In name, Apple has opened the door to real browser competition on iOS. In practice, it’s a masterclass in obstruction.

Following pressure from the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple updated iOS 17.4 to technically allow third-party browser engines beyond its own WebKit. But as advocacy groups and developers have pointed out, the way Apple implemented this change practically ensures that few—if any—browser makers will take advantage of it.

The result? Apple complies with the letter of the law while preserving its de facto browser monopoly.

Apple’s Compliance Strategy: Discourage at Every Turn

According to Open Web Advocacy (OWA), Apple has wrapped its browser policy in so many conditions that the entire initiative feels designed to fail. Some of the most problematic hurdles include:

  • Separate App Requirement: Browser developers must release entirely new versions of their apps using non-WebKit engines, only for the EU market. These versions can’t simply be updates to their existing global apps, meaning developers would lose years of user data, reviews, and brand continuity. That’s not a concession—it’s a poison pill.
  • Geofenced Development: Only developers physically located in the EU are allowed to test these new browsers. In a world where many dev teams are global, this restriction is as impractical as it is arbitrary.
  • Travel-Based Update Lockouts: If a user downloads a third-party browser while in the EU but travels outside the region for more than 30 days, their app may stop receiving updates. Security implications aside, this alone would be a dealbreaker for most serious users.
  • Onerous Legal Terms: OWA describes Apple’s new license agreements as one-sided and overly restrictive—well beyond what’s necessary to meet security standards under the DMA.

All of this points to a single conclusion: Apple’s compliance is engineered to be just inconvenient enough that no rival will seriously attempt to challenge Safari’s dominance.

The Financial Motive Behind Apple’s Reluctance

It’s not hard to see why Apple is dragging its feet. Safari is more than a browser—it’s a multibillion-dollar revenue stream. Search partnerships, primarily with Google, funnel an estimated $20 billion annually to Apple. That’s roughly 14 to 16 percent of its operating profit. Even a small drop in Safari’s market share could cost Apple hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

So when Apple defends its choices as necessary for security or user experience, it’s difficult to take that at face value. This isn’t about privacy. It’s about protecting revenue.

A Broader Pattern of Control

The EU isn’t the only government pushing back against Apple’s gatekeeping. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has raised similar concerns about Apple’s browser policies. Regulators in Japan, Australia, and the United States have also started examining the company’s restrictions.

And yet, Apple remains defiant. The company has made clear it has no plans to expand its DMA-style browser “freedom” to non-EU markets. Unless forced, Apple will keep Safari’s walls high and thick.

Apple Isn’t Just Delaying Change—It’s Undermining It

Let’s be honest: Apple’s so-called openness is nothing more than regulatory theater. By technically allowing non-WebKit browsers but encasing them in suffocating conditions, Apple has created a system where failure is the only real option for competitors. This isn’t innovation. It’s self-preservation dressed as compliance.

Regulators need to stop applauding partial victories. The current situation doesn’t empower users or developers—it just maintains the status quo under a new name.

What Should Actually Change

  1. Let developers offer browser alternatives under the same app ID, without region-specific forks.
  2. Lift geographic restrictions on testing and development tools.
  3. Ensure continuity of updates, regardless of a user’s travel patterns.
  4. Remove unnecessary contractual burdens that go beyond security requirements.

Until these barriers are removed, Apple’s iOS ecosystem will remain tightly controlled, with Safari as the only real choice for users—even when others are technically allowed.

Apple’s handling of third-party browser engines isn’t a sign of compromise. It’s a reminder of how Big Tech often bends just enough to avoid penalties, while refusing to loosen its grip. Regulators shouldn’t be satisfied with symbolic compliance. If the goal is real competition and user freedom, then half-measures like these are worse than doing nothing at all—they create the illusion of progress while ensuring nothing actually changes.

Similar Posts