Ther other path is to view browsers as viewers of sometimes
dynamic documents. There is a certain power in limiting the amount of expressiveness in the web - it allows for a lot more creative repackaging.
Unfortunately this path doesn't allow for much targetted advertising opportunities, so that's why Google et al wisely abandoned this path. ( /s )
Dynamic documents fundamentally can't achieve the usefulness of modern web applications though.
The fact of the matter is that web still seems to be the last bastion of freedom where you have a decent chance of publishing your software without begging for approval from a Californian. It's also inherently portable and doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy.
Which is why the rent seekers are trying so hard to dismantle it instead of empowering it.
I'd say 99% of sites out there don't need the "usefulness of modern web applications" at all. They are strictly linked sets of documents, with some interactivity through forms and such.
It's also inherently portable and doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy.
What you're perfectly fine with is slimmer browsers. Crippled browsers, as in the ones in Apple's world, are browsers where the supported specs and features are selectively chosen for political / competitive reasons. It's absolutely not healthy.
Apple doesn't cripple Safari. They just don't want to engage in a losing war of implementing half-baked underspecified standards that Chrome rushes against any objections.
Mozilla is increasingly on the Apple's side these days.
reply