This'll be the reality distortion field at full grunt no doubt.

Thanks for another kwality moment, Stevo

A guy came into the office the other day flashing his shiny new iPhone. The first thing I was unable to not say (followed by a string of others) was 'Hey Andy, how's the 3G on that thing?'

He wasn't impressed...

So, sticky label + marker pen = Valid Licence?

...it means you just aren't trying hard enough.

Come on, everybody, think positive thoughts! Together we can do it!

Unless there's money to be made by a lawyer.

Then, "Impossible is Nothing!"

Wow. Are we reduced to bragging about 3G inadequacies in public now. 'My 3G is bigger than yours, snigger'. Ah for the innocent days when it was just about penis length.

Oh, and I'd be sad if Webster didn't chip in with something about the EVIL Apple empire now starting to INFECT other OSs.

Surely that's classed as malware then?

Since you are only allowed to use it on One Apple labelled computer - does this mean if you have several Apple computers you can't use it on all at the same time (I know sounds impossible, but amazingly can be useful, especially with remote desktops)

Obviously not what was intended, but bootcamp, VM Fusion and Parallels would all allow me to comply with the requirement and run it on Apple badge hardware. This legal bod needs to think again perhaps?

... and anyway you'd have to be totally deranged to install any Apple written software on a windows machine. Cross platform has never been their strong point, and don't even get me started on what several incarnations of i-tunes have done to my pc's, So much so I threw the bloody i-pods away and bought generic MP3's instead.

Mines the one with "Apples are not the only fruit" on the back ........

My God, I've been using it for 4 months now, getting email and browsing the web, its been far more useable than any other mobile browser I have ever used. However, now I know it doesn't have 3G, it's going in the bin!

Well. Easy. Just put an Apple-sticker on the PC. Then - voila - it's Apple-labeled :)

You just have to install Windows on your Intel Mac.

Then you'd be compliant. And totally stupid.

'This licence does not allow the Apple software to exist on more then one computer at a time '

Hey, when you're done surfing, toss me the browser please.

Unfortunately there is no pie-in-the-face Steve jobs icon ...

When users have "auto update" software enabled (as most do so they won't be bothered), there is no such box to UNcheck if you don't want that notoriously Security Buggy Safari on your PC! The fact the Stevie Gods is blatantly trying to bundle Safari in with somewhat benign iTunes, is tantamount to SNEAKING it in!

Say, wasn't MS raked over the coals for doing similar things by the HYPOCRITE Apple Hack media and all the Apple FUDs??? Geez, all you guys would make great Dems and Liberals ... oh wait, according to recent research, Apple kooks are usually snooty hypocrite Liberals.

The big rumor is that a number of Windows users have already been soliciting ambulance chaser lawyers to sue Apple. a known Malware, if not historic buggy software provider. Now THAT will make my day! ... oh, YEAR!

Has a Golden Delicious sticker on it, does that comply with the EULA?

The fact that nobody has noticed this for months just goes to show how useless EULAs really are.

So how's the voice-recognition and voice dialing on your iPhone? Works great on my $50 LG phone!

Golden Delicious, Braeburn or Pink Lady?

Sorry, but my honest opinion of Safari on Mac is mostly unprintable, and I would seriously consider a Vista upgrade for anyone stupid enough to install it on Windows. Actually, that might not be a bad idea - Vista is bound to break it!

Maybe not "impossible" in the virtual world, but, like almost all EULAs, it is an "unreasonale " contract, which invalidates it regardless.

As PH would say just made my day !

Gala or Pink Lady?

someone actually read the EULA?

When MS gave Apple money in the past, part of the agreement is that MS could ship IE on Mac but Apple could not do vice-versa. So they made Safari for Windows, but we really aren't supposed to have it? That way Apple covers their butt legally. Or how about, Apple is in with MS on this one, and the idea is to get Firefox customers (I mean users, sorry I was thinking Apple/MS) hooked on Safari (in hopes Firefox dies) only to dump it at a later date (several years down the road) because we aren't supposed to have it?

Whatever their reasoning, why put more on a PC than a typical user needs. Saddled with IE on their Windows PC, pushing yet another browser out there seems like a crappy thing to do. Now I will have to wait that much longer for Norton to scan the drive when I fix peoples PCs. Great, thanks Apple. Here is an idea, you sell us PC users OSX for Intel/AMD or get your I-tunes and other crap off Windows and Sync via Media Player (I am sick of waiting for Norton to scan it). Sell us OSX or get off Windows, I hope this comment starts a campaign.

