Flock 2.0: Nice Effort, but no Safari

Triston McIntyre,


Flock 2.0: Good, not GreatI don't use Firefox.  Say what you like about me personally, but I'm a dedicated Mac user.  I get what I need from Safari, and Camino makes for a nice alternative when necessary.  If I was using a PC, Firefox would be top dog, but thankfully, I am not. 

With that said, Firefox 3 came out, and I wasn't about to throw a party.  I downloaded it and gave it a shot, but it didn't woo me.  However, when I found out that the interesting browser Flock's second iteration is based on Firefox 3, I was compelled to try it out.

I was happily surprised with what Flock 2.0 offers, at least initially.  For social geeks, Flock offers unique browser integration of social applications like Twitter, Facebook , Youtube, and Flickr.  The aggregator feature is handy and should appeal to a wide group of social addicts.

Flock also delivers a built-in blogging platform that can access various popular blogging platforms.  I can't say I had much success with this; after trying to connect to my various blogs (with no success), I abandoned the feature as it needs a little more work, in my opinion.  

One of the biggest factors that drew me to Flock 2.0 was the security enhancements promised with the new beta build.  Safari has been under fire for being terribly insecure, and I'm not too keen on going about my web activities with my posterior all hanging in the breeze, open to attack.  

Even with all those lovely features, I can affirmatively say it hasn't won the coveted spot of number-one browser in my heart.  

I can't deal with clutter, both in my life and on my computers.  I am the guy who cleans items from his desktop like someone with a hyper obsessive compulsive disorder.  The reason I stick with Camino and Safari is because both are clean, simpl, but powerful and complex browsers.  Flock 2.0 feels busy, and that is an immediate turn-off for me.

Beyond that, the social integration doesn't really deliver exactly what I'm looking for.  It has quirks, and just doesn't flow in the way I would like it to.  I was very excited to think I might be able to ditch Twhirl (which is the best Twitter client fellow writer Leslie Poston has turned me on to) in favor of browser integration, but Flock isn't that browser for me.

Though Flock 2.0 is still in beta, there were many weird quirks and hiccups.  I had more than a couple browser crashes just in my first session, and that isn't particularly appealing.

Most importantly, any browser looking to win the support of a seasoned Safari vet needs to go above and beyond to demonstrate superiority to the tried and true.  Flock 2.0 had initial appeal, but didn't quite sell me after some use.  With some work, Flock 2.0 could be successful, but not with this fellow.  


If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
3 Comments (Subscribe to rss)
  • I disagree and the beta is fast and stable for me. Call me a social geek. Flock has all my stuff built in without using a bunch of add ons or apps like twirl. Safari needs to get more extendable. And thats coming from an apple fanboy - this is being typed on an iPhone. To each his own. Peace.

  • If you’re interested in trying out alternative browsers, you might also like to try the Opera browser for Mac. A new version, Opera Desktop 9.5, was released just recently on 12 June.
    (Disclaimer: I work for Opera Software.)

  • David,

    I wasn’t saying that it wasn’t a good effort…in fact, it was. It didn’t pan out for me, and I still prefer my external clients for features. You’re right about Safari needing to be more exendable :)

    Zara,

    A friend of mine did recommend Opera for me a while back. Though I tried it on my Mac, I didn’t care for it much; however, I use it on my smartphone every day. The mobile browser is fantastic!

Leave a comment (We support avatars from Gravatar, MyBlogLog, and FriendFeed)