

Why Did Google Build a Phone? A Browser? - cschanck
http://designbygravity.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/why-did-google-build-a-phone-and-a-browser/

======
jrockway
Calling Android a rip-off of Windows Mobile is hilarious. If Windows Mobile
were one tenth as good as Android, I doubt anyone would be considering non-
Microsoft smartphones. But the fact of the matter is that Windows Mobile is a
nightmare to use and a nightmare to program for -- and is very, very outdated.

Android may be a rip off of iPhone OS, but it's certainly not a rip off of
Windows Mobile.

(I could barely even make calls on my Windows Mobile phone, much less browse
the Internet in a meaningful way. On Android, those two things both work
wonderfully.)

~~~
auston
I don't think that was the point of the article?

~~~
jrockway
You're right; the article quoted this statement from another, but didn't
refute it. I thought I would.

~~~
cschanck
I guess I could have refuted in the article; Windows Mobile's suckage seems
like a well understood phenomenon. Hee.

------
Xixi
I do think this is much more about search/advertisement than the author think.
Google Chrome is Google way of removing all threats between its users and its
advertisement, Chrome OS is one step further. It's a perfectly logical move.

Before Chrome & Chrome OS : You & me -> OS (Windows, MacOS X, etc.) -> Browser
(IE, FF, Safari, etc.) -> Google Search -> internet / webapps

Perfect world for Google: You & me -> Google (OS, browser and Search) ->
internet / webapps

Cellular phones, and the iPhone in particular, bring the threat one step
further. Because what should be webapps are simply Apps on the iPhone, making
Google a complete outsider instead of the gateway toward mobile apps. When you
look for an iPhone App, Google is an outsider. A second choice after a failure
with the iTunes Store Search.

I see Android as the answer to Apple standing between Google and its customers
on the mobile market. And Apple standing in the way today sounds a bit like
Microsoft standing in the way back in the 90ies...

~~~
cschanck
I think efforts like Wave illustrate how much Google would like to find brand
new markets to compete in; I don't think they have had much like getting real
advertising dollars out of things other than search.

But you're right at least to a degree -- they have decided that open-ness is
better for Google. Whether it is just for search or for other future things is
a debatable point I guess.

------
johnthedebs
This post is great; right on, in my opinion.

Remember webmail before Gmail came along? My free Hotmail account stored
something like 2 MB - it was a joke. Google gets into lots of different
domains to scare companies into action, but I'm pretty sure most of their
revenue still comes from search advertising (maybe someone can verify that?).

It's a fantastic long-term strategy as they're setting the stage for even more
success. More than any other company I know of, Google has an eye towards the
future.

~~~
vidar
Search is 98-99% of their revenue.

~~~
freetard
> Advertising is 98-99% of their revenue.

FTFY

------
waterlesscloud
One of the better explanations of the Google approach I've read. Google aims
to shape the market to their benefit, to create new markets. They think not so
much in terms of products as how those products will affect the existing
structures.

~~~
greyman
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Google just want that more people
will use internet, and for longer time. That way, their ads will gain more
exposure.

~~~
dbz
Yes. I would say you are wrong. Creating a phone just so people will use the
internet + for a longer amount of time seems ridiculous to me. The entire
point of the article was saying that Google is trying to make money by
creating new opportunities for innovation by forcing standards to be higher.
That does not equal " _just want that more people will use internet, and for
longer time._ "

For one- I would like to see you connect buying radio stations to using the
internet ` _for longer time_.` And for two- I would be shocked if Google's
only business model was "Create things which will force people to look at more
of our ads".

On a similar side-note. Youtube has very little advertisement- especially
compared to sites like Megavideo and Hulu (kinda not related). So
advertisement must not be the number one priority always. (Advertisement on
youtube is a recent addition too if I am correct.)

~~~
RyanMcGreal
FYI -

> And for two- I would be shocked if Google's only business model was "Create
> things which will force people to look at more of our ads"

is not an argument.

------
theBobMcCormick
I agree with most of this article, but I was disappointed to hear the author
repeating the same old tired line about Google Voice removing the need to have
a voice plan. I don't know why that piece of bull gets so much traction.
Wishfull thinking maybe? Google Voice _isn't_ VOIP!!!!! Gizmo5 (also owned by
google) is VOIP, but Google Voice isn't.

But far more fundamentally last I'd checked every cell provider has much
greater coverage for voice than they do for 3G data, and I'd assume that VOIP
over GPRS or EDGE speeds would be pretty unimpressive.

------
jfarmer
Think about all the steps that you take to interact with your computer and get
something done.

There are 5-6 steps in this process, from booting up your computer to looking
for information on the web.

Google wants a stake in every step.

Why? Google wants to organize the world's information, so they can put ads on
it!

------
RyanMcGreal
> That’s kinda far from their core business, advertising.

Fixed.

~~~
cschanck
You could make this argument, although _all_ their services have advertising.
But I bet the lion's share of money comes via search advertising.

~~~
jfarmer
They bought DoubleClick for however many billions to change this.

AdMob, too, is not a search-based ad network.