P.S. I am sick of Windows but not ready to buy an overpriced Mac when I can build myself a killer PC out of brand name high quality parts. And don't mention Linux to me, people I know make lots of money and don't trust free/open things (they don't care about free, and they don't seem to like it, as they charge lots of $ for their services).

Not that I intend to install it anyway, I had quite enough of Safari on a real Mac, but how on earth are they going to check if everyone who clicks on "accept" is using Apple-labelled hardware? Sounds more like Microsoft's old stance on pirated copies of Windows: officially against it, but secretly pleased their damn OS got onto as many machines as possible, thereby building up a de facto monopoly.

I'm off to read Ubersoft.

How long has this taken to be found? Just goes to show how much notice people take of EULAs.

<<<

And shut the door.

I prefer Granny Smiths, myself.

Since any Windows PC with Safari installed will now be, by definition, an Apple-labelled machine, Apple will gain market share like crazy. And you thought this was tupid.

I pray that one day, a company will put some really weird stuff in the EULA, such as:

"By reading this, you agree to pay the maker of this software 10 dollars a second

when using the software", And then try to enforce it.

I wonder how courts would manage to declare this EULA not legally binding, without having it apply to all others EULAs...

I read that to be I can only install it on "one Apple labeled hardware device" - however I do not see any mention that I am restricted as to the number of non-Apple labeled devices, that is: PCs I can install it on...

My Dell is Apple Labeled, "The Label is from my Leopard disk" but it still can't run Safari as it has Ubuntu on it. Heh.

I don't blame you Windows users for being outraged one bit, Safari and iTunes on Windows is unnatural. The solution is obvious, get rid of Windows. Fixes the problem right up!

I like Safari and iTunes just fine where they belong, on my Mac.

this is a collossal 'non-story' - even by 'reg' standards:

1. someone at apple was lazy and cut'n'pasted some boilerplate text into the EULA for windoze safari

2. apple's software update offers to install safari for windoze for you, while updating itunes. If you dinnae want it, just untick the box.

hardly 'forbidding' windoze users from installing safari. nor, conversely 'forcing' them to install it.

nothing to see here. move along, please!

Jonathan Kramer claims: "You can't enforce a term that's impossible."

So, how does this impact the punters that bought piece of crap (pc) systems marked "Vista Capable" and now involved in a class action suit against Microsoft?

Kramer's interpretation implies that Microsoft wins and punters are SOL.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if huge wads of legalise found in most EULAs these days, wasn't enforceable in the courts. It just seems like a means by which companies bully their end users into complying with whatever ludicrous usage rules they want, relying on nobody to go ahead with a test case.

...so you can with a clear conscience install the software on all mainframes, Dells and homebrew computers you want.

Wait til they start using the Chewbecca defense on each other. Then it becomes a three ring circus.

Don't want to be sued by Apple.

Firefox seems like the only safe choice.

:)

All laws are toss.

People sitting around writing "thou shalt not" on bits of paper and then waving them around like they were stone tablets from on high.

When I bought my Mac Mini, it came with several Apple labels in the box, in the form of pretty stickers, I happened to stick one on my Windows box, so I'm covered anyway :).

Apple == A poor version of Microsoft

Same tactics. Next I'll install a program that uses the Java runtime and find a copy of Linux waiting to be installed on auto-update.

..but, if you stick your own apple label on a beige box are you not techincally committing an offence to defraud or produce counterfeit goods or some other form of techincal deception?

maybe apple are going to start selling there own officially licenced apple case badges (say $40 - that seems an appropriately inflated jiz for an apple fan boi to swallow) thereby makn you complaint with the EULA

That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

Just 'cos one contract says something stupid, it doesn't automatically invalidate every other one in the world. EULA is an acronym - "End User License Agreement", nowhere does this imply that any one EULA is in any way connected with any other. The validity, or not, of one such, in no way impacts the validity of any other such. The only mystery here is why on earth you would even begin to think so?

Put it this way. If some jerk also using the handle "ratfox" ended up being convicted as a kiddie-fiddler, would you expect to go to jail by association?

