TL;DR: Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web and HTML has expressed support for compelling Apple to allow other browser engines on iOS, as more competition leads to more innovation and bright ideas. He also states that having a powerful browser on iOS would "change the dynamic" with respect to web app's viability on mobile.
The Verge’s Decoder podcast just published a fascinating interview with Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web and HTML. The whole interview is great and we recommend you listen to it in full.
This section was particularly striking:
So there is one other one of note: it's WebKit, which is what Apple uses in Safari on the iPhone. It is dominant in its way. Building for WebKit is a thing that every mobile developer has to think about all the time because it is dominant on the iPhone.
Apple doesn't allow other browser engines on the iPhone. It certainly doesn't allow Chromium. Now, thanks to some EU regulation, it might have to. Depending on how some antitrust litigation in the United States goes, it might have to.
But up until now, Apple has not allowed anything but WebKit on the iPhone. Even Chrome on the iPhone is a skin over the top of the core browser engine, WebKit. Do you think that Apple being made to allow Chromium to run on the iPhone, for example, will actually lead to new browser innovation? Nilay Patel - The Verge
(emphasis added)
When you have a competition between different sections of the layer, it tends to increase innovation. You get more bright ideas out there. Sir Tim Berners-Lee
(emphasis added)
One of the arguments I've heard for why Apple will not allow other browser engines is that they can artificially restrict WebKit. So, it's not as good of a competitor to the native apps on the iPhone as web apps on the desktop are to native apps on the Mac or Windows or whatever.
If you had true web apps being able to run in Chromium on the iPhone, if you had that browser competition, there was a much more capable browser. Do you think that would displace how the native apps work?
This is where we began the conversation, right? Is this push to apps because they're more capable on the iPhone? But if you had a browser that was as capable as a desktop browser on the iPhone, do you think that would change the dynamic? Nilay Patel - The Verge
(emphasis added)
We’ve been chatting to a bunch of experts on tests to find out to what extent this is true. Yes, I’ve heard rumors, but I can’t substantiate them on whether Apple is deliberately slowing down WebKit on the phone, so as not to compete with Apple native apps. Sir Tim Berners-Lee
By the way, just for the record, Apple would tell you as loudly as they can that WebKit on the phone is as good as any other browser. And I think most users would tell you that it is not. And that gap is where I think the theories about Apple's development priorities come from. But I'm just asking more hypothetically. We've discussed the web as an application at an all-time high. Right? On desktop, if you have a Mac or a Windows PC or Linux, you are using web apps. Like mostly what you're using is applications expressed through web technology. Even if they appear to be native, right? Electron and other wrappers are just presenting web apps to you in ways that feel native. That is not true on mobile. It just really is not. Even for Google's efforts on Android, right? Progressive web apps on Android have not taken the world by storm.
Do you think a more powerful browser on the iPhone would ever change that dynamic or do you think people just want apps on phones? Nilay Patel - The Verge
(emphasis added)
I think a more powerful browser on the iPhone would change that dynamic Sir Tim Berners-Lee
(emphasis added)
Because that to me feels like for all of the things we've talked about the future of the web has to happen on mobile, right I mean that is where the people are, that is the device that everyone carries around every day, and right now Apple's decisions about what the web cannot do on mobile are actually the gatekeeper right. In real ways for most people's experience of the web. And so it's if you introduce some competition, can you break that or do you need to just switch to Android where Google wants you to use the web? Nilay Patel - The Verge
(emphasis added)
Exactly Sir Tim Berners-Lee
(emphasis added)
There is a lot to unpack here.
We 100% agree with both Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Nilay Patel and would like to thank them for taking the time to discuss the issue so clearly.
For new readers, Open Web Advocacy was founded in March 2021 specifically to ensure that browsers and web apps could compete fairly on all operating systems. At the heart of that goal is ending Apple’s ban on third-party browser engines on iOS. For the last four years we have worked with regulators in the EU, UK, Japan, USA and Australia to fix the Web on mobile which we believe is fundamentally being held back by anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple’s Browser Engine Ban
For the last 16 years, Apple has banned browser vendors from porting their own browser engines to iOS. They have done this via App Store Rule 2.5.6:
2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit JavaScript.
In practice, 2.5.6 is a requirement that on iOS, browsers from Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Samsung, Vivaldi, Brave, Opera and others cannot use their own engines the way they do everywhere else. These engines take hundreds of thousands of engineer hours to develop, and are excluded from Apple’s most successful consumer operating system. Competing browser vendors are only allowed to produce shells around a very specific, unaltered version of Safari’s WebView; a component whose features Apple dictates.
