The simultaneous investigations undertaken by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) into Apple and Google’s mobile platforms represent a significant step undertaken in the Digital markets Consumer and Competition Act (DMCCA) era. While both companies face proposed Strategic Market Status (SMS) designation, their fundamentally different business models and competitive strategies have produced distinct regulatory challenges and stakeholder responses that illuminate the complexity of platform power in the digital economy.
By Anush Ganesh
Comparative Platform Architectures: Integration vs. Openness
The CMA’s investigations revealed two fundamentally different approaches to platform control that achieve similar competitive outcomes through contrasting technical and business strategies.
Apple’s Integrated Ecosystem Control
Apple operates through vertical integration across the entire technology stack, controlling hardware design, operating systems, app distribution, browser functionality, and payment processing. The CMA found that the company generates revenue primarily from device sales rather than advertising, commanding 50-60% of UK mobile devices through what investigators characterized as substantial and entrenched market power stable over eight years.
Apple’s App Store commission structure affects only 10% of total app ecosystem billings according to Apple’s data, yet generates substantial revenues while creating powerful incentives for developers to work within rather than around platform restrictions.
Google’s Open-source design with Strategic Control Points
Google maintains platform power through apparently open architecture with strategic leverage points. Android’s open-source foundation enables device customization and alternative app distribution, yet Google controls through Play Services, search defaults, and advertising integration.
The CMA found Google commands 40-50% of UK mobile devices within what investigators termed a stable duopoly. Google’s advertising-dependent revenue model creates competitive incentives around user engagement and data access rather than device sales.
Google’s defense emphasized how two-thirds of Android devices come with multiple app stores pre-installed, users can easily sideload applications, and 34 different browsers operate using Google’s open-source tools (Google Response, pages 25-28).
Defense Strategies: Apple’s Privacy vs. Google’s Competitiveness
Apple’s Privacy-Focused Defense
Apple’s 56-page response transformed competitive restrictions into consumer benefits, arguing integrated control enables superior privacy, security, and user experience (Apple Response, page 2). Apple claimed regulatory interventions expose consumers to significantly increased risk of fraud and scams, misleading pricing, and privacy invasions while undermining Apple’s stringent security and privacy measures (Apple Response, pages 4-5).
Apple challenged switching cost findings, citing evidence that 65% of users who switched to or from iPhone encountered no barriers, arguing high retention reflected satisfaction rather than competitive barriers (Apple Response, page 28).
Google’s Open Competition Defense
Google’s 36-page response emphasized intense Apple competition and Android’s open architecture as evidence of competitive markets. Google argued Apple, not Android, is winning the competition for users with Apple maintaining higher share than Android in every year since 2017 (Google Response, page 6).
Google quantified (most of the data in pages 11 and 12 is redacted) switching impact, calculating that if a user switches from Android to iOS, Google loses considerable revenues each year over ten years, suggesting strong competitive incentives (Google Response, pages 10-15).
Comprehensive Stakeholder Response Analysis
The consultation responses revealed different patterns of stakeholder support that reflect the distinct impacts of each platform’s control mechanisms while demonstrating broad consensus about the need for regulatory intervention.
Apple Consultation
Apple faced remarkable consensus with 20 of 23 stakeholders (87%) supporting SMS designation. Technology companies documented specific technical restrictions preventing innovation, with Mozilla detailing how WebKit requirements delayed Firefox iOS development by seven years while preventing Web Bluetooth and comprehensive extension support. Vivaldi documented inability to provide advanced browser features due to engine restrictions, while Open Web Advocacy provided comprehensive analysis of how Web Apps face systematic discrimination compared to native applications. Stakeholders across multiple sectors documented quantified economic harm, with Spotify emphasizing regulatory evasion strategies and payment system restrictions affecting content distribution. An Anonymous Financial Services Firm documented structural barriers in digital wallet competition, arguing Apple Wallet dominance creates insurmountable competitive barriers, while Travel/Technology Company highlighted opaque app review processes lacking transparency and creating developer uncertainty.
Several stakeholders focused on how current restrictions extend into emerging technology areas. An Anonymous Digital Identity Provider documented how Apple bundles identity and wallet services at the operating system level, foreclosing third-party providers through technical integration. Radiocentre provided forward-looking analysis of voice assistant and AI integration, predicting current restrictions could extend into AI-mediated interactions. Industry associations revealed polarized views, with Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) opposing SMS designation, arguing the CMA set an unnecessarily high bar for dynamic competition while claiming consumers are broadly satisfied with current ecosystems. Coalition for App Fairness strongly supported designation, describing Apple as operating stable and highly profitable parallel monopolies with Google and claiming potential £10 billion in savings for UK developers and consumers.