>> this is a collossal 'non-story' - even by 'reg' standards:

I see you're one of these apple fanboys who wont hear a word said against his beloved jobs, but I'll bite.

It's not a non-story, its quite interesting. Most people find EULA morally questionable, especially when they consist of 10 pages of legal speak. How can anyone not trained to read these things seriously be bound by them?

>> 1. someone at apple was lazy and cut'n'pasted some boilerplate text into the EULA for windoze safari

It's interesting that a company like apple is essentially treating the EULA with the same kind of contempt as the end users. If a company with massive financial reserves and dedicated legal teams cant get it right why should the end user?

>> 2. apple's software update offers to install safari for windoze for you, while updating itunes. If you dinnae want it, just untick the box.

I got rid of quicktime when apple started forcing me to download and install itunes every time there was a quicktime update, so I shouldn't really comment, but i suspect this is more of an issue of default options and misrepresentation. It really isn't a security update.

>> hardly 'forbidding' windoze users from installing safari. nor, conversely 'forcing' them to install it.

No, they are deliberately making things complicated so that they can claim they have X million installs of their web browser. The majority of installs will never be used because most people simply have no idea what they have installed, "it was a security update so I hit yes".

Heres a little hint, spelling Windows with a 'z' makes you look like you have the mental age of a 12 year old. Apologies to any 12 year olds reading...

Find someone who has two Apples with Safari on both, get them to give you the Apple label from one of them, stick said label on your PC, and you are both in the clear.

Or buy a Beatles album and cut and paste the Apple logo...

"....Or how about, Apple is in with MS on this one, and the idea is to get Firefox customers (I mean users, sorry I was thinking Apple/MS) hooked on Safari (in hopes Firefox dies)...."

You obviously haven't used Safari. Believe me, the 'Fox is safe!

I can't remember which piece of software it was, but I do remember actually scanning a EULA when installing something before. It basically started normally then part-way through the legalese it said something along the lines of "ahh no-one ever reads these things anyway" and started talking about a load of random crap.

Anyway, as TeeCee says, just because one EULA is declared invalid wouldn't affect any others.

Why on earth does anyone with a PC need any of Jobs' rotten apples spoiling their box.

iTunes - who needs it ? Same muppets who were fleeced for an iPhone.

Qtime - good grief need it as much as realplayer !

Safari - it's a hippopotamus in a zoo, give me Konqueror or FF3B4 any day.

This is fairly typical for software with restrictive licences.

Restrictive software licences are based around the idea that in order to use a piece of software, you have to make a copy of it in the computer's memory -- and software is subject to copyright, meaning that you would require special permission from the copyright holder to make that copy (and therefore use the software).

However, there's just one tiny flaw in this plan. It's bollocks.

If you have acquired the software legitimately, as a consumer, then you already have a right -- which is afforded under the Law of the Land, and therefore sacrosanct -- to use it for its rightful purpose. And if, in the course of using a piece for its rightful purpose, you happen to have to make a copy, then making that copy is Fair Dealing and so would not infringe copyright.

"That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard."

Then you have obviously never listened to a court case.

The point is that ratfox's hypothetical clause would demonstrate that nobody reads EULAs and companies know this so write in whatever they want. If it was decided - as a general principle - that throwing some very dense, small font legal jargon at the average person half way through an install was more than likely to make people agree to conditions that they do not fully understand, then it could be argued that the whole practice was misleading.

If the practice is deemed misleading then any agreements made via this practice would be difficult to enforce. However, ratfox's clause starts "By reading this..." so the point is moot as nobody reads EULAs.

@ Webster: You might want to be careful about throwing around "liberal" as a perjorative. Outside of America, "liberal" is not synonymous with "dirty commie" but an American complaining about liberals is usually associated with a gun-rack in your pick-up and a penchant for marrying your sister.

I was wondering why it was such a non-article being pandered as news. I didn't recognise it at first as he didn't try to imply using a Mac was a religion for once.

I know, let's bring down Linux by finding some open source software using unedited boiler plate licenses. Woo!

Dead Vulture because ...

Webster reckons iTunes is "somewhat benign".

I never thought I'd see the day. Suck up the Kool-Aid, man!

This has always been in the EULA.

