Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safari 5

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Safari 5

#61

Post by abrahamsen »

sandGorgon wrote: post #20
jwr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid people will have to deal with the fact that it's the user who controls the browser. You can't just shove stuff down your users' throats — it's their browser.

I also want to present the counter viewppoint - http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... Newspapers were dying because nobody wanted to pay for news, which they could get for free at Google News. Newspapers were told to suck it up and instead move online - to an ad supported model. No more ads. I dont think the newspapers are the bad guy here.

The Google analysis is pretty good, even if their proposed solutions are between weak and non-existing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/google-p...

Basically, the problem is that newspapers make most of their money on ads from "bundled" content, e.g. lifestyle, cars, sport, and almost no money on hard news.

But today people go to specialized web sites for all the economically lucrative content, leaving only the hard news for the newspaper. And the newspapers can't really get people to pay for it, because most news stories are a commodity (it is the same story everywhere).

Re: Safari 5

#62

Post by ahk »

friism wrote: post #2

I work for a large newspaper, and we're not very amused by the built-in "Reader" (removes ads and crud, like Readability): http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html ... for users, it looks like a good feature though.

I wonder if that's an indirect attack on Google. Very nice feature though.

Re: Safari 5

#63

Post by adw »

rimantas wrote: post #35
sandGorgon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also want to present the counter viewppoint - http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... Newspapers were dying because nobody wanted to pay for news, which they could get for free at Google News. Newspapers were told to suck it up and instead move online - to an ad supported model. No more ads. I dont think the newspapers are the bad guy here.

You don't pay for the news when you buy physical newspaper, you buy for distribution. Newspapers get money from advertisers, online or offline. The problem with online is that many are used to get commodity news for free. Anyway, ads suck (mostly). Newspapers who care first about advertisers (at the expense of readers) suck too and deserve do die, IMHO.

This +lots.

http://marcreeves.blogspot.com/2010/06/speaking-truth-to-pow... (excellent post I stumbled across the other day.)

Re: Safari 5

#64

Post by Terretta »

JeffJenkins wrote: post #30
mbateman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also automagically displays the text of the article in one page, despite the obnoxious effort of a site to require you to click through to multiple pages to read a single article. As far as I can tell, the point of splitting an article into more than one page was just more ad exposure. So it's a double whammy: graying out and background the ads, and decreasing the number of ad-ridden pages one needs to read the ar…

I actually like multiple pages. I find reading some of the longer (8ish page) NY Times or The Atlantic articles difficult when it's just one enormous piece of text. I like that it's broken down into small chunks, and it offers a convenient place to stop if I don't have time for the full article. I also don't like it when people here link to Print View instead of the main article page. Partly for that reason, and part…

Set your margins the way you like them:

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

Design the page for you, not for the ads.

Re: Safari 5

#65

Post by Terretta »

ck2 wrote: post #16
masklinn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who deletes something without a warning/permission in this age? Without warning or permission? You asked it to upgrade your Safari installation, it upgraded from 4 to 5, what were you expecting exactly?

No, I told it to install into another directory. I specifically changed the folder and it confirmed it. Son-of-a-bee that makes me mad.

Nice thing is you click the clock logo in your menu bar, "Enter Time Machine", and drag your Safari 4 icon from an hour ago right back where you want it.

// EDIT: I see below you mention MSIEXEC. So never mind.

Re: Safari 5

#66

Post by jgranby »

ptomato wrote: post #47
m_eiman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't be very to hard to generate a list of running apps that link against the updated libs and ask the user for permission to restart them... Or let the user ignore it at own peril.

Almost everything is (potentially) linked against WebKit (At least judging by how broken my system when a rogue rogue flash plugin broke webkit.). Certainly Finder, for example. It could just get away with enforcing log off/log on again, but if multiple users are logged in it is probably simpler just to restart. "Ignoring at their own peril" will almost certainly result in horrible crashes.

Sparkle (the update framework) uses WebKit, so everything that uses Sparkle links against it.

Re: Safari 5

#67

Post by olegk »

Sunspider benchmark (Win XP, dual core machine):

Opera (v10.53): 299.8ms +/- 1.0%

Safari (v5): 314.2ms +/- 1.7%

Chrome (v5.0.375.55): 326.6ms +/- 7.9%

Firefox (v3.6.3): 716.4ms +/- 1.7%

Re: Safari 5

#68

Post by logic »

friism wrote: post #2

I work for a large newspaper, and we're not very amused by the built-in "Reader" (removes ads and crud, like Readability): http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html ... for users, it looks like a good feature though.

At the risk of parroting a good chunk of other folks here: your employer's business model is dead.

My personal suspicion is that we're moving quickly toward a world dominated by local newsrooms covering local stories (with international distribution), rather than large international news organizations and centralized reporting. Add in a few companies (some traditional, some not: Reuters, Google, et al) surviving as international news aggregators and licensing hubs (perhaps similar to an MPEG-LA model).

However, none of this plays out well for organizations like the New York Times or other large traditional print companies. "Be flexible."

Re: Safari 5

#70

Post by chc »

ThomPete wrote: post #48
dhotson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that twitter and citizen journalism have shown themselves to be quite capable of disseminating information and news. It's still not quite the same as reading a well written, unbiased, in-depth analysis of a story in The Economist or The New York Times (or even Al Jazeera). Sure, there's a large market for "news-tainment". But I think there's also a market for high quality journalism. I'm also tipping that peo…

I too love well written articles. But it is unlikely a big enough market to entertain that many newspapers. I do however have quibbles with the idea of unbiased journalism. Personally I prefer highly opinionated pieces, but that's another discussion :)

This is a distressingly common sentiment these days. I can't think of any good reason to prefer opinionated screeds to well-balanced factual analysis. Very often it boils down to "I don't have confidence in news stories to have a 100% optimal distribution and analysis of the facts, so I've decided it's not even worth pursuing the truth."
Post reply on HN