Apple Considering Dropping Requirement for iPhone Web Browsers to Use WebKit

[Seend1983]

Pretty much a unanimous yes from me. It's exciting just thinking about how better and innovative browsers will be once freed from WebKit's shackles. Just imagine the adblockers, extensions, background playback, etc. that will be available.

Safari will still be there for people who don't want change.

 

[nt5672]

This is the only anti competitive thing I think Apple actually does.

Then you must not be thinking very hard.

 

[brofkand]

If Apple hadn’t done this half the world’s websites would still be built in Flash.

And something like that will happen again if they remove the restriction.

Nothing but FUD - this restriction is not in effect on Android, the world's most popular operating system, or Windows, or even macOS - so what makes it so doom-and-gloom if iOS finally follows the rest of the world?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Sideloading, all manner of games running in the browser. Tim watching the 30% cut going to zero...

 

[brofkand]

Sideloading, all manner of games running in the browser. Tim watching the 30% cut going to zero...

This is why they started pushing so hard on ads in the App Store, News+ and all their other subscriptions. They won't be able to rely on the 30% cut for much longer.

 

[MysteriousStain]

Can the EU also please force Apple to allow us to clear the “System Data” that eats up the storage we paid for?

 

[BaldiMac]

Nothing but FUD - this restriction is not in effect on Android, the world's most popular operating system, or Windows, or even macOS - so what makes it so doom-and-gloom if iOS finally follows the rest of the world?

What’s wrong with being different? I don’t get people that argue everything has to be the same, so then we get more choices. Seems self defeating to me.

If you’re actually interested in why people are concerned about the change, then please spend a little time reading the thread. Several posters have made reasonable arguments about why they don’t want to see this change.

 

[DownUnderDan]

....Apple could easily just tell the EU, look, its our platform, stop with your stupid biased behavior because your continent has not created nothing impactful on the world. Android is already the dominant mobile OS, users have choice if they don't like iOS. If you want to side load to your hearts content, choose the platform with three billion devices in use.

I don't live in Europe, but just wow. You might want to use that Safari browser to search the history and contribution of European countries. You have a lot to learn outside your bubble.

 

[boyarka]

And if something doesn’t work in Safari but does in another browser wouldn’t that force Apple to keep improving Webkit?

In general terms that would improve fair competition all around. Look at what happened with IE vs Chrome vs Firefox. Let people have a choice of software and let the companies fight for their customer base.

 

[boyarka]

This is just plain wrong.

This doesn’t give users more choices. It gives corporations more choices to be lazy with their development efforts.

When half the services in use stop working on Safari because the developers are no longer forced to give me that choice then my choice to use safari has been taken away.

How can you people not understand how giving more choice to developers and corporations, takes the choice away from the end users???

What you just wrote goes against all... let me be clear: ALL, not some, not most, but all facts of real free market competition.

 

[Sleepy Dog 27]

Finally the Google Chrome team can direct where the web goes without any hurdles! /s
Well, I hope not, Blink is too dominant already...

Although I might start using Firefox if I can use uBlock Origin on my iPhone.

 

[jasonlasky]

The Apple gateway problem is huge.

Apple should have tackled this proactively over the last few years, including gradually lowering the App Store commissions by 1% every year. From 30% in 2008 to 16% in 2022, 15% in 2023 with a final fair & sustainable rate of 7% by 2031.

Alternative web browsers with restricted library of plugins could be the best solution to a safer side loading and alternative app stores. A web browser plugin would operate as an extension with in the web browser, contained by the permissions set for the browser. The browser developer would be responsible to make sure all listed plugins are compatible and safe. The web browser developer could take responsibility for problems arising from permitted plugins. That may be a tough standard for the browser but it solves Apple’s gateway problem and helps protect the consumer. Apple would then just deal with the browser keeping App Store standards. Browser Plugin library could charge fees to list the available plugins and provide Apple with a small commission (% of listing fee).

 

[boyarka]

So choose Android and leave the garden alone please.

I already have, a very, very long time ago. If you want say... a BDSM party arranged at your private house, and everyone willingly participates - that's fine because that is a voluntary fraternity. If you run a company and your security policy demans strict use of specific devices and software by your EMOLOYEES that's also within reason, because that's contractual obligations of a private company.

