Apple may be headed for another fight over how much control it has over payments on the iPhone.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is consulting on measures that could require Apple and Google to let app developers point users toward payment options outside their app stores. For Apple, the proposals cut directly into two of its most closely guarded iPhone businesses: App Store payments and access to the NFC technology behind contactless payments.
The practical effect could be significant for developers that sell subscriptions, digital goods, or other in-app purchases. Instead of being limited to Apple’s in-app payment system, an app could potentially direct users to a web payment flow or another external purchase option. The regulator is also looking at whether Apple should give third parties more access to the iPhone’s near-field communication hardware, which could make room for alternatives to Apple Pay.
None of this is final yet. The UK process is still at the consultation stage, and the details matter. Apple and Google could still be allowed to charge fees for services they provide, but the CMA is focused on whether those fees are fair, reasonable, and lower than the current app store commission structure.
What the UK is considering
The central issue is “steering,” the term regulators use for letting developers guide users to payment options outside an app store. For years, Apple’s rules have tightly limited how developers can tell customers about other ways to pay. That has been a major point of friction for companies selling subscriptions and digital services on iOS.
The UK proposal would push Apple and Google toward allowing more direct communication between apps and users about payment options. In practice, that could mean buttons, links, or messaging inside apps that send customers to external checkout pages.
For developers, the appeal is straightforward: external payments could reduce their dependence on app store billing fees. For consumers, the benefit would depend on whether any savings are passed along through lower prices, better plans, or more flexible subscriptions.
The CMA’s concern is that Apple and Google control the main routes to mobile customers in the UK. Apple controls iOS and the App Store, while Google controls Android and Google Play. That gives both companies enormous influence over how mobile apps are distributed, discovered, and monetized.
The fee question is the real fight
Letting developers link to outside payment options is only one part of the story. The bigger fight is whether Apple and Google can charge new fees when developers use those outside options.
That distinction matters because a rule change can look meaningful on paper while offering little practical benefit if the platform owner replaces one fee with another. Developers have repeatedly argued that external-payment policies lose much of their value if app stores can still take a large cut of transactions that happen elsewhere.
The CMA appears to be trying to avoid that outcome. Under the UK proposal, any fees connected to steering would need to be justified and should sit below existing app store commissions. Apple and Google would still be compensated for services they provide, but the regulator is signaling that it does not want alternative payment links to become a cosmetic change with no real economic effect.
| Issue | What could change | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| App payment links | Developers could point users to payment options outside the App Store or Google Play | Apps may gain more flexibility over checkout and pricing |
| Platform fees | Apple and Google may need to justify any fees attached to external payment steering | Lower fees could make the change meaningful for developers |
| Apple Pay competition | Apple could face pressure to open NFC access on iPhones | Banks and fintech apps could offer more direct contactless payment options |
Why Apple Pay is part of the same debate
The App Store payment proposal is not the only iPhone-related issue on the table. The CMA is also considering whether Apple should open access to NFC technology used for contactless payments.
On the iPhone, NFC access has historically been tightly controlled by Apple, which gives Apple Pay a privileged position for tap-to-pay transactions. If third-party developers, banks, or fintech companies receive more access, they could potentially build payment services that work more directly inside their own iOS apps.
That could matter for account-to-account payments, bank-led wallet features, and other payment systems that do not fit neatly inside Apple Pay. It could also give financial institutions more control over the customer relationship when someone pays with an iPhone.
The consumer case is less obvious than it is for app store billing. Apple Pay is already widely used because it is built into the iPhone, works across cards, and keeps payment credentials in one familiar place. Many users may not be eager to manage a separate payment app for every bank or service.
Still, the competition argument is about access. If Apple alone controls the key iPhone payment interface, rivals have less room to build competing wallet experiences, even if some users would prefer them.
Apple’s objection is about trust and safety
Apple opposes the direction of the UK proposals. Its argument is familiar: when payments move outside Apple’s infrastructure, users may lose protections built into the App Store and Apple’s payment systems.
That concern is not trivial. External checkout can introduce more varied refund policies, customer support paths, fraud risks, and subscription cancellation flows. Apple’s position is that its integrated system gives users a safer and more predictable experience.
Developers and regulators see the tradeoff differently. From their perspective, Apple’s control over payments also gives the company power to set commercial terms that many businesses cannot realistically avoid. A developer that wants to reach iPhone users has limited alternatives to the App Store, especially for mainstream consumer apps.
The UK process is trying to balance those two claims: Apple’s argument that tight control protects users, and developers’ argument that tight control also keeps fees high and limits competition.
How this fits with the US and EU fights
The UK is not looking at Apple in isolation. Regulators and courts in other markets have already pushed Apple toward more openness around app distribution and payments.
In the European Union, Apple has been required to make changes connected to third-party app marketplaces and alternative distribution under the bloc’s digital competition rules. In the United States, Apple has been fighting over how much freedom developers should have to direct users to payment options outside the App Store.
The UK proposal appears designed with those battles in mind. The most important lesson is that allowing an external link is not enough if the surrounding rules make it impractical, expensive, or intimidating for developers and users.
That is why the fee framework matters so much. If Apple can charge nearly the same amount for transactions completed outside the App Store, developers may see little reason to change their payment flows. If the UK requires materially lower, evidence-based fees, the policy could have more practical force.
What it means for app developers
For developers, the potential upside is more control over pricing, customer relationships, and subscription management. Apps that already sell through the web could benefit most, especially services with recurring subscriptions or established account systems.
A streaming app, productivity service, dating app, or cloud software provider could point users to its own payment page instead of forcing them through in-app purchase. That could make it easier to offer discounts, bundles, or direct customer support around billing.
But the benefit depends on implementation. Developers will need to know what kinds of links are allowed, how payment messaging can appear inside apps, what fees remain, and whether Apple or Google can impose design requirements or warning screens around external checkout.
The worst version for developers would be a system where external payments are technically permitted but commercially unattractive. The best version would be one where outside checkout is simple enough for mainstream users and inexpensive enough to change the economics of selling digital services on mobile.
What it means for iPhone users
For iPhone owners, the immediate experience may not change quickly. The proposals still need to move through the UK regulatory process, and any final rules would likely require implementation work by Apple and affected developers.
If the changes go through, users could eventually see more apps offering payment links, web checkout options, or different subscription prices depending on where they pay. Some apps may use that flexibility to offer lower prices outside the App Store, while others may use it to improve margins or fund product development.
The Apple Pay side could be more subtle. If NFC access opens up, banks and fintech companies may experiment with their own wallet-like payment features. Whether users actually adopt those alternatives will depend on convenience, trust, rewards, bank support, and how closely those services can match the simplicity of Apple Pay.
The larger point is that the iPhone’s payment experience could become less centralized. That may be good for competition, but it also means users may need to pay more attention to where they are checking out and which company is handling the transaction.
The bottom line
The UK proposals are not just another round of app store policy tinkering. They target the business model behind mobile software distribution and the hardware access that helps make Apple Pay so powerful on the iPhone.
For developers, the key question is whether the final rules create a real alternative to Apple and Google’s payment systems or simply add another narrow compliance path. For users, the question is whether more choice leads to better prices and services without making payments messier or less secure.
Apple’s resistance is expected, and the consultation process could still reshape the outcome. But the direction is clear: UK regulators want more pressure on the mobile payment systems that sit between apps, developers, and the people paying for them.