Apple is pushing forward with its experimental browser development by releasing Safari Technology Preview 243, while simultaneously preparing to defend itself in a £3 billion UK lawsuit over alleged anticompetitive iCloud practices. Two sides of the same coin for Cupertino, which innovates on one front and fights legal battles on another that could reshape the cloud and software markets.
Safari Technology Preview 243: Updates and Developer Highlights
The latest version of Apple's experimental browser, Safari Technology Preview 243, is now available for download via Software Update in System Settings. This release includes a broad range of fixes and improvements spanning Accessibility, Animations, CSS, JavaScript, Media, Networking, PDF, Rendering, and WebRTC. Particularly notable are updates to WebGPU and WebAssembly, key technologies for modern web applications and high-performance code execution directly in the browser. Apple also addressed bugs related to security and extension management, a critical aspect for developers working on plugins and productivity tools. As highlighted in a recent article on Mozilla's Mythos and bug hunting, browser security remains a top priority in the 2026 tech landscape. Safari Technology Preview 243 is compatible with macOS Sequoia and the brand new macOS Tahoe, and can run side by side with the stable Safari version, offering an ideal environment for testing upcoming features. For full details, Apple published release notes on the official program website, a reference point for those following WebKit engine evolution.
Sponsored Protocol
£3 Billion iCloud Lawsuit: UK Case Moves to Trial
On the legal front, Apple failed to narrow the scope of a class action lawsuit filed by UK consumer group Which? in 2024. The tribunal denied Apple's request to exclude non-paying iCloud users, ruling that the trial must cover all 40 million UK consumers who used the service from November 8, 2018 to the present. The legal theory at its core is innovative: it involves "Forgone Consumer Surplus" (FCS). Which? argues that Apple, by unfairly favoring iCloud over third-party providers, imposed inflated prices, harming even those who never paid for a subscription but, in a competitive market, might have purchased a plan at a fair price. For example, a 200GB plan priced at £2.99 might have been inflated by £1, causing theoretical harm to those who could not afford it. The tribunal acknowledged the novelty of the issue but allowed the trial to proceed. Apple now faces a hearing to determine whether it abused its dominant position. The claimed amount, £3 billion, could translate to an average payout of £70 for each eligible user if the lawsuit succeeds. This case fits into a broader context of big tech regulation, as also highlighted in another article on OpenAI and new frontiers in browser security. For those wishing to dive deeper into iCloud technical details, the Wikipedia page on iCloud is a good resource. The case represents a significant precedent for consumer protection in the digital age, challenging the lock-in practices of technology giants.
Sponsored Protocol
