Yikes, once again it’s been ages since I posted a reading list, as I’ve been shuttling between Brussels, London and Lawson Towers a lot. This reading list is courtesy of Vivaldi browser, who pay me decent money to fight for a better web and don’t moan at me for reading all this stuff. We’ve just released Vivaldi for Android with extension support, free from Big Tech’s snooping and its AI-pooping.
Tetralogical: Introducing the Accessible Components Library – Everyone’s fave a11y chums open source their Accordion, Breadcrumbs, Dialog, Disclosure, Pagination, Tabs, Text input, Textarea components, and docs of assistive-tech compatibility & the applicable WCAG success criteria.
Big Tech Is the Biggest Bankroller of Trump’s Ballroom – “Nvidia and Apple gave the most. Each committed $25 million …Microsoft and Palantir committed $10 million each. Amazon, Meta, Cisco, and ServiceNow gave $5 million each … $22 million came from Google’s settlement of Trump’s lawsuit”
Browser Data Portability Community Group is a W3C Community Group “to build consensus amongst web browser developers and implementers on how to meet the needs of users who wish to transfer their data between browsers”
Twinkleplop – I have no use for a syntax highlighter, but when I read “Twinkleplop is a syntax highlighter of unspeakable power”, I suddenly want to use it everywhere
Now we know that the execrable Andrew Tate is wanted by British police for allegedly making indecent images of a child, rape, stranging women during sex, and possession of extreme pornography depicting sexual intercourse between people and live animals — one involving an eel and another involving a horse.
Last week, I had an exciting few days in Brussels, meeting with the European Commission with other browser vendors, technology groups, and representatives of a Big Tech Gatekeeper about the latter’s sustained and relentless malicious compliance with the Digital Markets Act, the EU’s law “to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable”.
I had a jolly time, and The Continent was remarkably civilised, apart from the lamentable breakfasts: predominantly “croissants” wallowing lasciviously in hot chocolate, while you’re surrounded by Marxists reading Camus, smoking Gauloises and snorting absinthe to the strains of maudlin 6/8-time accordion music.
Me on a catwalk in a posh EC meeting room
I can’t tell you what was said in the meetings because the Commission required Chatham House rules; to recount it (even without attribution) would immediately make it clear who was talking preposterous nonsense, but it went roughly like this:
Browser Vendors: Here’s a list of policy changes and technical tweaks you could implement that would let us compete fairly. Big Tech Gatekeeper: If we let your smelly code on our operating system, it could kill every cute baby otter in the EU. EC: The law says you must let Browser Vendors compete fairly. BTG: You see? Everybody hates cute baby otters except us! Why does no-one else love cute baby otters and fluffy kittens? Will no-one spare a thought for sweet bunny rabbits? etc
We browser vendors gave it our best shot, with lots of evidence. I don’t think Big Tech Gatekeeper made their case convincingly. The EC team were highly knowledgeable about the tech issues, switched on, and (in the main) well-dressed – although I remain on alert to provide any fashion advice they need.
It’s my hope that this will result in the Commission setting out specifically what Big Tech Gatekeeper must do in order to comply (because “obey the law” hasn’t worked). Now, it all depends on EU politics, which is outside my influence (or interest, to be honest).
Here’s my name badge, and a large, but insipid, past-its-best apple that I stole from the commission, and which (for some reason) serves a momento of the trip.
Because I’m a rock and roll animal, I was invited to an event in London called Time to Reset: Unlocking Growth & Sovereignty Through Digital Competition. It wasn’t really clear to me why a grubby HTML monkey like me was invited, or what it was really about, but as it was in the Financial Times building and had some pretty heavy-hitters from the UK regulatory scene speaking, I thought it would be good to attend.
The thrust of the laudably concise report was music to my ears: a call for bolder tech regulation by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
We recommend the UK government publishes an updated strategic steer for the CMA. This should clarify that proactive, rapid and bold enforcement is pro-growth. The priority should be reducing barriers to entry for competitors, not maximising inward investment from incumbents.
