Phillip Winn responds to my foul-mouth post about Mark’s post about being “intentionally buggy”:

1. It’s a beta product. Last time I remember any browser coming out with a public beta, it’s been used and trashed about just like Safari, except there weren’t people fighting back (for the product.) For some reason a buggy, non-standard browser is being catered to hand over fist, after everything every developer has had to go through for over 5 years.
2. “ALL browsers are buggy. This isn’t just like a browser from 1996, it’s like any other browser in 2003.” That’s exactly the problem. Every other browser in 2003 is buggy and sucks, yet Safari is starting from scratch in 2003 and only comes up to par with the current state of every other browser.
3. “Kottke’s argument is that it should do more to distinguish itself. Sure, that would be nice. Maybe it’ll happen in the next release. But Kottke’s hotly-disputed suggestions aren’t about fixing bugs, they’re about creating a whole new class of product that doesn’t exist.” I think what Jason and I are saying is their idea is short-sighted. They are the ever-innovative Apple, yet come out — in 2003 — with a run of the mill (at best?) web browser?