Open Web Advocacy

@open-web-advocacy.org

1352 Followers 0 Following

Developers fighting self-serving restrictions imposed on the web by tech giants. Help us end #AppleBrowserBan & make web apps 1st-class. https://open-web-advocacy.org

Evidence also indicates that all the major browser engines take a stringent approach to testing for and fixing security vulnerabilities. Apple’s submissions that it is the only browser engine developer that could be trusted to perform this function on iOS therefore seems weak.
Overall, we have not to date seen clear evidence that the WebKit restriction improves privacy on iOS devices.
Line chart showing browser test progress from July 2025 to May 2026, measured as the sum of passed WPT subtests and test262 tests. Safari, shown in purple, remains far behind the other browsers throughout the period, starting around 1,500 passed tests, stepping up to about 4,700 in September 2025, and making only slight gains to just over 5,000 by May 2026. Edge and Chrome rise from roughly 15,000 to around 24,000 passed tests, Firefox improves from about 11,000 to 18,000, and the “All subtests” total increases from around 22,000 to about 25,500. The chart highlights that Safari has improved modestly but still trails substantially behind Chrome, Edge, and Firefox.
Two iPhone screenshots compare feature support for Blink on iOS versus WebKit on iOS. The left phone, labeled “Chromium 151.0.7882.0,” shows a prototype Blink on iOS page where selected top developer needs are supported: CSS corner-shape, CSS calc-size(), JavaScript Temporal, and four listed features: reading-flow, Scheduler API, moveBefore(), and requestIdleCallback(). The right phone, labeled “Safari 26.5.1,” shows the production WebKit on iOS version of the same page, with the same features marked “not available here” or “0 of 4 supported.” A caption below says the selected feature tests come from a Top Developer Needs dashboard and represent progress toward resolving developer pain points and closing interoperability gaps.
Screenshot of a prototype benchmark comparison for Chromium/Blink versus Safari/WebKit on iOS. Three cards show Chromium ahead of Safari on an iPhone 17 Pro Max running iOS 26.5.1: Speedometer 3.1 web responsiveness, 49.27 vs 38.3, listed as +28.6%; JavaScript and Wasm throughput, 306.35 vs 270.9, listed as +13.1%; and graphics rendering, 4,773.52 vs 4,673.68, listed as about +2.1%.
work out how to get closer to a particular risk but be prepared to manage it if it does go nuclear, … steer the ship as close as you can to that line because that's where the competitive advantage occurs. … Apple had to pay a large fine, Tim [Cook]'s reaction was that's the right choice, don't let that scare you, I don't want you to stop pushing the envelope. Bruce Sewell, Apple's former General Counsel (emphasis added)
2025-01-01 🇬🇧 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) comes into force 2025-01-23 🇬🇧 DMCCA SMS Investigation into Apple and Google starts 2025-03-12 🇬🇧 Mobile Browsers Market Investigation Reference concludes with strong recommendations but deferral to use DMCCA powers 2025-10-22 🇬🇧 Apple and Google designated as having strategic market status (SMS) 2026-04-01 🇬🇧 CMA accepts voluntary commitments from Apple and Google in place of code of conduct requirements 2026-05-27 (TODAY) ⏳ Today marks 1,766 days since Open Web Advocacy first warned the CMA about anti-competitive restrictions on browsers, browser engines, and web apps.
