And, yet, when I read the New York Times on the Web, the site tries to get me to switch to the app and requires me to tap away the annoyance to stay on the Web. I guess whatever NYT gets out of readers using the app outweighs the risk to journalistic independence.

That's a very good point and one with a simple explanation: I don't think that most people in digital businesses see the web as less subject to the power dynamics that prevail over app stores. We can debate whether that's exactly right, but I think it is directionally correct.

What are the only two browsers that matter? Chrome and Safari. So we're already dealing with the same companies. Can you keep your user data to yourself? Nope, Chrome Sync means Google spies on your business in the same way that app platforms do.

I take issue with the notion of only Chrome and Safari mattering. That kind of framing without alternatives is similar to the notion that of course a business has no alternative but to push users to a store-bound app.

I take issue with it too and work to change it, but it's not a framing, it's reality. Any product manager who needs to get things done on a budget will only look at those ~95%. Hoping for things to be different without changing the structure of power is magical thinking.

It doesn't look like Mozilla has any plan other than driving Firefox to obsolescence one angry blog post at a time. And everyone else is too small.

Insinuating that Mozilla is deliberately trying to "drive Firefox to obsolescence" is wrong and incredibly disrespectful.

At no point did I imply that it was deliberate. I am simply observing that it is happening. There doesn't appear to be any kind of leadership or plan, and good devs can't carry the whole thing.

Sadly the leadership went on a tangent and built Firefox OS which in hindsight was a mistake - engineering resources taken away from the browser to an ultimately failed project. Meanwhile, Opera caved and killed off Presto as the main engine while reinventing itself as an ad mob