11 ms·

Google Android: The Accidental Empire

133 points by nikcub 15y ago

Kylekramer 15y ago
It does honestly seem like Google stumbled into a goldmine. Google basically set out to create the Sidekick 2.0 (I don't really get the constant "Android started as a Blackberry ripoff" claims, when there are much more obvious Danger roots). I really don't see Page/Brin/Rubin in a room in 2006, rubbing their hands together thinking they were going to shock the world. It seems more like the Google guys were big Sidekick fans and saw the chance to work with Rubin for relatively cheap. But they kept their options open, made a lot of cautious small bets rather than going all in. They didn't make the iPhone, no, but they placed themselves in a position where they could react to iPhone. By being open to the opportunity and a lot of luck, they essentially became the only choice a monster sized industry had in the face of huge disrupting new competitor. Google often get slagged for the unfocused, perpetual beta thing. But laser focus is overrated. For example, given the choice of only picking Chrome OS or Android, a laser focused Google would have never gone Android. Overall I think it is much better to admit the future is unknown, and be prepared (especially for a large company with Google-sized resources).
- beatle 15y ago
  What goldmine? They just replaced Nokia. Android is the new Nokia. Lots of worthless Market share, Zero profit. EDIT: I realize i'm going to be down voted for this. But if you don't think it's true, you're delusional.
  - Kylekramer 15y ago
    The profits obviously aren't as simple as x widgets cost y dollars to produce and sell at price z (might change with the impending Motorola acquistion) and it is probably never going to be known strictly how much Android makes. But if you think Google can't convert half a million new Android phones a day into money, you haven't been paying attention to Google at all.
    - falling 15y ago
      I think this blind faith in Google to be a bit weird. I still find unbelievable they can make that much money just with ads – I do believe they do, it just befuddles me – on a phone it's even harder to display them and in fact you don't see as many in the mobile web, are we really sure that Android is profitable? Maybe it's not yet and they're still trying to find the business model for it. Maybe it will never directly be, it will just serve as measure to not be excluded from the mobile world and keep competitors (not derogatory) from eating into Google.
      - jerhewet 15y ago
        > I still find unbelievable they can make that much money just with ads I do as well, and wish there were more research available on internet advertising. I'm sure a few companies at the top of the pyramid make money, but everyone else (IMNSHO) is taking money out of their left pocket and putting it into their right pocket (A buys ads on B, B buys ads on C, [...] Z buys ads on A; in the end, a zero-sum game). I'm sure we'll be shouted down, but you're not alone in your opinion.
        nl 15y ago
        I do as well, and wish there were more research available on internet advertising Have you actually looked? It's one of the most actively researched fields in the world at the moment. Try http://www.iab.net/insights_research http://www.iab.net/insights_research to start. I'm sure a few companies at the top of the pyramid make money This is absolutely, completely untrue. One of the reasons internet advertising is so popular is because its effectiveness can be proven - advertising companies can show how people exposed to ads buy at a higher rate. The improvement in rate can be calculated exactly, which shows the advertiser exactly how much they should spend. Take a look at http://www.aimia.com.au/enews/IAB/IAB%20Retail%20Study%20-%20Finalv3.pdf http://www.aimia.com.au/enews/IAB/IAB%20Retail%20Study%20-%2... (skip to roughly half way thorough). There they promoted a new product in one market exclusively online, and did no promotion in the other market. Sales in the promoted market were 11% higher than the control. Don't believe it? Try it yourself - I wanted to understand it better, so signed up for an affiliate account and did some Facebook advertising. It worked quite well - I was able to make around $15 for every $1 spent (obviously this was a very specific market segment).
  - untog 15y ago
    Lots of worthless Market share Every user having their searches funneled through your search engine. Tight integration with your e-mail service, your video sharing service and your VOIP service. Much, much more. Millions of people conducting their lives through your product is definitely not 'worthless'.
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      > Every user having their searches funneled through your search engine. Tight integration with your e-mail service, your video sharing service and your VOIP service. Much, much more. iOS currently has all of that except the VOIP, FWIW.
      - untog 15y ago
        This isn't an iPhone vs Android ego stroking contest, though. Both companies have market share, it is beneficial to both of them.
  - pavlov 15y ago
    Just a few years ago, the old Nokia was consistently bringing in >1 billion USD in profit per quarter. If your theory is correct and Android has simply replaced Nokia, it's making a good amount of money for someone. (Unless $1B == 0 in your world.)
  - slykat 15y ago
    I don't understand why I keep hearing this mantra so often - it's completely off-base. Android is clearly a goldmine. The goldmine is the incremental search revenue Google gets from controlling the Android platform. Why do you think the search volume on mobile is a hockey stick at Google? Literally every single android device has a dedicated search button on it; iOS devices do not. Which device do you think has higher searches per user? The incremental search volume (and search ad revenue) is enough to justify the entire Android investment. More importantly, without Android, Apple had the ability to lock out Google from mobile search by changing the default search provider to non-Google. The lost revenue if Apple changes its mind and Google is locked out of mobile search? There's your 2nd goldmine. The argument that Android is not a money maker is like the argument that Gillette selling razors below cost is bad idea. At the end of the day both Gillette and Google make a tons of money off selling something that isn't exactly the main product, but is peripheral to it. In Gillette's case it's razor blades, in Google's it's search.
    - sedev 15y ago
      Why do you think the search volume on mobile is a hockey stick at Google? I could take a guess. "Google Exec Testifies Before Senate That Two-Thirds of Mobile Search Happens on iOS Devices" http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-search-comes-from-apples-ios/ http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-sea...
      - nextparadigms 15y ago
        Well iOS used to have a much larger user base, but Android has almost caught up, and will even surpass it. But depending so much on iOS so far is exactly the reason why Google needed Android.
    - guelo 15y ago
      > I don't understand why I keep hearing this mantra so often When Android got #1 market share the Apple fanboys decided that direct profit is the only number that matters.
    - mesec 15y ago
  - tnuc 15y ago
    There is a lot of profit in the Google ads that permeate so many android apps.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I downvoted you purely because of your edit.
  - interlagos 15y ago
    You should be downvoted for it, and it's sad that you haven't thus far. Worthless market share? Zero profit? Such emotionally-driven hubris has no place on HN.
  - webwright 15y ago
