Apple's WebKit Rules Reportedly Cost iOS Users Almost 30% Browser Performance

[LuisNeto]

What's the realistic scenario where 99% of web is Chromium and most developers decide to design to support many non-chromium engines?

Yes companies do a risk calculation and many conclude that supporting one browser long term is worth the risk in losing customers who refuse to use a certain browser.

iOS allowing Chromium would just mean Fortune 500 companies will design for Chromium

I find it deeply flawed that you keep claiming that these things would with the absolute certainty as you are doing. You don't have a crystal ball or time machine to know if it would be like that or not.

Your experience in a team (or more than one) within a single Fortune 500 company does not necessarily extrapolate to the entire world the way you are saying.
Not all teams within a company make similar decisions, let alone all Fortune 500 companies making the same decisions.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure all websites made by Fortune 500 companies added up are an insignificant percentage of all websites in the world.
I'm pretty sure many front-end developers believe in supporting multiple engines and will keep doing so.
Which is to say that I truly believe that you are massively extrapolating, in my opinion.

I don't understand what you're asking. I'm literally responding to your questions. Larger marketshare means more likely companies will just focus on the biggest one.

I'm asking: let's imagine you're actually right about your hypothetical scenario where Chromium's market share grows to 99%, and that everyone starts developing for that engine.
As long as no company played unfairly by following anti-competition practices and it was all a result of the users having chosen Chromium browsers and the engines the website developers have chosen to focus their websites on Chromium support, why is it a problem to live in a world like that?

 

[germanbeer007]

I find it deeply flawed that you keep claiming that these things would with the absolute certainty as you are doing.

I find it deeply flawed that you are suggesting companies spend more money on very little returns. In what world does it make sense to pay extra $120k and slowing down dev pace for the 1% user base that may return at best $50k?

Which is to say that I truly believe that you are massively extrapolating, in my opinion.

Please give an example where many for profit companies spend more money to add support that yields, at best, break-even returns (and no other benefits).

I'm asking: let's imagine you're actually right about your hypothetical scenario where Chromium's market share grows to 99%, and that everyone starts developing for that engine.
As long as no company played unfairly by following anti-competition practices and it was all a result of the users having chosen Chromium browsers and the engines the website developers have chosen to focus their websites on Chromium support, why is it a problem to live in a world like that?

We're discussing healthy competition. Your question doesn't touch on increasing competition. You're essentially asking "well why not let Google completely win the browser war for all operating systems? It's what the user chose." which is a completely different discussion.