The problem is either the “not necessarily” part is wrong (in regard to flagging HTTP) or the criticism is directed at a fantasy that isn't actually occurring (in regard to flagging things that aren't .app). Either way, the criticism is defective.
> Google throws down a few hundred grand to get the .app domain,
> in concert with modifying their web browser
> to deliberately mark others' traffic as "Insecure"
> (it is not necessarily!),
> and reaps the fees now
This is what patrickg_zill's comment said, just with some newlines and emphasis to make it more understandable. The not necessarily does not refer to HTTP, it refers to non-.app domains. And there is no "criticism is directed at a fantasy", there is a cynical prediction which is completely possible in all respects. You---or I---may think that that'll never be the reality, but regardless, that's what the comment said, and the other commenter misunderstood. I don't get why I get downvotes and criticism for this.
They -could- have meant .app, but we'd need the guys word to know for sure. It's not as straightforward of a comment as you think it is.