

Call to action: Deceptive marketing of Safari 4 - teej
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=267815

======
poub
Apple always had an arrogant marketing. It’s part of their DNA. Especially
when they merely catch up with their competitors they claim to be the first,
the fastest and the best.

This make sometimes difficult to understand when they truly innovate.

(The Powermac G4 at 400Mhz was supposed to be a “super computer”)

Anyways as long as Webkit is gaining users, it will also benefit to Firefox
and Opera (and vice-versa).

~~~
unalone
The magic of Apple, of course, is that on many occasions they catch up, but
they integrate their features so neatly that using their product you _do_ feel
like they've done something for the very first time. I've found myself getting
thrilled about features Apple adds that I've had on other systems for a while,
because they very often get them _just right_ in ways that other operating
systems and companies don't.

Dashboard and Spaces, for instance, both excited me a lot when I first got to
use them, and in Space's case when they first got announced. I'd been using
Ubuntu at the time, and I had both widgets and multiple desktops, but it was
different. With the Apple system, it feels right visually and in effect. The
way widgets spin around when you use them, the small thing like the clock
turning into a calendar when you click it, in Dashboard. With Spaces, the way
your windows visually flew around, and the way you could zoom out and see the
little cubbies.

I'll get flack for saying it, but it just happened with Safari 4 and tabs. For
the first time, they _make sense_ where they are. I run Safari with minimal
chrome, and now the tabs ARE the window bar. And that _makes sense!_ These
tabs are effectively multiple windows stacked into a single space. It suddenly
fits perfectly how they're displayed. Safari 4 has problems with the specifics
of how the tabs go, but for the first time it makes sense where they appear
visually.

That's why I love Apple's marketing: because it's so excitingly arrogant. No
matter what they've got, they talk about it like it's magic and new, and I
love that in commercials. No people going "Oh! This is so exciting to me!".
They just take it for granted that you'd better like what they're talking
about. It's more fun to see commercials like that. (I _adore_ the iPhone app
ads, with the "Things have changed forever" slogan, for that particular
reason.)

~~~
sunkencity
I agree, but howerver spaces is the one exception, it's totally useless
compared to a really working virtual desktop like gnome, kde, or even better
wmii. I could never get over the fact that spaces magically throws you around
between desktops when klicking on program icons, and is totally opinionated on
on which spaces to start program windows.

~~~
unalone
It uses a different philosophy than the other space managers. It's all about
trying to emulate physical space. I like that a lot: I don't use enough
windows in a day for it to be necessary, but that's the philosophical concept
that makes the most sense to me.

------
alain94040
I read the article. Most of the claims are not outrageous. In one place, Apple
marketing says "the first _popular_ browser to support..." which, in marketing
terms, is meant to rule out Opera. So the claim is technically accurate,
slightly misleading, but nothing out of the ordinary for marketing.

Where I think the article is misguided, is that you don't fight marketing with
engineering. I mean you can try, but then your only receptive audience are
computer geeks.

Of the general population using Safari, IE, and so on, how many care about the
exact date, time and seconds when a feature was announced or released by
Opera? That's my point. I'm a big fan of being perfectly accurate, but I'm
smart enough to know that it's not enough to win in the real world.

Which goes back to one of my favorite topics: if only open source had decent
marketing...

~~~
whacked_new
Seems like an issue of business ethics. It is internally inconsistent to
endorse a company because they claim to have green products and green
policies, but at the same time are known to throw hyperboles left and right.
"But it's standard marketing..." is applying conveniently different strictness
to different statements from the same company.

The hypocrisy runs deep, everywhere, but many customers are either unaware of
it, or pretend it doesn't exist. Marketing is marketing, but it is very
dangerous when many people have broken BS filters, and worse, willfully so. I
for one appreciate this kind of obsessive nitpicking when available.

