Open Web Advocacy

I recently came across Open Web Advocacy (OWA) who summarize my mobile-platform concerns well. They "advocate for the future of the open web by providing regulators, legislators and policy makers the intricate technical details that they need to understand the major anti-competitive issues in our industry and how to solve them." Their top 3 priorities: 1. Apple's ban of third party browsers on iOS is deeply anti-competitive 2. Web Apps need to become just Apps. Apps built with the free and open web need equal treatment and integration. Closed and heavily taxed proprietary ecosystems should not receive any preference. 3. All artificial barriers placed by gatekeepers must be removed. Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases. Website: https://open-web-advocacy.org/en/

It seems Apple have added support for shipping alternate browser engines in the EU, and could in theory be sold using Apple's own store there, as well as third party ones: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ FWIW, it does look like Apple have made it pretty hard to qualify to ship one though! To best of my knowledge, no one has actually shipped one yet in the EU. > https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-…

I'm not very familiar with OWA - what is your critique? Their recommendations seem grounded in a very detailed assessment of how Apple's compliance with the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/

I'd highly recommend this document to establish the scale of impact these different vendors have: https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ Google is definitely not in the clear, but Apple's anti-competitive practices is much more damaging to the open web.

We do have "Super Apps" in the Western world. They're called "web browsers." Note that Apple doesn't allow alternative web browsers on iOS, so Safari/WebKit is the only Super App allowed on iOS. https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-browser-ban/ > When you download Chrome, Firefox or any other browser that isn't Safari on an Apple device, that browser is forced to use Safari's rendering engine WebKit. Chrome normally uses Chromium, and Firefox Gecko. However, Apple will not allow those browsers to use their own engines. Without the ability to use their own engines, those browsers are unable to bring you their latest and greatest features, and can only go so far as whatever WebKit has added.

the article I posted was from: https://open-web-advocacy.org/ and I wrote a nice article-ish piece myself, trying to get above "I want my walled garden" and "everybody hates pwa" comments you find under those links above... but I guess you had your reasons!

I run https://open-web-advocacy.org and we’re the reason browser engines and web apps were included in the DMA. We know lots of developers in the EU.

Off topic but does anyone know what static site generator was used for https://open-web-advocacy.org ?

Yeah I have a really hard time believing https://open-web-advocacy.org/ is not actually google but it is certainly aiming towards Google's benefit and, ironically, the end of any chance of an "open" web

Names and clarification have been added to the website: https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really

It is bizarre that you're "pinning" this on the Chromium engineers - who are essentially the only ones moving the web forward. The safari feet dragging/obstruction goes far beyond PWAs. The chart on this page is one of many examples showing how consistently far behind Safari is - they've been enormously behind chrome and firefox in coverage of tests for 7+ years. https://wpt.fyi/. And here's an extremely comprehensive article on the topic https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show-stoppers/ As for standards, here's another detailed series to learn from https://infrequently.org/series/effective-standards-work/. Once again, you have it all backwards. Saying "no one is giving Google enough gruff for the conflict of interest with Google Play's moats and making over-complicated standards" is not only laughable, but just dumb - Google doesn't and, in fact, can't "make standards". Standards are something that comes about through the painful diplomatic process described in those links. Moreover, it is quite clearly an institutional decision to hold back the web, or else they would allow for other browser engines to run on iOS rather than focing them all to be skins on webkit. Again, this is all documented in extreme detail in the articles on that site. If you find it to be still somehow lacking, the author is very open to discussion on bluesky or mastodon (I'd prepare far better though, because what you've said thus far would get eviscerated). As for MPA PWAs,…

>If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few). This statement alone is evidence that you didn't understand the crux of the issue. You are also confusing cause and effect. I clearly explained the root causes for that. The reason there are not more web apps is not that they aren't "good" - what does that even mean? what is the criterion for "good" here? If you say that it's because they lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights. Be specific, why are they not "good"? There wouldn't be coincidentally a mysterious opposing force that actively prevents developers from improving those aspects, right? >There are none (or very, very, very few). X (Twitter) - has PWA Pinterest - has PWA Spotify - has PWA Uber - Hybrid Starbucks - has PWA Again, you're confusing cause and effect. It's like actively sabotaging a runner and saying: "See? that runner sucks!!" - Yeah because that runner is being actively sabotaged. You're completely ignoring all the evidence and simply claiming that they are unpopular because they are not "good" when in reality they are unpopular because they have been sabotaged to prevent them from challenging the gatekeeper's taxation funnels. >If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from…