I assume it's for the following reason.

when you buy an Ipod you are, (or at least you used to when I got my Ipod) be provided with two apple sitckers,

Apple give you the stickers, and say you can only use the software on your apple labled box, perfectly legitimate, they give you stickers and then expect you to advertise to yourself family and friends that you have and own apple software.

those people who have itunes probabl have it to use with their Ipod which (second hand asales aside) should have come with apple stickers.

those who were bothered about this EULA clause will already have an apple sticker. installed the software.

those who don't have an apple sticker applied wouldn't have installed Itunes to start with and thus won't be auto updated...

the point isn't that safari forces the user to break the EULA, it's rather that if the user doesn't have an apple stickered box. and they do have Itunes they've already chosen to break the EULA.

why should the update software not assume that the end user has already agreed and complied to the terms of the license?

EUL"A"s are a notorious way for vendors to write their own law, but in this case, an interesting spin is that what Apple's "software updater" does is actually illegal within their own frame of reference.

It's certainly sucks, within ours. It's bad enough to be forced to swallow updates to limit risks posed by the QuickTime surface, without having these risks increased by foising iTunes and especially Safari, given Apple's track record of exploit opportunities and slow patching.

I have to admit that since Safari3 came along it is now a usable browser. I still only use it for sites that I trust because it does not have the security features of other browsers.

However:

Safari is the only browser easily available to Windows users that does not work with the Phorm scripts.

I wonder how long it will take for the Apple marketing department to start to capilatise on that one?

company to make a minor error on their EULA.

of course, the uber mobile web browsing experience i've had on my iphone has just been a hallucination after all, the things actually rubbish! what we REALLY need is a 3G 3310! that'd blow the iphone out of the water!!

Real Player is worse than iTunes / Quicktime. Even than WMP, and that's saying something!

Get RealAlternative at least and be rid of all that mal/spy/ad/slow-ware that is RealPlayer, and just gives you the basic codecs to watch Real format videos (if you really must watch them).

There's also a Quicktime Alternative codec package to avoid Apple's front end too.

There are much better media players (free and open source) and you just need the relevant codecs. KMPlayer is one I'm using at the moment which is pretty good (not to be confused with KMPlayer on linux), and works with almost all formats if you have the right codecs.

guess where it is stuck now?

Everybody seems to be missing the statement "Use of this software is subject to the original Software License Agreement(s) that accompanied the software being updated,"

As apple are claiming this is an update rather than a new install there must have been some original software (else they are being misleading) this original software must have been a software package containing no files or anything else (afterall there is no signs of this original software existing with any size) and the original license must also have been empty. This empty license applies which means you can do anything you want with it...

EULA I read said

"mess with me and I kick your ass"

love it!

Not reading their own EULA before shipping it.

Down with EULAs they are nonsense and should be dumped as they have no legality (as are seeing recently, since you cannot read it before buying the software).

Also Yay for reference to the Chebacca defense!!

Actually, I'm fairly sure Apple can't legally offer Safari for Windows anyway.

Why? Well, it uses WebKit for Windows, which is based on the LGPL-licensed KHTML. Now, the LGPL requires that all libraries that the LGPL-licensed code depends on are also under the LGPL or a compatible license (except ones supplied with the OS or complier). This is to prevent unscrupulous companies circumventing the intention of the LGPL by sticking critical parts of the code in closed source libraries under nasty license terms.

Apple's Windows port of WebKit depends on several closed-source, non-redistributable libraries - specifically, Windows ports of Apple frameworks. Therefore, it violates both the spirit and the letter of the LGPL, they have no legal right to distribute it, and any major contributor to KHTML before the fork could take them to court, force them to cease distribution, and probably make some nice cash on the side.

(Also, Apple's license for these libraries is nasty - as far as I can tell, it forbids anyone who compiles the Windows version of Webkit themselves from redistributing their compiled version, since the libraries are statically linked and the license forbids redistribution in any form.)

"merely a case of Apple making itself look silly"

As if its products didn't do that already...

Paris, as she represents another sort of silliness.

That a full web browser is only a 3rd the size of iTunes + Quicktime?!

"I know, let's bring down Linux by finding some open source software using unedited boiler plate licenses"

Most people who write software for Linux actually *do* copy and paste licences without editing. But that's fine, because the two most common software licences used by Linux programmers (the BSD licence and the GPL) are genuine licences. That is to say, they grant permission to do things that the law would ordinarily forbid, as opposed to seeking to deny permission for things that the law would ordinarily allow.

