[realusername]

> No. This is a small but important detail: Chrome is the new IE.

In terms of market share and market power yes it's comparable, in term of tech issues, not really no, it's not even close. Chrome has a very good rendering engine, there's a few quirks here and there, I might have encountered some strange logic once or twice but that's about it.

Safari on the other hand is really comparable in terms of tech issues and the main problem is that you can't even tell people to upgrade on iOS since they are stuck with it.

[matsemann]

> in term of tech issues, not really no, it's not even close

It's not about tech issues. It's about pushing non-standard behavior. There are so many things Chrome implement and people start using, that other browsers have then to call them "standard" and make a similar implementation.

But even worse, since Google also is controlling some of the biggest websites, they can use this functionality and cripple other browsers for not supporting their "standards". Like YT has been horrendously slow on Fx for years. Not based on Fx being slow, but YT having implementation details that happen to work well on their own browser..

[eitland]

> in term of tech issues, not really no, it's not even close.

Like with IE that is the next step.

Once competition is utterly crushed, do you think Google "can defend" using tens of millions a year on this?

Microsoft "could not" and they have a much stronger history of maintaining stuff.

Why then would I think that a company that cannot even properly maintain their main public facing property, the search engine?

You know it used to be superior, today it is utterly meh, and no it isn't search spam sites, it is failing to acknowledge doublequotes and the verbatim setting. A billion spam sites cannot break that. Lack of competition can though.

[schnable]

I dunno, Safari uses a ton less memory and CPU on my MacBook Pro.