Apple mandates the use of its own WebKit browser engine in all applications running on iOS and iPadOS, but should it continue to do so in the face of anti-competitive claims?
According to UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Chief Executive Andrea Coscelli, the IT industry has recently been accused of anti-competitive behaviour.
Because of Apple’s and Google’s stranglehold on mobile phone use, we’re worried that millions of Britons are being left behind.
Apple has been accused of anti-competitive behaviour for requiring web-browsing applications on iOS and iPadOS to utilise the WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript, a policy that essentially excludes browsers that are not based on WebKit. In accordance with Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines,
The WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript must be used in all web-browsing apps.
In a heated discussion, some developers and regulators allege that this rule actively inhibits innovation on iOS and iPadOS, while Apple claims that it’s important to preserve user security, privacy, and prevent the domination of Chromium.
What If Apple Is Correct in Banning Competitor Browsers?
Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Brave, and Opera all use Google’s Chromium browser technology. According to some, the rise of Chromium has resulted in “browser monoculture,” inhibiting the development of competing web technologies. WebKit restrictions are important for this reason, a tweet from Jen Simmons, an Apple Evangelist and developer advocate, suggests.
According to StatCounter, Safari has a 9.84 percent market share of desktop browsers, compared to Google Chrome’s dominating 65.38 percent market share of browsers. In terms of mobile platforms, Safari presently has a more secure position than it does on desktops, although it is still beaten by Google Chrome. Despite being the default browser on the iPhone and iPad, Safari only has a 26.71 percent share of the mobile browser market, whereas Chrome has a 62.06 percent share on both iOS and Android. More popular browsers than Chrome are Microsoft Edge and other Chromium-based browsers.
Developers of mobile browsers like Chrome and Edge might migrate to Chromium if Apple stops requiring the use of WebKit on iOS and iPadOS. This would allow Chromium to gain even more market share and perhaps restrict the possibilities of competing technologies.
The CMA said that Apple justified its WebKit policy on iOS by using the following reasoning in its mobile ecosystems market study:
Apple said that the primary reason for permitting just WebKit on iOS is to protect users’ privacy and security. Many current websites, in particular, use code written by unidentified developers. That’s the claim Apple made to us, that due of the WebKit constraint, it is able to swiftly and efficiently resolve security vulnerabilities across all iPhone browsers for all iPhone users (given there is only one browser engine). WebKit is considered to be more secure than Blink and Gecko by Apple, according to the company.
This limitation, according to Apple, enables the firm to increase security and privacy for all iPhone and iPad browsers while also limiting fragmentation since it controls WebKit and that is the sole browser engine on these devices. According to the site, WebKit is more secure than other browser engines.
Why Apple’s Ban on Competing Browsers Might be Misguided
The WebKit limitation, according to some, hampers browser competition on iOS in a direct and intentional way. In the midst of a stormy disagreement with Apple over App Store payments, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney now claims that the WebKit limitation is anti-competitive and uninclusive:
Regulators, including as the CMA, have taken note of Apple’s WebKit restrictions and have voiced their displeasure:
Using the WebKit browser engine, Apple restricts and limits all browsers on iOS devices in terms of quality and functionality, according to our research. There is also less room for competitors to stand out from Safari. Examples include browsers’ inability to increase website loading speeds and the inability of browsers to show movies in non-Webkit-supported formats. It’s also worth mentioning that Apple doesn’t provide competing browsers access to the same features and APIs that Safari does. On iOS devices, this essentially means that Safari has no real competition.
iOS browsers seem to provide fewer feature support than those developed on alternative engine-based browsers, data reveals, in particular with regard to web applications. As a consequence, web applications are a less attractive option for delivering information to iOS devices than native apps from the App Store.
While web developers are limited to the functionalities supported by WebKit, app developers are unable to create browsers that vary from Safari.
This means that Apple must decide whether or not to support features not just for its own browser, but also across all of the iOS browsers. By limiting competing browsers’ capacity to separate themselves from Safari in ways like speed and functionality, this not only limits competition but also limits the capabilities of all browsers on iOS devices, denying iOS consumers beneficial advancements.
Apple’s long-standing refusal to let app sideloading on iOS and iPadOS is also at the centre of the argument. With the exception of top-level games, Apple’s WebKit limitation and control over Safari are the only realistic obstacles for developers to ship web applications for iOS and iPadOS that are indistinguishable from native apps. If developers could launch online programmes in a separate browser, sideloading from the web becomes a viable option.
In addition, CMA rejects Apple’s claim that confining iOS and iPadOS web surfing to WebKit is better for performance and addressing security flaws: This is significant.
There is currently no indication that Apple’s WebKit limitation for dedicated browser applications on iOS facilitates a faster and more effective response to security risks.
WebKit and other browser engines seem to function similarly in terms of security, based on the information we’ve seen so far.
Twitter hashtag #AppleBrowserBan has been used by some developers to voice their displeasure with Apple’s WebKit limitation.
Conclusions
A rising number of difficulties with surfing on iOS and iPadOS are being framed around Apple’s WebKit limitation. Non-WebKit browsers like Firefox, Chrome, and Edge may or may not improve the user experience and security of surfing on the iPhone and iPad if they are allowed to be installed on iOS. Is enabling Chromium to run on iOS likely to lead to a browser monoculture where Safari has less than 5% market share? If Chromium gains a foothold in the browser engine market by removing the WebKit limitation, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Concerned about its deteriorating connections with certain developers over Safari, Apple recently asked for comments to address the claim that Safari is “the worst, it’s the new IE.” Even though Apple reneged on their contentious WWDC Safari overhaul last year, Microsoft Edge is currently poised to overtake Safari as the second most popular desktop browser in the world.
Therefore, Apple is under pressure to enhance its relationship with developers and to make Safari and WebKit more enticing. However, none of this is sufficient to induce Apple to reconsider its stance on the WebKit limitation. Even if regulatory pressures continue to grow, can Apple reasonably continue to retain its policy?