Apple and Google's Mobile 'Duopoly' Targeted by UK Regulators

[MacRumors]

Britain's competition regulator has today outlined sweeping proposals that could force Apple to fundamentally alter how it operates its App Store, Safari browser, and iOS ecosystem in the UK.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a detailed roadmap of potential interventions after proposing to designate both Apple and Google with "strategic market status" under new digital competition laws. The designation would give the CMA unprecedented powers to impose binding requirements on how Apple runs its mobile platform.

The CMA's immediate priorities include forcing Apple to allow app developers to "steer" users away from the App Store to complete purchases elsewhere, which would potentially undercut Apple's lucrative 30% commission model. The regulator also wants to require fairer, more transparent app review processes and prevent Apple from using data collected during app reviews to benefit its own services.

The CMA's most ambitious long-term goal involves breaking Apple's tight control over iOS by allowing alternative browser engines beyond WebKit and enabling better interoperability for digital wallets and connected devices like smartwatches.

"Apple and Google's mobile platforms hold an effective duopoly," said CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell, noting that 90-100% of UK mobile devices run on these platforms. The regulator estimates the UK app economy generates 1.5% of GDP and supports around 400,000 jobs.

Ultimately, the CMA believes that successful implementation could mean access to innovative digital wallets beyond Apple Pay, more capable third-party browsers, and potentially lower app prices as developers gain alternatives to Apple's payment systems.

Apple has already pushed back against the proposals, warning that they "would undermine the privacy and security protections that our users have come to expect, hamper our ability to innovate, and force us to give away our technology for free to foreign competitors."

The roadmap draws heavily on enforcement actions already underway in the EU and other jurisdictions. In the US, for example, a court recently forced Apple to allow app developers to include external payment links, leading companies like Spotify and Proton to announce price cuts of up to 30% for American users.

The CMA's phased approach aims to begin with app store reforms later this year, followed by more complex interventions around browser engines and device interoperability from 2026 onwards. However, some of the measures remain under review pending developments in US litigation and European enforcement.

The regulator has until October to finalize its strategic market status designations. In the meantime, it has invited stakeholders to submit feedback on the proposed intervention roadmap.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple and Google's Mobile 'Duopoly' Targeted by UK Regulators

 

[Ctrlos]

So in effect parity with the EU.

Makes sense to me.

 

[ds2000]

"Apple and Google's mobile platforms hold an effective duopoly," said CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell, noting that 90-100% of UK mobile devices run on these platforms. The regulator estimates the UK app economy generates 1.5% of GDP and supports around 400,000 jobs.

Do developers want another platform to port their apps to?
Do customers want a 3rd choice in OS?

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

Here we go again with now the new…drumroll…CMA VIPs!(lol)looking to make a name for themselves(smh). Well ultimately will just wind up hurting UK iPhone owners but the CMA heads will get their names in headlines and that’s all they care about.

 

[apparatchik]

The EU is a large important market Apple had to cater to, the UK, while relevant, is nowhere near.

I wonder if UK policy makers realize they can only push a company so much before it decides it’s just not worth it.

 

[drrich2]

If they can't complain about a monopoly, I guess a duopoly will do. Triopoly, anyone?

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

The EU is a large important market Apple had to cater to, the UK, while relevant, is nowhere near.

I wonder if UK policy makers realize they can only push a company so much before it decides it’s just not worth it.

They don’t care about the Uk consumer as long as they get their names out there the rest is irrelevant

 

[bayportbob]

They don’t care about the Uk consumer as long as they get their names out there the rest is irrelevant

https://archive.is/YmegZ

do not mess with my data security...

 

[surferfb]

Clicking through the article, the UK has this to say:

While Google allows sideloading and alternative app stores, we have heard that friction and warning screens discourage it in practice.

Maybe that’s because warning screens are needed? Let’s see what the experts say. This article has some fun quotes. Emphasis is mine.

Google is cleaning up Android. The longtime app free-for-all is coming to an end, with a Play Store cull and tightening of restrictions around sideloading now hitting users, and Play Protect soon to be enhanced with Android 15’s live threat detection. All this is intended to close the gap to iOS and the locked down iPhone ecosystem.

The advice is simple. No to third-party stores, and a bigger no to mods for popular apps from unofficial sources.

The good news for Android users sticking rigidly to Play Store, though, is that unsurprisingly the risks are exponentially increased when sideloading. Little surprise then that Google, Samsung and others are finally clamping down on third-party app store access and direct installs

“Our research,” Zimperium says, “indicates that globally, users who engage in sideloading are 200% more likely to have malware running on their devices than those who do not. In fact, sideloading is a great contributor to malware risk; in 8.3% of cases where malware was detected, the source can be traced back to a sideloaded application

We should absolutely not be letting regulators who think encryption backdoors are a good idea, or that Apple can create backdoors “that only the good guys can use” be setting iOS security policy.

