The entire argument of the article is that because of Apple's mobile presence, they can effectively veto the standards process by doing nothing. They can act as an anchor. They don't even have to actively torpedo standards.
Device share is irrelevant considering the context is w3c/browswer standards. The relevance of money is to explain Apple's behavior, not condone it. The richest candidate does rather overwhelmingly tend to win, I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying I understand it. If you want to change such outcomes it takes a lot of work.
The relevance of NIH/RDF is they're fighting a culture that probably can't be fought. It'd be better to work on Google and possibly even Microsoft of all companies to get the momentum they need for this standard. All of the same arguments lobbed against Microsoft before and during the significant work of the w3c for either being an anchor or torpedo are the same here. It's simply how big companies behave, and I know a bunch of Apple fans who suggested Apple would never do this if they ever "won" and ended up on top, because they're somehow good/ethical and Microsoft was malicious. And now we see just how neutral the morality of big companies really is because Apple doesn't have to act maliciously to stop progress.
All Apple has to do is have a walled garden with the best API's only available to native apps, and then sit on their laurels with the web browser. It's different only in the details of what Microsoft did. I personally don't like this, but history repeating itself is hardly surprising.
Device share is irrelevant considering the context is w3c/browswer standards. The relevance of money is to explain Apple's behavior, not condone it. The richest candidate does rather overwhelmingly tend to win, I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying I understand it. If you want to change such outcomes it takes a lot of work.
The relevance of NIH/RDF is they're fighting a culture that probably can't be fought. It'd be better to work on Google and possibly even Microsoft of all companies to get the momentum they need for this standard. All of the same arguments lobbed against Microsoft before and during the significant work of the w3c for either being an anchor or torpedo are the same here. It's simply how big companies behave, and I know a bunch of Apple fans who suggested Apple would never do this if they ever "won" and ended up on top, because they're somehow good/ethical and Microsoft was malicious. And now we see just how neutral the morality of big companies really is because Apple doesn't have to act maliciously to stop progress.
All Apple has to do is have a walled garden with the best API's only available to native apps, and then sit on their laurels with the web browser. It's different only in the details of what Microsoft did. I personally don't like this, but history repeating itself is hardly surprising.