RSSSafari on iPhone gets competition from a $1 browser app
By Paul Hartsock, MacNewsWorld | Published November 24, 2009, 12:59 PM
If you search for "browser" in the App Store, you'll get dozens of applications, each purporting to be an alternative to the iPhone and iPod touch's built-in Safari browser. In a sense, they are alternatives, since they look different and might have a few unique features. But they're really all Safari underneath -- Apple will only approve browsers that are basically built with Safari guts using a reworked user interface.
On the down side, this means we won't be seeing alternative browsers from the likes of Mozilla or Opera any time soon, and there's no official challenger to Safari in terms of speed or compatibility with various Web standards.
On the plus side, since they're all Safari at heart, all these browsers should be just as able to navigate the Web at large as Safari itself, and considering how poorly some other mobile browsers do that, that's not a very painful limitation. Safari tackles most non-Flash pages just fine, and any site specifically optimized to work on mobile Safari should work on these alternate browsers in terms of audio, video, interaction, etc.
So what's in an interface? Some Safari alternatives can be pretty gimmicky, but one called "Full Browser" makes a few simple and sensible improvements that bring more of a desktop feel to the iPhone.
More space, more functions
Full Browser earns its name not just by giving you a few more features common to full desktop browsers, but also by sweeping all its control panels off the screen and giving you a full-framed image of the page you're looking at. With just 3.5 inches of screen to work with, every last bit of surface area counts. If you don't really need to know things like time, network availability and battery life, and you don't need a set of navigation controls at the bottom, FullBrowser will take those away and let you see slightly more of the Web page you're on. Tapping a very small shaded region at the bottom of the screen pulls up the control.
Along the top of the control panel, you get the familiar URL bar, a Google search bar (it stays Google even if your Safari search default is Yahoo), and a menu button. The drop-down menu gives you options like clearing cookies, mailing a link, editing your bookmarks and opening a link in Safari proper. The second row of top control panel buttons contains your tabs. These are arranged much in the same way desktop tabs are laid out -- hit "+" to open a new one, press "x" to get rid of the one you're on, and swipe left and right to move through them if you have a lot open.
Along the bottom, you have controls for searching the page for a word, calling up a grid layout for all the tabs you have open, adding the site you're on as a bookmark, forward/back/reload, and hiding the control panel for a full-screen page view.
Text search found
For me, Full Browser's biggest benefit is its text search capability. This is something I use all the time on a desktop browser, and I miss it when using mobile Safari. The way it works here is similar to the way it works in Firefox.
It's pretty subjective, but I also like the tabbing system in Full Browser better than Safari's sort-of playing-card system of keeping several pages open. FB's just reminds me more of a regular browser, and I seem to be able to navigate it faster.
Another nice feature Full Browser has is Hot Spots. You can assign the corners of the screen to perform a specific function (like scroll to top, show all tabs, text search, etc.) when you tap them as you view a page in full-screen mode. If that sounds like it'd get in the way, you can turn it off.
Finally, there's Speed Dial, a function that will show you a grid of your bookmarked pages when you open the browser. Like Hot Spots, this can be deactivated.
Odd quirks
Despite FB's virtues, some weird behaviors popped up.
When I held the phone in landscape mode and hit the bottom bar to see the control panel, it comes up displayed horizontally across the screen, as expected. But when I touched the URL bar to input an address, the virtual keypad sometimes comes up sideways, in portrait mode. Not exactly hard to fix that yourself, though -- just try again, or, I dunno, turn the thing sideways.
In addition, it seemed as though the bottom bar wouldn't work on a few occasions. It wasn't often, but no bottom bar means no controls, so you're pretty much stuck. The bar's also sort of small, so if you have sausage fingers it's easy to miss it and instead click a link lying near it.
I also get a strange error whenever I accessed online media like video or audio: "Operation could not be completed (WebkitErrorDomain error 204)." After I hit "OK," the media played just fine. This message does not come up when I access the same media through Safari.
Bottom line
When it first arrived in 2007, Safari on iPhone made every other smartphone browser in the world look hideous by comparison, and though it's changed only a little since then, it still easily holds its own.
Safari's features are still very basic compared to a desktop browser's, and that's probably always going to be the case, considering that a phone is just too small to do everything a desktop does. Although Full Browser hits a hiccup now and then, and although it certainly doesn't have all the functions of a real full desktop browser, things like text search and a familiar tab layout make it well worth a buck.
Originally published on MacNewsWorld
© 2009 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
© 2009 BetaNews.com. All rights reserved.
Did you download Full Browser to your phone and you liked it so much (because it wasn't Apple's default Safari), you thought you'd write an article about it? Because this reads to me like a promo for Full Browser. This is not an objective article in any way whatsoever as it doesn't mention any other browsers. This article implies that Full Browser is the predominant alternative browser for the iPhone which is a load of bull. I have an alternative browser on my phone and it's not Full Browser and there are other browsers, as you say. To make this objective you should have done some sort of comparrison, but as usual the level of journalism on this site is low.
