It is in Apple's interest to have as many prospective iPhone buyers comfortable with the browser. After all, the $599 sticker price, when combined with a sense of unfamiliarity with the iPhone's built-in browser, may cause hesitation among at least some of the teeming milions who come to the iPhone proposition as non-Safari, Windows users.
When the iPhone launches, there is going to be huge crush of curious onlookers who while may not buy an iPhone, are likely to idle over to the Macs and find something familiar, thus making them overcome their fear of switching.
I'm surprised how few other bloggers get this. Some think AT&T, which does have a voice as iPhone's exclusive U.S. carrier, is yanking Apple's chain.
Then, there are the alarmists. Ever since the release, the "insecurity" of Safari's Windows offering has been a common meme in the blogosphere. Application termination, cross-site scripting, arbitrary code vulnerabilities on nasty sites. Those security "issues," which were no worse than your periodic IE problems, have largely been fixed by an incremental rev.
Not that these security questions should not have been pointed out, but I sensed a certain glee in this piling on.
I suspect the real reason for this derision about Safari for Windows is the pathological hatred of Microsoft among the Mac cultists. Anything Apple does that is seen as some sort of accomodation to Windows users earns stated hostility from some Mac cultists, and unstated hostility from many more.
Mac cultists really believe they are superior technobeings to Windows users.
Mac cultists believe that little if any good comes from Windows.
Mac cultists also believe that Microsoft is evil, and that any accomodation with the company or its Windows OS is a surrender. And if AT&T can be derided as the agent of surrender, the corrupter of their beloved Apple, then doing so helps spread out the blame.