The entire problem here, and the one you point out about OSS, rests on
education :-) More educators please!

~~~
unalone
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with you entirely. Marketing is not
about displaying facts. I'd love it to be about being brutally honest with
your product, but if that's how it was then there would be no need for
marketing. Instead, marketing is about conveying what you want to convey
quickly and without crap. Apple's point is, "Here are our new things. They're
really cool." Anything outside of that you've got to implicitly understand is
there just for spectacle, and in Apple's case I forgive them entirely, because
they're so good at making commercials and ads.

Know what kind of marketing I _hate_? The sort where you put smiling faces all
over and add peripheral features and say "We're a community of happy people,"
or "We give you an experience", or that use things like ridiculous swooshes
and gradients to look nice. Know who does that? Opera Opera Opera. They show
smiling users, and their site's all about swooshes and gradients.

And it pisses me off more that Opera is so arrogant about being the first,
because _guess who they're blatantly stealing from?_ Apple! Their front page's
Latest News aesthetic is ripped directly from Apple's front page. Their layout
for browser features on their browser page? That's new: it used to be columns
until Apple started their "3-column new features" method of advertising. Their
"three snappy words for a product" is taken from Apple. Their font is Myriad
Pro, for fuck's sake. Only they don't rip _right_ from Apple, because Apple's
schtick is "We show you our product and make that product beautiful enough to
market itself", and Opera can't do that. (Maybe now that Hicks is on Opera's
team, they can start - I'd love that, since I prefer Opera and their marketing
to the browser and marketing of Mozilla - remember that "promotes openness"
checkbox on the Firefox vs. Safari page? I do.)

As I said in another comment, at least Apple is honest about their marketing.
Their marketing is very blatantly so, and they keep it a point to maintain
some integrity: all they talk about are their features. Opera doesn't do that.
Most companies don't. As a result, Apple's ads come across every time as
refreshing and new, and they don't try to convince you with features that
aren't really there. I'm fine with that.

~~~
cosmo7
To be cynical, all marketing is untrue. If it was true then they wouldn't have
to tell you otherwise.

Try listening to advertising and considering how plausible the _exact
opposite_ of what they say is. You'll be surprised.

~~~
unalone
Not untrue so much as inconsequential. Dave Barry wrote about this pretty
famously: if Coke and Pepsi advertise how much better they taste, it's because
they taste the same. If a shampoo company markets its special herb, that herb
means nothing.

Apple's one of those rare companies that doesn't necessarily do that, because
very often they've got something worth getting. I love their commercials where
it's just a song and their product lying there, like the Macbook Air and the
iMac commercials, because those are the ads where they _don't_ have much to
say, so they focus on the sheer beauty of their products. When they _do_ have
something big, the ads are incredible. I still love watching the old iPod ads.
Incredible clips.

------
charlesju
Opera,

How about you stop whining about how Apple advertises and just produce a
superior product?

~~~
TomOfTTB
Probably a harsher tone than you needed to take but I do agree. It often seems
like Opera's marketing strategy is to scream "me too!" every time one of the
more popular browsers does something.

Bottom line: Even though they're right about Apple being a little misleading
the sour grapes/call to arms strategy makes me less inclined to try Opera not
more.

If they really felt the need to do something they should have taken it with
good humor and then turned it into a marketing pitch by extolling their
products virtues.

~~~
Frenzie
Take a look at Opera's history[1]. Screaming "me too" is like Internet
Explorer (and Safari) adding tabs and touting it as a feature. There is no "me
too" in first. And either way, users are NOT working for Opera ASA. You think
Apple's OFFICIAL false claims are just fine and a few Opera users who don't
like these false claims make you want to try Opera less?

[1] <http://www.opera.com/docs/history/>

------
bonaldi
I've got a soft spot for Opera, but while they're getting whipped at
Javascript speed and the UI is, er, characterful, I'm not sure I care who came
first with Auto-Click.

Also, I don't know if the guys in thread noticed that drlaunch's "rebuttals"
all mostly support Apple's claims. Does he not know that Webkit was extracted
out of, and in certain contexts is wholly synoymous with, Safari?

------
anatoli
Meh, some of these are true... especially Acid 3. (Depends on whether you
consider safari == webkit and if you count Chrome.)

Afaik, Opera still hasn't released a public version of their browser that
passes Acid 3 fully (including speed). Although I know Opera 10 does.

~~~
andrewl-hn
That whole situation with ACID 3 is very unclear to me. That 'smooth
animation' requirement makes thing so complected. For example I can run Safari
4 beta on a very slow machine and technically it won;t pass the test. Or I
could find a very fast computer and run Opera 10 alpha to pass it. So...

I would just list a chain of events. But I will say explicitly about browsers
& rendering engines and scoring 100/100 & 'fully pass'

Last spring:

1\. Opera announced that they have scored 100/100 on some internal build.

