Open Web Advocacy
Developers fighting self-serving restrictions imposed on the web by tech giants.
Help us end #AppleBrowserBan & make web apps 1st-class. https://open-web-advocacy.org
- Alex Moore from Open Web Advocacy joins Joe on Late Night Linux to unpack the DOJ’s case against Google, what’s promising, what’s risky, and why protecting web and platform funding is critical for the open internet. 🎧 latenightlinux.com/late-night-l...
- 🚨 New Article: Industry Voices Caution Against DOJ’s Plan to Force Sale Of Chrome ⭐️We support the DOJ’s goal of ending Google’s monopoly⭐️ but we along with many voices from across the tech industry are concerned about collateral damage to the web Read: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/industr... 🧵(1/7)
-
View full thread✅ Require Google to reinvest 90% of search revenue into browsers and the web ✅ Spin off Chrome as an Alphabet subsidiary ✅ Cap Chrome’s default search share at 50%, auction the rest ✅ Enforce transparency and fairness in all search deals 🧵 (6/7)
- Industry leaders are sounding the alarm, we’ve compiled their voices here: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/industr... 🧵 (7/7)
- 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, including an estimated 70% drop in web platform investment. 🧵 (4/7)
- The DOJ can meet its goals without harming the web by: ✅ Ending Google’s Apple search deal ✅ Capping default share to 50% per browser ✅ Carving out protections for smaller browsers 🧵 (5/7)
- "Your honor, we are not here for a Pyrrhic victory. This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening — and they are listening — that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws." David Dahlquist - DOJ Lawyer 🧵 (2/7)
- And we agree! 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 abused its monopoly in search. 🧵 (3/7)
- New Article: Is It Worth Killing Mozilla to Shave Off Less Than 1% From Google’s Market Share? 🚨 The DOJ is seeking to cancel all of Google's revenue-sharing deals with browser vendors. 🧵 (1/7)
-
View full thread🧩 Do we truly believe the web would be better off in a world where Mozilla no longer exists? (6/7)
- 📖 Full article here: 👉 open-web-advocacy.org/blog/is-it-w... (7/7)
- 🛠️ Mozilla needs significant funding to maintain Gecko, one of just three major browser engines still in active use worldwide. 🌐 Gecko helps keep the web open and competitive. (4/7)
- 📉 Cancelling Google’s deal with Mozilla would reduce Google's U.S. search engine market share by less than 0.75%. 🤔 Is that really worth the cost? (5/7)
- ✅ We agree the Apple-Google deal should be cancelled. ⚠️ But we're concerned about the impact on smaller browsers, especially Mozilla. (2/7)
- 💰 Google currently pays Mozilla about $410–$420 million per year. ❓ It's unclear whether Bing or DuckDuckGo could even match a quarter of that. (3/7)
- [Not loaded yet]
- You obviously didn't even bother to read the paper. We're not funded by Google or any other gatekeeper. Actually read it and then come back to us.
- 🚨 NEW: The DOJ wants to break up Chrome from Google — the consequences could be catastrophic for the web. 📖 Read our article: Break Google's search monopoly without breaking the web. 👇Link: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/break-g... /1
- [Not loaded yet]
- Read the paper, rather than just assume what’s in it! It’s nothing close to what Google would write or endorse.
