The "extinguish" is what happens after a substantial portion of the web is only accessible through Chrome. At some point it no longer makes sense to use a different web browser, and when we reach that point the open web is gone.

Isn't the idea of PWAs that you aren't doing it through Chrome, or not knowingly. You're just running an app, and Chrome (or Blink) is a library that the app can use?

> or not knowingly

That's a big difference. What if I sold you a Linux computer that was actually running Windows with a UI that looks like Linux?

It feels like too complex an example that would need to be constrained in various ways to make it apply. Simpler example: if you've used an Electron app e.g. VSCode, you've used Chrome under the hood.

Yeah, I refuse to use VScode because it's ElectronJS. I have colleagues who now find it super cool to use it from GitHub, I don't understand.

I use the JetBrains IDEs, made for the JVM.

...okay, but in the context of:

> The "extinguish" is what happens after a substantial portion of the web is only accessible through Chrome. At some point it no longer makes sense to use a different web browser, and when we reach that point the open web is gone.

I'm saying how a PWA approach doesn't make people switch web browser, when they don't know it happens to be a Chrome library rendering their PWA?

If bluetooth is so essential that a substantial portion of the web will rely on it, then maybe other browsers should support it.

You're still focused on the Bluetooth, but that's just one tiny part of a larger pattern of Google ignoring the rest of the vendors and doing what they want. The death of the web, if it occurs, will be death by a thousand cuts.

Bluetooth is the example that you chose, and that I used to make a general point, which also applies to any other API.

I'm not OP