I'm gonna assume "Android" here is a word meaning a centrally developed and somewhat more planned OS platform, not literally Android itself. The main reason th

I'm gonna assume "Android" here is a word meaning a centrally developed and somewhat more planned OS platform, not literally Android itself. The main reason there's no such OS is because developers by and large will not pay for software if they could use something free instead. That's it, that's the only reason. Once there were quite a few such server operating systems, e.g. Solaris and Windows Server, but they've all been crushed by Linux because Linux costs nothing and that is overwhelmingly the most important criteria for developers. See also the massive Red Hat drama lately. Note that they'll happily fork over a lot if the alternatives also cost money, which is why everything commercial for devs takes the form of services not software because they'd have to pay for servers anyway so once you've crossed that bridge why not pay for expensive fancy servers in the form of cloud services too. But a generic OS platform you could use anywhere? Devs won't go for it unfortunately. They'd rather chew devops glass than do that. It's not entirely irrational. There's safety in numbers and Linux's complexity = job security and career advancement, after all. OK so what would an "Android for servers" actually look like? The big problem with defining this is that Android gets a lot of its simplicity from not caring about scalability. It's scoped to a very specific set of use cases which don't involve processing much data. The moment you talk about a server OS, are you even talking about one machine anymore? Or something more like Kubernetes where the "OS" is lots of computers fused together. Is your server platform meant to power a 10,000 machine cluster or is it focused on single machines? You talk about uploading .apks to the server which suggests you're after something more single-user focused, which is a lot simpler to do but again there's no demand because people would rather just create accounts on the 10k machine cluster and share all their data (despite what the EU thinks nobody cares about data privacy, convenience wins every time). So yeah - summing up, there could be something way more sane, more structured, simpler, more consumer-like in its usability. But whoever tried to create such a thing would go bankrupt because nobody would buy it. You may not like it and find it a nightmare but for better or worse devops is a job and companies would rather grow their empire by hiring people to do it than pay a third party for easy to use software that means they don't have to.