    I'll downvote you because I think you're missing the point. Android makes Google $2.5B/yr (that's a run rate, up from $1B this time last year). Google's total run-rate is about $35B by comparison. Given that it's in land-grab mode, I imagine they are re-investing like crazy in Android-- they realize that the dominant smartphone operating system has a lot of market power. As an example, Microsoft makes more on Office/Server stuff than they do on Windows. tl;dr Comparing a dominant operating system (Android to a hardware company that grudgingly made software (Nokia) isn't really valid.
- diminish 15y ago
  Personally owning, several androids in the family as phones and tablets, I am thankful to Google for pushing open source to a proud leader. All manufacturers may freely use it and may offer newer phones. I wish I will be able to play more with Android the way I do with my Linux, as soon as Nexus like devices become commonplace. Thanks Google.
- ethnomusicolog 15y ago
  I don't understand why you attribute it to luck. Don't we have plenty of evidence of how much smart google top management can be?
- rdouble 15y ago
  It seems more like the Google guys were big Sidekick fans and saw the chance to work with Rubin for relatively cheap Android the company was built to sell to a larger company. The acquisition could be attributed to the shrewdness of Android's sales pitch to Google.
  - beatle 15y ago
    who said Android's cheap? Real cost of Android = Android acquisition price + Motorola acquisition price ($12.5 Billion) + Lawsuits
    - nl 15y ago
      Motorola acquisition price ($12.5 Billion) Android has been successful already, even without that. Lawsuits Only Oracle has sued Google over Android, and the outcome of that is far from settled.
    - webwright 15y ago
      Cheap all depends on the ultimate value. I remember when people scoffed at the spending/fundraising that Facebook was doing. They'll do 4.5ish billion in revenue this year. Android enjoyed a 2.5x growth rate in revenue over the last year. If that continues for a few years, your formula will seem pretty cheap. On the motorola acquisition, it's fairly hard to calculate what it saved Google. Will the patent portfolio they picked up save them billions in settlements/legal costs? Quite possibly.
      - beatle 15y ago
        Saw this before. The key words are....annualized and revenue. They did not report mobile quarterly figures or costs and profits. But. we can extrapolate: $2.5 Billion annualized == $625 million quarterly mobile revenue. Elsewhere in the earnings report: $10 Billion total quarterly revenue One of the costs broken out was TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs,) -- these were $.25 for each $1 of revenue. Assuming that TAC costs are consistent across mobile and non-mobile that means: quarterly mobile revenue - TAC == $470 million ANAICT, Gross margins were 40% of revenue - TAC quarterly gross mobile profit == $188 million No figures were given, so let's assume that 50% of mobile comes from Android phones (50 % from iPhones and all other smart phones) quarterly gross mobile profit from Android == $94 million No direct expenses/costs were given for mobile, Android development, etc. If we assume Google has 10 people on the Android team @ $100,000 each, per year (Pay, office, equipment, benefits, etc.) or $.25 million per quarter That would leave: Android quarterly profit before taxes == $93.75 million Obviously, these are just SWAG estimates (and I hope my math and logic are correct) -- but they are an attempt to put in context the headline of this article" --------- Google announces $2.5 billion in mobile revenue/run rate == $93.75 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%) $93.75 Million quarterly profits from Android is peanuts. Apple earns more selling smart covers.
- sedev 15y ago
  Maybe a silver mine, but definitely not a goldmine. Apple is still taking home the lion's share of the profits in mobile, which the author of the article rather ignores.
  - mey 15y ago
    I'm sure Android is much more to Google then the Android Market place. Like iOS device, it's also creating an ecosystem of devices/service. How many people now have gmail accounts, and are searching through google then before they had Android devices? Google hopefully understands (don't see any indication they don't) that they are getting a channel to market directly to users as well as obtain new users. This system gives them a platform to directly compete in a variety of media markets, now as a content provider in addition to their ad model.
    - chimeracoder 15y ago
      To me, it's completely clear that Google's plan for Android is much broader than the Android marketplace. Google's had a reputation for neglecting products in the past, but even despite that, they would have focused far more resources on the Android Market and angled it differently if that were their focus of Android. Google wants to create a platform that will dominate all mobile devices for years to come. Cell phones (and, more recently, tablets) are just one aspect of that. They want a standard OS for any small-scale device. In their vision of the future, your coffee maker, refrigerator, and laundry machine may all use an Android-based platform. This is one of the reasons why they are perfectly happy with Android being used for cheap smartphones which are really just amped-up feature phones. They don't want to be seen as elitist, the way that Apple tries to market itself as high-end. They want to have high-end products, sure, but it's equally important to them that they cover the range of that spectrum. I don't know if they had exactly this in mind when acquiring Android, but by now, it seems clear to me that this is their goal.
    - guygurari 15y ago
      > How many people now have gmail accounts, and are searching through google then before they had Android devices? Judging by Android users I see around me, not a single one.
- Steko 15y ago
  It's more like Google's stumbled onto a gold mine that's already been looted: Google makes $5-$10 per Android phone, maybe 10% of what it's partners make. That's about the same amount as Microsoft makes off each Android phone and is perhaps 1/50th of what Apple makes off each iphone. Even worse it turns out that the half empty gold mine is on public land and any crazy old coot can waltz in and start mining themselves: Android won their "empire" by being the only credible licensed iphone clone in 2009. The real question is whether this empire is going to be of the Han/Roman/Windows variety as so many commentators assume or will it be a short lived dynasty like the Qin/Napoleonic/Netscape variety. I'll put my money on a Three Kingdoms scenario playing out. Why do I think WP 7 has a ghost of a chance when everyone's done nothing but dismiss them? Let's review: Android phones started shipping in Fall 08. However they really didn't have any traction until Fall 09 when Verizon started pushing the Droid. And it wasn't until Froyo phones shipped en masse in Summer 2010 where Android started to dominate carrier shops. In the same way WP7 launched buggy, incomplete and lackluster in late 2010. It had no traction for it's first 3 quarters. Lately though we've seen a mature OS update released on a 2nd generation of phones that were designed for it. More importantly Microsoft has made no secret of it's desire to buy market share with retail subsidies. And it will certainly be buying this market share at Android's expense. How much they're willing to lose buying this market share isn't clear but if it's anything like the money they've plowed into Bing that's a lot.
  - karlmdavis 15y ago
    Do you have citations for your $5-$10 figures? Also, you're neglecting to account for the money they're making from the Android market: apps, movies, books, etc.
    - sixcorners 15y ago
      The 30% they give to the carriers?
  - ypcx 15y ago
