10 ms·

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

• 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).
        • jerhewet 15y ago
          You should have chosen an unbiased source to prove your point. http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab "The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) is comprised of more than 500 leading media and technology companies that are responsible for selling 86% of online advertising in the United States." Aside from anecdotal evidence (your returns of 15:1) I haven't found any long-term studies done by independent researchers that prove internet advertising is any more effective than other forms of advertising, if it's effective at all. The only real accomplishment internet advertisers can lay claim to is training the general population to never even glance at the left / right / top / bottom navs on a page. In general, the poll results and comments in another recent thread on HN on ad blockers (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3324709 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3324709) seem to support my theories about how ineffective internet advertising is. I'd be interested in seeing some untainted long-term research on this subject.
          • 15y ago
    • nl 15y ago
      Average click through rates on mobile are almost 9 time that on the web (in Australia, anyway) - see Fact #4 on http://www.aimia.com.au/enews/iab/Website/FINAL%20-%20Mobile%20Advertising%20deck.pdf http://www.aimia.com.au/enews/iab/Website/FINAL%20-%20Mobile...
  • sedev 15y ago
    Well, I think that they currently aren't doing so, at least based on a track record of articles like this one: http://www.asymco.com/2011/11/09/mobile-games-the-denouement/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/11/09/mobile-games-the-denouement...
    • Kylekramer 15y ago
      The fact that Apple makes a lot more profits than Android manufacturers is nearly of no consequence for Google. Microsoft managed just fine as Gateway and others crashed and burned.
      • sjs 15y ago
        Microsoft sells Windows licenses for money. Google gives Android away and hopes to generate ad revenue from people searching on those devices. Not a very apt comparison.
  • fleitz 15y ago
    No one doubts that Android is a complement to Google's business but fundamentally if the app store developers can't make money then it's largely pointless. iOS is the place where people like 37Signals can thrive. Android is the place where people like Facebook can thrive. They've got a market of millions of people who don't buy anything, but click ads occasionally. Android should team up with AdBusters because on the Marketplace everyday is buy nothing day.
    • beatle 15y ago
      Google's Android Market earn just 7% of what Apple's App Store makes despite larger market share. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/21/piper-jaffray-android-app-revenue-is-7-of-iphones/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/21/piper-jaffray-android...
      • nl 15y ago
        They estimated Android downloads to be 6.7 billion about 2 weeks before Google announced there had been 10 billion downloads. That isn't very accurate.
        • fleitz 15y ago
          A download does not a sale make.
          • nl 15y ago
            Did you even read the article? They explicitly compare their estimate of 6.5 billion Android downloads with 18.5 billion iOS downloads. Free downloads are included in both cases (but the Android estimate is way, way out) (Edit: To make it doubly clear, I'm implying that their estimate of revenue share shouldn't be trusted either)
            • fleitz 15y ago
              Yes, I read the article, I believe they stated that it was an estimate. Perhaps their estimation methods are conservative. Perhaps Apple provides better data than Google upon which to make estimates. Perhaps the timing of the data leads to more accurate estimates for Apple. You can't simply say that because one estimate was wrong that everything else shouldn't be trusted. (Well you can say it, but there's no logical basis that underpins the argument) Perhaps they estimated the downloads based on sales, who knows. A week before Google released their data the estimate was useful, now it isn't because we have better data, that's simply how life goes. In the business of selling apps I'd much rather I went to market underestimating the size of the market than overestimating it. To me, one more download is one more client to support with no revenue upon which to service it. I guess if I developed for the Marketplace I could have 40% more freeloaders than anticipated. Awesome, just what I needed, more expenses and the same rev. I'm not in the business of cheerleading mobile operating systems, I'm in the business of selling stuff. (To be fair, I do cheerlead Apple because people can't buy my stuff on Android, perhaps the market is changing and I'll have to adapt, but once my stuff is available on both platforms, I really wouldn't care what people use) I'll be ecstatic when the marketplace is at a billion a year but I think that's a bit off at this point. App Store vs. Marketplace is like Google vs. Bing for traffic, if you're a huge site you'll see 15% of your traffic from bing, but if you're a smaller player you'll see 99% from Google. Likewise when doing SEO work I don't care about bing because it doesn't drive traffic for me like Google does. On the other hand I use Bing for SEM because it has cheaper CPCs with a better conversion rate.
• 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.