Let’s be real, this is more of an anti-monopoly
I guess you could allow an alternate newer safari, but the one that comes with the OS would have to be linked into the blob.
You could say that iphone is an anti-monopoly option vs android, but not that Safari is an anti-monopoly option vs Chrome.
Then on top of that, even for users that do happen to "live in Canada"(1) already, Safari isn't a choice, it's the only allowed option, and full octane firefox is also not available as a choice. (firfox as a front-end to safari is essentially meaningless)
(1) saying "you can use Safari, because you can switch to iphone" is the same as saying you can have something, just move to Canada", ie, invalid and likely disingenuous, because likely the speaker understood that perfectly well.
So, yeah "let's be real" indeed. There is no way to paint Safari as any sort of anti-monopoly.
That’s why I was kinda trying to say it is anti-monopoly monopoly.
If Apple supported read+execute pages for third party applications, it might give users more choice but it would also have the consequence of ushering in the way for total browser domination by chromium. I’d argue that is an even worse scenario as far as monopoly is concerned.