It's a lot of work and hard to justify if you're looking for short term improvements. But if you're really committed to long term improvements, it absolutely makes sense. Google is actually willing to make long term investments. Publicly justifying the investment has never been a goal of the project which is why most folks probably don't understand it. Honestly I'm not sure why folks care enough to even do commentary on it. If you find it useful, you can participate, if not just ignore it.

Fwiw inventing a new application ecosystem has never been a goal and is therefore not a limitation for its viability. The hard part is just catching up to all the various technologies everyone takes for granted on typical systems. But it's not insurmountable.

I'm also not sold on the idea that having more options is ever a bad thing. People always talk about web browser monoculture and cheer on new entrants, yet no one seems to mind the os monoculture. We will all come out ahead if there are more viable OS out there to use.

> People always talk about web browser monoculture and cheer on new entrants, yet no one seems to mind the os monoculture. We will all come out ahead if there are more viable OS out there to use.

3 main OSes vs 2 main browser engine for consumer to choose from?

Anyway the main issue with the Browser engine consolidation is that whoever owns the Browser engine, can make or break what goes in there. Just think about VSCode's current status with all the AI companies wanting to use it and make it their own product, while MSFT attempting to curtail it. At some point either MSFT decide it commit to FOSS on this one, or the multiple forks will have to reimplement some functionalities.