Ask HN: Why did Google create and invest in Android?

[yalogin]

How does it make money off Android and how is the investment justified? The popular analogy is its the Windows of the smartphone world. Not quite true because Windows gets money from partners. Android is free. They have to rely on ads and app purchases. Google services are immensely popular (and very good) and if they create apps for other operating systems (like maps, voice, voice assistant etc) most people would definitely use them giving them ad footprint. Also their admod could be built into every app irrespective of the OS. So their share of ad revenue is not going to be dented. So what would Google lose if say Android did not exist today? I know they got into hardware now but that is not their plan to begin with. I know I am definitely not seeing something, What am I missing here?

[digitalzombie]

There are more cellphones than there are computers. With iOS and winmobile you have to play by their rules. You think Netscape enjoyed it when IE was default? iOS have some really stupid rules for browser too, Opera had to hack it. Netscape ended up bankrupt and releasing Mozilla and it worked out well. I can see some similarity to this and for example how the internet work. Let it free and capitalized on it via great services and ads.

What you're not seeing is the fact that GOOGLE make money mainly through ADs! They're first and foremost a search engine that get money via ads! If there are tons of these mobile computer aka smart phone out there than there are computer. The future gotta be smart phones. They're not going to wait and lose the market and let someone else dominate it. Microsoft lost the search engine market cause they were still OS oriented and google ended up capitalizing it and now dominate it. Google isn't going to sit back and let Apple do the same thing with smart phone. That's just foolish.

I think they also want to branch out to hardware to be like Apple. Or at least try to innovate and find new market, like the google glasses and such.

[bookwormAT → digitalzombie]

I'd like to add that a near-monopoly of a closed platform like iOS would be much worse that the situation we had with Microsoft.

Microsoft had an advantage by shipping IE with Windows and making it the default browser. With a closed system like iOS, they have just removed Netscape/Firefox/Wikipedia/Google/Adobe Reader from the platform. And nobody could complain, because they all agreed that this is OK when they submitted their apps.

So if a closed platform wins the current smartphone war, the platform owner could just "turn off Google" at will.

[ABrandt]

I think you're on the right track with Google wanting to increase their ad footprint. I tend to view every move that Google makes as an attempt to increase their ability to collect ad revenue. Even the self-driving car frees people up from staring at the boring road and offers an opportunity to look at ads.

Android can be explained in the same manner. Google saw the traffic potential the mobile web had, and they wanted to make sure they were the search engine of choice. The best way to do this is to control the software people use to access that mobile web.

[yalogin → ABrandt]

The problem is I cannot see Android specifically adding to that. Specifically I cannot see the ROI. Google is in such a position that people want to use their apps/services (unlike yahoo or some other company) so I cannot see why they could not have gotten the same ad footprint with just apps instead of an OS.

I don't know if I would reduce the self-driving car to just increasing time to see ads though. Its much grander and in fact revolutionary than that.

[Evbn → yalogin]

Apple could block Google from iOS in an instant. For example, Maps just got dropped. Most of the revenue is in the default installed apps not downloadable alternatives, the mass market won't seek alternatives.

[mdeslaur]

Google created Android because the iPhone made users switch from using the web to using apps. Since Google makes its revenue from web ads, it needed to take control of the phone market and make sure the web and/or their ads were still relevant.

[hoka]

An article I always refer to when talking to people, techies and non-techies alike, is http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/.

[27182818284]

In addition to advertising, they don't have to rely on a competitor's system(s). The latter I think is more important than advertising in the long run.

Before Android and Chromebook, the masses all accessed Google's services through competitors.

[jamesjguthrie]

Google didn't create Android. Google acquihired Android with Andy Rubin.

[stephengillie]

Android was originally a Blackberry competitor.

[bookwormAT → stephengillie]

This is nonesense. Android is a software platform that organisations can use to build interoperable operating systems for mobile devices.

A Blackberry is a piece of hardware.

[jamesjguthrie → bookwormAT]

He must have meant Blackberry OS but I don't think he's right anyway.