Slower to implement new features, but still implementing them, just makes it the new Firefox. IE's larger problem was how popular it had been before it stopped implementing new features. It was like if Google got bored with Chrome and decided to stop all funding on it. People would be stuck on Chrome for years after that investment stopped because of all the Chrome-specific things built around it (Electron, Puppeteer, Selenium, etc and so forth).

Right now the world needs a lot more Safari and Firefox users complaining about Chrome-only sites and tools than it does people complaining about Safari "holding the web back". Safari's problems are temporary. Chrome is the new Emperor and IE wasn't bad because it stopped, it was bad because it stopped after being the Emperor for some time. People remember how bad the time was after the Empire crumbled, but it's how IE took so many other things down with it that it is easier to remember the interregnum after IE crumbled than to remember the heyday when "IE-only websites are good enough for business" sounded like a good idea and not a cautionary tale.

▲

nchmy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Right now the world needs a lot more Safari and Firefox users complaining about Chrome-only sites and tools than it does people complaining about Safari "holding the web back".

There wouldn't be Chrome-only sites and tools if Safari wasn't holding the web back (no "quotes" needed, as that's precisely what they're doing).

> Safari's problems are temporary.

What are you talking about? They've been woefully behind for like a decade. Here's an excellent article on the topic: https://infrequently.org/2023/02/safari-16-4-is-an-admission...

And an entire series: https://infrequently.org/series/browser-choice-must-matter/

	▲	WorldMaker 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> There wouldn't be Chrome-only sites and tools if Safari wasn't holding the web back (no "quotes" needed, as that's precisely what they're doing). It's a matter of perspective. The safer perspective is: Safari isn't holding the web back, Chrome is moving too fast. Developers making Chrome-only sites and tools are moving too fast for the safety of web standards/web platform. Where one of the safety factors is "widely available in multiple implementations, not just a single browser". > > Safari's problems are temporary. > What are you talking about? The point is that Safari may be moving slow, but it is still moving. It doesn't have enough users to hold the web back. It isn't "always a decade behind", it 's "a couple years to a couple months behind", depending on which caniuse or MDN Baseline approach you want to take. There are some things Safari doesn't want to implement, but has registered safety or privacy or coupling reasons behind such things. Firefox is doing the same. Safari isn't trapping website developers in "old standards forever", it is encouraging developers to use safe, private, stable choices. Chrome is "move fast and sometimes break things". Safari doesn't want to be that. That's useful for the web as a platform to have one or two browsers considering their implementations. It's a good reason to point out "Chrome-only" developers as being "too bleeding edge" (sometimes emphasis on the bleeding) and out of touch with standards and standards processes.