Ultimately, I think there is some truth to what Joe is saying. We have already seen the web stagnate under the reign of IE6 - almost a decade of no real innovation.
As web developers, we are limited by what the browsers are capable of. That's not to say we don't desire more... hence why a good proportion of devs and designers are using the very latest technology even though it hasn't been fully ratified by it's standards bodies.
People _want_ to innovate on the web. With every single one of the other platforms, the web comes for free - they have a browser and a working HTTP stack.
I think the challenge is protecting users. The fact that web is such a widely-used platform means even small changes to the supporting technologies can have vast security repercussions.
It's not ownership that's the problem - it's fear. What we need is a browser vendor that's prepared to stick it's neck out, to be daring with the technologies.
Also fear of accountability... as soon as you become the leader in the browser wars you become accountable for a huge proportion of the world's web experience. This was why IE stagnated.
So as a browser vendor, who do you cater for? The billions who just use your software, or the few-million who want to innovate on it?
This is why taking ownership is not an option. I would argue that browser vendors would actually prefer to have an equal proportion of users. If Android and iOS had that sort of reach, they would face the same problem. The difference being that some platforms actually make more money out of a wider reach.
This changes the dynamic somewhat - of course the owners of those technologies want to innovate, it's a huge income stream. But if someone took charge of the web, who would get all of the money? Who would pay?
So there's little incentive for ownership and in fact the last few decades have proven that there doesn't need to be ownership of the web to make it work. All we need is someone to stick their neck out - just like Apple did with the iPhone.
As web developers, we are limited by what the browsers are capable of. That's not to say we don't desire more... hence why a good proportion of devs and designers are using the very latest technology even though it hasn't been fully ratified by it's standards bodies.
People _want_ to innovate on the web. With every single one of the other platforms, the web comes for free - they have a browser and a working HTTP stack.
I think the challenge is protecting users. The fact that web is such a widely-used platform means even small changes to the supporting technologies can have vast security repercussions.
It's not ownership that's the problem - it's fear. What we need is a browser vendor that's prepared to stick it's neck out, to be daring with the technologies.
Also fear of accountability... as soon as you become the leader in the browser wars you become accountable for a huge proportion of the world's web experience. This was why IE stagnated.
So as a browser vendor, who do you cater for? The billions who just use your software, or the few-million who want to innovate on it?
This is why taking ownership is not an option. I would argue that browser vendors would actually prefer to have an equal proportion of users. If Android and iOS had that sort of reach, they would face the same problem. The difference being that some platforms actually make more money out of a wider reach.
This changes the dynamic somewhat - of course the owners of those technologies want to innovate, it's a huge income stream. But if someone took charge of the web, who would get all of the money? Who would pay?
So there's little incentive for ownership and in fact the last few decades have proven that there doesn't need to be ownership of the web to make it work. All we need is someone to stick their neck out - just like Apple did with the iPhone.