- [Not loaded yet]
- You’d have to be a few fries short of a happy meal to read our doc and think it’s anything close to what Google would publish 😆
- Read our paper for a deep dive into the economics, legal context, and policy roadmap for how to fix this, without breaking the web! 📘 open-web-advocacy.org/blog/break-g... Let’s get this right. For all of us. /10
- If you care about an open, accessible internet… 🚫 Not locked behind app stores 🚫 Not controlled by two companies 🚫 Not gutted of its funding Share this thread. Raise the alarm. Let’s not save search by sacrificing the web. 🌐 What's your opinion? 💡
- The open web isn’t just important, it’s critical infrastructure. It supports trillions in economic value annually, often for free. And the ones who’ll suffer most? 📉 Small U.S. businesses 🧑💻 Independent developers 🌍 Global users /8
- Here’s the good news: ✅ The DOJ can bring Google’s search share below 50% ✅ Without destroying browser funding ✅ Without bankrupting Mozilla ✅ Without killing the web But they need to adjust their remedies. /9
- The DOJ’s plan to cancel the Apple-Google search deal (which we support!) could cut Google’s U.S. search share by 23–32%. But go further, and you risk: ❌ Mozilla bankruptcy & ❌ Market reduced to just two engines: WebKit and Chromium /6
- Judge Mehta himself recognized this risk in court: “Mozilla [...] would have a more compelling argument than you because it's not like Apple is going to go out of business [...] Mozilla hardly has any [other] sources of revenue.” /7
- Think we’re exaggerating? Chrome’s funding underpins nearly every browser that’s not Safari or Firefox. Most Chromium-based browsers — Brave, Edge, Arc, Opera — depend on Google to survive. /4
- Kill that model, and Apple and Google keep winning. Why? Because developers and users will get pushed off the open web and into Apple and Google’s closed ecosystems. It would undermine the DOJ’s other case — the one against Apple. /5
- The DOJ wants to force Google to sell Chrome and ban search engine revenue share deals. Sounds good, right? But here’s the part no one is talking about 👇 /2
- These two remedies alone could collapse the web’s funding model, triggering a 70% drop in investment. The entire web platform is at risk — the infrastructure that powers Desktop Apps, Netflix, Shopify, Gmail, Bloomberg terminals, TVs, and even Dragon spacecraft UIs. /3
- Breaking: EU fines Apple €500M and Meta €200M for breaking Europe’s digital rules www.politico.eu/article/eu-f...
- Amazing library which demonstrates that it is possible to make high-fidelity UIs on the mobile web.
- 1/10 🚨 The 🇬🇧UK regulator’s final report is out and it’s clear: Apple’s browser engine ban harms competition. Forcing all iOS browsers to use WebKit hurts developers, users, and the web itself. Change is coming. 🧵 open-web-advocacy.org/blog/uk-regu...
-
View full thread9/10 This is historic. The 🇬🇧UK joins the 🇪🇺EU and 🇯🇵Japan in forcing open competition on iOS. The web will finally be free to compete head-to-head with native apps. The open web can win. Let’s make sure it does. 🌍🔥 — Open Web Advocacy (@openwebadvocacy)
- 10/10 The CMA says Apple’s browser engine ban harms competition and has recommended ending that ban. What’s the biggest benefit you foresee if iOS allows browsers to use their own engines?
- 7/10 Sadly, the regulator disagreed that: ❌ Google should share WebAPK minting on Android ❌ Apple/Google/Meta should be forced to respect user's default browser choice for in-app browsers (or at a minimum, ask permission to override) We’ll keep fighting for these under the DMCC.
- 8/10 What happens next? ✅ Apple and Google will face a Strategic Market Status (SMS) designation ✅ Binding rules are coming — including lifting the engine ban ✅ The designation will happen within 9 months
- 5/10 On Web Apps: The CMA’s message is clear: Web Apps deserve to compete fairly.
- 6/10 Astonishingly, Apple has been also paying Google for Google traffic in iOS Chrome. 🔎 The CMA believes this undermines Google's and Apple's incentives to compete ✅ The CMA seeks to end this practice
- 3/10 The regulator proposes clear remedies: 📌 Apple must allow third-party browser engines on iOS 📌 Browsers must be able to install and manage web apps without Safari This is huge.
- 4/10 Apple’s usual excuse? “Security” The CMA didn’t buy it: 🔎 Chrome, Firefox, and other major browsers meet high security standards 🔎 Apple can share hardware security APIs like Pointer Authentication Codes 🔎 Safari’s “security edge” is not backed by the available evidence
- 2/10 After over a year of investigation, the CMA agrees with what we’ve been saying: ✅ Apple’s browser engine ban stifles browser competition ✅ It blocks innovation ✅ It limits what web apps can do ✅ The ban must end
- Competition and the fear of losing market share are powerful forces for improving security, but for browsers on iOS, they have been entirely nullified via Apple's browser ban: 👉 open-web-advocacy.org/blog/slap-an...
- New security exploits in Apple's chips further underscore how Apple's ban on third-party browser engines weakens rather than strengthens security 👉 See why: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/slap-an...
- Open Web Advocacy has joined forces with industry associations, civil society organizations, and businesses to call on the European Commission to take urgent and decisive action in enforcing the Digital Markets Act. Read why here: open-web-advocacy.org/blog/digital...
- [Not loaded yet]
-
View full threadSee the file on the Apple investigation here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/679119... 7/8
- Please consider writing in to the CMA to explain your views on browsers, browser engines and web apps. Anyone with an interest in these investigations is invited to comment until Wednesday 12 February. 8/8
- 5/8
- See the file on the Google investigation here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/679115... 6/8
- 3/8
- 4/8
