As the EU prepared to designate Apple as a gatekeeper under the DMA, Apple argued that it has three distinct browsers: Safari for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS
And with a straight face, too. Brussels didn't buy it — Apple tried to avoid regulation in the European Union by making a surprising claim …
The RegisterThomas Claburn
Context & Ripple Effects
Apple’s attempt to distinguish Safari across iOS, iPadOS and macOS was a fight over how the DMA should define a regulated service, not merely over product naming. Brussels’ rejection put the EU’s functional view of Apple’s platform footprint ahead of the company’s platform-by-platform framing.
Apple could not use separate operating-system versions of Safari to narrow the relevant browser service for the pending DMA assessment.
EU regulators gained a clearer basis to assess Apple’s browser presence as part of its broader platform role rather than accept Apple’s product-boundary definition.
Second-order effects
Apple’s compliance and legal strategy had to address the EU’s functional interpretation of connected services, alongside its later proposed App Store changes under the DMA.
Other large platforms have less room to rely on interface or device segmentation when regulators evaluate whether a service reaches DMA thresholds.
Third-order effects
If consistently applied, the approach favors platform governance based on a service’s ecosystem role over a company’s internal product taxonomy, strengthening the case for contestable gatekeeping across connected access points.
The likely long-run contest is not whether platforms can differentiate products, but how far those differences can limit regulatory scope when users, developers and distribution remain integrated.
The trend: This is one data point in the DMA’s shift toward regulating ecosystem-level control rather than treating each interface or operating system as an isolated market.
Hilariously, Apple tried to claim with a straight face to the EU, that it offers not one, but three distinct web browsers all coincidentally named Safari. [image]
@sneakin @TimSweeneyEpic Browsers are enormous pieces of software, and the vast majority of the code base is shared. Browsers are also designed to work with a wide range of different form factors. The EU notes even Apple's own marketing stresses they are the same browser.
@OpenWebAdvocacy Bruce Sewell answered your query in two 2019 interviews which are still publicly posted. He said Apple legal is “kindergarten” and “wild,” and he shared that Tim Cook had directly instructed him to fight losing cases (ie, ebooks in 2013-2016) due to bitter hubris…
Lucky for us the team at the EC dismissed this ludicrous gambit and painstakingly ripped Apple's argument to shreds. It is baffling to us why Apple's legal team is willing to sacrifice their credibility on something that has such a low chance of success.