Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Safari Beta Takeup Tops Firefox, IE and Chrome

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the it-won't-last dept.

The Internet 342

nk497 writes "The release of the beta for the next version of Apple's Safari browser last week helped drive Apple's market share above ten per cent. The Safari beta has gained users at a rate of about 0.5 per cent a day since its release, topping one per cent by day four. For comparison, Microsoft's beta of IE took six months to hit one percent, Chrome needed almost a month, and Firefox 3 took a week."

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sticking with Safari 3 (4, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039275)

Until they fix the title-bar abuse, I'm sticking with Safari 3.

Re:Sticking with Safari 3 (1)

gabrieltss (64078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039313)

Yes. I HATE the new look of Safari (Beta 4). It's horrid! I've gone back to beta 3.2.

Re:Sticking with Safari 3 (4, Informative)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039351)

This should help. [lifehacker.com.au]

Re:Sticking with Safari 3 (1, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039415)

Until they fix the title-bar abuse, I'm sticking with Safari 3.

I prefer the new title bar. It saves me a little bit of vertical space without losing any utility. I call that a win. I suppose they could add a preference for the "old way" for curmudgeons that don't like change.

Re:Sticking with Safari 3 (5, Informative)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039741)

I agree - the new title bar takes a little getting used to, but it recovers a fairly significant amount of dead space (all that blank space to the left and right of the selected tab's title, making it certainly worth a little bit of (initial) discomfort. As to the preference for the old way, it's easy:

sudo defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSafari4TabBarIsOnTop -bool FALSE

Okay, so it's not a checkbox, but meh - you only need to do it once.

Re:Sticking with Safari 3 (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039977)

Actually, you don't need sudo. (Unless you run safari as root). It's a 'per user' setting.

A net interface win (1)

glennrrr (592457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040105)

Imagine you were seeing a computer GUI for the first time. And were comparing two programs one of which had tabs like Safari 3 and one of which had tabs like Safari 4. Which would you prefer?

  • Safari 4 devotes half the screen area to window dragging + tabs.
  • It's easier to drag tabs around in Safari 3
  • Because Safari 4's tabs fill the width of a window: longer titles
  • It's easy to pop a tab off into it's own window in Safari 4
  • It makes logical sense that the URL field is part of the web page, thus below the tab

So, since I very rarely re-order tabs, I can't see that the new tabs are anything but a big win. Putting them on top is both logical and gives me an extra 20,000+ pixels worth of useable browsing area.

Re:Sticking with Safari 3 (1)

JoeFromPhilly (792856) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040233)

Agree. There's an ambiguity between "I'm clicking this to drag the window" vs. "I'm clicking this to change the active tab" that's really irritating. Even though it was the only change I didn't like, it was enough to get me to stop using it. Or it would've been if they hadn't preserved a way to get the old tab behavior back via the command line (someone mentions it in another response).

Beta 4 slower than Beta 3 (1)

gabrieltss (64078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039285)

I have been using Safarai for Windows 3.2 for a while (use it for testing compatability with web pages I build). I downloaded the Beta 4 and ran it through the same web pages I normally do for testing compatability and found Beta 4 ran slower than the Beta 3.2. So I uninstalled Beta4 and went back to Beta 3.2.

Re:Beta 4 slower than Beta 3 (2, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039427)

That's a disturbing moniker...
"Safari for Windows 3.2"
you aren't Chinese by any chance? If you are we'll have to tell your masters you've been hacking the great Firewall...

fyi [wikipedia.org]

Safari doesn't work with Hotmail (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039295)

Safari is broken, it can't even load hotmail

Re:Safari doesn't work with Hotmail (5, Insightful)

August26 (1120999) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039365)

Maybe it's Hotmail that is broken.

Re:Safari doesn't work with Hotmail (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039563)

No. Hotmail comes with every computer, along with Live Search. You can get to it by clicking the blue 'e' thingie.

Re:Safari doesn't work with Hotmail (5, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039731)

That blue 'e' thingie is the Internet... If you're machine doesn't have it you won't be able to play the Yahoo games.

Re:Safari doesn't work with Hotmail (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039889)

Stop it, you're making the milk come out of my nose with that comment!

