Additionally while Safari remains underfunded and full of bugs it's not placing little competitive pressure on Chrome while ensuring that browsers that actually compete like Firefox are starved of search engine revenue.
Apple's position is bad for the Web, bad for Web Apps and bad for Safari. If they have competition then Apple will be forced to fund Safari/Webkit properly and deliver a reliable/feature rich browser.
There will be no consequences.
I've come to the conclusion that competition is the only way to solve the issues around Safari not supporting all PWA features. Even if that result is a greater move to a Blink as the dominant engine.
For there to be effective competition, there needs to be WebKit based browsers on all platforms (Windows, Android, macOS, Linux, iOS). Otherwise, it's a non-starter.
This won't happen. The platform default is one of the most decisive factor for the market share and Apple has a full control here. Unless they do a critical mistake at IE6 level, Chrome won't likely have above 10% iOS market share.
I don't understand why in this world of Google's near monopoly on the web, people are more focused on government intervention to prevent Apple's pithy 9% marketshare for holding back poor Google.
That statement is much, much less true than it once was -- some quick searching puts Chrome at about 66% of desktop market share (despite neither of the two dominant desktop OSes shipping Chrome as a default), and the two default options (Chromium-based Edge and Safari) combining for about 25% of desktop market share.
Apple did learn from this mistake and kept a minimal level of investment as well as prohibited competition via full control of App Store, which effectively forced most websites to support WebKit. Even though they did not invest that much on Safari over a similar length of period through these ways and still maintains the lead on MacOS. Which in fact proves my point.