2022-11-22 🇬🇧 CMA Market Investigation Reference into Mobile Browsers and Cloud Gaming Starts 2022-11-01 🇪🇺 EU Digital Markets Act goes into force 2023-03-31 ⚖️ UK Tribunal rules in Apple’s favour, suspending Mobile Browsers Market Investigation Reference 2023-11-30 ⚖️ Court of Appeal rules in CMA’s favor reopening Mobile Browsers Market Investigation Reference 2024-01-24 ⚖️ Mobile Browsers Market Investigation Reference recommences after a 299 day hold 2024-05-24 🇬🇧 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) passed and is given Royal Assent
2021-03-09 🌐 Open Web Advocacy Founded 2021-06-15 🇬🇧 UK’s CMA’s Mobile Ecosystems Market Study - Starts 2021-07-26 🌐 Open Web Advocacy’s first submission to the UK CMA’s Mobile Ecosystems Market Study 2021-09-02 🌐 Open Web Advocacy’s first meeting with the CMA’s Mobile Ecosystems Market Study Team 2021-09-26 🍎 Apple first starts work on Push Notifications, 7 years after Chrome, 6 years after Firefox, 12 years after Native 2022-04-08 🇪🇺 Browser and Browser Engines first appear in Digital Markets Act draft text 2022-06-10 🇬🇧 Mobile Ecosystems Market Study: Concludes 2022-06-10 🇬🇧 CMA launches consultation into Market Investigation Reference into Mobile Browsers and Cloud Gaming
Competition can be the key mitigation for the UK’s digital dependency [...] With the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act [...], but slow implementation and weak early enforcement risk squandering a rare pro-growth and pro-SME opportunity. [...] The potential for huge economic growth from our tech sector is there, but competition is key. If competition flourishes, we will see more innovation, improved services and lower costs for consumers. [...] Only a small number of designations have been made so far. For Google’s and Apple’s mobile ecosystems, the CMA has relied on non-binding “commitments” rather than imposing binding conduct requirements. These non-binding commitments have no clear statutory basis under the 2024 Act, carry no legal consequences if breached and are not contemplated anywhere in the CMA’s published guidance. Their use risks weakening the regime and forcing the CMA to restart enforcement if firms fail to comply, which is precisely the outcome that the last Government sought to avoid. Peter Fortune - UK MP (emphasis added)
Our view is that enforcement action has been quite weak,” Byrne said. “We are concerned about whether you might pull your punches and leave the new powers available to the CMA unused,” he added later, referring to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which came into effect last year and has significantly expanded the regulator’s powers, enabling it to give companies specific regulatory rules and engage in proactive enforcement, impose stronger penalties, and directly enforce consumer protection laws. Liam Byrne - UK MP (emphasis added)
Do you think a more powerful browser on the iPhone would ever change that dynamic or do you think people just want apps on phones? Nilay Patel - The Verge (emphasis added) I think a more powerful browser on the iPhone would change that dynamic Sir Tim Berners-Lee (emphasis added)
Developers cannot avoid Apple’s control of app distribution and app creation by making web apps—apps created using standard programming languages for web-based content and available over the internet—as an alternative to native apps. Many iPhone users do not look for or know how to find web apps, causing web apps to constitute only a small fraction of app usage. Apple recognizes that web apps are not a good alternative to native apps for developers. As one Apple executive acknowledged, “[d]evelopers can’t make much money on the web.” Regardless, Apple can still control the functionality of web apps because Apple requires all web browsers on the iPhone to use WebKit, Apple’s browser engine—the key software components that third-party browsers use to display web content. DOJ vs Apple (emphasis added)
Rafael Onak, a user experience writing manager at Apple, instructed an employee to add the phrase “external website” to the screen because it “sounds scary, so execs will love it.” Another employee gave a suggestion on how to make the screen “even worse” by using the developer’s name, rather than the app name. “ooh - keep going,” another Apple employee responded in Slack. Even Cook got in on the action. When he finally saw the screen for approval, he asked that another warning be added to state that Apple’s privacy and security promises would no longer apply out on the web. In court, Apple tried to argue that the term “scary” didn’t actually mean it wanted the screen to scare people. “Scary,” it claimed, was a “term of art” — an industry term with a specialized meaning. In fact, the company claimed, “scary” meant “raising awareness and caution.” The court did not buy it, saying the argument strained “common sense.” Jacob Kastrenakes - The Verge
Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction, It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.
