The fact that they tried and failed (if they did fail; maybe they will succeed eventually?) shows that they cared at least a little about standardization, even if it was somewhat half-hearted.
When negotiations fail, it's not a given that one side is entirely at fault.
The "request for Mozilla's position" was on December 1, 2020.
Chrome enabled it by default in Chrome 89 that was released only 4 months later, on March 3, 2021.
So they "requested Mozilla's position" and still went ahead, implemented it and enabled it by default. But so nice of them to update the spec two weeks after they released it.
> The fact that they tried and failed (if they did fail; maybe they will succeed eventually?) shows that they cared at least a little about standardization
As reality and facts show, they couldn't care less about standardization.
> When negotiations fail, it's not a given that one side is entirely at fault.
Please show me at which point this was a negotiation.
Indeed. It's rarely designed to be a web standard. However, Chrome rams that through standards body, calls that a standard and enables it by default in Chrome.
Just look at WebHID. Firefox devs couldn't even understand the spec [1], it was so Chrome-specific. Guess what, it's enabled by default in Chrome [2] and Chrome says that it's a standard now [3]. Most of those non-standards are not even out of the "draft" stage of the standards process, with both Safari and Firefox objecting to many, many, many things in the specs.
Google. doesn't. care.
[1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is...
[2] https://webapicontroversy.com
[3] https://web.dev/hid/