Macopinion

Why Safari for Windows?

by Marc Zeedar macopinion@designwrite.com

Just a week or so after D5 where Walt Mossberg got Steve Jobs to admit that Apple is one of the largest developers for Windows due to the success of iTunes, Jobs suddenly releases Apple's Safari web browser for Windows. Is this an upside-down world or what? Windows now runs on Macs, and Apple's making Windows software. Everything's backwards!

Theories are running rampant as to why Apple's leaping into the Windows browser market. Robert Cringely has the bizarre idea that it's just a ploy to sell stuff to AT&T, while John Gruber (of Daring Fireball) seems to think it's just about ad revenue.

While there are many factors involved in this decision, I disagree that any of those are the main ones. Apple's not one to scoff at a few extra million in revenue from its built-in Google search bar, but Steve Jobs doesn't make strategic decisions over a few million dollars. The revenue will probably mostly be a wash anyway, when you consider the costs of porting Safari to Windows, maintaining it (Apple's already released at least one security update), serving millions of downloads, and competiting in the competitive Windows market. Oh I'm sure it'll be profitable, but it's not like there aren't any expenses in creating the software. From Jobs' perspective the whole thing's probably a wash on the financial side. No, the real motivations for releasing Safari for Windows, especially at this time, are completely strategic.

The Browser Wars Are Over
Do you remember the days of the browser wars, when Netscape and Microsoft were releasing new versions every few months and each browser added support for new tags or tag variations? It was a nightmare. Websites would look completely different in one browser over another, or would break completely. It made web development much more complicated than necessary. However, it also fostered innovation, creativity, and sped the pace of development, and consumers ultimately benefitted from better browsers.

Apple was smart to stay out of the browser wars back then. But Microsoft won and with Netscape gone, the behemoth has pretty much ignored browser technology since. Internet Explorer on Mac OS X was terrible -- so Apple came out with their own, Safari. At the time this was not seen as a competitive move since Apple was merely stepping in to a market Microsoft had abandonned. But Apple's move to bring Safari to Windows is really stepping into Microsoft's territory. Why would Apple do this? Why now? Is Jobs wanting to restart the browser wars?

But no -- that's not what this about at all. The browser wars are over. Safari is based on open source standards. This isn't about starting another feature war. This is merely Apple creating AppleLand on Windows.

AppleLand
At D5, Steve Jobs had my favorite quote ever, talking about iTunes for Windows: "It's like giving ice water to someone in hell."

Now some people -- the unusually vocal -- take issue with that because they don't agree that iTunes for Windows is such great software. It's buggy. It crashes. It has a non-standard interface. It doesn't use "normal" Windows keyboard shortcuts and other features.

Today we're starting to see the same complaints about Safari for Windows. Even Ars Technica, usually a good site, falls into the same mindset.

These people are missing the point. Apple isn't trying to create Windows software on Windows. Apple is creating Mac software on Windows. That's a very different thing.

Look at this from the perspective of an ordinary developer -- someone other than Apple. When that developer creates Windows software the software must survive on its own merit. It must be competitive. It must fit into the Windows landscape.

But that's not the case with Apple. In a way, Apple doesn't care if people adopt their Windows software or not. Apple's software on Windows is meant to sell other things -- iPods, Macs, iPhones, AppleTVs. That's what this is really about.

People who want an iPod want to use iTunes. While there are other ways to get music onto an iPod, iTunes makes it easy and transparent. So what if the interface is "non-standard" or the Windows version's a bit buggy? People who want the true iTunes experience can always buy a Mac. That's what Apple would prefer anyway.

In the same way, Safari for Windows is not about competing in the browser market. Apple could care less about that. If Safari does gain marketshare, so be it. There's no harm in that. But that's not what this is about.