Re:Safari doesn't work with Hotmail (2, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039905)

I hope you were drinking milk. Actually, I kinda don't.

goin' on safari (1)

bigdaddyhame (623739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039307)

someone tells me the new version is significantly faster than the previous one, that's my main complaint, sure I'll switch. And yes, it's faster than Firefox on the Mac side so it was a no-brainer. ... at least until a faster version of Firefox comes along.

So what? (0, Flamebait)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039319)

When Firefox came out most people didn't realise they even had a choice. It's hardly a fair comparison between 2004 and now, especially when it's from a company that has a horde of raging fanbois that will use anything they're told and like it. [youtube.com]

Re:So what? (3, Informative)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039355)

Didn't Google Chrome [what-is-what.com] get 3% market share in like a day or something? Here's the /. story on that:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/1343226 [slashdot.org]

Re:So what? (4, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039507)

It did, and then dropped back to near zero as people said "that's pretty good" and then went back to their regular browsers.

No add-ons (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039619)

The problem with both Chrome and Safari is a lack of an add-on community [cnet.com] . One of the things that continues to make Firefox a success is that the user community has added all the niche functionality anyone would ever want and more.

Re:No add-ons (3, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039745)

The problem with both Chrome and Safari is a lack of an add-on community.

Well, they certainly don't have the market share of Firefox, but they do have useful and usable plug-ins on Safari. Also, this beta revamps the plug-in architecture of Safari to some degree, while still conforming to the Netscape plug-in standard.

Re:No add-ons (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040135)

Firefox's add-ons aren't just plugins. They're browser extensions that can make the browser do just about anything and look just about anyway you can imagine. For example, there's an extension called 'All-in-One Sidebar' that basically adds Opera's sidebar functionality to Firefox. Before the Awesome Bar came into being, there were extensions that did this.

Re:No add-ons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27040147)

I wouldn't use IE9 if it were the fastest, most compatible browser imaginable. The integration with the OS and the company behind it are the single most important reason why I will not browse the web with Internet Explorer. I wouldn't use Google Chrome if it were the leanest, best supported browser on the web. The integration with the Google services (aka data acquisition tools) and the company behind it are the single most important reason why I won't even consider using Google Chrome.

Re:So what? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039669)

Indeed, that's the point - a sudden blip in users when a beta's released tells us nothing about long-term popularity, as is the case with Safari too.

Re:So what? (0, Flamebait)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039387)

When Firefox came out most people didn't realise they even had a choice. It's hardly a fair comparison between 2004 and now

I didn't realize Firefox 3 came out in 2004... wow!

To think, I was wasting so much time with version 1 and 2 when I could have had 3 all along...

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039423)

Firefox 1 came out in 04, you obviously didn't read the GP post.

Re:So what? (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039583)

You obviously didn't RTFA (or even the summary), which says "Firefox 3", not "Firefox 1". The GGP should have said 2008, and then realized that "It's hardly a fair comparison between 2008 and now" would just be silly.

Re:So what? (1)

shinma (106792) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039589)

And the original article discusses Safari 4 beta's adoption vs. Safari 3 beta, which did not come out in 2004, so the post that says "when Firefox came out most people didn't realise they even had a choice. It's hardly a fair comparison between 2004 and now" is the one that obviously didn't read.

Nor did you.

Re:So what? (3, Funny)

Paaskonijn (1220996) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039637)

You and the GGP obviously didn't read the summary.

Yay! This is fun! Quick, somebody, tell me what I obviously forgot to read!

I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Math (4, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039321)

about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four

-

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039341)

"There are now at least 85,000 Elvis's around the world, compared to only 170 in 1977 when Elvis died. At this rate of growth, experts predict that by 2019 Elvis impersonators will make up a third of the world population." - The Naked Scientists 3rd December, 2000.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (3, Funny)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040097)

"Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... AAY!"
-Disco Stu

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039411)

about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four

-

Sure it's right. I'm surprised you don't see it like that. Here at /. it is often pointed out that it's the number of zeros at the end matters. Apple (or some fan of apple) just rounded up 0.25 to 0.5.

