We should also give credit to HTTP/2 (available only through HTTPS). People want the performance increase of HTTP/2 so they are forced to deploy HTTPS.
I really doubt that - support for HTTP/2 is generally still in its infancy, and web servers supporting it haven't made it into LTS releases of most distros yet.
On a talk from Daniel Stenberg earlier this year he told that over 60% of the clients already support HTTP/2.
So there is a real incentive to start supporting it as it nearly always is faster and costs less connections for the server.
I installed HTTP/2 indicator extension for my browser and I am very surprised to see how many sites are already using HTTP/2. It's easily close to a third of the sites I use frequently.
I wonder if those are mostly sites using Cloudflare and similar, which supports HTTP/2 regardless of the upstream server's support.
it's not only available through https.
browser only allow http/2 over TLS thats something different.
there is a insecure http/2 version just no browser implements it.
I think that's pretty much the exact definition of "available" in this context. If it just exists in a RFC somewhere, I wouldn't call it "available".