The standards are open. The problem is that browsers don't implement them 100% the same and they add in their own features. Settling on a single implementation fixes that issue. Different browsers can compete based on ancillary features like Linux distros do.

> Settling on a single implementation fixes that issue.

When Microsoft was in a monopoly position, they ignored the standards and pushed ActiveX plugins. Chrome this year wanted to push other browsers to adopt obsolete U2F specifications because they used them in Google products. If there's a single implementation, and the gatekeepers are majority from one company, standards and interoperability become irrelevant.

>If there's a single implementation, and the gatekeepers are majority from one company, standards and interoperability become irrelevant.

That's a good thing. What's the point of maintaining four separate software projects who's ideal purpose is to literally do the exact same thing. It's much better to settle on one open source project. If we think Google is the boogeyman then settling on a Chromium fork is still light years better than what we have now.

I think this is incredibly shortsighted. From a programming perspective, large codebases are a bit like complex organisms and experience a sort of evolution. Forcing yourself into a single local minimum in the form of a single browser implementation guarantees that it will be much harder to avoid having the same constant set of strengths and flaws.

The common ground is the standard not the browser implementation. The web has been working well and is still working well with multiple implementations.

Forom a technical standpoint it's of course unideal, but from a governance standpoint there's a lot to be gained. The browser is a critical piece of infrastructure and handing a monopoly to one company is essentially sleeping at the wheel. As long as there's significant economic value in providing the platform, competition is in the public interest.