.jpg "Apple gets miffed about poor Safari review -")
The fruity peddler of broken iDreams, Apple has reacted strangely to a bad review of its browser.
Apple, which is famous for not making comments, broke the tradition when the outfit Blaze released a study which showed Android's browser to be 52 per cent faster than the iPhone's.
Blaze might have expected the death threats from Apple zombies who swamp bad news and reviews like over excited locusts.
But much to the surprise of Blaze, Apple itself insisted that it had not actually tested Safari correctly.
Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman for the Cupertino outfit said that Blaze only tested its own proprietary app, which uses an embedded Web viewer that can't take advantage of Safari's Web performance optimisations. Safari on iOS 4.3 also has multithreaded, asynchronous page-loading and some HTML5 caching, Apple said.
So, go back to bed zombies, Safari is really faster.
But this comment left Blaze wondering. To perform its measurements, it used purposefully written apps that used each platform's Embedded Browser.
Embedded browsers are software components available to mobile apps to invoke the browser, and are the only ways both platforms allow users to interact with it. Blaze used each platform's embedded browser, not its own.
A spokesBlaze admitted that it assumed that Apple's embedded browsers were expected to behave the same as the regular browser because Jobs' Mob had never said that it could not be bothered updating them.
But Apple's comments mean that its embedded browser, called UIWebView, does not share the same optimisations as MobileSafari.
It is true that if various optimisations are not included in the embedded browser, it's quite possible the iPhone page loads could be faster, at its review is wrong, said Blaze.
But the incident has revealed that if you design a page in MobileSafari, you should not expect that webpage to work with an embedded browser version on the same platform.
So why hadn't Apple updated UIWebView or told anyone that it could not be bothered doing so? It seems that Apple has suddenly gone quiet again. We guess that everytime it opens its mouth it reveals something it shouldn't.
As been explained on reputable tech news sites, the built in Safari browser in iOS takes advantage of JIT javascript compilation in its nitro engine. The WebUIView framework for 3rd party apps explicitly does not support nitro engine JIT javascript compilation because of security concerns.
You see, Apple actually cares about the security of end users' devices and personal information.
The Android platform is unencumbered by such attention to security and end user privacy. This may explain why malware is proliferating in the Android ecosystem.
They also cripple their platform because they care.
Heads they win tails they win.
I now fancy a banana.
Now, while your conclusion did not follow, it may have been factually correct. However, you did not make the case for it in this article nor have you provided any links, if in fact any exist, to them. And, since you are making the case, it's up to you to provide proof, not me.
So, as you can see, the solution is simple even though the search for all other examples so that you could support your sweeping generalization is admittedly difficult.
What broken dreams are you referring to?
Perhaps it's your own broken dreams of finding something negative of significance to squawk about... because you sure haven't accomplished that goal in this poorly written article.
As far as alleged "reputable tech news sites" that review FruityCo, there are none, as any site conceited enough to not stupidly parrot the FruityCo line would be banned for life from covering FruityCo. Hence all sites that review FruityCo products are inherently disreputable.
Uhhhhhh, the iPhone 4 maybe?
either will do__ the important thing
I wake from this frightful nightmare
and Nick take up the mantle, err...
or, if it's a Friday, that will have to do.