    The future is Open Source. That's why Microsoft has no place there. Also don't be fooled by how much money is made where. Money is just a tool; one of.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  "They didn't make the iPhone, no, but they placed themselves in a position where they could react to iPhone." Exactly. They set themselves up so they could quickly react to disruptive change in the smartphone market. The iPhone happened to be what came along. Most people don't understand what an impressive accomplishment this is. Let's look at how long it took for some other smartphone competitors to release their response to the iPhone: Palm took two years (and started over from the ground up). Microsoft took three years (and still doesn't have traction). Nokia took took four years (and then threw it away). RIM still isn't there yet (next year?). And Google? They took one year. They clearly were doing something right. BTW, props for remembering Danger. So many people don't in these discussions and (for someone who was working with smartphones back then) it is incredibly frustrating.
  - rimantas 15y ago
    > And Google? They took one year. They clearly were doing > something right. Like buying Android Inc. in 2005?
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      If you want to read "the Android team" where I said Google, feel free. The overall point is the same.
colkassad 15y ago
I wonder how different the market would be had Apple not given AT&T exclusivity. Honestly, I think Android still would have done well, but does anyone think the exclusive deal with AT&T hurt Apple in the long run?
- notatoad 15y ago
  i'm not sure "hurt apple" is the right way to put it, as i see it pretty much everybody who wants (and can afford) an iphone has one. apple hasn't lost anything yet because of the deal. the exclusivity deal allowed android to gain a foothold, but i don't see android as a competitor to iphone, just an alternative. people who buy android phones are people who don't want an iPhone and probably wouldn't have bought one anyways.
  - eavc 15y ago
    I disagree. I wanted an iPhone but couldn't get it because I was on Verizon. I also happen to be someone who influences my friends and family on technology. When Android turned out to be a great experience, I told other people. Now my mom, sister, sister's boyfriend, both brothers-in-law and their wives, and my mother-in-law are all Android users. Every single one of those people would have purchased an iPhone if Android wasn't around.
- qdog 15y ago
  Not a straightforward scenario. Doubtful most other carriers were willing to make the same deal AT&T made at the time (no customization, etc.). People were waiting in line for iPhones to begin with, so they would have to have had different manufacturing, etc. Apple could have probably even released a Cocoa Stack or something to run the iOS ui on any Android phone out there and gobbled up a huge market, but Jobs wanted total control, and seeing Apple's current profitability, it's hard to realistically predict a better move than the ones he made. FD: Until a couple of weeks ago I owned no Apple products except a very old ipod nano someone gave me years ago. I'm no fan of Apple, but it seems unrealistic to second-guess the success they had for the last decade.
- falling 15y ago
untog 15y ago
I don't think that Android's success is relative to the iPhone- in many ways, it's a greater reflection of the failure of Nokia and, to a lesser extent, Blackberry. To explain: Apple generally tends to be happy making more expensive, premium products that command a smaller section of the market. They're happy to sacrifice greater market potential to do so- like not allowing carrier customisations, making multiple models, etc. They've compromised this somewhat for the iPhone (they clearly didn't want to have carrier-subsidised handsets originally, for example) but it has worked out for them in a huge way. Still- historically, the ubiquity of the iPhone is in some ways atypical for Apple. Nokia, on the other hand, has always been more than happy to play ball with the carriers. They should be where Android is now- the ecosystem with a ton of different phone models, carrier-bundled apps, cheap phones and a huge market share. If they had played their cards right Google might still be relegated to teaming up with Apple on mobile. But Nokia left the market wide open- Apple compromised a little to move into the space but Google saw the gap and went for it 100%.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Android is crushing Nokia not because of the cheap phones - but because it can scale from cheap to expensive, from featured to luxury. A cheap Android phone, like LG Optimus One gives you partly the look and feel of an expensive smartphone. In contrast, Nokia's featured phones with Symbian on them are great for their cost, but they do feel cheap. And an expensive smartphone with Symbian on it still feels cheap. I don't think that Android's success is relative to the iPhone I disagree. The iPhone is probably the biggest reason for Android's success. It first started when Apple decided that an AT&T monopoly was worth it. And it happened in Europe too - in my country only Orange was originally selling iPhones, until iPhone 4 came out. Like in a bad movie when an old dude sitting on its porch says "a storm is coming" ... carriers and phone makers began freaking out and saw in Android THE alternative. It is a good alternative. And while Apple may have a huge network of stores, it cannot compete with the distribution network of multiple vendors. (EDIT: rephrased the last paragraph)
  - untog 15y ago
    * carriers and phone makers began freaking out and saw in Android THE alternative.* Oh, sure. But my point was that Android being THE alternative was a failing of Nokia and Blackberry over anything else.
joebadmo 15y ago
That's the beauty of Google's spaghetti-at-the-wall approach, isn't it? To me, it's kind of a refreshing, child-like approach to things, with an investigative curiosity and implicit acknowledgment of an ignorance of what will become important. While I think Larry Page's new focus on focus is great, and I think most of their products are getting better because of it, I do get a bit scared that it comes at the cost of the explorative nature of the company in its youth.
- diminish 15y ago
  Agree so much. Android is a perfect toy Google has developed to disrupt the established players and stopped a 1984-like future in mobile. Neither Blackberry BES nor Apple's single-device behind a walled garden were for me; and Thanks to Android I have choice.
  - beatle 15y ago
    Yeah. A crappy choice. I would not be saying this if Android was such a beacon of software quality. Android is just Google's tool to serve users ads. Nothing more.
- bluemarc22 15y ago
  Wow, awesome comment!
- bitwize 15y ago
  Apple has a spaghetti-at-the-wall approach too. The thing is, they rigorously weed out non-working ideas and use the time and energy saved to apply extra polish to the working ones. The result is products that are just about as close to perfect as it is possible to be in an imperfect world. I see nothing like this sort of selection pressure going on at Google; accordingly, shoddy architectures like Android not only make the cut, but go on to be Really Big Things if they're good enough to accumulate network effects. Kinda like Windows and Office.
  - mahyarm 15y ago
    So how do they know that it sticks before they release it? I wouldn't think Zynga would of made money until they released it.
superasn 15y ago
Google mantra of do no evil is at the heart of this success again. I really admire that they've kept it open source and not followed their competitors in creating ridiculous policies such as taking a cut of e-book sales, policing for adult content, banning all apps that interact directly with the hardware or try to do things outside of their limited API, etc.
- Spearchucker 15y ago