Now, if they were saying 0.50 per cent a day there would be a problem. As it is, it's just another technically correct, yet purposely misleading statistic (like 9 out of 10 dentists prefer such and such).

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039447)

...just rounded up 0.25 to 0.5.

Yikes! I just read my parent post again. This is why one shouldn't be posting late at night.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039665)

No... You were probably right.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (3, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039877)

I wrote a long post which appears to have been eaten. In summary:

Even allowing for rounding, the growth per day must be less than 0.26125%. Their other statistics are quoted accurately, indeed, to not just 1, but 2 decimal places. There is no way it is reasonable to represent the growth as "almost 0.5%" per day.

I'm not sure how we can trust an article that doesn't get basic maths right.

Secondly, their article is a blatant lie - the original source http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 [hitslink.com] lists Safari as 7.42% (the other browsers are all reported accurately).

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039431)

On the bright side: By day 200, they will need to provide a Linux version.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039693)

There already is. See Epiphany 2.26 and later.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039633)

You're looking at it wrong. That's 0.5 increase of the previous day!

Day 1: 5m downloads! Fanboi day.
Day 2: 25000 downloads: Windows users who have heard of Apple, but don't want to shell out x000 for a pretty UI.
Day 3: 125 downloads: Linux users with WINE give it a go.
Day 4: 0.6 downloads: Someone posts a link in /. pretending it's Goatse. A noob clicks it by mistake.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039841)

i just tried Safari 3 & 4 with wine-1.0.1 in Slackware-12.2 Safari-3 would run but terribly buggy, Safari-4 would install but not run at all, so all you Linux users thinking of running Safari with wine dont bother...

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040095)

... all you Linux users thinking of running Safari with wine...

[cricket sounds]

Was anyone really thinking of running something like their Web browser in WINE? I mean, I'll use it to run the odd bit of Windows software, but only if there aren't any other options. I guess I can see it for smoke testing browser compatibility, but since WINE is a big question mark in the middle there, it makes more sense in my mind to go another route, like VMs or a dedicated, remote machine.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (3, Interesting)

k.a.f. (168896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039675)

about 0.5 per cent a day... topping one per cent by day four

So, they started out with -1% market share?

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

h2oliu (38090) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039833)

Yeah,

And is it me, or was the total > 100 %

68.18% IE
21.96% Mozialla
10.91% Safari
  1.16% Opera
--------------
102.21%

Just curious.

The Safari Figure is False! (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040011)

Indeed, well spotted - the answer is to be found by looking at their original source that they link ( http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 [hitslink.com] ). Guess what? Whilst all the other browsers are reported correctly, Safari is not 10.91%, but 7.42%. With this figure, the total comes to less than 100% (the remainder presumably taken up by the other browsers). So they've inflated Apple's share by 3.49%, or in terms of proportion, it's almost 1.5 times the true value!

(Are we going to hear an article that this is now part of a pro-Apple agenda? I think blatantly lying about usage statistics is far worse than saying people don't use Iphones in Japan, after all...)

I don't know if it's intentional, or incompetence, but together with the "4 times 0.5 equals 1 percent" blooper, I think we can safely put this article in the trash.

Re:I'm getting old, I don't understand the New Mat (1)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040241)

That's why they shouldn't have used floating points... I think they have a precision problem.

Questionable Stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039329)

Yes, but how many of these downloads were as a result of the updater preselecting it for them?
Then the user double clicks on the new icon saying, "Hmm what is this icon?"

I'm not saying competition isn't great, trust me it's nice to see so many browsers out there that are free and getting better all the time.

Re:Questionable Stats (1)

shinma (106792) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039609)

I'm on a mac, and my software update didn't even offer me Safari 4 beta. You have to go to Apple's website and choose to download it.

Not questionable - BULLSHIT stats (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039825)

From TFA:

Overall market share among the top five dominant browsers remained largely stable through February, according to Net Applications.
.
.
But the main change came with Apple's Safari, after the version 4 beta of the browser was released last week.
The beta release helped push Apple's browser market share to 10.91 per cent, or 1.88 per cent more than the same time in the week before its release. Last month, it was 9.04 per cent.

Uhh... No.

Last month [hitslink.com] , according to above mentioned Net Applications, Safari's share was 7.42%.

