It's hard to pick sides between two of the most hypocritical companies in the world. To start with, Apple. It's very much true that Apple has intentionally sab

It's hard to pick sides between two of the most hypocritical companies in the world. To start with, Apple. It's very much true that Apple has intentionally sabotaged Webkit's potential. By underinvesting, by neglect (not solving bugs, poor documentation) and by blocking a whole series of promising new web features, all under the disguise of "user privacy". It's not some unfounded wild claim. Somebody like Maximiliano Firtman has been documenting Apple's crappy track record for years: https://firt.dev/tags/ios/ https://firt.dev/tags/ios/ It's also very typical how after years of neglect all of a sudden Safari has substantial and meaningful releases in recent months. A timeline that directly aligns with dramatically increased regulatory pressure. Apple doesn't want the web to succeed. It wants to do the absolute least possible to ensure it's tolerable yet can never compete with native apps. Moving on to Google (Alex Russell is an ex-Googler): "Past swings away from OS default browsers have hinged on the superior features, better performance, improved security, and superior site compatibility. Marketing and distribution play a prominent role but have been indecisive in recent browser battles." I find this statement maddening. To a normie, zooming out across all web users, modern browsers are near-identical. They don't do a deep study to compare web browsers in the way us nerds might do. They use the browser that was already installed, got pushed to them, or what their friends use. Google is able to aggressively push browsers on Android and billion user services like Youtube. Compare this to the reach of Mozilla, which is zero. To dismiss this point and to insist it's mostly "merit" is a lie. "Destkop OSes have long created a vibrant market for browser choice, enabling many competitors to flourish over the years." In the article, this quote is preceded with a chart showing the exact opposite: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#yearly-2009-2022 https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... In this "thriving market", we're back at an IE level monopoly. Mozilla has been bleeding market share for 12(!) consecutive years. It has no reach and most new users are mobile, where it has near-zero presence, so it will continue to bleed further. The rest are Chromium clones. It's even a lie to call it a market. As the author illustrates, it would cost 400M+ annually to develop a competitive browser. This would still get you nowhere since you need an OS and billion-user services to push it. So it's not a market at all, since you can't realistically enter it. Anyway, it's still interesting to contemplate which of these two hypocritical companies should win, what would be the best outcome for the web? In a perverted way, Apple's sabotage of webkit makes them the last man standing in keeping Google in check in not doing any funny business on the web. It is the only sizable counter force remaining. On the other end, full browser engine competition on IOS could bridge the gap between the web and native apps. Or, it could just mean Chrome overruns Safari and the open web pretty much ends. In the short term, I prefer the Webkit wakeup call scenario that we now see unfolding. If they continue to lock browser engines yet rapidly change their behavior for the better, this might be best for the web on the short to mid term. It feels very dirty, it's not right, but it might be the best outcome.