This reading list is courtesy of Vivaldi browser, who pay me decent money to fight for a better web and don’t moan at me for reading all this stuff. We’ve just released Vivaldi 7.8 for mobile, with even more personalistion and zero “A.I.”, because it’s cream of the crop, not a stream of the Slop.
Addicted to the algorithm: how Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media “As the EU prepares the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to tackle the addictive nature of social media design, big tech companies are coming together to aggressively protect their business models. With Trumpists and far-right allies likely to join the chorus against the DFA, the Commission’s own drive for deregulation at all costs is not helping the chances of strong legislation.”
TL;DR: If Apple decides to kick you in the face, it must give you 5 minutes notice. And if you think it was too hard a kick, you can complain to Apple, which will investigate Apple. If the CMA believes Apple routinely gives you less than 5 minutes notice, or routinely kicks you too hard, and Apple’s thorough and impartial investigation of Apple finds no good reason, CMA will consider thinking about contemplating beginning a process to give Apple a really, really strong telling-off.
that, after careful consideration, we think could address our concerns in relation to these matters quickly, effectively and proportionately. This is on the basis that the proposed commitments include robust transparency and oversight measures, so that the CMA and other stakeholders can monitor how Apple and Google are delivering on the commitments and their effectiveness.
Five years after the CMA began investigating competition in the mobile ecosystem, this feels pretty weak to me.
Tom Smith, who is a competition lawyer at Geradin Partners and a former CMA director (so is 76 times cleverer than me) wrote
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 😉 🤞 …
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.
Our immediate focus in this area will be on considering improvements to the process by which app developers can request interoperable access to key functionality within Apple’s mobile operating systems (Category 1). Whilst the aim would not be to create a default interoperability requirement, it would aim to ensure that Apple’s decisions in respect of interoperability requests are fair, transparent and objective.
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. From their document:
Apple will launch a dedicated interoperability feedback channel for developers to submit interoperability requests to Apple…
The feedback channel will be available to developers that are members in good standing of the Developer Program and whose account membership with the Developer Program is registered in the UK (“Eligible Developers”).
If your customers are in UK, but your developers aren’t, bad luck – no interop for you!
Vivaldi browser (who I work for) has a Developer Program enterprise account that is global, and registered in Norway, as that’s where we’re headquartered. We have many UK users, but presumably we couldn’t request interoperability with an iOS service, and neither could a browser based in San Francisco, or Mountain View. To the best of my knowledge, the only UK-based browsers are my colleagues in the Browser Choice Alliance, Wavebox and Waterfox, which are both desktop browsers.
(CMA says elsewhere in its Other work planned for 2026 “We expect to progress work in relation to Apple concerning browsers (removal of the WebKit restriction) as well as interoperable access to functionality for connected devices”. But that’s only expected, and no further details are available.)
However, assume you are a UK developer and want to interoperate with an iOS service – for example, AirDrop. Apple says,
Apple will make clear the kinds of requests that are eligible for consideration under the feedback channel, namely requests for access to equivalent system and hardware functionality used by Apple services or accessories.
So far, so good: if an Apple service or Apple accessory (e.g. watch) can access some iOS function, you should be able to do so too. But (you knew there would be a “but”, didn’t you?):
Apple will assess eligible requests against the following set of criteria: (i) expected user and developer uptake; (ii) alignment with Apple’s platform priorities; (iii) potential implementation costs; (iv) potential impact on user experience, performance/battery, security, safety, privacy, integrity, and accessibility; and (v) potential impact on Apple’s intellectual property rights.
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? Who judges “impact on user experience”? What does “integrity” mean? (It’s in pretty short supply in Cupertino these days.)
Receiving a request through the feedback channel will not create any obligation or expectation that Apple will commit to building a specific requested feature … which will remain at Apple’s discretion in line with its commercial strategy and priorities.
Apple’s commercial strategy has always been to maintain its monopoly, and its priorities haven’t changed since Saint Steve wrote in 2010
Tie all of our products together, so we further lock customers into our ecosystem
So if Apple denies your request to access AirDrop (or whatever) because allowing you to compete isn’t “in line with its commercial strategy and priorities”, that’s OK, according to commitments which the CMA thinks “could address our concerns”?
We will move quickly to bring forward conduct requirements, including considering whether more stringent measures are necessary, if these commitments are not adhered to or we find they are proving ineffective. For example, if we find Apple is routinely declining interoperability requests without good reason, this will inform our pipeline of wider work – and we could bring forward specific interoperability requirements.
There are far stricter requirements for Apple in the EU, yet Apple is jizzing out European lawsuits left right and centre to avoid competition. So in UK, I expect a few months (years?) of Apple wriggling to avoid allowing meaningful iOS competition, until CMA receives so many complaints that it begins a ponderous investigation to impose some actual conduct requirements. And all that time, UK app developers suffer, UK consumers get less choice, and Apple is laughing all the way to the bank. Any delay is a victory, for a monopolist.