That is so obvious! But For those of us who has a Mac we dont think about these issues as we can test Chrome and Firefox.

How are Windows Dev suppose to test with Safari when they dont have access to it?

Generally by running selenium tests with BrowserStack or SauceLabs, but that's not cheap.

That is awful! Thank You I think Apple needs to do something about this.

There's the Epiphany web browser which is based on WebKit and will get you a similar experience to Safari - https://webkit.org/downloads/

> Safari is extremely inaccessible software for most people

How the hell is it "extremely inaccessible" for "most" people?

It's Chrome that has an weirdass non-standard UI (the practice of showing app preferences/dialogs in a webpage needs to burn in the flames of Hades) and other niggles, not to mention being a privacy black hole.

If they weren't told to use Chrome (i.e. Google didn't nag people to use Chrome when they're trying to use Search etc.) "most" Mac users wouldn't give a fuck about Chrome.

> How the hell is it "extremely inaccessible" for "most" people?

Because most people don't own Macs. The last Windows compatible version of Safari was back in 2012 or so, and as far as I know, it was never available on Linux.

Therefore, for me to test on Safari, I either have to spend thousands to buy a laptop, or pay out of my pocket for some sort of cross-browser testing tool (even if it's free, I am spending extra time) while Chrome/Firefox are used by most of the world and ensuring that I deal with Safari's idiosyncrasies does nothing much for me.

> It's Chrome that has an weirdass non-standard UI (the practice of showing app preferences/dialogs in a webpage needs to burn in the flames of Hades) and other niggles, not to mention being a privacy black hole.

I would argue its more standard since it is the same UI in every OS I wanted to use. I honestly don't think people are that angry about preferences as a webpage.

In terms of privacy, Firefox kicks Safari out of the water, and in terms of performance, it is faster, and actually renders everything (something Safari fails way too often at).

> "most" Mac users wouldn't give a fuck about Chrome.

Eh. Safari not rendering elements of the page, constantly crashing, and other myriad of issues do well enough to push people to Chrome/Firefox. Also, most people quickly start using Firefox when they realize that UBlock Origin doesn't work on Safari and is easily better than anything that comes on Safari.

Honestly, for me as developer, Safari is the new IE6, except possibly worse because bugs for IE6 are very well-documented with good workarounds.

"Therefore, for me to test on Safari, I either have to... pay out of my pocket for some sort of cross-browser testing tool (even if it's free, I am spending extra time)"

That's precisely the 'lazy web developer' that they're talking about. Oh god no, you have to test on a browser you don't use.

Sure Chrome is dominant, but Safari has about 15% of the market so by taking the stance you do, you're dismissing 1 of 6 people. Because you're lazy.

That 15% of the market is only relevant for companies targeting first world countries with people having wages to buy Apple stuff.

The large majority of the companies across the globe have already enough to do with their local markets with zero (0%) presence of Apple devices.

If Apple wants them to care about Safari, they can easily make Safari available in other platforms, has they have done when they were struggling for survival.

Supporting 85% of the market is basically free - because you already have a PC, and all browsers can be installed on that, except for Safari. But supporting the remaining 15% requires paying several hundred dollars for hardware that you don't really need for any other purpose. I don't think that refusing to do the latter is a case of "lazy".

We have very different opinions on how bad IE6 really was if you think Safari is comparable at all.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Safari is the new IE 6, but I do feel that calling it the new IE 11 is very accurate across multiple dimensions.

I don’t remember good workarounds. IE6 fixes often required entire libraries. Websites ballooned in size due to needing constant shims, normalization, and polyfills. For a long while it wasn’t uncommon to send out a separate stylesheet for ie6 to fix whatever would break using the regular styles. I can’t think of anything Safari does that’s that bad.

How does Firefox win in privacy? Maybe through certain extensions but Safari has the edge in things like private mode tabs not sharing cookies etc. between each other.

It sure doesn’t feel faster.

As for Chrome I read this just now:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-patches-two-more-chrome...

Privacy/no-cookie sharing: Container Tabs + Multi Account Containers in Firefox is incredible. Yes, I realize those are extensions - but that kind of control or extensibility isn't even possible in Safari.

Which is actually the biggest reason I don't use Safari, it has no support for profiles or user-chosen cookie separation (multiple different accounts for GSuite, etc).

As for Chrome just getting patched with zero-days - fine, but remember that Safari doesn't have the concept or ability to do Site Isolation the way Chrome or FF do, Chrome uses the macOS sandbox the same way Safari does, and there have been plenty of Safari CVEs as well. Chrome is usually the last to fall at Pwn2Own; pointing out "oh they just patched a zero-day CVE" doesn't mean much, especially since Apple pushes Safari updates far less often than Chrome does, and will often leave desktop Safari unpatched for weeks after iOS has been fixed.

It’s inaccessible in the sense that most devs don’t have Macs

If you're a professional and don't test Safari, you're not being professional. Don't have a Mac? Use https://www.browserstack.com or similar. Don't want to bother? Then, yeah, you're lazy.

I don't have a Windows machine. I still test against Edge. No Android phone. Still test against a range of them. How? See above.