Open Web Advocacy, a group of developers located in the United Kingdom, claims that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behavior by requiring browser manufacturers to utilize WebKit on its mobile platform.
A group of developers is battling Apple’s Safari browser dominance on its iPhone and iPad devices, claiming the corporation is engaged in anti-competitive actions. Apple has denied the allegations.
Open Web Advocacy (OWA), a developer group based in the United Kingdom, has stated that its goal is to provide third-party access to all of the features that Safari offers but which are not available in Apple’s WebKit browser engine; WebKit is the core software component of the Safari browser; and all of the features that Safari does not offer.
New research from the Open World Alliance (OWA) argues that “the only option for developers to produce stable, competent applications is to invest in Apple’s proprietary platform, which it taxes and over which it holds exclusive control.”
This article is related to the following article: The greatest Android applications for business in 2022.
Browser companies are not permitted to distribute their browsers, which they have spent hundreds of thousands of hours building, according to the Open Web Alliance (OWA). “Instead, [developers] are compelled to create a second browser, which is simply a thin wrapper or skin over the WebKit engine in Apple’s own browser, Safari,” writes the author.
Because it is the default browser on Apple’s iOS and iPad OS devices, Safari accounts for 39.4 percent of all mobile browser traffic, according to online analytics company StatCounter. Google’s Chrome browser continues to be the most popular, accounting for 46.3 percent of all traffic.
On desktop computers, however, the situation is quite different. Chrome continues to be the most popular browser by a considerable margin (65.38 percent), with Microsoft Edge currently being used on 9.54 percent of PCs globally, close behind Safari (which has 9.84 percent of the market). Mozilla Firefox comes in last place with a market share of 9.18 percent, according to StatCounter.
Mobile devices often come pre-installed with at least one app store and one browser, making them important conduits via which users and content producers may interact in order to distribute content to their respective communities.
[In this FREE CIO Roadmap Report, you will learn how information technology can leverage the power and promise of 5G. [Click here to download immediately!]
iOS from Apple and Google-compatible versions of Android OS from Google are the major gateways via which consumers access content on mobile devices while content suppliers may reach prospective customers, and Apple and Google have complete control over these gateways.
According to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, Safari is used by more than 90 percent of iOS device users, while Chrome is used by 75 percent of Android device owners, indicating that the two businesses have very large proportions of browser usage in their respective mobile ecosystems.
OWA argued that Apple’s policy is “a clear conflict of interest with respect to third-party browsers,” and that the company receives $15 billion a year from Google for search engine placement in Safari, while ensuring that other browsers cannot effectively compete on iOS. The OWA’s position was first reported by MacRumors.
The non-profit Mozilla, on the other hand, according to OWA, creates a superior browser (Firefox) that routinely outperforms Apple’s in terms of security and standards compliance, and does it “with sales of less than $500 million per year.””
J. Gold Associates’ Jack Gold believes that no amount of pressure from any organization can persuade Apple to expose its mobile platform to third-party browser developers. Gold is a principal analyst at J. Gold Associates.
As Gold said, Apple is “convinced” that Webkit is the best method of viewing the web and is “likely” to discourage people from experimenting with things that may embarrass Apple (for example, items that operate better than Webkit).
Also, Apple feels that its hardware has been tuned for Webkit and Android’s Webview, and it may be afraid that switching to another browser engine could reduce performance, degrade battery life, and/or introduce security vulnerabilities.
“And if that occurs, Apple will very certainly be held responsible, even if it is not justified,” Gold added. The company has a great interest in making sure their own goods are utilized while you’re browsing the web, just as Google does with Android.”
The “browser ban,” as it was dubbed by OWA, was imposed on all browsers “The emergence of an open and free universal platform for apps, where developers can build their application once and have it work across all consumer devices, including desktop computers, laptops, tablets and smartphones is thwarted.
It instead encourages businesses to design many independent programs to function on each platform, so dramatically increasing the cost and complexity of development as well as maintenance.” According to the OWA, these expenses are in addition to the 15 percent to 30 percent tax levied by the App Store.
According to the organization, this extra expense is eventually passed on to customers in the form of higher prices, more bug-prone software, and programs that are not accessible on all platforms.
This, in turn, reduces competition with other manufacturers by depriving them of a diverse library of applications, according to the OWA.
What might cause Apple to alter its mind? According to Gold, it would most likely take either a lawsuit of some form or a massive uproar from consumers to bring about change.
That, he believes, is “unlikely to happen.”
