. Maybe the car industry is exceptionally bad.
These were just few of the sites, there are hundreds and hundreds more
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
Harvard's application center requires Internet Explorer and doesn't load on Safari
I'm yet to find an online car configurator I can use in Safari. I come across these sites many times a day. Maybe the car industry is exceptionally bad.
it is, but i don't know why. we ran into the same problem while trying to configure a car via vw's and toyota's websites. toyota's was especially annoying, constantly telling us via safari that we must "have javascript enabled" in order to use the feature. well, gosh, i DO. sheesh.
if it's any consolation, you aren't missing out on much -- you spend an afternoon configuring the car of your dreams, only to find out there isn't a dealer within 1000 km of you that has such a vehicle in stock, or anyone who has access to one (though they can get you close, so long as you're willing to spend an extra $500 on a stereo you don't want or mud flaps or other such nonsense).
anyway, that was more an anti-car dealership rant than anything else.
I configured my Jetta and a few Toyota options with Safari on their U.S. websites. No problems at all. Other car configurators include edmunds.com and kbb.com. Check em out. They work for me, I just might be extremely lucky though.
Kelib, whatcar and renault worked fine. Ford.dk didn't work, but I just configured a Mustang yesterday, so I know the US site works...sorry man.
it is, but i don't know why. we ran into the same problem while trying to configure a car via vw's and toyota's websites. toyota's was especially annoying, constantly telling us via safari that we must "have javascript enabled" ........
anyway, that was more an anti-car dealership rant than anything else.
And I have a part time job for a car dealer
I use my Mac for 5 things basicly.
1) I live abroad and the only way for me to keep abreast what's going on "at home" are the web radio and TV stations. They all broadcast in WMP format. We still have WMP but for how long? When was the last update?
2) My biggest interset (beside cars) Is football (Soccer). The club I support Liverpool Fc has an online TV station where you can download goals and interviews etc. etc. I can't take advantage of that as I have to have WMP for Windows XP or Windows 2000. Otherwise The licence is not recognized. They have been trying to find a solution for over a year now!!!
3) Vido Editing, music recording and photo editing. This is the main reason I keep up with the Mac. 'Nuff said.
4) My fiancé uses MS Office as it's required for her studies
5) Web browsing, Email and ICQ.
I don't think anything I do with my Mac is impossible with a PC. However, if the things I actually do on my Mac become more problematical than they currently are, I will find it hard to justify not buying a PC next time I need new puter. I like Macs, I don't like PeeZees but at some time I may have to think about usability, not to mention Value for Money (another storey). Until now I've kept the Mac but if I loose one more of these 5 things I do (or like to do) with my Mac I have no choice but switch to a PC. It's sad but it's just a simple matter of fact.
Comments
I can hear the sales staff now at CompUSA, or BestBuy, or wherever:
"Well, if you want to use the internet, you can't use a Mac cause there's no browser supported by Microsoft. So if you want full use of the internet--online banking for example--you need a PC."
Even if such a statement is only *partially* true, it's probably enough to scare off potential switchers.
Ugh!
predominantly, when something advertises itself as only working with IE, it's the back end, such as .asp pages or using frontpage add-ons to do its heavy-lifting. i worked with someone who coded our company's time-tracking software completely in .asp and access (yeah, i'm not kidding -- it was offline more than it was on for the first six months), and he just about wanted to fly to redmond and fling his cd's at the development team.
he had to do so many things to work around IE's own shoddy support (and how they would change it between SP's with little-to-no documentation) that he swore he would work as a street performer before he ever did such a thing again. but unfortunately, the site does not work correctly under netscape 6 (he never tried under 7 -- by then, it was too late), and fell apart under opera.
anyway, so that probably explains the majority of "IE-only" websites out there, which is pretty laughable, considering the fact that people are trying to run these e-commerce sites off ms-powered back ends, when they are arguably the biggest security risks on the planet.
hey, anyone bust out laughing when ms promotes automatic virus checking in upcoming versions of their products? they're basically saying "yeah, our security is as leaky as a screen door, but, rather than start over or fix everything up, we're just gonna do damage control from your desktop." AOL's doing essentially the same thing, with auto-virus checks on your email, AND ways to "decrease those annoying pop-up advertisements." i love the wording on that commercial - "we don't actually stop them, and since some of our sponsors use them, we shouldn't really talk tooo bad about them..."
god, the more i know about the business behind our computers, the more cynical i get.
