I was excited to see the great showing for Chromium here, especially in Speedometer, which is widely seen as the most representative real-world responsiveness benchmark.
So, just for fun, I figured I’d try some stiffer competition: Can Chromium on my iPhone 17 Pro Max (A19 Pro) beat Safari on an iPad Pro (M5)? I wandered into a local Apple store to re-run the Speedometer test. It’s closer, but my iPhone’s lead holds. I think this might make my iPhone the world record holder for Speedometer score on an iOS device?
Now Microsoft engineers have documented a performance tax – the performance hit that iOS users today endure because Apple requires iOS browsers, with theoretical exceptions, to use the WebKit browser engine that powers Safari.
The performance tax comes to 28.6 percent, almost as much as Apple’s 30 percent commission rate.
Speedometer is a test suite primarily developed by Apple, results of which it has used in regulatory filings to claim users don’t need and/or wouldn’t benefit from real browser competition.
It’s notable that this is a prototype, without any attempts to make it fast. Also, there are many outstanding bugs in BrowserEngineKit, the middleware that Apple requires other browser engines to use.
In response to Kyle’s post, the Principal Engineer at Chrome, Rick Byers, wrote
Given how Chromium and WebKit are always vying for the top spot in Speedometer on MacOS, it’s really striking how big the gap is on iOS! And we haven’t even really tried to optimize performance for that platform yet! IMHO this is what you should expect to see when there’s a lack of competition!
…But you can’t have it.
Even if the Apple bugs were fixed and optimisations were completed, you are not allowed to have this much faster iOS browser. This is solely because of Apple’s self-preferencing rules: either the ridiculously anti-competitive Web Browser Engine Entitlement (in EU and Japan) or Rule 2.5.6 (“Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit JavaScript”) elsewhere.
Overall, we have not to date seen clear evidence that the WebKit restriction improves privacy on iOS devices.
…the Webkit restriction limits the ability for browser vendors to innovate and differentiate themselves from Safari, including on privacy. Different stakeholders appear to interpret privacy differently, compared to security, in relation to which there is more alignment across stakeholders.
On security, too, the CMA found Apple’s claims to be weak:
Overall, we have not yet seen clear evidence that the WebKit restriction confers a significant improvement in security compared to a situation where other browser engines would be allowed on iOS. The WebKit restriction may create security benefits for Apple devices (albeit these could be potentially extended, at least to some extent, to rival browser engines), through enabling closer integration between WebKit and device hardware, and providing Apple with greater control over browser engines such that it can ensure browsers use an up-to-date browser engine and do not implement features that may create a security risk. However, as explained in Section 3 above, the restriction limits the ability for browser vendors to improve their browsers and differentiate themselves from Safari, including on security.
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.
Apple’s claims for WebKit’s superior speed, privacy and security don’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s time for the regulators to strike down Apple’s restrictive terms and conditions, and compel Cupertino to fix BrowserEngineKit, so we can have genuine competition on iOS. Apple customers deserve a browser that’s genuinely blazing fast, private and secure.
Apple designed its wonderful new (fast! private! thinking of the children!) Siri AI in a way that it knew contravened the EU Digital Markets Act. It expected the EU to let it break the law anyway, pinky-promising that it would make it compliant after 18 months. Understandably sceptical, after 2 years continued WebKit monopoly on iOS, EU said “no”. Not-Steve and Not-Steve-Either are both Very Sad (while still Thinking Of the Children).
Unfortunately, due to the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple will not be able to ship Siri AI in the European Union with the release of iOS 27 and iPadOS 27. Over the past several months, EU regulators did not accept any of Apple’s proposed solutions to bring Siri AI to the EU while safely supporting other virtual assistants.
sobbed Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering, lachrymosely. Dabbing his eyes and blowing his nose, Crying Craig blamed “EU regulators’ extreme interpretation of the DMA” which outrageously requires Apple to, er… obey legislation.
