A research group set up by Britain's antitrust regulator has tentatively found that Apple's policies are “stymieing innovation in the browsers used to access the web on mobile phones.”
While the report focuses substantially on Apple, it also focuses on its revenue-sharing agreement with Google, as both companies “receive significant revenue” from the use of Google Chrome on iOS. It points out that the “economic incentives to compete” will be reduced.
The announcement comes after the US Department of Justice (DoJ) said Google should sell its Chrome browser after a judge ruled in August that the internet giant had an illegal monopoly on online search. It took place in the same week.
Today's discovery has been obtained for a long time. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a market study in 2021 examining Apple and Google's mobile advantages, including their respective app stores and browser practices and policies. The following year, regulators acknowledged launching a formal antitrust investigation into the Android and iOS “mobile duopoly” focused on browsers and cloud gaming, arguing at the time that they restricted competition and harmed consumers. He expressed concern that this could lead to harm.
The CMA announced on Friday that it would not proceed with its investigation into cloud gaming because changes Apple had already made “were likely to have a positive impact on competition in this market,” the report said.
However, many other complaints remain. The CMA said Apple is forcing competing mobile browsers in the UK to use Apple's Webkit browser engine, limiting the functionality of those browsers and stifling their ability to differentiate. Additionally, browsers using WebKit are not given the same level of access and functionality as Apple's Safari, which “has a negative impact on competition and innovation.” This includes limiting how third-party apps can take advantage of so-called “in-app browsing” (meaning accessing the open web from within native iOS apps).
“Apple's restrictions limit the traffic available to challenger browsers for this type of browsing, and also limit the extent to which apps can customize users' browsing experiences, as companies with millions of users like Meta would like. We tentatively found that “We have preliminary found that this will limit competition and choice in terms of options available to app developers to offer in-app browsing.”
An Apple spokesperson said the company disagrees with the findings and that any changes could ultimately “compromise user privacy and security.” A spokesperson said:
“At Apple, we believe in vibrant markets where innovation can thrive. We face competition in every sector and jurisdiction in which we operate, and our focus is always on user trust. , we disagree with the report's findings regarding in-app browsing on Safari, WebKit, and iOS.We do not agree with the findings of the report regarding in-app browsing on Safari, WebKit, and iOS. Apple's privacy and security We are concerned that this may impede our ability to develop technology that makes us stand out. We will continue to engage constructively with the CMA as its work on this issue progresses.”
It's a common refrain that Apple has often used in other similar complaints against it, including one filed in the U.S. earlier this year accusing the company of structuring its privacy and security practices to benefit financially. This includes a major lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DoJ). .
“Android's openness has helped expand choice, lower prices, and democratize access to smartphones and apps,” a Google spokesperson said. “We will continue to work with the CMA on these issues in the coming months. We will continue to engage constructively.”
The bottom line is that nothing really changes for now. However, the report says the CMA should use the UK's Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which is due to come into force next year, to tackle these practices.
For now, the CMA is seeking further comment on its preliminary findings and said it expects to make a final decision by March 2025.