[Dah00n]

I think you are missing the point. The reason you don't see broken sites is because developers take extra time making sites work in Safari. They shouldn't have to.

>My impression is the desire to have good mobile support keeps Safari support alive.

I would very much argue the opposite. A good browser in iOS is directly against what Apple want (people in the app store, not in browsers). Safari is at best the absolute bare minimum a company like Apple can get away with and not a line of code more. Having just redesigned our business site I have just finished fixing the site to be the same in Safari as in the other browsers. I was forced to do this extra work to not exclude Apple customers but if I could have left it as is I wouldn't have wasted my time.

[jw14]

That's exactly what I meant. You were forced to do extra work to support mobile Safari or else exclude Apple customers. That decision is made over and over again by teams everywhere and Desktop Safari reaps that benefits.

The technologies I want never actually "win". I always have to choose the one that I either hate the least or has some other compelling benefit. The latter is the reason why I'm using Safari.

I'd rather Safari come around (or be abandoned), but pressuring Apple this way is not very effective. How long did they hang on to those stupid butterfly keyboards?

[Spivak]

I always think this is odd. If Safari is as dire as people say then why not just develop in Safari first? If your site works there then it’ll just work in Chrome/Firefox/Edge right?

[loo]

This argument applied similarly for IE6.

Like IE6, Safari is not a normative subset of web standards.