Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung L870 Uses 'Safari'
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if they didnt, prepare for no more samsung L870
anyway, other nokia phones, such as the N95, have safari based browsers (maybe theyre the webkit based ones) but this is the first to call it safari
This is such a lame move on Apple's part. Being the fanboy that I am, I have been very supportive of every move Apple has made, but this is crazy. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING EL JOBSO?!?!??!? 
Ask yourself why Microsoft licensed the business critical Exchange stuff to Apple, instead of keeping it for Windows Mobile.
Because it makes Exchange that much more a standard.
So why would Apple license Safari?
Because it makes Exchange that much more a standard.
So why would Apple license Safari?
This is most likely a WebKit-based browser (which Apple needn't license out in any way). It's not "really" Safari "like on the iPhone" - this thing doesn't even have a touch screen.
Samsung L870 Uses 'Safari'
Samsung today announced the L870 Symbian-based phone. Interestingly, spec sheets obtained by phoneArena.com (via Engadget) specify that the phone uses the Safari web browser.
The default web browser of the S60 platform is indeed a WebKit-based browser developed by Nokia. The "Safari" designation, however, would seem to indicate some cooperation with Apple, as Safari is an Apple-registered trademark.
Regardless, the move appears to be yet another win for the Apple-supported WebKit rendering engine. Recently, Adobe has announced that the Air platform is utilizing WebKit, and Dreamweaver CS4 will be using WebKit for its Live View feature.
Article Link
Samsung today announced the L870 Symbian-based phone. Interestingly, spec sheets obtained by phoneArena.com (via Engadget) specify that the phone uses the Safari web browser.
The default web browser of the S60 platform is indeed a WebKit-based browser developed by Nokia. The "Safari" designation, however, would seem to indicate some cooperation with Apple, as Safari is an Apple-registered trademark.
Regardless, the move appears to be yet another win for the Apple-supported WebKit rendering engine. Recently, Adobe has announced that the Air platform is utilizing WebKit, and Dreamweaver CS4 will be using WebKit for its Live View feature.
Article Link
I was waiting for you guys to run this story...
Doesn't it seem weird for
to let Samsung use the supposedly best mobile browser? I mean, usually keeps their best programs to themselves. Although I wonder how performance would be affected, running on Symbian instead of Mac OS X.
Doesn't it seem weird for
to let Samsung use the supposedly best mobile browser? I mean, usually keeps their best programs to themselves. Although I wonder how performance would be affected, running on Symbian instead of Mac OS X.
Another blow to Windows mobile, what harm.
Actually, there are a number of promising webkit based browsers being developed on Windows Mobile also. While not holding the "Safari" name, the performance could very well be comparable.
Could it be that Apple is finally starting to see the long-term bigger picture for putting market SHARE above keeping it all as Apple profit? Now if they could only cooperate with a select clone maker or two to provide the missing links in their PC chain, they might be able to start to capture exponentially higher PC sales from switchers.
This is such a lame move on Apple's part. Being the fanboy that I am, I have been very supportive of every move Apple has made, but this is crazy. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING EL JOBSO?!?!??!?
Wow. I'm speechless. Do you have candlelight services everynight for El Jobso?
Seems like a sensible move, marketing wise, to get the name of Safari out there. In addition if you're tweaking your website for mobile users, you'll certainly do Safari first now because it will have the bigger market. I'm sure Apple would have had some input on the interface and usability. Maybe all Symbian phones will soon come with "Safari" branded webkit browsers.
Mozilla and Apple need to get together. As a web developer it would be so much easier if we only had to support a single rendering engine. And efforts into both Webkit and Gecko seem somewhat duplicated.
I will say that Apple seems to be doing more for web standards than Mozilla these days. Firefox on Webkit would be cool.
I will say that Apple seems to be doing more for web standards than Mozilla these days. Firefox on Webkit would be cool.
They will be using a web-kit based browser and have deliberatley mis-lead to get coverage, and it has worked, and you fell for it.
I was waiting for you guys to run this story...
Doesn't it seem weird for
Well, WebKit (the rendering engine at the heart of Safari,) has been running on Symbian for some time as an "official" port (it's been on Symbian longer than Windows.) Nokia's "N-Series" line uses a WebKit-based browser. This is just "news" because it is using the Safari name, as "Safari" is a trademark of Apple, but the underlying WebKit core is open source, and needs no direct approval from Apple for ANYone to use it. Microsoft could base their next version of Internet Explorer on WebKit, and Apple at this point couldn't do anything to stop them. (WebKit is based on KHTML, and as such, both use the BSD license.)
If true, they are asking for getting sued by Apple for trademark infringement. I'm not ready to just blatantly say that they are misleading people, although it is a real possibility.
Besides, I think most people reading these boards are interested in the "real" mobile Safari iPhone
Besides, I think most people reading these boards are interested in the "real" mobile Safari
iPhone
If you could buy a $1,199 iMac or a $1,199 clone, why would you buy the clone?
Oh, unless you mean the clones would be priced LESS than Macs, in which case you're talking about killing Apple's revenue and destroying the company.
The first way seems pointless and the second way seems suicidal. I'm not sure which way you meant it, but neither seem very attractive.
Somehow, I don't think Apple would want to stop them. Wouldn't that be an awesome PR victory
