The web is not vendor-agnostic. It's mostly run by Google (Chromium-based browsers), with Firefox and Safari only owning a fraction of the marketshare.
I've always thought that company names like "Entrust" are hostages to fortune, daring the Fates to intervene. In this case the Fates are the browser vendors.
Which browser vendor goes to a direction you'd like?
I'm just curious because as much as I disagree with many of Mozilla decisions, I still can't honestly compare it to other browser vendors like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
I don't think you can conclude from "things got better when browser vendors took over" that it'd be the same if there was one vendor dominating. They keep each other honest at least to a degree, forcing that issues are discussed and things thought out instead of someone in a browser team coming up with an idea and shipping it the first way they can come up with.
I have very little real-world development experience so know these questions are relatively innocent: If there is one browser vendor do they not also control what is the cutting edge of technology? Wouldn't you be completely limited by them? Specifically, could you really imagine Microsoft setting the standards for the experience you have day to day on the web?
Browser vendors collaborating to mitigate a problem they created by shoving more and more complexity into web standards, resulting in a huge moat when it comes to implementing a browser engine.
This complexity moat is what gives Google control over things like Widevine to force you to watch ads, and Apple control over things like slowing down PWA adoption to force developers to use their app store.
Not saying this is evil, just companies following profit incentives as intended. But it often results in worse outcomes for users.
I would love to see some sort of reboot of the web with simple protocols and real experimentation happening in browsers again.
reply