Same numbers you will get if you click the link in TFA to see that 10.91% market share.
Cause you CAN'T SEE THE WEEKLY REPORT UNLESS YOU PAY.

But, if the above claimed 9.04% is any indication at the accuracy of TFA (compared to the actual 7.42%) - then Safari probably jumped about 0.26%.
Or less... or more... who knows. Maybe there were only 5 copies downloaded?

I mean... if you pad your stats by 22% (21.83% - the difference between 7.42% an 9.04%) - who knows what the real numbers are then?

Re:Not questionable - BULLSHIT stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27040121)

Net Applications... the same people that claimed Linux was 0.89% now claim that Safari is 10%.

I think they just pull these numbers out of their ass.

Re:Not questionable - BULLSHIT stats (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040143)

Indeed.

Same numbers you will get if you click the link in TFA to see that 10.91% market share.
Cause you CAN'T SEE THE WEEKLY REPORT UNLESS YOU PAY.

Even the idea that the 10.91% is part of some report we can't see is highly unlikely to be true, as the "latest" numbers given for all the other browsers are the same as in the report that is linked to.

Not convinced these are genuine users (0, Redundant)

Signius (855358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039333)

How many of these new users actually even know they are new users ? I bet the majority of them are idiots who just click on the apple update for their itunes/ipod and done even realise Apple are basicaslly pushing crap onto their PCs that they done even know or want.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (5, Informative)

August26 (1120999) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039363)

Apple update doesn't push Safari 4 - you have to go to the apple website and download and install it yourself.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (4, Interesting)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039513)

Actually, it just did when I just updated iTunes about 15 minutes ago. I do NOT have Safari on this machine and it had ticked Safari as a 23MB (iirc) 'update' that was in the bottom half of the dialog off on its own. Nice of them to check mark that download for my own good, eh? ;)

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039593)

Are you sure it wasn't a Safari 3 update?

I ran Software Update last night and it did not install the Safari 4 beta.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039689)

Actually, it just did when I just updated iTunes about 15 minutes ago. I do NOT have Safari on this machine and it had ticked Safari as a 23MB (iirc) 'update' that was in the bottom half of the dialog off on its own. Nice of them to check mark that download for my own good, eh?

That's interesting because I have updated to the latest iTunes through Apple's updater and at no time did it offer to update to the Safari 4 beta. I'm currently using Safari 3. Maybe you just have an outdated Safari 3 and it offered to update you to the most recent Safari 3 release, not the Safari 4 beta.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039809)

That will be Safari 3.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039369)

Dude, this doesn't come through

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039385)

How many of these new users actually even know they are new users ? I bet the majority of them are idiots who just click on the apple update for their itunes/ipod and done even realise Apple are basicaslly pushing crap onto their PCs that they done even know or want.

Zero. This is a beta release and is not distributed via software update yet. You have to go to Apple's Web site and download it.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (1)

Phoenixhawk (1188721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039465)

How many of these new users actually even know they are new users ?

I bet the majority of them are idiots who just click on the apple update for their itunes/ipod and done even realise Apple are basicaslly pushing crap onto their PCs that they done even know or want.

It was a fair question I was thinking the same thing, after a few rounds with the virus that is apple update, installed safari on a couple of my computers after being told explicitly not to install.

I'm a avid Firefox user, much like the Netscape of old, it just works, and I can tweak it with addon's to be what I want it to be. However as an iPhone owner, I get shafted with no choice.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039501)

as pointed out above, unless you explicitly went to the site to download 4 beta, you did not get updated it. Its pretty clear these are legit downloads from people who WANTED to download the beta.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (2, Informative)

outZider (165286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039467)

Plus, these statistics are not based on downloads, but on usage. If it were based on installation, IE would likely have a far stronger showing.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (1)

Signius (855358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039493)

I am prepared to stand corrected on the fact that this isnt being pushed at present by the insidious apple update. This isnt to say it wont be though. Also the reason i am unaware of it not being pushed by apple update, is because i removed all the apple crap off my system because of apple software not doing what i want it to do such as the horrific crap that is quicktime. You tell it not to do things like assocaite with certain file types and it completely ignores you and over-rides your choice regardless. If apple had alloewed me to make the decisions of what i want my computer to do then i might not have chose to remove all of it and have nothing to do with them.

