Why Safari may be the safer choice for children using iPads, and why Google’s silence over Apple’s new Ask to Browse feature raises important safeguarding questions.
If you open Apple’s App Store and search for Google Chrome, you might be surprised to discover that one of the world’s most popular browsers carries a 16+ age rating. For schools that provide iPads to children as young as five, this raises an obvious question: why are we allowing younger students to install an application that Apple rates for older teenagers?
It gets more interesting when you discover that Apple’s own Safari browser is also rated 16+. However, there is an important difference between the two browsers when it comes to parental controls, safeguarding and the ability of schools to manage children’s internet access.
With Apple’s latest operating systems introducing new controls such as Ask to Browse, it is time for schools to reconsider whether Google Chrome should be available on student iPads at all.
Why is Chrome rated 16+?
Apple has introduced more detailed age ratings for applications, including 13+, 16+ and 18+. The changes give parents and schools more information about the content and functionality available within an application.
Chrome’s App Store listing identifies unrestricted web access and advertising as reasons associated with its age classification. The concern is understandable. A web browser can provide access to almost anything on the internet, including adult content, gambling, extremist material and other websites unsuitable for children.
Interestingly, Safari also carries a 16+ rating. This is because both applications can potentially provide unrestricted access to the internet, rather than because either browser is inherently unsafe.
However, the question for schools is not simply whether a browser can access inappropriate material, but whether we can reliably control that access.
The problem with Google Chrome and Family Link
Google provides parental controls through Family Link, which allows parents to manage aspects of their children’s online activities. On Android devices and Chromebooks, Family Link provides substantial supervision capabilities.
Unfortunately, the situation is different on iPhones and iPads.
Google’s own documentation explicitly warns that children using Chrome on Apple devices can sign out of their Google account and continue browsing without Family Link’s Chrome-specific restrictions.
This is a significant safeguarding concern. If a parent or school believes that Google Family Link is filtering a child’s browsing activity, that protection may no longer apply once the child signs out.
Google also confirms that iPads cannot be fully supervised through Family Link and that Google Workspace for Education accounts cannot be managed through Family Link.
To be clear, signing out of Chrome does not automatically bypass Apple’s Screen Time restrictions or school-managed filtering. Those protections can operate independently of Google’s account settings. Nevertheless, relying on Family Link alone is insufficient for safeguarding children using Apple devices.
Apple’s Ask to Browse: a significant safeguarding development
One of the most useful additions to Apple’s latest parental controls is Ask to Browse, introduced with iOS 27, iPadOS 27 and macOS 27.
The feature allows parents to establish a list of approved websites. When their child attempts to visit a new website, they can request permission from a parent or guardian, who can approve or decline access.
Imagine a Year 5 student researching the solar system. They discover a useful astronomy website, but it has not previously been approved. Instead of being permanently blocked, they can send a request to their parent.
The parent can review the website and approve access if appropriate. This creates an opportunity to discuss trustworthy sources and responsible browsing, rather than simply preventing access.
According to Apple’s documentation, Ask to Browse is enabled by default for children under 13, subject to applicable regional settings and the necessary parental-control configuration.
This makes it a particularly attractive feature for families with younger children.
But does Ask to Browse actually work with Google Chrome?
Apple’s official documentation, updated on 14 September 2026, confirms that Ask to Browse works with Safari and other supported browser applications. However, Apple does not specifically identify Google Chrome as a supported browser, and I could not find an explicit compatibility confirmation from Google in its published Chrome documentation. It would be incorrect to claim that Ask to Browse does not work with Chrome. Apple has clearly designed the feature to support compatible third-party browsers. However, the lack of explicit confirmation means that we should not assume compatibility either.
For safeguarding purposes, that distinction matters enormously.
When schools introduce a new application, they should verify that safeguarding controls operate as expected before allowing students to use it. We should not be depending on assumptions about compatibility, particularly when those assumptions affect children’s access to the internet.
If Google Chrome fully supports Ask to Browse, it would be helpful for Google to make that compatibility clear to parents and educators.
Can children install Chrome if Family Sharing is enabled?
There is another important distinction between Apple’s controls and Google’s approach. When parents have configured age restrictions through Apple’s Screen Time and Family Sharing, applications rated above the child’s permitted age can be restricted. For example, a child whose App Store age limit is set below 16 may be prevented from installing Chrome without parental approval. Apple allows children to request exceptions through Ask to Buy, enabling parents to approve a specific application without removing Family Sharing or disabling all their existing restrictions. Consequently, a child does not have to leave Family Sharing to install Chrome. However, allowing a 16+ application for a younger child should be a deliberate decision, rather than an automatic approval. For schools, there is an additional consideration: the age rating itself should not be treated as a substitute for proper mobile device management. Schools need to configure which applications students can install and use.
