Safari vs. Third-Party Browsers on iPhone & iPad: Why Safari Wins

iOS and Third-Party Browsers: A Unique Landscape

While the iOS operating system does allow for the installation and use of browsers developed by companies other than Apple, the experience differs significantly from that on other platforms.

These third-party browsers consistently face limitations that prevent them from achieving performance parity with Apple’s native Safari browser on iPhones and iPads.

The Core Restrictions

Apple imposes certain restrictions on how third-party browsers can operate within iOS.

These limitations are the primary reason Mozilla discontinued support for their Firefox Home application on iOS devices.

Google Chrome's Internal Debate

The challenges faced by other browsers were also considered internally by Google before the release of their Chrome application through the App Store.

Developers at Google engaged in extensive discussions regarding the potential compromises necessary to offer a functional Chrome experience within the constraints of the iOS environment.

Ultimately, the decision to release Chrome was made, but it’s understood that the app operates under conditions that prevent it from fully leveraging its capabilities.

Looking Ahead

The situation is expected to evolve if Apple chooses to ease its current restrictions on third-party browser functionality.

Until such changes occur, Safari will likely maintain its position as the premier browsing option on iOS devices.

The Requirement for iOS Browsers to Utilize Safari’s Engine

According to Apple’s stipulations for the App Store, all applications facilitating web browsing are required to employ the iOS WebKit framework, alongside WebKit JavaScript.

Consequently, independent browsers are prohibited from developing their own rendering engines. They are instead mandated to integrate a version of the rendering engine found within Safari. This restriction prevents the introduction of enhanced rendering speeds or novel web functionalities.

Essentially, every third-party browser available on iOS functions as a customized user interface built around Safari’s core.

The Impact of a Singular Rendering Engine

Historically, on conventional desktop operating systems such as Windows, macOS, and Linux, browsers have enjoyed the freedom to implement their own rendering engines.

This autonomy was a key factor in the superior performance of Mozilla Firefox compared to Internet Explorer 6, and subsequently, in Google Chrome’s speed advantage over Mozilla Firefox 3.0. Each browser’s development team could focus on creating a uniquely optimized rendering engine.

Had Mozilla Firefox been compelled to utilize Internet Explorer 6’s rendering engine, its ascent to prominence might never have occurred, potentially leaving users reliant on Internet Explorer 6 indefinitely. Microsoft’s renewed investment in Internet Explorer was directly spurred by Firefox’s growing popularity.

The WebKit requirement limits innovation in iOS browsers.
Competition based on rendering engine performance is stifled.
Users are effectively constrained to Safari’s capabilities.

This policy fundamentally alters the competitive landscape for web browsers on Apple’s mobile platforms.

The Disadvantage Faced by Third-Party Browsers on iOS

The situation is more restrictive than many realize. Browsers developed by companies other than Apple are not only required to utilize Safari’s rendering engine, but they are also compelled to employ a less efficient JavaScript engine. This limitation effectively grants Apple a performance advantage with Safari.

Specifically, these alternative browsers must rely on the older WebKit JavaScript engine. Apple, however, retains exclusive access to its more advanced Nitro JavaScript engine for Safari. This creates a fundamental disparity in processing speed.

Consequently, third-party browsers will consistently exhibit slower JavaScript rendering speeds compared to Safari. Apple’s ongoing development of the Nitro engine will further widen this performance gap, leaving competing browsers increasingly behind.

The Implications of Engine Restrictions

This restriction means that browsers from other developers aren’t simply alternative versions of Safari; they are, in essence, deliberately slower iterations. The core technology powering their JavaScript execution is inherently less capable.

While a browser developer could, in theory, build a specialized version for jailbroken devices and distribute it outside the official App Store, this is an unlikely scenario. Such a strategy would target a niche audience – jailbreak users – a group Apple actively discourages.

Related: Understanding Jailbreaking: A Guide to Modifying iPhones and iPads.

The WebKit JavaScript engine is older and less performant.
Apple’s Nitro JavaScript engine provides a significant speed advantage.
Third-party browsers are structurally disadvantaged by these restrictions.

The limitations imposed by Apple create a challenging environment for browser competition on iOS. Maintaining optimal performance becomes a significant hurdle for developers seeking to offer alternatives to Safari.

The Limitations of Third-Party Browser Defaults on iOS

The operating system of Apple’s iOS devices prevents users from designating third-party browsers as their default. Despite user preference, links opened from the majority of applications will consistently launch within Safari.

To access a link in an alternative browser, such as Chrome, a user must manually copy and paste the URL from Safari. This creates an extra step and diminishes the seamless experience offered by a true default browser setting.

Workarounds and Their Constraints

While application developers possess the capability to enable their apps to open other applications, this doesn't equate to a system-wide default browser change. Instead, it necessitates a fragmented approach.

Each application must individually incorporate support for alternative browsers, requiring developers to hard-code a list of compatible options. Users are then limited to selecting from this pre-defined list within each app.

Consequently, if a user’s preferred browser isn’t included by the app developer, they are unable to utilize it as a default within that specific application.

why-third-party-browsers-will-always-be-inferior-to-safari-on-iphone-and-ipad-3.jpg

Restrictions Extend to Browser Extensions

A consistent app store regulation also prevents alternative browsers from incorporating browser extension functionality. If you rely on a password manager like LastPass, you are required to utilize the dedicated LastPass application, which features its own integrated browser environment.

Direct installation of a LastPass extension for browsers such as Safari or Chrome is not permitted. Naturally, the browser contained within the LastPass app experiences performance limitations compared to Safari's native speed.

Extension support is present on various other platforms, though not universally across all browsers. For instance, the Android version of Chrome intentionally lacks add-on support due to Google’s decision.

However, Firefox for Android provides a contrasting experience, offering full compatibility with extensions. This allows users to install a LastPass extension and manage their passwords within the Firefox application, providing a valuable degree of user choice.

The Inherent Limitations of Third-Party Browsers

Third-party browsers on iOS devices will consistently operate at a performance disadvantage compared to Safari. They are fundamentally constrained and will always exhibit slower speeds.

Furthermore, these alternative browsers face usability drawbacks. They cannot be designated as the default browser, creating an inconvenience for users.

Attempts to Mitigate Performance Issues

To compensate for these inherent limitations, browsers like Chrome often incorporate additional features. Chrome, for instance, utilizes prefetching and data compression techniques to enhance browsing speed.

A significant benefit of Chrome lies in its synchronization capabilities. Users can seamlessly sync bookmarks, open tabs, and other browsing data between their desktop and mobile devices.

Mozilla initially offered Firefox Home for a similar purpose, enabling Firefox users to access their browsing information on iOS. However, Mozilla has stated they will refrain from releasing Firefox for iOS until Apple addresses the restrictions imposed on third-party browsers.

Unless specific integration features or unique functionalities are desired, utilizing Safari is generally the most practical choice. Apple’s operating system is engineered to prioritize Safari’s speed and convenience.

why-third-party-browsers-will-always-be-inferior-to-safari-on-iphone-and-ipad-4.jpg

Potential for Future Change

There is a possibility for future improvements in this situation. Apple previously denied applications that duplicated the functionality of pre-installed apps, but later revised this policy to allow for competition.

Had this policy remained unchanged, popular applications such as Pandora, Kindle, and Gmail would have been prohibited from the App Store, as they directly compete with Apple’s native applications like iTunes Radio, iBooks, and Mail.

Increased competition and greater application choice have contributed to iOS becoming a more versatile and powerful platform. Expanding browser choice could further enhance these qualities.

Image Credit: Kārlis Dambrāns on Flickr