I don't think it is obvious that this thread is about browser choice. The subject looks to be the absence of competition to Chrome. Lack of personal choice is one reason to be concerned there, but another reason might be handing Google de-facto control over standards.
> The subject looks to be the absence of competition to Chrome
The presence of a proprietary web browser that only works on a specific platform restricted to a certain class of individuals which can afford to be on that platform doesn't really add much to the competition.
> another reason might be handing Google de-facto control over standards
I don't see Apple having that control to be any better although from what I've been reading about web browser engines and the underlying technology, I doubt anyone else, besides a few behemoth tech companies, can take any sort of control. The web is too far gone for that.
I fail to see how one could possibly think these things are not fundamentally intertwined arguments, so I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here.
My previous point was that a walled garden being "huge" offers no benefit for the vast majority of people outside of the walled garden. How does this not apply to these arguments according to you? Because if they do, and I claim they do, then that reinforces my other statement that talking about walled gardens being huge is completely missing the point.
