
Google Android: The Accidental Empire - nikcub
http://nikcub.appspot.com/google-android-the-accidental-empire
======
Kylekramer
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
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.

~~~
slykat
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
_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-
sea...](http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-search-comes-
from-apples-ios/)

~~~
nextparadigms
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.

------
halo
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
> 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)

~~~
nextparadigms
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.

------
joebadmo
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
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
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.

------
untog
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
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
* 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.

------
sek
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.

------
inoop
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
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
Google is more open than Microsoft ever was, though. There's no Cyanogenmod of
Windows.

~~~
orangecat
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.

~~~
icebraining
True, but that's Apple, not Android. Sideloading on Android doesn't require
rooting, at least for Google devices.

------
colkassad
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
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
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.

------
superasn
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
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.

~~~
kgen
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.

~~~
cryptoz
Honeycomb is completely open source now. They released it with ICS.

------
TechNewb
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?

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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
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
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.

~~~
TechNewb
It would have been interesting to see if Android turned out the way it did, if
Google's CEO was not on the Apple board. I'm not implying anything, other than
that I find that really interesting. There are so many little things about
Android like that, that this article also leaves out.

~~~
Kylekramer
You can just come out and say what you think, no need to hide behind "finding
that interesting" and "devil's advocate". I happen to disagree that
Android/Google in general steals IP, but it is better to say what you mean to
have a real discussion.

~~~
TechNewb
Well I find that the Microsoft 'embrace, extend, extinguish' sounds more like
Google today. When was the last time Gmail had introduced innovative features,
there is still much improvement to be done. Chrome browser is by far the best,
but when they get the market share, I imagine we will see improvements and
innovations come to a slow as well.

But sure, let's talk about how Eric Schmidt was the Apple board during the
development of the iPhone. That is fascinating. How could that not have
influenced the only competition to the iPhone. That seems suspicious to me, as
no other company besides Google anticipated it.

So let's talk about the design similarities between Android and iPhone.

These topics are fascinating.

So Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are all claiming that Android violates their
products, while Google, before this, had no patents regarding OS. That is also
fascinating.

The only reason why Android is 'open source' is to make it more difficult for
litigation. And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be
able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software.

~~~
feor
_> And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to
place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software._

Free speech, not free beer. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre>

~~~
TechNewb
This gives me some insite on the matter:

From: <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>

"9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work
or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for,
acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations
and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such
obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole
responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree
to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your
accepting any such warranty or additional liability."

So someone please help explain how this is possible:

From Reuters Nov 9, 2011:

"Google Inc will continue to offer support to firms using its Android system
that are involved in legal disputes, its executive chairman Eric Schmidt said
on Wednesday, as the Internet giant looks to cement alliances in the face of
toughening competition."

The way I am reading the Apache license says that Google should not be giving
support to OEMs? Am I reading this part wrong? "However, in accepting such
obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole
responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor" I'm not the best at
reading law, so I would love some insight.

Edit to add Reuters link:
[http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE7...](http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE7A64T920111109)

~~~
jrockway
First off, you are reading it wrong. But it doesn't matter.

Google owns the copyright on Android, so the Apache License has no relevance
to their activities. Licenses are a way of limiting the restrictions levied by
copyright law; they give you more freedom than you would otherwise have. If
you otherwise have more freedom than a license grants because you are not
bound by copyright law, you ignore the license. It's meaningless.

I haven't contributed any code to the Apache-licensed parts of Android, but I
assume that you assign copyright to Google when you push your code. That means
that Google continues to own the copyright on the whole codebase, and you have
copyright on your contributions.

