Safari is a fine browser. It is just not a configurable one, and TechRepublic's Jack Wallen has grown weary of explaining why. A piece published on techrepublic.com runs through the Safari privacy menu next to the Firefox privacy menu, and the gap is large enough that Wallen now reaches for Firefox every time he opens a Mac.
Comparison at a glance
| Feature | Safari | Firefox |
|---|---|---|
| Website tracking toggle | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hide IP address | ✓ | ✓ |
| Block all cookies | ✓ | ✓ |
| Enhanced Tracking Protection modes | ✗ | Standard, Strict, Custom |
| Do Not Track | ✗ | ✓ |
| Certificate management | ✗ | ✓ |
| HTTPS-Only mode | ✗ | ✓ |
| Form/autofill controls | ✗ | ✓ |
| Login/password management | ✗ | ✓ |
| Dangerous content blocking | ✗ | ✓ |
| Data collection toggle | ✗ | ✓ |
What Safari actually exposes
Walk into Safari's settings, click Privacy, and you can toggle: website tracking, hide IP address, block all cookies (with site data management) and Web Ads. That is the entire menu. There is no equivalent of "Do Not Track", no advanced cookie controls, no certificate viewer, no form and autocomplete settings panel, no HTTPS-Only mode, no data collection toggle, and no dangerous-content filter switch.
Walk into Firefox's settings and the same screen stretches from tracking protection presets through password and form management, certificate handling and HTTPS-Only. The contrast is not subtle, and TechRepublic's case is that Apple chooses minimalism here, not simplicity.
The argument Wallen makes
Wallen's read is that Apple treats privacy as something users should not be trusted to configure. The "we'll handle it" posture is great in the abstract, but it strips power users of control they can get in two clicks by switching browsers. Apple's broader design playbook is that "it just works", and Safari fits that ethos, but the cost is real for anyone who wants fine-grained control over how their browser behaves.
He is also blunt about Chrome, which he calls out for tracking and storing user data. Wallen's frustration is not that Firefox beats Safari at privacy, it is that Safari has the resources to match Firefox's controls and chooses not to. Worse, an average macOS user may not realize how thin Safari's settings are, because Apple does not make the comparison easy to find.
Our analysis
The interesting read is what Apple's stance tells you about its product philosophy. Minimal settings are a feature when most users would otherwise misconfigure protections. The same minimal settings become a flaw when a meaningful slice of the user base actually wants more granular control.
For readers here, the work lens is simple: developers and designers spend hours a day in a browser. The cost of a thin privacy menu is small per session but accumulates fast, especially on shared networks or when juggling client work that touches sensitive data. The alternative is not to abandon Safari outright but to keep Firefox or Brave around for the work that needs the deeper controls.
The Chrome question is the silent one in this piece. Chrome's tracking footprint is documented, and yet most users, including many technical users, never switch. Browser-switching inertia is high. Apple's "don't worry about it" posture quietly benefits from that inertia, which should make any reader skeptical.
Who should care
- Power users on macOS**: If you already know what HTTPS-Only mode or certificate management means, Safari's menu will frustrate you daily.
- Developers and IT staff**: Cross-browser testing matters, but so does having a browser you can lock down when handling sensitive environments.
- Security-conscious teams**: Safari works fine as a default, but it lacks the profile segregation and granular toggles that regulated industries sometimes require.
- Typical consumers**: Safari's locked-down approach probably benefits you—you're unlikely to misconfigure anything, and Apple handles the hard parts.
Bottom line
Safari works. Safari's privacy settings do not. Power users have a clear migration path, and Apple has shown no sign of expanding the menu, so the gap will likely widen before it shrinks.
Key takeaways
- Safari's Privacy pane offers four toggles; Firefox offers twenty-plus controls across tracking, certificates, HTTPS and data collection.
- Apple appears to deliberately limit Safari's configuration, betting that fewer options mean fewer mistakes for typical users.
- Power users lose the most: those who want certificate inspection, HTTPS-Only enforcement or granular cookie control have no path within Safari.
- Chrome remains the privacy outlier, tracking and storing user data while most users never consider alternatives.
- The practical fix is not a full browser switch but keeping Firefox or Brave available for work that requires deeper controls.
Frequently asked questions
What privacy controls does Safari actually expose?
Safari's Privacy pane covers website tracking, hide IP address, block all cookies with site data management and a Web Ads toggle, plus a few related options.
How does Firefox's privacy menu differ?
Firefox includes Enhanced Tracking Protection in Standard, Strict and Custom modes, Do Not Track, granular cookie and site data controls, certificate management, HTTPS-Only mode and content blocking options.
Why does Apple keep Safari settings so minimal?
TechRepublic argues Apple deliberately limits configuration on the assumption that fewer settings produce better security for typical users, even if it frustrates power users.
Is Firefox objectively safer than Safari?
Firefox offers more user-facing controls, but whether that translates into objectively safer browsing depends on how those controls are configured. Default Firefox is already well hardened.
What about Chrome in this comparison?
Chrome tracks and stores significant amounts of user data. Wallen flags it as a worse privacy default than Safari, even while noting that most users have not switched.