Competition can be the key mitigation for the UK’s digital dependency [...] With the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act [...], but slow implementation and weak early enforcement risk squandering a rare pro-growth and pro-SME opportunity. [...] The potential for huge economic growth from our tech sector is there, but competition is key. If competition flourishes, we will see more innovation, improved services and lower costs for consumers. Peter Fortune - UK MP (emphasis added)
Apple suppresses such innovation [...] by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone’s operating system (called Application Programming Interfaces or “APIs”). DOJ Complaint Against Apple (emphasis added)
We conclude that the evidence demonstrates that Safari has or has had wider and more immediate access to functionalities on iOS than other mobile browsers. Browser and Cloud Gaming MIR - Final Report (emphasis added)
(b) using its position in relation to the relevant digital activity, including its access to data relating to that activity, to treat its own products more favourably than those of other undertakings; [...] (e) restricting interoperability between the relevant service or digital content and products offered by other undertakings; [...] (h) restricting the ability of users or potential users to use products of other undertakings. DMCCA - Section 20 (3) (emphasis added)
The same point is reflected in the Explanatory Notes to the Act, which expressly state that the regime is intended to: Ensure that designated undertakings comply with rules (called conduct requirements) on how they treat consumers and other businesses in relation to the activities in which they have been designated. [...] • Give the CMA powers to address proactively the root causes of competition issues in digital markets. It could intervene to impose interoperability obligations on designated undertakings to help new competitors enter the market Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 - EXPLANATORY NOTES (emphasis added)
This was highlighted during the parliamentary debates. As Viscount Camrose, former Under Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, explained: Depending on the scope of the designation, the DMU can set conduct requirements under Clause 20(3)(e) to promote interoperability, not only with a platform but in a range of contexts, including web browsers, apps, operating systems and websites. Viscount Camrose (emphasis added)
There are only in effect two app stores, and given the lack of interoperability, they are virtually monopolies. Damian Collins (emphasis added)
The primary mission of this government is economic growth. Free and fair competition and effective consumer protection support growth by driving forward innovation, increasing productivity, and encouraging investment – including international direct investment – into the UK. Strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority (emphasis added)
6.5. Issues with Monitoring Under Current Proposal The current proposal primarily relies on aggregate statistics. Given the complexities of requests for API access this is unlikely to be an effective mechanism. A far more straightforward mechanism is to make all requests and responses public, unless the requester specifically wishes to make it (or parts of it) confidential. This is the approach the DMA has taken. This is important for several reasons. One, it will allow like minded developers to work collaboratively with other requesters on the proposed interoperability solutions. Two, where Apple’s rejections are unreasonable, they can be publicly cited and pressure can be applied on Apple and finally it allows non-profits and other regulators to assess the degree to which Apple is sharing functionality in response to requests.
We are also concerned by the CMA’s decision to rely on voluntary commitments rather than imposing ex ante conduct requirements. Had the commitments themselves been robust, for example by including an obligation comparable to Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), we would still have been concerned about the potential for delay inherent in a voluntary approach. In this case it is particularly troubling because both the substance of the commitment and the mechanism chosen to enforce it are weak. It is also concerning that the measure is described as an "interoperability commitment", both in the commitment itself and in the CMA’s public communications. That risks setting a dangerous precedent by suggesting that this is the level of interoperability the CMA is prepared to accept, despite leaving Apple free to withhold any API access. It may also encourage other jurisdictions to adopt similarly weak standards, harming UK businesses’ global reach, and could make it more difficult for the CMA to impose a genuinely effective interoperability requirement in the future.
Receiving a request through the feedback channel will not create any obligation or expectation that Apple will commit to building a specific requested feature (or, if Apple does choose to build a requested feature, whether or not it will make it available to the Eligible Developer or developers generally for a fee), which will remain at Apple’s discretion in line with its commercial strategy and priorities. Apple Proposed Commitments (emphasis added) Apple’s “commitment” boils down to this: Apple will decide, case by case, what access it grants and to whom. It reserves the right to keep certain APIs or higher quality versions of APIs for its own apps, devices, and services. In effect, Apple is promising only that it will do what it wants. Apple also concedes it may withhold API access where granting it could undermine its commercial strategy.
