Download the full white paper (PDF)

Executive Summary

The mobile phone ecosystem has evolved into privately governed digital infrastructure. A small number of corporations now control the operating systems, app distribution channels, identity layers, and data flows that mediate access to economic opportunity, social participation, and public services. This concentration of power has produced systemic harms: weakened competition, erosion of user autonomy, dependency-driven innovation stagnation, heightened surveillance, environmental degradation, and growing risks to democratic and national sovereignty.

Existing responses have focused primarily on conduct-based regulation - fines, compliance obligations, and behavioral remedies. While necessary, these measures have proven insufficient. They constrain certain abuses but leave the underlying structure of power intact. As a result, Big Tech remains dominant, governments remain dependent, and users and developers remain subject to opaque private governance regimes.

This paper argues that the core failure of the mobile ecosystem is structural. Dominant platforms function as gatekeepers of critical infrastructure while simultaneously acting as market participants, rule-setters, and rent extractors. These roles are fundamentally incompatible. Incremental reforms can mitigate specific harms, but they often leave the underlying gatekeeper structure intact.

The paper’s central contribution is a market-based and community-driven alternative ecosystem model. This approach does not seek to replace markets with the state, nor to mandate total decoupling from existing platforms. Instead, it focuses on building credible, desirable alternatives that realign incentives around openness, contestable governance, long-term resilience, and user sovereignty. The proposed model integrates product competitiveness with open source foundations, transparent and pluralistic governance, decentralization where it adds value, and participation structures that prevent recapture.

The question is not whether regulation or markets will prevail, but whether society can create mobile ecosystems that people freely choose - and that no single actor can unilaterally control.

Key takeaways

Two ecosystem gatekeepers shape distribution, defaults, and the economic terms of participation.

“Ownership” is constrained by policy-enforced limits on repair, replacement, and software support windows.

Sustainable change likely requires a contestable ecosystem—not only conduct rules for dominant platforms.

This urgency is amplified by the rapid consolidation of artificial intelligence capabilities. AI development and deployment are already coalescing around a small number of firms that control foundational models, compute infrastructure, data pipelines, and distribution channels. These actors increasingly integrate AI directly into mobile operating systems, application platforms, and cloud dependencies, reinforcing existing gatekeeper positions. Rather than decentralizing power, AI - as currently structured - risks further entrenching concentration, standardizing behavior across dominant firms, and accelerating the pace at which alternative ecosystems are foreclosed.

Conceptual Model

This paper treats the mobile ecosystem as a privately governed infrastructure stack composed of interconnected layers:

• Physical devices and hardware supply chain
• Operating systems and system-level services
• Application distribution and payment systems
• Identity, messaging, and cloud dependencies
• Data collection, analytics, and monetization layers

Power concentrates where control over one layer enables leverage over others. Dominant platform owners exploit vertical integration across this stack to set rules, extract rents, and shape outcomes for users, developers, and institutions.

Effective intervention - whether regulatory or market-based - must therefore address the structure of the stack, not only behavior at individual layers.

Scope and Evidence Approach

This paper focuses on the mobile phone ecosystem in markets where Android and iOS are the dominant consumer platforms. It uses “Big Tech” as shorthand for the companies that operate or materially control these stacks—primarily Google (Android/Google Play) and Apple (iOS/App Store)—while also considering adjacent actors such as major ad‑tech firms, OEMs, carriers, and large cloud providers. The analysis emphasizes structural power, incentives, and governance rather than any single feature, scandal, or product cycle.

Key Definitions

Mobile ecosystem: the combined stack of hardware, operating system, app distribution, identity services, default apps, and cloud‑linked services that shape what users can do with a smartphone.

Gatekeeper: a platform actor that controls critical access points (e.g., OS APIs, app stores, default apps) such that others must accept its terms to reach users at scale.

User sovereignty: the practical ability for users to choose software, control data flows, repair/maintain devices, and exit the ecosystem without losing core functionality.

