As the CMA scrutinizes Apple’s WebKit restrictions and Google’s revenue-sharing deals in the UK, the DOJ proposes Chrome’s sale in the US. Could other browsers finally get their chance to innovate?
The mobile browser market isn’t working as well as it could for businesses and millions of phone users – that’s the verdict not only from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) recent investigation, but also from the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which has proposed forcing Google to sell off Chrome as part of antitrust remedies. As the founder of a privacy and security-focused browser, I’ve watched this space evolve, and these findings reflect many of the challenges we’ve observed firsthand.
The numbers tell a striking story. In the UK alone, Safari commands an 88 per cent share of mobile browsers on iOS, while Chrome holds 77 per cent on Android. This dominance mostly stems from two significant market dynamics. The first of these is Apple’s requirement that all iOS browsers must use its WebKit engine. This limits what developers can achieve – a restriction that notably doesn’t exist on Apple’s desktop operating system macOS, or on Android devices.
Privacy-focused tech innovator and the creator of Aloha Browser.
It’s important to note that these limitations can be major, leading to one of the CMA’s main points – the stifling of mobile browser innovation. It directly impacts what we can offer users. When browsers want to implement additional security features like ‘Safebrowsing mode’ for warning users about dangerous sites, or ‘site isolation’ for protecting against malicious attacks, for example, they’re constrained by WebKit’s limitations. Even large companies like Meta face these restrictions – the social media giant is unable to build its own customized in-app browser experience on iOS, despite having millions of users through apps like Facebook and Instagram.
To be clear, WebKit is an undoubtedly capable engine, and is one of several excellent options alongside other offerings like Chromium and Mozilla’s Gecko. But the issue isn’t about WebKit’s quality. Rather, it’s about the lack of choice. Apple maintains that this requirement is necessary for security, which is a valid concern. Nobody wants malicious browsers accessing banking apps or stealing data, after all. However, Apple already has robust certification processes in place for browsers, including special certificates and extensive checks. As browser developers, we’re open to additional security measures – whether that’s source code audits or Apple employees visiting our offices to verify our practices. The mechanisms for ensuring browser security already exist – they just need to be applied to non-WebKit browsers as well.
Stifling innovation
The second, and perhaps more fundamental issue, involves the revenue-sharing arrangement between Google and Apple for mobile browsers on iOS. According to the CMA’s findings, Google pays Apple a significant share of the search advertising revenue earned from traffic on both Safari and Chrome on iOS. This creates an unusual competitive dynamic – the revenue share that each company earns from their competitor’s product is lower, but similarly significant to what they earn from their own browsers.
Or to put it another way – the current arrangement fundamentally reduces the financial incentives for browser competition on iOS. The motivation to compete aggressively with innovative features is diminished when the financial gain from winning new users is minimal. This helps explain why, despite the mobile web being such a crucial part of our daily lives, we’ve seen relatively limited innovation in core browsing functionality. The CMA’s investigation marks the first time a major regulator has specifically scrutinized these revenue-sharing arrangements, and their impact on browser competition. With the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act coming into force in 2025, these findings could lead to significant changes in how mobile browsers operate and compete in the UK.
This landmark legislation will establish a new digital competition regime similar to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, while also expanding consumer protection through updated commercial practice regulations and strengthened consumer rights. Crucially, it will also give the CMA direct enforcement powers, including the ability to fine businesses for breaches. Ultimately, this could finally address the competition issues that have long concerned smaller browser developers, creating an environment more conducive to innovation.
The impact of these revenue-sharing arrangements has caught regulators’ attention beyond the UK. In the United States, the Department of Justice has proposed that Google sell Chrome as part of remedies following an antitrust ruling. The DOJ’s proposal would prohibit Google from offering money to make its search engine the default on any platform – a move that could dramatically reshape the browser market’s economics. This aligns with growing global scrutiny of how search revenue influences browser competition. The DOJ’s proposal goes even further than the CMA’s investigation, suggesting Google should be required to share its search index with competitors at marginal cost. Such changes could accelerate the transition toward new business models in the browser market.
For browsers, the impact of potential future legislation changes could be huge. Consider Mozilla Firefox, which has been in the market for decades. Its 2021-2022 financial statements reveal the sheer scale of these arrangements – of Mozilla’s $593 million in revenue, $510 million came from its Google search deal. This stark reality shows how browser companies could lose around 80 per cent of their revenue overnight if these arrangements were to end. Such a change would force a fundamental rethinking of how browsers operate – they would need to either adopt subscription models, aggressively increase donations, or resort to advertising, which could compromise user privacy. With that in mind:
What might a more competitive future look like?
I envision a landscape where browser choice is more transparent and accessible to users. When someone gets a new phone, they should be presented with clear, unbiased options for their default browser. Android already demonstrates that this is possible, allowing browsers to use different engines and giving users more control over their browsing experience.
With regulators on both sides of the Atlantic targeting search revenue arrangements, the shift toward subscription-based models may come sooner than expected. While this might initially raise eyebrows given the prevalence of free browsers, it’s worth considering the broader context. Many users already pay separately for VPNs, password managers, and privacy tools. A browser subscription wouldn’t necessarily mean yet another monthly payment – instead, it could consolidate these existing services into one comprehensive package. This model enables browsers to focus purely on user interests rather than advertising revenue. Innovation, in short, becomes more feasible when browsers can invest in development without relying on search engine revenue sharing.
We’re already seeing examples of what’s possible when browsers prioritize user needs. Our browser, for example, recently introduced a Cookie Consent Management feature which automatically handles cookie preferences based on user settings. This addresses a real pain point – the constant interruption of cookie pop-ups – while maintaining true privacy protection rather than just hiding the prompts. The future of mobile browsing isn’t just about technical capabilities however – it’s about creating an environment where innovation can flourish while respecting user privacy and choice. Whether through regulatory changes or evolving business models, the goal should be to enable browsers to compete on their merits, offering users genuine alternatives rather than variations on the same theme.
We’re at a pivotal moment where the decisions made by regulators and industry players will shape how we access the internet for years to come. The CMA and DOJ’s investigations have highlighted the challenges, but it’s up to browser developers, platform holders, and users to work together to create a more open, innovative, and user-focused mobile web. And here’s to hoping they do.
We’ve featured the best secure browser.
This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro’s Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro