[Mikeb85]

> I think Safari, flaws and all, is pretty much the only browser that has any weight against Chrome.

This is a terrible argument. That an inferior, proprietary, broken browser made by a company trying to cripple the web to protect their lucrative walled garden should be more popular in order to prevent Google from having more market share just for reasons?

Chrome became popular and is popular because it works. It's cross-platform, it implements all the newest standards, it's just a good product.

[petmon]

It's your opinion that Safari is inferior and broken. IMO desktop Safari is better on UI, privacy, and features like autofilling SMS 2FA codes. It's "behind" on APIs like WebUSB or Idle Detection, and that's another plus: I don't want that stuff.

> Chrome became popular and is popular because it works.

Google promotes Chrome by leveraging the most valuable real estate on the web: the google.com homepage, and GMail popups. This ad space is unavailable to everyone else. They also bundled Chrome with Adobe Flash installers.

I agree Chrome is a good product, but Google uses their influence in search and email to gain Chrome market share. That's fine, it's their prerogative, but it means Chrome's rise is not pure organic growth based on its technical merit.

[kyleee]

It's more reality than an argument, apple has a lot of high end users that most companies don't want to alienate whereas there is much less worry about breaking things for lower market share browsers like Firefox, etc.

[reaperducer]

an inferior, proprietary, broken browser made by a company trying to cripple the web to protect their lucrative walled garden

Wait... are you talking about Apple and Safari? Sounds like a description of Google and Chrome.