Apple's Browser Rules Stifle Innovation on iOS, Says UK Regulator

Apple's restrictions on mobile browsers are limiting innovation and holding back new features that could benefit iPhone users, according to provisional findings published today by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). From a report: In its report, the CMA's independent inquiry group determined that Apple's Safari browser policies prevent competing browsers from implementing certain features, such as faster webpage loading technologies. The investigation also revealed that many UK app developers would prefer to offer progressive web apps as an alternative to App Store distribution, but Apple's current iOS limitations make this impractical.

Adding to competitive concerns, the regulator highlighted a revenue-sharing agreement between Apple and Google that "significantly reduces their financial incentives to compete" in the mobile browser space on iOS. The CMA also found that both companies can manipulate how users are presented with browser choices, making their own offerings appear as the clearest or easiest options.

need to allow the full firefox and full chrome!

[Joe_Dragon]

need to allow the full firefox and full chrome!

Re:

[tlhIngan]

need to allow the full firefox and full chrome!

The EU is forcing Apple to do this already. Just no one wants to make an EU only browser as it's "too much work" to maintain two code bases. At least that was Mozilla's excuse for not doing it.

Re:

[tiananmen tank man]

Citation please. And what is a "EU" only browser?

Re:

[test321]

Mozilla should be producing a Gecko-based Firefox for iOS users. The parent poster calls this option a EU-only browser because only EU users would be able to install it. Mozilla would have to maintain the EU-only gecko-based Firefox, plus the "Firefox" skin of Safari for the rest of the world.

Horrible oversight by the community

[jamienk]

The fact that this issue hasn't been seized upon by the "community" shows how dumb we are. This radically changed the Internet landscape as phones took off, and that anti-Freedom momentum never stopped.

My suspicion is that FF got so much money from Google, they decided to strategically keep their mouths shut about big-company abuse. Instead of being bomb-throwers, they decided to be "fair competitors." Very politically short-sighted.

Instead of being inspired by leaders with a vision for openness, we canceled RMS and embraced the same-old bullshit administrative/capitalist way of thinking.

FF has been carrying water for Apple and Google. Time to stop!

Re:

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

You know that Apple isn't part of the "community", right?
Also, you know that Apple has a cult like following that loves the warm embrace of Apple "taking care of them", right?
How many Apple people argue FOR the walled garden?
No need to get your knickers in a knot, but I thought I'd point out that the community doesn't get much, um, any, consideration from the powers that be.

I would agree that FF's complicity was bought though.
Who doesn't want to get into the (data gathering) game though?
Are you enjoying the

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless Mozilla is getting money from Apple, which I am not aware of that being the case, your argument doesn't hold water.

Firefox isn't subject to the same web engine restrictions on Android that they have in iOS.

Re:

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

My argument is that Apple doesn't give a fuck about you or "the community".
and FF on Apple is webkit, which more or less is Safari, as we know.
Is that not what you just said, too?
We are talking about Apple here aren't we?

But FF still have to answer for retarded interface redesigns, hiding controls, and trying to gather data for thier own monetization.

Protection vs Monopoly behavior

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I'll have to admit I'm divided on the subject. I wish other browser engines could be on IOS, but also there are some dubious players who I'm glad can not release a browser engine. I think having it all safari allows Apple to have more control over data flows for better and for worse. Some privacy guarantees man only be practical this way. For all of Apple's abuses they have done a lot to check other large data collectors. If everything were proper open source, that may be even better, but we don't live in that world right now and are unlikely to get there soon.

Re:

[MDMurphy]

The big difference is *optional*. Safari-only could be the default, but a user should have the option to not be coddled/strangled by Apple. Similarly, Android, by default, will only run applications downloaded from Google. But a normal configuration option is to allow other applications to load. It seems not enough Apple users are pushing for browser options, or the lack of it is not important enough for them to buy something else. The question is then, who should *force* Apple to make changes to how t

Re:

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

You realize that Apple "protecting" you from dubious players, and as you put it "allows Apple to have more control over data flows" and "For all of Apple's abuses they have done a lot to check other large data collectors" literally just means they don't share the data and keep all that delicious data for themselves?

Every company wants to do that now. If you're big enough, you have always on, registered hardware, 100% proprietary: Apple, Microsoft has it now too.
For all google's faults at least Android is op

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

> Apple's abuses they have done a lot to check other large data collectors

They literally built a backdoor into their GPU silicon that activates all memory access, by poking a specific address in 64-bit memory space with a sequence of 256 keys, accessible to anyone who knows the secrets or can reverse-engineer them.

Specifically, your privacy does not exist for Apple and their chosen club.

At least with AOSP we can catch such behaviors, though not enough vigilance is being done there yet.

Re:

[tiananmen tank man]

Apple only wants safari only to control the restriction of web apps, you can't get 30% of web app sales.

Open up Playstation and VW platforms!

[gabebear]

It's unfair that people can't run anything they want on things they own because of anti-competitive software locks. . .

Everything Apple does stifles...

[MpVpRb]

...innovation, choice and the right to repair
They want total control

I'm torn here

[AvitarX]

I think all apps should be able to compete equally.

But also I hate progressive web apps

If the reality is how I read this, apple may be doing as much for the web here as when they chose to not support flash.

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If the reality is how I read this, apple may be doing as much for the web here as when they chose to not support flash.

You think that instead of having standardised access to some software via a web app, users will be better off with half-baked platform-specific apps bending the knee to whatever Apple or Google decide to allow in their app store this week?

If so, I have news for you: a lot of software developers still aren't going to make Apple native apps and still aren't going to pay Apple's high cut to get listed on the App Store (unless the happen to decide on a whim that they shouldn't be). It is a fool's game for any s

WebKit

[JackAxe]

Certain features is a light way to put it. Every single browser under iOS has to be built on WebKit. Basically they are all a reskinned Safari.

My biggest gripe about Safari, is that it has become for this time, what IE6 was to web development decades ago, and that's not a good thing.

Apple deserves the DOJ lawsuit

[leptons]

Apple intentionally limits the usefulness of Safari, and forces every other browser on iOS to use Safari, because they do not want web apps to replace native apps, which Apple makes 30% revenue from, where they can't make any money from web apps. Limiting the browser engine on iOS to only Safari is purely a cash grab by Apple, and it's anti-competitive. It's one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ for abusive business practices. It's way past time for Apple to pay the price for their shitty busin