Our previous Prime Minister, Keir Stamer, was a weak leader and desperate not to alienate big U.S. businesses. His Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, forced out the Chair of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority to step down only two years into his five year term, and replaced him with former Amazon UK boss Doug Gurr “in a bid to boost growth and support the economy”.
The business department said that Reynolds had “accepted” [Marcus] Bokkerink’s resignation and thanked him for his work… It added that the government would soon begin consulting on “new growth-focused strategic steer to the CMA”.
It is understood that Bokkerink’s departure is meant to send a pro-growth signal to businesses, as Reeves and Reynolds attend Davos to meet global business leaders.
Putting a former Amazon chief in charge of reigning in Big Tech might be the reason for the CMA’s recent timidity. This could explain why the CMA recently accepted Apple and Googles’ “voluntary commitments” not to be beastly to competitors, even though this flaccid outcome was not even mentioned as an option when the two behemoths were given Strategic Market Designation.
But what made this report especially interesting was that the author, Roa Powell, had interviewed CMA staff, including Marcus Bokkerink, the ousted Chair:
We are grateful to officials at the Competition and Markets Authority who engaged with this research. And we would like to thank Marcus Bokkerink, Kip Meek and Mike Walker for sharing reflections on their time working on DMCCA implementation within the CMA.
And by complete coincidence, Mr Bokkerink was at the event and asked a question. He was later chatting convivially with Will Hayter, Executive Director for Digital Markets at the CMA, who said in his keynote speech
The IPPR report recommends a new strategic steer. That is a question for the government, and you will have seen the Secretary of State’s comments in the Times last week, in response. But the government’s broader comment in response to the report was that it ‘continues to back the CMA to use all its tools as robustly as it considers necessary to improve competition and benefit consumers, businesses and the UK economy’. We welcome that support.
I couldn’t help wondering if the presence of ex-members and current CMA bigwigs indicates that the regulator is signalling to our new Prime Minister that it wants to be unmuzzled. I certainly hope so, and that the new administration listens.
Talking of politicians, there was a speech by a Member of Parliament, Chi Onwurah MP. Dame Chi is one of the few MPs who was an engineer before a political career, as opposed to a few years at a policy factory after an Oxbridge degree in PPE. She spoke of her Personal Data (Digital Twin) Bill [PDF] which was to receive its first reading on 9 September, and seeks to regulate surveillance capitalism profiling people (making a “digital twin”).
We are told that Governments are too slow and too stupid to shape tech, and that the market knows best—the market will ensure the best, most innovative products and services are delivered to the people who need them and keep them safe in the process. I hope that we can all agree now that neolibertarian complacency has not worked.
The tech giants are hubs of amazing innovation but, as my Committee has heard, they are controlled by a small number of extremely wealthy men without the usual corporate governance or competitive constraints. We need to limit their power with our democratic power to protect our citizens.
It’s a “ten minute Bill“, so it has no chance of becoming law, but it is a way for subjects to be introduced to the legislature and to gauge support. The Bill will receive its second Reading on 13 November 2026. I think it needs some tweaks before that; it currently provides an option for Big Tech to seek “consent” which will probably lead to more “cookie banner”-style Consent Theatre (“Let us profile you, or pay for access”). I’ve written to Dame Chi about this (and to invite her to my For A Better Web podcast).
The whole day was encouraging, and I got to meet lots of movers and shakers, including the splendid Megan Kirkwood and Open Web Advocacy operative “The Hepcat”, AKA James Heppell. And I was given a glass of red wine on the FT roof, loomed over by St Pauls.
Stay tuned for more updates from the Land of Regulatory Suits. The fun never stops!
Crikey, it’s been ages since I posted a reading list, so here’s every tab I had saved in my “Reading List” Vivaldi workspace. Apologies if some have been posted before!
