4 ms·

What would be the business model of Android if they were an independent company? It's FOSS so they can't really charge licensing fees. But they'll still need to

What would be the business model of Android if they were an independent company? It's FOSS so they can't really charge licensing fees. But they'll still need to make enough money to keep up with iOS.

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
Android Services Framework requires certification in order for you to get Play Store access.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Indeed, an independent Android, no longer with the sole purpose of driving Google account expansion, could charge hardware manufacturers. It's likely literally every hardware manufacturer would accept a modest licensing fee in exchange for not having to invent their own OS. Something like Google's fake consortium from back in the day could have more impact, too. If Android was managed by something akin to the Open Handset Alliance, where significant hardware platform partners had a say in how Android was developed and monetized, it's likely you'd see a really healthy ecosystem of support for it, not controlled by a single entity.
jsnell 7y ago
Selling the right to be the default search engine to the highest bidder seems like a pretty good business to be in. Apple reportedly makes $12 billion per year on that. No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life. Actually, the argument is not that it's rent-seeking, it's that it's anti-competitive. It's not anti-competitive when Apple does it, because Apple doesn't have an equivalent search offering that automatically wins the bidding process. Nice straw man argument, though.
  - jsnell 7y ago
    It's not a straw-man when people are actually making that argument. (Rent seeking is a quote from this thread, not something I made up). The proposed model is obviously better for search engine competition than what iOS and Firefox do. In those models, there is no user choice: the platform holder takes the highest bid, which based on empirical evidence will be Google. It's way easier for the alternative search engines to get a foot in the door when there are multiple slots up for sale. (And if Android were split out from Google, they'd go with the iOS model of selling just the default rather than the one where users choose from a list, since it's more profitable and has a simpler setup flow.) The most common idea being floated in this thread right now is that Google should be part of the bidding and all the proceeds from the auction should be donated to some third party. How is that supposed to increase competition? We know that Google will win one of those spots. From the point of view of search engine. All that proposal will do is bleed Google for a few billions of dollars a year, it will not make it any more nor less likely for users to choose to use alternative search engines. So no, I don't think that the main worry on people's minds in this thread is the competitiveness of alternative search engines. There seems to be no interest in making it easier for those search engines to gain market share and thus economies of scale. It's all about seeing some punishment be meted out. (I think there are valid criticisms to be made of the auction format though; seems like it could be made more efficient and fair with some simple changes.)
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Isn't bleeding Google of a few billion an important component, if this plan also bleeds all their competitors of a few billion? I mean, all of their competitors have a lot less money than them, so the fact that Google also gets placement for free is what makes this uniquely comical. If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it.
      - jsnell 7y ago
        No, I don't think it's important. Users have value to search engines. Every user who chooses a non-Google option from the dialog will immediately cause Google to make less money, and the selected competitor to make more. (Because all the competitors will be bidding less than Google makes per user, and bidding less than they themselves make per user). So I think saying that the competitors will be bleeding billions of dollars is just not true. Unless they totally misjudge their bids, they should still be in a better position than they are now. (But I'll happily volunteer to be the third party getting those billions of dollars a year. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig!) > If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it. Sounds great, I'll happily volunteer for that too! But more seriously, that sounds like a rather bizarre plan to me. Is it part of any kind of established anti-trust doctrine? The most competitive alternative (Bing) is owned by a trillion dollar company, controlling one of the biggest operating systems and the biggest browsers. You'd seriously have Google pay Microsoft to make Bing better? The next one on the list is owned by a mere $250 billion company, so obviously there's no question at all about Verizon needing some handouts. But what's the next step after that? Google should perhaps give Apple some free money so that they can make iOS more competitive? It's too bad for Google they shut down G+, if they'd waited just a bit longer they could have gotten Facebook to chip in some money to fund its development.

What would be the business model of Android if they were an independent company? It's FOSS so they can't really charge licensing fees. But they'll still need to make enough money to keep up with iOS.

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago

Android Services Framework requires certification in order for you to get Play Store access.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Indeed, an independent Android, no longer with the sole purpose of driving Google account expansion, could charge hardware manufacturers. It's likely literally every hardware manufacturer would accept a modest licensing fee in exchange for not having to invent their own OS. Something like Google's fake consortium from back in the day could have more impact, too. If Android was managed by something akin to the Open Handset Alliance, where significant hardware platform partners had a say in how Android was developed and monetized, it's likely you'd see a really healthy ecosystem of support for it, not controlled by a single entity.

jsnell 7y ago

Selling the right to be the default search engine to the highest bidder seems like a pretty good business to be in. Apple reportedly makes $12 billion per year on that. No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life. Actually, the argument is not that it's rent-seeking, it's that it's anti-competitive. It's not anti-competitive when Apple does it, because Apple doesn't have an equivalent search offering that automatically wins the bidding process. Nice straw man argument, though.
- jsnell 7y ago
  It's not a straw-man when people are actually making that argument. (Rent seeking is a quote from this thread, not something I made up). The proposed model is obviously better for search engine competition than what iOS and Firefox do. In those models, there is no user choice: the platform holder takes the highest bid, which based on empirical evidence will be Google. It's way easier for the alternative search engines to get a foot in the door when there are multiple slots up for sale. (And if Android were split out from Google, they'd go with the iOS model of selling just the default rather than the one where users choose from a list, since it's more profitable and has a simpler setup flow.) The most common idea being floated in this thread right now is that Google should be part of the bidding and all the proceeds from the auction should be donated to some third party. How is that supposed to increase competition? We know that Google will win one of those spots. From the point of view of search engine. All that proposal will do is bleed Google for a few billions of dollars a year, it will not make it any more nor less likely for users to choose to use alternative search engines. So no, I don't think that the main worry on people's minds in this thread is the competitiveness of alternative search engines. There seems to be no interest in making it easier for those search engines to gain market share and thus economies of scale. It's all about seeing some punishment be meted out. (I think there are valid criticisms to be made of the auction format though; seems like it could be made more efficient and fair with some simple changes.)
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Isn't bleeding Google of a few billion an important component, if this plan also bleeds all their competitors of a few billion? I mean, all of their competitors have a lot less money than them, so the fact that Google also gets placement for free is what makes this uniquely comical. If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it.
    - jsnell 7y ago
      No, I don't think it's important. Users have value to search engines. Every user who chooses a non-Google option from the dialog will immediately cause Google to make less money, and the selected competitor to make more. (Because all the competitors will be bidding less than Google makes per user, and bidding less than they themselves make per user). So I think saying that the competitors will be bleeding billions of dollars is just not true. Unless they totally misjudge their bids, they should still be in a better position than they are now. (But I'll happily volunteer to be the third party getting those billions of dollars a year. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig!) > If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it. Sounds great, I'll happily volunteer for that too! But more seriously, that sounds like a rather bizarre plan to me. Is it part of any kind of established anti-trust doctrine? The most competitive alternative (Bing) is owned by a trillion dollar company, controlling one of the biggest operating systems and the biggest browsers. You'd seriously have Google pay Microsoft to make Bing better? The next one on the list is owned by a mere $250 billion company, so obviously there's no question at all about Verizon needing some handouts. But what's the next step after that? Google should perhaps give Apple some free money so that they can make iOS more competitive? It's too bad for Google they shut down G+, if they'd waited just a bit longer they could have gotten Facebook to chip in some money to fund its development.