The tech giant could be compelled to allow competing app stores within the United Kingdom.

The iPhone maker could be required to permit rivals to operate separate app stores on iPhones across Britain, following a decision from the competition regulator.

This would be a significant change to Apple's infamous "closed system" where apps can only be downloaded from the company's App Store.

But the Competition and Markets Authority has classified both Apple and Google as having "dominant market position" - effectively saying they have a lot of power over smartphone ecosystems.

Watchdog Findings

The regulator said the two companies "could be restricting innovation and competition".

But the authority emphasized it did not "find or assume wrongdoing" from the firms.

"Mobile applications generates 1.5% of the British economy and sustains around 400,000 jobs, which is why it's crucial these markets work well for enterprises," commented a senior official from the competition authority.

Approximately 90-100% of British smartphones operate using the two tech companies' operating systems, creating what the authority calls an "virtual monopoly".

Based on recent analysis, nearly half of UK mobile owners use an Apple device - which runs the iOS operating system - with the vast majority of the rest using the Android OS.

The Company's Reaction

The CMA's investigation examined how prominent Apple and Google's own applications are compared with rivals - as well as their browsers and operating systems.

It is unclear what changes the authority will look to request, but previously it published guidelines outlining potential measures it could take.

These comprise requiring it to be more straightforward for people to transition between iOS and Android phones, and for both companies to rank apps "in a fair, objective and transparent manner" in their app stores.

Apple specifically may be compelled to permit third-party marketplaces on its products, and let people to install apps directly from developer sites.

This would mirror a similar ruling in the EU, which previously took action against Apple for anti-competitive behaviour.

Apple cautioned the United Kingdom could lose access to getting new features - as has occurred in the EU - which the organization attributes to strict rules.

For instance, some AI capabilities which have been rolled out in other parts of the world are not accessible in the EU.

"We faces fierce competition in every market where we do business, and we work tirelessly to create the finest offerings, services and user experience," the company said in a statement.

"The UK's adoption of EU-style rules would weaken that, leaving users with reduced data protection and security, delayed access to latest functions, and a fragmented, less seamless user journey."

Google's Position

Google device owners can currently use third-party app stores - though critics say they are not as smooth as the company's official Play Store.

The CMA's roadmap said Google may have to "modify the interface" of installing applications straight from websites, as well as "eliminate barriers" when using alternative app stores.

"We simply do not see the rationale for the current classification," a Google competition lead remarked.

The representative said "the majority" of Google device owners use alternative app stores or install applications directly from a creator's site, and asserted there is a far greater range of apps offered for Android users versus those on Apple devices.

"Currently available are twenty-four thousand Android phone models from thirteen hundred phone manufacturers worldwide, facing strong rivalry from iOS in the United Kingdom," the spokesperson added.

Android is an freely available software, which means developers can utilize and develop on top of it for free.

Google argues this means it promotes competition.

But consumer groups said curbs on these companies' power in different nations "currently assist businesses to develop and giving consumers more options".

"The companies' control is now causing real harm by limiting options for consumers and competition for companies," commented a consumer advocate.