

Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? - easyfrag
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/11/did_google_train_its_own_enemi.html

======
neovive
What other options did Google have in this scenario? Being a software and
data-focused company, they clearly were not positioned well to build and ship
handsets.

Google's best option is to ensure to ensure that their services (search, Docs,
Maps, etc.) are the best available options. They were able to unseat Yahoo
earlier in the decade due to quality of results, they just need to continue
innovating and convince users to do the same again.

------
space-monkey
Google would be in a much worse position if Apple had mobile handset hegemony.
iAds + native apps isn't something they can break into. Now developers
targeting mobile have a much stronger incentive to just develop a web app and
cover both platforms when possible. That's a much better situation for Google,
even if they don't have default services installed on the handsets.

~~~
sudont
That always seemed like the reason for the initially very limited storage on
early Android handsets. The original iPhone was out with 3-15 gigs of storage
for apps, while the G1 had around 100mb.

------
ShabbyDoo
What the author did not consider is whether consumers are willing to buy a
phone which does not have Google's apps installed or at least available (tight
GMail integration, maps, etc.).

~~~
YooLi
I'd venture to guess most consumers really don't even know about the tight
integration of Android and Google apps. They'd probably just want to make sure
they can get to Facebook on it.

------
rbanffy
"Google makes money off advertising, not software"

AFAIK that's not true. While the core of Android is free as in beer, if you
want Gmail and any other Google-branded software on your handsets, you'll have
to pay.

~~~
Goronmon
True, but I think when people make that point, they are implying that Google's
main focus is making sure they can make good money selling ads, not that they
make zero profit on Android. Or in other words, their main goal is to sell
ads, not to sell Android, even if they do make some profit selling Android.

~~~
rbanffy
I think the strategic focus of Android is to prevent any vendor from having
control of the mobile experience. By providing a free alternative phone makers
can use, it creates market fragmentation and no vendor will be able to steer
the market in one or other direction.

------
fharper1961
I think that now that Google has the manufacturers and networks hooked, they
will close the loopholes (e.g. swapping out the search engine) by changing the
licensing for newer versions.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Sure they will, if they feel like shooting themselves in the foot. Android
would probably survive the accident, but it'd certainly start limping.

The open source part of Android created by Google (which is most of Android)
uses the Apache Software License (v2.0). If they change any conditions,
Android would no longer be open source.

The biggest winner would be Nokia, because Meego & Symbian would then become
the only viable open phone stacks, although some would defect to Apple,
because if you're going to use a non-open phone, you might as well go with
Apple.

~~~
wmf
Realistically, Android without the market and Google apps is not Android and
Google can charge whatever they want for those apps. I suspect they're better
off giving those apps for free and making money from the ads inside them.

Honestly, the whole "OMG they replaced Google with Bing!" story is overblown;
there's a lot more to a phone than the Web browser.

------
Tyrant505
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" seems to fit nicely here.

------
ergo98
YES! YES THEY DID!

This was a no-so-directly stated purpose and intention of Android since day
one. That any late to the party analyst looks at the situation and thinks
they've discovered a hole in the plot speaks more to how ill informed the
field of analysts are than to Google's strategy.

Google's intention with Android -- they haven't been quiet about this -- was
to create an open, competitive ecosystem that isn't controlled by any one
vendor (incl. themselves). If Apple dominated and decided to cut Google out
(and smartphones continued their path to dominance), that single point could
decimate Google. However if 20 handset makers make Android, and one of them
decided to cut Google out, the damage is limited. If Google provides an
experience that customers want, they would vote with their wallets because
they could.

(see the negative reception of Bing on some Verizon handsets)

~~~
blub
I believe their intention was to make sure that they get a piece of the mobile
ads pie. There are a lot of clues indicating this and it's the reason that I'm
disenchanted by Android.

I'd rather use products from someone who's in the business to make money from
products: Apple, Nokia, RIM, MS (and Palm I guess).

~~~
ergo98
_I believe their intention was to make sure that they get a piece of the
mobile ads pie_

Well sure -- the reason they want you using Google search is so they can
advertise to you. And they can get you using Google Voice, and Google Maps,
etc. They are less likely to have their products -- which are largely
sponsored by ads -- cut out.

 _I'd rather use products from someone who's in the business to make money
from products: Apple, Nokia, RIM, MS_

Apple is a _terrible_ example of that. Aside from the fact that they have a
very big advertising initiative, a big part of the iPhone experience is lock-
in with various other Apple products and conduits. Want some music? Oh well
look, Apple is your conduit, taking their piece of the pie. How about a movie,
or a book, or a newspaper? Hi, Apple here, ready to tax you.

Nokia...sure. Apple -- absolutely not.

~~~
threepointone
Music, movies, books, newspapers - I can get all of these painlessly on the
iDevice without the Apple tax. The only lockin I have with the iphone/ipad, is
iTunes. That's an aggravating piece of software, sure, but it doesn't really
_lock_ me into paying apple anything.

PS- When i say newspapers, I mean news delivered digitally. Not issues, so to
speak.

~~~
ergo98
Just as you can use an Android device without ever seeing a single Google ad.

However Apple's media strategy is a big part of their iDevice push. Simply
selling you a piece of hardware is only a small part of their plans for you.

~~~
YooLi
_"However Apple's media strategy is a big part of their iDevice push. Simply
selling you a piece of hardware is only a small part of their plans for you."_

You say this as if it's a bad thing, like it's some secret plan by Apple. They
tell you up front they are selling you the complete package. It's what they
tout as their advantage. You want music on your phone? Tap one icon on the
screen and you can pick from arguably one of the most complete catalogs there
is. Movies? No problem, they are just as easy. Want to play a game? One tap
away from the store.

If you don't like to use Apple's services for getting your media, don't get
the iPhone, but don't pretend they are hookwinking everyone by integrating it
all so nicely on their phones.

~~~
ergo98
There's a context to this thread that you disregarded.

