Ok, I'll bite: > TL;DR: Does it matter if the web platform adds new capabilities? yes > And if it should, which ones? dunno. > The web is a meta-platform.

Ok, I'll bite: > TL;DR: Does it matter if the web platform adds new capabilities? yes > And if it should, which ones? dunno. > The web is a meta-platform. Why a met-platform and not just a platform? > Like other meta-platforms such as? > the web thrives or declines to the extent it can accomplish the lion's share of the things we expect most computers to do. This presumes a web browser is intended to do "the things we expect most computers to do", but it could be fairly said a web browser does strictly a subset of "the things we expect most computers to do", and some might further argue (right or wrong) that it should stay that way. > Adjacency to the current set of capabilities provides a disciplined way to think about where to invest next when working to stave off irrelevance. I think he's saying that we need extra functionality in the browser to do the things he wants. I think. > If distribution of runtimes is blocked, competition falters, and adjacent capabilities can go un-addressed. Ecosystem decline, and eventual collapse, follows. "Do what I want or there will be DISASTER!" > Apple and Mozilla posturing about risks from new capabilities is belied by accepted extant native platform risks. We already have risks so I'm going to dismiss concern over extra risk that will come with my desired extra functionality. (This is an awful sentence and BTW 'posturing' is a weasel word). > For different reasons, they are both working to cast the web in amber. We will all have lost a future worth wanting should they succeed. "DISASTER, I tell you, DISASTER!" tl;dr of the tl;dr is he wants new stuff in the browser and damn the consequences. Best I can make out anyway.