How is this ignorant? I don't think there was any indication of any difference in opinion as to the likely reason for the statement, but it's still true that Samsung is advertising Safari and not WebKit, which could be a problem for them if Apple didn't license them the name (which I seriously doubt they did).

Apologies for the duplicate, when I posted the first time (before registering) it told me it was blocked and the message didn't show up.

Nokia phones running S60 have used Webkit for longer than the iPhone has existed! And of course it too reports itself as Safari in its user agent string...

The S60 developers are heavy contributors to WebKit - and all their work ends up in Safari for Mac.

The use of the word "Safari" is just a result of the fact that's how WebKit is most commonly known to people. Is it a mistake to use "Safari"? Yes. Did they have permission from Apple to use "Safari"? Almost certainly not. Did they "port" Mac OS X and/or Safari to this platform? No. It's using WebKit, period, which is the same core rendering engine that Safari uses.

These guys are heavy users of and contributors to WebKit. Somewhere along the line someone's wires got crossed. I didn't say they didn't say "Safari" (what is with you guys? "Despite claims to the contrary"? WTF?); I said the reason there is talk of "Safari" is because they're quite obviously using WebKit, and anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the last two years would have immediately drawn that conclusion instead of feverishly wondering how this phone could be using Safari.

It's a mistake to call it Safari; it's probably not malicious; it's using WebKit which is the same engine that Safari uses (and that's probably how it was described to someone at some point, and was probably how the error was made); end of story.

If you're going to update your story, at least acknowledge your own error in judgment and logic. "Oops, it's WebKit, and Samsung listing 'Safari' was probably a little oversight." See how easy that was?

Webkit != Safari

Webkit is the core rendering engine in Safari. The difference can be seen in comparing other Webkit based browsers (iCab, Omniweb, etc...) to Safari. It's similar to comparing Gecko based browsers to FireFox.

Someone at Samsung screwed up, and the result is in their listing.

Is this news? Well, not the biggest news story of the day, that's for sure, but it is worth a notice perhaps that Apple has gotten enough recognition for their implementation of a mobile browser that others such as Samsung would want to ride off their Safari sub-brand.

It's a little like back when people started saying, "Launch Explorer and go to..." instead of saying, "Launch your browser..." or "Launch Netscape..."

I really don't understand all the criticism of MacNN here. It's very simple - MacNN is reporting that Samsung is claiming to use Safari on this phone. Whether it's a mistake on Samsung's part or not, Samsung says the phones have Safari. The specs list Safari by name, and not Webkit.

What's your problem with this? MacNN is reporting on Samsung's claims, not making a judgment as to whether Samsung made a mistake (that would be opinion).

You can say "Webkit" all you want, but the fact is that Samsung is claiming to have Safari (full browser), and you actually don't know for sure unless you work for Samsung.

Palm meets slide-phone...circa 2001!!

Do you get $50 back if you "buy" this phone (plus the obligatory 2-yr contract)?!