[kitsunesoba]

Locking out other engines does a few things:

- Ensures a minimum level of battery performance for users browsing the web. Chrome and Firefox for macOS are notoriously hard on your battery and iOS versions would likely have the same issue.

- Reduces the number of vulnerabilities present on the platform.

- In the event that a bad vuln does crop up, Apple can and will scramble out a WebKit patch to fix it, quickly protecting all users, even those using browsers by small/independent developers. This would be impossible if said indie devs were using Blink or Gecko or something instead.

These problems could be worked around if alternate engines were bundled with the OS as part of a partnership with Google and Mozilla, but such a scenario seems unlikely at best.

[pier25]

1) Users have the choice in other types of apps such as PDF renderers and game engines in matters of performance and battery life. Why not browsers?

2) Game engines are very low level and Apple doesn't have a problem with UE or Unity. Maybe the problem is the iOS sandbox would not work with JS engines?

3) I don't buy the security argument. Google and Mozilla are very diligent with updates, even more so than the Webkit team. It could be argued that the Android approach of unbundling components from the OS is actually better in terms of security.

[megous]

People would just have an alternative choice.

All you say can be said for any other app on the app store.