n3verm0re on 02/24/2003:

I don't understand Apple these days. The big cheese must think it's a good idea to step on the toes of Apple's third-party developers. It's disheartening, honestly. It seems that every time an application rises to any amount of popularity, Apple either hires its developers to produce an inhouse version, or they simply buy the whole shebang and roll it into the next revision of OS X. I can understand Apple trying to appeal to consumers with the all-in-one approach, but it's seriously going to stifle smaller developers. I have no doubt that Chimera will be reduced to an even smaller niche in a matter of months. Does anyone even remember SoundJam?

What irks me is the fact that Apple can pretty much produce anything they want and get away with it. Who wants to guess how long before Safari is included by default with OS X? It seems almost poetic that Microsoft's MacIE will probably be bullied out of it's market share. Regardless, it bothers me that Microsoft gets called on just about everything they include: a media player, photo tools, an instant messenger, but when Apple does the same, they're applauded. I don't get it. I suppose the fact that Apple has a good 3% of the market has something to do with the inequality.

n3verm0re on 02/24/2003:

Note: The fact that Apple's iSoftware tends to be fabulous should have no bearing on whether it's a no-no to bundle.

Shawn on 02/24/2003:

A few things:

In the case of browsers, it is critical for Apple to make its own. I can't link to this but I remember a quote by some Microsoft employee a few months ago, being asked why MS nolonger develops IE for Mac. He said "The browser IS the OS. Microsoft can't continue to do that for Apple." Now I may disagree with that exact wording but a good, reliable, compatible, feature-filled browser is critical for the success of an OS. Chimera is and will always be a niche browser. Sure Apple could bundle it and promote it, but do they really want to trust their lead browser to a third party acting on good will? Safari has progressed in 2 months as much as Chimera has in over 6 months. This sort of rapid, dedicated development (with such an open ear to user feedback) is exciting. Sure, they're playing catchup, but I know I can trust that Safari, once at 1.0, will remain an up-to-date app.

And why is this bad? Safari already becomes the default if your current default is IE. IE is a dead browser on the Mac. Aside from a required security patch, Microsoft will never release a new version of IE. Ever. If it's between a dead IE, a very decent Chimera or a superb Safari, I'll take Safari. As for other apps, Apple has to do what's best for apple. Kinda like the clones. Sure, they were fantastic for the Mac community, but if Apple hadn't killed them, there would be no more Apple.

Shawn on 02/24/2003:

Is the problem that Apple isn't "getting caught" or that Microsoft is? (Side: If you've ever read the first anti-trust ruling against Microsoft, it states very clearly that the government did not consider Apple to be in competition with MS. They said they were too small and not a real alternative If you can believe that...)

n3verm0re on 02/24/2003:

You'll have to forgive me. I'm just annoyed that Chimera is going to bite the dust. Whether the team ceases development or chugs along, that browser has little chance of being any sort of success now. I still haven't gotten over SoundJam. grumble I suppose my question is this: if Apple was more of a player in the industry (e.g. they had a bigger piece of the pie), would they deserve more flak for bundling a browser? Are we to say that their interests were more noble (for the users' sake) than Microsoft's (damn Netscape!)?

n3verm0re on 02/24/2003:

What gets me is the notion that Apple is a fluffy company run by a god while Microsoft is the epitome of evil run by you know who. I prefer to think of both as corporations that are out to improve their bottom line.

Shawn on 02/24/2003:

Chimera will be around so long as there is a reason for it. If it can offer an alternative, if it can offer something that people want that Safari doesn't, it will be there. If it can't, perhaps it will fold but this isn't negative. The programmers won't go away. They'll move to another project. And not only that, Chimera did a lot of good. It set the standard for a Cocoa browsing experience. It was the browser to beat. And if Safari beats it, fantastic. And the day Safari starts lagging, either Chimera will be there or something else will start up. This is how I see the development/shareware community. I doubt any programmers at Chimera are crying that Safari "Isn't fair."

And as for SoundJam, didn't apple buy that and use it as the core of iTunes? Which means the people behind SoundJam made out well and we all got a free mp3 player. It may not be as good, but free goes a long way for me.

