How the end of ChromeOS spells doom for Google in the DOJ's antitrust case

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

This merger presents both opportunities and challenges for the tech industry. On one hand, it could simplify user experiences and encourage innovation. On the other hand, it raises serious concerns about competition, market dominance, and the effectiveness of regulatory remedies in today’s interconnected ecosystems.

Also: 8 ways Intel can still pull itself out of free fall after its CEO’s forced exit

In 2023, I edited the final draft of the Linux Foundation’s report, A New Direction for the Mobile Industry: Making the Case for More Open and Transparent Mobile Software, and conducted qualitative research for the project. This work highlighted how isolated ecosystems can hinder competition and innovation, and Google’s planned hybrid platform illustrates these challenges. 

Here are seven reasons why the merger of ChromeOS and Android is important — and why the DOJ’s approach to this case could reshape the tech industry.

1. A unified platform could reshape ecosystems – and markets

Google’s vision for merging ChromeOS and Android is ambitious. Imagine a world where your smartphone, laptop, and smart home devices seamlessly share apps, updates, and settings. This kind of integration could rival Apple’s ecosystem while retaining Android’s hallmark flexibility.

Also: How Google turns Android into a desktop OS in 5 steps

A unified platform could reduce production costs and streamline development for manufacturers. It could also provide users with a smoother, more connected experience across their devices. However, there is a significant downside: Google would gain unprecedented control over hardware markets, app distribution, and online services.

Regulators are concerned that this consolidation could further entrench Google’s dominance, leaving little room for competitors to innovate and compete. If the merger proceeds unchecked, the tech landscape could become more monopolistic than ever.

2. The DOJ’s allegations highlight Google’s deep market control

In its court filing for The United States of America  v. Google LLC, the DOJ accuses the company of maintaining monopolies in general search and search advertising by signing exclusionary agreements. These agreements make Google’s search engine the default option on various devices and browsers, limiting distribution opportunities for competitors.

The DOJ also points out Google’s self-preferencing practices, where platforms like Chrome, Android, and Google Play promote one another, thereby maintaining control over the entire ecosystem. To address these concerns, the DOJ suggests structural remedies, such as divesting Chrome, Android, or both, in addition to implementing behavioral restrictions — such as banning exclusivity agreements and requiring search engine choice screens.

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

However, enforcing 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 divestiture a complex and potentially disruptive solution.

3. Untangling Android and ChromeOS could destabilize ecosystems

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

Also: The best Android phones you can buy

If the DOJ mandates a divestiture, the consequences for Android and ChromeOS would be significant. Developers might lose access to critical APIs, leading to disruptions in-app functionality. Consumers could encounter compatibility issues, such as being unable to download their favorite apps or experiencing diminished functionality on their existing devices.

For instance, Huawei encountered similar difficulties when it lost access to GMS. Despite developing HarmonyOS and establishing its own API-compatible ecosystem, Huawei struggled to gain traction among developers and consumers. A divested Android or ChromeOS could face comparable challenges, raising concerns about its viability in a competitive market.

4. Could Android and ChromeOS be governed by an open-source foundation?

A significant question facing regulators is addressing Google’s dominance in operating systems and app distribution. One proposed solution is to transition Android and ChromeOS to an open-source foundation while spinning off Google Play Services and the Play Store as separate entities. So, why not simply sell these platforms to another tech giant?

Selling Android and ChromeOS to competitors like Microsoft, Samsung, or Amazon might appear to be the easier route and could potentially introduce new competition into the market. However, this approach risks replacing one monopolistic ecosystem with another. A sale would likely perpetuate the same dynamics of control and self-preferencing that the DOJ aims to disrupt. The buyer could use the platforms to consolidate its own ecosystems, further entrenching barriers for smaller players.

Also: The best mobile VPNs

In contrast, governance by a neutral foundation would democratize Android and ChromeOS, transforming them into public goods that benefit the entire tech industry. This model would enable multiple stakeholders — including manufacturers, developers, and regulators — to guide its future collaboratively. A shared governance structure could ensure that no single company gains disproportionate control, fostering innovation and competition.

Historical precedents illustrate both the challenges and opportunities of this approach. The Symbian Foundation, established in 2008 to manage the then-dominant mobile OS, collapsed due to fragmentation and conflicting priorities among stakeholders like Nokia and Sony Ericsson. However, the open-source cloud platform OpenStack serves as a more successful example. OpenStack avoided vendor lock-in by aligning major contributors like IBM, Red Hat, and HPE under a neutral governance model and developed into a thriving ecosystem.

5. The challenges of spinning off Google Play Services and the Play Store

For Android and ChromeOS, transitioning to open-source governance would require substantial investment to replicate Google’s centralized oversight. Developers rely on Google Play Services for essential APIs that enable features like push notifications, payments, and location tracking. Spinning off these services into a consortium-owned entity could maintain this critical infrastructure while allowing the open-source platforms to evolve independently.

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

Also: How to run Android apps on Linux

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

6. The IoT sector could suffer from fragmentation

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

However, if regulators require companies to divest their businesses, IoT manufacturers could face significant challenges. For instance, imagine purchasing a smart thermostat only to discover that it no longer works three years later because the platform it relied on has been dismantled. Unsupported devices could quickly become electronic waste, leaving consumers frustrated and manufacturers struggling to adapt.

Without coordinated governance and long-term support, divestiture could escalate IoT’s current fragmentation into a full-blown crisis.

7. Historical context shows the stakes – and challenges

The DOJ’s case against Google resembles its significant antitrust battle with Microsoft in the late 1990s. During that time, Microsoft was criticized for bundling Internet Explorer with its Windows operating system, a practice seen as stifling competition. Regulators required Microsoft to unbundle 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 Chromium engine — the very open-source technology underpinning Google’s dominance in web browsing today. This situation underscores the unintended consequences of antitrust actions and the challenges of fostering sustainable competition in rapidly evolving tech markets.

Also: There’s a new king of online shopping, and it’s built an unstoppable monopoly

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

Nevertheless, supporters of the DOJ’s proposed remedies argue that breaking up Google could promote competition and innovation. Dividing Google’s control over app stores and operating systems might 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 case against Google has significant implications for consumers, developers, and manufacturers. If remedies are not well executed, they could destabilize the platforms we depend on, creating confusion for users and businesses alike. However, if the DOJ finds the right balance, this case could lead to a more competitive and innovative technology landscape.

Also: The best secure browsers for privacy

A successful outcome would protect competition without disrupting existing ecosystems. It would provide consumers with more choices, give developers fairer opportunities to succeed, and encourage manufacturers to innovate without the threat of monopolistic retaliation. Achieving this goal will require regulators to navigate the complexities of today’s interconnected platforms.

Google’s merger of ChromeOS and Android is more than just a technical change — it represents a critical point in the debate over how much power a single company should have over the devices and services that billions of people rely on. The decisions made in this case will have long-lasting effects on the tech industry, influencing how we interact with technology and determining who ultimately controls it.