zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
> Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants.

This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.

When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates and none of us can do anything about it, they perhaps have too much market power.

>>mabbo+Wd
This line is what makes me roll my eyes whenever I hear someone say "Safari is the new IE". Safari missing a couple of features few websites use is far less of an issue than the dominant browser company can just invent new "standards" that make the web actively worse for everyone. (Sorry, I should say "everyone except for the scummy advertisers".)

>>tiltow+Cy
Safari is just Apples Opera (before they went Blink and made themselves irrelevant).

They aren't great, just another proprietary browser. Every time I've used it has been sub-par. It reminded me a lot of Opera in that it was very opinionated, even if it tried to offer some feature. Apple makes money off of apps, not websites, though, so it makes sense they don't invest much into their browser.

>>smaude+VY
Safari has the fastest JavaScript engine. In many respects, Safari's implementation is top notch. Apple makes money off phones and people use Safari a lot on phones. I don't understand why people think Apple don't invest on Safari.

>>sanxiy+s81
Because people are in arms about Web Integrity API, but a lot of the same people will crucify Safari (and Firefox) for not implementing a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards (like the plethora of hardware APIs)