Apple's WebKit Rules Reportedly Cost iOS Users Almost 30% Browser Performance

[SpotOnT]

Everyone knows Netscape is the best. Just search ask Jeeves and you will see it’s true!

Netscape in 2026 is called FireFox.

Jeeves in 2026 is called ChatGTP.

 

[jimbobb24]

i always find it interesting when forum people applaud or even just find it acceptable that a trillion dollar corporation should limit their choices in software or how they choose to use the devices they paid a premium for - strange world we live in. 😂 😂

I always find it interesting when people assume that for some users thats not a feature. They choose the platform. Just like PS5 Sony tightly controls it and it works for some people who could instead use PCs to game and have all the options but chose the PS5. Android is always available. Some people dont want it they want a simple locked down platform with tight controls. Everyone can have what they want except if you want a locked down Android or a completely open iOS.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Gecko on iPhone would be nice. Ladybird is also slowly coming along, would be great to see that on my phone in a few years.

Thankfully Orion runs Firefox extensions. I wonder what'll come first - Gecko on iOS, or Orion (Stable) on Linux?

 

[KevinN206]

so...you want chromium to own 70% of not only desktop but also mobile? hilarious

Why do you think Apple doesn't offer Safari on Android, Windows, and Linux? Why keep it locked to Apple ecosystem?

 

[ItsASpider]

More silliness from the engineering by government committee crowd.

So let's be clear on a few things. First, there are many clear benefits that the use of WebKit brings.

...what exactly are those benefits? For how obvious you claim it is, it's odd you don't bother to list even one. If WebKit truly is the better choice, certainly browser vendors will just continue to use it and never bother with porting their own engines to bring an inferior experience for their users? (Ignore for a second that this result already indicates that it is far from an inferior experience.)

Second, the reason most of the 'alternative browser' crowd wants to bypass it has nothing to do with any user benefit, but because it allows them to do things, like collecting user data, that WebKit prevents as part of protecting the customer.

It may come as a surprise to you, especially since you seem to comment in such authoritative language, but a browser's render engine does exactly 0% of the data collecting a browser does. Other browsers being required to do use WebKit doesn't prevent tracking. Like at all. Nada. 0.

Yes, there are tracking vectors that are limited by all browsers being WebKit. But the fact that these vectors don't exist is the result of WebKit just lacking support for a ridiculously long list of APIs. Never mind that nothing is stopping Apple from putting its own requirements on tracking like it already does for every other app.

Now let's get on with the claim. First, it can't be taken seriously because it wasn't conducted under controlled conditions, nor was it using an actual browser product.

The "engineering build" used here was a Chromium build. A fully functional browser. Just one that is in the alpha stages of development. Although you are right, since this is a development build, the results may be skewed...

...but if they are, it is likely in WebKit's favor. Development code isn't exactly known to be more performative to begin with, never mind the Chromium developers specifically pointing out that they haven't yet optimized the engine for iOS.

Then they conveniently ignore the fact that most websites, when they detect Chrome, or a Chromium browser, dump a ton of tracking scripts, ad related scripts, etc., that render any theoretical speed advantage moot (and usually far worse).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they conveniently ignore that because it isn't a fact. You just made this up. I really don't know why, this seems more like delusion speaking. For what reason do you think that websites have special code targeting Chromium that they wouldn't run on other browsers specifically for tracking? What makes you think websites are so interested in their users, but only specifically Chromium users? Also, the implication that tracking code is some kind of heavy function that slows everything down is hilarious. Rest assured; it is not. If there is anything on the web that is well-optimized, it is usage tracking.

So, a random study of a random research browser on a random device for the purpose of making a bogus claim to further the interests of competitors that don't deliver anything for users. Nothing to see here, move along.

If you think competition doesn't deliver anything for users, then I guess there is little to argue here, especially given all the ridiculous other claims in your post. You clearly have no idea how browsers, engines, or websites work, nor how people develop for it. Clearly indicated by the fact that you're comment is entirely made up out of nonsense.

Also not noted in this article; this "random guy" is an engineer who knows this stuff and actually reproduced these results on multiple devices. And yeah, it would be better if it was ran in a closely controlled environment, but let's be real for a sec; then you'd be here arguing "yeah but nobody would use it in such a controlled environment and the results would be worse on real world examples!!!".

