Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

UK says Apple stifles browser innovation, but chickens out of imposing regulation

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority wants Apple to allow rivals like Facebook to offer browsers on iPhone, but passes the buck on doing anything about it.

Back in November 2024, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the UK released a preliminary report saying that Apple blocks developers' ability to offer innovation in the browser market. Apple responded by saying the CMA was giving too much weight to the self-interest arguments from its rivals.

Now the CMA has released its full report which chiefly ignores Apple's position on browsing. The CMA's original investigation was also into the area of cloud gaming, but the regulator says Apple's recent rule changes have satisfied its concerns.

Apple has also changed its position on Progressive Web Apps, but in this case the CMA claims the company still blocks or limits them.

Overall, the CMA's findings concentrate on Apple's requirement for all third-party browsers to use WebKit — although that is no longer true within the EU. The CMA's conclusion is that rival browsers should have access to the same technology as Apple creates for its Safari browser, and specifically that users are being denied the innovation those rivals would bring.

"Meta told us that it wants to build an in-app browser using its own browser engine on iOS that it could customise completely to create in-app browsing experiences," says the report. "According to Meta, this would allow it to develop new features that could improve user experience, security and performance."

A Meta browser within Facebook, however, would circumvent all of Apple's privacy controls. These are the controls that when introduced in 2022, protect user privacy to such a degree that Facebook took a $10 billion revenue hit.

It's particularly concerning that the CMA took this at face value because of what else the report says about browsing. "Whether they know it or not, consumers also access a significant amount of internet content through 'in-app browsers'," it says.

"While their presence is unknown to most consumers," says the CMA, "browser engines largely determine how fast and smoothly a browser runs, the levels of privacy the user has and the degree of security from malicious attacks while doing so."

So the CMA is conscious that browsers require security, and also that users will not necessarily know when an in-app browser circumvents Apple's privacy rules and exposes their private data. But it still accepts the claim that Meta only wants to innovate for the benefit of its users.

The CMA also accepts Microsoft, Mozilla, and Vivaldi's claims that they want to offer additional security and privacy features that WebKit blocks.

"We accept [Apple's position] that the current restriction does reduce the risk of third-party browsers on iOS using outdated, vulnerable engines or implementing insecure new features," says the report. "However, we consider that the risks could be managed in other ways which would not involve a complete ban on other browser engines as is currently the case, eg by Apple imposing minimum security standards on mobile browsers using browser engines other than WebKit."

The CMA's report does offer similar criticisms of Google, but references Apple roughly twice as much. ("Apple" is mentioned 87 times compared to 47 for "Google." Then "iOS" gets 48 mentions while "Android" gets 26.)

So the report is chiefly focused on how Apple is allegedly blocking innovation, and consequently it has some forceful conclusions. But the CMA is also not going to do anything about this, at least not at present and not in the regulator's current form.

What happens next?

Nothing happens next. According to the CMA's own timetable, this final report on March 12, 2025, was to be followed by the statutory deadline of March 16, but no regulations will now be made at all.

This is because the CMA says that "we concluded that if implemented through the remedy-making powers available to us in this market investigation, there would be a number of significant risks to the effectiveness of these measures."

The report does not say what those risks are. It says instead that while its investigation was ongoing, the CMA itself was granted new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

These are the new powers that allow the CMA "to designate firms as having 'strategic market status' (SMS)... and impose forward-looking requirements to guide [their] conduct." These powers came into effect on January 1, 2025, and as part of that, the CMA is now investigating whether it can call Apple or Google an SMS firm.

So this report by the CMA has recommendations for what Apple should be forced to do, but is kicking that decision down the road.

The CMA is actually waiting on the CMA.

4 Comments

9secondkox2 9 Years · 3283 comments

It’s not chickening out. 

It’s doing the right thing. 

For once. 

In this case, the EU doing nothing is doing the right thing. 

The whole DMA fiasco needs to be reversed ASAP. 

1 Like · 0 Dislikes
avon b7 21 Years · 8185 comments

It’s not chickening out. 
It’s doing the right thing. 

For once. 

In this case, the EU doing nothing is doing the right thing. 

The whole DMA fiasco needs to be reversed ASAP. 

This isn't about the EU or the DMA. 

1 Like · 1 Dislike
anonymouse 16 Years · 7041 comments

avon b7 said:
It’s not chickening out. 
It’s doing the right thing. 

For once. 

In this case, the EU doing nothing is doing the right thing. 

The whole DMA fiasco needs to be reversed ASAP. 
This isn't about the EU or the DMA. 

Sure it is, the UK is just copycatting the EU on these issues.

But, it's hard not to see corrupt intent here from the UK "regulators" when they blithely accept, against all objective evidence, the word of Meta, et al. that they are being prevented from doing good for consumers by "not being allowed to innovate" with browser technology. First of all, consumers don't need (or probably want, if they were to actually think about it) innovation in rendering engines (HTML/CSS/DOM/Javascript). "Innovation" in rendering engines serves only one purpose and that purpose is anticompetitive — user and developer lock-in to a specific rendering engine. And, no, that is not what Apple is doing with WebKit, they follow standards and don't add "features" that make websites incompatible with other browsers. Secondly, the facile representation by these companies that they are in any way interested in improving the user experience is laughable; they are interested in improving their own experience in monetizing users, period. So, how do we explain this attack on user privacy, in both the EU and the UK, that is cloaked in terms like "competition" and "fairness" but seems to have no purpose other than to destroy privacy and pervert the concept of fairness?

