iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/06/2026

"But while it hawks “privacy” to consumers, to regulators across the world Apple cites “security” as the reason it should be allowed to maintain its iOS browser engine monopoly. On security, too, the CMA found Apple’s claims to be weak" 🧵(3/7)

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.

110 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/06/2026

"Since about 2020, Apple has emphasised Privacy and speed in its marketing materials. In its market investigation, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wrote in its paper The requirement for browsers operating on iOS devices to use Apple’s WebKit browser engine" 🧵(2/7)

Overall, we have not to date seen clear evidence that the WebKit restriction improves privacy on iOS devices.

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 18/06/2026

As you can see from the chart below, while there have been improvements, Safari lags significantly behind Edge, Chrome and Firefox. See: microsoftedge.github.io/TopDeveloper... 🧵(5/8)

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.

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 18/06/2026

Also published were some interesting feature comparisons using Microsoft Edge’s top developer needs dashboard highlighting a number of features the prototype supports that Safari (and by extension of Apple’s browser engine ban, all other browsers on iOS) do not. 🧵(4/8)

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.

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 28/05/2026

With a market value of $3 trillion, Apple has a legal budget of over $1 billion a year, giving it legal power that outstrips that of small nations. It is also historically not afraid to step as close to the line of non-compliance as possible, as Apple's former general counsel explains: 🧵(3/10)

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)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/05/2026

If this case succeeds it could force Apple to allow browser competition in the US, forever changing the dynamic for web apps on mobile. 🧵(5/5) open-web-advocacy.org/blog/tim-ber...

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)

081 8

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/05/2026

The complaint directly calls out Apple's ban on third-party browser engines and its impact on web apps: 🧵(4/5)

$Developers cannot avoid Apple’s control of app distribution and app creation by making web apps—apps created using standard programming languages for web-based content and available over the internet—as an alternative to native apps. Many iPhone users do not look for or know how to find web apps, causing web apps to constitute only a small fraction of app usage. Apple recognizes that web apps are not a good alternative to native apps for developers. As one Apple executive acknowledged, “[d]evelopers can’t make much money on the web.” Regardless, Apple can still control the functionality of web apps because Apple requires all web browsers on the iPhone to use WebKit, Apple’s browser engine—the key software components that third-party browsers use to display web content. DOJ vs Apple (emphasis added)$

1112 11

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 19/05/2026

The lengths Apple went to undermine the court's ruling were to say the least extraordinary: www.theverge.com/apple/659296... 🧵(4/7)

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

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 19/05/2026

Justice Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple wilfully chose to undermine its compliance: 🧵(3/7)

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.

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

The CMA has the opportunity to fix these issues with the DMCCA but they must actually use and enforce the powers they have been given.

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)

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

The DOJ has also accused Apple of suppressing innovation by withholding APIs: 🧵(11/13)

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)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

This is important as the UK’s Browsers and Cloud Gaming MIR found that Apple was providing Safari with better and more immediate API access: 🧵(10/13)

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)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

Finally, incorporated into the Act itself: 🧵(9/13)

(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)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

This was then highlighted in the explanatory notes to the Act: 🧵(8/13)

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)

110 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

That the Act can promote interoperability was directly highlighted in parliament: 🧵(7/13)

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)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

Interoperability is one of the reasons that the DMCCA itself was passed: 🧵(6/13)

There are only in effect two app stores, and given the lack of interoperability, they are virtually monopolies.
Damian Collins
(emphasis added)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

The government steer to the CMA indicated that competition and consumer protection is the key to growth and innovation in the UK: 🧵(5/13)

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)

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

There is no transparency into individual requests unlike the far more effective approach taken by the Digital Markets Act. 🧵(4/13)

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.

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

The commitment is entirely voluntary: 🧵(3/13)

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.

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 26/03/2026

Apple can reject any interoperability request: 🧵(2/13)

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.

100 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 23/03/2026

🧵(6/7) Digital Markets Act - Recital 43

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)

110 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 23/03/2026

🧵(5/7) Digital Markets Act - Article 5(7)

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)

110 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 04/03/2026

Which? - The UK’s not for profit consumer champion had this to say about the UK CMA's proposed remedies. 👉 Read More: www.which.co.uk/policy-and-i...

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.

076 7

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 03/03/2026

⚠️ LAST CALL TO WRITE TO CMA: 5pm TODAY ⚠️ Under the current proposal, Apple can keep iOS and iPhone functionality exclusive to its own apps and services. If you want fair access to APIs for competing apps and browsers email 📧 mobilesms@cma.gov.uk See: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-... 🧵👇️(1/5)

⚠️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

183 8

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 02/03/2026

⚠️ WRITE TO THE UK'S CMA BY TUESDAY 5pm ⚠️ Under the current proposal, Apple can keep iOS and iPhone functionality exclusive to its own apps and services If you want fair access to APIs for competing apps and browsers email 📧 mobilesms@cma.gov.uk See: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-... 🧵👇️ (1/5)

⚠️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

1128 12

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/02/2026

The proposals have not been well received by many commentators: 🧵(5/10)

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)

110 1

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/02/2026

Apple's assessment criteria are broad, subjective, and allow denial of any request. Apple can trivially deny any request and still be in full compliance with this policy. 🧵(4/10)

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”

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/02/2026

The biggest problem is that the proposal is layered with multiple ways of Apple not having to share any API it doesn’t want to, regardless of the circumstances. 🧵(3/10)

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 25/02/2026

The UK's CMA says that developers need access to key iOS features to build innovative products and services, so UK consumers do not miss out but Apple’s proposed interoperability commitments are so weak they are essentially meaningless. 🧵👇 (1/10)

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)

164 6

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 04/11/2025

The CMA highlight that Apple can and does profitably forego innovation without fear of losing customers to competitors with this quote: 10/12

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.’

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 04/11/2025

Multiple content providers had indicated that Apple's restrictions on iOS browsers also limited web apps viability on Android: 9/12

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).

120 2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · 04/11/2025

The CMA found that web apps are NOT CURRENTLY a viable replacement for native apps on iOS, and that multiple content providers had indicated that Apple's restrictions on browsers were to blame: 8/12

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.

1102 10