I couldn't disagree with this any stronger.

I think you're misunderstanding how much of a difference there was between the rest of the browsers and IE.

Besides, your claim the 'wins' Safari has had - first browser to implement ES6 in its entirety a year or so back. Chrome still doesn't support features users/clients actually ask for, like CSS Scroll snap points for making carousels http://caniuse.com/#search=scroll-snap-type

Sure, a few years ago the difference between browsers was really quite large. But we're in 2017 and most of the most used browsers are mostly in line with the supported features and expected behaviour of them.

But... safari is now the one that has weird behaviour that does not occur in Firefox, chrome and edge. Just because historically there was a massive split in behaviour doesn't mean that Safari gets off free. It's the one browser I hate testing because there are usually edge case and unexpected behaviour.

Again, I'm not seeing this.

I look at Firefox and some of it's inconsistent behaviours around flexbox compared to other browsers (mind you, some of these are due to the spec). Just today I had an irritating render bug in Chrome.

I know, this all comes down to hearsay and individual experiences. But I still strongly believe that 'Safari is the new IE' is nothing but baseless FUD.

How have you not noticed any of them? Most obvious is local storage throws out of space exceptions if Safari is in private mode. I'm not even a web developer.

Honestly, not really. The only one I can think of is your localStorage example.

Regardless, that's not the point. I'm not saying that Safari is perfect, I'm just saying that while it might have some implementation differences and bugs, so do other browsers.

No service workers, web rtc, Stream API or any other feature that can make web apps a viable replacement to app store installed native apps.

As of iOS 11 and macOS 10.13 Safari does support WebRTC and streaming API. And I don't see them supporting service workers any time soon because that's a stupid fucking idea.

Clients ask me to develop carousels much more than I'm asked to make a P2P video conferencing app.

Because private mode is for porn? Who'd try normal apps there?

(only kidding, but it's not the most obvious thing to check and optimize for if you're a web dev. If that's what Safari's problems are, it's pretty solid.)

Can you provide examples of "weird behaviour"?

Im also a Safari user, and in the majority of cases the reason it is not supported is because the page/app uses some custom Chrome-only, non-standard feature. Like this one.

Sure. This one https://s.codepen.io/joshhunt/debug/ZKyYNz. It differs to IE, Safari and Chrome in the way it treats height:0 padding-top: 100% on a flex child. In Safari, the grey box expands properly to contain all divs. In Firefox, it doesn't.

Granted, this is more of a flexbox spec issue (last time I checked this behaviour is intentionally undefined), but it's still an annoying case of one browser doing something all the others don't.

Widevine is not a "Chrome-only" feature. Firefox, Edge and even Opera have Widevine support.

Is it a standard? Did it originate from Google?

"Widevine, a Google company" sounds neither standard nor very open to me: http://www.widevine.com/

I'm really put off by how you dismiss legitimate complaints about the state of webdev as "whiny".

I hope the irony isn't lost when you whine about developers being whiny.

Safari has annoyances, but it is the best performing browser on OSX. I use Chrome for the devtools, but Safari performs better for normal user tasks like video conferencing and web browsing.

Apple also tries to implement some privacy features:

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-rejects-ad-industry-complain...

In this case Apple hasn't implemented a user-hostile feature championed by a rival.

And I guess it's Spotify that made the call to pull the rug out from under their Safari users.

It seems hard to blame Apple here. Should the web standard really just be "whatever Google says?"

That is simpler for web developers, but I think would be terrible for the web as a platform and bad for users.

At some point you have to decide who the web is for, the users or the advertisers and content distributors? Apple is going one way and Google is going another, and I, for one, am happy there isn't universal acceptance of Google's direction, despite the inconvenience to web developers.

Apple _has_ implemented this user-hostile feature. It's just that they only support Apple's own FairPlay DRM.

So assuming Spotify is contractually required to provide DRM for its music (by the music suppliers), Spotify has the choice of licensing Apple's DRM so it can work with Safari or not working with Safari. Which choice is right depends on the licensing terms, which I have not been able to locate in a quick search.

> Apple is going one way and Google is going another

Not on this topic they're not. Apple has been very firmly in the web media DRM camp all along.

As a web developer I am sorry to tell you that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer But this time developers are to be blamed for the situation, focusing on Chrome more and more.

Developers were to blame last time too, IE6 was better than everything else and had all the market share so developers didn't target anything else.

It kind of feels we've gone around in the full circle now.

Why on earth we can't learn from the mistakes made last time I don't know. It wasn't that long ago. It saddens me when I hear "but it's different this time" because, no, it really isn't.

Keep with web standards (real web standards, not pseudo-standards from a large corporation) and make sure your stuff works in at least a basic way in all browsers that your users may need (seriously, not everyone can update to even a browser 2 years old, never mind the nightly bleeding edge build, due to company policies, so stop coding for that please).

Because there's no dynamic to keep things in check. It's natural that one browser has more market share for one reason or another, which results in webpage owners looking out more for things functioning in that browser properly, which in turn leads to more users using that browser.

Same reason why the operating system market and the processor architecture market have virtually no competition and an objectively terrible product in a leading position.

