Google is a search company. Owning the platform is Google’s way of making sure they own search. Google does not care about facilitating app sales because they can make 15-30x the money from search.
Google benefits from owning the platform because the Google suite of software (AppStore, Browser, Mail, Maps), bundled on almost every Android device, drives search traffic to Google and encourages users to stay within the Google ecosystem.
Most Android OEM's are effectively forced to carry this software (and meet 'compatibility requirements' such as Google being the default search engine) because without it their devices are far less compelling. Replacing an email client is a solvable problem, a maps alternative is something that could be licensed, but creating an entire AppStore replacements is unrealistic for most companies.
Unless you are Amazon.
If the Amazon AppStore becomes a major player in the Android app market, and OEM's choose to license it, thus forgoing the Google software suite (most of which is much easier to replace), Google will be in serious risk of losing their leverage over OEM's. They will not be able to ensure Android devices drive users to their services, and could even end up paying OEM's (a'la Mozilla) to have Google as the default search option on these devices.
Apps are easy to replace, the web is not. Google thrives in a massively fragmented world because that's where search matters. Google dies in a single platform world owned by Apple.
Fragmentation makes developers' lives more difficult, makes users' lives more makes difficult, but drives people to the web as a unifying platform. Google's cost of customer acquisition may go up in the short term, but Google still makes all of the money from search at the end of the day.
Great link. Not surprising actually, considering the demographics of iOS users and that iOS includes iPod Touch and iPad.
Google usually talks Android numbers vs. iPhone. Apple usually talks about total iOS devices and often emphasizes the install base since they were out first and built a 100 million device install base before Android even launched. In this case, it's in Google's interest to talk about total iOS install base so that's what they did, even though they don't really compete with the iPod Touch directly.
I don't disagree with your premise, but the killer feature for me on a device with the full "gapps" suite is Google Navigation (the full Maps + turn by turn), not the Market, and it would be far more difficult for anyone to replicate Google Nav than it would be to replicate the Market, IMO.
Of course, Nav is more relevant to phones than tablets, but I wouldn't even consider any Android phone that didn't have Google Nav.
Comments
This post is rather naive and shortsighted.
Google is a search company. Owning the platform is Google’s way of making sure they own search. Google does not care about facilitating app sales because they can make 15-30x the money from search.
Google benefits from owning the platform because the Google suite of software (AppStore, Browser, Mail, Maps), bundled on almost every Android device, drives search traffic to Google and encourages users to stay within the Google ecosystem.
Most Android OEM's are effectively forced to carry this software (and meet 'compatibility requirements' such as Google being the default search engine) because without it their devices are far less compelling. Replacing an email client is a solvable problem, a maps alternative is something that could be licensed, but creating an entire AppStore replacements is unrealistic for most companies.
Unless you are Amazon.
If the Amazon AppStore becomes a major player in the Android app market, and OEM's choose to license it, thus forgoing the Google software suite (most of which is much easier to replace), Google will be in serious risk of losing their leverage over OEM's. They will not be able to ensure Android devices drive users to their services, and could even end up paying OEM's (a'la Mozilla) to have Google as the default search option on these devices.
Apps are easy to replace, the web is not. Google thrives in a massively fragmented world because that's where search matters. Google dies in a single platform world owned by Apple.
Fragmentation makes developers' lives more difficult, makes users' lives more makes difficult, but drives people to the web as a unifying platform. Google's cost of customer acquisition may go up in the short term, but Google still makes all of the money from search at the end of the day.
I would agree, except that Google itself has said that over 60% of their mobile traffic comes from iOS. [1]
[1]: http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-sea...
Great link. Not surprising actually, considering the demographics of iOS users and that iOS includes iPod Touch and iPad.
Google usually talks Android numbers vs. iPhone. Apple usually talks about total iOS devices and often emphasizes the install base since they were out first and built a 100 million device install base before Android even launched. In this case, it's in Google's interest to talk about total iOS install base so that's what they did, even though they don't really compete with the iPod Touch directly.
Sure they do - it took them a while but there's comparable devices now: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/16/samsung-galaxy-player-4-a...
I don't disagree with your premise, but the killer feature for me on a device with the full "gapps" suite is Google Navigation (the full Maps + turn by turn), not the Market, and it would be far more difficult for anyone to replicate Google Nav than it would be to replicate the Market, IMO.
Of course, Nav is more relevant to phones than tablets, but I wouldn't even consider any Android phone that didn't have Google Nav.