Open Web Advocacy
LightNews LightNews
banner
open-web-advocacy.org
Open Web Advocacy
@open-web-advocacy.org
1.1K followers 0 following 170 posts
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
Posts Replies Media Videos
open-web-advocacy.org
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.’
November 4, 2025 at 8:14 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
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).
November 4, 2025 at 8:14 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
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.
November 4, 2025 at 8:14 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
The CMA found this increases costs for third-party browsers by forcing them to develop a WebKit based browser:
7/12
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.
November 4, 2025 at 8:14 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
The CMA found this inhibits web apps, which could be an alternative for native apps:
6/12
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.
November 4, 2025 at 8:14 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
The CMA found Apple's ban on browser engines restricts the ability of third-party browsers to innovate and develop features.
5/12
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.
November 4, 2025 at 8:14 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
Apple will no longer be allowed to impose technical or financial barriers that effectively block third-party browser engines on iOS.

/2
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.
August 6, 2025 at 7:25 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
Functionality limitations in web apps stem from Apple’s own restrictions on web browsers, undermining their ability to compete with native apps.
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
July 23, 2025 at 11:49 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
No Browser Engine Competition on iOS
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
July 23, 2025 at 11:47 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
New OWA Report: Apple’s Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA

Despite big claims at the recent DMA workshops, Apple continues to block competing browser engines on iOS in the EU.

👉 Read the details 📺 Watch the video
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-...

🧵Let's Dive In
Kyle Andeer, VP of Apple Legal talking at the Digital Markets Act workshop.
July 14, 2025 at 6:46 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
7/9
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
July 4, 2025 at 7:19 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
6/9
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
July 4, 2025 at 7:19 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
5/9
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
July 4, 2025 at 7:19 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
4/9
The hotseat is a place for the user's most important apps. It's confusing for users who choose Vivaldi as their default to continue to see Chrome in the hotseat when they've clearly expressed their preference and switched away. It's obviously designed to steer users back to the gatekeeper's own browser. Bruce Lawson - Vivaldi - Technical Communications Officer
July 4, 2025 at 7:19 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
3/9
Automatically placing the user's chosen default browser on the dock considerably improved our app's retention on iOS. The same change is likely to cause the same effect on Android, and we see no reason why Android should apply the same obligation differently. Aurélien Mähl - DuckDuckGo - Lead Public Policy Manager
July 4, 2025 at 7:19 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
2/9
Alphabet is undermining the browser choice screen if it leaves Chrome in the dock after a user has chosen an alternative browser. The choice the user makes should apply throughout the device and that means it should be the only browser you see in the dock and on the Home Screen. Sébastien Pant - The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)
July 4, 2025 at 7:19 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
The court found Apple in civil contempt for abusing attorney-client privilege to delay proceedings, ordered it to pay Epic’s legal costs, and referred the case to federal prosecutors for possible criminal charges against Apple and a senior executive:

17/19
“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.” Justice Gonzalez Rogers
June 23, 2025 at 7:34 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
16/19
“Apple also attempted to engineer the directive to allow external links in apps by creating new barriers and requirements that would similarly defang those orders. It created full-page “scare screens” (I referred to them as “This App May Kill You” screens), demanded that all links be to static URLs (neutering their utility), and kept editing the warning labels to dissuade users as much as possible from ever agreeing to follow the link. (Cook is specifically credited with amping up the language in the warning screens.) The company’s internal struggle is fascinating to read about. While Apple Fellow and longtime App Store overseer Phil Schiller doesn’t come across entirely smelling like a rose, he does end up looking far better than literally any other Apple employee in the ruling. Schiller “advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction”—imagine that!—while Tim Cook, CFO Luca Maestri, and the company’s finance team instead decided to concoct a strategy of malicious compliance that led to the poison pill of the 27% commission.” Jason Snell - Six Colors
June 23, 2025 at 7:34 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
Apple has run into trouble with US courts for trying to circumvent an order requiring it to let third parties direct users to their own websites for payments:

15/19
“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
June 23, 2025 at 7:34 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
Even John Gruber, typically a strong Apple supporter, had sharp words for Apple’s stance on online payments:

14/19
“‘This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system. It uses external purchases.’ [...] The uncompetitive nature of the App Store — I’m using uncompetitive rather than anticompetitive just to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here — has left at least some top Apple executives hopelessly naive about the state of online payments. It’s like when they still blather on about software being sold on discs inside boxes in physical retail stores. That was true. It was once relevant. It no longer is and hasn’t been for over a decade. Same with payments. Online payments through, say, Stripe — which zillions of companies use — are completely private and secure today. Amazon payments are completely private and secure.” John Gruber - Tech Writer
June 23, 2025 at 7:34 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
Phishing: LastPass clone Lasspass made it onto Apple's app store.

“the app was likely created to act as a phishing app and steal credentials.”
Bill Toulas - Bleeping Computer

13/19
App store page for lasspass, an app impersonating password manager lastpass.
June 23, 2025 at 7:34 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
11/19
“What the hell is this?????? [...] How does an obvious rip off of the super popular Temple Run, with no screen shots, garbage marketing text, and almost all 1-star ratings become the #1 free app on the store? Can anyone see a rip off of a top selling game? Any anyone see an app that is cheating the system? Is no one reviewing these apps? Is no one minding the store? This is insane!!!!!!!!!” Phil Schiller - Apple Senior Vice President Worldwide Marketing (Feb 2012)
June 23, 2025 at 7:34 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
🚨 NEW: The DOJ wants to break up Chrome from Google — the consequences could be catastrophic for the web.

📖 Read our article: Break Google's search monopoly without breaking the web.

👇Link: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/break-g...

/1
The World Wide Web sliightly exploding
April 23, 2025 at 1:00 PM
open-web-advocacy.org
5/10 On Web Apps:
The CMA’s message is clear: Web Apps deserve to compete fairly.
We all rely on browsers to use the internet on our phones, and the engines that make them work have a huge bearing on what we can see and do. Right now, choice in this space is severely limited and that has real impacts – preventing innovation and reducing competition from web apps. We need to give innovative tech firms, many of which are ambitious start-ups, a fair chance to compete. Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority
March 21, 2025 at 8:15 AM
open-web-advocacy.org
5/8
As a result of the Android Licence Agreements between Google and OEMs, Google’s Chrome is pre-installed, prominently placed, and set as the default mobile browser for many Android devices, creating barriers to entry and expansion for competing mobile browsers.
January 23, 2025 at 12:05 PM