- Posts tagged Safari
- Explore Safari on posterous
Silly Apple Criticism 2: Apple Has iAds, So Safari's Reader Function is Hypocritical Ad Blocking
Critique: It's hypocrtical of Apple to introduce their own ads while putting an ad blocker in Safari 5.
Safari Reader is not an ad blocker. To call it that is to misunderstand "reader" formatters, or ad blockers, or both.
An ad blocker blocks ads. Not trying to be facetious, but that's what it does. It blocks ads. They're blocked. You go to a web page, and you do not see ads. Ads are prevented (you might say, "blocked") from displaying. When you browse with an ad blocker, you go from page to page sans ads. Are we clear?
A reader formatter doesn't do that. You don't browse with these. When you go to a page you see the same ads as everyone else. The ad impression is counted (for the content provider) and you're free to click on any ad to view at will.
What a reader does do is determine if there's an article on the page, and give you the option to display it more cleanly for easier reading. Yes, the ads (along with other formatiing) do not appear in the reading pane, but they're still in the background with the rest of the web page, and when you exit the reader in any way—which you have to do to get anywhere else—they're displayed again.
That's a big difference. In fact, a reader cannot block ads; the page must load before it can even be invoked in the first place. No one accuses Readability, for example, of being an ad blocker. In fact, someone looking for an ad blocker would be extremely disappointed in the results if they tried to use one of these readers for that purpose.
Google's Chrome Web Store: "Open" or "Closed"?
Google is reminding us all that "apps" can and should run on the open web, and not just in closed, vertically integrated and controlled environments like the iPhone/Pad/Touch.
Is that what they're reminding us of? Since Apple's devices have a compliant web browser in Safari we'll find out soon enough.
If the Chrome Web Store is truly about supplying apps that "should run on the open web" you'll be able to use it on an "iPhone/Pad/Touch". If not, then Google has just created a "closed, vertically integrated and controlled" environment of their own. If the latter, I wonder if the "open" zealots will call them on it.
Thoughts on MobileMe Mail beta after one week.
I've been using the MobileMe Mail beta for a week. These are my impressions so far, in no particular order...
In-depth analysis of Google's VP8. One worry is patent infringement.
Finally, the problem of patents appears to be rearing its ugly head again. VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder”. Though I am not a lawyer, I simply cannot believe that they will be able to get away with this, especially in today’s overly litigious day and age. Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents. Until we get some hard evidence that VP8 is safe, I would be extremely cautious. Since Google is not indemnifying users of VP8 from patent lawsuits, this is even more of a potential problem.
Emphasis in the original. The article is a geek read if ever there was one, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Should Opera Mini be approved for the iPhone?
Apple gets dinged for not delivering the full Internet by excluding Flash, and yet I bet the very same Apple anti-fans won’t say a word about Opera not even trying.
Great article detailing why Opera Mini should not be approved for the App Store. It's a good read, based on numerous technical/privacy/compliance factors, not just one or two philosophical points.
I also suggest you read this great post in the comments section.
Whether you agree with the various points made (I do), or whether those points should be reason for Apple to reject the app (I'm less convinced about that), it's an important discussion.
The bottom line is that Opera Mini -- Opera PR notwithstanding -- is not a web browser in the sense we normally use the term. It does not render pages, but rather runs them through a proxy that involves many important "side effects". A little education about that for a mass market (i.e. not geek-driven) device like the iPhone is a good idea.
iPhone 3GS JavaScript Speed is NOT Faster Than Apple Claimed
TAB - Thoughts on Safari 4: Some Bad, Mostly Good
Web Browser News: Safari 4 Downloads in Perspective, Opera Boycott
Firefox
First up, Mozilla puts Safari 4's 11M downloads in perspective:I just read that Apple is reporting 11 million Safari 4 downloads in just three days. That's pretty amazing. I'd like to follow up that report with one of my own. Firefox 3.0.11 was downloaded about 150 million times in the last 24 hours.While there may be a touch of snark in the comment, the truth is the truth. There's also no denying its accuracy, nor can it be doubted that it does indeed put Safari 4's download numbers in an entirely different context. In fact, Mozilla had previously pointed out that 27% of Mac users alone have swapped from the default browser to Firefox:
Having chosen Mac, Safari users, about 27% of them, have opted out of the bundled and default browser and instead chosen Firefox. That's an even higher conversion to Firefox rate than we're seeing on Windows.In short, Safari has a long way to go.
Opera
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the browser world, staunch Internet Explorer fans are requesting a boycott on the Opera browser. From the article:Opera is simply upset because their browser is dead last in market share, and has already been surpassed by the recently released Google Chrome browser and Apple’s Safari browser for Windows.True enough. I think Opera is asking for a seat at the table they haven't earned. As for the boycott itself, given Opera's share of the browser market I though it was already on.
Apple Announces 11M Safari 4 Downloads: Thurrott and PC World Cry Fake!
As someone with three Macs at home, I couldn't help but notice that Apple pushed Safari 4 out as an automatic update to all of its users this week. Yesterday, all three of the Macs in my household received the update, and we don't even use Safari.Let's set aside that -- unlike Microsoft's default settings -- Apple's software gets your permission before installing upgrades. What I find more comical are the following:
- A PC World writer and Paul Thurrott have no idea how to tell Apple's upgrader "no thanks" for Safari, and make it permanent. I bet they know how to do this for Windows.
- Both these guys are surprised that Apple would count downloads that took place via the upgrader. My question is: Why the heck wouldn't they?