Evidence Approach

This white paper is a synthesis and critique rather than an empirical research report. It draws on public primary sources (platform policies and developer documentation), regulator findings (competition and digital‑markets reports), peer‑reviewed research on tracking and wellbeing, and investigative journalism. Where claims are normative or forward‑looking, they are stated as arguments rather than facts, and the References section lists the most relevant sources.

Introduction

The modern smartphone has become the primary interface between individuals and the digital world. For billions of people, mobile devices are no longer optional consumer products; they are essential infrastructure for communication, commerce, healthcare access, education, navigation, and civic participation. Yet the mobile ecosystem is not a neutral or open environment. It is dominated by a small number of large technology companies whose economic incentives, governance structures, and design choices increasingly shape how society functions.

This white paper examines the systemic failures of Big Tech as they manifest most clearly in the mobile phone ecosystem. While concerns about market concentration, data exploitation, and algorithmic harm are often discussed in abstract terms, mobile platforms represent the most pervasive and intimate expression of these issues. Smartphones operate as always-on sensors, compulsory software platforms, and tightly controlled marketplaces-placing unprecedented power in the hands of a few corporate actors.

At the operating-system level, the global smartphone market is dominated by two ecosystem stacks: Android (led by Google) and Apple’s iOS. These ecosystems also anchor app distribution, identity services, developer tooling, and default system apps. That concentration enables rent extraction through app‑store fees, restrictive payment rules, and selective policy enforcement, while making meaningful competition difficult—especially for developers and businesses that depend on mobile distribution. Although there are regional exceptions (for example, device and service stacks in China), most markets revolve around these two gatekeepers, whose rules are typically opaque, hard to predict, and offer limited practical recourse.

Hardware design and software policy further reinforce this imbalance of power. Modern smartphones are increasingly difficult to repair, upgrade, or meaningfully own: batteries are often hard to replace, parts and manuals can be restricted, and vendor policies can limit third‑party repairs. Long‑term software support is essential for security, but it is also a powerful lever over device lifecycles. Updates can legitimately change performance and features—sometimes because new security mitigations and operating‑system capabilities require newer chipsets, and sometimes because platforms actively manage performance on aging batteries. When support windows end, users face a growing security risk and compatibility decline, which can effectively push replacement even when the hardware remains functional.

Mobile platforms also serve as the most comprehensive data collection systems ever deployed at consumer scale. Location data, sensor access, behavioral telemetry, and cross-app identifiers enable continuous surveillance that extends far beyond what users reasonably understand or consent to. While privacy is frequently invoked as a justification for platform control, enforcement is inconsistent and often aligned with competitive advantage rather than user protection. Preinstalled system applications, carrier software, and first-party services frequently operate under looser standards than third-party alternatives.

In functional terms, modern mobile platforms can enable surveillance at a scale and granularity that was historically unavailable to most institutions. Always‑on sensors, location services, behavioral telemetry, and cross‑app identifiers make it possible to infer sensitive attributes and track patterns continuously. While this is not the same as classic state surveillance, it can operate with limited transparency and uneven accountability—especially when data flows through complex chains of OEM software, carrier services, ad-tech intermediaries, and analytics vendors. The result is a durable risk: privatized, ambient observation embedded in everyday life.

Equally concerning is the role of mobile devices in shaping attention, behavior, and public discourse. Notification systems, infinite scroll interfaces, and engagement-driven design patterns are optimized for compulsion rather than user wellbeing. These mechanisms amplify misinformation, polarizing content, and addictive usage patterns while externalizing the social and psychological costs to individuals and communities.

From a labor and economic perspective, the mobile ecosystem concentrates value while distributing risk. Developers, gig workers, content creators, and small businesses operate under asymmetric dependency on platform rules they do not control. Meanwhile, carriers and device manufacturers often compound these problems through locked devices, delayed updates, and opaque data-sharing arrangements that further erode user autonomy.

Taken together, these dynamics position mobile platforms as critical chokepoints in the global digital economy. They influence which products can exist, which voices can be heard, which services can scale, and which users are included or excluded. Despite their centrality, these systems remain governed primarily by private incentives rather than public accountability.