  They haven't kept it open source, strictly speaking (ref. Honeycomb). Their naivety has left them dangerously exposed on patents, the recent CarrierIQ debacle is an example of the dangers of Android's openness, and any worthwhile app in the Android Market is hacked and re-submitted as a free app before you can blink an eye. Google's not making money from Android, and neither are developers*. That's not even starting on the security vulnerabilities, or the fact that Google's business model is based on a premise of invasive personal data-slurpage to sell more ads. Granted, that's a generalization. But it makes the point.
  - superasn 15y ago
    I will agree with you on the patents, but as far as the security is concerned that's just security through obscurity, which isn't any better. As far as making money is concerned I don't see the reason why? Android has a good market-share, a good marketplace, and it even allows for in-app purchases. What's stopping them from making money here?
  - kgen 15y ago
    Why so negative looking? All releases except for Honeycomb have been opensourced allowing for a number of custom roms used on millions of devices (cyanogen, miui) which is more than can be said for other platforms. The openness of Android apps allow for applications and innovation not possible on the iphone or other devices (custom lock screens, homescreens, NASA's phonesats). The CarrierIQ debacle involved all major phone developers including Apple (prior to iOS5), BB, Nokia as well. Granted, that's a generalization. But it makes the point.
halo 15y ago
It does require a step back to realise the magnitude of change: Google have managed strumble into Microsoft's position in phones. On the surface, that's both astounding and completely unexpected. Google put itself into that position by being a neutral 3rd party that manufacturers could trust coupled with a realisation that most phone manufacturers were great at hardware but terrible at software. The outcome is that the companies who didn't see software as their competency and were willing to drop their OSes (Samsung, Motorola, HTC) have reaped the benefits while companies whose strengths were based around their software being slightly better than their competitors (RIM, Nokia) have fallen behind.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Google have managed strumble into Microsoft's position in phones. Yes and no: they have a similar marketshare, but Microsoft had marketshare and money. Google only has the marketshare (and in a limited fashion at that, since implementors "improve the experience" pretty drastically) and get little to no money out of it (likewise for a number of their implementors, too). And implementors are anything but locked in, as Android holds little software primacy. It does have a lively store, catching onto iOS's, but Android is not "essential", and so far I've not seen any critical software running on android and android only. This means with a little business acumen and some software investment (note that they usually fail at both, but...) most Android implementors can get away from Android pretty fast. And in fact most seem to keep hedging their bets (apart from Moto anyway), either by having WP handsets as well (HTC) or by keeping a ready and used "internal" OS (Samsung's bada)
  - nknight 15y ago
    Where are you people getting this "Android makes no money for Google" perception from? Android makes money for Google in exactly the same way all of their other products/services make money: Advertising.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    It's really just very very early for the smartphone market, and Android is the fastest growing mobile OS. Its potential is more like 20x bigger user base than it has now. They will be able to make a lot more money than they do now from Android.
TechNewb 15y ago
From an IP perspective, do you think Android is legal? From Java, to multi touch, to design aesthetics. Is Google doing to the OS industry to what they did to the news paper and media industry where IP is considered 'obsolete'. And a silent emperor sits over the valley of chaos?
- TechNewb 15y ago
  Just google: is android legal?
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > Is Google doing to the OS industry to what they did to the news paper and media industry where IP is considered 'obsolete'. Google didn't do much to the newspaper and media industry. They mostly screwed themselves, with some help from competitors like Craigslist in their profit centers like classifieds.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But many, if not all, of google's empire is based around curating other people's IP, including Android. Much of the IP Google does have is kept server side, safe from competitors. But the legal issues are real, and I imagine many of the downrates of my previous comment was of either google developers or people within that eco-system. Why did Microsoft take so long to make Windows Phone, and why does it legally appear safe? And how is that related to Android? But don't get me wrong, I love Google for search and web apps, just not operating systems that, to at least me, seem slightly trojan in nature.
    - bryanlarsen 15y ago
      If Android is illegal, then so is Apple (Good artists copy, great artists steal) and Microsoft (embrace, extend, extinguish). If your product contains software, then chances are that it infringes on many patents.
      - 15y ago
inoop 15y ago
Imho Android has been successful because, until recently, it had no competition. Android came around at a time when the increasing complexity of building and maintaining a proprietary software stack was forcing handset builders to essentially become software companies. Android gave them the option to return to doing what they did best. Nokia and RIM tried to maintain their own stuff and suffered heavily for it. I think that Android's success is due to its business model, not the quality of the software itself. The Android team should take care to not become the next Netscape.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I think Microsoft taught us 3 valuable lessons: 1) distribution agreements and good relationships with hardware makers trumps quality - that's how they've beaten Apple and IBM (OS/2 Warp, launched in 1994 was better than Windows 95 and compatible with DOS and Win 16) 2) worse is better, a lesson they themselves took from Unix - timing is more important, you can always improve later 3) operating systems are natural monopolies - if you win the market of low-end PCs and keep growing, you'll eventually take over the whole market If anything, I fear Google is the next Microsoft. I hope not because I love Android.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Google is more open than Microsoft ever was, though. There's no Cyanogenmod of Windows.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      Thank god for that - however Microsoft was pretty open for its time, as being a pure software company and letting computer makers to bundle your OS was the exception, not the norm.
    - orangecat 15y ago
      On the other hand, there was no concept of "rooting" your Windows installation, and the idea that you could only run apps approved by Microsoft would have caused immediate outrage and accusations of anticompetitive behavior. It's amazing how quickly Apple has been able to shift the Overton window, to the point where there's barely any reaction to Microsoft requiring approval for Windows 8 Metro apps.
sek 15y ago
I don't think that's the whole story. This could also be a PR spin. Google said later very often they feared an Apple monopoly on the smartphone market and Android is there to prevent it. Also Schmidt hates Microsoft to the bone and is happy about everything that hurts them. What makes Google appear unfocused is their long time thinking, they don't care if something integrates in another product only 5 years later. I bet the Google Car and Google Maps integration will be perfect and they also create 3D models of their environment what fits in Google Earth. Coincidence? I don't think so, these 3 incredible smart guys have all day to think about that.