The decision not to roll out Siri AI in the EU is Apple’s and Apple’s only. Absolutely nothing in the DMA prohibits Apple from introducing new products in the EU. What Apple is, however, not allowed to do is to close the market. It’s not for them to choose which AI tools our EU citizens get to use or not. That’s not an option.
Because it would mean that no AI agent other than Siri AI, by the way, powered by Google, would have an equal chance to be chosen by iPhone users. Apple was simply unable to develop interoperability solutions that meet essential EU privacy and security standards.
And more importantly, and I will finish with this, EU law is non-negotiable.
Doubtless, Apple is preparing to leave EU and take their toys home, as they threatened 9 months ago. As a Brexit Benefit, the UK will be a huge marketplace for contraband devices with hallucinating robots protecting your Comfort and Security. And (of course) Thinking Of The Children.
Our towns will be filled with grief-stricken Europeans begging “S’il vous plaît, vendez-moi juste un téléphone fruité?“, “Hast du so ein bescheuertes Handy, das mir 30 % meines Geldes abknöpft?“, “Alstublieft, één apparaatje waarmee ik aan de kinderen kan denken!” or “¡Dame fruta robot brillante, hombre!”
Siri AI and the other new Apple Intelligence features will not be available in China while Apple works through regulatory requirements.
But that’s to be expected; China is always the exception, even when it comes to Apple’s “deep sense of responsibility to make technology for people that respects their human rights [and] empowers them with useful tools and information”.
It’s almost as if Apple fights regulators if it thinks it can continue making monopoly profit that way, but kowtows to authoritarians elsewhere if that’s where the money is.
On Tuesday, the European Parliament presented the statutory review of the Digital Markets Act. So, naturally, I went to Strasbourg to tell politicians that as DMA has only really been in force for two years, it’s probably too early to make any amendments. And while it’s been quite successful so far, we really need the Commission to enforce it more vigorously. (Many MEPs agree; last week, the European Parliament’s Internal Market (IMCO) committee called for the “full and proactive use” of all the Digital Market Act tools, and encourage the EU to resist external political pressure.)
As an independent European browser, Vivaldi needs access to platform controlled by vendors of competing browsers. It’s ridiculous that Apple is still able to impose impossible conditions on anyone who wishes to use their preferred browser engines on i(Pad)OS, and that Microsoft is still able to self-preference its own Edge browser on Windows.
If Europe is to achieve real digital sovereignty, the EU needs to monitor compliance -not just believe the Gatekeepers marking their own homework- and have the courage to impose real sanctions against Big Tech’s attempts to smother European compeititors.
I arrived the evening before my meeting, so had a while to look around Strasbourg, which was pretty.
And while Strazzy is (currently) in France, it has a heartily Germanic side to its cuisine. My dinner comprised most of a pig cooked in beer, and about a kilo of roasted potatoes (plus a salad and some bread):
The European Parliament was cool, and it made me sad that the UK is no longer included. Whatever the British Right may think of the European Project, Europe hasn’t forgotten the contribution that Britain made to ensuring a democratic Europe.
Let’s hope Europe is courageous against modern fascists and their industrialist friends as it was 80 years ago.
The whole world is on the streets, delirious with joy, as today one of the world’s largest companies turns 50 years old. The web is full of reminiscences about Apple products and Saint Steve, such as Apple at 50: My 10 most memorable moments. I haven’t been an Apple user for as long as many have, so here are my five top Apple memories.
The time Apple lied to the UK regulator
That hilarious time when Apple engineers added code to the Safari’s settings page to hide the option to change the default browser if Safari was the default, but then to prominently show it if another browser was the default. And then silently fixed it and lied to the UK regulator, pretending it never happened! Oh, how we all laughed.
The time when Apple told the EU that Safari is 3 different browsers
When Apple tried to shut the UK investigation down
Not-Steve’s minions went to the Competition Appeal tribunal and got the UK regulator’s Market Investigation Report dismissed, not by arguing before the tribunal that the CMA was substantially wrong about any of its anti-competitive behaviour, but on a legal technicality based around the timing of the opening of the investigation. This was reversed when the regulator went to the Court of Appeal. How we chuckled at Apple’s zillion dollar lawyers flushing taxpayers’ money down the iToilet!