 

[HI50Steve]

Personally, I think it would be nice for tablets and phones to not be locked into only being able to download Apps from the App Store, Google Play Store, or any other 3rd party App Store. Computers do not have this limitation, and considering the fact that many tablets and phones cost just as much if not more than most computers, I think users of these devices should at least have the option to download Apps from the web. Yes, I appreciate the work Apple and Google do trying to vet Apps for their respective stores, but neither company is infallible and bad actors still manage to weasel their way into both App Stores. So basically, the end user is ultimately responsible to determine whether or not a Developer or their App is safe to download and use, App Store guidelines or not. That’s exactly what users have to do who download Apps from the Internet on their computers. Do I appreciate being able to update all of the Apps on my iPad and iPhone in one place? Absolutely! However, it would be nice to have more flexibility when it comes to downloading software on my devices. 🙂

 

[LuisNeto]

I think it’s interesting that people who intentionally chose a closed system want an open system. Why not just go with Android and call it a day?

Your argument is a fallacy. You are implying that that's the only reason why people go with the iPhone. As if it wasn't a closed system, there would be no other reasons.

Let's be honest: that's not true.

You have all kinds of people using iPhone. A considerable percentage has no idea that it's a closed system or what that even means.

The market will always decide the winners and losers in the end.

I agree, but do you not see how you're contradicting yourself? You are the one defending that there should not be browser competition in the iPhone!
Let there be a real browser market for the iPhone, with competition happening because each browser maker is trying to make their browser better!

 

[t122648]

One of my main reasons for going to android is that I don't have to be locked in to Webkit. Anyone who has tried the 'real' Firefox on android vs the gimped Firefox on IOS can certainly tell the difference. And don't get me started on Safari....

 

[improbability]

Throwing out some random percentage doesn't mean anything. Webkit is slower than the competition.

Who, literally, cares in 2026? The speed of the browser has not been an issue for like 10 years, on any platform. Cell coverage being horrible is 99% of my ios browser complaints and thats not on apple.

If you talk to a non-technical user, which is like, 99.998% of 250million people who buy an ios device each year, I think you will understand why this argument is nonsensical.

This is ALL an attempt to be able to track those 250mil per year buyers more. That's it. It's not for protection or anything like that, it's all because companies are out of ways to make number go up so they want to sell more of YOUR data, and apple for the most part puts the kibosh on a lot of that.

It feels exactly like companies trying to privatize the commons because they see that they can exploit it and make profit and are AGHAST that no one is making that money yet.

I just assume all people who are for this arguing like you are are rubes, or paid shills. MacRumors really should try to find out who is behind this and what companies are doing this campaign.

 

[FeliApple]

Exactly, that is why when Safari stopped working on my 2015 MacBook Pro on El Cap and I had to switch to a Chromium-based browser battery life plummeted.

I only wish we could update Safari as a standalone app on iOS without having to update the whole OS, but apart from that, I’ll take the 30% alleged “performance hit”, thank you very much.

Safari is perfectly smooth for me. I notice nothing.

 

[LuisNeto]

This is ALL an attempt to be able to track those 250mil per year buyers more. That's it. It's not for protection or anything like that, it's all because companies are out of ways to make number go up so they want to sell more of YOUR data, and apple for the most part puts the kibosh on a lot of that.

I just assume all people who are for this arguing like you are are rubes, or paid shills. MacRumors really should try to find out who is behind this and what companies are doing this campaign.

No. A lot of us, including myself, want to have a choice, as we have on computers. And for me, it's not about speed.

The iOS platform does not automatically because worse by allowing other browsers to run on it. Whoever wants to stick to Safari can do so. Nothing changes for them.

Also, on your first argument that I quoted: yes, certain companies making browsers may want to track more users, but it's up to each user to decide what browser they install on their devices.

You and other people seem to be implying that the alternative to Safari is Chrome.
It is not. Browsers like Vivaldi and Firefox have no interest in collecting users' data, show you ads or sell you anything.
(Chrome and Chromium are not the same thing.)

Allow competition and let people be free to choose.

Safari would probably even get better because Apple would have to compete with other browsers.

 

[BuffaloTF]

One-million-percent this. Just look at how they nuked uBlock Origin under the guise of "security".

In all fairness, it still works fine on Edge.

 

[BuffaloTF]

That's... the opposite of competition though by forcing WebKit to be used for all browsers on a large mobile platform. Competition is Apple offering Safari, making it a meaningfully better product than Chromium-based browsers, and winning user share based on it being a good product, not because iOS and iPadOS users have no choice.

That's... not the opposite of competition. That precisely is competition because it forces web devs to not use User Agent sniffing and make BS websites like there used to be in the IE5/6 days that only worked on IE. This is a bigger issue than just your pocket. It creates a lazy internet, as they'd just build for Blink as Chrome+Edge equates to over 85% of the desktop market already as opposed to the only 65% they have for mobile thanks to a 25% dent they take from Safari. That's competition.

 

[cjsuk]

1. Speedometer is APPLE's benchmark.

2. what ad company are you talking about? this was a test done by a MICROSOFT engineer. you didn't even read. just saw a chrome logo and started drooling in anger

3. you can't run firefox with ublock on iOS.

