Apple and Google, among the planet’s leading technology corporations, maintain their stronghold within the UK’s digital landscape, raising worries from the nation’s primary competition authority. As per the regulator, the firm control these companies exert over mobile software platforms, application marketplaces, and internet browsers greatly restricts consumer options and hinders technological advancement.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been conducting a thorough investigation into the mobile technology industry. Their research indicates that Apple and Google’s control over essential digital infrastructure results in what can be described as a digital duopoly. Their influence is not limited to devices, as it also encompasses the key channels through which users and developers engage with the digital realm.
Mobile gadgets are now the main way people engage with internet content, applications, and services. In this market, Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android dominate as the leading smartphone operating systems in the UK. Although users theoretically can choose between these platforms, the CMA highlights that changing platforms can be both troublesome and expensive because the ecosystems aren’t compatible, and transferring information or adapting to a different system demands considerable effort.
Beyond the operating systems themselves, both companies also control their respective app marketplaces—Apple’s App Store and Google Play. These platforms act as gatekeepers for developers, who must comply with each company’s rules and revenue-sharing models in order to reach users. For consumers, this often means being locked into the apps and services approved and promoted by Apple and Google, with limited visibility or access to independent alternatives.
Additionally, each company bundles its proprietary web browsers—Safari for Apple and Chrome for Google—into their devices. Although other browsers can be downloaded, most users default to the pre-installed options. This default status gives Apple and Google a further competitive edge, reinforcing their control over how users experience the internet.
The CMA’s concerns revolve around how this level of market control restricts competition and innovation. Developers often face high fees—up to 30% in some cases—for distributing apps and offering in-app purchases. These fees can be prohibitive for smaller developers and startups, limiting their ability to compete or innovate.
From a consumer perspective, the regulator argues that limited competition leads to fewer choices, reduced functionality, and higher costs. For instance, alternative payment systems or app stores are difficult to implement or access on iPhones and Android devices. Consumers are therefore funneled into the ecosystems that Apple and Google design, with little room for alternatives to gain traction.
The CMA additionally observes that the predominance of the two technology titans lessens the incentive to enhance security, privacy, or product quality beyond what is essential to preserve their standing in the market. When users perceive themselves as tied to a platform, they may be less inclined to change—even if alternative choices present superior features or value.
The UK is not alone in scrutinizing the immense power held by Apple and Google. Similar concerns have been raised by regulators in the United States, European Union, and other regions. Antitrust investigations and legal battles are underway across several jurisdictions, many of which echo the CMA’s findings.
However, the UK’s regulatory approach has focused on establishing a pro-competition regime tailored specifically to digital markets. Rather than relying solely on existing antitrust laws—which can be slow and reactive—the CMA is proposing more proactive tools to address imbalances before they harm consumers and businesses.
One suggestion features establishing a Digital Markets Unit (DMU) with the authority to implement a fresh set of guidelines for leading digital platforms. This might entail requiring improved interoperability among platforms, lowering charges for app creators, or demanding increased clarity about app ranking and recommendation processes.
Apple y Google han reaccionado a estas presiones regulatorias defendiendo sus modelos de negocio y argumentando que sus plataformas proporcionan seguridad robusta, privacidad, y una buena experiencia de usuario. Apple, en especial, destaca su enfoque en la seguridad y el control de calidad en la App Store, mientras que Google resalta la flexibilidad y apertura del ecosistema Android.
Both firms also assert that their charges are typical throughout the sector and support ongoing investment in developer tools and resources. They claim their leading position is not due to unfair practices, but because they provide high-quality products that customers willingly select.
Nonetheless, critics argue that these justifications overlook the inherent advantages of being default providers and controlling both the hardware and software layers of the mobile experience. Even if their products are high-quality, the lack of viable alternatives suggests a need for regulatory oversight.
The CMA’s investigation is part of a broader effort to make the digital economy fairer, more open, and more competitive. With smartphones and digital services now embedded in daily life, the stakes are high. Ensuring that consumers have real choices—and that developers can reach audiences without prohibitive costs—requires more than market forces alone.
If authorities manage to reduce Apple’s and Google’s influence, it could lead to a more vibrant digital landscape in the UK. This change might allow for the emergence of new app marketplaces, web browsers, or payment solutions, providing users with options that cater more effectively to their preferences. Additionally, it could offer opportunities for smaller creators and startups to succeed, potentially disrupting the longstanding dominance of major tech firms.
While any regulatory changes are likely to face resistance and take time to implement, the direction is clear. Authorities are signaling that digital markets must be governed by rules that encourage competition, protect consumers, and ensure that innovation is not stifled by entrenched power.
The CMA’s persistent initiatives illustrate an increasing acknowledgment that the online realm needs to be held to the same standards of accountability and competitiveness as the tangible one. As the UK progresses, its strategy might become a blueprint for addressing Big Tech in the current era—striking a balance between innovation and equity, as well as consumer advantages and corporate duty.