When gatekeepers operate and impose web browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position to require their dependent business users to use any of the services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by those business users. Digital Markets Act - Recital 43 (emphasis added)
The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services. Digital Markets Act - Article 5(7) (emphasis added)
What's amazing about the web is that it doesn't require you to have a multi-million dollar company to take part in to create a website. You can do it for a few bucks yourself or it doesn't require you to have any specific technical knowledge when you can use stuff like Squarespace to create websites for yourself. So that's the cool thing about the web is that it's open versus if you think about app stores, they're not exactly open. They're the opposite of open where you have to pay Apple some fees and it's only specific for a specific platform and all these things are restrictions around what you can and can't do on iOS and which features you're allowed to ship and which features you're not allowed to ship. You have to sign some special agreements with Apple or Google and whatnot. So, we believe that the web is cool because it's very very open and it stands for all this openness that comes from not being attached to any specific gatekeeping business party. John Ozbay - CEO and Founder of Cryptee
Now in terms of browser engines we have made some progress over the last couple of years in that there's been a whole list of just ridiculous conditions that we've managed to overturn and those issues have been fixed. But the big one that is still a major sticking point is Apple has basically said that if you want to ship your browser to EU, you have to ship a brand new browser, right? And so you got to think about that from the browser company's point of view. Let's say you've got 20 million or say you got 10 million users in the EU and they're in your Apple WebKit based browser. Now what Apple's saying is they want you to bring out another browser and cannibalize your own market by migrating the users. Now the thing is we've already come up with easily workable solutions that are even jurisdictionally constrained with the EU. They can even allow both engines to live within a single app, you know, have two engines inside one app and then you just have a toggle. If we're inside the EU, we use their real browser engine. If we're outside the EU, we use the WebKit one. That's just a contractual change. So to fix that one, all they need to do is go into one contract, change one line, and that problem's done. No technical changes needed whatsoever. Alex Moore - Executive Director of OWA
Due to pressure from stakeholders (and most prominently, from Open Web Advocacy), the gatekeeper finally budged and agreed to place the icon of the browser selected by the user as a default from the choice screen displayed according to Article 6(3) DMA in the hotseat of new Pixel devices (page 125 of Alphabet’s compliance report) (although not on all Android devices). Dr Alba Ribera Martínez - Lecturer in Competition Law at University Villanueva
Without prejudice to Google’s legal position that this is not required by Article 6(3), Google has agreed to place the icon of the browser selected by the user from the choice screen in the hotseat of new Pixel devices. Google - EU Digital Markets Act Compliance Report
The second issue with the proposed approach is that accepting commitments may set an unintended benchmark for the acceptability of commitments in place of Conduct Requirements. In allowing these priority issues to be resolved through commitments, and noting the prominence that is associated with the first set of interventions in this investigation (and only the second interventions proposed by the Digital Markets Competition Regime as a whole), SMS firms may take encouragement that offering commitments is a viable way to resolve issues that have been identified … and it may result in increased pressure on the CMA to enforce weaker remedies in place of stronger intervention that leads to better market outcomes. Increasing the likelihood of commitments being offered as a first port of call also adds burden to the process that may slow the pace that the CMA is able to achieve effective remedies. We encourage the CMA to recognise and guard against this risk.