1. Yes. Who cares?

2. Do you think Microsoft isn’t an ads company too? Look at bing integration.

3. Yes and this pisses me off to the point I have a Pixel 9a here with Firefox on it.

 

[LuisNeto]

That's... not the opposite of competition. That precisely is competition because it forces web devs to not use User Agent sniffing and make BS websites like there used to be in the IE5/6 days that only worked on IE. This is a bigger issue than just your pocket. It creates a lazy internet, as they'd just build for Blink as Chrome+Edge equates to over 85% of the desktop market already as opposed to the only 65% they have for mobile thanks to a 25% dent they take from Safari. That's competition.

No. We're talking about competition of browsers in iOS.
You're talking about something different: decisions made by web developers on what browser engines they want their websites to be compatible with.

On the browser competition topic which is what this thread is about:
I refuse to use Chrome, but just because Chrome and Edge have 85% of the desktop share, I still defend those browsers along with others should be allowed to compete.

As I wrote here, Vivaldi and Firefox have no interest in your data. Not only that, they fight for a better web.
How is it right that Apple gets to say that, unlike in a computer, people can't choose to use one of those in iOS and iPadOS?

Minor note on the other topic you brought up:
If web developers are creating websites compatible with Chromium only, perhaps that should be regulated. Or they take the risk that a percentage of people will not use their websites, and perhaps use a competitor website instead.
We're talking about a distinct competition market: between people / companies running websites.

 

[dwaite]

Yes it does, and it’s explained in the article. They tested with Chromium. They just can’t publish to the App Store with it.

They can publish in the App Store - in the EU.

BrowserEngineKit is specifically meant to let third party browser engines have the integration surface they need to compete with WebKit.

 

[dwaite]

Publishing results from his personal device and not a lab environment is crazy. Then reproduce it in a lab so it can be peer reviewed and repeated

Yep.
Publish the prototype and describe what is currently missing/short circuited

Also, show the actual results of the hundreds of tests run as part of the suite and not a single number output.

The results show an additional 15% performance gain over what has been observed with chrome vs safari on macOS recently, which makes the results highly suspect.

It's worth noting that while that benchmark showed Chrome being 17% faster, it also reduced battery life by 40% https://tech-insider.org/safari-vs-chrome-2026/

 

[BuffaloTF]

No. It's not allowing competition.

I refuse to use Chrome, but just because Chrome and Edge have 85% of the desktop share, I still defend those browsers along with others should be allowed to compete.

As I wrote here, Vivaldi and Firefox have no interest in your data. Not only that, they fight for a better web.
How is it right that Apple gets to say that, unlike in a computer, people can't choose to use one of those in iOS and iPadOS?

I also think you're going into a different topic. If web developers are creating websites compatible with Chromium only, perhaps that should be regulated. Or they take the risk that a percentage of people will not use their websites.

No... it's forcing competition to exist by ensuring other engines are supported with the sheer size of the iPhone and iPad market making engine hegemony pointless. In the desktop world, it does not exist - which is precisely what will happen to mobile. Everyone will go to what they know, and what they know is what's been in their face at school, at work, at home, and in discussion. Chrome. Which is why it's already the most downloaded browser on iOS - "everyone" downloads it regardless of the engine, because they don't know and don't care what the engine is - they're using what's familiar in their own minds. Safari barely edges over 50% usage in North America with this benefit and ensuring all of these are supported in the present and into the future.

See, you provided the best example. Your Gecko engine by Mozilla barely exists in spite of being great - more open, more private, more free - because developers are already lazy... including Vivaldi. They aren't that serious about having no interest in your data, or they wouldn't use Chromium/Blink. The same can be said for Brave, which is far ahead of Vivaldi for privacy.

 

[surferfb]

...what exactly are those benefits? For how obvious you claim it is, it's odd you don't bother to list even one. If WebKit truly is the better choice, certainly browser vendors will just continue to use it and never bother with porting their own engines to bring an inferior experience for their users? (Ignore for a second that this result already indicates that it is far from an inferior experience.)

There are legitimate privacy, security and user experience issues with alternate browser engines. Just because you don't agree that the issues are worth blocking alternate engines over doesn't mean Apple is obligated to do what you want and expose users to those issues.

Running a browser engine requires OS-level capabilities Apple deliberately restricts (e.g., JavaScript JIT, deeper network/storage hooks, tighter integration with permissions and media, etc.). I'd note that Apple even disables JIT in Lockdown Mode because it’s an attack vector; they're not doing that just for fun.

