>Apple will only authorize developers to implement alternative browser engines after meeting specific criteria and who commit to a number of ongoing privacy and security requirements
Smells like malicious compliance.
Smells like malicious compliance.
I don't mind the expectation for a certain level of quality on the app store, however it should not propagate to alternative stores.
The browser is unstable, has had large amounts of bugs and race conditions, refuses to add features that can make the browser a better competitor for apps unless forced to by regulation, and so on... Safari on iOS is garbage, and that's the way Apple wants it to be. It just has to be OK so that iOS users don't understand how bad it really is.
Literally 15 minutes ago a customer asked me if I could add push notification support for iOS, as Apple has refused to do so on iOS for many many years. But Apple did add it when the pressure around competition increased, so now it should work with updated iOS.
Apple is a shit company for consumers, and they are actively sabotaging the web to increase their profits. This is not just something I'm saying. When Apple was forced to allow other browsers in the EU, they announced that they would turn off support for progressive web apps in the EU(apps added to the home screen, push notifications they just added because they were afraid of this and so on). They did go back on it after developer pushback. I haven't looked into this, but I'm pretty sure that Apple has done something to make sure other browsers can't develop PWA features. Cause that is what Apple does.
Their requirements are fairly reasonable, too. Use a memory safe language or have processes in place to catch memory bugs. What that means exactly we'll have to wait to see. But I think given the nature of a web browser, that is an application that automatically executes code supplied over the internet, it not unreasonable.
However, the whole point of the here and now is to remedy the fact that Apple is in the "abusive gatekeeper" position. While they're both the platform and the competition, I don't think their proposal is a valid remedy.
One viable alternative (short of Apple divesting/spinning of Safari) is to delegate review of 3rd party browsers to an independent 3rd party. There may be others.