⚠️LAST CALL TO WRITE TO CMA: 5pm TODAY ⚠️ DEMAND FAIR ACCESS on iOS Equal API Access to All Apps Equal Performance and Privileges Enforceable Deadlines & Oversight FAILURE MEANS: Developers can’t compete with Apple’s Apps & Hardware Apple keeps features to themselves Browsers & the Web won’t be able to compete Sets Global Precedent for weak digital legislation Less Competition = More Expensive + Worse Quality for consumers 👇 Read more, OWA blog link below
⚠️WRITE TO THE UK’s CMA BY TUESDAY 5PM ⚠️ DEMAND FAIR ACCESS on iOS Equal API access for Third-Party Apps Equal Performance and Privileges Enforceable Deadlines & Oversight FAILURE MEANS: Developers can’t compete with Apple’s Apps & Hardware Apple keeps features to themseleves Browsers & the Web won’t be able to compete Sets Global Precedent for weak digital legislation Less Competition = More Expensive + Worse Quality for consumers 👇 Read more, OWA blog link below
And I just want to respond to what I hear often when I speak to developers who really are cynical about the eventual success of web apps. And they just say that native apps work better. And they sort of dismiss the PWAs as just not being realistic as much as they maybe ideologically agree with all the points that you’re making here. What is your response to folks who are skeptical of PWAs being able to function at the level of native apps? Kate Holterhoff So the way I like to think about it is, at the end of the day, what you’re talking about in terms of the difference between native apps and web apps is, do you really think that web apps do not have the capability of painting to the screen 60 frames a second and doing the kinds of interactions that native apps can do? [...] So a great example is Photoshop. They ported the entirety of desktop Photoshop into a web browser. [...] If you can build a software as complicated as Photoshop in the web, then all of the other software, which is arguably significantly more simple, is also possible. [...] All the features and functionalities that we’re missing from native. Most of them are artificial. They’re just Apple’s, they’ve refused to provide an easy installation process and there’s no competition. So there’s nothing pushing them to invest significantly so that the lowest common denominator across the browsers is at a higher level. Alex Moore
The threat of web apps for them is enormous because what it means is that web apps are equal on all devices. And so if you build a web app, it’s going to work equally on Android, I mean, without these blockers it’s going to work equally on Android as well as iOS. And then that loses their competitive advantage. In addition, there’s no App Store fees. I think it’s around $24 billion a year in App Store fees at the moment. But obviously, if it was going via the web. They don’t collect any of that revenue. The other thing it would also allow, it would allow for other competitors. So if you think about other mobile phone ecosystems, there’s pretty much iOS and Android. It’s not really possible for a third or a fourth or a fifth competitor to come into the market because you need that entire ecosystem set up. If web apps had been allowed to succeed and were the predominant form of apps, anybody could create a mobile device because then you’d have access to the library of apps that you need to be successful. And I’d argue that one of the reasons, say, Windows Phone didn’t take off was because they didn’t have the library of apps. And it was too much of an uphill battle to try and sell each of the developers. You got your iOS app, you got your Android app. Can you now build a Windows app as well? Alex Moore
Talk to me about the history. When was the OWA founded? Kate Holterhoff So we started in early 2021 and we’d been waiting for features from Apple for about 10 years. The main ones being install prompts for web apps and notifications, which we identified as the biggest blockers for web apps taking off. And we tried very hard to get Apple to do it. So we were messaging their top engineers. We were petitioning them. We were posting on WWDC saying we need these features. We can’t produce apps without them. Safaris got lots of bugs, please, can you get a bigger budget from your VPs? And we ended up, we kept pushing for that and then we just got no, we had made no progress. It basically got stonewalled in terms of features and functionality. And then eventually we’re like, this isn’t working, we better form a group and then we did with a bunch of random engineers and we got together and we started talking to regulators basically to say look there’s this amazing potential for basically the entire app market and it’s being squeezed out by the gatekeepers. Could you look at intervening? And we started with the UK’s competitions and markets authority. And yeah, we started having meetings with them and then it kind of just snowballed from there. Alex Moore
Five years after the CMA began investigating competition in the mobile ecosystem, this feels pretty weak to me. [...] Quite why the CMA does not aim to create a default interoperability requirement is beyond my small brain to fathom. But even within this very lightweight framing, Apple’s commitments are hugely underwhelming [...] Hang on: Apple can deny a competitor access to an existing iOS service, if it decides there won’t be enough user uptake? Then why did it implement it in the first place? If access to a feature, that Apple has already implemented and uses in its own products, doesn’t align “with Apple’s platform priorities”, why did they add that feature to their platform? Bruce Lawson (emphasis added)