However if you are Apple, and you operate on the free market, enjoy all the benefits of the free market, then you must also play by the rules of the free market: bend the f*** over when it comes to free and fair competition and consumer rights.

If you don't like free market competition rules move somewhere where there's none. Moving, by the way, is also a freedom. Just like sideloading and alternative payment methods and all the rest.

 

[brofkand]

What’s wrong with being different? I don’t get people that argue everything has to be the same, so then we get more choices. Seems self defeating to me.

If you’re actually interested in why people are concerned about the change, then please spend a little time reading the thread. Several posters have made reasonable arguments about why they don’t want to see this change.

People who want to continue to use WebKit browsers are free to do so. That won't change.

I'm really not sure how Apple forcing users to use WebKit browsers is giving people more choice.

 

[koelsh]

What you just wrote goes against all... let me be clear: ALL, not some, not most, but all facts of real free market competition.

Except he’s right about the effects of it. The free market has chosen Chrome over other browsers on all platforms except for iOS. Daily I use websites at personally and at work that don’t operate correctly or even at all in Safari meaning I cannot use these sites on iPadOS and have to use Chrome or a derivative on a Mac.

For instance, one site at work had a Black Friday special promotion animation on their login page that ran “fine” in Chrome but was so render intensive in Firefox and Safari it was impossible to even type in the username. Their official solution was ”use Chrome or wait till Black Friday is over”
Another site has a render quirk where some essential buttons are rendered off-screen in Safari regardless of zoom/scaling/scroll position. Their official solution is “What’s Safari?” Which is ironic as they make an iPad based point of sale system.

This means my choice to use Safari is being taken away by these corporations.
Everyone hated the monopoly that was IE6 only to inch back to the same thing only 15 years later.

I do think allowing other browsers on iOS is a short term positive, but long term it just hastens the “literally everything is a Chrome instance” future we’re hurtling towards.

——
Edit: on the flip side, some of the ”solutions” to things not working in Safari is to instead install “Safari Tech Preview” which has its own quirks on top of regular Safari. Since using STP sometimes regular Safari will randomly open itself up… and the 1Password extension gets confused and tries to enter the password in regular Safari when I’m in STP.

 

[Danfango]

Let the people decide. Forcing is never the answer.

Yeah we know how that turned out

 

[DeepIn2U]

I wasn't really talking about forks of WebKit as the context of my reply was over the concern that Chromium (or Blink) would become more dominant on mobile OS. As I said, Apple could try to expand WebKit’s usage by making Safari more desirable and competitive as well as offering it on other platforms like Android and Windows.

How is it not competitive already?
and by desirable ... that's subjective to each and every user is it not?

 

[jchap]

I don't want a monoculture in browsers, which is basically what Chrome is on the desktop. There needs to be diversity and you have to keep Google in check or they will run rampant with their browser. If they do end up allowing this, I hope it means Apple will at least have the right to review Google's privacy behavior of its apps and disable tracking.

Apple could easily just tell the EU, look, its our platform, stop with your stupid biased behavior because your continent has not created nothing impactful on the world. Android is already the dominant mobile OS, users have choice if they don't like iOS. If you want to side load to your hearts content, choose the platform with three billion devices in use.

It would seem that the whole issue is more about giving users choice than anything else.

Choices, regardless of what hardware you use and what OS it runs.

There are benefits and consequences implicit in using Android and iOS, but these are not immediately obvious to most users. Similarly, most users won’t care whether their browser’s engine is running on WebKit or not. That said, there are users and developers who object to being limited to WebKit on principle, but can they say what it actually amounts to in terms of real-life performance, security, stability, Web page rendering quality and speed?

 

[jchap]

I'd like to be able to run a REAL Firefox on my iOS devices, that'd be nice!

Would you be able to feel a difference, in terms of performance, rendering speed, security and so on?

 

[Ethosik]

Have devs stopped supporting Safari on the Mac?

Some sites yes. Companies just told me to use chrome as it’s the only supported browser for their product. YouTube has limited functionality on Safari but not on Chrome.

 

[koelsh]

Would you be able to feel a difference, in terms of performance, rendering speed, security and so on?