Score: 0
|I'm confused why MS gets sued because of Internet Explorer's dominance (even though other browsers were allowed to run on Windows), yet Apple is allowed to keep competitor's browsers from running.
Score: 0
|Having a monopoly isn't illegal; abusing it is. Microsoft used their monopoly (on a certain Intel-based OS you're probably familiar with) to gain another monopoly (in the Web-browser arena with a certain browser you might also know). They were sued because it was argued that this unfairly hurt competitors such as Netscape and effectively gave Microsoft dominance in the "browser wars."
The situation is further complicated by the fact that MS was investigated (twice!) in the early 90's for potentially abusing its monopoly in the PC OS market. The second time, they settled and agreed not to bundle any additional MS products with the OS (but were free to add new "features"). Part of the question, then, was whether IE was a "product" or a "feature." Also, IE is only part of the story--you may recall similar problems with Sun/Java, among other companies/products. Also, Microsoft's dishonesty during the trial really didn't help their case...
In short, the issues are completely different because Apple does not have a monopoly. It is *their* software running on *their* hardware, and there are dozens (if not hundreds) of other smart phones or music players to choose from. Additionally, Safari has always been included with iPod touch/iPhone OS--there's no way you could argue they started doing it to edge out competition.
Score: 1
|actually you could argue this. internet explorer has always been included with windows true, however there was no restriction on someone using another browser with a different engine, nor did microsoft actively deny users from running other browsers or windows refuse to run them. apple is doing all three.
you cannot claim that microsoft is a monopoly when they did not nor are actively denying another browser to run on any of its software, but apple is. to run different software, you need a different set of hardware, hardware that is not an itouch/phone. and really apple doesn't help their case either claiming duplicate functionality to deny some apps while allowing others that not only had duplicate functionality with some default itouch/phone apps but duplicate functionality with some developed apps. they can't have it both ways.
Score: 0
|It is undeniable that Microsoft had a monopoly (if you don't agree, you either don't know what one is, are unaware of Microsoft's situation in the 90's, or have some knowledge that several courts do not)--but this is not illegal per se. What *is* illegal is abusing this power, which Microsoft allegedly did. (IE, by the way, has *not* always been included with Windows. I'm assuming that's a typo in your post; otherwise, you'll need to revise your conclusions based on this flawed assumption.)
I'm not sure anyone can make a convincing argument that Apple should be regulated regarding what they can and can't for for their *own* OS running on their *own* hardware in a market with tons of competition. Microsoft was different because, in addition to having a previous ruling against them that forbade exactly this (assuming "this" is a "program" and not a "feature"), Microsoft dominated the PC OS market to such an extent that there was effectively no competition. They used their position in this market to crush competition in another; Apple has done no such thing.
Also, keep in mind that browsers in the past are different from what they are today--you had to PAY for most of them (even IE before it was included with Windows). This is why it hurt their competition so much; it wasn't just a game of market-share numbers.
Score: 1
|Oh, c'mon. MSFT got spanked because they built the browser core into the OS.. or that's what the lawyers wanted to sue on.
Nevermind that core technologies are builtin all the time on Mac, Win and Linux.
MSFT was amazingly stupid about how they went about defending themselves; and the rest is history.
And most lawyers STILL don't have a clue about OS platform issues.
The other deal is that Apple is a hardware vendor. They own the plaform from end to end.
Microsoft's actions influence(d) multiple vendors and geos. Apple just has to comply with the geos it wants to sell in and there are alternatives... like MSFT.
Score: 0
|I had to temporarily remove 15% of my brain to understand how you didn't understand what I was saying...
I'll make it short for you: I never said changing a piece of hardware on an activated machine would require reactivation, neither on OEM or RETAIL versions. I said, very specifically, that any secret MS process can do a hardware hash on your machine, report it to Microsoft, and EASILY catch you as a pirate by KNOWING YOUR HARDWARE ISN'T MATCHING WITH REGISTERED OWNERS OF SAME OEM LICENSE, ALL OF WHOM HAVE THE EXACT HARDWARE HASH (except for the occasional video card change or other minor change as NOTED).
WHO CARES IF THE MOTHERBOARD GETS CHANGED AND YOUR WINDOWS STILL *APPEARS* TO YOU AS ACTIVATED? ARE YOU *THAT* RETARDED TO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE..UNKNOWN-TO-YOU..EXE CAN REPORT YOUR REAL HARDWARE HASH TO MICROSOFT? JESUS CHRISTA FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE ALBERT EINSTEIN ON A VISIT TO ARKANSAS FARMERS...
(in response to yountmj from
http://www.betanews.com/...book-problem/1257874764
..couldn't post there due to anti-spam time limits..apparently)
Score: -5
|It's Apples OS and they can control the whole thing.. Even if they own market share..
