Apple's grip on iOS browser engines disallowed under latest draft EU rules
- Reference: 1650953051
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/04/26/apple_ios_browser/
- Source link:
The Register has received a copy of unpublished changes in the proposed act, and among the various adjustments to the draft agreement is the explicit recognition of "web browser engines" as a service that should be protected from anti-competitive gatekeeper-imposed limitations.
Apple requires that competing mobile browsers distributed through the iOS App Store use its own WebKit rendering engine, which is the basis of its Safari browser. The result is that Chrome, Edge, and Firefox on iOS are all, more or less, Safari.
[1]
That requirement has been a sore spot for years among rivals like Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft. They could not compete on iOS through product differentiation because their mobile browsers had to rely on WebKit rather than their own competing engines.
[2]
[3]
And Apple's browser engine requirement [4]has vexed web developers, who have been limited to using only the web APIs implemented in WebKit for their web apps. Many believe this barrier serves to steer developers toward native iOS app development, which Apple controls.
The extent to which Apple profits from the status quo has prompted regulatory scrutiny in Europe, the UK, the US, and elsewhere. Blog posts from web tech advocates like Alex Russell, Epic Games' antitrust complaint against Apple, and lobbying efforts like [5]the formation of Open Web Advocacy have ensured that regulatory remedies being formulated to address allegations of anticompetitive behavior by Apple consider the impact of browser engine restrictions.
[6]
Now those efforts have been translated into the text of the DMA, which, [7]alongside the Digital Services Act (DSA) , defines how large technology gatekeepers will be governed in Europe. Here's one relevant passage:
Certain services offered together with or in support of relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper, such as identification services, web browser engines, payment services or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, are crucial for business users to conduct their business and allow them to optimize services.
In particular, each browser is built on a web browser engine, which is responsible for key browser functionality such as speed, reliability and web compatibility. When gatekeepers operate and impose browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications.
Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position as undertakings providing core platform services to require their dependent business users to use any of those services provided by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by these business users.
In short, when the DMA takes effect in 2024, it appears that Apple will be required to allow browser competition on iOS devices.
"Article 5 point (e) has been expanded to capture instances where the gatekeeper requires business users to offer or interoperate with a web browser engine," wrote Damien Geradin, founding partner of competition law firm Geradin Partners, in a [8]blog post last week.
"This is most likely meant to address Apple's policy of requiring all browsers running on iOS to utilize Apple's WebKit browser engine – a policy which the UK CMA has recently [9]found may have restricted the development of web apps, among others."
Close to the edit ... The revisions made to the Digital Markets Act text
Alex Russell, partner program manager on Microsoft Edge who worked previously as Google Chrome's first web standards tech lead, has written several posts about the need for browser competition over the past year. He told The Register that if the DMA language has the effect that web advocates hope, the result will transform software – not just iOS browsers on iOS devices.
"The potential for a capable web has been all but extinguished on mobile because Apple has successfully prevented it until now," said Russell. "Businesses and services will be able to avoid building 'apps' entirely when enough users have capable browsers."
The long and winding road
However, he notes that Apple isn't necessarily going to change its ways.
"There's a long road between here and there," he said. "Apple has spent enormous amounts to lobby on this, and they aren't stupid. Everyone should expect them to continue to play games along the lines of what they tried in [10]Denmark and [11]South Korea ."
Indeed, Apple's efforts [12]to avoid complying with demands made by the Netherlands' Authority for Consumers & Markets indicate the company may be slow to comply with the DMA's forthcoming web browser engine requirements.
[13]
"The details of what it takes to credibly port a competitive browser are intricate and highly technical, and Apple will have many chances to prevaricate and delay, as they so often have," argued Russell.
"Lastly, the DMA language seems somewhat ambiguous about the shenanigans that Apple, Google, and Facebook are playing about browser choice and In-App Browsers. Mobile has broken the web in many ways, and they all need to be repaired."
A web developer who goes by the name Matthew Thomas and participates in the [14]Open Web Advocacy group, told The Register that he expects Apple will resist to the extent that it can.
"Apple knows that before 2024 they will be forced to allow third party engines, which means they will have to invest deeply in Safari to make it competitive," said Thomas. "Other browsers can bring features that Safari doesn't have. That will put pressure on Apple to add those features; otherwise developers will push their users to move browsers."
Thomas said hopefully the DMA rules will make web apps competitive with native apps. And if that happens, he suggests interest in native apps may decline – which coincidentally is the fear that led Microsoft to try to [15]eliminate the Netscape browser in the late 1990s.
Thomas proposed this thought experiment: "Once web apps work properly across all devices and can provide native-like functionality, how many companies will choose to rebuild their app several times (with the vastly increased development and maintenance costs) [for multiple platforms] rather than just build it once [for the web]."
