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

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Safari 5

#31

Post by albertzeyer »

ck2 wrote: post #12

ARGH !!! It DELETED my Safari 4 even when I put it into another directory ??!! Who deletes something automatically without a warning/permission these days? Any sign of a portable/virtualized version yet? Or too soon?

You can also download a lot of different WebKit builds here: http://nightly.webkit.org/builds/trunk/mac/1

It should be possible to use them all side by side.

Those builds should be very similar to Safari. Not exactly sure about the difference. I didn't saw any when I tried last time (a year ago or so).

Re: Safari 5

#32

Post by kmfrk »

masklinn wrote: post #14
kmfrk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an annoying habit of linking to the print version of articles, regardless of the look of the site and article, though.

Because non-print versions kinda blow. Spanning a single article over 10 pages with a few dozen words per page just so you can get 10 times the ad impression is not acceptable.

Some do. Spanning an article over 10 pages is fine as long as you offer a single-page view like nytimes does. Unfortunately some don't offer this.

Re: Safari 5

#33

Post by kmfrk »

FluidDjango wrote: post #10
kmfrk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an annoying habit of linking to the print version of articles, regardless of the look of the site and article, though.

Well, Safari5 Reader's approach may make that feel less necessary - since one can easily click in and out of Reader-view. And an advantage (as I test-drive it) is that turning the Reader-view on/off for a given article is almost instantaneous: whereas with Readability to move _out_ of Readability-View involves _reloading_ the entire page (which I find annoyingly slow on pages like TechCrunch, RWW, etc where there are…

It's a trend that has to be fought---if "fought" is the right word. I assume Instapaper has a lot to do with this trend.

Re: Safari 5

#34

Post by ThomPete »

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.

Newspapers are dying because they are staffed to heavily, not because people don't pay.

Now look at smaller publications such as Gawker, hyper local news. They are doing just fine.

Wired sold almost as many iPad versions (75.000 at 5USD a pop) as they did paper version since they launched it. Thats excluding advertising.

Clearly there is a market for news. It's just not going to be of the NYT kind.

Re: Safari 5

#35

Post by rimantas »

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.

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.

Re: Safari 5

#36

Post by gscott »

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.

They will just have to move to putting the ads into the article copy.

Re: Safari 5

#37

Post by al_james »

mbateman wrote: post #19
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.

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…

Wow... I wonder how that works. 'next' and 'previous' links?

Re: Safari 5

#38

Post by al_james »

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.

"Big newspapers" are not getting the returns from online advertising because they are lazy. The days of 'fire and forget' advertising where you stick a few banners and google ads on a what the money roll in are gone.

You need to find ways to bring your advertiser's products to the attention of your readers in a way that is both useful and interesting.

Re: Safari 5

#39

Post by al_james »

joshuamarch wrote: post #28

I love how fast Safari 5 is (faster than Chrome for me) - but the UI of Chrome just makes browsing and navigation much, much better (auto hiding everything you don't need, combining URL and search bar etc). Apple should have learned from Chrome, it's superior.

Yes, the first thing I did when trying Safari 5 was try to type a google search in the main address bar.

Its funny how quickly Chrome has reprogrammed me.

Re: Safari 5

#40

Post by masklinn »

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.

> I dont think the newspapers are the bad guy here.

It's not about good or bad guys here, it's about a business model being deprecated by technology. And part of the web's technology is that the user agent decides of everything. Including not displaying ads if it doesn't want to. Or reformatting layout. Or even displaying nothing at all and only voicing the text.

Welcome to the future, your business model is dead or dying, you might or might not survive but your model can not and will not. Unless you manage to stop the march of progress.

Post reply on HN