Why Safari is a better default choice for school iPads
Apple continues to develop Safari as part of its wider device ecosystem. As the built-in browser, Safari benefits from direct integration with Apple’s privacy and device management capabilities. Safari includes Intelligent Tracking Prevention to limit cross-site tracking, privacy reports to show blocked trackers, and settings for managing website permissions. It is also supported within Apple’s device management framework, allowing schools to configure restrictions and browsing arrangements centrally. Importantly, Apple’s built-in content filters can also apply to third-party browsers. Safari is not uniquely protected against inappropriate websites simply because Apple developed it. However, there are clear operational benefits to selecting a single, well-supported browser for student devices. If a school standardises on Safari, its IT team can focus on configuring, testing and maintaining one primary browsing environment. This reduces unnecessary complexity and makes it easier to communicate consistent safeguarding expectations to teachers, students and parents.
Should schools block Google Chrome?
My recommendation is yes, particularly for primary school students using school-managed Apple devices. There are several reasons for taking this precautionary approach.
First, Chrome carries a 16+ App Store rating. Although this rating reflects unrestricted web access rather than an inherent security problem, it should prompt schools to consider whether the application is appropriate for younger users. Defying that expectation could show a form of negligence for the school.
Second, Google’s Family Link protections on Apple devices are limited, and Google explicitly acknowledges that children can sign out of Chrome and browse without its Chrome-specific restrictions.
Finally, Apple’s Ask to Browse feature offers valuable website approval functionality, but its compatibility with Chrome remains unconfirmed in the official documentation examined for this article.
Blocking Chrome is therefore a proportionate decision when the aim is to simplify safeguarding arrangements, minimise unnecessary applications and provide a consistent browsing experience.
This does not mean Safari can be installed and forgotten. Schools must still implement appropriate content filtering, supervision and device management. Schools also need to consider other applications that may contain embedded browsers or provide access to external websites.
For student-owned devices, schools should work with families and explain how restrictions can be configured, recognising that schools may not control the entire device.
Apple’s approach is not without questions
There is, of course, another side to this discussion.
Apple develops both the Safari browser and the operating system on which competing browsers operate. It is therefore important that third-party developers have a fair opportunity to support safeguarding features such as Ask to Browse.
Apple states that compatible third-party browsers can support the feature, which is encouraging. However, parents and schools would benefit from a publicly available compatibility list identifying which browsers have implemented the functionality successfully.
Without that information, schools may understandably favour Safari because its support is explicitly documented.
This is not evidence that Apple is deliberately disadvantaging Chrome or that Google is refusing to implement the feature. It is simply an area where greater transparency would help families make informed decisions.
Safeguarding should be based on evidence, not assumptions
The 16+ age rating assigned to Chrome should encourage schools to review how the browser is being used, particularly with younger students.
The more important concern is the uncertainty surrounding account-based supervision and support for newer Apple parental controls. Google’s own documentation makes clear that Family Link does not provide comprehensive device supervision on iPads, while Apple’s Ask to Browse documentation does not specifically confirm Chrome compatibility.
For schools using Apple devices, I believe the sensible approach is to block Chrome by default, use Safari with appropriately configured safeguarding controls, and approve alternative browsers only when there is a clear educational need and their protections have been tested.
This is not about declaring one technology company safer than another. It is about choosing the simplest, most transparent and most manageable environment for the children in our care.
Ultimately, a familiar app name does not guarantee a safe experience. Schools need to understand which protections actually work, which depend on user accounts and which continue to operate when children are outside those accounts.
If we cannot confidently explain how a browser protects our students, should we really be allowing them to use it?
References and further reading
- Apple App Store – Google Chrome – Current age rating and content disclosures.
- Apple App Store – Safari – Age rating and privacy features.
- Apple Support – Ask to Browse – Requirements, approved websites and compatible browsers.
- Apple Support – Manage app exceptions – Parental approval for age-restricted applications.
- Google Support – Chrome and your child’s Google Account – The limitations of Family Link when children sign out of Chrome.
- Google Support – Devices supported by Family Link – Limitations on iPhone and iPad supervision.
- Apple Platform Deployment – Content filtering – Device-level filtering for Safari and third-party applications.
- Apple Platform Deployment – MDM settings – Managing applications and Safari on school devices.
Editorial note: Chrome’s compatibility with Ask to Browse has not been independently established through practical testing. The article deliberately distinguishes this uncertainty from confirmed security limitations.
