Three systems, a market and a new concept.

I do not like that you call what I say FALSE and LIE ... It is as if you were trying to tell me that I am an ignorant liar, when you have also said things that are not,

You should not take things personally, something false can be said from naivety and in this case I explained more than enough how the facts show that everything I pointed out is false.

In fact, your new answer is a sample of how naively you say something that is not, by applying bad logic.

As far as I have reviewed, the APIs that are going to be used, in addition to being free, will be based on Javascript.

You are mixing things up and because of that logic error you make two mistakes.
It is not that they are (hypothetically) free, it is that they are standard, standard and free is not the same; something free / open / or whatever they want to call is not something automatically standard far from it.
As well as not being "javascript" automatically that something will be standard and good for everyone. How much non-standard and incompatible javascript was there, is there and will there be? uff.

Another interesting thing is that what you say about browsers has become less and less real, and in fact, people develop for Chrome mainly, not for Firefox and most of the problems are almost always found in Opera.

I still see many professionals, most of them the truth, with the lifelong dogma of making sites in and for Firefox "because Firefox is the one that shows things well and is for developers"; There are those who then take the trouble to make the adjustments in Chrome because due to its large share it can no longer be ignored (I clarify that 'adjust the site for' is different from 'make the site in and for'), although yes , they do so reluctantly "because Chrome should do things like 'the Firefox standard'". But there are also those who don't even do it. And let's not even talk about browsers like Opera.

However, it does not matter whether that happens for Firefox (what I still see and does not seem to change) or in Chrome (what I still do not see, let's not confuse "adjusted sites" and "made sites") or in Fulano, just say that particular name because that is the current case and because that character also acts in this other movie and it is very easy to think that he will get all the attention again.

I reiterate that the important thing is not the characters, better forget about them if their names lead you to bias; the important thing about what I say is practice, the real problem here is:
1) that even though the standards exist, the implementations are not complete or perfect; factors that must be multiplied by each alternative (browser / os),
2) that sites are made for a browser and then you have to give birth (less or more) making adjustments for the rest and many do not even bother and this has created the current reality in which "the developer's browser" is de facto standard "shows sites well" and the rest don't.

Both things said above are a reality, you may not like it but it is. If it were as easy as saying "I do something with HTML and it will work for everyone" the current scenario would not be what we have and will have for a long time.

It may displease you to feel like a "liar", but what I say is supported by reality, you even had to confess that it is certainly the case, I am not lying or wrong.
On the other hand, your only counter-argument is your positive expectations that everything will improve because according to your crystal "it decreases every time", or using the label of "less real" as if "less real" things existed, or did they not exist ?; things are either real or they are not.
When these things do not happen, that is to say when they are "nothing" real, then your statements at the beginning could be true, meanwhile not and what you are selling would be false and it is correct to say that they ARE NOT TRUE and that you have to be careful of being dazzled and not seeing the details because they will lead us to the usual mistakes, to the murder of some options in favor of the most famous and to the use and consolidation of non-standard things.

Competition is always good, come on, let's all focus on IOS, let's give Apple or Google a monopoly with Android, let's continue, so that competition when we can have everything centralized.

That doesn't make sense to me bro.

You seem to be talking back and forth.

I answered that by citing a part where you yourself allude to the many options wanting to highlight that they are already too much.
I only shared that opinion (before you changed it) and even explained my why.

And I want to clarify that I never said or did something similar to an apology to "there should be no options" "you have to give the monopoly to Apple or Google", as you seem to want to imply now, which you are getting I don't know why; On the contrary, I say that the options that they want and could open up the field are first attacked and compete with each other, because every time one arises that wants to be "me who breaks it" and instead of helping the rest they start supporting them, dividing and applying practices that will end up overwhelming the others. The problem is not that there are options, the problem is that THERE ARE ALREADY but none of them raises its head because instead of strengthening them, someone else comes out wanting to do the same but saying YO YO YOYOYO.

I could also respond in a cool way by saying «Come on, give all the monopoly to Apple and Google, let's never strengthen Meego / Webos / Tizen /…, instead let's put more options like Fireox OS or whatever comes that intends to do the same as the others, that will work for that all the alternatives sink, none arise and thus the current kings are consolidated ».

That by the way in the hands of something from Mozilla is not that we are very free from the hands of Google.