You think so? So please elaborate on how having your platform marginalized to a mere window decoration around the ubiquitous, 100% dominant UI toolkit (Crome) is better for the consumer.

Besides, there’s plenty of choice on the market, unless you want to complain about a car manufacturer selling only their own models...

Platforms should disappear into the background. The great benefit of the web is that it presents roughly the same UI everywhere across all manner of devices and browsers. (The big downside of course is that it's not exactly the same).

> car manufacturer selling only their own models...

My car doesn't tell me who or what it's willing to transport. Yet.

Agreed, but many people are arguing that browsers should be able to alter the system outside the browser (e.g desktop shortcuts and notifications).

I think that these things should remain under the control of the operating system.

> browsers should be able to alter the system outside the browser (e.g desktop shortcuts and notifications).

I've not seen the argument about desktop shortcuts?

Notifications are one of those features which has already been added and is a nuisance in 99% of cases, but I can see there being one or two use cases where a website sending notifications without requiring a full native app (and approval process!) is worthwhile.

The "should this hardware be available to the browser" fight happens for every feature.

Yup, same shoddy, lowest common denominator, inconsistent UI across all devices and manufacturers.

And to complete the scenario: 1 dominant supplier whose interest is not ideal UX but just invasive and pervasive tracking, and all other actors - being marginalized to mere window decoration - don’t invest a penny in challenging the dominant‘s position, and content themselves with scooping some adware crumbs left over from the market dominator.

Does that sound familiar?

> unless you want to complain about a car manufacturer selling only their own models

It does seem like you get it wrong on purpose.