Additional responses highlighted sector-specific competitive problems. The Coalition for Online Data Empowerment (CODE) focused specifically on browser extension restrictions, documenting how Apple’s WebKit requirement prevents browser extensions from functioning properly. Consumer Choice Center opposed designation from a consumer welfare perspective, arguing high barriers reflect natural technological evolution rather than anticompetitive behavior. DMG Media (Daily Mail) provided extensive evidence of Apple’s self-preferencing in content distribution, documenting Apple’s arbitrary refusal to admit Daily Mail to Apple News despite revenue growth and detailed analysis of revenue losses (53% decline, £2.5M) from Apple’s App Tracking Transparency, arguing Apple’s privacy features constitute anticompetitive self-preferencing rather than legitimate consumer protection.
Epic Games provided the most detailed technical analysis drawing from ongoing litigation, documenting specific restrictions including banned sideloading, alternative app stores, and payment systems, emphasizing how Apple’s restrictions create insurmountable barriers to new platforms. Academic organizations provided sophisticated economic critiques, with International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) arguing Apple-Google competition represents dynamic rivalry rather than static duopoly, pointing to switching rates and data portability as evidence of competition. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) supported designation with caveats, agreeing Apple has substantial market power while warning against heavy-handed intervention. The Japan Association of New Economy (JANE) strongly supported designation while calling for robust international coordination.
Google Consultation
Google received substantial but less unanimous support with 13 of 18 stakeholders (72%) supporting designation while 4 organizations opposed it, reflecting more complex competitive dynamics around Android’s open architecture. Stakeholders demonstrated sophisticated understanding of how Google maintains control through apparently open systems. Epic Games provided comprehensive documentation of app distribution barriers despite Android’s sideloading capabilities, detailing ‘Project Hug’ spending of hundreds of millions to prevent app store competition. The Coalition for Online Data Empowerment focused on browser extension restrictions that create business barriers despite Chrome’s apparent openness. DMG Media documented Apple’s self-preferencing in news services while noting similar concerns about Google’s platform control.
Mobile UK supported the SMS designation while emphasizing that network connectivity functionality should also feature in Google’s digital activities. Innovate Finance provided analysis of how mobile platforms become central command centers for financial services, emphasizing the strategic importance of platform access for fintech innovation. An Anonymous Digital Identity Provider documented similar bundling concerns across both platforms, highlighting systematic foreclosure of third-party identity services. The consultation revealed that while Google’s open-source design attracted more academic defenders who argued Android’s technical openness provides meaningful competition, companies dependent on the platform consistently documented barriers to meaningful competitive alternatives despite the apparent architectural differences from Apple’s closed system.
Comparative Platform Dynamics and Regulatory Implications
Cross-Platform Stakeholder Analysis
The parallel investigations revealed fundamentally different control mechanisms achieving similar competitive outcomes through contrasting strategies. Both investigations uncovered market segmentation that reduces direct competitive pressure, with Google dominating smartphones under £300 (100% share) while Apple commands 71% over £300. Among Android users, 76% didn’t consider switching primarily due to cost, with 51% citing iPhones as too expensive. Among iOS users, 85% didn’t consider switching, suggesting different retention mechanisms across platforms. The Google-Apple Information Services Agreement, worth £1-3 billion annually in the UK, fundamentally alters competitive incentives by ensuring Google benefits regardless of user platform choice while reducing Apple’s search competition incentives.
Organizations that responded to both consultations reveal consistent patterns in support for both Designations from Which? (consumer advocacy emphasizing implementation urgency), Mozilla (browser competition barriers across both platforms), Radiocentre (voice assistant and AI integration concerns), Mobile UK (infrastructure and connectivity requirements), and Digital Identity Provider (platform bundling across both ecosystems). Consistent Opposition came from CCIA (dynamic competition arguments across both platforms) and Consumer Choice Center (consumer welfare and market satisfaction claims).
Platform-Specific Technical Concerns included Epic Games providing more detailed documentation on Apple restrictions while also documenting Google’s ‘Project Hug,’ and DMG Media focusing on Apple News discrimination while noting broader platform control issues. The analysis reveals that while Google’s open architecture attracted more sophisticated academic opposition, Apple’s integrated approach faced more uniform stakeholder criticism across industry sectors, suggesting both platforms require comprehensive but differentiated regulatory responses.