>As a web developer, I am sorry to tell you but Safari (and old Android browsers) are becoming the new Internet Explorer.

You got it backwards. Internet Explorer 6 was the one who supported some stuff first and in its own way -- like Chrome today, and who careless developers, like those who swear by Chrome today, dependent upon, and did their sites "IE-only".

That's how we got in the mess with legacy IE support.

So-called "web standards" are dominated by Google so Google is flexing their muscle here as well. A standard is not "what Chrome does", but what is widely supported. Not Safari, but Chrome is the new IE. In any case, dropping support for iOS Safari isn't a clever thing to do.

As another web developer, I would say that browser support is driven by what browsers people use that actually visit your site, and is decoupled from the what the developer wants/chooses. I have several sites that get 100k+ visits a month from Safari users, so I won't be dropping support for them anytime soon.

As a web developer, invoking "as a web developer" is a poor way to make an argument. This goes for just about anything, yet it's pretty much a Reddit meme at this point.

As a web developer, some won't even get to the question 'in what sense does Safari differ?' because you can't even use it outside of macOS.

Firefox, Chrome and Edge/IE can all be installed in one way or another on any of the 3 major platforms (if you include 3rd party tools). For free even.

In what way can IE be installed on any of the 3 platforms that Safari cannot? macOS is just as capable of running inside a VM than Windows, if that's what you mean.

You have to buy macOS, and you can't legally run macOS in a VM on non-Apple hardware. Microsoft on the other hand provides VM images with various IEs and Edge for free, regardless of you being a customer or not.

macOS/OS X has been free for quite some time. And it's not illegal, it just violates the EULA - there is a distinction.

I don't understand your point. Is it sarcasm?

I would really like to know where Apple offers a way to install/use Safari (desktop) on Linux. It would be great for tests.

I indeed meant they all offer an installation method on the 3 major platforms themselves.

As far as I know, Apple doesn't provide a desktop macOS/Safari environment which you can install/use on Windows or Linux. As I understand, OS X Server could be considered in that light, but it differs and isn't free.

Safari also has the disadvantage of requiring expensive special hardware to support since it only runs on macOS and macOS requires Apple hardware (unless you go the complex route of a hackintosh).

position:relative and percentage values in top combined, for example, are broken - and the devtools are massively behind Chrome. Not to mention the UX that it does not show you the full URL in the address bar.

Guess the only thing keeping people on Safari is that it is deeply integrated into OS X and has battery life advantages over Chrome/FF.

What keeps me on Safari is that it is by far the most resource efficient browser. It keeps CPU and memory usage way way below all other browsers available on the Mac.

In a couple of days Safari will start blocking autoplay videos, which is yet another reason for me to use it as my main browser.

Showing the full URL is a checkbox away in the preferences. It's listed under "Advanced" as "Show full website address".

Thanks I didn't even realize I could change this. And I would add that most people outside of developers (of any kind) probably don't care.

> And I would add that most people outside of developers (of any kind) probably don't care.

Showing the full URL can save you from phishing attempts, though - when you see cryptic crap, <script> or similar stuff in a page URL, you know something is fishy.

For me, Safari's engine level blocking is huge. Safari ad blockers aren't just a mile long list of CSS rules (which can bog things down as much or more than add), they're JSON rule files that are compiled to byte code via LLVM and then applied to the list of resources that are allowed to be loaded BEFORE the page has loaded. Result: blocked elements aren't even requested and blocking has a near-zero performance impact. These extensions, being nothing but JSON, also can't track anyone or do anything malicious, giving you a 100% guarantee that it can't be highjacked and updated to do something malicious.

Aside from that, Apple's design decisions tend towards giving the user more control over their experience while Google seems mostly interested in wooing developers, regardless of cost (who cares about resource consumption or what the user wants?). Apple's approach aligns with me better.

> Aside from that, Apple's design decisions tend towards giving the user more control over their experience

What? Users in control at Apple? No. Apple tries to keep users out of control and inside their walled garden. Only reason I have a Mac is because even with Chrome its battery life is way better than any Windows laptop I ever had, and because it offers a proper Unix shell with actual Unix behavior (e.g. select stuff with the mouse and it ends up in clipboard).

>Not to mention the UX that it does not show you the full URL in the address bar

That's something that Chrome has been experimenting with in beta versions on and off for ages, and will use by default at some point.

Couldn't agree more. These days, I simply tell my clients I won't bother supporting Safari.

I burnt my finger once with Service Workers[1]. "Oh, but I use Safari as my primary browser" doesn't hold anymore, because, you're not the majority. Sorry. [2]

I second it. Safari is the new IE.

[1] http://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m...

>"Oh, but I use Safari as my primary browser" doesn't hold anymore, because, you're not the majority. Sorry. I second it. Safari is the new IE.

How IE became IE-the-problem, is because users rushed to support IE-only features, not caring for browsers that were "not the majority".

Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Does this include iOS Safari?

If you go to that link, it lists both Safari and iOS Safari versions - it looks like neither of the next versions (v11) will have service worker support yet

Oops I didn't notice that would be so unclear, I was referring to the parent's "I won't bother supporting Safari". I'd be surprised if no iOS support is generally considered acceptable for websites.