Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Support for Open Web Advocacy

  • Many commenters express strong appreciation for the advocacy work and the grilling of Apple under the DMA, though some wish the questioning had been more aggressive given Apple’s polished legal deflections and “security” framing.

Browser Diversity vs User Choice

  • One camp argues browser diversity (multiple engines) matters more than individual user choice of browser UI; without it, the web risks becoming “the Chrome protocol.”
  • A counter‑camp claims Apple’s WebKit lock‑in is actually the last significant barrier preventing a Chrome/Blink monoculture and thus indirectly protects diversity.
  • Others call that logic backwards: Apple isn’t “defending diversity,” it is entrenching its own engine and weakening cross‑platform alternatives.

EU‑Only Engines and Developer Testing

  • Strong criticism that allowing non‑WebKit engines only inside the EU makes them second‑class: non‑EU devs can’t realistically test, so engines will be under‑supported.
  • Workarounds like macOS VMs, remote iOS simulators, Faraday‑bag/EU Wi‑Fi spoofing, and device sharing are discussed but seen as expensive, clumsy, or inadequate for real performance/gesture testing.
  • TestFlight caps and Apple licensing restrictions further limit scalable testing.

Apple’s Compliance Strategy and Defaults

  • Many see Apple’s behavior as “malicious compliance”: implementing only what is absolutely required in the EU and adding friction via bundle‑ID rules and region locks.
  • Examples are given where iOS still opens Safari or Apple Maps despite different user defaults, reinforcing the sense that defaults and “choice” are undermined.

Security Rationale Debate

  • Apple’s position that engine bans are about security gets both support and skepticism.
  • Supporters invoke scenarios of surveillance or propaganda browsers; critics say this is really about securing Apple’s control and App Store revenues against user wishes.

Chrome Dominance and Monoculture Fears

  • Some argue lifting the engine ban would accelerate Chrome’s dominance, discouraging cross‑browser testing and threatening Firefox/WebKit.
  • Others respond that Chrome is already dominant on Android and desktop; the realistic benefit of competition on iOS would be pressure on Apple to improve Safari, not instant WebKit collapse.

Economics of Safari and Incentives

  • Safari’s Google search deal is highlighted as a huge profit center with relatively small engineering investment, seen as a core motive to preserve Safari’s privileged status.
  • This is used to explain why Apple resists true engine competition instead of aggressively improving Safari across platforms.

Regulatory Load: DMA and CRA

  • Beyond Apple’s obstacles, the EU’s Cyber Resilience Act is noted as adding heavy documentation, security, and liability requirements to browsers, with large potential fines.
  • Some argue exemptions and “sandboxes” mitigate this for small players; others fear only big vendors will practically be able to ship full browsers in the EU.

Web Apps vs Native, and Games

  • Skeptics point out that if native‑equivalent web apps were mainly being blocked by Apple, we’d already see far more serious web apps and games on Android; many don’t.
  • Counter‑arguments cite missing or buggy APIs on iOS, Apple’s historic hostility to PWAs, and business incentives around in‑app purchases as jointly suppressing the web as an app platform.

User Experience and Dark Patterns

  • Complaints extend to both Apple and Google: iOS apps and Google properties pushing their own browsers or apps via nags and dark patterns, and in‑app web views that ignore user defaults.
  • These behaviors are widely seen as user‑hostile symptoms of the same underlying platform power.