What Apple really wants is an easy way to let PC web developers make sure their sites are compatible with iPhones (and Macs and, eventually, maybe AppleTVs). There's no way Apple can convince every PC developer to go out and buy a Mac just to test websites on it or develop web apps for the iPhone. But Safari on Windows does the same thing -- it levels the playing field so that a single web environment is now compatible across multiple platforms (Macs, portable devices like the iPhone, and possibly even set-top boxes like AppleTV).

Remember, Steve Jobs' genius is that he looks at the big picture. He's not thinking five minutes ahead -- he's looking five years ahead. This isn't about short-term ad revenue gains or the meaningless marketshare of a free product. This is about changing the way we think about computing and the Internet.

What is the unique thing about the iPhone? There are other cell phones which do a decent job at basic call functions. There are other media players, some which even rival iPods. But how many handheld Internet devices are there out there? Damned few, if any. Nokia's got one, but we're talking sales in the thousands, not millions. Most are extremely limited, clumsy, and only support the "baby Internet," as Steve Jobs so eloquently put it. Surfing the web on my PSP, for instance, is a user interface nightmare (don't even think of typing in a URL). Most sites are badly broken and the browser crashes constantly or runs out of memory on even basic sites.

What makes the iPhone special is that it is running Mac OS X using a desktop operating system's actual Safari web browser. This is huge and most important, no other vendor can offer a product even remotely close to this. Every potential competitor out there runs an OS crippled to fit onto a pocket device. Their web browsers are non-standard or only support a fraction of a desktop browser's features.

Think for second about the benefits of a true desktop browsing experience in the palm of your hand. Imagine sitting in a cafe chatting with a friend about movies while you bring up IMDB to prove that George Clooney really was in two different TV series called "ER." Imagine current stock quotes, full news sites (with video), Wikipedia access, the whole world of information at your (literal) fingertips. What about live blogging? It could reinvent blogs the way they reinvented the Internet in the first place.

Granted, there are limits to what can be done with a handheld device -- but the benefits of the portability of such power cannot be denied. Once millions have adopted such devices, how will that effect society? Isn't that like Jobs' "a bicycle for the mind" all over again?

We are talking about a new world. A digital, connective world, with Safari and a handheld communication device as the center. That's what Steve Jobs sees five years down the road. Not just iPhones, but iPods and iPhone derivatives, AppleTVs, desktop and portable Macs (probably all with touch screens).

With that goal in mind, don't browser marketshare, Google toolbar ad revenue, and even the Mac versus PC battle seem trivial? Steve Jobs knows that if he can get the true Internet on the iPhone, get people to experience that power, they'll be hooked. iPhone sales will be in the hundreds of millions and it will transform the Internet.

And the coolest thing (from Jobs' perspective) is that no one else will be able to offer what he's offering. No one else can fit a real desktop OS onto a handheld. Not in the next five years (Microsoft can barely get a desktop OS on the desktop in five years). No one else can offer a true multi-touch interface that revolutionizes the way we interact with digital content. No one else can give people the full Internet, just like a desktop.

That's why Safari for Windows is important. Even if only a few copies are used by developers to make sure their sites are compatible, that's fine with Apple. This isn't about marketshare. This is about the future. The more sites -- and web apps -- that work great with Safari, the more iPhones and Macs and AppleTVs Apple sells.

Just like today no one would think of releasing a car or stereo system that's not iPod compatible (even Microsoft's car audio system supports the iPod), in the future it'll be that way with websites and Safari. Especially corporate networks and web applications, which will be critical for iPhone to succeed in the business world.

Steve Jobs knows exactly what he's doing. People already have cell phones. People already have PDAs and media players. But no one has a true handheld Internet device. Except Apple. Converging the three into one Must-Have is genius. (Think of the cell phone aspect as a mere Trojan Horse to get people to carry the Internet Device around with them -- that's the way Jobs looks at it, I'm sure.) But the content and web apps must be there and Steve just put out the tool to ensure that they will be. Brilliant.

macopinion@designwrite.com