Despite accusations of anti-competitive conduct, Apple still requires all apps to use its own browser engine, WebKit, but should it continue to ban rival browsers?
The Chief Executive of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stated in a press release that big tech has been accused of anti-competitive conduct.
Apple and Google have developed a vice-like grip over how we use mobile phones and we're concerned that it's causing millions of people across the UK to lose out.
Apple has been accused of anti-competitive conduct for demanding that apps that browse the web to use the WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript on the iPad and iPadOS, in a policy that effectively bans non-WebKit based browsers. The App Store review guidelines state.
2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
Some developers and regulatory agencies feel that it is necessary to protect user security and privacy, while Apple argues that it is necessary to prevent the dominance of Chromium.
Many popular browsers, including Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Brave, and Opera, are powered by the same technology. Some argue that the dominance of Chromium is leading to a monoculture of browsers. Jen Simmons, an Apple Evangelist and developer advocate for Safari, suggested in a twit that maintaining the WebKit restriction is important for this reason.
Gosh. Catching up with tech Twitter this morning and there seems to be an angry pocket of men who really want Safari to just go away. Do we really want to live in a 95% Chromium browser world? That would be a horrible future for the web. We need more voices, not fewer. — Jen Simmons (@jensimmons) February 7, 2022
According to data from web analytics service StatCounter,Safari holds a 9.84 percent market share of desktop browsers, compared to 65.38 percent for Chrome. While it's second to Google Chrome in terms of secure position, it's more secure on mobile platforms than it is on desktops. Despite being the default browser on the iPad and the iPhone, Safari has a 26.71 percent market share on mobile, while Chrome has a 62.06 percent market share. Microsoft Edge is the most popular browser.
If Apple stops mandating the use of WebKit on the iPadOS, the developers behind the mobile versions of browsers like Chrome and Edge could switch to Chromium like their desktop counterparts, giving it even larger overall market share and potentially limiting the chances of rival technologies competing with it.
Apple defended its WebKit policy in the interim report of the mobile ecosystems market study.
Apple told us that only allowing WebKit on iOS is motivated primarily by security and privacy considerations. In particular, many modern websites run code from unknown developers. Apple told us that because of the WebKit restriction, it is able to address security issues across all browsers on the iPhone, for all iPhone users, quickly and effectively (given there is only one browser engine). It further told us that, in Apple's opinion, WebKit offers a better level of security protection than Blink and Gecko.
Since it controls the only browser engine on these devices, Apple can make sweeping security and privacy improvements across all browsers. It claims that WebKit is more secure than other browsers.
Others have argued that the restriction harms browser competition. Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, was at the center of a dispute with Apple about App Store fees and now says that the restriction on WebKit is anti-competitive and uninclusive.
I believe Google, who also blocks competing browser engines, should open up the Google Play Store to browser engine competition. I’d love to see Apple ship Safari on Google Play and to see Google ship the full version of Chrome on iOS. Include ALL the browsers! — Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) February 8, 2022
The restriction around WebKit has caught the attention of regulatory agencies, such as the CMA, which has criticized it.
We have found that by requiring all browsers on iOS devices to use its WebKit browser engine, Apple controls and sets the boundaries of the quality and functionality of all browsers on iOS. It also limits the potential for rival browsers to differentiate themselves from Safari. For example, browsers are less able to accelerate the speed of page loading and cannot display videos in formats not supported by WebKit. Further, Apple does not provide rival browsers with the access to the same functionality and APIs that are available to Safari. Overall, this means that Safari does not face effective competition from other browsers on iOS devices.
The evidence also suggests that browsers on iOS offer less feature support than browsers built on other browser engines, in particular with respect to web apps. As a result, web apps are a less viable alternative to native apps from the App Store for delivering content on iOS devices.
While web developers are bound by features that WebKit supports, app developers can't differentiate between their browsers.
Importantly, due to the WebKit restriction, Apple makes decisions on whether to support features not only for its own browser, but for all browsers on iOS. This not only restricts competition (as it materially limits the potential for rival browsers to differentiate themselves from Safari on factors such as speed and functionality) but also limits the capability of all browsers on iOS devices, depriving iOS users of useful innovations they might otherwise benefit from.
There is a link between the debate and Apple's refusal to allow app side loading on iPadOS. There is only one practical obstruction to developers shipping web apps on iPadOS that are indistinguishable from native apps, and that is Apple controlling the browser. Sideloading from the web is possible if developers could use a different browser.
The argument that limiting web browsing on iPadOS to WebKit is better for performance and tackling security vulnerabilities is not accepted by the CMA.
Overall, the evidence we have received to date does not suggest that Apple's WebKit restriction allows for quicker and more effective response to security threats for dedicated browser apps on iOS...
[...]
... the evidence that we have seen to date does not suggest that there are material differences in the security performance of WebKit and alternative browser engines.
Some developers are using the #AppleBrowserBan to express their frustration with Apple's restriction.
There are many issues with browsing on iPadOS and the discussion around Apple's WebKit restriction is growing to be at the forefront. It's not clear if allowing non-WebKit based browsers on the ios would be good for users or bad for security. Would a browser monoculture occur if it were possible to allow Chromium onto the OS? Is lifting the WebKit restriction good for browser engine competition?
Apple is concerned about its relationship with some developers with regards to Safari, and the company recently sought to tackle the accusation that it is the new IE by asking for feedback. Microsoft Edge is on the verge of becoming the world's second most popular desktop browser, despite Apple changing its design from last year.
As a result, Apple is facing pressure to improve relations with developers, as well as make Safari and WebKit more compelling, but it is not clear if this will prompt the company to change its position on the WebKit restriction. There is a question of whether Apple can maintain its policy in the face of increased regulatory pressure.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
