Yeah, I worded that badly.

KDE's KHTML and KJS libraries -> WebKit -> Chrome

KDE's KHTML and KJS libraries -> WebKit -> Safari

What I meant to imply is that Safari is standards based using very similar code in parts to Google's Chrome.

I do and did understand that it all began with KDE, etc. but the way I worded that was all wrong. Thanks for the correction.

And I told you they are. The fact that a minority wants to jailbreak iPhones so they can put whatever apps and wallpapers they want when the app store has countless thousands of them that suit that vast majority of people does not hardly mean the choice was not good for users overall. It was. You cannot have security without controls. You cannot give end users who don't even know what root access is, root access without just begging for problems. The whole point of a lot of decisions Apple makes is to head off problems at the pass. If you don't like that, go jailbreak your phone then.

Again, in the case of adding components to OS X, Apple is conservative not because they are "slacking" but because they put a very high priority on system stability and reliability. Other than the rare power failure my system uptime is 100%. This doesn't happen by itself.

You may not agree with the decisions made in the interest of providing users an optimal experience and that is fine. You should run Windows, Linux, BSD or something else if you want. Go right ahead but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop telling me how wrong I am to like what I do. I could tell you what I think of Windows or Linux depending on what you run and why I don't choose them but you know what? I wouldn't. You know why? Because you don't need to know that. You only need to know what works for you. You don't need me telling you how to live, what to like, what to think, etc.

Do you understand what I am getting at there? You know, it seems to be completely lost on you that Apple is one of the most successful and wealthy companies in America. How do you suppose that happened? Please, it's a rhetorical question. Please, don't answer it.

Provide a credible source to support this assertion or it isn't true. Better still, please tell me exactly what features of WebKit which are necessary to access sites around the web? Most important of all, do tell me exactly what significant web sites do not render properly in Safari because of the flaws you are telling me exist in it?

I don't think you can.

Anyway, I don't know why you'd want to keep arguing for something that has about an ice cube's chance in hell of happening. What's the point?

Apple's choices make developers' life harder, so in the end may not be good for users.

Why? Because sandboxing apps is so hard? I can think of a few more, all of which are justified in terms of security and other gains that benefit users who are frankly more important than developers considering one group is paying for software and the other is getting paid to provide it.

Developers seem to be doing just fine with Apple. There are an incredible number of apps available for Apple's iOS and OS X platforms. There wouldn't be if things were so tough for developers.

That's exactly my point. Caring for your users means giving them a choice, so whether they are majority or not, they can adjust it to their needs. Not giving them a choice means they don't care about their users.

I already did that above, but apparently you missed it. See:

http://nolanlawson.com/2015/06/30/safari-is-the-new-ie/
https://kenneth.io/blog/2015/07/03/safari-isnt-the-problem-but-the-lack-of-browser-choice-in-ios-is/

In some senses Apple is worse than MS, but both really are seriously sick with lock-in mentality.

No, because using Objective C when the entire world is using C++ is hard. Because a custom API like Metal means more work for devs to support multiple platforms.

(Similarly from the user side, users of any phone but Apple's can charge their phone using micro-USB, but when Apple users want to charge they must use an Apple charger.)

I think it would be awesome to have 1 API for every platform (Like a simplified OpenGL). Like WebKit in web browsers.

Well, sorry but having worked in development as I am thinking maybe you have or do, I have zero sympathy there. It's a well paid profession where the work is generally done in a comfortable environment and the benefits aren't bad either. If that's not good enough for someone, I would encourage them to go develop for Windows or change careers or whatever. From this user's perspective when I see an incredible selection of apps that allows me to create workflows that work for me I remain convinced that whatever issues developers may face in delivering those goods are not impacting users - at all. We don't care what language programmers use. We don't care about APIs. We only care about the "it just works" mantra which we pay good money for. Anybody that has issues playing the game by those rules can find another game to play.

I do not find using an Apple charger to be a hardship personally. It came with two options. I find plugging into my iMac convenient as I sync while I am at it. Every night before I crash, I grab the loose end of the cord already permanently plugged in behind the iMac, plug in the iPhone. Done.

How is that hard for me? It comes included. I can also just plug into a wall outlet if desired but personally I don't desire that. The option is also included for those who do.

You know, if the charger thing pisses you off, just buy a different phone. Problem solved. Meantime a whole lot of other people are just fine with them. I know I am as is my entire immediate and extended family. Just the same, to each their own.

I'm not buying any of the above as issues end users in the majority care about at all. Those that do care can easily vote with their wallets and they do. Good enough.

Actually there are nearly as much HTML rendering API than there are Web browsers ;)

Here you go for a (non-extensive) list.

@dirtyharry50: That's not the point being made. Multiplication of effort caused by NIH syndrome and lock-in driven APIs is not something that developers ever appreciate. And especially not something those who pay for that development cheer for. As you said - there is no free cheese here. That multiplication increases costs not for technical reasons, but because some are pushing this lock-in on developers.

Because a lot can be lost in translation writing a textual reply, let me preference this by making clear I am joking with you...

Are you running a support group for troubled developers who are having a difficult time enduring the rigors of their chosen profession and who need assistance and emotional support to carry on? I mean, maybe I am just out of touch with their feelings, kind of like Dilbert's boss would not care about such things, you know?

However this isn't a joke, and saying that lock-in is useful and doesn't add extra costs is simply silly and wrong.

Most retarded tech-wise thing said in 2015 so far.

Well, that’s a way to answer. Or you could have done like me and linked him some article to show why this assertion is wrong.
Don’t you prefer when the discussion is constructive?