In recent developments, Google has been implementing stricter controls over app installations on Android devices, citing security concerns 1. While security is important, these measures appear to strategically reinforce Google’s dominant market position, raising questions about competition, innovation, and the true nature of “open” platforms.

Beyond Security: A Monopoly Play

Google’s security narrative, while valid on the surface, conveniently serves to strengthen its control over the Android ecosystem. This isn’t merely about protection - it’s about cementing a monopoly by:

  1. Controlling distribution channels - By limiting installation, Google ensures it controls the apps market on android even outside of its play store. Any app that could be a direct threat to its advertising model can be deleted, even if it exist outside of its playstore.
  2. Reducing competition - Alternative app stores and direct installations pose a threat to Google’s revenue and influence. But placing Google veto on any company, it is a clear attack on any app that would be a threat to it’s revenue model.
  3. Extending the walled garden approach - What began as an open platform increasingly resembles Apple’s closed ecosystem, but with Google’s advertising-driven business model

It’s worth noting that these restrictions come at a time when regulators worldwide are scrutinizing Google’s market dominance 2, suggesting these moves may be strategic positioning rather than purely user-focused initiatives.

The Broader Implications for Digital Markets

This move fits a pattern of behavior that has attracted antitrust attention globally 3. Just as regulators have questioned the integration of Chrome with Google’s search dominance 4, we must now examine Android’s relationship with Google’s broader ecosystem.

The parallels are striking:

  • Chrome’s dominance helps secure Google’s search monopoly
  • Android’s restrictions help secure Google’s mobile services and advertising monopoly
  • Both strategies use “convenience” and “security” as justifications for anti-competitive practices

Reclaiming Digital Sovereignty

Our devices have become extensions of ourselves, containing our memories, communications, and personal data. True digital sovereignty means:

1. Genuine Ownership Rights

When you purchase a device, you should control it completely - including the right to modify it and install software from sources you trust, not just those approved by the platform’s business interests.

2. Fostering Competitive Innovation

Many essential apps began as projects that wouldn’t meet corporate store guidelines. By controlling distribution, Google can preference its services and those of partners, creating an uneven playing field that stifles genuine competition.

3. Platform Neutrality

Just as there are calls to separate Chrome from Google’s search dominance 5, perhaps we should consider separating Android from Google’s mobile services monopoly 6. This could ensure a level playing field where:

  • Google’s apps compete on merit rather than default installation
  • Alternative services can flourish without artificial barriers
  • Users make genuine choices rather than being funneled into Google’s ecosystem

Towards a More Balanced Approach

Rather than restrictive measures that primarily benefit Google’s market position, we should advocate for:

  • Genuine security education that empowers users without limiting choices
  • Transparent, fair review processes that don’t favor Google’s services
  • Regulatory frameworks that prevent anti-competitive bundling

The Path to Genuine Choice

The conversation about Android’s future intersects with broader discussions about platform neutrality and digital markets. To move forward, we must:

  1. Support regulatory actions that promote genuine competition in digital markets
  2. Advocate for the separation of Android from Google’s services, similar to discussions around Chrome
  3. Encourage development of and migration to truly open-source alternatives like /e/OS or LineageOS 7. Just like Linux has been a tremendous source of innovation for infrastructure and web development 8, we should expect it to play a similar role.
  4. Promote legislation that recognizes digital property rights and prevents anti-competitive practices

True innovation and user empowerment thrive in environments where choice isn’t artificially constrained by corporate interests. While security matters, it shouldn’t serve as a pretext for reinforcing monopoly power and limiting genuine competition in digital markets.

References

  1. Google’s official announcement on enhanced Android security measures (2025) ↩︎

  2. European Commission vs. Google Android antitrust case (2018-2023) ↩︎

  3. United States v. Google LLC antitrust litigation (2020-present) ↩︎

  4. “Why Google Dominates Advertising Markets” - Stanford Journal of Law & Business (2020) ↩︎

  5. Google vs DOJ - monopoly power (2025) ↩︎

  6. EU Digital Markets Act - Gatekeeper neutrality (2025) ↩︎

  7. “The State of Android Forks: Independence in the Mobile Ecosystem” (2024) ↩︎

  8. “The Value Of Open Source Software” - HBS (2024) ↩︎