Isn't that the web browser for graphic designers who want a "computer" based on looks rather than functionality, no wonder it's a stealth install, who on earth would want something like that festering on their pc?

"This licence does not allow the Apple software to exist on more then one computer at a time"

So I don't have to install it then?

Mine is the one sans sticker.

"My God, I've been using it for 4 months now, getting email and browsing the web, its been far more useable than any other mobile browser I have ever used."

I guess it took you 4 months to download everything, You could have had 3 months free if you'd had 3G :-)

Paris, cause she's not used to hanging around waiting and would def have 3G

"Since any Windows PC with Safari installed will now be, by definition, an Apple-labelled machine, Apple will gain market share like crazy. And you thought this was tupid."

Given how often I see Quicktime installed in the first place, I guess that market share will go up by 3. 3 computers. In total. 2 of which are VMware instances.

You will see many vendors use "Auto Update" features to push out software. As long as it is a clear choice, as in the Safari case, you simply read the description and uncheck the box. Most people will want a faster, more web 2.0 compliant, and open standards browser and leave the box checked. For all the Anti-Apple people that have commented... you have absolutely nothing to worry about, as you wouldn't possibly own any Apple software and equipment anyway... would you?

It would be interesting for you all to apply your sarcasm and vitriol to what M$ has done with their continued use of pushing software on their updates... WGA anyone? Silverlight? IE7? WDS? Windows Media Player? If you made unbiased comparisons, then this story would be relevant... maybe. But covering up M$ wrongs, then projecting them onto Apple, or any other company is plain idiocy and akin to unreasoning mob violence.

C'mon folks... do a little research to at least look a little intelligent.

than Lynx?

I refuse to believe it!

I bet the gopher client on this "Safari" is rubbish..........

Safari doesn't work very well with many sites, is missing adblock and has poor security.

There's licences for software ? Who knew ? You learn something every day.

For perspective, I would like to see folks bashing Apple, WIndows, or Linux, or anything else for that matter.... clearly state whether they have actually used the product or software first, where, how long, etc. This would lend credibility to insane rants of jealous rage.

The day before Safari 3.1 came out... "it's trash... IE7 rules!" "it sucks.... go Firefox!" C'mon... morons all of you! There is no room to speak, unless you've actually used the product... obsessing over your friends new iPhone doesn't count... go out and get one and use it before you bash it... at least read reviews from people that have owned one for six months.

Cox.

i take it you'd be in the queue for a 3g 3310 then :)

Observation:

Windows users bash M$ after using M$ products and software.

Windows users then bash Apple, even though they never have owned & used an Apple product.

Apple users (ALL of whom used to be Windows users or are concurrent Windows users), laud and defend Apple products, while they try to explain to Windows users (who have never used Apple products) facts and reasons why they like the Apple products they own.

Apple users also bash Apple products (go to the Apple hosted website) but mostly because they've come to expect perfection.

Linux users (all of whom are former M$ users) also bash windows.

Linux user that have not used Apple products also bash Apple products just like it were the second coming of M$.

Linux users that have used Apple products, use both... they only bash M$.

Liberals buy Apple products to be cool & elite (and to also be productive).

Conservatives buy Apple products to be productive (and to also be cool & elite).

Liberals buy Apple products because they like Al Gore.

Conservatives buy Apple products because they like Rush Limbaugh.

Keeping adding to the list!

... wait till June... by the way, how does that LG do with real email and the real internet? Comparing a phone to a pocket computer is absurd.

3G? have you looked at a 3G map of the US? no 3G where I live. Having something that doesn't work is not a feature to me. (Don't get me wrong, I will love 3G, 4G, etc. when it is mature and works)

Buy the way, what's the battery life on that 3G phone of yours?

Oh... and how's the WiFi working for you?

Really? I hadn't heard that.... what are your sources? Please give real life examples, statistics, and empirical data.

(Just trying to help.... you look like a moronic idiot shilling with a hidden agenda, unless you give real data that people can look up for themselves... after all, not everyone believes something, just because it's on the internet!)

Theres always Firefox!!!! Why bother with just another spin off!!!!

Heh. I wonder how would I fall in those categories:

- C-64 User 1985-1992 (it died)

- Apple User 1986-1998

- DOS User 1989-?

