UK Regulator Is Wrong About Apple and Google

August 1, 2025

In July 2025, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) proposed sweeping reforms targeting Apple and Google, accusing them of maintaining an “effective duopoly” over the mobile ecosystem. The regulator’s plan includes designating both companies with “Strategic Market Status,” a label that would grant the CMA unprecedented powers to impose conduct requirements on their operations. While the CMA’s intentions may stem from a desire to foster competition and innovation, its approach is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions and its potential consequences.

The CMA’s central claim is that Apple and Google dominate the UK mobile market, with 90–100% of smartphones running on iOS or Android. While this is technically accurate, it oversimplifies the nature of competition in the digital economy. The mobile operating system market is not a standalone system because it is deeply intertwined with hardware, software, services, and user experience. Apple and Google have succeeded not by suppressing competition, but by offering integrated, user-friendly platforms that consumers prefer. Microsoft used to be a player in this market but failed because the hardware and software were simply awful.

The CMA seems to overlook the fact that consumers are not locked into either of these ecosystems. Switching between Android and iOS is easier than ever with data migration tools employed to reduce the friction. The real competition is not just between Apple and Google but among the thousands of developers, hardware manufacturers, and service providers that operate within and across these platforms.

One of the CMA’s key proposals is to force Apple to allow alternative browser engines on iOS and to open its payment systems to third parties. While this may sound like a win for competition, it risks undermining the very features that make Apple’s ecosystem appealing to its users. Namely privacy, security, and seamless integration between all devices.

Apple’s use of WebKit for all iOS browsers, for instance, is not an arbitrary restriction—it’s a deliberate design choice to ensure consistent performance and security across apps. Similarly, Apple Pay’s tight integration with the hardware and operating system provides a level of security and convenience that third-party solutions struggle to match. Forcing Apple to open these systems could expose users to greater risks and degrade the overall user experience.

The CMA also criticises the 30% commission Apple and Google charge on in-app purchases, framing it as an unfair tax on developers. But this narrative ignores the value these platforms provide. App stores offer global distribution, secure payment processing, fraud prevention, customer support, and marketing tools. They all cost money to maintain, and developers benefit enormously from the infrastructure offered by these platforms. Furthermore, both Apple and Google have already introduced lower commission rates for small developers and subscription-based apps. The market is evolving in response to developer feedback and regulatory pressure, but heavy-handed intervention risks distorting incentives and stifling innovation.

The CMA’s proposals mirror similar efforts in the EU and the US, where regulators have pushed for greater openness in digital markets. However, these efforts have produced mixed results. In the US, for example, a court ruling forced Apple to allow external payment links in apps; however, the impact has been limited, with few developers choosing to bypass Apple’s system due to the added complexity and security concerns.

By rushing to impose its own version of digital regulation, the UK risks creating a fragmented regulatory landscape that burdens developers and confuses consumers. Instead of harmonising with international standards, the CMA appears intent on setting its own rules. These rules may ultimately harm the very ecosystem it seeks to protect.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the CMA’s approach is its potential to backfire. By forcing Apple and Google to open their platforms, the regulator could inadvertently weaken user privacy and increase security vulnerabilities, thus reducing the quality of their digital services. Consumers may face a flood of low-quality apps with inconsistent user experiences, leading to a greater exposure to scams and malware.

Additionally, the CMA’s interventions could discourage investment in the UK tech sector. If global companies perceive the UK as a hostile regulatory environment, they may scale back operations. This would be a loss not just for Apple and Google, but for UK consumers and developers.

Rather than imposing rigid mandates, the CMA should focus on fostering transparency by encouraging voluntary standards and supporting developer choice. Apple and Google should be held accountable for anti-competitive behaviour, but regulation must be proportionate and evidence-based.

The mobile ecosystem is not perfect, but it is dynamic and constantly evolving. Heavy-handed regulation risks halting that evolution in place, replacing market-driven innovation with ridiculous bureaucratic control. The vision of a more open digital future is admirable, but its current strategy is misguided.