Re:Not convinced these are genuine users (0, Flamebait)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039939)

You're "prepared to stand corrected on the fact that this isnt being pushed at present by the insidious apple update. "

- Wow, how big of you to be prepared to stand corrected. At what point will you actually stand corrected? Actually, I am looking forward to being prepared to stand corrected that your inaccurate accusation against Apple is not an insidious Hater posting by someone who can't get his facts right.

I don't know which is worse. Your initial inaccuracy, or your lame attempt at a retraction while still tossing an unwarranted insult. At any rate, I am prepared to hear your sniveling dishonest reply.

Not Meaningful (5, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039335)

I don't think that kind of thing is actually meaningful at all. Sure, they are gaining more people to try out their beta. The issue is with whether they'll be able to keep them.

Look at Google Chrome; the browser's first few weeks were all rosy as people flocked to the browser. After a few months, though, things got back to "normal" and users went back to their usual browser after the hype machine had died down and the novelty wore off. If they can get that percentage and KEEP it, then we can say they've achieved something.

Re:Not Meaningful (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039541)

Indeed. The other thing to note is that "how quickly people download it" isn't necessarily a useful statistic. Whether people all download it within a hour of release, or a month, doesn't really matter if it's still the same number of users.

There is the question of reliability of statistics, anyway - how do they take into account issues such as fake user agents, and caching? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers [wikipedia.org] - Opera in particular is penalised by the methods used to generate statistics.)

On that note, I'm reminded how Opera seems to be disliked here on Slashdot - despite being a decent IE alternative long before other alternatives such as Firefox existed - supposedly on the grounds of the browser not being Open Source, so I take it that Safari will be equally disliked here too, right? (For the pedants, yes I know Safari uses WebKit, but that doesn't make Safari Open Source.)

Why? Trust. (4, Insightful)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039345)

I think the reason behind this is due to trust. Specifically, trust in the "it just works" history that Apple currently enjoys. Mac users are used to that, expect it, and believe that something like a new Safari will actually work and may even perform as advertised. They're willing to give it a try at an early stage. I did: I'm typing this reply now in the Safari beta. And hey, it does Just Work, at least so far.

Now, I'm not saying that Apple always deserves that level of trust. They've made mistakes in the past, some of them real doozies. But in general, the average Mac user has a fairly high regard for Apple products. More so than Microsoft users for Windows products, certainly.

Re:Why? Trust. (0)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039577)

My browser on Windows, Opera, just works too. And it does a lot more than work. On the contrary, you must have low expectations from your Mac if just working is considered good.

(And unfortunately my experience with Apple Quicktime on Windows is that they don't Just Work - even basic functionality such as full screen mode isn't available. Not to mention the hideous and non-standard UI - something they are supposedly praised for. Maybe you mean it Works Just on Macs, but I'm not enthusiastic about downloading anything else they release for Windows.)

No source (4, Informative)

p_quarles (1094847) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039375)

The central claim of the summary is completely unsourced. If you click on the link in the article that purports to backup the claim of a 10% market share (which sounds outlandish to me, but not impossible), you get a pretty run of the mill domain name parking page. So, there's no way of examining the claim or questioning the methods. This doesn't belong on the front page.

Re:No source (2, Informative)

p_quarles (1094847) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039389)

My apologies. After looking more closely, it's not a parking site. But there's no link to the actual data, just the main page of the site that supposedly collected the statistics.

Re:No source (2, Informative)

chdig (1050302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039787)

I'm having a hard time understanding where the "10%" figure comes from too. The article links to a stats page [hitslink.com] which lists the stats for IE, Chrome and Firefox at 68.17, 1.16, 21.96 respectively (as reported in TFA).

But, for Safari, the article says 10.91%, but the stats page says 7.42% -- that's a big difference!