Originally posted by JLL
Photoshop Album.
Ah, true. But which came out first?
anyway, out of about 30 products Adobe offers, about half work on Macs, most of which are legacy from the heady days of the early 90's.
[quote]I want to be wrong about this, but I'm afraid Apple's marketshare will drop even more with this move by Microsoft.
Originally posted by ctw:
I can hear the sales staff now at CompUSA, or BestBuy, or wherever:
"Well, if you want to use the internet, you can't use a Mac cause there's no browser supported by Microsoft. So if you want full use of the internet--online banking for example--you need a PC."
Even if such a statement is only *partially* true, it's probably enough to scare off potential switchers.
They do that now anyway.
Remember way back in the late 90's when we thought the internet would level the playing field for independents? What a joke that has become.
Apple should now release a knock-out version of Safari for Windows. Innovate. Make it fast. Provide tabbed-browsing. Keep it open. Give it to the banks to enable cross-platform development and testing.
Innovation 1 : Monopoly 0
The browser wars could just be beginning.
If a web site hasn't been tested on anything except IE, the company behind that site may simply be trying to avoid support hassles -- the site might work just fine on Mozilla or Safari or Camino or Opera, but no one knows if it does or not, and rather than let every browser into the site, they decide it's easier to turn non-IE users away than deal with unknown potential problems.
One way around this problem (I believe Opera does this, although I've spent very little time using Opera) is to have your browser spoof it's HTTP user agent string -- that is, masquerade as another browser.
If the IE-only web site phenomenon really begins to be a major hassle, Safari could implement the same spoofing trick. What would be nice is if the spoofing could be tied to specific web sites, so that Safari wouldn't have to play this masquerade full time.
Originally posted by shetline
If the IE-only web site phenomenon really begins to be a major hassle, Safari could implement the same spoofing trick. What would be nice is if the spoofing could be tied to specific web sites, so that Safari wouldn't have to play this masquerade full time.
The problem with spoofing is that you register as a IE user and that's not helping in the long run.
Originally posted by JLL
The problem with spoofing is that you register as a IE user and that's not helping in the long run.
I realize the tradeoffs, and that's why I'd want to be able to limit the spoofing on a site-by-site basis, rather than doing it globally. Safari would still be proudly announcing itself as Safari to most of the web sites you visit, helping to build those browser usage statistics in its favor.
Of course, spoofing doesn't help the problem of reinforcing an IE-only web site's own impression that going IE-only is the best choice. At some point, however, you have to look to the user's immediate experience of the web rather than worrying about "The Cause". If someone can't pay their bills online with Safari, they're not likely to simply go back to writing checks by hand, saying "That'll show 'em!". They're going to:
1) Use Mac IE instead -- which might cease to be an option if somes web sites start demanding IE 6.0 or later, and which might not be an option now if a web site demands a Window's version of IE.
2) Use Windows IE.
In either case, the IE-only web site is still going to be tallying up IE users.
I'm hoping that Microsoft's discontinuation of IE as a stand-alone product on the Windows platform might prompt more effort in the online world to be browser neutral, but I suppose that the effect could be limited to promoting longer support for older versions of IE.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
There aren't many, but judging from stuff I've seen posted here and there, I guess Java 1.4.1 in OS X isn't quite complete, and some applets don't work in sarafi because of that.
ctw, iTunes does not have a built-in web browser. The iTMS is a bunch of xml, well outside the confines of html. Its interface is browser-like but it's not a "web" interface strictly speaking.