Allowing third-party engines increase risk in three serious ways:

1. More privileged code paths processing untrusted HTML/JavaScript (often with JIT).
2. Fragmented patch cadence (i.e., Apple can’t ship fixes for Blink/Gecko; users wait on those vendors’ updates.)
3. New OS-level hooks/isolation models that must be present on every device once enabled.

Banning third-party engines reduces the surface area of attacks, and I'd argue is a pretty good "bang for the buck" security win. 99.9% of users don't care what engine their browser uses and browser engines are a particularly easy vector for attacks. Again, you can think that allowing them is worth the risk, but I think that should be Apple's choice to make.

 

[LuisNeto]

No... it's forcing competition to exist by ensuring other engines are supported with the sheer size of the iPhone and iPad market

I understand the point you're trying to make: that it's the prohibition of browser competition in the iPhone and iPad that is keeping websites around the Internet compatible with multiple browser engines.

I don't agree, because:

1. You're actually talking about 2 different markets: browser market and "website market".
2. The argument (A is forcing B) is oversimplified. Ultimately, it's the web developers making these decisions. And as I wrote in my previous comment, if a web developer is not supporting one or more specific web engines, they'd be taking a risk, too. It's not that "black and white" as you're putting it.

They aren't that serious about having no interest in your data, or they wouldn't use Chromium/Blink.

Could you explain why you say this?

 

[BuffaloTF]

I understand the point you're trying to make: that it's the prohibition of browser competition in the iPhone and iPad that is keeping websites around the Internet compatible with multiple browser engines.

I don't agree, because:

1. You're actually talking about 2 different markets: browser market and "website market".
2. The argument (A is forcing B) is oversimplified. Ultimately, it's the web developers making these decisions. And as I wrote in my previous comment, if a web developer is not supporting one or more specific web engines, they'd be taking a risk, too.

Could you explain why you say this?

Sure, I'll explain.

The first part seems rather settled here. We're approaching this statement from different perspectives. I'm saying the competition still exists since users don't know what's going on behind what they're looking at and still using their preferred choice. You're saying the competition is at that engine level. I'm fine with that differentiation.

On Vivaldi -- because out of the "box" it just isn't good for privacy. It's the level of customization required to get it there. You have to enable the blockers it pushes, for example. Those blockers they offer are not good, to add to the fact you need to enable them, they're passive. Worst of all, they have no blocking against fingerprinting so you're still getting pegged. And in a paradox, the more you customize the hell out of that thing, the easier you are to fingerprint. They're power-user first, privacy a very distant second.

For Brave -- it feels more like security theater. Oh boy, you blocked X number of trackers? Wow. You may think I'm going to go to crypto wallets here, but I don't care. I care that Brave employs a Brave Ad Service. Yeah yeah, they "segment and anonymize the data" -- well you know who else does? Google. You may be a bit suspect if Google actually does that, fair enough -- but you should be equally as suspect of anyone that says they do. "They run it on-device". So? That data still needs to phone home, metadata or otherwise, to serve that ad to you. How does it know which ad to serve you? Because it gave that data it collected to the server it came from.

 

[sgtaylor5]

I think it’s the other way around. I think it’s interesting that people who intentionally chose a closed system want an open system. Why not just go with Android and call it a day?

Steve’s philosophy was always very clear. He wanted to make computing like an appliance. PC’s and Android exist for people who want to tinker.

If Safari was so bad, people wouldn’t be buying Apple devices. The market will always decide the winners and losers in the end.

They bought into a closed system, but really wish it was an open system. Taken further, that there shouldn’t ever be a closed system for sale at all, anywhere, ever.

 

[surferfb]

They bought into a closed system, but really wish it was an open system. Taken further, that there shouldn’t ever be a closed system for sale at all, anywhere, ever.

You’re not obligated to have your cake and eat it too. If having an open system is that important to you, you have an option. You shouldn’t get to take the option of a closed system away from everyone else just because you can be bothered to use Android.

 

[xpaulso]

The Web Browser (html/javascipt) is the largest exploit vector on the iPhone. It's understandable why Apple wants to standardize on an engine they own and can patch via the OS update system. You could make a case for a toggle on iPad that allows third party web engines, but on the mobile phone, the trade-off just don't make sense.

 

[xpaulso]

Requiring Webkit is ridiculous but that's what Apple does to stifle competition.

Not everything is motivated by anti-competitive motivation. There are arguments for many areas, like FaceTime should be an open standard, But HTML/javascipt on an iPhone is a different animal. The Web Browser (html/javascipt engine) is the largest exploit vector on the iPhone. It's understandable why Apple wants to standardize on an engine they own and can patch via the OS update system. You could make a case for a toggle on iPad that allows third party web engines, but on the mobile phone, the trade-offs just don't make sense.