Problem Statement and Thesis

The mobile phone ecosystem has evolved into a form of privately governed public infrastructure. Smartphones mediate access to markets, information, labor, and civic life, yet the rules governing these systems are set almost exclusively by a small number of profit-driven corporations. The central problem is not simply misconduct or isolated abuse, but a structural misalignment between the societal role of mobile platforms and the incentives under which they operate.

The thesis of this paper is as follows:

The mobile ecosystem has evolved into privately governed infrastructure whose concentration of power undermines competition, autonomy, sovereignty, and long-term resilience, and whose failures cannot be corrected through regulation alone.

These outcomes are not accidental side effects; they are predictable consequences of concentrated control combined with weak structural constraints. Without alternatives that change how power is organized, incremental fixes will continue to fall short.

Taxonomy of Harms

1. Structural and Economic Harms

• Market foreclosure through OS and app store monopolies, limiting competition and innovation.
• Rent extraction via mandatory commissions, payment restrictions, and preferential treatment of first-party services.
• Dependency asymmetry, where developers and businesses bear risk while platforms retain unilateral control.

Example: App‑store fee structures can function like a private levy on digital commerce. In many cases, platforms charge a percentage fee on digital goods and services (with tiered programs and exceptions), while also controlling discovery and the default payment rails. A small developer selling a subscription may need to raise prices or absorb reduced margins, and can be disadvantaged if the platform’s own competing service benefits from preinstallation, default placement, or tighter integration.

2. Autonomy and Ownership Harms

• Erosion of meaningful device ownership through locked bootloaders, restricted sideloading, and forced cloud dependence.
• Planned obsolescence driven by software policy rather than hardware failure.
• Repair restrictions that increase cost, waste, and user dependency.

Example: A fully functional smartphone can become progressively riskier to use once security updates stop. Even if the device still ‘works’, known vulnerabilities may remain unpatched and app compatibility can degrade over time—creating a practical pressure to replace hardware before physical failure.

3. Privacy and Surveillance Harms

• Continuous collection of location, behavioral, and sensor data.
• Unequal privacy enforcement favoring first-party services.
• Opaque data flows involving OEMs, carriers, and advertisers.

Example: System-level services collect precise location and usage telemetry by default, while third-party apps are required to justify far more limited access under stricter scrutiny.

4. Social, Cognitive, and Relational Harms

• Attention extraction via notification design, infinite scroll, and algorithmic amplification.
• Social isolation driven by mediated interaction replacing in-person community and civic life.
• Dating and relationship distortion caused by platform-mediated matching optimized for engagement rather than healthy connection.
• Commodification of intimacy, where human relationships are reduced to profiles, metrics, and monetization funnels.
• Choice overload and disposability, encouraging superficial interaction and reduced commitment.

Example: Dating platforms that algorithmically limit match visibility or compatibility to encourage paid upgrades, contributing to user burnout, loneliness, and declining trust in long-term relationships.

5. Environmental Harms

• Accelerated device replacement cycles.
• Non-replaceable batteries and limited repairability.
• E-waste and carbon costs externalized to society.

Example: Sealed batteries that degrade after a few years render otherwise usable devices impractical to maintain, leading to premature disposal and increased electronic waste.

Stakeholder Impact Analysis

Users

• Loss of control over personal data, devices, and digital identity.
• Increased costs through lock-in, subscriptions, and forced upgrades.
• Exposure to manipulation, surveillance, and addictive design.
• Tech feudalism, where users function less as customers with rights and more as tenants on platforms they cannot meaningfully exit.

Users invest years of personal data, social graphs, photos, and communication history into proprietary mobile ecosystems, making departure costly or impractical despite declining service quality or trust.

Developers and Small Businesses

• Arbitrary platform governance and economic dependency.
• Limited access to system capabilities relative to platform owners.
• Retaliation risk for policy challenges or innovation outside platform priorities.
• Tech feudalism, where developers operate as vassals-paying rents, obeying opaque rules, and facing sudden loss of livelihood without due process.

A developer’s application is removed or deprioritized due to a policy change, eliminating revenue overnight with no meaningful appeal, despite full compliance prior to the change.