When Apple’s VP of Finance got caught lying under oath
To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate…
Apple employees attempted to mislead the Court by testifying that the decision to impose a commission was grounded in AG’s report. The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies.
The one when Apple tried to wreck all EU Web Apps
Apple doesn’t want PWAs to open in third-party browsers that have more powerful features than Safari, because those would directly compete with native apps in its own App Store. However, in the EU, it can’t privilege PWAs in Safari with its own private APIs any more. And so its solution, in its spirit of malicious compliance, was to break all PWAs in the EU, just before the Digital Markets Act came into force, and claim that the DMA required it.
“Contrary to Apple’s public representation, the removal of Home Screen Web Apps on iOS in the EU was neither required, nor justified, under the Digital Markets Act”, a commission spokesperson said.
Who knows what the next 50 years have in store for Not-Steve and his successors? I’m old enough to remember when it was inconceivable that behemoths like BlackBerry or Nokia could disappear. Now we think differently.
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.
Because I’m so the rock ‘n’ roll, I’ve been reading the summary of responses to the first review of the Digital Markets Act. There were “450 contributions submitted by a broad range of interested parties, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), gatekeepers, civil society organisations, academics, and individual citizens”.
The report contains many surprises. Some of them might shock you.
Several respondents argued that fines so far have been too slow to deter non-compliance while penalties for repeat non-compliances should be higher.
But – surprise!
Gatekeepers, in contrast, argued for proportionate fines, based on EU revenues only and only for deliberate or repeated violations.
The summary continues:
Business users, SMEs, civil society, and some legal experts expressed concerns that public summaries of compliance reports lack sufficient detail, are not independently verified, and do not provide meaningful information for assessing outcomes.
But – surprise!
Gatekeepers on the other hand emphasised the significant resources invested in compliance but argued that overly prescriptive reporting expectations could limit flexibility
Many respondents reported early positive effects of the DMA:
more consistent browser and app-choice opportunities, the ability to uninstall default applications, the emergence of alternative app marketplace options on Apple’s iOS, more freedom regarding app distribution … and new data portability solutions …
many respondents agreed that, to contribute to achieving the DMA’s objective of fairer and more contestable digital markets, enforcement of the DMA needs to be sustained, effective and well-resourced
But – surprise!
Gatekeepers and several respondents affiliated to gatekeepers voiced a number a criticisms notably regarding negative impact on innovation and user experience, as well as concerns that implementation of certain obligations is disproportionate.
TL;DR: most people think DMA is starting to work, and want more.
But – surprise! – massive corporations with profits as large as small nations, derived from years of monopolistic rent extraction, are Very Sad. Obeying laws is tricky, and can cost almost as much as their Chief Counsel’s mahogany desk. And how can they guarantee your comfort and security if they can’t control what is (allegedly) your machine?
Farewell, 2025. It was my first full year working at Vivaldi, which will never make me rich but allows me to work with great people, do interesting things, and not worry that my soul is rotting. I only spoke at a couple of conferences: CSS Day in Amsterdam, and was an MC at the excellent Birmingham grassroots TechMids, organised by the newly-enobled Dr Tom Goodman.
Work travel becomes increasingly hellish as I age, but I went to Brussels to bother Regulators about Microsoft a couple of times by train (57 times nicer than flying, even if it takes slightly longer), and went to Oslol to see my chums in Vivaldi HQ. I went to New York for a whole three days (!), which will be my last US trip under the current regime. I also squeezed in a brief holiday in Türkiye.
A lot happened in 2025 for browsers and web apps with new investigations, laws, and court cases across the EU, Japan, the US, Australia, and the UK… Apple is now barred from blocking third-party browser engines on iOS in 28 countries, soon likely 30. However, it continues to resist real competition.
Personally, I released my third album with the cruellest months, called On the Air, which you should definitely listen to and buy for a mere £5.