Also, I may be known for my Mac fanaticism, but I don't find Microsoft to be an "evil corperation" in the least. You are right, Apple and MS are after the same goal. I don't think MS should be punished for bundling software.

n3verm0re on 02/24/2003:

Yes, yes, and yes. Oh, although it might appear that I'm trying to champion the "Microsoft cause," let it be known that I'd love to get my hands on a Mac. I've only been lucky enough to use one at work. Maybe someday, when I'm not poor and unemployed. (I can't wait to graduate and start paying by my loans. Wahoo!)

Steve on 02/24/2003:

I'm not an apple user so I really just learned about the specifics of the 2 browsers in this post.

I find it extremely funny how there is so much competition in the "browser" arena. I remember when it was Netscape vs. IE in the PC category. What I still don't understand is why there is so much competition. Aren't we in the era that there should just be 1 browser for each OS? I mean a perfect standards compliant browser that displays everything perfect, quick loading, functionality out the ass and everything else.

Still, to this day there are differences between how on my computer Mozilla and IE display (Mozilla becoming the better). It just seems like something that has never been solved and there are still issues today.

Steve on 02/24/2003:

I know my perfect world is what I described, yet I understand the reality of the situation.

It just sucks when competition creates a worse experience for the actual user.

Shawn on 02/24/2003:

This isn't how free markets work. You have one of only two choices. Either one group of people make one browser and try to make it perfect or you let everyone have a go at it. The first solution might create a pretty decent browser at first but it will invariably start to suck. The motivation would decline, not to mention innovation. New concepts occur from new competitors. Someone has a fresh idea and builds a browser around it. An idea that existing teams would never have thought of. They may borrow the idea and the little guy might eventually fall, but the browser was improved. Or the little guy wins. It happens all the time.

Oddly, the mac has probably had the most browser choices for the past 5 years but the fewest good browsers. Only recently did Chimera come along and it's the best damn browser I've ever used (and I have tried them all, and tried to like them). Chimera was only possible because of the void. Now here's Safari. Two serious, robust contenders. Once everything settles, it will be interesting to see what new directions have developed.

Point being, that perfect world is the last thing you want.

n3verm0re on 02/24/2003:

If I'm not mistaken, this little guy was a genius. He had the foresight to offer tabbed browsing back in 1998 and possibly earlier. (Note: it was originally called SimulBrowse)

Shawn on 02/24/2003:

Ok, fine, fine, if the world were somehow perfect then I suppose you'd have your perfect browser (and it would automatically dispense hand-jobs as well). I was arguing against attempting to achieve that scenario in the real world. In case you ever have that kind of power...

Steve on 02/24/2003:

I don't know if I exactly agree with you Shawn. You rely too much on that a program of any kind is a one time release and you need "little guys" to push the development forward.

But what Garrett and I were discussing is not so impossible. Look at other programs like Photoshop. It has been on top for years, Adobe regularly put out new versions, and always they seem to lead the pack.

Only problem is, when talking about Photoshop, is I can't see any "amazing" advancements or additions to it. There probably will be, but I can't see them.

When does it become that there are only so many refinements you can make to a program before you don't need to release another version? I am definitely not relating that question to the browser issue because compared to other genres of programs browsers have their heads up their asses. It's not the specific browser's fault, it's that nobody is deciding on a specific course of action.

Shawn on 02/24/2003:

In general, the big guys get lazy. But we're talking about large time periods. Photoshop is an interesting example. It is and has always been the undisputed king of image editing. They got it right to begin with. It would be hard to imagine an alternative that seriously competed. Looking at the big picture, even Microsoft barely has any real competition. But both of these examples exist within the free market. If Photoshop was somehow declared the only image editor, things would change. I guess what you are saying is that you want one company to create the ultimate browser and crush the competition. I may be taking the argument somewhere else, in imaging a world where there was only one possible choice ever. Which would be bad. But yes, I'd love for there to be the Photoshop of browsers. And I think the reason you haven't seen it is because the web is changing so rapidly. New standards, new concepts, new applications. We are just on the verge of the information age and browsers are constantly scrambling to keep up. Even computers are just getting revved up, in a historical perspective. It makes arguments like Kottke's very interesting. Photoshop was able to succeed so brilliantly because it was just translating 100 years of method and science to computers. There's no direct counterpart for web browsers. In 2003 we're still figuring out pin-hole cameras.

monkiboi on 02/25/2003:

chimera cannot be killed off because it's open source. while developers may stop working on it there's no reason why a group of developers who prefer chimera over safari may not keep it going. the unix/linux world is full of projects that have branched off into slightly different directions, each with their own supporters.

