Apple’s Competition, Market, and Authority Warning: Genuine Concern or Just a Bit of Theatrics?

Apple is facing renewed scrutiny, this time from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The regulator has launched an investigation into mobile market practices, which Apple argues would undermine privacy and security protections and limit innovation. The company used similar language when responding to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act.

This response reflects a consistent pattern: whenever regulators propose opening up the mobile ecosystem, Apple emphasises risks to innovation, user security, and the broader app economy. However, available evidence suggests these outcomes have not materialised.

The Digital Markets Act Didn’t Break Anything

Take the Digital Markets Act as a case study. Since the DMA’s introduction, the App Store has continued to operate, and developers remain active. The predicted collapse of innovation or disruption of user safety has not occurred. Instead, the market appears to have adapted without significant consequences.

The Value of Control (and the Cost to Developers)

To be fair, Apple’s position isn’t completely without merit. It has spent decades building a polished, secure, and unified platform. Allowing third-party stores or sideloaded apps could make things more fragmented, less secure, and more complex to manage, especially for users who are less tech-savvy than the average Reddit power user. No one wants a flood of dodgy APKs or scam apps.

However, presenting the issue as a conflict between innovation and regulation may oversimplify the situation. Many developers, particularly independent studios and smaller publishers, view Apple’s system less as an enabler of innovation and more as a gatekeeping mechanism. The App Store’s commission structure, which can reach up to 30%, along with Apple’s ability to set rules that shape market participation, significantly influences how these developers operate.

Opening the Ecosystem Means Opportunity

Opening up the ecosystem doesn’t mean chaos. It means competition. Developers might finally get more flexibility in how they distribute their games, process payments, and engage with users. That kind of freedom has the potential to create more innovative experiences, not fewer.

With alternative storefronts and discovery channels, the market could shift from being primarily about who has the most significant marketing budget to being more about which games are actually good.

Investment Isn’t Going Anywhere

Investors, as a rule, don’t tend to flee from opportunity. And mobile gaming remains one of the fastest-growing segments of the entertainment industry. In fact, experts predict that Europe’s games market will generate over $84.9 billion in revenue, with more than 309 million people playing games, which translates to roughly one in three individuals. That figure will likely rise to nearly 37% of the population by 2029, reflecting a steady expansion in both reach and relevance. So, if anything, an open ecosystem could unlock new types of investment - especially in areas currently overshadowed by the dominance of free-to-play monetisation models and user acquisition arms races.

The Future of Mobile Gaming Could be Fairer

There’s a bigger picture here. A more open mobile environment could fundamentally reshape the future of gaming. It could allow new studios to thrive, push innovation in monetisation, and lead to more diversity in the types of games that get made - and who gets to make them.

Apple, to its credit, has elevated mobile gaming in ways no one could have imagined fifteen years ago. But the industry has changed. Developers aren’t just looking for stability; they’re also seeking fairness and flexibility.

So yes, Apple’s concerns should be heard. But they should be weighed against the very real benefits of opening the gates a little wider. Regulation isn’t the enemy of innovation. In this case, it might be exactly what the industry needs to level up.