Both Safari and Chrome are today's IE in different ways.

Just because something works in chrom(ium) does not mean it should work on “the web.”

Safari has more than double the number of standards tests that fail in their browser alone than anyone else.

They are stupidly behind where they should be and intentionally did their best to cripple the web platform as a viable app platform to iOS.

Yes, Safari has more failures, but I would not call it “stupidly behind.” Safari is a decent browser and works well (I use it everyday professionally and personally and have next to no issues).

EDIT: I’d like to point there are a lot of “failures” I’m glad are actually not implemented in Safari (e.g. the accelerometer API should not exist in a browser, nor should the API to make my device vibrate, etc.).

It’s not by any reasonable standard a decent browser judged against its peers.

They do less and they do it worse but with more people than Firefox at least.

Most likely, but like I said above, I’m glad for that.

> with the highest number of bugs by a huge margin

I don’t know… The last time I tried to use the web (I had no other choice) I had a bug in Firefox, which did not exist elsewhere… My usage was the most basic there is. Literally showing a page w/o js.

As usual YMMV, but honestly I’m pretty sure most of the hate Safari gets is not deserved.

No! There’s literally absolutely no reasons why this should be true. As long as you’re not lied to and that the situation don’t change, you buy whatever you want, but don’t go complaining later that you cannot do what you want with what you bought.

Apple has always be very clear from the start: they have a closed ecosystem (which is being pried open by the EU currently, which I find baseless as per my previous §, and that I dislike very much as one of the reasons why I buy Apple devices is because of the close ecosystem, not despite it).

You can feel however you want about it, your opinion as a customer is one of the last things considered when proving anticompetitive harm. No company ever, not the least of which being Apple, has ever escaped anticompetitive scrutiny for being "very clear from the start". If anything, it just goes to show how incapable and reluctant the US is when forced to regulate it's own domestic business.

Apple is only relevant because they're anti-consumer by enforcing a platform monopoly. That shouldn't be the case for many other reasons and that's why they're identified as a Gatekeeper. Erasing the pretend of the browser market is a necessary sacrifice, although it's also a welcome one since it makes Google's behaviour impossible to defend and makes it obvious for all to see.

Mozilla gets big cuts from Google to exist as fake competition - without Google money they're probably unsustainable (especially since Mozilla is putting money anywhere but improving Firefox even though Firefox is also missing quite a few things).

Everyone else is using Chrome reskins and Google deliberately makes it difficult to make any Chrome fork stand out from others by making sure the codebase is put together in such a way where it's impossible to really differentiate a fork beyond some token UI reskins. (Just see how the response to WebManifest v3 getting forced is from all the Chrome reskins, where they admit they may not be able to keep v2 around. That's entirely because the Chrome source code is borderline impossible to keep a "nice fork" with.)

To put it as straightforward as possivle; I don't want an IE 2.0, I want Google dragged to trial for their behaviour on the browser market. If that means revealing that Chrome is an "IE 2.0" it's something I wouldn't mind. It's about the greater goal here, even if the first step is a painful acknowledgement of reality. Google's perverse incentive with Chrome needs to be more obvious and Apples fake competition by being anti-consumer makes that more difficult.