2\. They released a build on labs.opera.com

3\. WebKit team found an error in one of the tests and it was changed. Opera's
build score went down to 99/100

4\. WebKit released a public build

During the summer:

5\. WebKit released the first build to 'fully pass' the test (100/100 + smooth
animation).

Last December:

6\. Opera released 10 alpha - technically it is the first publicly available
preview release of the Browser to score 100/100 (as opposed to a rendering
engine)

This February:

7\. Apple released Safari 4 beta - technically it is the first publicly
available preview release of the Browser to fully pass ACID 3 (100/100 +
smooth animation)

As I see both companies can advertise their achievement:

Opera 10 alpha - the first browser to score 100/100 on ACID 3

Safari 4 beta - the first browser to fully pass ACID 3

The thing is that both claims are True! :)

But that doesn't mean that other Apple or Opera claims are legitimate. As for
browser popularity it depends from country to country especially in Opera
case. There are even countries where Opera is the most popular browser.

~~~
anatoli
> There are even countries where Opera is the most popular browser.

I'm having a hard time believing this. Any stats?

> For example I can run Safari 4 beta on a very slow machine and technically
> it won;t pass the test.

Hixie, who's pretty much the guy behind the whole test-suite and the authority
on Acid 3, said that the reference machine is MacBook Pro. So, no, you
couldn't run it on a slow machine and say it doesn't pass, because that's not
the machine it has to pass on. :)

~~~
andrewl-hn
> I'm having a hard time believing this. Any stats?

Belarus (or Byelorussia) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus> Stats:
[http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=by;pe...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=by;period=month)

Ukraine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine> Stats:
[http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ukr;p...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ukr;period=month)

Opera is more popular than Firefox in Russia
[http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ru;pe...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ru;period=month)

It's interesting that Russian Google users prefer Firefox, though
[http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=Googl...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=Google;period=month)

As a bottom line: worldwide market share doesn't mean anything. Even if you
don't support some browser with a 0.1% share then you stop supporting millions
of people and leave them upset.

But you shouldn't think about smaller browsers. Pick a good tools like jQuery
(which replaced all browser sniffing code with feature detection) and provide
a fallback (like GMail basic or Y!Mail Classic) and you should be fine :)

And don't leave IE 8 f*cked up: never use 'if IE' conditional comments. Check
for a specific versions instead like 'if lte IE 7'. Give them a chance.

> the reference machine is MacBook Pro

Didn't know that, sorry. As I said I seems just too complicated to me :)

------
daflip
Speaking of Safari, it really annoys me that the Apple software updater always
wants to "update" my Safari install (even thou Safari is not installed.)

Am I the only one who finds this incredibly irritating?

~~~
dmix
I find that annoying as well but 99% of OSX users probably keep it installed
so its probably not a top priority at Apple.

~~~
wayne
Yeah, but probably 1% of Windows Quicktime and Windows iTunes users do.

~~~
unalone
Apple is a pain in the ass if you don't play by their rules. Using Quicktime
on Windows is painful, and iTunes isn't much better. It's their one major
falling-out as a company, though I can forgive them as long as I'm not using
Windows at the moment.

------
jacobian
I'm a bit confused: what form of "action," exactly, would Opera like us to
take here?

That sounded snarky and sarcastic, but I'm really not sure what a public
debunking of ad copy is supposed to do? Rockports don't actually "make me feel
like walking," there are quite a few "other white meats" besides pork, and
Apple is advertising their own products.

What, exactly, is supposed to happen next here?

~~~
fearphage
The action is to document the lies that Apple is spreading.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fearphage/sandbox/Deceptiv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fearphage/sandbox/Deceptive_Safari_4_marketing)

------
axod
Depends if you allow safari==webkit.

~~~
fearphage
Why would you allow the rendering engine to be used interchangeably with the
browser?

Even if you allow for this bending of the facts, it would mean CHROME was
first in a lot of things (Acid3 for instance) and not Safari. They are both
based on the webkit engine.

~~~
Zev
Because WebKit releases nightlies titled "WebKit.app" that people can download
and run as a standalone app.

------
TweedHeads
Call to action? They are overreacting to some commonly used marketing
techniques.

The fastest computer ever. The safest web browser ever. The greenest car ever.

We've heard it before, we'll hear it again in the future.

------
ahoyhere
It's better to take it in the spirit of challenge rather than waste god knows
how many man-hours tirelessly documenting "The Great Feature Train Robbery" or
whatever somebody titled the Digg submission.