Four years on from the publication of the mobile ecosystems market study report, the CMA isn’t actually proposing any formal conduct requirements at all. They are proposing to accept non-binding commitments from Google and Apple that they will run a fairer app review process and be fairer in how they rank apps in the app stores. Oh, and Apple is promising to consider interoperability requests fairly and objectively 😉 🤞 [...] This is disappointing. It’s an outcome so weak that the possibility is not even mentioned in the CMA’s 220-page guidance document published in December. It’s also deeply misleading for the CMA to describe these promises as “commitments”, which is a word with actual legal meaning (and legal enforceability) in the pro-competitive interventions process and in competition enforcement cases under the Competition Act. Tom Smith Former Legal Director at the CMA (emphasis added)
Given the highly dubious track record of these tech giants, we would question whether these voluntary commitments are really worth the paper they are printed on. News Media Association (emphasis added)
Today’s announcement is unfortunately a gift to Apple and Google. Allowing dominant gatekeepers to set the terms of their own restraint— after years of abusing market power and dodging enforcement, including a US contempt finding against Apple — will not deliver real competition. Coalition for App Fairness (emphasis added)
They include: “expected user and developer uptake” “alignment with Apple’s platform priorities” “potential implementation costs” “potential impact on user experience, performance/battery, security, safety, privacy, integrity, and accessibility” “potential impact on Apple’s intellectual property rights”
Receiving a request through the feedback channel will not create any obligation or expectation that Apple will commit to building a specific requested feature (or, if Apple does choose to build a requested feature, whether or not it will make it available to the Eligible Developer or developers generally for a fee), which will remain at Apple’s discretion in line with its commercial strategy and priorities. Apple Proposed Commitments (emphasis added)
Furthermore, it is important that developers have interoperable access to key functionality in Apple’s iOS and iPadOS. Without the ability to access these enabling functions, UK developers cannot create the full range of innovative products and services that they would do otherwise, and UK consumers miss out as a result. CMA - Proposed Commitments - Call for Evidence (emphasis added)
We've discussed the web as an application at an all-time high. Right? On desktop, if you have a Mac or a Windows PC or Linux, you are using web apps. Like mostly what you're using is applications expressed through web technology. Even if they appear to be native, right? Electron and other wrappers are just presenting web apps to you in ways that feel native. That is not true on mobile. It just really is not. [...] Do you think a more powerful browser on the iPhone would ever change that dynamic or do you think people just want apps on phones? - Nilay Patel - The Verge I think a more powerful browser on the iPhone would change that dynamic - Sir Tim Berners-Lee
But up until now, Apple has not allowed anything but WebKit on the iPhone. Even Chrome on the iPhone is a skin over the top of the core browser engine, WebKit. Do you think that Apple being made to allow Chromium to run on the iPhone, for example, will actually lead to new browser innovation? - Nilay Patel - The Verge When you have a competition between different sections of the layer, it tends to increase innovation. You get more bright ideas out there. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee
Apple’s vice president of iPhone marketing who explained in February 2020:‘In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue were [sic] already doing *more* than what would have been good enough.’ After identifying old features that ‘would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [updated features] already’, she explained, ‘anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.’
Several content providers further submitted that functionality issues with web apps are due to restrictions that Apple has imposed on web browsers within its Mobile Ecosystem, which carry over to Google’s Mobile Ecosystem due to the platform-agnostic nature of web apps (ie because web developers build their web apps using functionalities available across all major browsers).
The evidence indicates that for content providers, at present, web apps are not a viable substitute for native apps downloaded from the App Store. This is despite web apps in principle being an attractive option for content providers because they involve lower development and maintenance costs compared to native apps. Specifically, a range of content providers we gathered evidence from indicated that web apps are not viable substitutes to native apps, and a number of these content providers indicated that substitutability is particularly limited in terms of functionality and discoverability, which are important factors for app developers’ distribution choices. Several content providers further submitted that functionality issues with web apps are due to restrictions that Apple has imposed on web browsers within its Mobile Ecosystem.