Can anybody find where this 10% figure comes from (my personal guess is outta thin air)

Okay, but why do we want it? (0, Troll)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039401)

It looks to me like all they've done is rework Safari to make it emulate Chrome. They stole Chrome's UI, they made a point to rework how javascript is processed to make it faster than IE and Firefox. So, you could use Safari and get the features of Chrome at a larger memory footprint or you could just run Chrome. Chrome isn't as full featured as Safari, but covers 95% of what people need for normal web browser. Personally, I would rather use FireFox as a backup browser...it's more compatible than Safari anyway.

Re:Okay, but why do we want it? (2, Insightful)

outZider (165286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039479)

SquirrelFish Extreme was unveiled about a week after Google unveiled Chrome and V8. If you're going to whine about Safari putting tabs on top like Chrome, you could say that Google stole Opera's UI.

Re:Okay, but why do we want it? (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039483)

The new JavaScript engine (codenamed SquirrelFish) predates Chrome's and is faster than Chrome's. You've been able to use it in WebKit nightly builds for months now. And it's exactly as compatible as Chrome since Google took Apple's rendering engine to use for Chrome.

Firefox is nice enough and I definitely prefer it on Windows. On the Mac, though, it's just a slow browser with an old-fashioned UI.

Re:Okay, but why do we want it? (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039647)

It looks to me like all they've done is rework Safari to make it emulate Chrome.

They pulled in a much, much newer version of Webkit including the new javascript engine Chrome does not use. They added a huge amount of support for HTML 5, CSS 3, XML, SVG 1.1 and a lot of other cool, new technologies that have been languishing. They added resolution independent zoom, anti-phishing, and revamped their plug-in architecture. Those speed and functional improvements are the major items in my mind. They changed up the UI and the tabs are more similar to Chrome, as is the default start page, but neither is quite the same and while more visible at first blush, are pretty minor.

So, you could use Safari and get the features of Chrome at a larger memory footprint or you could just run Chrome.

Or, if you're running OS X you can't run Chrome because they haven't even released a version yet.

. Chrome isn't as full featured as Safari, but covers 95% of what people need for normal web browser.

If you're on Windows I'd argue Safari isn't your best choice as a browser... but then that is not Safari's main market. On OS X it crushes most of the competition including Firefox. It is fast and has features that have not been cloned yet. You seem to take issue with browsers cloning the innovations of others, I wish other browser makers would do it. Every time I find myself on a Windows box using any other browser I wish I could expand text boxes (like the one I'm typing in now) to be able to see my whole comment. It's been years now.

Re:Okay, but why do we want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27040087)

"Every time I find myself on a Windows box using any other browser I wish I could expand text boxes (like the one I'm typing in now) to be able to see my whole comment. It's been years now."

I'm using Windows and Firefox, and I'm typing this inside an expanded text box just like you're doing. Check out some of the add-ons for Firefox. That's where all the expanded features are - you can choose which you want to use.

Safari has been a dog on Windows every time I've tried it. This latest version reminds me of the iPhone.

Re:Okay, but why do we want it? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039817)

Oh, that's all they've done, is it?

The new JavaScript runtime was in the works long before Google announced Chrome and V8.

Webkit itself has been significantly changed since Safari 3. Lots more bug fixes, performance improvements, and a ton of new features. Almost all of which Chrome benefits from as well - the actual rendering engine is by far the biggest and most complex component of any web browser. Apple did almost all of the work on that, not Google.

Are they still sneaking it in via iTunes updates? (0, Troll)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039425)

Just curious because that's the kind of thing people lambast Micro$oft for...

Re:Are they still sneaking it in via iTunes update (1, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039531)

Yep. To see if they're still doing it I asked iTunes to update and lo and behold, the Apple Software Updater comes up and lists Bonjour and iTunes in the top half of the dialog, and near the bottom, off on its own, is 'Safari' 23MB (iirc) download, already pre-checked for me. Hmmm... I wonder if I had automatic updating configured if it would simply show up on my machine? LOL.

That's not the Safari 4 Beta (2, Insightful)

danaris (525051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040067)

If you actually paid attention, you'd be able to tell that that wasn't the Safari 4 Beta, but just an update to Safari 3.

As several others have noted in this thread (whom you apparently ignored), you have to deliberately go out and download the Safari 4 Beta from Apple's website.

