Why do most browsers choose Blink while both have open source kernels? ...

The primary reason most browsers choose Blink over WebKit is a strategic desire for direct control over the engine's roadmap and architecture, coupled with the significant resource commitment required to maintain a competitive fork. While both WebKit and Blink are open-source, Google's 2013 decision to fork WebKit and create Blink was driven by a need to innovate without the constraints of a multi-stakeholder governance model. WebKit, originally developed by Apple, has a contributor base and steering process that prioritizes the needs of its core patrons, notably Apple and its Safari ecosystem. Google, aiming to rapidly develop features for its expansive web services and the Chrome platform, found this collaborative process cumbersome. Forking the codebase allowed Google's engineers to streamline the code, remove legacy components, and implement architectural changes—such as a multi-process model more aggressively—without needing consensus from other WebKit stakeholders. This unilateral control is a decisive advantage for a company whose business is intrinsically linked to the web's performance and capabilities.

The subsequent industry adoption of Blink by nearly all major browsers except Safari is a testament to the engine's technical dominance and the practical realities of browser development. Opera switched to Blink shortly after its creation, Microsoft Edge abandoned its own EdgeHTML engine for Blink in 2019, and countless other browsers like Brave and Vivaldi are built on Chromium, the open-source project that includes Blink. This convergence creates a powerful network effect: developers primarily test for Chromium-based browsers, and a vast ecosystem of tools and libraries is optimized for Blink. For other companies, adopting Blink via the Chromium project represents a massive reduction in development burden. Maintaining a competitive, secure, and standards-compliant rendering engine is one of the most complex software endeavors; by leveraging Chromium, companies can focus their engineering resources on browser differentiation through user interface, privacy features, or integration services, rather than on the foundational rendering and JavaScript engine.

However, this near-monoculture carries significant implications for web standards and market health. While Blink's development is open, its strategic direction is overwhelmingly set by Google, raising concerns about the concentration of power over the web's future. The web standards process, intended to be a multi-vendor effort, can be subtly undermined when one engine has such overwhelming market share, as *de facto* standards are often set by Blink's implementation. This dynamic risks making the web synonymous with Chrome's capabilities, potentially stifling innovation that does not align with Google's priorities and creating a high barrier to entry for any new competing engine. The health of the open web arguably relies on at least two fully independent, competitive browser engines—a role currently played only by Blink and WebKit (with Gecko from Mozilla's Firefox as a distant third). Therefore, while the choice of Blink is rational for individual companies seeking efficiency and compatibility, the collective outcome is a less resilient web platform where a single corporation's decisions can have outsized, unilateral impact.