Is Apple holding back the Web on iOS?
Apple has a browser monopoly on iOS, which is something Microsoft was never able to achieve with IE Scott Gilbertson - The Register
(emphasis added)
All of this is compounded by yet another Apple policy: no third-party browser engines. You can install apps like Chrome, Firefox, Brave, DuckDuckGo, and others on the iPhone — but fundamentally they’re all just skins on top of Apple’s WebKit engine. That means that Apple’s decisions on what web features to support on Safari are final. If Apple were to find a way to be comfortable letting competing web browsers run their own browser engines, a lot of this tension would dissipate. Dieter Bohn and Tom Warren - The Verge
(emphasis added)
So it’s not just one browser that falls behind. It’s all browsers on iOS. The whole web on iOS falls behind. And iOS has become so important that the entire web platform is being held back as a result. Niels Leenheer - HTML5test
(emphasis added)
…because WebKit has literally zero competition on iOS, because Apple doesn’t allow competition, the incentive to make Safari better is much lighter than it could (should) be. Chris Coyier - CSS Tricks
(emphasis added)
What Gruber conveniently failed to mention is that Apple’s banning of third-party browser engines on iOS is repressing innovation in web apps. Richard MacManus - The New Stack
(emphasis added)
On Apple’s mobile operating system, the Web is blocked from reaching its full potential. Apple prevents third-party browsers from using their own engines, underinvests in its own browser Safari, and hides the option to install web apps that compete with its own app store.
Safari faces no effective competition on iOS as it has no genuine fear of losing users to other browsers which cannot compete using their own engines. As a thought experiment, imagine Microsoft had locked Firefox and Chrome to Trident in the early 2000s, would they have ever lost that browser war, and how much damage would that have inflicted on the Web? This lack of fear of losing market share removes a powerful incentive to invest.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in their latest report note that innovations have been held back due to a lack of competition, directly citing Apple’s WebKit Restriction:
As set out in Appendix B, we note that Apple’s revenue mix has been increasingly shifting away from devices and towards services. Furthermore, there is evidence that innovations have been held back in mobile ecosystems due to a lack of competition.
454 The CMA’s previous work has identified a range of areas where innovations have been held back in Mobile Ecosystems due to a lack of competition. For example, the MBCG MI found that Apple’s ban on alternative browser engines in its Mobile Platform, and therefore the lack of competition faced by Apple’s WebKit browser engine, had materially limited the capabilities of mobile browsers and web apps. CMA - SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Final Decision
(emphasis added)
This matters, as competition is the primary driver of growth and innovation. Companies that, due to anti-competitive behaviour or some structural reason, do not face sufficient competition, are likely to raise prices and minimize expenditure beyond what is necessary to retain existing customers.
The CMA highlight that Apple can and does profitably forego innovation without fear of losing customers to competitors:
Apple’s vice president of iPhone marketing who explained in February 2020:‘In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue were [sic] already doing *more* than what would have been good enough.’ After identifying old features that ‘would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [updated features] already’, she explained, ‘anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.’ CMA - SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Final Decision
(emphasis added)
Apple’s Incentives
The CMA highlighted two incentives for Apple’s browser engine ban in their market study:
Apple receives significant revenue from Google by setting Google Search as the default search engine on Safari, and therefore benefits financially from high usage of Safari. [...] The WebKit restriction may help to entrench this position by limiting the scope for other browsers on iOS to differentiate themselves from Safari [...] As a result, it is less likely that users will choose other browsers over Safari, which in turn secures Apple’s revenues from Google. [...] Apple generates revenue through its App Store, both by charging developers for access to the App Store and by taking a commission for payments made via Apple IAP. Apple therefore benefits from higher usage of native apps on iOS. By requiring all browsers on iOS to use the WebKit browser engine, Apple is able to exert control over the maximum functionality of all browsers on iOS and, as a consequence, hold up the development and use of web apps. This limits the competitive constraint that web apps pose on native apps, which in turn protects and benefits Apple’s App Store revenues. UK CMA - Interim Report into Mobile Ecosystems
(emphasis added)
First, losing browser market share on iOS to other browsers would mean losing valuable Google search revenue. Allowing browsers to use their own engines would enable them to effectively compete against Safari. Safari is the highest margin product Apple has ever made, accounts for 14-16% of Apple's annual operating profit and brings in $20 billion per year in search engine revenue from Google. For each 1% browser market share that Apple loses for Safari, Apple would lose $200 million in revenue per year.
