Open Web Advocacy

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.

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...

Bruce Lawson's personal site » App certainty and interoperability: Apple’s pinky promises to CMA

Also see:
🧵(5/5)
brucelawson.co.uk/2026/on-appl...

Demand:
• Equal Access for Apps to Software/Hardware APIs
• Equal Performance and Privileges
• No Discriminatory Fees
• Enforceable Deadlines & Public Oversight
• Binding Commitments
🧵(4/5)

If you are aware of specific APIs or system capabilities that have been withheld in ways that harm businesses, developers, or consumers in the UK, include them and explain the impact.
🧵(3/5)

Please take five minutes to share your views on whether Apple and/or Google should be required to provide fair access to iOS and Android APIs free of charge, subject only to strictly necessary security protections.
🧵(2/5)

⚠️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

⚠️ 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)

⚠️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

⚠️ 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)

Bruce Lawson's personal site » App certainty and interoperability: Apple’s pinky promises to CMA

Also see:
🧵(5/5)
brucelawson.co.uk/2026/on-appl...

Demand:
• Equal Access for Apps to Software/Hardware APIs
• Equal Performance and Privileges
• No Discriminatory Fees
• Enforceable Deadlines & Public Oversight
• Binding Commitments
🧵(4/5)

If you are aware of specific APIs or system capabilities that have been withheld in ways that harm businesses, developers, or consumers in the UK, include them and explain the impact.
🧵(3/5)

Please take five minutes to share your views on whether Apple and/or Google should be required to provide fair access to iOS and Android APIs free of charge, subject only to strictly necessary security protections.
🧵(2/5)

⚠️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

⚠️ 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)

Bruce Lawson's personal site » App certainty and interoperability: Apple’s pinky promises to CMA

Also see:
🧵(5/5)
brucelawson.co.uk/2026/on-appl...

Demand:
• Equal Access for Apps to Software/Hardware APIs
• Equal Performance and Privileges
• No Discriminatory Fees
• Enforceable Deadlines & Public Oversight
• Binding Commitments
🧵(4/5)

If you are aware of specific APIs or system capabilities that have been withheld in ways that harm businesses, developers, or consumers in the UK, include them and explain the impact.
🧵(3/5)

Please take five minutes to share your views on whether Apple and/or Google should be required to provide fair access to iOS and Android APIs free of charge, subject only to strictly necessary security protections.
🧵(2/5)

Apple’s Interoperability Commitments to the UK’s CMA Promise Nothing - Open Web Advocacy

If you are in the UK, I'd like to beg 5-10 minutes of your time to file comment with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) about the proposed (toothless) "Interoperability Commitments" from Apple and Google.

Per usual, @open-web-advocacy.org has deets:

open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-inte…

OWA on RedMonk: Why the Mobile Web Still Can’t Compete with Native Apps, and How to Fix It! - Open Web Advocacy

🧵 (5/5)
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/owa-on-...

And I just want to respond to what I hear often when I speak to developers who really are cynical about the eventual success of web apps. And they just say that native apps work better. And they sort of dismiss the PWAs as just not being realistic as much as they maybe ideologically agree with all the points that you’re making here. What is your response to folks who are skeptical of PWAs being able to function at the level of native apps? Kate Holterhoff So the way I like to think about it is, at the end of the day, what you’re talking about in terms of the difference between native apps and web apps is, do you really think that web apps do not have the capability of painting to the screen 60 frames a second and doing the kinds of interactions that native apps can do? [...] So a great example is Photoshop. They ported the entirety of desktop Photoshop into a web browser. [...] If you can build a software as complicated as Photoshop in the web, then all of the other software, which is arguably significantly more simple, is also possible. [...] All the features and functionalities that we’re missing from native. Most of them are artificial. They’re just Apple’s, they’ve refused to provide an easy installation process and there’s no competition. So there’s nothing pushing them to invest significantly so that the lowest common denominator across the browsers is at a higher level. Alex Moore

🧵 (4/5)

The threat of web apps for them is enormous because what it means is that web apps are equal on all devices. And so if you build a web app, it’s going to work equally on Android, I mean, without these blockers it’s going to work equally on Android as well as iOS. And then that loses their competitive advantage. In addition, there’s no App Store fees. I think it’s around $24 billion a year in App Store fees at the moment. But obviously, if it was going via the web. They don’t collect any of that revenue. The other thing it would also allow, it would allow for other competitors. So if you think about other mobile phone ecosystems, there’s pretty much iOS and Android. It’s not really possible for a third or a fourth or a fifth competitor to come into the market because you need that entire ecosystem set up. If web apps had been allowed to succeed and were the predominant form of apps, anybody could create a mobile device because then you’d have access to the library of apps that you need to be successful. And I’d argue that one of the reasons, say, Windows Phone didn’t take off was because they didn’t have the library of apps. And it was too much of an uphill battle to try and sell each of the developers. You got your iOS app, you got your Android app. Can you now build a Windows app as well? Alex Moore

🧵 (3/5)

Talk to me about the history. When was the OWA founded? Kate Holterhoff So we started in early 2021 and we’d been waiting for features from Apple for about 10 years. The main ones being install prompts for web apps and notifications, which we identified as the biggest blockers for web apps taking off. And we tried very hard to get Apple to do it. So we were messaging their top engineers. We were petitioning them. We were posting on WWDC saying we need these features. We can’t produce apps without them. Safaris got lots of bugs, please, can you get a bigger budget from your VPs? And we ended up, we kept pushing for that and then we just got no, we had made no progress. It basically got stonewalled in terms of features and functionality. And then eventually we’re like, this isn’t working, we better form a group and then we did with a bunch of random engineers and we got together and we started talking to regulators basically to say look there’s this amazing potential for basically the entire app market and it’s being squeezed out by the gatekeepers. Could you look at intervening? And we started with the UK’s competitions and markets authority. And yeah, we started having meetings with them and then it kind of just snowballed from there. Alex Moore

🧵 (2/5)

OWA on RedMonk: Why the Mobile Web Still Can’t Compete with Native Apps, and How to Fix It! - Open Web Advocacy

We recently spoke with @redmonk.com senior analyst @kateholterhoff.com about a question that has shaped the mobile ecosystem for over a decade: why has the open web struggled to compete with native apps on mobile, and what regulators can do to restore competition?
🧵👇 (1/5)

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)

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)

If you're a UK developer, or have customers for your apps in UK, please consider telling the UK competition regulator what you think. It doesn't have to be an essay, it doesn't have to be a formal report, and it can be anonymous. But you can make a difference.

Apple’s Interoperability Commitments to the UK’s CMA Promise Nothing - Open Web Advocacy

The CMA has invited stakeholders to submit views on Apple’s proposed commitments. Please consider writing in. See here for details:
🧵(10/10)
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-...!

The CMA has the power to impose effective and enforceable interoperability obligations on mobile operating system gatekeepers under the DMCCA, it just doesn’t appear to be using them.
🧵(9/10)

Five years after the CMA began investigating competition in the mobile ecosystem, this feels pretty weak to me. [...] 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 [...] 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? Bruce Lawson (emphasis added)

🧵(8/10)

Four years on from the publication of the mobile ecosystems market study report, 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 😉 🤞 [...] This is disappointing. It’s an outcome so weak that the possibility is not even mentioned in the CMA’s 220-page guidance document published in December. 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. Tom Smith Former Legal Director at the CMA (emphasis added)

🧵(7/10)

Given the highly dubious track record of these tech giants, we would question whether these voluntary commitments are really worth the paper they are printed on. News Media Association (emphasis added)

🧵(6/10)

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)

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