 

[Poisednoise]

I appreciate everything being managed in one place including updates etc. Where possible apps with a subscription model (news etc) I will subscribe to through the app store, even though I recognise that’s not such a good deal for the app creator. MS continually demanding a chance to update the 365 apps on my mac drives me crazy. Keep it as it is please.

 

[neuropsychguy]

When you can't go after a monopoly, go after a duopoly, triopoloy, *opoly.

--Edit--

Just saw that drrich2 made a similar comment.

--End edit--

One problem with actions like this is the fact that most developers do not pay a 30% commission (not sure if "undercut Apple's lucrative 30% commission model" is purely Macrumor's wording or borrowed from the CMA). Would developers want to pay lower commissions? Most would.

However, what if Apple increases developer fees to compensate (not saying Apple should)? Or, what if Apple raises hardware prices or other service prices to compensate (Apple is more likely to do that)?

I'm all for appropriate government regulation, but I am more than a little leery of governments wanting more control over private tech companies in a way that fundamentally changes significant aspects of the companies. Also, the UK isn't exactly leading the efforts to promote privacy so it's difficult to know how much of this is driven by promoting consumer rights and competition through a light touch of regulation or how much is simply a push towards governmental control of private business.

What governments could do is work on encouraging more technology innovation by promoting policies that lead to it. This can come through public research funding of the technology sciences. It comes through defense spending. There is a reason both iOS and Android are U.S.-developed. There is not room to go into all the policies that encourage or suppress tech innovation in different countries, but it's time for other countries to implement more tech-positive policies. There are many ways to encourage new companies to make competing technology products, even new smartphones and mobile OSes. This regulatory action in the UK isn't effective. If anything it likely suppresses tech innovation.

 

[HQuest]

Shame on Microsoft for their monopoly on PC browser clients.
Shame on Microsoft for their monopoly with messaging and collaboration tools. Shame on them.
Shame on Microsoft for pulling back from the mobile market and now Apple and Google have just a duopoly.

When in doubt, blame Microsoft.

 

[HQuest]

What governments could do is work on encouraging more competition by encouraging companies to make competing smartphones and mobile OSes.

Do the users want competing smartphones and mobile OSes? Most I know are stuck on the ones they use and mostly unwilling to switch even in between the two, so adding a third one for niche markets might be a very costly way to make governments happy.

 

[DougieS]

Do developers want another platform to port their apps to?
Do customers want a 3rd choice in OS?

Considering some devs only develop for iOS and vice versa, no and no.

We should be able to counter complain about the monopoly of a single UK Government and no choice between public services and utilities.

 

[bodhisattva]

If they can't complain about a monopoly, I guess a duopoly will do. Triopoly, anyone?

And when days truly grow dark.... the Quad and Pentopoly. The end days are soon after! smh It's almost a comedy at this point if it weren't so sad to watch it all unfold.

 

[bodhisattva]

When you can't go after a monopoly, go after a duopoly, triopoloy, *opoly.

One problem with actions like this is the fact that most developers do not pay a 30% commission (not sure if "undercut Apple's lucrative 30% commission model" is purely Macrumor's wording or borrowed from the CMA). Would developers want to pay lower commissions? Most would.

However, what if Apple increases developer fees to compensate (not saying Apple should)? Or, what if Apple raises hardware prices or other service prices to compensate (Apple is more likely to do that)?

I'm all for appropriate government regulation, but I am more than a little leery of governments wanting more control over private tech companies in a way that fundamentally changes significant aspects of the companies. Also, the UK isn't exactly leading the efforts to promote privacy so it's difficult to know how much of this is driven by promoting consumer rights and competition through a light touch of regulation or how much is simply a push towards governmental control of private business.

What governments could do is work on encouraging more competition by encouraging companies to make competing smartphones and mobile OSes.

And what truly is the message behind all this? If I make something great and the entire world loves it, guess that means I have to break it apart, sell of pieces, share trade secrets and make sure someone else can run with my ideas and technology. Do everything, spend time and money to become the select few best but then be reprimanded because the entire world now wants what you sell. Sounds legit <sarcasm>

 

[neuropsychguy]

Do the users want competing smartphones and mobile OSes? Most I know are stuck on the ones they use and mostly unwilling to switch even in between the two, so adding a third one for niche markets might be a very costly way to make governments happy.

Look at what happened with web search engines. Did people want to use something other than Google? Most people did not but there were options. That's changing now that LLMs are becoming more popular. Traditional search engines are shedding users/searches as people switch to tools like ChatGPT.