The regulators in the UK, like those in the EU, are either so ignorant of these issues that they have no business regulating anything or they are so corrupt that they view their job as selling "regulation" to the highest bidder. Personally, I think it's a combination of both. But, the UK in particular have a track record of being anti-privacy in all regards, and the EU has a track record of hobbling US companies to benefit EU companies. It's not surprising that they are engaged in these blatant attempts to undermine privacy and competition, but it is particularly hypocritical of them to pretend they are doing the opposite.

1 Like · 1 Dislike
davidw 18 Years · 2144 comments

avon b7 said:
It’s not chickening out. 
It’s doing the right thing. 

For once. 

In this case, the EU doing nothing is doing the right thing. 

The whole DMA fiasco needs to be reversed ASAP. 
This isn't about the EU or the DMA. 
Sure it is, the UK is just copycatting the EU on these issues.

But, it's hard not to see corrupt intent here from the UK "regulators" when they blithely accept, against all objective evidence, the word of Meta, et al. that they are being prevented from doing good for consumers by "not being allowed to innovate" with browser technology. First of all, consumers don't need (or probably want, if they were to actually think about it) innovation in rendering engines (HTML/CSS/DOM/Javascript). "Innovation" in rendering engines serves only one purpose and that purpose is anticompetitive — user and developer lock-in to a specific rendering engine. And, no, that is not what Apple is doing with WebKit, they follow standards and don't add "features" that make websites incompatible with other browsers. Secondly, the facile representation by these companies that they are in any way interested in improving the user experience is laughable; they are interested in improving their own experience in monetizing users, period. So, how do we explain this attack on user privacy, in both the EU and the UK, that is cloaked in terms like "competition" and "fairness" but seems to have no purpose other than to destroy privacy and pervert the concept of fairness?

The regulators in the UK, like those in the EU, are either so ignorant of these issues that they have no business regulating anything or they are so corrupt that they view their job as selling "regulation" to the highest bidder. Personally, I think it's a combination of both. But, the UK in particular have a track record of being anti-privacy in all regards, and the EU has a track record of hobbling US companies to benefit EU companies. It's not surprising that they are engaged in these blatant attempts to undermine privacy and competition, but it is particularly hypocritical of them to pretend they are doing the opposite.

It's not that the consumers don't want or need, "innovation" in browser engines ....... so long as it's in the browser they are already using. But for sure, developers don't want to have to develop websites for more than the 3 main browser engines (WebKit, Blink and Gecko) we have now. The last thing they want is to develop websites to be compatible for another browser engine, no matter how much more "innovative" it might be. And Blink is a fork of Webkit but there are enough differences *(improvements) made over the years, that Blink is now considered another browser engine. And have an over 75% market share. All three are open source and "innovation's " are still possible with-in each browser engine. But Google with their 75% Blink market share has nearly full control on how browsers will have to work in order to properly render internet websites.  Once Blink approach the 90% market share, developers will begin to no longer see a need to develop for the WebKit engine.

With the EU forcing Apple to allow browser engines other than WebKit, this will only serve to cement Blink "monopoly". What did Microsoft do when they needed to "innovate" their Edge browser ...... they adopted Blink. If company has the money to come up with a new innovative browser, it's Microsoft (not to say that they actually have the talent.). Any market share that Webkit looses in mobile, will be Blink gain. Gecko has no mobile presence. This has already happened on desktop computers when Edge started using the Blink browser engine. But the EU politicians are too tech ignorant to see what most here already know. Do the EU politicians actually think some EU firm is going to develop a new innovative browser engine that will compete with or replace .... Blink?

https://medium.com/@stouff.nicolas/why-every-browser-switching-to-blink-could-be-bad-news-for-the-web-aea773059e84

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/discussions/edgeinsiderdiscussions/browser-engine-monopolization/982251

If the US DOJ get their wishes and prevent Google from sharing their ad revenue with the owner of the browser, (in exchange for being the default search engine), then we can probably see the end of Gecko engine "innovations", as Google ad revenue sharing accounts for 80% of Mozilla Firefox revenue. And most of Gecko market share will most likely go to Blink.

Here's a good article detailing the criteria thresholds that the EU came up with, to determine which companies would fall under the regulations outlined in the DMA.

https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/which-platforms-will-be-caught-digital-markets-act-gatekeeper-dilemma#_ftnref2

With the conclusion being .......

>The Commission has not disclosed the thinking behind these thresholds. However, a reading of the Digital Markets Act Impact Assessment support study annex, which reported an analysis of various quantitative indicators[1] for 19 digital firms[2], shows three things: (1) the exercise carried out by the European Commission was subjective. There is no magic economic formula that would suggest that these are the optimal quantitative thresholds that maximise the efficacy of the restrictions and obligations imposed by the DMA. (2) The approach applied by the European Commission was most likely based on a backward induction process: the Commission had a rough idea of the companies that the DMA should capture, it then crafted the thresholds accordingly, to be sure the bigger players would be included. (3) Finally, the Commission had to make a clear trade-off: too-high thresholds would limit the impact of the DMA because companies with strong market leverage and capable of limiting competition in digital markets could fall out of scope; too-low thresholds would, however, entail high costs, for example burdening companies with compliance duties when they do not restrict competition in the digital market, or increasing pressure on resource-constrained public enforcers.<

2 Likes · 1 Dislike