Why this long-awaited operating system merger messes up the DOJ’s case against Google

The US Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google is poised to become one of the most important legal actions in technology history. At the heart of the DOJ’s case is Google’s plan to merge Android and ChromeOS into a unified platform that would include smartphones, laptops, tablets, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices.

This merger brings both opportunities and challenges to the technology industry. On the one hand, it can simplify the user experience and encourage innovation. On the other hand, it raises serious concerns about competition, market dominance and the effectiveness of regulatory measures in today’s connectivity ecosystem.

Also: 8 ways Intel can still escape free fall after the CEO is forced to leave

In 2023, I edited the final draft of the Linux Foundation’s report, New direction for the mobile industry: Creating the basis for more open and transparent mobile software, and conduct qualitative research for the project. This work highlights how isolated ecosystems can stifle competition and innovation, and Google’s planned hybrid platform illustrates these challenges.

Here are seven reasons why merging ChromeOS and Android matters — and why the DOJ’s approach to the case could reshape the tech industry.

1. A unified platform can reshape the ecosystem – and the market

Google’s vision of merging ChromeOS and Android is ambitious. Imagine a world where your smartphones, laptops, and smart home devices seamlessly share apps, updates, and settings. This type of integration can compete with Apple’s ecosystem while retaining Android’s signature flexibility.

Also: How Google turned Android into a desktop operating system in 5 steps

A unified platform can reduce manufacturing costs and streamline the development process for manufacturers. It can also provide users with a smoother, more connected experience across their devices. However, there is a significant downside: Google will gain unprecedented control over the hardware market, application distribution and online services.

Regulators fear that the merger could further cement Google’s dominance, leaving competitors with little room to innovate and compete. If mergers go unchecked, the tech landscape could become more monopolistic than ever.

2. The DOJ charges highlight Google’s extensive market control

In the court filings of United States v. Google LLCThe DOJ accused the company of maintaining a monopoly in general search and search advertising by signing exclusionary agreements. These agreements make Google’s search engine the default option on many different devices and browsers, limiting distribution opportunities for competitors.

The DOJ also pointed to Google’s self-preferential practices, in which platforms like Chrome, Android, and Google Play promote each other, thereby maintaining control over the entire ecosystem. To address these concerns, DOJ proposes structural remedies, such as divesting Chrome, Android, or both, in addition to implementing behavioral restrictions — such as banning Exclusive agreement and search engine selection screen requirements.

Also: The end of ChromeOS is a new dawn for cheap Android laptops

However, implementing these remedies is challenging. Unlike previous cases, such as Microsoft’s, where Internet Explorer could be separated from Windows, Google’s platforms are deeply interconnected. ChromeOS, Android, and Google Play Services are tightly integrated, making divestment a complex and potentially disruptive solution.

3. Troubleshooting Android and ChromeOS can destabilize the ecosystem

While the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is free and accessible to everyone, the version of Android used by most consumers is tightly integrated with Google Play Services (GMS) and the Store. Play. These services provide essential APIs for developers, supporting features such as notifications, payments, and location tracking.

Also: The best Android phones you can buy

If the DOJ orders divestment, the consequences for Android and ChromeOS will be significant. Developers could lose access to critical APIs, leading to disruptions in app functionality. Consumers may experience compatibility issues, such as being unable to download their favorite apps or experiencing reduced functionality on their existing devices.

For example, Huawei faced similar difficulties when it lost access to GMS. Despite developing HarmonyOS and establishing its own API compatibility ecosystem, Huawei still has difficulty attracting the attention of developers and consumers. A divested Android or ChromeOS could face similar challenges, raising concerns about its viability in a competitive market.

4. Can Android and ChromeOS be managed by an open source platform?

A key question facing regulators is addressing Google’s dominance in operating systems and application distribution. One proposed solution is to move Android and ChromeOS to an open source platform while separating Google Play Services and the Play Store into separate entities. So, why not simply sell these platforms to another tech giant?

Selling Android and ChromeOS to competitors like Microsoft, Samsung or Amazon seems to be the easier route and is likely to inject new competition into the market. However, this approach risks replacing one monopolistic ecosystem with another. The sale would likely maintain the same dynamic of control and self-prioritisation that the DOJ wants to disrupt. Buyers can use the platform to strengthen their own ecosystems, creating more entrenched barriers for smaller players.