Such competition is harder when hardware (pun intended) is involved, but forcing companies to do something some people in government want is not the only approach or even the best approach.

 

[gco212]

When you can't go after a monopoly, go after a duopoly, triopoloy, *opoly.

One problem with actions like this is the fact that most developers do not pay a 30% commission (not sure if "undercut Apple's lucrative 30% commission model" is purely Macrumor's wording or borrowed from the CMA). Would developers want to pay lower commissions? Most would.

However, what if Apple increases developer fees to compensate (not saying Apple should)? Or, what if Apple raises hardware prices or other service prices to compensate (Apple is more likely to do that)?

I'm all for appropriate government regulation, but I am more than a little leery of governments wanting more control over private tech companies in a way that fundamentally changes significant aspects of the companies. Also, the UK isn't exactly leading the efforts to promote privacy so it's difficult to know how much of this is driven by promoting consumer rights and competition through a light touch of regulation or how much is simply a push towards governmental control of private business.

What governments could do is work on encouraging more competition by encouraging companies to make competing smartphones and mobile OSes.

The answers to most of your questions are the exact reasons people want these regulations. It goes completely counter to the point you think you’re making.

“However, what if Apple increases developer fees to compensate?” The answer to that is, why do you assume Apple would realistically be able to raise the rates. Right now, the rates are arbitrarily set by Apple fiat. There is no competition and no reason for the price besides it being what Apple chose. When competition enters the markets, prices go down. It makes it harder for Apple to continue its randomly high price, it doesn’t give Apple any reason to raise prices that they don’t already have.

 

[page3]

I wouldn't be concerned. This is the UK government. They'll have u-turned by tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Siliconguy]

Do developers want another platform to port their apps to?
Do customers want a 3rd choice in OS?

KaiOS is the only other option I can think of. I'm not sure it works on anything other than a flip phone.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Another region utterly incapable of building their own tech (and having had their prior tech companies forced out of the region when they were in the EU) are surprised that they depend on tech companies from outside the region. And, again, instead of enacting measures to fund the creation of tech companies that, in the end, would put them in control of their own tech future, they instead want to simply privatize what’s not even theirs to start with.

Is India the only region that recognizes that, even though it will take some time to do, investing in your own company’s technology future is the best way to ensure your region HAS a technology future? There will be false starts, there will be missteps, BUT having something is better than having nothing. If you’re lucky, your country hits upon the thing that becomes the NEXT big thing instead of waiting for someone else to do it and then regulate it (and that’s only if they decide to release that thing in your country).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

leading companies like Spotify and Proton to announce price cuts of up to 30% for American users.

“of up to” I mean, if no one offers a 30% price cut, is it really of up to 30%? I mean, I could say they’re offering price cuts of up to 90% and 20% IS on the way to 90%.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

noting that 90-100% of UK mobile devices run on these platforms.

If it’s 100%, then it’s 100%. All of them. And, if they have enough information to know it’s not all of them, then it’s not 100%. 90-99%, definitely likely. 90-100%, maybe British math works differently. The flag IS a plus sign on a multiplication sign…

 

[drrich2]

When competition enters the markets, prices go down.

If the competition were bringing a capable alternative platform, etc..., maybe so (although if Windows Phone had succeeded, I question if prices would be substantially lower today). The problem is 3rd parties basically riding on the coat tails of Apple and Google's platforms.

It's not like UGreen's relatively new NAS line competing with Synology's much older 'tried and true' (now pushing to limit what hard drives you use) platform.

Clicking through the article, the UK has this to say:


Maybe that’s because warning screens are needed?

And we already have a long-standing equivalent of that 'friction and warning screens to discourage it in practice.' If you buy a printer and balk at the cost of the manufacturer's ink or toner replacements, and consider those cheaper 3rd party options, you're likely going to see the printer manufacturer documentation advise you to use 'genuine <insert brand name> cartridges.' Buy a car, and don't be surprised when they push the dealership's auto-mechanical services and recommend 'genuine <insert brand name> parts.'

Manufacturers like to create that FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about cheaper 3rd party alternatives, and like you pointed out from your sources...sometimes there's legit reason for that.

Some users have adequate sophistication in a given area to pursue 'off site' sources for app.s, etc..., and some users would be well-served sticking to the 'walled garden' app. stores.

I was surprised dealing with trying to get a Brother printer driver onto our kid's Windows PC laptop when I had to opt out of exclusively using Microsoft's app. store for app.s. I was surprised because it was Microsoft 'pulling an Apple' tactic. Silly to me, but my relatively PC-unsophisticated kid probably ought not to be side-loading.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

I wouldn't be concerned. This is the UK government. They'll have u-turned by tomorrow afternoon.

I guess you are right. If this were any other country/union then would have 200 comments by now.