Apple and Google have agreed to a package of measures with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority aimed at making their App Stores fairer for developers and more transparent for users. The commitments target how apps are reviewed, ranked, and treated when they compete directly with the platforms’ own services, and introduce new public reporting that could shed rare light on how the world’s two dominant mobile app stores operate.
What the UK Commitments Cover for Apple and Google App Stores
The CMA designated both firms with “strategic market status” in mobile ecosystems, a label that comes with tailored conduct requirements under UK competition rules. In response, Apple and Google have committed to ensure app review is fair, objective, and transparent, with explicit protections against disadvantaging apps that compete with their own offerings. That includes search and ranking systems in the App Store and Google Play, which must avoid self-preferencing.
Both companies also agreed not to use commercially sensitive data gathered through their app stores to confer an unfair advantage on their first‑party apps. For Apple, a further pledge addresses long‑running developer complaints about “interoperability” with iOS features. The company will consider requests for access to key device capabilities where reasonable and safe—an area that could encompass technologies like near-field communication for tap‑to‑pay, expanded default app settings, or broader access to browser engines and system APIs.
These are not mere promises of better behavior; they are conduct commitments that the regulator can monitor and enforce. Under the UK regime, breaches can attract penalties that scale with global turnover, giving the rules real teeth.
Transparency Metrics Developers Have Wanted
Perhaps the biggest immediate win for developers is mandated transparency. Apple and Google will provide the CMA with data—set to be made public—on the share of app submissions approved, rejected, and appealed, the time taken for reviews, and the volume and outcomes of complaints. They will also disclose interoperability requests and whether those requests were granted or denied.
For small studios and subscription services that have long described unpredictable review timelines and opaque decisions, standardized reporting across both app stores could become a powerful benchmarking tool. If review queues grow, if appeal success rates drop, or if particular categories see anomalously high rejection rates, the data should make it visible—and actionable for the regulator.
Global Pressure and Precedents Shaping App Store Rules
The UK commitments arrive as platform rules face worldwide scrutiny. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act pushed Apple to permit alternative app distribution and non‑WebKit browser engines for EU users, and led to commitments to open iPhone NFC for third‑party wallets following an antitrust probe by the European Commission. Google, meanwhile, has adjusted billing and distribution terms in several jurisdictions following regulatory actions and court cases, including competition enforcement in South Korea and litigation in the United States.
The CMA’s approach complements these moves but is tailored to the UK market. By anchoring fairness obligations to measurable outcomes—review objectivity, ranking integrity, and data firewalls—it reduces the scope for cosmetic compliance. It also recognizes that the app stores are gatekeepers for nearly all smartphone users, a duopoly the CMA previously described as giving the platforms exceptional control over discovery, monetization, and on‑device functionality.
What Changes Could Mean in Practice for UK Developers and Users
For developers, more predictable reviews and non‑discriminatory rankings could influence everything from launch calendars to investor confidence. Consider categories where the platforms compete directly—music streaming, cloud gaming, browsers, and payments. A level review process and algorithmic neutrality reduce the risk that a platform rival quietly slides down search results or faces stricter policy interpretation.
Interoperability commitments are equally consequential. If developers can access device capabilities on equal footing, services like contactless payments, advanced web features, or alternative app catalogs can compete on product quality, not permission asymmetries. Consumer benefits could follow—more choice, faster innovation, and potentially lower prices as distribution costs and friction fall—balanced against ongoing platform security responsibilities.
The Open Questions on Enforcement and Interoperability
The impact will depend on implementation details that matter in the weeds. How will “fair, objective, and transparent” reviews be audited? What documentation will developers receive when an app is rejected, and will ranking systems be independently assessed for self‑preferencing? How broadly will Apple interpret “interoperable access” to iOS features, and will Google erect meaningful data firewalls between Play Store analytics and its own apps and services?
The CMA says it will publish the incoming app store data and continue to engage with the industry. Apple and Google have publicly welcomed the process, signaling a willingness to work within the UK’s framework. With potential fines that can reach up to 10% of worldwide revenue for non‑compliance, the enforcement backdrop is clear. The next milestone is not the announcement—it’s whether the numbers, and developer experiences on the ground, show that app store fairness is measurably improving.