133 points by nikcub 15y ago

It does honestly seem like Google stumbled into a goldmine. Google basically set out to create the Sidekick 2.0 (I don't really get the constant "Android started as a Blackberry ripoff" claims, when there are much more obvious Danger roots). I really don't see Page/Brin/Rubin in a room in 2006, rubbing their hands together thinking they were going to shock the world. It seems more like the Google guys were big Sidekick fans and saw the chance to work with Rubin for relatively cheap. But they kept their options open, made a lot of cautious small bets rather than going all in. They didn't make the iPhone, no, but they placed themselves in a position where they could react to iPhone. By being open to the opportunity and a lot of luck, they essentially became the only choice a monster sized industry had in the face of huge disrupting new competitor. Google often get slagged for the unfocused, perpetual beta thing. But laser focus is overrated. For example, given the choice of only picking Chrome OS or Android, a laser focused Google would have never gone Android. Overall I think it is much better to admit the future is unknown, and be prepared (especially for a large company with Google-sized resources).

beatle 15y ago
What goldmine? They just replaced Nokia. Android is the new Nokia. Lots of worthless Market share, Zero profit. EDIT: I realize i'm going to be down voted for this. But if you don't think it's true, you're delusional.
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  The profits obviously aren't as simple as x widgets cost y dollars to produce and sell at price z (might change with the impending Motorola acquistion) and it is probably never going to be known strictly how much Android makes. But if you think Google can't convert half a million new Android phones a day into money, you haven't been paying attention to Google at all.
  - falling 15y ago
    I think this blind faith in Google to be a bit weird. I still find unbelievable they can make that much money just with ads – I do believe they do, it just befuddles me – on a phone it's even harder to display them and in fact you don't see as many in the mobile web, are we really sure that Android is profitable? Maybe it's not yet and they're still trying to find the business model for it. Maybe it will never directly be, it will just serve as measure to not be excluded from the mobile world and keep competitors (not derogatory) from eating into Google.
    - jerhewet 15y ago
      > I still find unbelievable they can make that much money just with ads I do as well, and wish there were more research available on internet advertising. I'm sure a few companies at the top of the pyramid make money, but everyone else (IMNSHO) is taking money out of their left pocket and putting it into their right pocket (A buys ads on B, B buys ads on C, [...] Z buys ads on A; in the end, a zero-sum game). I'm sure we'll be shouted down, but you're not alone in your opinion.
      - nl 15y ago
        I do as well, and wish there were more research available on internet advertising Have you actually looked? It's one of the most actively researched fields in the world at the moment. Try http://www.iab.net/insights_research http://www.iab.net/insights_research to start. I'm sure a few companies at the top of the pyramid make money This is absolutely, completely untrue. One of the reasons internet advertising is so popular is because its effectiveness can be proven - advertising companies can show how people exposed to ads buy at a higher rate. The improvement in rate can be calculated exactly, which shows the advertiser exactly how much they should spend. Take a look at http://www.aimia.com.au/enews/IAB/IAB%20Retail%20Study%20-%20Finalv3.pdf http://www.aimia.com.au/enews/IAB/IAB%20Retail%20Study%20-%2... (skip to roughly half way thorough). There they promoted a new product in one market exclusively online, and did no promotion in the other market. Sales in the promoted market were 11% higher than the control. Don't believe it? Try it yourself - I wanted to understand it better, so signed up for an affiliate account and did some Facebook advertising. It worked quite well - I was able to make around $15 for every $1 spent (obviously this was a very specific market segment).
- untog 15y ago
  Lots of worthless Market share Every user having their searches funneled through your search engine. Tight integration with your e-mail service, your video sharing service and your VOIP service. Much, much more. Millions of people conducting their lives through your product is definitely not 'worthless'.
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    > Every user having their searches funneled through your search engine. Tight integration with your e-mail service, your video sharing service and your VOIP service. Much, much more. iOS currently has all of that except the VOIP, FWIW.
    - untog 15y ago
      This isn't an iPhone vs Android ego stroking contest, though. Both companies have market share, it is beneficial to both of them.
- pavlov 15y ago
  Just a few years ago, the old Nokia was consistently bringing in >1 billion USD in profit per quarter. If your theory is correct and Android has simply replaced Nokia, it's making a good amount of money for someone. (Unless $1B == 0 in your world.)
- slykat 15y ago
  I don't understand why I keep hearing this mantra so often - it's completely off-base. Android is clearly a goldmine. The goldmine is the incremental search revenue Google gets from controlling the Android platform. Why do you think the search volume on mobile is a hockey stick at Google? Literally every single android device has a dedicated search button on it; iOS devices do not. Which device do you think has higher searches per user? The incremental search volume (and search ad revenue) is enough to justify the entire Android investment. More importantly, without Android, Apple had the ability to lock out Google from mobile search by changing the default search provider to non-Google. The lost revenue if Apple changes its mind and Google is locked out of mobile search? There's your 2nd goldmine. The argument that Android is not a money maker is like the argument that Gillette selling razors below cost is bad idea. At the end of the day both Gillette and Google make a tons of money off selling something that isn't exactly the main product, but is peripheral to it. In Gillette's case it's razor blades, in Google's it's search.
  - sedev 15y ago
    Why do you think the search volume on mobile is a hockey stick at Google? I could take a guess. "Google Exec Testifies Before Senate That Two-Thirds of Mobile Search Happens on iOS Devices" http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-search-comes-from-apples-ios/ http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-sea...
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      Well iOS used to have a much larger user base, but Android has almost caught up, and will even surpass it. But depending so much on iOS so far is exactly the reason why Google needed Android.
  - guelo 15y ago
    > I don't understand why I keep hearing this mantra so often When Android got #1 market share the Apple fanboys decided that direct profit is the only number that matters.
  - mesec 15y ago
- tnuc 15y ago
  There is a lot of profit in the Google ads that permeate so many android apps.
- icebraining 15y ago
  I downvoted you purely because of your edit.
- interlagos 15y ago
  You should be downvoted for it, and it's sad that you haven't thus far. Worthless market share? Zero profit? Such emotionally-driven hubris has no place on HN.
- webwright 15y ago
  I'll downvote you because I think you're missing the point. Android makes Google $2.5B/yr (that's a run rate, up from $1B this time last year). Google's total run-rate is about $35B by comparison. Given that it's in land-grab mode, I imagine they are re-investing like crazy in Android-- they realize that the dominant smartphone operating system has a lot of market power. As an example, Microsoft makes more on Office/Server stuff than they do on Windows. tl;dr Comparing a dominant operating system (Android to a hardware company that grudgingly made software (Nokia) isn't really valid.
diminish 15y ago
