> Oh, and how much net profit has Android yielded Google?
Probably a whole lot. When my sister, who would otherwise be in front of a computer at most half an hour a day, can get an android smartphone for 150 euros and idly browse the Web all day, Google makes a shitload of money they wouldn't have if all these people were on cheap nokias.
Don't iPhone users make just as many (probably more) Google searches as Android users? Or do you think that without Android, nobody would have put out cheap smartphones by now?
It's quite possible there wouldn't be cheap smartphones without Android. At least, not ones with a decent browser. Meego imploded on its own, Palm took webOS down with it as a realistic option, and MS would probably never let the word "cheap" attach itself to Windows Mobile. What's left? Openmoko, maybe? And, just as importantly, if you assume the cheap smartphone makers wouldn't gang up and make their own platform, who else might have pushed a new, free, mobile OS other than Google? Funnily enough, the only other company I can think of who might have had a go at it is Amazon. Today I could see Facebook having a go, but where were they 7 years ago?
Then again, markets are funny things. In a world without Android, I can't imagine the expensive iOS ecosystem being the only game in town. Something might have filled the sucking void at the cheap end of the market, but what?
I realise I've effectively written Symbian off here. It's funny, it took me a good 5 minutes to even remember it existed. I suppose we could hypothesise that in a world without Android, the Nokia of 2009-2010 might have seen the light, but I think that's extremely unlikely.
(Not implying you specifically, nor is it necessarily a bad thing...)
Interesting framing and perception - I've never read anyone say that "Mozilla charges Google for being the default Firefox search engine", it's always been "Google pays Firefox to be the default Firefox search engine".
Same result, really, but it's interesting how much of a change it implies, passive vs active, etc.
Actually the move to mobile is hurting Google. People tend not to click on ads while searching from mobile devices as much as they do on desktops. And since people are moving to mobile, Google's ad revenue growth is getting affected.
"the remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees."
When I read that a couple weeks ago, I assumed distribution partners meant carriers, though I guess I don't really know what it means. Also, operating fees probably means Google, so I stand corrected.
Yes but Android cost Google billions more, and occupied the limited attention of key people for years. The evidence is that most android buyers do very little web surfing.
Divide that by the number of owners of each platform. There's your answer. Well, there's part of your answer. Chances are that Android owners are bimodal - some (like me) do a lot of surfing, others very little.
Comments
> Oh, and how much net profit has Android yielded Google?
Probably a whole lot. When my sister, who would otherwise be in front of a computer at most half an hour a day, can get an android smartphone for 150 euros and idly browse the Web all day, Google makes a shitload of money they wouldn't have if all these people were on cheap nokias.
Don't iPhone users make just as many (probably more) Google searches as Android users? Or do you think that without Android, nobody would have put out cheap smartphones by now?
But if you replaced all the android devices with iphones, Apple would have HUGE leverage over Google.
It's quite possible there wouldn't be cheap smartphones without Android. At least, not ones with a decent browser. Meego imploded on its own, Palm took webOS down with it as a realistic option, and MS would probably never let the word "cheap" attach itself to Windows Mobile. What's left? Openmoko, maybe? And, just as importantly, if you assume the cheap smartphone makers wouldn't gang up and make their own platform, who else might have pushed a new, free, mobile OS other than Google? Funnily enough, the only other company I can think of who might have had a go at it is Amazon. Today I could see Facebook having a go, but where were they 7 years ago?
Then again, markets are funny things. In a world without Android, I can't imagine the expensive iOS ecosystem being the only game in town. Something might have filled the sucking void at the cheap end of the market, but what?
I realise I've effectively written Symbian off here. It's funny, it took me a good 5 minutes to even remember it existed. I suppose we could hypothesise that in a world without Android, the Nokia of 2009-2010 might have seen the light, but I think that's extremely unlikely.
Licensing Windows Mobile is what? $30 a unit? Less?
So without Android isn't it safe to assume HTC would still be pumping out Windows phones, perhaps at $389 retail rather than $349?
Yeah, but at sub-$100? Probably not.
Probably more? As far as I know, there are more Android devices in the market than iPhones.
Android users are not using their devices the same as iOS users:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/21/real-time-research-ios-domi...
No doubt, yet iPhone still generates more mobile web traffic than Android.
Apple charges Google for being the default search engine.
(Not implying you specifically, nor is it necessarily a bad thing...)
Interesting framing and perception - I've never read anyone say that "Mozilla charges Google for being the default Firefox search engine", it's always been "Google pays Firefox to be the default Firefox search engine".
Same result, really, but it's interesting how much of a change it implies, passive vs active, etc.
Sure, true enough. Though it's not like creating Android was free.
Actually the move to mobile is hurting Google. People tend not to click on ads while searching from mobile devices as much as they do on desktops. And since people are moving to mobile, Google's ad revenue growth is getting affected.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/15/mobile-paradox/
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/12/mobile-facebook-and-google-...
And remember Google doesn't keep that 30 percent cut from the Play store -- it goes to carriers, I believe.
Citation needed.
I only found this, about limited ad revenue sharing: http://paidcontent.org/2010/03/26/419-androids-secret-sauce-...
Via Wikipedia:
http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/a...
"the remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees."
When I read that a couple weeks ago, I assumed distribution partners meant carriers, though I guess I don't really know what it means. Also, operating fees probably means Google, so I stand corrected.
Yes but Android cost Google billions more, and occupied the limited attention of key people for years. The evidence is that most android buyers do very little web surfing.
What evidence is that then? StatCounter currently show Android to be at least as big as iOS for web hits. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201108-20120...
Divide that by the number of owners of each platform. There's your answer. Well, there's part of your answer. Chances are that Android owners are bimodal - some (like me) do a lot of surfing, others very little.
If Android users are bi-modal then simply factoring in the number of Android handset sales is not an accurate comparison either.
It sounds like what we really want is a histogram of web usage vs number of users :)