Marginalia – a search engine that prioritizes non-commercial content, no AI, no tracking, open-source. “The goal is to bring you the sort of grass fed, free range HTML your grandma used to write”
Hyoeraudio Lite – Installable PWA lightweight transcript editor for creating, editing and correcting machine‑generated transcripts — then turning them into captions, edited media and interactive transcripts, by Mark Boas
Gene spent 15 years at Microsoft, managing antitrust compliance with American and European orders and decrees, so he knows what he’s talking about when he writes
In its 10K in a section entitled “Our Future Opportunity”, Microsoft made the following admission, which, to anyone that has advised a dominant firm on compliance and communication to minimize problems with competition laws, was truly shocking.
“Leveraging Windows to fuel our cloud business, grow our share of the PC market, and drive increased engagement with our services like Microsoft Edge, Bing, Copilot, Microsoft Teams, Microsoft 365 Consumer, XBOX Game Pass, and more.”
Not grow Windows, not improve the product, not lower the price, but simply leverage its dominant operating system platform to advantage and grow share for other products. Besides the smoking-gun nature of such a statement in a world where self-preferencing by dominant platforms is effectively being outlawed, it reflects an expressed intent to use its significant market power in Windows, not to make Windows better for its customers, but instead to coerce and cajole its customers into using other more strategic Microsoft products.
To people in IT of a certain age (like me), “10K” sounds like the amount of storage you’d require for a really banging ZX Spectrum or BBC Micro game, or if you’re younger, 1% of the size of a hero image from a dull stock photography site. But actually it’s an annual report required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that includes information such as company history, organisational structure, executive compensation, equity, subsidiaries, audited financial statements, and similar excitement.
To those of us not in the world of economics or anti-trust fun, the word “leverage” just seems like one of those Ha Ha Business! buzzwords that simply means “to use” (as in, “let’s leverage the boss’ golf trophy to break up that floater so it will flush”).
But what does the word “leverage” mean in this context? Because I’m thick (but well-connected) I emailed Gene to ask. If he rolled his eyes and tutted, I didn’t see, and he graciously allowed me to quote his reply:
It’s kind of one of those magic words in antitrust law that can reveal the intent behind conduct that could be interpreted more than one way. Courts and regulators tend to be very deferential to unilateral business decisions of monopolists if there is any even plausible argument that they are “pro-competitive” or “competition on the merits”.
This statement (especially because it is in a securities filing) can’t be dismissed as just the rantings of a random employee in an email or presentation. It’s the considered position of the company (If it’s not, they have misled investors). And the “leveraging” language is especially problematic as it essentially admits two key elements of an abuse of dominance claim:
1. That they have something (market power/dominant position) to leverage; and
2. That they intend to unfairly use that position for advantage in adjacent markets.
It’s a very interesting divergence between what they teach in business school and what competition laws might prohibit. There is nothing “pro competitive” about “leveraging” a dominant position for unfair advantage. Even monopolists are allowed to compete vigorously “on the merits” (i.e. price, improving quality, etc). But it can be an abuse of dominance to leverage a dominant position in Europe and elsewhere.
In the US, the law is more deferential… and tends to allow even “leveraging” a monopoly, unless that either protects the existing monopoly or might tend to create a new one… And interestingly, Microsoft’s statement arguably breaches even that generous allowance by saying they will leverage to ”increase share of the PC market.”
A dominant company is generally allowed to say “We have a successful product, and we’re going to use it to sell our other products”. The legal question is whether the means by which the dominant position is leveraged are capable of harming competition, rather than simply whether Microsoft obtains benefits from Windows.
I’ve written before about Microsoft’s dirty tricks in UK. Since then, Mozilla’s Over The Edge 2 report assessed Microsoft’s tactics across four regions: the USA, India, the UK, and EU (Germany), and concluded
Microsoft still does not allow users to download, set as the default, or keep using alternative browsers without harmful interference. The patterns are documented, and they meet established definitions of coercion, deception, and manipulation.