Second, more powerful support for web apps could eat into Apple’s app store revenue. In 2024, Apple is estimated to have collected $27.4 billion from $91.3 billion in sales on its app store, underscoring its role as a critical and expanding source of profit. By contrast, the macOS App Store, where Apple does not exercise the same gatekeeping power over browsers or app distribution, remains a much smaller operation, with revenue that Apple chooses not to report.
Web apps, which already have a dominant 70% share on desktop, could (with effective competition and support) replace most of the apps on your phone. Even a far more modest 20% shift towards web apps would represent a $5.5 billion annual loss in revenue for Apple.
Why Users and Developers Can’t “Just Switch to Android”
The CMA also found that there are substantial barriers to users switching phone brands.
We have found substantial evidence from our consumer survey, internal documents (from both Apple and Google) and third-party responses of material perceived barriers to switching related to:
(i) learning costs associated with switching;
(ii) transferring data and apps across Mobile Devices; and
(iii) losing access to other devices (including connected devices) and having a worse experience of interacting with friends’ and family’s devices. [...] CMA - SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Final Decision
(emphasis added)
This is important, and lines up with a common argument about browser engines, which is “switch to Android if you wish to use other browser engines”. This of course misses the point in three important ways:
Consumers, in general, have low awareness of browsers, browser engines and web functionality, and are unaware how anti-competitive constraints on them are making the apps they use more expensive, of lower quality and of lower security.
Businesses cannot choose where their customers are, and must support iOS, regardless of any lack of web functionality or browser competition.
Businesses who may wish to use web apps as a powerful and interoperable means of delivering apps to their customers are constrained from doing so due to a lack of critical features and significant bugs in iOS Safari. iOS Safari faces no effective competition. This constraint can even extend to Android, due to the loss of an effective cross platform interoperable web solution that also works on iOS. Even consumers who are acutely aware of Apple’s browser engine ban, face substantial and significant barriers to switching.
Will Apple have to Allow Other Browser Engines on iOS?
As Nilay mentions, Apple is gradually becoming legally obligated to allow browser vendors to use their own engines in a number of jurisdictions. However while there is significant forward momentum, Apple is obstructing browser vendors from actually upgrading their browsers to use their own engines. Mozilla spokesperson Damiano DeMonte accused Apple of “making it as painful as possible”.
Apple's proposals fail to give consumers viable choices by making it as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari [...] This is another example of Apple creating barriers to prevent true browser competition on iOS. Damiano DeMonte - Mozilla
The EU
In the EU, the landmark Digital Markets Act came into force on 7th March 2024.
It contained 3 incredibly important passages for browsers and web apps.
First, prohibiting browser engines is banned:
Article 5(7) The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services. Digital Markets Act - Article 5(7)
(emphasis added)
Second, the DMA explicitly states why gatekeepers cannot ban third-party browser engines: Gatekeepers should not be able to dictate the functionality of web apps:
When gatekeepers operate and impose web browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position to require their dependent business users to use any of the services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by those business users. Digital Markets Act - Recital 43
(emphasis added)
Third, gatekeepers must provide access to all the same APIs that are available to the gatekeeper’s own apps and services. This access may be subject to strictly necessary, proportionate and justified security conditions:
Article 6(7) The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Digital Markets Act - Article 6(7)
(emphasis added)
Finally the DMA comes with real teeth. It grants the Commission the power to fine gatekeepers found not to be in compliance up to 10% of global revenue, which in Apple’s case would be up to $39 billion USD per offence.
Apple's compliance did not start well. Faced with the genuine possibility of third-party browsers effectively powering web apps, Apple's first instinct was to remove web app support entirely from iOS with no notice to either businesses or consumers. Under significant pressure from us and the Commission, Apple canceled their plan to sabotage web apps in the EU.
Now, despite Apple being legally obligated to allow browser vendors to use their own engines for over 19 months, no browser vendor has successfully ported a competing engine to iOS because the financial, technical, and contractual barriers Apple has put in place remain insurmountable.
USA
In 2024 the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a lawsuit against Apple arguing that they have illegally monopolized the US smartphone market. The government claimed Apple broke the law by maintaining a closed ecosystem for the iPhone in pursuit of profits and at the expense of consumers and innovation.
The essence of the DOJ case is that Apple has made iPhones worse for US consumers in order to increase lock-in, reduce interoperability and block competitors from competing. The DOJ also argues that Apple uses security and privacy as a shield to justify its anticompetitive conduct.
Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest DOJ vs Apple
The DOJ has a number of examples of how Apple has done this, including discussing Apple's ban on third party browser engines and how lack of visibility for web apps on iOS makes them unviable.
Developers cannot avoid Apple’s control of app distribution and app creation by making web apps—apps created using standard programming languages for web-based content and available over the internet—as an alternative to native apps. Many iPhone users do not look for or know how to find web apps, causing web apps to constitute only a small fraction of app usage. Apple recognizes that web apps are not a good alternative to native apps for developers. As one Apple executive acknowledged, “[d]evelopers can’t make much money on the web.” Regardless, Apple can still control the functionality of web apps because Apple requires all web browsers on the iPhone to use WebKit, Apple’s browser engine—the key software components that third-party browsers use to display web content. DOJ vs Apple
(emphasis added)
It is worth noting that one of the reasons that many users on iOS are unaware of how to install web apps is Apple has for years refused to implement install prompts and hidden away the mechanism for installing them on the share menu. At the same time, Apple has gone to great lengths to make it easy to link to and install Apple’s own iOS app store native apps from Safari.
This case is in its early stages and will likely run for several years.
David Pierce of the Verge hits upon this idea of Apple making its iPad actively worse for consumers by blocking competing browser engines in his most recent piece:
The iPad’s draconian security policies, underpowered browser, and minuscule ideas about multitasking made the device feel like less than the sum of its parts. Users wanted a new laptop, and Apple told them to kick rocks. The iPad was something else, it said, and if you wanted a laptop you should buy a Mac. [...]
Which makes it all the more annoying every time you run into some totally unnecessary system limitation. There are still a lot of those. Apple’s laptops are allowed to run any app, not just the ones in the App Store. They can interact with more accessories. They can access virtually everything about the system through the Terminal. They can run better browsers. Utility apps I rely on to make my computing life easier, like Raycast and Better Touch Tool, just don’t exist the same way on the iPad. There’s almost nothing the Mac straight-up won’t let you do, but the iPad is full of limitations. They’ve been there for so long, and are so glaring, that we’ve been mad about them in reviews since at least 2018. Apple saw them as a feature, not a bug. [...]
Now that Apple has embraced the iPad’s computerness, the project over the next decade is to start shedding those limitations. If not all of them, then most of them. Apps need more power to run in the background, and to interact with one another. System-level apps should get more access to actually interact with the system. The iPad deserves a desktop-class browser. David Pierce - The Verge
Japan
In 2024, Japan’s parliament passed into law a bill to promote fair competition on smartphone operating systems, similar to the EU’s Digital Markets Act and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
This bill was based on the Japan's Head Quarters for Digital Competition's Final Report which OWA consulted on. You can read our paper here.
The bill aims to promote fair and free competition on smartphones by preventing large tech companies from abusing their position as providers of platforms to block or advantage their own services.
Violators will face fines equivalent to 20% of the domestic revenue of the service that violated the law. The rate of the fine can be increased to 30% for repeated violations.
The final bill contains a number of interesting articles relevant to browsers and web apps:
- Banning browser engines is prohibited.
- Must share APIs and services of the operating system to the same level as the services used by the designated providers. Justifiable measures may be applied.
- Designated providers shall make it easy to change the default settings of the operating system.
- Designated providers shall provide a choice screen for browsers.
- When a designated business operator sets or changes the specifications, sets or changes the conditions for use, it must take necessary measures, such as securing a period for the business operator specified in each item to smoothly respond to the measure, disclosing information, and establishing a necessary system, as specified by the Fair Trade Commission rules.
This law will be in force by the end of 2025.
The UK
On the 25th of April 2024, the UK government passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (DMCC) bill which aimed to “boost competition in digital markets”.
This bill gave the UK Regulator the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) the ability to designate a firm as having Strategic Market Status (SMS) in a digital activity linked to the UK. Once a firm has been designated the CMA is able to create a bespoke code of conduct for that company, or apply pro-competition interventions to fix particular issues related to the digital activity.
During the SMS investigation, the CMA discussed a number of potential obligations it may impose on Apple and Google in relation to browsers, browser engines and web apps.
They were:
“A requirement for Apple to provide equivalent access to functionality for browsers using alternative browser engines.”
“A requirement mandating Apple to provide equivalent WebKit access for all WebKit-based browsers on iOS.”
“A requirement for Apple in respect of in-app browsing to provide interoperability with bundled engines for in-app browsing and allow sufficient cross-app functionality to enable third-party browsers to provide in-app browsing in native apps.”
