Not sure how that's even an argument? Istio already was the de-facto standard, it is already in the market right now. Nothing prevented them from submitting to the CNCF - even if the acceptance would have taken a while. This wouldn't have suddenly stopped adoption or development in any way? It would only have enforced the view that the project was committed to stay vendor-neutral. Now, at least in my eyes, they've shown exactly the opposite.
> For a non profit that doesn't hire the core developers
Not sure why an organization formed to allow multiple vendors to work together on the same tools and play neutral party there would need developers. That would make them a stakeholder, something you want to avoid. They do have staff though[1], which also costs a lot of money, and organizing events isn't free.
That's not what the Cloud industry is about, it's about speed and time to market.
> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that.
Valid point, i have no evidence to support this, i just feel like CNCF looks for any opportunity to monetise itself for reasons i don't understand (Certifications, Conferences...). For a non profit that doesn't hire the core developers of the tools they support (most are hire by tech companies) i don't see why kubecon should cost 1k$+