Governments and Public Institutions

• Reduced regulatory capacity over de facto digital infrastructure.
• Dependence on private platforms for public services, communication, and identity.
• Sovereignty risk, where critical national infrastructure, data flows, and communications are controlled by foreign corporations beyond democratic control.
• Exposure to unilateral policy changes, service withdrawal, or compliance with foreign legal regimes.
• Increased national security, competition, and democratic integrity risks.

Governments relying on proprietary mobile operating systems and app stores for digital ID, public health, or emergency communication remain vulnerable to platform policy changes, sanctions, or foreign jurisdictional pressures that can disrupt essential state functions.

Device Manufacturers and ODMs

• Structural dependency on Android as the only globally viable non-Apple mobile operating system.

• Limited ability to differentiate products beyond hardware specifications and superficial software layers.

• Exposure to unilateral platform decisions affecting certification, security updates, API access, and market eligibility.

• Suppressed innovation in alternative operating systems due to ecosystem lock-in and app compatibility constraints.

Example: An original design manufacturer attempting to ship a non-Android mobile operating system faces immediate barriers including lack of app ecosystem access, certification requirements tied to Google services, and market resistance driven by platform dependency rather than device quality.

• Reduced regulatory capacity over de facto digital infrastructure.

• Dependence on private platforms for public services, communication, and identity.

• Sovereignty risk, where critical national infrastructure and data flows are controlled by foreign corporations beyond democratic control.

A Counterfactual: An Alternative Mobile Ecosystem

A healthier mobile ecosystem is both possible and achievable.

Core Principles

• User sovereignty: Devices that users can repair, modify, and control.
• Open markets: Multiple app stores, sideloading by default, and competitive payment systems.
• Privacy by design: Minimal data collection as the default, not the exception.
• Longevity: Hardware and software designed for long-term use.
• Public accountability: Governance aligned with societal impact, not solely shareholder value.

The Role of the Goodphone Foundation

The Goodphone Foundation can serve as a catalyst for this alternative vision-advocating for standards, supporting ethical device and software initiatives, educating the public, and demonstrating that mobile technology can be aligned with human rights, environmental sustainability, and democratic values.

The choice is not between innovation and regulation, but between extractive systems and sustainable ones. The future of mobile technology depends on whether society treats smartphones as disposable consumer gadgets-or as the critical public infrastructure they have become.

Competing Solution Models

This section outlines two broad solution paths often proposed in response to the failures of the mobile ecosystem. The first emphasizes public policy and government action—regulation, enforcement, and (in some cases) publicly funded digital infrastructure. The second emphasizes market-based alternatives combined with structural safeguards: open standards, contestable distribution, and governance models that align long‑term incentives with user and societal outcomes. The Goodphone Foundation’s position is that regulation is necessary, but durable change also requires building user‑facing alternatives and institutions that reduce dependency at the infrastructure layer.

Solution Path 1: State-Led Government Intervention

Description

This approach relies on strong government intervention to constrain Big Tech through regulation, public ownership, national platforms, or heavy compliance obligations. Typical instruments include:

• Antitrust enforcement and fines
• Mandated interoperability and data sharing
• Public digital infrastructure projects
• State-backed operating systems or app platforms
• Procurement rules favoring compliant vendors

Why This Approach Fails in Practice

While well‑intentioned, this model often struggles to produce widely adopted alternatives or to materially reduce dependency on incumbent platforms. Regulation can change behavior at the margin, but building and operating competitive consumer infrastructure requires product excellence, sustained investment, and fast iteration—areas where public programs can face structural constraints.

1. Regulatory Power Without Operational Power

Policies such as GDPR, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the Digital Services Act (DSA) regulate behavior but do not replace infrastructure. Governments remain dependent on the same mobile operating systems, app stores, cloud services, and device manufacturers they seek to regulate.

Result: Big Tech absorbs compliance costs while maintaining control over distribution, devices, and users.

2. Structural Dependency and Shutdown Risk

Despite strict regulation, governments, hospitals, schools, and businesses continue to rely on proprietary mobile platforms and cloud services. In practice, major platform providers retain the ability to disrupt entire sectors by withdrawing services, delaying updates, or unilaterally changing terms.

