“Safari’s weak market position allows for Google to make bold moves, as evidenced by their recent discontinuation of h.264 support within their Chrome browser in favor of its WebM video codec,” Reschke reports. “While this isn’t a direct affront to iTunes or Safari, it is an attempt to further alienate the iOS platform, which also damages Safari.”
Reschke reports, “It is believed that Safari will be the only browser able to access iTunes, as iTunes is built into the browser itself. ‘Moving iTunes organizational side-bar into Safari isn’t a monumental task’ claimed a source, adding ‘Safari would skyrocket in use as a result of integrating the software titles together.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Safarunes?
iTari?
Cool!
Time for Google to pay the price for there actions. If not they will take over the web. We need Apple to makes things right. Microsoft just does not seem to care even though they are loosing IE market share. Google is evil. Eric T Mole is the leader.
To consider this move is brilliant yet lacking in sheer complacency.
Seems like a weird idea, and frankly I doubt this rumor is even true.
Still, I’m sure Apple can use the release of this rumor to track down some information leakers among their ranks…
Bearman341
You are right…Google is evil. Never trust them…ever.
“We are highly skeptical of the claim for a number of reasons, including significant reservations due to the rumor’s source, which has in the past appeared to base its claims on significant amounts of speculation.“
“Sounds eerily similar to how Microsoft used to behave. I wonder if people will have similar outrage to this? But since it’s Apple, probably not…”
This is like screaming “IMMA TROLL. I LIEK TO ANNOY PEEPLE”
Apple is frequently targeted with “EVIL” BS, when in fact Google is even closer than Microsoft from representing the ultimate evil company
@lukesmymac
The original poster was correct. Forcing users to use Safari to access what is now the world’s leading content store is questionable. Admittedly the comparison with Micro$oft is not quite apposite, since Safari is a free download, but it would certainly draw scrutiny that Apple may prefer to avoid. So I don’t see it happening.
Having said that, it’s a bloated mess right now that needs fixing. iTunes with books, apps and iPhone support doesn’t make sense. I envisage a suite of 2 or 3 programs, one for device content management and one for commerce and library management, with a common database. But who knows…
This is total hogwash. It’s not going to happen. It makes no sense.
1) Consider how many apps Apple bundles, yet keeps segregated into different apps (see iLife, iWork, Mail, iCal, etc…). This really isn’t an Apple way of doing things.
2) There’s no “browser market share” benefit to doing this. What counts for browser market share statistics is actual use of the browser. If people are using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or IE instead of Safari now, why would they start surfing with Safari simply because iTunes is part of it?
3) It’s likely people would stop surfing with Safari if it one with iTunes. People need to use browsers for work related tasks or tasks where reliability is important (purchases, etc…), they don’t want their browser to freeze up, crash, or bog down because of an issue with syncing with their iOS device.
4) It’s adding to the biggest complaint about iTunes…bloat and subsequently speed…and then extending that to Safari. Apple makes money from what iTunes enables. iTunes is friggin’ gold, not to be messed with. Safari is a “nice to have” that has no direct revenue associated with it.
5) iTunes functionality could be added to Safari…though I still don’t see much of a need for this. As it is, the iTunes store recently added and has been improving its web presence. If anything, I could see Apple enabling more of the iTunes store from within Safari, but that’s different from integrating the iTunes app into Safari. This makes even more sense with the App Store.
@Harry
“Safarunes?
iTari?”
Perhaps a version could be cracked to allow illegal downloads and it could be called AyeTari or ArrrrghTari.
Complaint about iTunes is that it’s bloated because it tries to deliver too much content in the narrow confines of how it was defined 9 years ago. Flip that on its head – iTunes is a browser with content limited to music, videos, apps and books. All of which you can find, but not one click purchase, on any other, less limited browser. Now, add one click purchase to safari. So safari subsumes the purchase mechanic of iTunes. Not saying it’s going to happen, just pointing out bloat is defined by perception of the software’s initial purpose, not its actual realisation.
Also, arses.
iTunes is already a specialized web browser. iTunes is probably being rewritten from the ground up. The next major version probably won’t even be called “iTunes,” since its functionality has surpassed that old name from the Mac OS 9 “digital jukebox” days. It should be called something like “Apple Central” or “iHub.”
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
BAD idea Apple if true….
For me, iTunes is a very capable and flexible way to manage music libraries of almost any size. I don’t want or need it to be more than that, and merging iTunes with Safari sounds like a terrible idea to me. Almost as bad as removing the Home button from the iPhone!
I don’t see the problem. If they integrate Safari into iTunes then this will great.
If Apple should buy anything, I’ll vote for Adobe. Next order of business would be to put out an End-Of-Life notice for Flash and stop all development cold in its tracks. 2nd order of business would be to put the Windows development team (now consisting of 2 engineers) into their new office out in the woodshed, and transfer all others to the Mac team.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
Fail to see the need for this. Safari and iTunes
work well as presently formulated.
The author has ho sense of history or legal ramifications from doing this, ergo he’s an idiot looking for hits.
MSFT was sued by the DOJ for bundling IE with Windows, then making it near impossible to use any other browser. Merging iTunes with Safari, then denying any other browser to access iTunes, is exactly the same OFFENSE.
“This is total hogwash. It’s not going to happen. It makes no sense.
1) Consider how many apps Apple bundles, yet keeps segregated into different apps (see iLife, iWork, Mail, iCal, etc…). This really isn’t an Apple way of doing things.
2) There’s no “browser market share” benefit to doing this. What counts for browser market share statistics is actual use of the browser. If people are using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or IE instead of Safari now, why would they start surfing with Safari simply because iTunes is part of it?
3) It’s likely people would stop surfing with Safari if it one with iTunes. People need to use browsers for work related tasks or tasks where reliability is important (purchases, etc…), they don’t want their browser to freeze up, crash, or bog down because of an issue with syncing with their iOS device.
4) It’s adding to the biggest complaint about iTunes…bloat and subsequently speed…and then extending that to Safari. Apple makes money from what iTunes enables. iTunes is friggin’ gold, not to be messed with. Safari is a “nice to have” that has no direct revenue associated with it.
5) iTunes functionality could be added to Safari…though I still don’t see much of a need for this. As it is, the iTunes store recently added and has been improving its web presence. If anything, I could see Apple enabling more of the iTunes store from within Safari, but that’s different from integrating the iTunes app into Safari. This makes even more sense with the App Store.”
Perfect way to ensure Safari *loses* more ground to other browsers.
What next, incorporate Address Book, iCal and iWeb? Netscape anyone? 🙁
What a total crock-o-shit.
iTunes is already a bit bloated, so what would be the point of smooshing it and Safari together?
Why on earth would anyone merge a media player-management-store application with a browser?
This probably originates from some dark, stinky, Apple-hating corner of some mom’s basement.
you’v got to be kiding me!!!
THE GUY WHO WROTE THIS WAS AN IDIOT WHO KNOWS VERRY LITTLE ABOUT WHAT HESS TALKING ABOUT!!
now I could see them putting the store in safari, and having you get music that way. but he said “…Moving iTunes organizational side-bar into Safari …”
um no
firstly, puting sidebars on webrowsers (and almost anything else) is ugly and a flat out bad idea (it reminds me of midnight commander, bleh)
secondly, apple does a pretty good job of keeping the jobs of applications separate but very well integrated.
it would take a short after noon of work to make you use safari for store purchases and to support playing audio in your library from webpages, in fact the second one can be done in just a few lines of applescript.
or they could take two aleardy large applications and make one slow large ugly application out of it. but that doesn’t “just work” and so apple probably won’t