Final week, The Register reported that Google’s Chromium crew has begun growing an iOS browser primarily based on the open-source Blink browser engine. And yesterday, The Register ascertained from a GitHub commit that Firefox could also be growing an iOS browser primarily based on that firm’s Gecko browser engine.
Neither of those browsers would survive the present App Retailer evaluation course of as a result of Apple’s developer pointers prohibit browser apps, or “apps that browse the net,” from utilizing any browser engine aside from Apple’s WebKit. Particularly, guideline 2.5.6:
WebKit is the browser engine on which Safari is constructed. A browser engine interprets HTML and different stylistic parts of an internet site and renders them into user-accessible content material; a separate, JavaScript engine executes JavaScript code. Word that till late 2020, with the discharge of iOS 14, Apple didn’t permit customers to pick a default browser aside from Safari.
However the distinction between browsers on iOS is usually illusory, anyway. As a result of all browsers on iOS are pressured to make use of WebKit, all of them largely characteristic the identical performance and solely substantively differ when it comes to aesthetics and native connectivity to third-party companies (eg. Chrome and Google profiles). Alex Russel has written a masterful multi–half sequence on why Apple’s restriction of browser engines to WebKit is problematic (this presentation of his summarizes his factors in half-hour).
The UK’s Competitors and Markets Authority (CMA) devoted an appendix to browser engine alternative in its latest Cellular ecosystems market research. In that appendix, the CMA notes that Safari lags different browsers when it comes to compatibility:
The yellow Safari line (which represents any browser constructed on WebKit) is considerably and persistently increased than the blue Chrome and crimson Firefox strains (representing browsers constructed on Blink and Gecko respectively). This means that WebKit has carried out considerably worse when it comes to compatibility than Blink and Gecko over this era.
The CMA additionally finds that Apple updates Safari on iOS about half as continuously (each 20 days) as Google updates Chrome on Android (10 days):
Within the full, remaining report, the CMA presents this graphic, which showcases characteristic compatibility throughout completely different browsers (Safari on the left on iOS; Firefox on Android within the center; and Chrome on Android on the proper):
The CMA’s report surmises that Apple is advantaged via its restrictions on different browser engine use on iOS in two main methods:
- Forcing using WebKit prevents different browsers from attaining significant differentiation from Safari, and since Safari is pre-loaded onto iOS and can also be set because the default browser, shoppers have little incentive to undertake different browsers. The CMA proposes that this dynamic protects Apple’s income share settlement with Google, which generates an estimated $8-12BN in income for Apple per 12 months by establishing Google because the default search engine in Safari;
- As a result of WebKit performance is extra restricted than that of different browser engines, the requirement to make use of WebKit confers purposeful superiority to native iOS apps, the distribution of which Apple controls via the App Retailer. Apple takes a fee on in-app funds in native iOS apps (and it additionally operates an app promoting community), however Apple can’t monetize client use of progressive internet apps.
Per the CMA’s report, Apple justifies its requirement that iOS browsers make the most of WebKit on grounds associated to safety and privateness:
Given this historical past in addition to Apple’s pretextual protection of the follow of requiring WebKit’s use in iOS browsers, why are Google and Firefox pursuing these browser initiatives on iOS now?
Probably as a result of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which was adopted by the European Parliament in July 2022, goes into impact within the EU quickly. The DMA primarily pertains to competitors in digital markets, and it addresses competition-suppressing techniques by so-called gatekeepers resembling storefront limitations (eg. Apple’s “no-app-stores-in-the-App-Retailer” coverage) and different funds. I’m skeptical that forcing platform operators to permit for different, in-app funds will materially influence the app economic system, given how ingrained using default funds strategies is, in addition to Apple’s intransigence on the matter.
Nonetheless, as I element in The app economic system’s Perestroika, the regular drumbeat of laws and regulatory interventions into cell platform working fashions is clearly trending within the path of better ranges of concrete and credible competitors. Apple reportedly started making ready for the eventual introduction of other app shops on iOS on the finish of final 12 months; with respect to browser engines, Google and Mozilla appear to ascertain a (possible near-term) future through which their browsers are usually not tethered to Apple’s WebKit.
The primary browser conflict was fomented within the early Nineteen Nineties by the arrival of the World Extensive Net and the HTTP protocol; the second browser conflict was instigated by new internet requirements, the provision of on-page, asynchronous interactive performance afforded by varied JavaScript frameworks, and the introduction of Google’s Chrome browser (Mozilla’s CTO proclaimed in 2017 that Chrome “gained” the second browser conflict).
The third browser conflict is likely to be instigated by the chance unlocked via regulatory intervention on iOS: if Apple is pressured to relent on WebKit’s use in all browsers on iOS, a race to seize cell internet engagement could ensue.
