And this thread accused Apple of being evil with a nasty reply like that one. The answer still hasn't been given. Why do we not have regular updates to the browser to cope with sites like this and IF as has been suggested the browser can lie about what it is how is this done, how? AND why isn't this done automatically?

run a search for 'change user agent' there is a forum search link right below

Filtering UAs for no reason is evil.

The answer has been given, Apple is filtering UAs for no good reason.

To the first and third questions, you're kidding right? How would a MicroB update change Apple's UA filtering? and how the hell do you expect this to work automatically?

As for the UA spoofing, I'll let somebody else explain that to you. I've had more than my fill of inane stupidity for one day.

The answer has been given. We do have regular updates to the browser. The browser is not capable of "coping with" everything (there's no DWIM opcode on ARM, unfortunately), but is standards-compliant.

And finally, we get to a new question: Read here for how. (I don't believe that's been updated for Diablo, so go to http://useragent.org and save it in a file so you can go back...)

As for why it would not do it automatically:
First, there's no reason to. As you pointed out:Second, if some people are still doing things that way, why encourage them?

It is a shame that too many users on this site look down upon others. An air of supriority and self assurance that their vision is right and all newbies to Internet Tablets are to be talked down to.

A couple of the messages here show an arrogance instead of offering simple friendly advice. It is they who are the stupid ones as it is they who are the loosers because they offer little for others.

Again, I point out there is not evidence that Apple is filtering websites based on the browser's name. Show me where this is to prove this point. I can't see it.

Perhaps those with only bad feelings to add to a thread should step back and leave to more helpful people.

Thank you Benson. That's been the bit I have been asking for.

There is not evidence that your browser is being fed a perfectly normal webpage by Apple and electing to display a message recommending browsers other than itself instead of even a flawed rendering of that page.

As none of us (who've tried, so far) can access that site (it's apparently not rolled out yet in the US, and perhaps other places as well), we're completely unable to show you any proof at all. But you have the ability, so show us your proof! All you have to do is try:

• Set some browser that works (FF) to report as the MicroB UA; show that it still works.
  --OR--
• Set MicroB to report as some supported browser, and show that it still doesn't work.

Inn the absence of evidence for either explanation of your problems, you'll have to excuse me for going with the commonplace rather than the outlandish.

This .Mac Status site appears to confirm that:

No one was trying to look down on you, but you were given the answer to your question many times and continued to blame the browser when it was clear the problem was not there.
So how are you going to claim that Apple is not filtering browsers, when you change your user agent to be say and Iphone, and the page loads perfectly.

We were not trying to be mean but you did not seem like you were listing to our answers.

And ben is right the whole point of being standards compliant is so you will not have to have 5 different sites for different browsers. It is probably that Apple does not have our browser in the OK to run list, yet. That has to be taken up with Apple though.

It is also a shame when users of this site ask questions, expecting to learn from the wisdom and experiences of others, and then summarily discard said wisdom when it doesn't match what they wanted to hear.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot *prove* that this is a User-Agent string filter, as web servers can filter based on just about any information that can be gleaned from the page request: IP address, user-agent string, etc. I could be getting different results just for it not being 8am in my suspected time zone on Friday, 7/11/2008. You, however, have a stable platform, and the most logical method to isolate the problem: Change one variable at a time. Same location, same IP, same hardware, same OS, same patches, same browser engine, new User-Agent string. Had you initially just stated "I'm sorry, I don't know how to change that," someone would have pointed out the secret menu-option/incantation needed to get the job done.

In my opinion, at any rate, what Apple is doing *is* evil. Browser detects suck. They're mercurial, inaccurate, and they lead to the death of products. I once had an issue with the insanely popular Webtrends log analysis tool. It wouldn't support IE7 or Firefox, asking for MSIE 5.0 or higher, Netscape 4.5-4.7, or Netscape 7 or higher on Windows or Mac. I was on a PC running Windows XP SP2 at the time. The solution? Edit the master template for the site to add IE7 and Firefox as legitimate UA strings, a nasty server-side fix. Really, it shouldn't be necessary, and it shouldn't be kludgeish.

Perhaps they should, but chastising people while holding oneself above reproach only serves to aggravate the situation further. It seems like you're gunning for an apology, but unwilling to give one. That's understandable, but when neither party admits fault, then no one's going to apologize. It's better to take a step back, see where you may have inadvertently offended someone yourself, and apologize accordingly. Oftentimes, you'll get exactly what you want out of it. If not, well, it's time to move on and find a more gracious circle of friends.

Back to the technical (and completely blunt) front, Apple needs to get off their asses and write a hard User-Agent detect (if UA is in shortlist of crappy browsers that can't render this site, bail out. Otherwise, hope for the best, and let the user suffer for using a non-compliant piece of crap without PNG transparency support worth a damn,) or drop the code entirely. Tailoring sites to the accidental exclusion of perfectly good (or experimental) browsers is amateurish hackery of the lowest common denominator.