Safari on Windows: A Turning Point for Apple?
A few months ago I wrote a post pondering whether Adobe Apollo’s use of WebKit would cause greater support for Safari in various web properties. Today Apple tried to create some noise by announcing Safari for Windows, and most people seemed to receive this news with a big yawn. I think this announcement actually is big news, so at the risk of writing about a topic that has been covered ad nauseam at many other venues, here’s a few thoughts…
Of course, Apple is in a position to achieve remarkably good market share very quickly given the installed base of iTunes — everyone with an even modestly current version of iTunes also has the Apple Software Update tool that will automatically end up installing Safari on their machine whether they ask for it or not (even if Apple provides an opt-out, most won’t bother with that). In a year’s time, Apple could easily have more installed base of Safari on Windows than Firefox does (which is different than people using Safari on Windows, but I’ll get to that).
There’s also the obvious fact that has been pointed out by many others — Safari was also announced as the primary “application” platform for 3rd parties to deliver their wares for the iPhone, so Apple is clearly trying to create an opportunity for developers to “write once” and deploy across a wide range of platforms. Steve Jobs is openly telling developers that (at least on the iPhone) Safari is much more than just a web browser.
Thus, here’s the potentially big deal — if Safari is bundled with iTunes, it would be a short leap to simply build WebKit capability into iTunes, making iTunes not just a media player and the client for the Apple store but a full-blown cross-platform application delivery environment. That puts Apple into the game along with Adobe and Microsoft (not to mention Google and plenty of startups) to be the environment of choice for developers to invest their energies.
Such thinking would seem at odds with the closed model of iPod/iTunes and the generally tepid attitude Apple has about 3rd party development. Case in point — many feel that saying Safari allows for 3rd party development on the iPhone is basically a big F-You from Apple (or at least a lackluster attempt at openness).
At D5, Steve Jobs said (while on stage with Bill Gates), “And so the big secret about Apple, of course–not-so-big secret maybe–is that Apple views itself as a software company…and there’s not a lot of us left and Microsoft’s one of them.” This move clearly fits into that worldview, and moving a browser next to (in to?) iTunes is a necessary step to having a realistic chance to being a software platform that can be taken seriously beyond the point-application of media delivery. Releasing Safari on Windows is not being done casually — this is the next step in Apple’s rebirth, and in retrospect may be seen as a major turning point in the Apple positioning as a software giant rather than a closed-system device manufacturer.
They are going to have some serious branding challenges if they want people to think of “iTunes” as “iApps”.
I personally don’t care for iTunes - despite the quality of their Mac software, their Windows software is terrible. There are no status indicators that things are taking place which is maddening. As far as Safari goes, why would I use it over Firefox?
If you are a Mac user, you are a die-hard Apple software fanatic. If you aren’t a Mac user, I don’t think you really care and therein lies the problem for Apple. 95+% of people have already decided Apple is not for them. A web browser is not going to change that opinion.
Comment by Brian — June 13, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Ah, but that’s the point — iTunes is already installed on a huge number of machines, and people already think of it as much than just a music player — it is the way they get to the iTunes store (whether they buy a lot there is a different question) and the way they deal with their iPod. I agree that the “Tunes” part of the brand could create some confusion, but with Safari bundled in it becomes a browser — it doesn’t need to replace Firefox or IE any more than Adobe
ApolloAIR does — but it can be a way to deploy “applications” on iPhone, Mac, and Windows. I have a hard time believing that Apple is doing this to take on IE head-on, as Firefox has done.Comment by Nathan Dintenfass — June 13, 2007 @ 10:38 am
It’s a good thing for Apple, then, that Microsoft’s Zune never caught on, because the software that comes with it is so much better than iTunes that on a level playing field it might even embarrass it. The absolute same goes for the player software itself, right down to the font and interface design (note: I’ve only ever used the 2nd generation Zune and can’t speak to the first).
I’ll probably never use iTunes again it’s so good. The singular flaw is that some of the music I was looking to purchase wasn’t available in the Zune marketplace, but one of them was on iTunes.
Comment by David McGuigan — May 2, 2008 @ 3:48 am