Example: A mobile OS provider altering security policies or API access can instantly break government applications, payment systems, or public-service tools.

3. Absence of Competitive Public Alternatives

Attempts to build state-led or publicly funded digital platforms have struggled with:

• Slow procurement cycles
• Risk-averse governance
• Lack of product-market fit
• Inability to attract and retain top engineering talent

As a result, these initiatives rarely produce products that citizens voluntarily choose.

4. Innovation and Incentive Mismatch

Government-led systems are structurally weak at:

• Rapid iteration
• User-centric design
• Global distribution and ecosystem building

Citizens and businesses therefore continue to default to Big Tech products even when public alternatives nominally exist.

5. Fragmentation and Coordination Failure

Even where a single state pursues strong intervention, the absence of coordinated action across jurisdictions creates structural voids. Mobile platforms, cloud services, and app ecosystems operate globally; unilateral national efforts are easily bypassed, undermined, or rendered ineffective by cross-border dependencies.

When some states intervene and others do not, Big Tech continues to operate through less restrictive jurisdictions, leaving regulated states dependent on the same global infrastructure without leverage to impose durable change.

6. Misaligned State Incentives and Encryption Backdoors

Governments are not neutral actors in the mobile ecosystem. In multiple jurisdictions, states have actively weakened user security and autonomy by pressuring platforms to undermine strong encryption, expand lawful access mechanisms, or introduce surveillance backdoors.

These efforts place governments in direct alignment with the same centralization dynamics they publicly claim to oppose. Demands to weaken end-to-end encryption, mandate client-side scanning, or retain exceptional access privileges fundamentally increase platform centralization by forcing trust into a small number of compliant vendors.

As a result, government-led approaches may conflict with user interests in privacy, security, and autonomy. When states prioritize surveillance or control over resilience and decentralization, they reinforce the very power structures that enable Big Tech dominance, rather than dismantling them.

This misalignment further limits the effectiveness of purely government-led solutions: even when regulatory intent is genuine, state security objectives can run counter to the conditions required for open, contestable, and user-sovereign ecosystems.

Conclusion on Government-Led Intervention

Regulation is necessary but insufficient. A purely government-led approach constrains certain behaviors but does not displace incumbent platforms or resolve dependency. Europe demonstrates that strong laws alone do not produce sovereignty, resilience, or user choice when governments themselves remain tenants within the same global ecosystems.

Solution Path 2: A Market-Based and Community-Driven Alternative Ecosystem

Why This Path Matters

Regulation alone cannot restore balance to an ecosystem whose architecture concentrates power by design. Durable change requires alternatives that users, developers, and institutions can realistically adopt. Solution Path 2 is therefore the intellectual and practical core of this paper.

It proposes an ecosystem that competes on product quality and usability while structurally preventing the re-emergence of a single gatekeeper. Its aim is not to replace one dominant platform with another, but to ensure that authority remains contestable over time.

Design Invariants

Any viable alternative ecosystem must satisfy the following non-negotiable conditions:

• No single entity can unilaterally control rules, access, or enforcement
• Users retain meaningful ownership and exit rights
• Developers operate under predictable, non-retaliatory governance
• Forking and re-governance remain practically viable

Participation, Governance, and Contestability

Open source is necessary but insufficient. Effectiveness depends on participation structures that enable independent contribution, review, and dissent.

Inclusive participation - defined as real access to contribution, deliberation, and challenge - functions as a governance mechanism. Independent contributors play a role analogous to market competitors or external auditors: they surface risks, test assumptions, and apply corrective pressure without centralized oversight.

Broad contributor diversity distributes institutional knowledge, mitigates succession risk, and preserves the practical ability to fork or re-govern when capture occurs.

Open Source, Transparency, and Auditability

Core platform components should be open source where feasible, with reproducible builds, documented APIs, and independent security audits. Transparency must extend beyond code to include roadmaps, governance decisions, and change-control processes.

