> Market share is relevant to your argument because it determines the standards that determine engine complexity. I talked about two different things, (1) what

> Market share is relevant to your argument because it determines the standards that determine engine complexity. I talked about two different things, (1) what is and (2) what should be. (1) "The web standards bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers". (2) "the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser." You appear to be criticizing (2) by assuming (1), but (1) is the opposite of (2). The latter is an ideal, not the sad reality. > Linux is a perfectly great mainstream desktop option Linux is not a mainstream desktop option, because consumers can't walk into a computer retailer and buy a desktop running Linux. That's why Linux has a practically nonexistent consumer market share. Of course techies can run Linux, though I wouldn't call Electron apps "great" by any measure. > In your world, somehow every platform vendor stops making web browsers, and we might have a bunch of browsers with 0.1% marketshare. How? Ludicrous. It was purely a hypothetical scenario. The point of the hypothetical scenario was to explain why market share shouldn't be relevant to standards (as I also explained at the beginning of this comment). > And proprietary browser plugins, really? They were in fact not all proprietary and are not necessarily proprietary. What's wrong with modularity? Some software vendors can specialize in HTML/CSS, some in video, etc. > Again I don't think you've thought it through. You can disagree with me, but these continuing, unnecessary, personal, condescending comments are in violation of the HN guidelines. Please stop.