The Register asked Apple for comment. We did not expect a reply, nor have we received one. And yet Apple clearly recognizes that it cannot simultaneously avoid antitrust regulation by pointing to web apps as competition to native iOS apps while requiring the use of a browser engine that outsiders believe is [16]holding back the web .
Apple has been actively hiring to fill out its WebKit team and currently has [17]37 related job openings posted . Jen Simmons, evangelist on the web developer experience team for Safari and WebKit, has been [18]soliciting input on WebKit bugs that need attention , calling out issues that have already been addressed, and touting recent API additions that make WebKit more capable. And Safari's release cadence has accelerated.
Thomas is fine with that. He said one of Open Web Advocacy's reasons for lobbying regulators to ensure that Safari gets properly funded.
"Apple would not be willing to invest in Safari without the threat of competition," he said. ®
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YmfCzVtBHt8vVEMyi3kbLQAAAQQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YmfCzVtBHt8vVEMyi3kbLQAAAQQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YmfCzVtBHt8vVEMyi3kbLQAAAQQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/08/apple_ios_privacy/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/28/apple_apps_challenge/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YmfCzVtBHt8vVEMyi3kbLQAAAQQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/25/eu_digital_services_act/
[8] https://theplatformlaw.blog/2022/04/19/the-leaked-final-version-of-the-digital-markets-act-a-summary-in-ten-points/
[9] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-ecosystems-market-study-interim-report
[10] https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/12/09/danish-court-rules-apple-not-allowed-to-dole-out-refurb-iphones-for-service-swaps
[11] https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/15/apple-pushing-back-against-south-koreas-app-store-payment-law
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/23/apple_dutch_fine/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YmfCzVtBHt8vVEMyi3kbLQAAAQQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://open-web-advocacy.org/
[15] https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/browser-wars/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/22/safari_risks_becoming_the_new_ie/
[17] https://jobs.apple.com/en-au/search?search=webkit&sort=newest
[18] https://twitter.com/jensimmons/status/1491064075987873792
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Apple slurps all the same data for their iOS devices as far as I've ever read. They just don't hide the fact like Google keeps getting caught doing.
It is impossible not to track certain information and still have a functional device. At some point, you are connecting to a mobile network, and your entry to that gateway WILL be tracked, like it or not, as will your identity.
Besides, once collected, information can be subpoenaed. You don't think the government of America just might have a slight vested interest in having that information available to them? Perhaps even to the point of suggesting exactly what information is required by writing it into the telecommunications standards enforced in the US?
And Apple has no "genuine" emotions of any sort, including any claims of "worry" or "fear". They're all marketing gimmicks and nothing more. The only thing they "fear" is a reduction in the revenue stream, or worse, implosion of the revenue stream.
It's not just Chrome. Brave, Duck Duck Go and Firefox also have to use Webkit on iOS. Apple's policy is deplorable and fuelled by fear of losing money from app sales. They may not be collecting aggregate data like Android does but they surely want your money to go to them and not anyone else.
If they are attacking Apple for not allowing Chrome
While not lifting a finger to stop Chrome's near monopoly (that this rule would only make worse, to the extent Google is able to convince weak minded fools into using Chrome on iOS instead of Safari) then they are clearly attacking the wrong problems.
They are legislating what data web sites can collect by forcing them to display the annoying cookie warnings, while allowing the fox to guard the henhouse by letting the world's largest data collector be in a position to collect infinitely more data across ALL websites and even trying to extend that advantage by reducing usage of Chrome's only major competition. Idiots.
Chrome does indeed have a near monopoly, and the only reason it doesn't have 99% of the market is Safari.
All of the other browsers are in the very low single-digit market share.
But that is not because Google is pushing Chrome, it's because users do not understand - or care - about which browser they actually use.
Funnily enough, they care enough to not use Edge, though, but you can't legislate on that.
Re: If they are attacking Apple for not allowing Chrome
Counterpoint: Apple has all the interest to keep the web at minimum usage because they profit from native apps. Thus hindering the development of the web - which is accessible and cheaper to everyone - is merely a business choice.
The problem is: there is no competition if you don't allow other participants to compete. That's the situation on iOS.
People *could* avoid Google's monopoly, if they want. On MacOS, you can install Chromium-based browsers but that didn't make Safari go away. And if you like all the new web capabilities but you loathe Google, you can use Edge instead. Or Opera. Or Brave. You have a *choice*.
It's not (just) that you have to use WebKit...
It's that the version of WebKit available to use in apps (or competing browsers, which are mostly just a skin on WebKit on iOS) is not as up to date.
Or, at least, that was the case when I was doing webapp work at $JOB-1.
The APIs we needed were (recently) supported by Safari (and iDevices kept Safari up to date so we didn't need to worry about that), as well as on any recent Chrome, FF, or Edgium.
They weren't available on the older WebKit engine used by anything other than Safari.