Dan Aris

Re:Are they still sneaking it in via iTunes update (1)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039547)

If they are, they're doing it very well. I got hit with a QuickTime and iTunes update yesterday, didn't really pay attention to it and just agreed to everything. I checked for Safari just now, wondering if I'd agreed to download it as part of yesterday's update - but no, I don't have it.

This would be good news for KDE only if... (4, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039441)

...the KDE folks would "dump" KHTML for Webkit. I just mean "default to Webkit in Konqueror." Such a move would raise Konqueror's profile which cannot be a bad thing.

Right now, Konqueror is a non issue when it comes to browser statistics on the internet. In some statistics, it is lumped like other browsers into the "other" category like here [sirsidynix.com] . And over here [hitslink.com] , Konqueror is missing all together! Sad indeed.

While I say this, I know egos are high in the Open Source world, so what I am suggesting has little chance of being adopted.

Now, before I get modded a troll, I would like to know whether what I am suggesting is a very bad thing.

Re:This would be good news for KDE only if... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039523)

QT is planning on including WebKit as a standard feature at some point (they may already). When that happens, KDE will drop KHTML and use WebKit instead.

Yes and nope. (4, Informative)

Balinares (316703) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040229)

Qt already ships with WebKit as of Qt 4.4, released a while ago. Mind you, I don't consider it usable yet, seeing as the included WebKit is a little dated and lacks such features as, you know, Netscape plugin support (so no Flash).

Qt 4.5 will ship a more recent and useful version of WebKit, however, with support for such things as W3C selectors API, 100% ACID3 compliance, HTML5 audio and video, CSS canvas drawing, masks and reflections, and a few more things.

Nevertheless, KHTML is still set to remain Konqueror's default rendering engine, as far as I understand, for reasons of trust, quite simply. I don't necessarily agree, mind you, but I do understand, if nothing else, the wisdom of keeping a hand on the source code for urgent security fixes, rather than wait that it goes through the whole chain of Apple - WebKit - Qt - KDE.

Mind you, this is KDE, so switching to WebKit by default is probably one setting away. Probably in Configure file associations > text/html > Embedding, move webkitpart to the top of the preferred service list. I'm going to do that right away, actually.

Re:This would be good news for KDE only if... (1)

cabjf (710106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039567)

I don't see how it could be bad. While competition is good, too much competition, from an open source perspective especially, dilutes the effectiveness. How many different groups do we need reinventing the wheel?

Mac users on windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039489)

Is this because Safari 3 on Windows was really bad. It was slow, locked up, and just didn't work very well. A lot of mac users use windows at work. Safari 4 is actually usable on windows.

Forced upgrade, not uptake (0, Troll)

certain death (947081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039499)

I was running 3.2 and came in to my computer to see that I was being force fed an upgrade to the latest beta. That might have something to do with the numbers.

Re:Forced upgrade, not uptake (0, Troll)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039799)

YES, My stepfather HATES Safari and I have (gladly) iUninstalled it at least 3 times so far....
For some reason when he iClicks the prompted iApple iPod iSoftware iUpdate he gets a NEW iTunes and iQuicktime installation for his never-used-since iChristmas iPod and iVOILA! he has the new iSafari iInstalled AGAIN.

So understandably, he is unhappy (again) as to how this unwanted and unsolicited browser on got there again and how dare it decide to be his browser, where's the IE he has used forever with all of the links? (phone call follows to come over and remove the offending browser...)
Too bad he bought some iDRM'D iMusic with iTunes at iChristmas or I'd uninstall *ALL* iApple software on his PC.

iSOLUTION: Maybe he'd just use a shiny new Creative Zen or anything not brought to him by the letter "i" ?!?
I bet he would dump the iPod and iTunes when iI show him the magic of simply dragging MP3 into the new drive letter of his standards-based USB cable connected media player in Windows Explorer (iTunes iSucks and is altogether unnecessary and VERY BADLY BLOATED... once users move to actual non-DRM media files.)
The challenge will be to teach new software to him that simply organizes and helps create playlists on the player not incrimentally attempt to take over his universe.
He will greatly enjoy the ease of backing up his MP3 and WAV files on his external drive using the very complicated "Copy" command in Windows Explorer (and even putting them on all of his media players..... SNAP! )
iI iMay iHave iJust iConvinced iMy iSelf...