i don't think the ie/netscape argument applies here. apple have already fed some of the updates for the safari version of khtml back to the khtml developers, thereby improving konqueror in the process. the fact that apple had to is neither here or there because they chose to adopt a code base that meant their work would be shared. if apple wanted to 'kill off' the competition they've gone about it in an odd way.

btw if apple had chosen gecko to base safari on then they wouldn't have been able to feed any gecko improvements back to mozilla because of the way it's licensced (sp?) ironic huh?

pete

p.s. it's worth pointing out that netscape share some of the blame in their downfall. if it wasn't for development on mozilla it's likely there wouldn't even be a netscape browser today, although ironically if netscape hadn't open sourced their code base there probably wouldn't be a mozilla.

Shawn on 02/25/2003:

If you're speaking of a "perfect world" in which reality doesn't apply, then I suppose I can follow you, but it seems rather pointless (why not just wish for a telepathic interface between data and your mind and free chocolate?). If you're speaking of a "perfect world" in the sense of a real goal you'd like to see (and think is possible), then I am saying your model for that goal is flawed in the ways I have already described.

monkiboi on 02/25/2003:

thanks garrett. that was the post i was trying to use. pity i didn't remember where i'd read it. thats my excuse and i'm sticking to it!

kapowaz on 02/26/2003:

“It's not a monopoly just because people are too stupid to not use Windows.”

Sorry Garrett but I disagree with this entirely. Making the browser an integral part of the OS is a bad thing when the company in question is one with a history of being given an inch then taking a mile.

Where that company also manufactures the hardware that the software runs on, that's an entirely different story (you couldn't really complain about whatever software Nokia chooses to use on its phones).

Also the statement is based on the assumption that it's a level playing field, where people can choose just to not use Windows if they don't like it. I'm sure you're aware it's a bit more complicated than that. I'd love to have a modern powermac rather than a windows box (although I'd end up bemoaning the lack of Half-Life et mods). Can I afford one? Hmm...

As for the idea that Safari “winning” against Chimera/Camino would be all good; I don't think that a best-man-wins approach is necessarily beneficial for all. Remember that IE5/5.5/6 was (probably) the best browser on Windows for quite a while. It's not any more, but it's largely irrelevent; the userbase is so large and deeply-ingrained that it's unlikely to ever change.

That all said, I applaud Apple's attempts (it's taken them long enough, after all) but like yourself I wish they'd chosen to base it on Gecko...

kapowaz on 02/26/2003:

I was talking more generally about those cases where people can't just switch to something else though. Try telling my mum to use Linux/BSD because she doesn't like Windows. Try telling the office manager of a financial company using 10 year old PCs and Windows 95, where the most IT literate person is the one who knows how to click the "Dial up Internet" button (I've worked at companies like these). These people are so intrenched in the use of the lowest common denominator that they can't simply change to something else; like as not they won't even realise they've got another choice. These people make up the majority of computer (and Windows) users.

Give an inch/take a mile; I actually missed half a sentence out there so no wonder it didn't really make sense (duh me :), I think what I basically meant was that MS have a habit of taking some handle on a market then twisting it to suit their own corporate needs (and not the best needs of consumers); for example the way they made their own non-standard, incompatible Java VM then started distributing it with Windows, thus rendering attempts to make standards-based Java frought with difficulty. This is the kind of behaviour which is monopolistic; they know they have the market lead and will exploit it if they feel like it because people won't just switch, for the reasons I stated above. I don't know as you can accuse Apple of doing the same, regardless of their monopoly over the hardware...

Shawn on 02/26/2003:

People are responsible for thier own ignorance and lack of education.

You don't even have to use a computer if you're that mad. People did it for centuries. Don't like that? I say: Wah, wah.

Linus on 02/26/2003:

Shawn, that's a good point, but let me play devil's advocate and take it even further: if you really want to be a "damn the man" purist, you don't need to have a credit card, or a job, or a house, or money. Hell, you don't even need to obey laws. What law of nature says that you can't steal?

My point is that, at some point, one is forced to go along with current trends and with the majority in order to interact favourably (and profitably) with others. The computer isn't just an addition to society, it's transformed society and become an integral part of it. Right now it might not be too hard to do without a computer, but what about things that have been around longer, like credit cards... or houses? There was certainly a time when people went without housing as we know it today.