Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 13

There should be a minimum funding commitment 💵 of at least 50% of Google’s current investment.

Without safeguards, this sale risks crippling 🛑 the web’s ability to compete with closed ecosystems.

1 3

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 13

That would hurt every consumer, developer, and business relying on the open web, and strengthen Apple & Google’s native app duopoly 🏰.

The DOJ’s revised proposal now requires evaluating a buyer’s plans for Chromium ✅.

That’s good, but is not enough.

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 13

Google spends ~$1B/year on web platform development.

Would Perplexity match that? Or cut back once they have the users? 🤔

We estimate this sale could cause a 70% plunge 📉 in web platform investment.

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 13

Chrome’s audience would make them the largest AI company by active users overnight ⚡

But funding Chromium, the open source project 🔧 that powers Chrome, Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi & countless apps is very expensive.

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 13

Earlier this year, Perplexity said Chrome shouldn’t be sold because no one else had the business model or could run it at that scale without losing quality.

Now they want to own it

Chrome has 3.45B daily users 🌍

Perplexity reportedly has < 3M daily users 👥

Can Perplexity Afford to Fund the Web? The $34.5 Billion-Dollar Question - Open Web Advocacy

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 13

Perplexity just offered $34.5B to buy Chrome!

🚨The big question: without a legal obligation, will they fund the web platform that the world relies on at anywhere near Google’s ~$1B/year level?

Our answer: probably not.

New OWA Article: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/can-per...

🧵 Let's break it down

Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December - Open Web Advocacy

1 4 8

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 7

🔗Read OWA's analysis here: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-a...
/4

2

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 7

📉 "As a result, browsers on iOS lack support for features like easy home screen installation that would make PWAs more competitive with native iOS apps, a market segment that Apple controls and monetizes." – The Register
/3

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 7

📲 "Presently, browsers such as Brave, Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera, and Vivaldi have substantially similar capabilities to Apple's Safari browser on iOS, because they all run the WebKit engine under the hood." – The Register

/2

Apple's WebKit browser requirement may break Japanese law

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 7

The Register covers 🇯🇵 Japan's new law:

"Apple now faces challenges to its WebKit browser requirement in three jurisdictions, as authorities around the globe try to jumpstart competition in the mobile software industry." –The Register

🔗Read all about it here www.theregister.com/2025/08/06/a...

/1

: Three jurisdictions now want browser engine variety for a better mobile market

www.theregister.com

1 5 16

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 7

EU🇪🇺 fined Apple 1.8b euros: ec.europa.eu/commission/p...

Commission fines Apple over €1.8 billion over abusive App store rules for music streaming providers

The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (‘iOS users\') through i...

ec.europa.eu

3

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 6

For a detailed breakdown of the MSCA and what it means for browser competition:

/5
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-a...

Japan: Apple Must Lift Engine Ban by December - Open Web Advocacy

Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA - Open Web Advocacy

2 13

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 6

The act also forces Apple (and Google) to offer equivalent API access to third-party browser vendors, similar to Article 6(7) of the EU DMA.

/4

1 2 18

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 6

This matters as Apple is still blocking rival browser engines in the 🇪🇺 EU, despite the DMA:

/3
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-...

Japan: Apple Must Lift Engine Ban by December - Open Web Advocacy

1 2 15

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 6

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.

1 2 18

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Aug 6

Japan 🇯🇵 has officially banned Apple’s iOS browser engine restrictions.

Starting Dec 2025, iPhones must allow real Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi and others to run their own engines, just like on desktop.

/1
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-a...

Bruce Lawson's personal site

6 100 470

Reposted by Open Web Advocacy

Alex Russell @infrequently.org · Jul 24

Apple's antipathy towards the web, and the success of web developers, could not be deeper. It's only matched by their functional suppression of the web on iOS. If you build for the web for a living, take note.

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Jul 23

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

4 28

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Jul 25

Bruce Lawson's summary of the UK's preliminary designation decision, check it out:

🔥 "why the CMA does not aim to create a default interoperability requirement is beyond my small brain to fathom. I’ll be raising it in my response to the consultation"

brucelawson.co.uk/2025/cma-des...

» CMA designates Google and Apple, proposes measures

brucelawson.co.uk

UK Regulator Flags Apple’s iOS Browser Engine Ban in Draft SMS Designation - Open Web Advocacy

Open Web Advocacy @open-web-advocacy.org · Jul 23

📖 Read more: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/uk-regu...