Re:Forced upgrade, not uptake (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039863)

HAHAHA!!! So...I am thinking you don't like Apple much, eh? :o)

Am I missing something? (1)

MiKM (752717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039557)

Net Applications, the site that ITPro is using as the source of its numbers, lists Safari's market share as 7.42% - a decrease from last month, when it was at 7.7%. Am I missing something, or is ITPro just doing a shoddy job at citing its source?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040041)

Just FYi, the site linked to in the article [hitslink.com] only shows Worldwide stats on it's free overview page. So that 7.42% is a worldwide statistic. Which considering the costs associated with a Mac is pretty impressive.

You have to pay for a subscription to that site to see their US and other breakdown stats.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040231)

But their stats for the other browsers match exactly. So if they're comparing browser usages from one report, to Safari's share in another, that's hardly fair anyway!

As another poster notes, their set of stats adds up to over 100%!

(And I love how you twist the expense of Macs to be a good thing.)

Comparison to Chrome (0, Troll)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039627)

Chrome needed almost a month...

Yeah it's really fucking hard to gain share when the browser comes bundled with your OS, way to go Apple, fucking bravo. I think I will spend the day screaming "Go Steve" at random occasions, as a tribute to this fucking moonlanding Apple just did.

Re:Comparison to Chrome (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040245)

Safari 4 is Beta and doesn't come bundled, it's a separate download. It's not even offered through software updates or pushed by marketing as the thing to load because it's still Beta. Just a link on the website, similar to Chrome. But Chrome isn't available on Mac and is only 90% complete. This is a decent software company that has a minor market share and can't afford losing their user base over sub-par software. Beta's come fully featured (like any decent software creator does) and have some minor/major bugs that need ironed out, not like Microsoft or Peoplesoft where they shift the meaning of Trunk to become Beta's, Alpha's to become Release Candidates and Beta's to Final Product.

Why offer a beta as a default download? (-1, Flamebait)

rklrkl (554527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039663)

The reason for the rapid rise of Safari 4 Beta recently is that Apple have taken the frankly appalling decision to push a beta version of the browser as the default one to download when you go to http://www.apple.com/safari/ [apple.com] (and even deviously put the word "BETA" in a fainter, smaller font so you won't notice it).

Now Apple may claim that it's stable enough for any Mac end-user to download and use, but if that's the case, why is it still labelled "BETA", which implies that the general public shouldn't download this unless they're willing to be burned by unfixed bugs/missing features?

Contrast this with Firefox, which has never offered a beta release as the default download for users who visit the primary download site. In fact, if anything, pre-release versions of Firefox are arguably a little too hard to find, but I'd rather they erred on the side of caution - one bad pre-release that the masses get hold of and it can cause some damage to their reputation.

Re:Why offer a beta as a default download? (1)

geoff2 (579628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039733)

Most Mac users won't even visit the Safari page, however, since all Mac users get stable Safari updates bundled into Mac OS X updates. So the folks seeking out the Safari webpage to download it are probably looking for the beta version.

These "rates of change" mean nothing (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039719)

These "rates of change" mean nothing when you have a very small share. If I produce my chrisbrows browser and test it myself, the day I give it to a friend I have achieved a growth rate of 100% per day, beating Safari, Opera, Firefox and the lot.

I used it for a while (1)

m85476585 (884822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039793)

I used Safari 4 beta for a while since it was faster than Firefox, but then it crashed and forgot all my open tabs. I'm back to Firefox now (actually Shiretoko since Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 had a bookmark export bug that wouldn't let me switch to Safari).

Re:I used it for a while (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27040167)

I used Safari 4 beta for a while since it was faster than Firefox, but then it crashed and forgot all my open tabs.

On what OS? It has been rock stable for me so far on OS X. I haven't tried it on Windows (and probably won't) but I'm curious about the stability.

My take (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27040201)

You've got the cutest little babyface
You've got the cutest little babyface
You've got the cutest little
Baby eyes and, uh, baby nose
Baby lips and, uh, baby toes
You've got the cutest widdle baaaabyyyy...faaaaace!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>