Apple forces all applications that access the web in iOS and iPadOS to use its own browser engine, WebKit, but should it continue to essentially restrict other browser engines despite claims of anti-competitive behaviour?
In recent times, charges of anti-competitive behaviour have grabbed big tech, with Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), claiming in a news release:
Apple and Google have a vice-like hold on how we use mobile phones, and we're concerned that this is leading millions of people in the UK to miss out.
Among these claims of anti-competitive behaviour, Apple has been chastised for requiring web-browsing applications on iOS and iPadOS to use the WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript, thus prohibiting non-WebKit-based browsers. According to Apple's App Store Review Guidelines:
2.5.6 Web-browsing apps must make use of the relevant WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
This restriction has sparked considerable discussion, with some developers and regulatory authorities claiming that it actively stifles innovation on iOS and iPadOS, while Apple claims that it is vital to safeguard user security and privacy, as well as prevent Chromium's domination.
Why Apple Might Be Right to Ban Competing Browsers
Many popular browsers, including Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Brave, and Opera, use Google's Chromium technology. Some worry that Chromium's popularity is causing a "browser monoculture," limiting the development of competing web technologies. Jen Simmons, an Apple Evangelist and Safari developer champion, appears to emphasise the need of keeping the WebKit limitation for this reason in a tweet:
Safari has a 9.84 percent market share of desktop browsers, compared to Google Chrome's whopping 65.38 percent, according to statistics from online analytics site StatCounter. Safari is now more secure on mobile devices than it is on desktops, although it still behind Google Chrome. Despite being the default browser on the iPhone and iPad, Safari has a 26.71 percent market share on mobile, whereas Chrome has a 62.06 percent market share on both iOS and Android. Chromium-based browsers, such as Microsoft Edge, dominate the other most popular browsers in addition to Chrome.
If Apple discontinues the use of WebKit on iOS and iPadOS, the developers behind mobile versions of browsers such as Chrome and Edge may switch to Chromium like their desktop counterparts, allowing Chromium to gain an even larger overall market share and potentially limit the chances of rival technologies competing with it.
According to the CMA's initial assessment on mobile ecosystems, Apple justified their WebKit policy on iOS with the following rationale:
According to Apple, the decision to only allow WebKit on iOS is prompted mostly by security and privacy concerns. Many current websites, in particular, use code written by anonymous developers. Apple stated that due of the WebKit constraint, it is able to swiftly and efficiently resolve security vulnerabilities across all browsers on the iPhone for all iPhone customers (given there is only one browser engine). It went on to say that WebKit, in Apple's perspective, provides a higher level of security protection than Blink and Gecko.
Apple claims that because it owns WebKit and is the sole browser engine on these devices, the limitation allows the firm to implement broad security and privacy enhancements across all browsers on the iPhone and iPad, improving user experience and reducing fragmentation. It also asserts that WebKit is more secure than competing browser engines.
Why Apple Might Be Wrong to Ban Competing Browsers
Others have claimed that the WebKit limitation intentionally hampers iOS browser competition. Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, was at the centre of a contentious battle with Apple over App Store royalties and now claims that the WebKit limitation is anti-competitive and uninclusive:
Apple's WebKit regulations have piqued the interest of regulatory organisations such as the CMA, which has harshly condemned the restriction:
We discovered that by mandating all iOS browsers to utilise the WebKit browser engine, Apple restricts and limits the quality and functionality of all iOS browsers. It also restricts competing browsers' ability to separate themselves from Safari. Browsers, for example, are less capable of speeding up page loading and cannot display movies in formats not supported by WebKit. Furthermore, Apple does not provide competing browsers access to the same capabilities and APIs that Safari does. Overall, this means that Safari does not face significant competition from other browsers on the market.
Evidence also implies that iOS browsers provide less feature support than browsers developed on other browser engines, particularly when it comes to online applications. As a result, web applications are a less feasible option for delivering content on iOS devices than native apps from the App Store.
The CMA emphasised that app developers cannot distinguish their browsers from Safari, but web developers are limited to the functionality supported by WebKit.
Importantly, because of the WebKit constraint, Apple decides whether to support features not only for its own browser, but for all iOS browsers. This not only hinders competition (by limiting rival browsers' ability to separate themselves from Safari on variables such as speed and usefulness), but also limits the capabilities of all browsers on iOS devices, depriving iOS users of important advancements they could otherwise benefit from.
The controversy is also linked to Apple's long-standing refusal to enable app sideloading on iOS and iPadOS. Outside of top-level games, the only real impediment to developers launching web applications for iOS and iPadOS that are indistinguishable from native apps is Apple's WebKit limitation and control over Safari. Sideloading from the web becomes feasible if developers can use a separate browser to launch online programmes.
It is also worth noting that the CMA rejects Apple's contention that restricting web surfing on iOS and iPadOS to WebKit improves efficiency and reduces security vulnerabilities:
Overall, the information we have so far does not imply that Apple's WebKit restriction helps specialised browser apps on iOS to respond to security threats faster and more effectively the information to far suggests that there are no significant variations in the security performance of WebKit and rival browser engines.
In the midst of the current dispute, several developers have banded together under the Twitter hashtag #AppleBrowserBan to express their displeasure with Apple's WebKit limitation.
Last Thoughts
The debate about Apple's WebKit limitation has risen to the forefront of numerous difficulties with surfing on iOS and iPadOS. It is unclear if bringing non-WebKit-based browsers as Apple Firefox, Chrome, and Edge onto iOS will benefit consumers or degrade the experience and security of surfing on the iPhone and iPad. Would permitting Chromium on iOS, for example, result in a browser monoculture in which Safari has less than a 5% market share? Would removing the WebKit limitation benefit browser engine competition or solidify Chromium's dominance?
Apple appears to be concerned about its deteriorating relationship with some developers about Safari, as the corporation recently solicited comments in response to the charge that "Safari is the worst, it's the new IE." Apple abandoned its contentious Safari revamp from WWDC last year, but Microsoft Edge is now on the cusp of displacing Safari as the world's second most popular desktop browser.
As a result, Apple is under pressure to enhance developer relations and make Safari and WebKit more appealing, but it is uncertain if any of this will be enough to persuade the corporation to reconsider its stance on the WebKit ban.