Cross-Platform Control Mechanisms
Despite architectural differences, both platforms achieve similar competitive barriers across key sectors. In browser competition, Apple’s WebKit requirement prevents feature differentiation while stakeholder Mozilla documented seven-year Firefox delays and prevented Web Bluetooth implementation. Google maintains Chrome dominance through defaults and system integration despite technical choice availability, with stakeholders noting how pre-installation and prominent placement create systematic advantages independent browsers cannot overcome. App distribution follows similar patterns with Apple requiring App Store distribution maintaining comprehensive developer control, while Google allows alternatives but maintains Play Store dominance through what Epic Games detailed as ‘Project Hug’ spending hundreds of millions preventing app store competition through technical barriers and friction mechanisms.
Both platforms extend control into financial services through different integration strategies. Apple controls NFC access and secure element functionality creating barriers for alternative wallet services while privileging Apple Pay integration, with Financial Services Firm documenting structural barriers preventing meaningful wallet competition. Google maintains wallet advantages through Android system integration and account linking while technically allowing alternative services, leading Innovate Finance to analyse how mobile platforms become central command centers for financial services, emphasizing strategic platform access importance for fintech innovation.
Future Technology and AI Integration
Both platforms face similar AI integration opportunities with different strategic approaches that could amplify existing competitive advantages. Apple emphasizes on-device processing through custom silicon potentially strengthening hardware-software integration advantages, while Google leverages cloud-based AI and data advantages potentially strengthening search and advertising integration. Stakeholder responses emphasized AI-aware regulatory design needs, with Radiocentre highlighting how AI-enhanced voice assistants could fundamentally alter device interaction, potentially allowing platforms to intermediate all digital interactions. Multiple stakeholders predicted AI integration could amplify rather than reduce platform control effects, making immediate regulatory intervention crucial before technological development further entrenches market power through new mechanisms.
International Regulatory Context and Implementation
Both companies face similar international regulatory pressures with different compliance strategies that highlight the complexity of global platform regulation. Stakeholders cited Apple’s malicious compliance with EU DMA requirements, implementing technical solutions satisfying regulatory requirements while maintaining competitive barriers through alternative mechanisms. Epic Games provided detailed litigation updates showing platform resistance to meaningful competitive change across jurisdictions. Google’s open architecture complicates enforcement while maintaining control through integration advantages, creating more subtle compliance challenges where technical openness masks continued competitive control.
The overwhelming stakeholder support across both consultations (87% for Apple, 72% for Google) provides strong foundation for regulatory intervention while highlighting different technical challenges each platform presents. The fundamental divide between companies dependent on platforms who documented clear competitive harm and academic organizations focused on broader economic theory reflects deeper questions about regulating platforms providing genuine consumer benefits while maintaining systematic competitive barriers. Japan Association of New Economy emphasized UK regulatory decisions’ significance beyond British market boundaries, viewing UK SMS designations as potentially setting global precedents for platform regulation while calling for robust international coordination.
The expected October 2025 SMS designations will mark comprehensive platform regulation addressing complex digital market competition realities. The comparative analysis demonstrates platform power operating as fundamental digital infrastructure affecting broad economic activity across multiple sectors, from browser competition to financial services to emerging AI technologies. Both platforms exercise control extending far beyond traditional technology markets into essential economic infrastructure shaping innovation patterns and competitive outcomes across the digital economy, requiring sophisticated regulatory responses that address varying control mechanisms while maintaining consistent competitive principles.
Conclusion: Toward Comprehensive Platform Regulation
The parallel investigations into Apple and Google’s mobile platforms reveal how both companies achieve similar competitive outcomes through fundamentally different strategies, with stakeholders demonstrating broad consensus (87% for Apple, 72% for Google) about the need for comprehensive regulatory intervention. The divide between companies dependent on these platforms who documented clear competitive harm and academic organizations worried about regulatory overreach reflects deeper questions about regulating platforms that provide genuine consumer benefits while maintaining systematic competitive barriers. Multiple stakeholders, including Radiocentre and Innovate Finance, emphasized that AI integration could amplify rather than reduce platform control effects, making immediate intervention crucial before technological development further entrenches market power.
The investigations demonstrate how platform power operates as fundamental digital infrastructure affecting broad economic activity across multiple sectors, from browser competition to financial services to emerging AI technologies. The CMA’s expected October 2025 Strategic Market Status designations will mark the beginning of comprehensive platform regulation addressing complex digital market competition realities, with UK decisions potentially setting global precedents for platform regulation while requiring sophisticated responses that address varying control mechanisms across Apple’s integrated approach and Google’s open architecture.
If you do not want to miss any of our future blog posts, you can subscribe to the SCiDA-Newsletter here.
