Talk:Safari (web browser)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Inclusion of details about releases only available under NDA[edit]

The article currently contains details about pre-release "seed" builds of Safari. It links to as a source for information about this build. The page containing this information states:

Warning: Pre–release software is Apple confidential information. Your unauthorized distribution of pre–release software or disclosure of information relating to pre–release software (including the posting of screen shots) may subject you to both civil and criminal liability and result in immediate termination of your ADC Membership.

Providing information about each pre-release build is also of highly questionable valuable.


So, this article criticising the current state of development of Safari made its round through several tech news sites. There was also a follow up. Is this notable and/or valid enough to be added to the article? (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable and should be added. (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Apple is actually one of the main developers for most of the web’s standards, most notably HTML5. Very few people consider Safari outdated with regards to generally accepted standards like that. Some people consider lack of support for more esoteric formats and components like WebM as lack of support for standards, but many don’t consider them standards at all. At any rate, this section as currently written implies that the criticism is widely held, and that is not the case. It is just barely notable, but not all notable views should be presented as being equally prominent, regardless of validity. If that is not the case, then the criticism about standards support towards every web browser since Mosaic should be on their respective pages. Every browser has at least as many complaints of this nature as Safari, after all. Despite the word, people often have trouble agreeing on what counts as a standard. If you define a “standard” as being what the ITU-T, ISO, or IEC defines as one, rather than an abstract term with a subjective definition, then nearly all of the criticism cited in this section is factually inaccurate anyway and should be tagged as not supporting the text.[1] If, like me, you don’t feel that is a reasonable definition, than the section should be rewritten with that caveat in mind as well.—Saklad5 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


Can we remove the criticism section, please? Look at Google Chrome, Internet Explorer and Opera (web browser). They don’t have critisism sections, only reception sections. Why are Apple products always targeted? Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 07:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Go to the RfC. Nigos (talk (Special:Contributions/Nigos) 06:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

iPad 2010[edit]

There's no mention of the introduction of the iPad and the fact that it came with Safari pre-installed. Akld guy (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It comes with Safari pre-installed because it comes with iOS pre-installed and iOS comes bundled with Safari; it's not as if any iDevice from Apple didn't come with Safari pre-installed - there's nothing special about the iPad in that regard. Guy Harris (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Safari (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the criticism section[edit]

The consensus is that the section should be expanded to have both positive and negative material per WP:WEIGHT so that the section can be renamed to a more neutral title like "Reception and reactions". Editors agreed with boldly doing this.

Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the criticism section be replaced with a more neutral section header and content, such as "Reception"? Nigos (talk · contribs) 06:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Sort of - The section should be expanded to both pros and cons in due WP:WEIGHT. As it is, the article structure is bare facts and criticisms, no room for positive reviews. See also the essay WP:Criticism. Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not much fussed Perhaps "Reception and reactions"? Agree with CapitalSasha and Waddie96 JonRichfield (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.