Personally owning, several androids in the family as phones and tablets, I am thankful to Google for pushing open source to a proud leader. All manufacturers may freely use it and may offer newer phones. I wish I will be able to play more with Android the way I do with my Linux, as soon as Nexus like devices become commonplace. Thanks Google.
ethnomusicolog 15y ago
I don't understand why you attribute it to luck. Don't we have plenty of evidence of how much smart google top management can be?
rdouble 15y ago
It seems more like the Google guys were big Sidekick fans and saw the chance to work with Rubin for relatively cheap Android the company was built to sell to a larger company. The acquisition could be attributed to the shrewdness of Android's sales pitch to Google.
- beatle 15y ago
  who said Android's cheap? Real cost of Android = Android acquisition price + Motorola acquisition price ($12.5 Billion) + Lawsuits
  - nl 15y ago
    Motorola acquisition price ($12.5 Billion) Android has been successful already, even without that. Lawsuits Only Oracle has sued Google over Android, and the outcome of that is far from settled.
  - webwright 15y ago
    Cheap all depends on the ultimate value. I remember when people scoffed at the spending/fundraising that Facebook was doing. They'll do 4.5ish billion in revenue this year. Android enjoyed a 2.5x growth rate in revenue over the last year. If that continues for a few years, your formula will seem pretty cheap. On the motorola acquisition, it's fairly hard to calculate what it saved Google. Will the patent portfolio they picked up save them billions in settlements/legal costs? Quite possibly.
    - beatle 15y ago
      Saw this before. The key words are....annualized and revenue. They did not report mobile quarterly figures or costs and profits. But. we can extrapolate: $2.5 Billion annualized == $625 million quarterly mobile revenue. Elsewhere in the earnings report: $10 Billion total quarterly revenue One of the costs broken out was TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs,) -- these were $.25 for each $1 of revenue. Assuming that TAC costs are consistent across mobile and non-mobile that means: quarterly mobile revenue - TAC == $470 million ANAICT, Gross margins were 40% of revenue - TAC quarterly gross mobile profit == $188 million No figures were given, so let's assume that 50% of mobile comes from Android phones (50 % from iPhones and all other smart phones) quarterly gross mobile profit from Android == $94 million No direct expenses/costs were given for mobile, Android development, etc. If we assume Google has 10 people on the Android team @ $100,000 each, per year (Pay, office, equipment, benefits, etc.) or $.25 million per quarter That would leave: Android quarterly profit before taxes == $93.75 million Obviously, these are just SWAG estimates (and I hope my math and logic are correct) -- but they are an attempt to put in context the headline of this article" --------- Google announces $2.5 billion in mobile revenue/run rate == $93.75 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%) $93.75 Million quarterly profits from Android is peanuts. Apple earns more selling smart covers.
sedev 15y ago
Maybe a silver mine, but definitely not a goldmine. Apple is still taking home the lion's share of the profits in mobile, which the author of the article rather ignores.
- mey 15y ago
  I'm sure Android is much more to Google then the Android Market place. Like iOS device, it's also creating an ecosystem of devices/service. How many people now have gmail accounts, and are searching through google then before they had Android devices? Google hopefully understands (don't see any indication they don't) that they are getting a channel to market directly to users as well as obtain new users. This system gives them a platform to directly compete in a variety of media markets, now as a content provider in addition to their ad model.
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    To me, it's completely clear that Google's plan for Android is much broader than the Android marketplace. Google's had a reputation for neglecting products in the past, but even despite that, they would have focused far more resources on the Android Market and angled it differently if that were their focus of Android. Google wants to create a platform that will dominate all mobile devices for years to come. Cell phones (and, more recently, tablets) are just one aspect of that. They want a standard OS for any small-scale device. In their vision of the future, your coffee maker, refrigerator, and laundry machine may all use an Android-based platform. This is one of the reasons why they are perfectly happy with Android being used for cheap smartphones which are really just amped-up feature phones. They don't want to be seen as elitist, the way that Apple tries to market itself as high-end. They want to have high-end products, sure, but it's equally important to them that they cover the range of that spectrum. I don't know if they had exactly this in mind when acquiring Android, but by now, it seems clear to me that this is their goal.
  - guygurari 15y ago
    > How many people now have gmail accounts, and are searching through google then before they had Android devices? Judging by Android users I see around me, not a single one.
Steko 15y ago
It's more like Google's stumbled onto a gold mine that's already been looted: Google makes $5-$10 per Android phone, maybe 10% of what it's partners make. That's about the same amount as Microsoft makes off each Android phone and is perhaps 1/50th of what Apple makes off each iphone. Even worse it turns out that the half empty gold mine is on public land and any crazy old coot can waltz in and start mining themselves: Android won their "empire" by being the only credible licensed iphone clone in 2009. The real question is whether this empire is going to be of the Han/Roman/Windows variety as so many commentators assume or will it be a short lived dynasty like the Qin/Napoleonic/Netscape variety. I'll put my money on a Three Kingdoms scenario playing out. Why do I think WP 7 has a ghost of a chance when everyone's done nothing but dismiss them? Let's review: Android phones started shipping in Fall 08. However they really didn't have any traction until Fall 09 when Verizon started pushing the Droid. And it wasn't until Froyo phones shipped en masse in Summer 2010 where Android started to dominate carrier shops. In the same way WP7 launched buggy, incomplete and lackluster in late 2010. It had no traction for it's first 3 quarters. Lately though we've seen a mature OS update released on a 2nd generation of phones that were designed for it. More importantly Microsoft has made no secret of it's desire to buy market share with retail subsidies. And it will certainly be buying this market share at Android's expense. How much they're willing to lose buying this market share isn't clear but if it's anything like the money they've plowed into Bing that's a lot.
- karlmdavis 15y ago
  Do you have citations for your $5-$10 figures? Also, you're neglecting to account for the money they're making from the Android market: apps, movies, books, etc.
  - sixcorners 15y ago
    The 30% they give to the carriers?
- ypcx 15y ago
  The future is Open Source. That's why Microsoft has no place there. Also don't be fooled by how much money is made where. Money is just a tool; one of.
fpgeek 15y ago
"They didn't make the iPhone, no, but they placed themselves in a position where they could react to iPhone." Exactly. They set themselves up so they could quickly react to disruptive change in the smartphone market. The iPhone happened to be what came along. Most people don't understand what an impressive accomplishment this is. Let's look at how long it took for some other smartphone competitors to release their response to the iPhone: Palm took two years (and started over from the ground up). Microsoft took three years (and still doesn't have traction). Nokia took took four years (and then threw it away). RIM still isn't there yet (next year?). And Google? They took one year. They clearly were doing something right. BTW, props for remembering Danger. So many people don't in these discussions and (for someone who was working with smartphones back then) it is incredibly frustrating.
- rimantas 15y ago
  > And Google? They took one year. They clearly were doing > something right. Like buying Android Inc. in 2005?
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    If you want to read "the Android team" where I said Google, feel free. The overall point is the same.