In other, very personal, news, I had a colonoscopy, which was unfun (but not painful). You can read all about my colonoscopy fun, should you be facing one of these any time.
2026 will be an “exciting” year, I think. Across Europe, people and organisations are becoming disenchanted with relying on Big Tech. Within just four months between Proof of Concept and rollout, Austria’s Federal Ministry for Economy, Energy and Tourism went live with a secure Nextcloud environment, operated on its own infrastructure in Austria and designed to meet strict transparency and compliance requirements. Germany’s Schleswig-Holstein migrated to Open Source Email Systems. MEPs have written to its President to demand digital sovereignty in the EU Parliament, citing a range of European alternatives, including Vivaldi.
Danmark Skifter [Denmark shifts] is a national campaign from from January 1 to March 20, 2026, in which thousands of Danes will “take back control of their digital lives – not alone, but together”. European alternatives lists “European alternatives for digital service and products, like cloud services and SaaS products”. I moved my 80 year old mum from Windows to Linux.
Most Big Tech happens to be in the USA, and its current administration is unlikely to be delighted by pesky European communists wanting autonomy. The US Government has already sanctioned a former EU commissioner and four Europeans over EU legislation to curb online hate speech. Big Tech firms are affronted that their Manifest Web Destiny is being challenged; expect Apple to become especially litigious.
Of course, I will fight on as I have been doing, both before and during my employment with Vivaldi. I’ll work with other browsers and civil society organisations, to keep the web open, and free,
My personal resolutions: I shall also try to lose some of my middle-aged paunchiness, and drink less beer (I suspect that there might be a link between the two). I shall also try to release my fourth album, and remain utterly gorgeous.
I recently listened to a podcast called Decoder with Nilay Patel, in which Tim Berners-Lee was interviewed. Nilay asked Sir Uncle Timbo about browser competition on iOS. I’m happy to report that the inventor of the Web agrees with me that Apple inexplicably doesn’t want the Web to compete with its single-platform rent-extraction App Store.
Unfortunately, you can only access a transcript if you’re a subscriber (yes, really!), but the audio is downloadable and I own MacWhisper, so here’s the salient part:
Nilay: But up until now, Apple has not allowed anything but WebKit on the iPhone. Even Chrome on the iPhone has 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?
Tim: I can’t tell, but to have competition to allow Chromium to run on iPhone sounds like a good move… When you have a competition between different sections of the layer, it tends to improve innovation. You get more bright ideas out there … I’ve heard rumours that [the], but I can’t substantiate them, Apple is deliberately slowing down WebKit on the phone in order to not compete with Apple native apps.
and slightly later:
Nilay: Progressive web apps on Android have not taken the world by storm. 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?
Tim: I think more powerful browser on the iPhone will change that dynamic.
So that’s sorted. You’ve heard it from me, you’ve heard it from Big Al, you’ve heard it from OWA, you’ve heard it from the Japanese, UK and EU competition authorities, and now you’ve heard it from Sir Uncle Timbo himself. Your move, Evil Tim.
In May 2021, Dr Rachael Kent, Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy & Society Education in the Department of Digital Humanities at King’s College London, led a class action against Apple on behalf of 19.6 million UK consumers.
The complaint alleges that Apple abuses its dominant position through exclusion of any other app stores from iOS devices and the 30% surcharge that it imposes on apps that require payment at the point of download, subscription payments, or allow for in-app purchases (but not for “physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app”, for Reasons).
Yesterday (23 October 2025) the Competition Appeal Tribunal handed down its unanimous judgement:
In our view, [Apple’s] restrictions cannot sensibly be justified as being necessary or proportionate to deliver the benefits which Apple puts forward as flowing from its objective of an integrated and centralised system.
On the contrary, the competition which would exist absent the restrictions is in our view much more likely to deliver the benefits that consumers want, in the form and at the price point they want them.