Also: Best mobile VPN

On the contrary, governance by a neutral platform would democratize Android and ChromeOS, turning them into public goods that benefit the entire tech industry. This model will enable multiple stakeholders – including manufacturers, developers and regulators – to come together to guide its future. A shared governance structure can ensure that no one company has disproportionate control, promoting innovation and competition.

Historical precedents illustrate both the challenges and opportunities of this approach. the Symbian Foundationwas founded in 2008 to manage the then-dominant mobile operating system, which collapsed due to fragmentation and conflicting priorities between stakeholders such as Nokia and Sony Ericsson. However, the open source cloud platform OpenStack is a more successful example. OpenStack Avoid vendor lock-in by aligning major contributors like IBM, Red Hat, and HPE to a neutral governance model and grow into a thriving ecosystem.

5. Challenges of separating from Google Play Services and Play Store

For Android and ChromeOS, the transition to open source governance will require significant investment to replicate Google’s centralized oversight mechanism. Developers rely on Google Play Services for essential APIs that support features like push notifications, payments, and location tracking. Moving these services into a corporate-owned entity can maintain this critical infrastructure while allowing open source platforms to develop independently.

The challenge lies in preventing fragmentation. Without Google’s tight controls, manufacturers could prioritize customizations that conflict with platform consistency, eroding user trust. Strict compliance mechanisms and a robust governance model are needed to mitigate these risks.

Also: How to run Android apps on Linux

Despite these obstacles, a shared services entity could democratize access to Google Play’s capabilities while promoting competition and innovation. This approach can balance the benefits of open source governance and the need for robust, revenue-generating infrastructure.

6. The IoT sector can be fragmented

The Internet of Things is one of the most fragmented areas of technology. Google’s unified platform has the potential to simplify development and improve compatibility between devices, making smart home products like thermostats, cameras, and speakers more reliable and user-friendly. more user-friendly.

However, if regulators require companies to divest their businesses, IoT manufacturers could face significant challenges. For example, imagine buying a smart thermostat and discovering that it no longer works after three years because the platform it relied on has been dismantled. Unsupported devices can quickly become e-waste, leaving consumers frustrated and manufacturers struggling to adapt.

Without coordinated management and long-term support, divestment could turn IoT’s current fragmentation into a full-blown crisis.

7. Historical context reveals risks – and challenges

The DOJ’s case against Google resembles the important antitrust fight with Microsoft in the late 1990s. During that time, Microsoft was criticized for bundling Internet Explorer with its Windows operating system, a move that was considered is to create stifling competition. Regulators require Microsoft to separate the browser and provide users with options to restore fairness in the browser market.

Ironically, despite these regulatory efforts, Internet Explorer was eventually phased out and replaced by Microsoft Edge, which uses the Chrome engine — the open source technology that cemented Google’s dominance in the space. web browsing today. This situation highlights the unintended consequences of antitrust actions and the challenges of promoting sustainable competition in rapidly evolving technology markets.

Also: There is a new king of online shopping and it has created an unstoppable monopoly

The situation with Google is much more complicated. Unlike Internet Explorer, which can operate independently of Windows, ChromeOS and Android are deeply integrated into Google’s broader ecosystem. Separating these platforms could cause significant technical and market disruption, destabilizing industries that rely on Google’s APIs, app stores, and cloud infrastructure.

However, supporters of the DOJ’s proposed remedies argue that breaking up Google could spur competition and innovation. Dividing Google’s control over the app stores and operating systems could allow new players to enter the market, creating opportunities for more diverse ecosystems, even if this path involves short-term disruptions and uncertainties.

What happens next – and what does success look like?

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Google has important implications for consumers, developers, and manufacturers. If remedial measures are not implemented well, they can destabilize the platforms we depend on, causing confusion for users and businesses alike. However, if DOJ finds the right balance, this case could lead to a more innovative and competitive technology landscape.

Also: The best secure browsers for privacy

A successful outcome would preserve competition without disrupting the existing ecosystem. It would give consumers more choice, give developers a fairer chance of success, and encourage manufacturers to innovate without the threat of monopolistic retaliation. Achieving this goal will require regulators to navigate the complexity of today’s connectivity platforms.

Google’s ChromeOS and Android merger isn’t just a technical shift — it represents an important point in the debate about how much power one company has over the devices and services that customers Billions of people rely on it. The decisions made in this case will have a lasting impact on the tech industry, influencing how we interact with technology and determining who ultimately controls it.