It is, Apple moving focus away from clang is one of the reasons why clang is now lagging ISO C++ support, in an honorable 3rd place, if we don't count all those UNIX, mainframe and embedded compilers that still exist outside of the big three.

C++ on Apple plaforms is mostly used for Metal Shading Language (a C++14 dialect), IO and Driver Kit (with IO Kit being an Embedded C++ dialect), and the minimum ISO required for LLVM (ISO C++17).

Google likewise is mostly focused on what their style guide allows, is adopting Rust and now ex-clang contributors came up with Carbon.

From all mainstream OS vendors, Microsoft is the only one that still doubles down on C++, no wonder that VC++ has the best support for ISO C++20.

So who if so many big actors are losing interest, who is driving the ISO committee? Are we bound to see more conservative standards in the future, or are the remaining people going to turn the place into even more of a madhouse?

About 350 people that go through the effort to submit papers, fight for them until the voting, everything that wins feature election lands into next ISO round.

Stuff being in ISO doesn't imply compiler vendors will bother with such features, see exported templates, which only EDG bothered with, everyone else ignored them, and eventually got replaced with external templates instead.

EDIT: Bjarne also has only one vote like everyone else, thus this paper from him is quite relevant, https://www.stroustrup.com/P0977-remember-the-vasa.pdf

> About 350 people that go through the effort to submit papers, fight for them until the voting, everything that wins feature election lands into next ISO round.

But what would be the point if major compilers refuse to implement these features? C++ is complex enough that it won't be easy (or even plausible?) for a new interested party to develop a high quality compiler. Is C++ going to become Microsoft's plaything?