The case was not heard in a vacuum; the Competition and Markets Authority gave evidence:
We also had the benefit of written observations from the Competition and Markets Authority (the
“CMA”), and oral opening and closing remarks from Mr Julian Gregory on behalf of the CMA. We found that very helpful and we are grateful for the CMA’s input.
and other regulatory regimes were studied:
The regulatory interventions in the EU, the Netherlands and South Korea all suggest that there is a perfectly workable outcome where iOS app distribution services and iOS in-app payments services are open to competition, without material impact on the services Apple provides.
Apple’s history was referenced:
From the earlier days of the iPhone, it appeared that this “walled garden” was a stated aim of Apple in the development of its iOS ecosystem. In an oft-quoted email in 20104, Apple’s CEO, Steve Jobs, stated that the strategy of the company was to “tie all of our products together, so we further lock customers into our ecosystem”, so as to “make [the] Apple ecosystem even more sticky”.
Mr Jobs stated during the March 2008 launch event that Apple did not intend to make money from the App Store and that he hoped (but was unsure) that the Commission would cover the costs of running the App Store.
Apple tried its usual shtick that it monopolises services on iOS solely in order to protect the privacy and security of its customers. The Tribunal saw through this:
Apple has failed to establish that any performance, security or privacy benefits were attributable specifically to the restrictions it has imposed in relation to iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payments.
There is no reason why Apple cannot promote the choice it offers to users to transact through the App Store, with whatever enhanced protection Apple said it is able to deliver, as a means of differentiation. It is not necessary to remove user choice altogether to make that case.
In short, the restrictions relating to iOS app distribution are not necessary to provide iOS device users with the benefits which Apple said they are intended to promote and not proportionate to the objective of delivering those benefits.
In relation to the iOS in-app payment restrictions, Apple maintained similar arguments about security and privacy. In our judgement, these are unfounded…
As a monopolist in the market for iOS in-app payment services, it is not for Apple to seek to exclude potential market participants on the basis that users need to be protected from the perceived risks of using those alternative providers.
The Tribunal ordered damages to be paid, which is the difference between the calculated legitimate commission Apple should have charged, and the 30% it actually charged. It decided that 50% of that extra cost was passed on by developers to consumers, so all consumers who bought apps etc will be eligible for some level of payout. Interest of 8% is also payable. The amount wasn’t determined, but Dr Kent had asked for £1.5 billion.
Apple, of course, is very iSad about this, and will appeal. Of course it will; it will litigate everything, as it has a colossal legal budget and any delay is profit to a monopolist.
As I wring out another handkerchief, and hold an umbrella to shield Useless Dog from my torrent of sympathetic tears, I can’t help but think, “perhaps Apple should have just competed fairly, and not decided to be monopolistic arse-weasels”.
But it’s been an even bigger week for Dr Rachael Kent, who’s done a great service, fighting for tech consumers against monopolistic arse-weasels. She wrote
This isn’t just a win against the richest company in the world – it’s a win for consumers, for competition, and for the principle that no corporation, however powerful, is above the law.
Dr Kent, next time you’re in Birmingham, there’s a lamb and spinach balti and 7 pints of Guinness for you, on me and Vivaldi.
It’s a mere 4 years, 3 months and 22 days since a weird Australian developer and his brother contacted me to ask if I would be interested in speaking to UK competition regulators about Apple’s continuing holding back the Web (which I’d long been moaning about on Twitter). Today, the UK has finally designated Apple (and Google) strategic market status in mobile platforms because of their substantial and entrenched market power.
The fight isn’t over; now, the regulator will embark on a round of consulting about what remedies (if any) need to be ordered, to make Apple (and to a lesser extent, Google) behave themselves.
Apple will litgate this all the way, I’m sure. Yesterday, Apple took the EU to court, to argue that it’s “really mean” and “totally, like, not fair” to expect it to allow “stinky competitors” to access certain functions on iOS. Luckily, the Free Software Foundation Europe was on hand to argue on behalf of users.
So, I allow myself a brief pat on the back, and congratulate my erstwhile comrades at Open Web Advocacy, and all the other developers and associations who have helped get us here. I’m also grateful to Vivaldi browser who, since June last year, have employed me to look beautiful, and also to do this work (previously, I was self-funding).
