All articles tagged with #browser engines
The article discusses the implications of iOS allowing alternative browser engines in Japan, highlighting concerns about market dominance, web standards, and the potential for increased competition and innovation in mobile browsers, while also criticizing Apple's restrictive practices and the broader impact on web development and user choice.
Japanese regulators have set a December deadline for Apple to lift restrictions that prevent third-party browser engines on iPhone, potentially allowing browsers built on engines other than Apple's WebKit, such as Chrome's Blink, to be available on iOS.
Japan's Mobile Software Competition Act will require Apple to allow non-WebKit browsers on the iPhone, promoting competition and enabling browsers like Chrome and Firefox to use alternative engines. The law takes effect in December and builds on recent EU regulations, with similar expectations in the UK. Apple has already made some changes in the EU, but Japan's law aims to ensure a more open environment for web browsers on iOS.
Despite a 16-month-old EU ruling allowing iOS developers to use alternative browser engines, Apple continues to impose restrictions that hinder competition, according to the Open Web Advocacy group. These restrictions include legal and technical barriers that force developers to create separate apps for different regions, limiting user base growth and competition with Safari, which significantly contributes to Apple's revenue. Although support for non-WebKit browsers was added in iOS 17.4, critics argue that Apple's restrictions still prevent fair competition, with ongoing regulatory pressure in the UK.
Mozilla is "extremely disappointed" with Apple's implementation of the Digital Markets Act in iOS 17.4, which allows alternate browser engines in the EU but does not extend to the iPad, forcing independent browsers like Firefox to maintain two separate browser implementations. This restriction makes it difficult for companies to provide alternatives to Safari, and Mozilla believes it does not give consumers viable choices.