> Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader I disagree. Android market share is highly relevant to Google. Android is the platf

> Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader I disagree. Android market share is highly relevant to Google. Android is the platform where Google exerts its strongest ability to nudge/influence/cajole/incentivize users to use its money making services (e.g. search). If Android loses market share, Google loses money. What's more, Android market share keeps Google in the game. Google pays Apple 3 billion each year to be included as the default search engine on iOS. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billio... What would happen if Google did not have Android at all? What alternative would it have to paying Apple (and any other company with a competitive mobile OS) an ever-growing share of its search revenue? How would Google compete against Bing and others if, instead, Windows Mobile had Android's market share? Google would be in a weaker, less profitable, position. The driving reason Google bothered to create Android in the first place was to stay relevant in an economy which was transitioning away from desktop and toward mobile.