It increases their costs by requiring them to develop a WebKit-based version of their browser to enter as a mobile browser on Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem, as opposed to being able to use the same browser engine that they use on other platforms. This means they sometimes have to rebuild features in a different way for Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem, incurring additional costs. A few browser developers submitted that this delayed their entry on Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem.
It restricts their ability to innovate and develop features for their mobile browsers on Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem. Several browser developers provided examples of features that they were unable to implement, or had more difficulty in implementing, on Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem, as a result of their inability to use an alternative browser engine or to modify WebKit. This includes features for web apps, which could provide an alternative to native apps for content providers.
We find that the WebKit restriction restricts the ability of rival mobile browsers to innovate and develop features, and increases their costs. It therefore creates a barrier to entry and expansion for rival mobile browsers on Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem and limits the competitive constraint on Safari.
Actions that "Prevent" the Adoption of Alternative Browser Engines" Such actions may include: imposing unreasonable technical restrictions on individual app providers while allowing them to adopt alternative browser engines, placing excessive financial burdens on individual app providers for adopting alternative browser engines, and steering smartphone users away from using individual software that incorporates alternative browser engines. The determination of whether a designated provider's action constitutes "preventing" the adoption of alternative browser engines does not require that it be completely impossible for individual app providers to adopt alternative browser engines. Instead, the determination is made based on the degree of likelihood that such a result will occur.
Specifically, 58 of 108 content providers we gathered evidence from indicated that web apps are not a viable substitute to the native apps, and a number of these content providers indicated that substitutability is particularly limited in terms of functionality and discoverability, which are important factors for app developers’ distribution choices. Several content providers further submitted that functionality issues with web apps are due to restrictions that Apple has imposed on web browsers within its Mobile Ecosystem. SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Proposed Decision
On Apple mobile devices, all mobile browsers are required to use Apple’s WebKit browser engine (ie as a result of the WebKit restriction), as specified in Apple’s App Store Review guidelines. Apple therefore does not face competition from rival mobile browser engines on its Mobile Ecosystem. This position will not change unless Apple lifts its total prohibition on the use of alternative browser engines on its Mobile Ecosystem. SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Proposed Decision
Kyle Andeer, VP of Apple Legal talking at the Digital Markets Act workshop.
Some elements of the browser choice screen implementation remain lacking on Android. When a user selects Firefox as their default browser in the choice screen, it does not replace Chrome on the homepage (or "hotseat"). This means that, despite making a clear and specific choice, Chrome still remains the more prominent and easily accessible option on the device. Moving the selected browser to the hotseat would be a step towards making the DMA browser choice screen work for EU Android users and lead to further growth for independent browsers on Android. On iOS, where Apple made the hotseat change, Firefox saw an uptick of 111% daily active users in France and 99% in Germany in the first 12 months of the DMA - despite initially poor compliance. Kush Amlani - Mozilla - Director, Global Competition & Regulation
We're disappointed that Google continues to undermine the DMA, which aims to preserve personal choice and market competition. Instead of following the plain intent in the DMA, which aims to make it easy for Android users to use whatever browser they prefer, Google is cynically "playing dumb", and professing narrow, absurd interpretations of the DMA's plain meaning and goal. If an Android user chooses Brave (or any other browser) to be their "default" browser, that user is (obviously) expressing the desire for Brave to be the primary, easy to access Web browser on the device. That means placing Brave in the "hotseat" just as much as making Brave the browser used to open websites on the device. We hope Google will stop dragging their feet, stop trying to undermine the DMA, and start respecting Android users' preferences, no matter the cost to Google's monopoly business interests. Pete Snyder - Brave - Principal Privacy Researcher
Ecosia has evidence to believe that 50% of users who select an alternative browser in the choice screen do not even open it. They stick with what is easily accessible. "Default" is not just a technical concept. Above all, it refers to the default positions in the User Interface, especially the “hot seat”. Dr. Wolfgang Oels - Ecosia - Chief Operating Officer