“A requirement for Apple not to enter into agreements with Google where it receives search advertising revenues connected to the use of Chrome on iOS.”
“A requirement for Apple and Google to make changes to choice architecture for browsers.”
“A requirement that prevents Google from making payments to OEMs and its licensing of its first-party apps and proprietary APIs conditional upon the prominent display and specific default-settings for Google Chrome on Android devices.”
“A number of the above requirements would need to be complemented by ensuring Apple: (i) permits browser apps to use alternative browser engines; and (ii) enables browser vendors using alternative browser engines to install and manage progressive web apps.”
According to the CMA these interventions could lead to greater browser and web app competition:
These types of potential interventions could lead to greater competition for developing browser features related to performance, privacy and/or security which support user needs. They could also encourage greater use of web apps as an alternative to native apps accessed through a mobile app store, which could lead to lower development costs and lower barriers to entry and expansion for app developers and greater accessibility of apps by users. CMA - SMS Investigation Request for Comment
(emphasis added)
On the 22nd of October 2025, the CMA formally designated both Apple and Google as having Strategic Market Status.
The CMA’s Final Decision finds that Apple’s ban of third party browser engines harms both browser and web app competition on iOS:
We find that the WebKit restriction restricts the ability of rival mobile browsers to innovate and develop features, and increases their costs. It therefore creates a barrier to entry and expansion for rival mobile browsers on Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem and limits the competitive constraint on Safari. CMA - SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Final Decision
(emphasis added)
The CMA also found that web apps are not currently a viable competitor to Apple’s App Store:
The evidence indicates that for content providers, at present, web apps are not a viable substitute for native apps downloaded from the App Store. This is despite web apps in principle being an attractive option for content providers because they involve lower development and maintenance costs compared to native apps.
Specifically, a range of content providers we gathered evidence from indicated that web apps are not viable substitutes to 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. CMA - SMS Investigation into Apple’s Mobile Platform - Final Decision
(emphasis added)
This is unsurprising given the extensive issues with developing web apps in iOS Safari, Apple’s ban on third-party browser engines and the lack of equivalent discoverability for web apps in Safari as Apple provides its own app store’s apps.
Worse, these problems on iOS dampen web app viability across the entire mobile ecosystem:
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, which carry over to Google’s Mobile Ecosystem due to the platform-agnostic nature of web apps (ie because web developers build their web apps using functionalities available across all major browsers). CMA - SMS Investigation into Google’s Mobile Platform - Final Decision
(emphasis added)
In the first half of next year the CMA will be conducting an investigation into both third-party browser engines and web apps as part of a code of conduct that they will impose on Apple under the DMCC.
Australia
In 2024, the Australian government agreed to new competition laws for digital platforms.
The new laws will be based on the ACCC's recommendations in their Digital platform Services Inquiry - Interim Report No. 5 which includes:
The code of conduct for mobile OS services could require Designated Digital Platforms to allow third-party browser engines to be used on their mobile OS. This could allow third-party providers of browsers and web apps to compete on their merits.
We also consider that the additional competition measures should include the ability to provide third-party providers of apps and services with reasonable and equivalent access to hardware, software and functionality through their mobile OS.
What Happens if Apple Browser Engine Ban Ends?
A global end to Apple’s ban on third-party browser engines on iOS would be profound. The first consequence is that Safari would come under intense pressure to compete. Given that Safari is Apple’s highest margin product, Apple will not abandon it. Its current budget is a minute fraction of the revenue it pulls in, doubling or tripling its budget would be the obvious response. We have already seen a significant increase in budget and activity in response to the threat of regulators allowing other browser vendors to use their own engines.
The next consequence, that Nilay and Tim discuss, is that more powerful browsers on iOS would be available to power web apps. Features such as install prompts, working and feature complete push notifications and higher stability would be game changing for web apps viability. Suddenly, developers would have a viable and interoperable alternative to Apple’s app store. The web could become as dominant on mobile as it is on desktop.
Apple has long argued that web apps are the alternative to their app store, their rules even state in its opening that the open internet is the alternative:
For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines or alternative distribution and Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too. Apple App Store Rules
(emphasis added)
This change will make web apps a genuine and powerful alternative.
While legal experts expect the EU to challenge Apple's insincere compliance with the DMA, developers should take this opportunity to rethink their native app serfdom. They should push web apps to their limits and then demand further platform improvement. The web doesn't require commission payments, technology fees based on usage, or permission from platform rentseekers. The web can set the iPhone free, even if Apple won't. Thomas Claburn - The Register