Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Regulatory move and scope

  • Japan joins the EU and UK in requiring Apple to allow alternative browser engines on iOS, with explicit language aimed at preventing geofenced or purely symbolic compliance.
  • Commenters expect Apple to try Japan‑only compliance (as with EU DMA rules), but note Japan’s iOS share and economic weight make an exit or half‑measures risky.
  • Some hope this momentum (“it can be done”) will push more jurisdictions, including the US, to act similarly.

Will major browsers ship real engines on iOS?

  • A recurring question: is EU+UK+Japan now a large enough market to justify Chrome/Blink and Firefox/Gecko ports?
  • Obstacles cited: App Store region-splitting (separate SKUs, releases, reviews), Apple’s BrowserEngineKit limitations, JIT restrictions, and iOS‑specific integration work.
  • Others point out Google already has experimental Blink-on-iOS builds and tracking bugs; Gecko has partial ports but without JIT and not production‑ready.
  • Some expect only smaller/niche browsers to move first; others think Google is likely to be ready quickly once rules truly allow it.

Safari, Chrome monoculture, and web standards

  • One camp fears this accelerates a Chromium monoculture: once real Chrome is allowed, many sites may become Chrome-only, marginalizing Safari and Firefox, and giving Google de facto control over web standards.
  • Others argue engine diversity is intrinsically important because forking Blink at scale is unrealistic; open source alone doesn’t solve concentration of power.
  • Counter‑camp: if Safari only survives via iOS lock‑in, it doesn’t deserve protection; Apple’s slow or hostile implementation of APIs (PWAs, IndexedDB, various specs) has already harmed the web more than it has helped.

Apple’s motives: antitrust vs security

  • Regulators and several commenters see the engine ban mainly as App Store protection: keeping web apps weak so native apps (and the 30% cut) stay dominant.
  • Apple defenders emphasize security and simplicity: curated apps, no post‑review code loading, smaller attack surface, and less tech‑support burden for families.
  • Critics reply that App Review is weak against real abuse, Safari already runs unreviewed “apps” (websites), and security arguments are used to justify anti‑competitive control.

User behavior, defaults, and Japan’s role

  • Debate over how powerful defaults are: some point to Chrome’s dominance despite not being the default on Windows; others note Google’s aggressive cross‑promotion.
  • Several expect gradual drift: a small share of sites will break in Safari, a small share of users will switch to Chrome, and this ratchet only moves one way.
  • Japan is highlighted as a case where strong local demands (e.g., Felica, transit, payments) previously forced Apple to compete and add platform capabilities, suggesting this regulation could have real bite rather than remain symbolic.