

Google’s Not-So-Profitable Android Venture - NaOH
http://tightwind.net/2011/12/googles-not-so-profitable-android-venture

======
nextparadigms
There are still more iOS devices in total, and iPads are used more as a device
than a phone, so more potential to click an ad. Eventually Android will
surpass iOS devices, but the point of Android was to not depend only on Apple.
Wasn't Apple _this_ close to disallow advertising networks that were not
"independent" last year? That's why Google wants to control their own future.

------
fragsworth
"iOS has completely overwhelmed Apple’s prior businesses, while Android
contributes next to nothing to Google’s revenue. You decide who’s winning."

Google's strategy is so fundamentally different from Apple's that this kind of
comparison is ridiculous. Neither company has to outright "win" game in order
for its endeavors to be successful.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Also one of the drivers for Google is to prevent mobile from becoming a walled
garden that is dominated and controlled by one company (Apple), which could
easily decide at some point to replace Google (and there's already some talk
that Siri will be the first step in that direction). Whether or not it's a
major contributor to Google's profitability at this point in time, is really
not so important as creating an independent mobile ecosystem where Google
products can thrive.

------
nl
_Android, as well as Chrome and Chrome OS for that matter, are not “products”
in the classic business sense. They have no plan to become their own “economic
castles.” Rather they are very expensive and very aggressive “moats,” funded
by the height and magnitude of Google’s castle._

[http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-
an...](http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-android/)

(Personally I think Android will be more than just a moat for Google. But it
will never generate Apple-level profits, and that is just fine for Google.)

------
dsmithn
I'm curious how much revenue Android phones have taken away from Apple.
Considering how much more Apple makes per phone, if even half the Android
phones out there were iPhones, that's a massive potential loss for Apple.

------
nknight
I find this new world where $800 million in profit is "not so profitable" to
be very bizarre.

Equally bizarre is that these bloggers on both sides keep getting attention.
It's just another holy war.

~~~
kylerbaxter
Revenue isn't profitability. Profit is what you have left after you subtract
your costs. You could have $100b of revenue and still not have a cent of
profit. Or even lose money.

Besides, $830m of revenue isn't significant when you're a $30b+ business,
which Google is. And that's my point: whereas iOS has completely remade Apple
and overwhelmed its prior businesses, Android hasn't even made a dent in
Google's financial statements, and for all we know, may be hurting them,
depending on how much Google has invested in developing Android.

~~~
nknight
Apologies, seems one of your fellow bloggers was less clueful, the first post
I'd read said "profit", not "revenue".

Even so, you're still looking at this from a very narrow worldview. Not
everyone thinks massive profits are necessary for success, and Google has made
clear they don't seek profit above all else.

~~~
kylerbaxter
That's fine, but it's a business—and no matter what your actual goals are,
being profitable is a necessary prerequisite for doing it long-term.

Google certainly does want Android to contribute significantly to their
profitability long-term, even if it's through ad revenue generated through
those devices. Mobile is going to be _the_ most important market, so it needs
to if Google is going to continue to be such a profitable company, which I'm
sure they have every intention of continuing (since profitability allows them
to do all the other interesting and cool things they do).

My point is, that if Android is contributing so little money relative to their
size now, that's not good long-term—because it's not going to support their
current size or growth rate.

