Browser Integration
The Mac-faithful no doubt know that Apple upgraded their Safari web-browser to version 1.2 last week, and the usual cries of outrage soon followed as some users soon discovered that it was a Panther-only upgrade not available to users who had not bought the latest version of OS X.
Many assumed this was part of Apple’s strategy of the annual fee, that is, releasing a new version of the OS on a yearly basis for $130. Many Mac users feel like its almost a rental of the OS, a fee to keep current and many, like myself, think it’s a fair trade. However, Apple’s response to the outcry as reported by MacWorld UK is quite different:
Apple says: “Safari 1.2 has been designed to leverage advances in Panther not present in the Jaguar release of Mac OS X. These Panther technologies are needed to deliver Safari v1.2’s most significant improvements. For example, personal certificate support is made possible by Panther-specific security technologies that are simply not available on Jaguar.”
The company explains that is does in fact continue to offer support for the Jaguar-friendly Safari 1.0: “Safari v1.0 continues to be available for customers running on Jaguar-based systems and has recently been updated with the latest security improvements,” it points out.
Essentially, Apple explains that the browser is so tightly integrated into the OS that it is not possible to offer a version for the previous OS. Sound familiar? A key argument in Microsoft’s long-running anti-trust case has been that IE was an integral part of Windows and could not be completely removed.
So, what is happening here? Is Apple pulling a Microsoft and using their OS dominance to ensure that all Mac-users use Safari and continually buy paid upgrades? Or is this idea better related to Microsoft’s recent announcement that they were ending stand-alone development of their Internet Explorer browser? Essentially both makers are saying the same thing: you have to upgrade (buy) the OS to get the latest version of included software.
As a web designer, this has several points of interest. For one, it could potentially simplify web development as the number of browsers and versions that have to be supported would most likely dwindle. It would be convenient to know that a user running Windows version x.x has y capabilities and Mac user running OS X version z.z has xy capabilities.
While that might be convenient, another point worth noting is that only updating browser features (and potentially bugs) with an OS upgrade is a very slow process. Already Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 is several years old and the next version is not scheduled to appear until it is released with the next version of Windows, speculated to see the light of day in 2005 or 2006. That is a long time to wait for fixes to well-documented rendering bugs and other failings of this market-leading browser. Even Apple’s annual upgrade is too infrequent in the current world of web development where a single browser non-conformity can hold back the state of development for years, despite only affecting a small percentage of users. (Any developers still supporting Netscape 4.x know what I mean?) And that is not to speak of upgrade rates and adoption, which can take years. In fact, Windows XP which was released in October 2001 still does not have the majority of OS version share among Microsoft users. Similarly, Mac OS X cannot boast more users than its previous version despite three years of trying.
While the prospect of an OS where the web browser is no longer a stand-alone application has some appeal, the reality is it will likely retard an already slow-developing web. What we can do as developers, is make sure that content is browser independent and make browser/OS versioning irrelevant.