Mozilla urges action to unpick platform browser lock-ins

“The experience of mobile browsers as basic utilities and the perceived lack of differentiation among them mean that the browser that comes pre-installed on a device is at a huge advantage,” it writes within the report. “This benefits the operating system and not necessarily the consumers. Many people are hesitant to switch to a new browser because they quickly become accustomed to their pre-installed browser and do not have a strong incentive to seek out an alternative, or may be hindered from discovering one. This conditioning of consumer behavior over a long period of time means that moving away from a satisfactory pre-installed browser is an active choice that takes some amount of cognitive effort. If people are busy or if the process is too confusing, people put off making a change or decide not to make it all. For many people, it is easier to simply continue with the status quo or put off the decision for a later time.”
The report additionally throws up an fascinating hyperlink between desktop and cellular browser use — with Mozilla saying that “nearly all” customers of Firefox’s (various) cellular browser additionally utilizing Firefox on their desktop computer systems.
“Our research shows that in the U.S. less than 6% of people who use a desktop browser other than Firefox report using Firefox on their smartphone,” it notes. “This suggests that the more people use Firefox or another alternative browser on their desktop computer, the more likely they may be to try that browser on their mobile device.”
That in flip implicates Microsoft’s aggressive promotion of its personal shopping software program to Windows customers — and particularly the anti-Firefox messaging it injects into its desktop OS — as contributing to decreasing Firefox’s share of the cellular browser market (regardless of Microsoft not having a cellular platform in play nowadays).
However it’s clear there are a mixture of things making competing on cellular particularly powerful going for indie browser makers. And the report underlines how the cellular house is difficult on account of it being a extra tightly managed and/or built-in (and branded so bundled) expertise than desktop OSes. 
Google, for instance, makes use of contract restrictions with OEM companions to maximise the proportion of Android gadgets that include own-brand providers akin to its Chrome browser preloaded, regardless of Android being open supply. (And the tech big has after all acquired into antitrust sizzling water over a few of these restrictions — akin to within the EU, the place it has been compelled to supply a selection display screen selling search engine rivals).
However shopper familiarity (and luxury) with Big Tech merchandise can clearly work in lock-step with lock-ins — albeit, once more, platforms might properly search to form that final result by actively over-selling integration advantages by means of suggestive messaging (and/or by creating friction for options).
“Our research shows that many consumers have a perception that Chrome is the browser that works best on Android phones, and that products from the same company will perform better together (e.g. Gmail will work better in Chrome),” notes Mozilla — pointing to Google’s use of such messaging as a part of its “cross-product promotion” as one instance.
“It is also closely linked to web compatibility issues and the extent to which operating system providers restrict or allow interoperability of third party browsers, including accessing the same features and APIs afforded to their own browsers,” it goes on, additionally critically discussing Apple banning various browser engines from its App Store which limits differentiation for competing with Safari since rivals should additionally develop on Webkit (which, traditionally, slowed down their capability to compete and continues to limit how a lot distinction they’ll provide).
“Feature development remains at a standstill for alternative browsers on iOS because Apple — in control of both the browser engine and operating system — does not make available to rivals some of the necessary APIs and functionality, thereby limiting differentiation.”
Choice undermined
Mozilla’s report additionally highlights cases the place even the place a shopper has succeeded in deciding on an alternate browser as their default, a platform should revert to a self-serving selection — bypassing their election to resurface their browser in sure circumstances, akin to when performing a ‘lookup’ after deciding on textual content in iOS (which it notes “would historically always open web search results in Safari, regardless of which default browser is selected by the user”); or opening up an online hyperlink within the Windows search bar or icon — which opens Edge (“again regardless of the default browser setting; or using the search widget on Android — which “will always open results in a Google browser”.
“This demonstration of OCA highlights just some of the practices used by operating systems to preference their own browsers and undermine consumer choice. Lawmakers and policymakers in some countries have started to take action against deceptive patterns to protect consumers. And others have begun to address the lack of effective competition in digital markets, including through introducing regulation. However, very few have recognized the connection between these issues and the importance of browser competition, or studied the role of OCA practices as a way to implement (or thwart) consumer choice and welfare,” Mozilla argues.
“We believe that if people had a meaningful opportunity to try alternative browsers, they would find many to be compelling substitutes to the default bundled with their operating system. These opportunities have been suppressed for years through online choice architecture and commercial practices that benefit platforms and are not in the best interest of consumers, developers or the open web. It is difficult to underestimate the impact of years of self-preferencing and undermining consumer choice, including its effect on consumer behavior. It is also difficult to estimate the disruptive innovation, alternative products and features, and the independent competitors which have been lost as a result of these practices.”
Mozilla’s report doesn’t go into particular suggestions for regulatory interventions to drive platforms to “do better for consumers and developers”, because it places it — because it says it plans to publish additional work on treatments within the coming months — nevertheless it urges lawmakers to behave to stop “further harm to consumers from continued inaction and competitive stagnation”.
“As these companies have so far failed to do better, regulators, policymakers and lawmakers have spent considerable time and resources investigating digital markets. They should therefore be in a good position to recognize the importance of browser competition and to act to prevent further harm to consumers from continued inaction and competitive stagnation,” it suggests.
“We call on them to enforce the laws which already exist and the laws and regulations which will soon come into force. And where existing laws and regulations are lacking, we call for them to be introduced and their importance for the future of the internet to be highlighted. Regulators, policymakers and lawmakers in many jurisdictions can take this moment to create a new era in the internet’s story — one in which consumers and developers benefit from genuine choice, competition and innovation.”
As famous above the EU has taken antitrust enforcement motion in relation to Google’s Android contract restrictions that has led to a selection display screen being supplied to customers within the EU — not less than for default search engine. However Mozilla’s report is mostly dismissive of present treatments which have featured on-line selection structure and software program design, arguing: “The remedies that have so far been deployed have had many limitations and have largely failed.”
Its conclusion is backed up by the dearth of a significant shift in Google’s market share for search on cellular in Europe — the place it holds a 96.6% market, which is a drop of solely 0.3% since 2018 when the Commission fined the corporate $5BN and ordered it to case infringing customers, as not-for-profit Google various, Ecosia, not too long ago identified.
Google rival DuckDuckGo has additionally referred to as for regulators to go a lot additional in regulating selection display screen treatments — arguing lately that the design and integration of such instruments should allow a very ‘one-click’ and universally accessible expertise if they’re to really transfer the competitors needle towards ingrained platform energy.
Commenting on the boundaries of present selection structure treatments, Jennifer Taylor Hodges, Mozilla’s head of U.S. coverage, advised us: “OCA treatments should be fastidiously thought out and transparently carried out. At a minimal they need to be created in session with stakeholders, examined extensively and the info on their efficiency must be shared. None of the earlier selection display screen treatments would meet any of these necessities.
“What the report highlights is that there is a lot of research into consumer behavior already out there and more is ongoing. These experts and academics, alongside market participants like Mozilla, should have a say in how OCA remedies are developed.”
This report was up to date with remark from Mozilla’s head of U.S. coverage