We had graceful degredation, but did have to explain to some clients they'd need to switch browsers to see the features we were trying to demo!
Err, Safari works fine for the user. If the experience was really sub-par Apple wouldn’t be selling us lots of iPhones. Just because it doesn’t implement every latest experimental feature does not make it bad.
I’d posit the restriction on rendering and script interpreters has its origins in preventing developers skirting the App Store rules by disallowing apps that can execute dynamically delivered code (and JIT, necessary for JavaScript performance, requires memory pages to be able to be modified and then marked executable - another feature undesirable for security reasons).
If I wanted a choice of dodgy apps I’d buy a different brand of phone ;-)
Works Just Fine
Not for me. I have FF on desktop with various Addons. In an ideal world I’d be able to sync across devices but I can’t because iOS doesn’t allow addons on iOS “Firefox” and there are no equivalent addons for Safari.
I don’t think Safari is what drives people to iDevices and desktop Safari is horrible.
"Err, Safari works fine for the user."
Err, no it doesn't. Safari is intentionally crap so that everyone who wants / needs a presence on iPhone develops an app. Completely coincidentally (of course), this protects Apple's revenue stream...
Apps were a great stop-gap for richer functionality back when the web was really just HTML, they should have gradually disappeared as the web caught up.
> Just because it doesn’t implement every latest experimental feature does not make it bad.
It does. I'm a web developer and I can't possibly count how many times I said "using that feature would be great - too bad that Safari doesn't support it!" And I'm not even talking about "latest experimental features": take the dialog element, supported by Safari only now (v15.4) and by Chrome since v37 (2014!).
One thing is doing "just fine" - and that's fair, it's enough for most people - another is holding back several capabilities that could make it great and spur innovation for the web.
As mentioned in the article, companies could concentrate on developing just a web app rather than trying to do both and probably delivering sub-par experiences.
The mere threat of forcing Apple to allow other browser engines has pushed them, in the last weeks, to develop Safari at a rate never seen before. That alone is excellent. Allowing other browser engines will prevent stagnation to happen again.
Shiny shiny ...
more Cromey goodness ... welcome to the strange world where Apple can't control software on it's own kit as it's monopolistic but Google can control it's software on all platforms including its own ...
Re: Shiny shiny ...
Apart from the fact that you're wrong... the obvious example being Firefox:
Android - built on Gecko
iOS - built on WebKit
Where's the Google monopoly you claim exists? Yes, Chromium-based browsers form the vast majority of those used on Android and as such may be a de-facto "monopoly" (in the same way Windows is in the non-Apple PC space), but there's nothing to stop anyone from building their own should they want to.
Re: Shiny shiny ...
"Chromium-based browsers form the vast majority of those used on Android and as such may be a de-facto "monopoly" "
and on Windows ... don't forget Edge. The only popular alternative is FF and its market share is tiny.
However I'm glad to see that there appears to be a genberal consensus that, unlike Apple, Google have not get excessive market control so that's fine and we'll let them continue as they are.
Re: Shiny shiny ...
I don't really get the comparison here. Android has allowed competing browser engines for some time, plus also supports sideloading of apps and other app stores such as Amazon's store, so you don't have to use Google Play (of course, adding apps from unverified sources can be risky if you don't know what you are doing).
How exactly does this result in Google having more control than Apple?
I need a rock...
A Big. Fucking. Rock.
I need it to drop from orbit & smash down through the roof of Apple HQ & turn the site into a smoking, glassy crater.
Then I need another one to do the same to Google HQ, MS HQ, Amazon HQ, Meta HQ, and...
Oh hell, at this rate there won't be enough rocks in the galaxy to drop on all the arseholes that need a right good smiting.
Can I have a rogue planetoid smash into this rock & knock it into the sun like the universe's best snooker trick shot?
*Sigh*
Swap on monopoly for another?
Not arguing about the merits or otherwise of Apple's monopoly on its devices, however what happens if this takes off and becomes a thing?
Are we going to see a Chrome based monopoly of the internet extending now on IOS devices? Webkit is an alternative to the Chrome engine and I am sure that without it, there would be a return to the days of the mid to late 90s "This site best viewed with Internet Explorer 5 at 800x600", except ... with Chrome. Google's apps on IOS devices already suggest Chrome to open any web links.
Every web site and ad slinger will be praying for the last effective holdout against Chrome. So they can monetise you. Becuase, it will make a difference who is selling you to whom. (Or does it?)
Apple's neglect of Safari and its lack of cross-platform operation these days is lamentable, but equally Google's addition of various stupid features to Chrome like hardware access and misc API shenanigans that seem to be largely about breaking things for those that don't use Chrome (or Edge, MS' towel-throwing exercise) is equally worrying.
Apple might also have genuine fears over web privacy is users are going for Chrome as a web browser on iOS devices considering the number and variety of methods Google have used to slurp user's information.