Score: -2
|They can try to control. They'll fail miserably. The #1 reason why Microsoft is so powerful is because they made security #2, after user freedom to choose hardware (even crappiest, totally unstable) and software (even toolbar, adware, most inefficient, useless). Eventually MS users grew a brain (you gotta be able to grow a brain after formatting your machine 5 times) and LEARN WHAT TO BUY (HARDWARE) AND INSTALL (SOFTWARE). But Apple..no..Apple knows better for you. And they do, indeed, know better for the Apple blind followers -- that tiny market segment that go by propaganda rather than reality. Personally I couldn't care less since competition is good, as long as it's extremely lame competition (like today) that doesn't cause major compatibility issues in the biz world (one standard there - MS Office) and in the personal world (IM's, music/video formats, etc).
Score: 0
|putting lipstick on a pig. you still have a pig, it just looks slightly better.
until the iphone/itouch has a legitimate competitor to safari, with its own rendering engine or even flash capability, every browser is just a skinned verison of safari with slight enhancements and there are better mobile alternatives out there.
and speaking of which, why haven't all of these browsers been pulled for duplicate functionality of the built in default web browser?
Score: 4
|Why wasn't it pulled? Hmmm... maybe because Apple, the biggest thieves IN THE WORLD want AN UNFAIR CUT OF DEVELOPERS' MONEY? They're reselling you air basically. A free product (browser).
Maybe an interesting article would be how much money Apple is making ON THE POOR BACKS of their iPhone developers... like percentage etc... THAT IS WHY Microsoft will totally kill them (again). This time, though, I hope they don't resuscitate and let Google eat that crapfood. At least then Google will have a real OS hehehehe
Score: -2
|You're using their resources (the App Store) to distribute your application, and you used their resources and and products (the iPhone SDK) to create your application. Leaving aside how much, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to take a percentage of sales (a fairly common practice, by the way--you don't think bookstores give everything to the publisher, who gives everything to the author, do you?). If you don't like it, develop somewhere else.
Score: 0
|Lipstick makes pigs look better?, thats some wired s****.
I'd say a nice apple in its mouth whilst being spit roasted on an open fire.
Score: 0
|Because some of the browsers have different functionality like anon browsing. And as to Flash,
NO THANK YOU.
And if you think there are better alternatives out there, why are you spouting off here? Seriously, Android's out. And throwing tantrums at Apple has been **really effective** thusfar. Read this:
http://mindtaker.blogspo...ks-adobe-on-iphone.html
and this:
http://mindtaker.blogspo...ple-to-adobe-lousy.html
as to why there's no Flash on the iPhone. It'd be nice if Adobe knew the diff between 'client' and 'server' before they start using big words that mean very little.
Score: 0
|*sigh* Look, WebKit is a CORE TECHNOLOGY. Every webview used in every app in the AppStore is 'the browser'.. Oh, and MSFT is *working with* Apple to pipe Silverlight content thru.. guess what? Apple's 'browser':
http://mindtaker.blogspo...ks-adobe-on-iphone.html
Please get a clue. It's nice that Apple allows programmers to USE webkit instead of making a new one from scratch. Just be sure to use the public APIs, kids....
Score: 0
|How dumb to have a branded browser. It's not a new idea for sure. But I would never want one, and never pay for one. It's just dolled up for a show.
Score: 1
|If you read the article this browser has some neat enhancements that make the web browsing experience better for the end user, that and its only a $1.
Score: 0
|consider the following:
lets say in the next firmware upgrade, apple decides to take all of the different browsers in the app store, combine all of their enhancements and incorporate them into the next version of safari (i realize that there are a lot of different browsers, but then again there are a couple that share the same enhancements so that list may not be all that great). would you then be singing the praises of this app?
extremely well put it extremely well (no pun intended) below: apple is selling you a product which you had for free, and then in an instant can wipe out every one of those different enhancements with a simple upgrade of their browser.
i'm not a firefox user and i think the browser is more hype than substance, but if they released a firefox for the itouch/phone tonight through cydia i would download it in a second. i just wish that opera had done the same with their itouch/phone browser they developed.
Score: 0
|"...and then in an instant can wipe out every one of those different enhancements with a simple upgrade of their browser."
I'm sorry, I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.
You work for Adobe, right? Look, if you were a programmer you'd know that webkit has public APIs. That won't change, and if they do, iPhone Devs are notified of those changes. Your 'they'll drop this' only applies to old cruft like Carbon. Which your software seems to have a lot of.
Back to your schooling: If you're using private APIs, like a little jailbreaking hackerino then you deserve that you get, they're UNDOCUMENTED APIs. And Apple may change or even deprecate them because IT'S THEIR PLATFORM. Apple won't even approve an 'App' with private APIs just for that reason.
Your FUD comes from the world of shrinkwrap software with loooong dev cycles, dropped features, and irate users. Totally different from a HARDWARE standpoint where things are not arbitrarily dropped 'just like that.' So keep your FUD to yourself.
And if you want to see Firefox on the iPhone *so bad* I'm sure there's ARM source code floating around. So sudo make-install away, as you say, you have Cydia.
Score: 0
|