Well, you’d be right then, because the logic is only partly right. The primary reason for Safari/Win is obviously iPhone development. But certainly that’s an extension of web devs needing access to the Safari rendering engine, which was my main point.

I don’t see it that way. I see it as the less daunting the switch becomes. Running Mac apps on Windows is not the “best of both worlds” you’re pretending it would be.

Since every other major browser is free, they’d have a hard time charging for Safari.

Who said anything about charging? I would never pay for Safari. I don’t even use it on Mac.

if I already have iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari on my PC for free, I’d have to REALLY love Apple to buy a whole new machine just to use the Mac versions of iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari.

Believe me, very few people are switching because of iTunes, Quicktime, or Safari. No one switches for iTunes, they already have it on Windows! They might switch iLife. Or the eye candy of the system. for You make it out like those are the draw! The draw is *usually* one of two things:

1. The motivation to get OFF of Windows, which is a maintenance nightmare and still, even with XP, is tough to keep spyware free for the *average* user. Windows XP degrades over time as the registry bloats up and the file hierarchy gets littered with crap.

2. People who want the Mac glitz and the enjoyment of the OS X. Safari is just a means to an end. It’s not even that great. But it’s certainly nice to be able to feel at home on a new platform. That’s what Safari brings. It eases the transition for switchers.

My friend Keith bought a Mac and returned it because it was so foreign. If he knew more about the platform and wasn’t so lost, he might have kept it.

In short, I think your theory is based on an assumption that Safari is a draw, rather than a simple tool. It’s marketing. It’s no different than playing an ad on TV. You don’t recoup the cost directly, but rather, in consumer mindshare.

The more Mac applications are available on Windows, the less reason to switch. iTunes makes sense to port to Windows because it translates into iPod and Store sales. Quicktime makes sense because it’s part of iTunes and because Windows users (mostly video editors) will buy the Pro version to do encoding.

Since every other major browser is free, they’d have a hard time charging for Safari. Only the hardcore Apple lovers would buy it, and charging makes it less likely developers would buy it to test with. So, Safari only translates into money for Apple if a user switches, and if I already have iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari on my PC for free, I’d have to REALLY love Apple to buy a whole new machine just to use the Mac versions of iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari.

First of all, web developers WILL use it. I test my code on IE, FF, Safari, and Opera. That’s a start. It’s nice for a Mac user to not be told they must upgrade to IE 6 or greater when they visit their bank’s website.

Secondly, eventually, people WILL use it. People who use Macs at home will use it at work. People who don’t like the uncustomiable look of IE7 might try it. People who are just interested in something different too.

I’d say those make a convincing case.