Decentralization Where It Adds Value

Decentralization is a tool, not an ideology. It is appropriate where it reduces single points of failure or control - such as identity, credentialing, or governance registries. Distributed ledger technologies may be used selectively for verifiable credentials or transparent governance processes, while avoiding unnecessary complexity or on-chain personal data.

Governance Model

Governance should be formalized through a published charter and a multi-stakeholder structure encompassing users, developers, civil society, manufacturers, and institutional adopters. Key elements include:

• Standards processes for interoperability
• Transparent policy-making with due process and appeals
• Explicit tolerance for constructive disagreement and parallel experimentation
• Conflict-of-interest rules and independent oversight

Security and Resilience

In security-critical systems, participation density and independent review are security properties. Broad contributor engagement reduces key-person risk, improves vulnerability discovery and response, and preserves fork viability as a backstop against governance failure.

Economic Viability and Capital Formation

For Solution Path 2 to succeed, it must be grounded in a viable business model with the capacity to generate profit and sustain long-term operations. An alternative ecosystem cannot rely solely on goodwill, grants, or regulatory protection. It must compete economically, attract talent, fund ongoing development, and withstand market pressure.

Profitability is not a contradiction of public-interest goals; it is a prerequisite for durability. Without sustainable revenue, alternative platforms risk stagnation, capture, or collapse, reinforcing dependency on incumbent ecosystems.

Adequate funding can be achieved through a combination of commercial revenues and community-led investment structures. These may include cooperative ownership models, community share offerings, aligned venture capital with governance constraints, foundation-backed investment vehicles, or other mechanisms that allow users, developers, and mission-aligned institutions to participate economically without ceding unilateral control.

In parallel, decentralized and blockchain-based mechanisms may represent an additional avenue worth exploring for capital formation and governance alignment. Used selectively and pragmatically, decentralized technologies can enable distributed ownership, transparent funding flows, programmable governance constraints, and collective decision-making without relying on a single financial intermediary.

Such mechanisms should not be treated as ideological solutions or speculative instruments, but as optional tools that may help align incentives, limit capital-driven capture, and reinforce contestability when combined with strong governance design and off-chain accountability.

Community-led and decentralized investment approaches strengthen alignment between economic incentives and ecosystem values. They distribute financial stakeholding, reduce pressure for extractive growth, and reinforce the principle that no single actor should dominate governance by virtue of capital alone.

Adoption Strategy

The ecosystem need not dominate immediately. It can grow through modular adoption by ethical consumers, public-sector diversification, NGOs, educational institutions, and regions seeking digital sovereignty. Interoperability enables coexistence while steadily reducing dependency.

Failure and Success Cases: Lessons from Alternative Mobile Ecosystem Attempts

The viability of alternative mobile ecosystems is not theoretical. Over the past decade, multiple initiatives have attempted to challenge incumbent platforms with varying degrees of success. Examining both failures and successes shows that outcomes are driven less by ideology or technical purity than by execution, governance clarity, community dynamics, and business fundamentals.

Success Case: Nothing Technology – Design-Led Market Entry

Nothing Technology demonstrates that differentiation at the product level can generate significant market traction without immediately replacing dominant platforms. Founded in 2020, the company focused on industrial design, branding, and user experience rather than ideological positioning.

By offering a visually distinctive smartphone in a market dominated by incremental design changes, Nothing achieved rapid early adoption. Reuters reported in 2025 that the company raised new funding at a valuation of about USD 1.3 billion. Importantly, Nothing leveraged existing Android infrastructure while demonstrating that consumer desire, aesthetics, and brand identity remain decisive adoption drivers.

Key lesson: Users adopt alternatives when products are desirable first. Structural change cannot begin from products that feel like sacrifices.

Failure Case: GrapheneOS – Technical Strength, Governance and Adoption Weakness

Failure Case: GrapheneOS – Technical Strength, Governance and Adoption Weakness

GrapheneOS is widely respected for its technical rigor in security and privacy. However, its broader adoption has been constrained by structural, governance, and community dynamics rather than engineering quality.