These tactics, even the milder ones within the EU, harm Edge’s competitors (as well as users, whose choice isn’t respected). And, to add insult to injury, Microsoft thumbs its nose at regulators by crowing about it in its annual filing.
We will examine Microsoft’s provision of a range of business software products used by UK organisations, including productivity software, personal computer and server operating systems, database management systems and security software.
We will consider whether practices such as bundling products, limiting interoperability, or using default settings make it harder for customers to switch providers and reduce competition from rivals.
In today’s digital-first workplace, the browser has quietly become the new operating system for enterprise productivity. From accessing SaaS platforms and cloud-native applications to enabling real-time collaboration and now AI-assisted workflows, the browser is no longer just a window to the web—it is the primary interface for getting work done.
With our mission to be the best browser for business, we are harnessing the power of AI to help you and your organization to stay on the cutting edge. Microsoft Edge continues to be your copilot for the web—the first to integrate AI-powered search, and the only one with Bing built-in.
The Microsoft Edge sidebar lets users access productivity tools side-by-side with their browsing window. In this release, the sidebar is enhanced to increase productivity and improve user experience.
The browser has quietly become the universal workspace. What started as a simple tool for accessing the internet has transformed into the central hub for enterprise productivity, collaboration, and now—AI-powered workflows. From cloud applications and SaaS platforms to GenAI copilots running inside browser tabs, the browser is where work is increasingly happening.
It seems obvious to me that Microsoft is abusing its dominance on Windows to harm competitor browsers, and is brazen enough to openly admit it in a legal document to the Priests of US Magic Capitalism. Microsoft management are basically pulling a moonie at competition regulators.
It’s time for competition regulators in the UK and the EU to stop it.
Browser Choice Alliance (a coalition of browsers dedicated to the principle that users should have the right to use their browser of choice on Windows devices)
The Goldilocks customizable select height – ” I realised there’s a sizing ‘pattern’ that’s almost always the-one-you-want, but it took me a long time to figure out how to do it in CSS” writes Web Standards hunk Jank Architect
County With 37 Data Centers Asks Schools to ‘Conserve Electricity’ – “Henrico County is a major hub for data centers in Virginia. Its officials said it expects a 25% rise in electricity costs next year, and advised workers to close the blinds and turn off their computers to make up for it.”
US Supreme Court just blew up EU-US Data Transfers– “US Supreme Court decided the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be independent anymore. Since 2000, the EU has relied on the “independent” FTC as the enforcer of EU-US deals on personal data. According to EU treaty law, such oversight must be independent. In the current EU-US deal, the European Commission relies on the independent FTC 259 (!) times”.
NFC access on iOS – CMA call for evidence – “We are continuing to work on the full design of any potential intervention to ensure fair and reasonable NFC access on iOS”
Google and Apple’s Anti-DMA Lobbying Strategy Goes All-in on Security and Privacy – As the EU starts to press Big Tech to open their operating systems to competitors’ services, you’ll hear a lot more handwringing from them about privacy and security. Most is FUD. Look at their record for privacy and security, especially of their own single-platform (“native”) apps and app stores.
The Slow Death of the Power User – “This is the result of two decades of deliberate, calculated effort by the largest technology companies on earth to turn users into consumers, instruments into appliances, and technical literacy into a niche hobby for weirdos.”
How AI reduces the world to stereotypes – Rest of World analyzed 3,000 AI images (“an Indian person,” “a house in Mexico,” “a plate of Nigerian food”, etc) to see how image generators visualize different countries and cultures.
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.
“Me, in hotpants, shaking the golden-clad BrucieBooty™ to a song based on ‘In the Navy’ by Village People”, I suggested to our head of marketing. He muttered something under his breath and left the room.
But now he’s on paternity leave, so here it is: “In Vivaldi”. Big love to New Andre for adding karaoke lyrics, and La Daughter’s Squeeze for backup dancing.
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.