colkassad 15y ago

I wonder how different the market would be had Apple not given AT&T exclusivity. Honestly, I think Android still would have done well, but does anyone think the exclusive deal with AT&T hurt Apple in the long run?

notatoad 15y ago
i'm not sure "hurt apple" is the right way to put it, as i see it pretty much everybody who wants (and can afford) an iphone has one. apple hasn't lost anything yet because of the deal. the exclusivity deal allowed android to gain a foothold, but i don't see android as a competitor to iphone, just an alternative. people who buy android phones are people who don't want an iPhone and probably wouldn't have bought one anyways.
- eavc 15y ago
  I disagree. I wanted an iPhone but couldn't get it because I was on Verizon. I also happen to be someone who influences my friends and family on technology. When Android turned out to be a great experience, I told other people. Now my mom, sister, sister's boyfriend, both brothers-in-law and their wives, and my mother-in-law are all Android users. Every single one of those people would have purchased an iPhone if Android wasn't around.
qdog 15y ago
Not a straightforward scenario. Doubtful most other carriers were willing to make the same deal AT&T made at the time (no customization, etc.). People were waiting in line for iPhones to begin with, so they would have to have had different manufacturing, etc. Apple could have probably even released a Cocoa Stack or something to run the iOS ui on any Android phone out there and gobbled up a huge market, but Jobs wanted total control, and seeing Apple's current profitability, it's hard to realistically predict a better move than the ones he made. FD: Until a couple of weeks ago I owned no Apple products except a very old ipod nano someone gave me years ago. I'm no fan of Apple, but it seems unrealistic to second-guess the success they had for the last decade.
falling 15y ago

untog 15y ago

I don't think that Android's success is relative to the iPhone- in many ways, it's a greater reflection of the failure of Nokia and, to a lesser extent, Blackberry. To explain: Apple generally tends to be happy making more expensive, premium products that command a smaller section of the market. They're happy to sacrifice greater market potential to do so- like not allowing carrier customisations, making multiple models, etc. They've compromised this somewhat for the iPhone (they clearly didn't want to have carrier-subsidised handsets originally, for example) but it has worked out for them in a huge way. Still- historically, the ubiquity of the iPhone is in some ways atypical for Apple. Nokia, on the other hand, has always been more than happy to play ball with the carriers. They should be where Android is now- the ecosystem with a ton of different phone models, carrier-bundled apps, cheap phones and a huge market share. If they had played their cards right Google might still be relegated to teaming up with Apple on mobile. But Nokia left the market wide open- Apple compromised a little to move into the space but Google saw the gap and went for it 100%.

bad_user 15y ago
Android is crushing Nokia not because of the cheap phones - but because it can scale from cheap to expensive, from featured to luxury. A cheap Android phone, like LG Optimus One gives you partly the look and feel of an expensive smartphone. In contrast, Nokia's featured phones with Symbian on them are great for their cost, but they do feel cheap. And an expensive smartphone with Symbian on it still feels cheap. I don't think that Android's success is relative to the iPhone I disagree. The iPhone is probably the biggest reason for Android's success. It first started when Apple decided that an AT&T monopoly was worth it. And it happened in Europe too - in my country only Orange was originally selling iPhones, until iPhone 4 came out. Like in a bad movie when an old dude sitting on its porch says "a storm is coming" ... carriers and phone makers began freaking out and saw in Android THE alternative. It is a good alternative. And while Apple may have a huge network of stores, it cannot compete with the distribution network of multiple vendors. (EDIT: rephrased the last paragraph)
- untog 15y ago
  * carriers and phone makers began freaking out and saw in Android THE alternative.* Oh, sure. But my point was that Android being THE alternative was a failing of Nokia and Blackberry over anything else.

joebadmo 15y ago

That's the beauty of Google's spaghetti-at-the-wall approach, isn't it? To me, it's kind of a refreshing, child-like approach to things, with an investigative curiosity and implicit acknowledgment of an ignorance of what will become important. While I think Larry Page's new focus on focus is great, and I think most of their products are getting better because of it, I do get a bit scared that it comes at the cost of the explorative nature of the company in its youth.

diminish 15y ago
Agree so much. Android is a perfect toy Google has developed to disrupt the established players and stopped a 1984-like future in mobile. Neither Blackberry BES nor Apple's single-device behind a walled garden were for me; and Thanks to Android I have choice.
- beatle 15y ago
  Yeah. A crappy choice. I would not be saying this if Android was such a beacon of software quality. Android is just Google's tool to serve users ads. Nothing more.
bluemarc22 15y ago
Wow, awesome comment!
bitwize 15y ago
Apple has a spaghetti-at-the-wall approach too. The thing is, they rigorously weed out non-working ideas and use the time and energy saved to apply extra polish to the working ones. The result is products that are just about as close to perfect as it is possible to be in an imperfect world. I see nothing like this sort of selection pressure going on at Google; accordingly, shoddy architectures like Android not only make the cut, but go on to be Really Big Things if they're good enough to accumulate network effects. Kinda like Windows and Office.
- mahyarm 15y ago
  So how do they know that it sticks before they release it? I wouldn't think Zynga would of made money until they released it.

superasn 15y ago

Google mantra of do no evil is at the heart of this success again. I really admire that they've kept it open source and not followed their competitors in creating ridiculous policies such as taking a cut of e-book sales, policing for adult content, banning all apps that interact directly with the hardware or try to do things outside of their limited API, etc.

