There are three choices: use Safari for sub-par site experience, use Chrome for compatible, don't use the site.

Yes, except the Safari experience is only sub-par because the developer chose to use some bleeding edge feature that doesn't fall back gracefully, or is relying on a Chrome bug, or a lax feature implementation in Chrome.

There's no reason for Safari to have a sub-par experience except for the laziness of some web developers.

▲

doginasuit 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> There's no reason for Safari to have a sub-par experience except for the laziness of some web developers.

How about a browser with a captive userbase that has less incentive to stay up to date with web standards?

Your argument is that we should expect developers to target/test their app on many different browsers where any random CSS property behaves differently. They will have to buy a device just for this purpose. Because it is obviously developers who should have to pick up the slack here, not Apple.

▲

crab_galaxy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

100vh, PWAs, and full screen support that isn’t absolute garbage aren’t exactly bleeding edge features

	▲	simondotau 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Being able to block trackers and not use ridiculous amounts of RAM aren't exactly bleeding edge features either