I would. Daily I come across websites that outright don't work in Safari but still do in Firefox and others that don't perform well in Safari that aren't a problem for Firefox. Security wise they're all getting hammered.

I don't want a monoculture in browsers, which is basically what Chrome is on the desktop. There needs to be diversity and you have to keep Google in check or they will run rampant with their browser. If they do end up allowing this, I hope it means Apple will at least have the right to review Google's privacy behavior of its apps and disable tracking.

Completely with you on this. Not sure we can put the toothpaste back in the tube since most browsers anymore are Chrome derivatives.

Apple could easily just tell the EU, look, its our platform, stop with your stupid biased behavior because your continent has not created nothing impactful on the world. Android is already the dominant mobile OS, users have choice if they don't like iOS. If you want to side load to your hearts content, choose the platform with three billion devices in use.

Not with you on this. That's a sure fire way for the EU to outright ban the sale of iOS devices or fine Apple into oblivion.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

God I wish this was true...

 

[erikkfi]

If you're goal is for consumers to have a huge variety of high quality apps at low prices, then we've already had that for years. So it's unlikely that these regulations will have a significant positive impact and will likely cause harm.

My goal is for consumers to have a bigger variety of apps of varying quality at competitive prices. Many apps can't be put onto an iPhone or iPad because one company has decided it doesn't like them. This includes torrent clients, emulators, competing browser engines, apps like YouTube++, and apps that contain risque/dark/adult content.

I find your model for analyzing this situation lacking. Let's think about how things may look after ten years of a truly open and competitive app marketplace on mobile devices. Some app categories that may exist then haven't even been imagined today, and any of those could be strangled in their crib by Apple for any reason it likes, higgledy-piggledy. I take it for granted that more competition and less centralized gatekeeping for category/content purposes is a good thing, although I grant that allowing multiple app installation vectors necessarily increases risk. I still expect Apple to shore up the security of iOS to account for multiple app installation vectors, and I would unreservedly buy my tech-challenged mother-in-law an Apple device that has multiple app installation vectors.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm really not sure how Apple forcing users to use WebKit browsers is giving people more choice.

It's a really strange argument that some are making, isn't it?
Makes zero sense to me either

Apple Stockholm syndrome I guess

 

[BaldiMac]

People who want to continue to use WebKit browsers are free to do so. That won't change.

I'm really not sure how Apple forcing users to use WebKit browsers is giving people more choice.

Like I said, that exact point has been rebutted multiple times in this thread. If you are actually interested, then read the thread. It's only a few pages.

Here's a couple points...
1. To your first point, I have no problem with Firefox having its own browser engine on iOS. My concern is all that either bundle their own browser for in app browsing or use the alternate engines to create non-native apps. Those two things would hurt the iOS user experience.
2. To your second point, both mobile browsing and desktop browsing is dominated by Google. Taking away the significant beachhead created by Safari on iOS, would put us real close to days when developers only target Chrome and treat every other browser as irrelevant. A regulation that primarily benefits the monopolist (Google) is stupid.

My goal is for consumers to have a bigger variety of apps of varying quality at competitive prices. Many apps can't be put onto an iPhone or iPad because one company has decided it doesn't like them. This includes torrent clients, emulators, competing browser engines, apps like YouTube++, and apps that contain risque/dark/adult content.

80% of consumers already have all those choices. Though your examples make it clear what this is really about for you.

I find your model for analyzing this situation lacking. Let's think about how things may look after ten years of a truly open and competitive app marketplace on mobile devices. Some app categories that may exist then haven't even been imagined today, and any of those could be strangled in their crib by Apple for any reason it likes, higgledy-piggledy. I take it for granted that more competition and less centralized gatekeeping for category/content purposes is a good thing, although I grant that allowing multiple app installation vectors necessarily increases risk.

Except the reason that I choose Apple is because I trust them not to strangle the baby, so your hypothetical future is less real to me than the actual problems that will certainly come from these regulations.

I still expect Apple to shore up the security of iOS to account for multiple app installation vectors, and I would unreservedly buy my tech-challenged mother-in-law an Apple device that has multiple app installation vectors.

That's certainly consistent with the examples that you provided earlier. Free free free.