Yes, because when IE was the dominant browser that was totally the case.
Don't forget that on mobile platforms, not including Windows Phone, WebKit is already the standard engine. Safari, Android's stock browser and Chrome all use WebKit and developing for mobile is a ghetto, especially because each version has their own quirks and bugs (and there are dozens of Android stock browser variations in active use at any given time).
Yes, but just because there is one engine, doesn't mean there is one standard. Just like during IE's monopoly there were several versions of the browser to deal with (each with their own quirks), an engine monoculture (Webkit or otherwise) does not guarantee ease of development at all.
I agree that if there is to be a rendering engine monoculture, it might as well be open source, but that in itself guarantees nothing.
IE was dominant on one OS. It wasn't dominante on anything else than Windows world. Please, and that dominion lasted no more than 10 years. It ended with Android and iOS.
Windows was (and still is) the dominant desktop OS. Until recently, it was a very dominant dominance, with competitors usually making up less than 5% of the market share.
Even today, mobile users typically account for only about 10% to 15% of a site's traffic, for sites that don't directly target mobile users. Mobile just isn't as important or widespread as a lot of people think it is.
I don't know wich sites you are watching. All the sites I do control mobile is rocketing away from the desktop. Last year it duplicated. This year looks like it will be higher.
It gives a good sense of the current situation. Mobile browser usage is under 15%. It's nothing compared to the usage of desktop browsers. The growth from 2011 and 2012 isn't even that impressive, given the all of the hype and attention surrounding mobile.
That's the most scary thing of all. Although open-sourced webkit is mostly developed by big companies ( Apple, Google, Adobe .. ). Webkit is not perfect. There are a lot of bugs that nobody cares and will care less. Imagine what will happen if there are no competitor and webkit core engineers do whatever they want and still people use their engine. Prefixes like '-webkit-animation' will remain forever and w3c specs will not be a significant for them.
If there's bugs you care about, then you patch them. WebKit is open source, so anyone can fork it and build their own version with any fixes or changes they like. I don't see anything but positive news from this.
> WebKit is open source, so anyone can fork it and build
> their own version with any fixes or changes they like.
You're committing an error here. Say you find a bug in Webkit. You patch it, but Apple declines to accept it upstream. You fork the project. Now how do you get your fork into the hands of your users? Unless you're secretly Google in disguise, you're SOL.
But it's not that easy. It's one thing to add a missing feature to a Ruby gem or event to jQuery, but WebKit is a much bigger beast. Most geeks can't realistically patch things in a big heap of C++ code like that...
The codebase is pretty big... and I think you're right that someone can pop in and contribute to smaller projects much more easily. But I've poked around in it and it's not that bad. If you put a week into understanding it, it's not nearly as daunting.
It's about the same as when you start at a company with a large existing codebase. You're not going to get much done until you've read and understand the chunks of the code that relate to what you need to do. This spinup time is definitely bigger than the hour it can take to fix a bug in a small project that you previously had no experience with, but it's definitely within the realm of the possible.