Spearchucker 15y ago
They haven't kept it open source, strictly speaking (ref. Honeycomb). Their naivety has left them dangerously exposed on patents, the recent CarrierIQ debacle is an example of the dangers of Android's openness, and any worthwhile app in the Android Market is hacked and re-submitted as a free app before you can blink an eye. Google's not making money from Android, and neither are developers*. That's not even starting on the security vulnerabilities, or the fact that Google's business model is based on a premise of invasive personal data-slurpage to sell more ads. Granted, that's a generalization. But it makes the point.
- superasn 15y ago
  I will agree with you on the patents, but as far as the security is concerned that's just security through obscurity, which isn't any better. As far as making money is concerned I don't see the reason why? Android has a good market-share, a good marketplace, and it even allows for in-app purchases. What's stopping them from making money here?
- kgen 15y ago
  Why so negative looking? All releases except for Honeycomb have been opensourced allowing for a number of custom roms used on millions of devices (cyanogen, miui) which is more than can be said for other platforms. The openness of Android apps allow for applications and innovation not possible on the iphone or other devices (custom lock screens, homescreens, NASA's phonesats). The CarrierIQ debacle involved all major phone developers including Apple (prior to iOS5), BB, Nokia as well. Granted, that's a generalization. But it makes the point.

halo 15y ago

It does require a step back to realise the magnitude of change: Google have managed strumble into Microsoft's position in phones. On the surface, that's both astounding and completely unexpected. Google put itself into that position by being a neutral 3rd party that manufacturers could trust coupled with a realisation that most phone manufacturers were great at hardware but terrible at software. The outcome is that the companies who didn't see software as their competency and were willing to drop their OSes (Samsung, Motorola, HTC) have reaped the benefits while companies whose strengths were based around their software being slightly better than their competitors (RIM, Nokia) have fallen behind.

masklinn 15y ago
> Google have managed strumble into Microsoft's position in phones. Yes and no: they have a similar marketshare, but Microsoft had marketshare and money. Google only has the marketshare (and in a limited fashion at that, since implementors "improve the experience" pretty drastically) and get little to no money out of it (likewise for a number of their implementors, too). And implementors are anything but locked in, as Android holds little software primacy. It does have a lively store, catching onto iOS's, but Android is not "essential", and so far I've not seen any critical software running on android and android only. This means with a little business acumen and some software investment (note that they usually fail at both, but...) most Android implementors can get away from Android pretty fast. And in fact most seem to keep hedging their bets (apart from Moto anyway), either by having WP handsets as well (HTC) or by keeping a ready and used "internal" OS (Samsung's bada)
- nknight 15y ago
  Where are you people getting this "Android makes no money for Google" perception from? Android makes money for Google in exactly the same way all of their other products/services make money: Advertising.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  It's really just very very early for the smartphone market, and Android is the fastest growing mobile OS. Its potential is more like 20x bigger user base than it has now. They will be able to make a lot more money than they do now from Android.

TechNewb 15y ago

From an IP perspective, do you think Android is legal? From Java, to multi touch, to design aesthetics. Is Google doing to the OS industry to what they did to the news paper and media industry where IP is considered 'obsolete'. And a silent emperor sits over the valley of chaos?

TechNewb 15y ago
Just google: is android legal?
ceejayoz 15y ago
> Is Google doing to the OS industry to what they did to the news paper and media industry where IP is considered 'obsolete'. Google didn't do much to the newspaper and media industry. They mostly screwed themselves, with some help from competitors like Craigslist in their profit centers like classifieds.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But many, if not all, of google's empire is based around curating other people's IP, including Android. Much of the IP Google does have is kept server side, safe from competitors. But the legal issues are real, and I imagine many of the downrates of my previous comment was of either google developers or people within that eco-system. Why did Microsoft take so long to make Windows Phone, and why does it legally appear safe? And how is that related to Android? But don't get me wrong, I love Google for search and web apps, just not operating systems that, to at least me, seem slightly trojan in nature.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    If Android is illegal, then so is Apple (Good artists copy, great artists steal) and Microsoft (embrace, extend, extinguish). If your product contains software, then chances are that it infringes on many patents.
    - 15y ago

inoop 15y ago

Imho Android has been successful because, until recently, it had no competition. Android came around at a time when the increasing complexity of building and maintaining a proprietary software stack was forcing handset builders to essentially become software companies. Android gave them the option to return to doing what they did best. Nokia and RIM tried to maintain their own stuff and suffered heavily for it. I think that Android's success is due to its business model, not the quality of the software itself. The Android team should take care to not become the next Netscape.

bad_user 15y ago
I think Microsoft taught us 3 valuable lessons: 1) distribution agreements and good relationships with hardware makers trumps quality - that's how they've beaten Apple and IBM (OS/2 Warp, launched in 1994 was better than Windows 95 and compatible with DOS and Win 16) 2) worse is better, a lesson they themselves took from Unix - timing is more important, you can always improve later 3) operating systems are natural monopolies - if you win the market of low-end PCs and keep growing, you'll eventually take over the whole market If anything, I fear Google is the next Microsoft. I hope not because I love Android.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Google is more open than Microsoft ever was, though. There's no Cyanogenmod of Windows.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Thank god for that - however Microsoft was pretty open for its time, as being a pure software company and letting computer makers to bundle your OS was the exception, not the norm.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    On the other hand, there was no concept of "rooting" your Windows installation, and the idea that you could only run apps approved by Microsoft would have caused immediate outrage and accusations of anticompetitive behavior. It's amazing how quickly Apple has been able to shift the Overton window, to the point where there's barely any reaction to Microsoft requiring approval for Windows 8 Metro apps.

sek 15y ago

I don't think that's the whole story. This could also be a PR spin. Google said later very often they feared an Apple monopoly on the smartphone market and Android is there to prevent it. Also Schmidt hates Microsoft to the bone and is happy about everything that hurts them. What makes Google appear unfocused is their long time thinking, they don't care if something integrates in another product only 5 years later. I bet the Google Car and Google Maps integration will be perfect and they also create 3D models of their environment what fits in Google Earth. Coincidence? I don't think so, these 3 incredible smart guys have all day to think about that.