I do not know enough about Safari to agree or disagree with your general point, but I find this part to be really irrelevant: > Also one could argue that if Ap

I do not know enough about Safari to agree or disagree with your general point, but I find this part to be really irrelevant: > Also one could argue that if Apple did not invest so much in WebKit then chrome would have had a harder time achieving its current usage and would probably be a very different browser than what it is today. The same can be said on an even larger scale about microsoft and IE 5 and 6; that doesn't mean in anyway that years later they were not a pain stopping the web from going forward. In other word, I don't see how that has any impact on the conversation at end (neither for or against the point made). EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes. Apple invested a lot into Safari (and thus webkit which lead to chrome). Doesn't change in any way if Safari is or isn't holding the web back currently, which is why I say it's irrelevant to paren't countering argument. And in fact, we have a previous examples since we lived the same scenario with Microsoft who invested a lot into IE 5/6 (and leading into DHTML, XMLHttpRequest, ...), which then definitely hold the web back. This is, literally, the same argument. I don't see how I can be downvoted for stating that obvious fact unless you think that IE 6 didn't hold the web back after a while.