"We agree with the DOJ. A hollow win that leaves Google’s monopoly intact is not beneficial to either US consumers or businesses, and Google’s counter-proposals will not fix the underlying problem: that Google held and has abused its monopoly in search. However, we’re concerned that if the DOJ goes too far, particularly by forcing a sale of Chrome and banning search deals with smaller browser vendors like Mozilla, it will do lasting harm to the web platform." And then they go on to quote totally inept and zero people (like the simple idiots who created react) doing virtual fellatio saying the web will be dead without Google owning Chrome :DDDD. Trying to reassure readers this is the way to go. Lololol... domain name checks out: https://open-web-advocacy.org/ LASTING HARM! What lasting harm? That utterly useless features will finally not be implemented in Chrome. Maybe we finally get a browser that makes some improvements to... how we experience the web. Just look back at early Firefox and the innovations it introduced (and then removed) and then compare it to today's Google-fed Firefox and look in awe at the desert that surrounds today's browsers. Finally, Firefox would cease to exist. Since they got money from Chrome, they did NOTHING. The same goes for the Chromium forks. Same shit, repackaged. Time for them to go. I'm sure the DOJ ruling will be a nothing burger, so nothing will really change, but these articles and all the stupid people who can't see today's…

OWA[0] 0: https://open-web-advocacy.org/

Long read, but it exactly explains why: https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/

Building the same app for iOS, Android and desktop: up to 2-5 times the costs (for businesses, how they cover those costs depends) App tax: 15-30%, which can drive the price for consumers up by up to 44% https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#negative-conseque…

Historically yes, but in some areas like the EU there have been some regulation changes in 2024 where theoretically there could be alternate browser engines on iOS but in practice it hasn't happened yet. See https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-…

> When can I ship my own web browser with my own JIT? Do you live in Europe or Japan? If so, you can [1][2]. If not, Apple forbids you from doing so. The US, Department of Justice is suing Apple [3]. Maybe the US will be added to this list. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ [2] https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-apple-must-lift-engine-ban-by… [3] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-…

I'm waiting for the WebKit part - I remember this Japanese law also mandated Apple to allow other browser engines. The EU law effectively failed to enforce this.. I hope this will work better in Japan. EDIT: more info here: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-apple-must-lift-engine-ban-by…

Me as a consumer: - browsers having to go through Apple means slower updates (including for bugs or security), not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple forces every alternative-engine browser to use a pretty broken framework that Safari does not use, not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple's restrictions on alternative engines in the EU are a vast list of malicious compliance[0], making those engines a theoretical academic exercise, so they're definitely still fucking you as a consumer. [0]: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-…

> So Apple is now responsible for the shit show of current web development and at the same time isn’t keeping up or doesn’t care about the web? Which is it? Yes. Apple, who once promoted the web as a distribution model, changed course once they realized that doing so would lead to less revenue. They have been actively hostile to open web standards and PWAs as a distribution model. https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/did-apple-just-break-web-apps-in-io… https://proton.me/blog/apple-lawsuit > And run once run anywhere has never worked in the history of the industry. Yet it works pretty damn well on the web.

From the same website, there are still blocks put in place by Apple to discourage anyone, especially large browsers, from publishing their own engine: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-…

I thought the SLAP exploit specifically worked only in Safari due to deficient site isolation, though? https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/slap-and-flop--apples-lack-of-full-… That's from February of 2025.

From details elsewhere [0], Dutch company booking.com could be added. There are probably more that did not make the first round: Telegram Spotify - Sweden OLX - Netherlands Ryanair - Ireland Are some possibilities for the next round. [0] https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/the-digital-markets-act-is-in-force…

Make sure to check out Open Web Advocate page to take action/complete they survey: https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-attempts-killing-webapps/

It's hard to take this comment in good faith given the state of Safari and Apple's monopolistic policies around Webkit on iOS, but: https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20Bringing%20Competition%2…