The project operates with opaque governance, limited institutional transparency, and no clearly constituted legal foundation. Decision-making authority is highly centralized, and there is minimal formal process for participation, dispute resolution, or independent oversight. These conditions also create downstream security risks: history shows that ecosystems with weak governance and low resistance to capture can become vectors for spyware or hostile control, as has occurred in parts of the Linux ecosystem through compromised distributions or maintainers. In the absence of strong, pluralistic governance and institutional safeguards, even technically strong systems risk becoming legally compromised or turning into focal points for law‑enforcement intervention when governance is weak and centralized trust is unavoidable. As illustrated by cases such as ANOM, systems perceived as secure can be deliberately targeted, co‑opted, or neutralized through legal and coercive pressure once structural points of control exist. These characteristics undermine trust among consumers and significantly complicate long‑term sustainability.

Public communication has disproportionately emphasized threat models associated with criminal or highly adversarial use cases. While the same security features can clearly benefit journalists, businesses, public servants, and ordinary citizens, this framing has attracted regulatory scrutiny and political friction, increasing the risk of policy pushback and censorship.

Community dynamics have further limited adoption. Public-facing discourse surrounding the project is often perceived as hostile or dismissive toward non-expert users. For individuals at the beginning of their privacy or security journey-mainstream users seeking incremental improvement-this creates a high social and cognitive barrier to entry. A technically superior system that feels adversarial to newcomers undermines its own ability to scale beyond a narrow, self-selecting audience.

The project’s economic model further constrains adoption and sustainability. GrapheneOS relies primarily on donations and lacks a clearly articulated business model capable of funding long-term development, governance, support, and ecosystem growth. This dependence on voluntary contributions limits strategic capacity and reinforces fragility.

Perhaps the most significant irony is infrastructural dependency: despite its goal of reducing reliance on dominant platforms, GrapheneOS requires users to run its software on Google-manufactured Pixel devices. This reliance stems from the absence of alternative hardware partnerships and the lack of a sustainable business model capable of supporting independent device development or broader hardware compatibility.

Key lesson: Technical excellence alone is insufficient. Transparent governance, constructive communication, and inclusive community norms are prerequisites for mass adoption and institutional legitimacy.

Failure Pattern: Underfunded or Overpriced Alternative OS Initiatives

Numerous alternative mobile operating systems and privacy-focused vendors have failed due to weak business fundamentals. Common failure modes include high device pricing, incomplete ecosystems, limited app compatibility, unclear revenue models, and chronic underfunding.

Initiatives such as Murena, the Unplugged project, or other niche Android forks often position themselves as ethical alternatives but struggle to articulate a credible path to scale. Premium pricing combined with limited ecosystem maturity makes them unattractive to mainstream consumers, while the absence of transparent funding strategies signals fragility rather than resilience.

Key lesson: Ethical positioning cannot compensate for weak value propositions, misaligned pricing, or the absence of sustainable funding.

Success Case: Fairphone – Incremental Change Through Business Discipline

Fairphone represents one of the clearest examples of durable, incremental success. Rather than attempting to replace dominant platforms, Fairphone focused on repairability, supply-chain ethics, and device longevity, supported by a coherent business model.

Fairphone’s 2024 Impact Report shows revenue of about EUR 54.35 million in 2024 (noting that the report presents the 2024 financials as draft). While its market share remains small, its sustained operation over more than a decade demonstrates that ethical design can coexist with commercial viability. Fairphone’s approach has also helped normalize expectations around repairability and longer software‑support commitments.

Key lesson: Incremental, commercially viable alternatives can reshape industry norms even without market dominance.

Success Case: Light Phone - Focused Scope and Clear Market Fit

Light Phone is not an example of mass adoption. Instead, it demonstrates that appetite for change exists when execution is coherent and the value proposition is clearly articulated.

By intentionally limiting functionality and positioning itself as an antidote to digital distraction, Light Phone aligned product design, messaging, pricing, and business model around a single, disciplined objective. Rather than attempting to compete across the full feature spectrum of mainstream smartphones, it focused on serving a well-defined user segment seeking intentional reduction of screen time and platform dependency.

