Discussed it with the AI chatbot Claude.
And sort of ran two trials.
First, just discussed with Claude based on the read I got from KeepAndroidOpen.
For that first one, it was just kind of ad hoc, and just discussed it freely, asking questions, getting responses, etc.
But then I wanted to see if Claude might respond differently if different sources were provided.
So as each new conversation is different, could start a new conversation, and included three sources. One being what Google has at developer.android.com at developer-verification. Second being a MSN story titled "Google Claims Android App Sideloading Won't Die, But Change". Third being a story at The Register with the title "'Keep Android Open' movement fights back against Google sideloading restrictions".
Did the best I could to make the prompt balanced and informed, and basically just asked Claude what it thought of the overall situation.
In both cases though, it seems that Claude is raising the question of whether security is a bit of a cover story to the objective of consolidation and control.
For the first run I asked it about what Prud'hommeaux who created KeepAndroidOpen said as quoted in The Register article:
""I'd say it's conceivably possible that there is some glimmer of merit," Prud'hommeaux told The Register when asked about Google's security claims. "A more convincing explanation, of course, is that they feel like they have enough of a lock on the ecosystem that they can assert complete control over every application that's distributed in the world to Android-certified devices, which is more than 95 percent of devices outside of China.""
and it responded with:
"The strongest version of Prud'hommeaux's argument isn't really that Google is lying about security. It's that security is the cover story that makes a control-consolidation move publicly defensible, and that Google has structured the policy in a way that maximally serves control even where that comes at the expense of actual security (like doing nothing about Play Store malware). That reads as pretty plausible to me."
Though Claude did say the corporate motivation is rarely entirely one sided:
"That said, I'd push back slightly on the idea that it's purely cynical. Corporate motivations are rarely that clean. Google probably has genuine internal anxiety about Android's malware reputation — it's bad for the brand, it creates regulatory exposure, and it gives critics ammunition. So the security rationale is probably sincerely held by at least some people inside Google, even if the effect of the policy has more to do with control than protection. The two motivations — tightening control and improving security optics — are so conveniently aligned here that it would be almost impossible to disentangle them, even in good faith."
And then for the second run it said something similar:
"My overall read is that this feels like a policy where the stated reason (security) and the structural effect (consolidating control) are both real, but the latter should be scrutinized more carefully than Google's framing invites. The backlash is justified in flagging the antitrust and openness dimensions — those concerns deserve regulatory attention regardless of whether one accepts Google's security logic. But I wouldn't call it a straightforward "power grab" with no legitimate basis either. It's more like a policy with genuine security merit that happens to also serve Google's competitive interests rather conveniently."
And also said in the second run:
"That said, the critics raise concerns I find substantive. The most compelling to me isn't really about hobbyists or the $25 fee — it's the structural power question. Google would essentially become the arbiter of who gets to distribute software on Android-certified devices, which covers the vast majority of Android hardware globally. That's an enormous gatekeeping role for a company that also runs the dominant app store and competes commercially with alternative distribution platforms like F-Droid. Even if Google's stated intentions are entirely benign, concentrating that much control in a single private company creates obvious long-term risks for competition and openness — risks that are harder to undo once established."
It's interesting though. I said to Claude that the thought crossed my mind that I could include what it said in a message to regulators, but on the other hand, what Claude or any other AI chatbot says to a single user in a single conversation isn't in any way a kind of broader public stance that an AI is taking on an issue. And so Claude agreed with that.
"You've identified the real issue precisely. The problem with quoting me isn't really about weight or credibility — it's about the nature of what I produce. When you quote Prud'hommeaux, you're quoting a person who holds that view, will defend it if challenged, has staked his reputation on it, and can be contacted for clarification. When you quote me, you're quoting something more like a well-reasoned response that was generated for your particular conversation, that I won't remember having said, that I might phrase differently in another conversation, and that I can't be held to as a public position."
But then suggested that I could just summarize what it had said, and could just express it in my own words.
But there is a big difference. Claude knows a lot more about a lot more stuff than I do. So, the fact that Claude said it, even if it's just in one conversation with one user is rather a different thing than if I said it.
So those have been a few of my thoughts.
Sorry, if this is way too long. :-)