> If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

These are all systems and projects created and run by human minds. Nothing is "inevitable" and nothing "deserves" to die. These are just outcomes of choices by users, vendors, and regulators. I think many people here are advocating for choices that would keep some kind of competition to Chrome alive. You seem to be advocating for the opposite. That's not necessarily wrong or bad, but Chrome becoming a total monopoly is not "inevitable" either.

Short term, the death of the open web will likely mean many real-world human deaths, because censorship by oppressive regimes becomes far simpler the fewer options people have (or are aware of) for methods to access the open web.

In my head the flowchart looks like this: Closed/censored web only -> People giving up hope/being caught trying to escape oppression -> increased human suffering and untimely death

I'll agree with what you're saying about long-term consequences, but you could argue the same thing about the death of nations/states, couldn't you? And how many times in history have nations collapsed without periods of wanton destruction and looting due to the power vacuum?

Anything COULD happen - I think it is pretty clear people here have an understanding of what would happen

> Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know?

History.

> If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability

Only an inevitability due to attitudes like yours. Please stop contributing/pushing for the end of the open web.

Man, I use Firefox for Christ sake. You don't have to be anti open web to know letting anti-competitive behaviour run rampant is even worse than having the open web that we have today.

Your perspective is as insane to me as mine is to you. Don't let a corporation make decisions about your computing freedom for you.

Anti-competitive behaviour from both sides is why we're in this situation (Apple/Safari/Chrome) to begin with.

Do you know why Safari and Chrome exist?

Safari was created so Apple wouldn’t be totally dependent on MS for a web browser. They’ve been in that situation many times before (and since). Apple is allergic to depending on someone else for something really important.

Why does Chrome exist? Same reason. Google didn’t want to depend on being at the whims of Microsoft. They wanted to ensure they would have a browser that would do what they needed.

Both existed to open the internet more from what was going on at the time.

Now people want to kill one to let the other become triumphant.

That’s what makes no sense to me.

What doesnt make sense to me are people thinking that Safari will die if Apple is forced to allow other browsers on iPhone.

Don't underestimate the inertia of defaults. Safari will still be the default browser.

A way more likely scenario is that Apple no longer will be able to drag their feet, holding the web back, but instead will actually have to keep Safari up to date and competetive with other browsers.

> The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though.

I predict the App/Play Store duopoly will take over the web.