While Light Phone remains niche in absolute market terms, it is commercially viable, sustainable, and culturally influential. Its continued existence demonstrates that alternatives do not need to achieve dominance to be meaningful. Strong execution can validate demand, establish legitimacy, and prove that different design and business choices are possible.

Key lesson: Light Phone shows that even limited-scale success can signal genuine consumer appetite for change when products are well executed, clearly positioned, and economically coherent.

Cross-Cutting Findings

Across these cases, consistent patterns emerge.

Success correlates with: - Attractive and differentiated products - Transparent governance and legal structure - Sustainable business models and funding - Inclusive community dynamics - Incremental adoption strategies

Failure correlates with: - Ideological purity over usability - Opaque or informal governance - Hostile or exclusionary community norms - Weak or nonexistent funding strategies - Pricing disconnected from ecosystem readiness

These findings reinforce the central argument of this paper: alternative ecosystems succeed not by rejecting markets, but by restructuring them.

Final Position

The failure of the mobile ecosystem is not inevitable. What is missing is not regulation, nor ideology, but credible alternatives. Societies do not regain sovereignty by declaring independence from platforms they cannot replace. They regain it by building systems that people freely choose.

A better mobile future will be won not by prohibition alone, but by competition-on better terms.

Sources and References

Market structure, competition, and regulation

• Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). (2022). Mobile ecosystems market study — Final report. GOV.UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f61bc0d3bf7f62e8c34a02/Mobile_Ecosystems_Final_Report_amended_2.pdf
• European Commission. (2018). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices (IP/18/4581). https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
• European Commission. Digital Markets Act (DMA) — official portal and implementation resources. https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/

App distribution and platform fees

• Apple Developer. App Store Small Business Program (reduced commission for eligible developers). https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/
• Google Play Console Help. Service fees (developer fee structure and reductions). https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622
• Apple Support. About alternative app distribution in the European Union (alternative marketplaces and web distribution). https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110
• Apple Developer Support. Digital Markets Act: alternative app marketplaces in the EU. https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketplace-in-the-eu/

Privacy, surveillance, and tracking

• Amnesty International. (2025). Breaking up with Big Tech: A human rights-based argument for tackling Big Tech’s market power. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/0226/2025/en/
• Yale Law School — Information Society Project (ISP) Privacy Lab. (2017). Research on hidden third‑party trackers in popular Google Play apps (with Exodus Privacy). https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/isp-privacy-lab-publishes-research-hidden-trackers
• Associated Press. (2024). FCC fines wireless carriers for sharing user locations without consent. https://apnews.com/article/16acca725c7b4537c1c3c459ff449736

Ownership, repairability, and lifecycle security

• U.S. PIRG Education Fund. (2023). Failing the Fix (electronics repairability). https://uspirg.org/
• Apple Support. iPhone battery and performance (battery health and performance management). https://support.apple.com/en-us/101575
• UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). Obsolete products — managing deployed devices (risks of unsupported products). https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/device-security-guidance/managing-deployed-devices/obsolete-products

Social and wellbeing impacts

• Barzilay, R., et al. (2025). Smartphone ownership, age of smartphone acquisition, and health outcomes in early adolescence (Pediatrics). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41324306/

Environmental impacts

• UNITAR & ITU. (2024). Global E-waste Monitor 2024. https://ewastemonitor.info/
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Children and digital dumpsites: E-waste exposure and health impacts. https://www.who.int/

Alternative ecosystem case studies

• Fairphone. (2024). Fairphone Impact Report 2024. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Fairphone-Impact-Report-2024.pdf
• Reuters. (2025-09-16). Smartphone maker Nothing raises $200 million at $1.3 billion valuation. https://www.reuters.com/technology/smartphone-maker-nothing-raises-200-million-13-billion-valuation-2025-09-16/
• GrapheneOS. History (GrapheneOS Foundation created in Canada in March 2023). https://grapheneos.org/history/
• LWN.net. (2025-07-24). GrapheneOS: a security-enhanced Android build (discussion of project structure and adoption constraints). https://lwn.net/Articles/1030004/

Download the full white paper (PDF)