- Windows User 1993-current

- AIX User 1996-2000, 2007

- Linux User 1998-current

So I am a former Apple User (up to MacOS 8), concurrent Winbugs and Linux user, but I still bash Apple. Except its not for the products themselves, but on its "elite" culture Jobs has inflicted since the iMac inception.

As for Macs, well my mom still has our 10+ year old Performa, which works pretty well for its age! Even our 1986 Mac Plus was still working around 1998! I just despise that Mac decided to change its image into something more of a "fashion appliance".

The only reason I jumped to Windows (and Linux afterwards) was that PC's were fully programmable, either with C or x86 assembler.

As for Safari, I haven't used it that much as I do not own any post-iMac Apple hardware; however some friends do have Macs and well, it wasn't that good. Most Mac users I know use Firefox anyway ;)

Hi, now its an Apple labeled computer! I can use Safari legally!!!

The Wi-Fi on my N95 is fine, thank you, and the battery life (after the software update, I admit) is more than adequate, 2-3 says between charges, with a 4GB memory card, I have more than enough space for a few albums, picture takem with my, ahem, 5 megapixel camera, maps for my GPS (works like a dream, you should try sometime)...

Don't start a war you can't win, please.

"Observation:" - that must be the Apple fanboi translation for "my myopia makes me think this is true"?

"Windows users bash M$ after using M$ products and software." - many M$ users, through ignorance, really don't bash M$ as they don't even realise there are alternatives. As M$ producst usually do what they want, they don't bother to investigate alternatives.

"Windows users then bash Apple, even though they never have owned & used an Apple product." I have used many Apple products in the wrokplace and would seriously object to anyone suggesting I should part with my hard-earned cash for any Apple products when there are better Linux alternatives for free, and often much better Intel/M$ products at a better price.

"Apple users (ALL of whom used to be Windows users or are concurrent Windows users), laud and defend Apple products, while they try to explain to Windows users (who have never used Apple products) facts and reasons why they like the Apple products they own." - Actually, I have personally helped two Apple victims move from Mac to Windows XP, including finding and installing comparable products for the ones all the fanbois told them were "unreplaceable". They did not previously own PCs but stared with Apple after being fed a load of marketting manure about "unparalleled" graphics capability, are happier, and they bash Apple.

"Apple users also bash Apple products (go to the Apple hosted website) but mostly because they've come to expect perfection." - You obviously have very low standards.

"Linux users (all of whom are former M$ users) also bash windows." - I am a Linux and Windows user, and I recognise for some uses Windows is better. Apple fanbois won' EVER admit anything is better than an Apple product for anything.

"Linux user that have not used Apple products also bash Apple products just like it were the second coming of M$." - I have (professionally) helped Apple users switch to Linux workstations. They are happier with their new Linux systems, they have used Apple because (like the M$ users above) they didn't realise there was an alternative. Oh, and they now bash Apple

"Linux users that have used Apple products, use both... they only bash M$." - Really? You can vouch for EVERY Linux+Apple user in the world? OK, I have used all three, and I bash Apple. It is bottom of my list of choices for an OS for the vast majority of tasks. Actually, I can't think of a single Apple product where there is not a free (Linux or BSD) or purchaseable alternative that is usually cheaper and better.

"Liberals buy Apple products to be cool & elite (and to also be productive)." - Again, you can vouch for all Liberals? Then again, I wouldn't call myself a Liberal, so thanks for exempting me from ever having to touch a Mac again.

"Conservatives buy Apple products to be productive (and to also be cool & elite)." - See above. But I do tend more to the Conservative end of the spectrum, and I still wouldn't touch a Mac with a bargepole.

"Liberals buy Apple products because they like Al Gore." - Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for many Liberals to hold their breath indefinately to help ol' Al with his global warming claptrap.

"Conservatives buy Apple products because they like Rush Limbaugh." - No, they buy them because they don't know there are better alternatives.

"Keeping adding to the list!" - I would need a labotomy to be able to add to your list in line with your interesting form of logic.

in that case, all you need to do is this:

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/IMG_3385.jpg

anon of the yellow belly. I installed it and it didn't work with sites that I use, there were adverts all over the screen that adblock on firefox normally hides and the securit settings don't let you have site by site settings.

There's your evidence and meanwhile safari is still shit.