I can't speak to anyone else, but the main reason I want Apple to be forced to actually compete with Safari is because it erases the murky charade of the modern

I can't speak to anyone else, but the main reason I want Apple to be forced to actually compete with Safari is because it erases the murky charade of the modern browser market having any real competition whatsoever since in reality, it's been all Google for a long time now. Apple is only relevant because they're anti-consumer by enforcing a platform monopoly. That shouldn't be the case for many other reasons and that's why they're identified as a Gatekeeper. Erasing the pretend of the browser market is a necessary sacrifice, although it's also a welcome one since it makes Google's behaviour impossible to defend and makes it obvious for all to see. Mozilla gets big cuts from Google to exist as fake competition - without Google money they're probably unsustainable (especially since Mozilla is putting money anywhere but improving Firefox even though Firefox is also missing quite a few things). Everyone else is using Chrome reskins and Google deliberately makes it difficult to make any Chrome fork stand out from others by making sure the codebase is put together in such a way where it's impossible to really differentiate a fork beyond some token UI reskins. (Just see how the response to WebManifest v3 getting forced is from all the Chrome reskins, where they admit they may not be able to keep v2 around. That's entirely because the Chrome source code is borderline impossible to keep a "nice fork" with.) To put it as straightforward as possivle; I don't want an IE 2.0, I want Google dragged to trial for their behaviour on the browser market. If that means revealing that Chrome is an "IE 2.0" it's something I wouldn't mind. It's about the greater goal here, even if the first step is a painful acknowledgement of reality. Google's perverse incentive with Chrome needs to be more obvious and Apples fake competition by being anti-consumer makes that more difficult.