Quicktime could be a trojan horse of sorts if Apple can somehow convince content providers to use it more. Problem is, if it says MS on it, it already got a leg up, and MS has already sabotaged QT on Windows before.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
I don't think that outright rejection happens too often, but the web site for managing my 401K is one site that simply turns you away with a "This site requires Internet Explorer" message if you use any other browser.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
I wish that was my experience. Maybe the situation is better in the US where Macs have some presence. Try these:
Renault
WhatCar
Ford
I'm yet to find an online car configurator I can use in Safari. I come across these sites many times a day. Maybe the car industry is exceptionally bad.
These were just few of the sites, there are hundreds and hundreds more
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
With nothing to do until my new job starts next week, I have spent the past month doing nothing but surfing the web. I say this with a great amount of satisfaction. I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
Harvard's application center requires Internet Explorer and doesn't load on Safari
Originally posted by kelib
I'm yet to find an online car configurator I can use in Safari. I come across these sites many times a day. Maybe the car industry is exceptionally bad.
it is, but i don't know why. we ran into the same problem while trying to configure a car via vw's and toyota's websites. toyota's was especially annoying, constantly telling us via safari that we must "have javascript enabled" in order to use the feature. well, gosh, i DO. sheesh.
if it's any consolation, you aren't missing out on much -- you spend an afternoon configuring the car of your dreams, only to find out there isn't a dealer within 1000 km of you that has such a vehicle in stock, or anyone who has access to one (though they can get you close, so long as you're willing to spend an extra $500 on a stereo you don't want or mud flaps or other such nonsense).
anyway, that was more an anti-car dealership rant than anything else.
Kelib, whatcar and renault worked fine. Ford.dk didn't work, but I just configured a Mustang yesterday, so I know the US site works...sorry man.
Originally posted by applenut
Harvard's application center requires Internet Explorer and doesn't load on Safari
Well that sucks. Maybe I didn't surf enough of the internet
Originally posted by rok
it is, but i don't know why. we ran into the same problem while trying to configure a car via vw's and toyota's websites. toyota's was especially annoying, constantly telling us via safari that we must "have javascript enabled" ........
anyway, that was more an anti-car dealership rant than anything else.
And I have a part time job for a car dealer
I use my Mac for 5 things basicly.
1) I live abroad and the only way for me to keep abreast what's going on "at home" are the web radio and TV stations. They all broadcast in WMP format. We still have WMP but for how long? When was the last update?
2) My biggest interset (beside cars) Is football (Soccer). The club I support Liverpool Fc has an online TV station where you can download goals and interviews etc. etc. I can't take advantage of that as I have to have WMP for Windows XP or Windows 2000. Otherwise The licence is not recognized. They have been trying to find a solution for over a year now!!!
3) Vido Editing, music recording and photo editing. This is the main reason I keep up with the Mac. 'Nuff said.
4) My fiancé uses MS Office as it's required for her studies
5) Web browsing, Email and ICQ.
I don't think anything I do with my Mac is impossible with a PC. However, if the things I actually do on my Mac become more problematical than they currently are, I will find it hard to justify not buying a PC next time I need new puter. I like Macs, I don't like PeeZees but at some time I may have to think about usability, not to mention Value for Money (another storey). Until now I've kept the Mac but if I loose one more of these 5 things I do (or like to do) with my Mac I have no choice but switch to a PC. It's sad but it's just a simple matter of fact.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE WEB PAGE THAT SAFARI CAN NOT ACCESS! There, I feel better now.
Don't like F1?
My company's internal site also doesn't support Safari. In fact it only works with Windows IE.
Originally posted by Telomar
Don't like F1?
My company's internal site also doesn't support Safari. In fact it only works with Windows IE.
just a thought, but shouldn't we be sending these sites to apple via the "bug" button so they get fixed in future revisions?