The same was true when IE dominated. The point being missed is if a single browser is allowed to dominate across the board, the owners of the technology become the gatekeepers of web technologies. That would have been extremely bad under Microsoft, and it is going that way with Google. In fact, there was a groundswell of negativity towards WebKit until Google broke the hegemony with by forking it, creating Blink. Which is now in a significantly more dominant position than WebKit ever was.

I’m not suggesting that Apple would be any better or that not allowing other browser engines is a good thing. However, the fact that they don’t is keeping Google/Chrome/Blink from having total dominance of the web.

I'm a regular desktop Safari user and you'd be surprised how many websites are just flat out broken in Safari, especially government sites. Part of the reason I use it as my daily driver is to ensure that the websites I'm working on get tested properly in Safari since the defacto browser for most developers seems to be Chrome.

I wish Apple would make a Safari for Windows or Linux. That the only way to test that your site works properly in Safari is to buy Apple hardware is certainly a contributor to sites being broken in it.

They had Safari for Windows for several years, but abandoned it because it didn't gain enough market share.

That is the point, they want user to complain to Site owners for not working on Safari and forcing them to Buy Apple Hardware.

Basically if you want to serve the 1.4B Active Apple Devices which nearly all use Safari, you have to buy an Apple hardware to test it.

It’s not a perfect analogue, but under Linux, Epiphany/Gnome Web is a reasonably close match for most purposes. Not sure about Windows.

The main reason safari is used in desktop is because other browsers are not first class citizens. They have access to resources that third parties don't.