Android exists because it was developed by enthusiasts. It was purchased by Google, not created by them.
Anyways, if we look at googles revenue streams, it’s clear that advertising is significantly more valuable to them than Play store, and they get much of their valuable data through the android platform. Personally, I’d argue it’s far more logical that androids continued development serves their advertising business than it is to say that android is an avenue to Google Play revenues.
It wouldn’t have 5% of the market without Google, let alone anything resembling 50.
In a hypothetical world where Google was forcibly divested of the Play Store, the CEO would be fired in less than a week if he said he wanted to keep developing Android.
Play store revenue, while sizable, is less than a quarter of the revenue collected by their advertising business. As I said, much of the data requisite for that advertisement business’ revenue is collected from the 1 billion android devices with Google services installed. You’re saying, Google would give up the data of 1 billion people, which feeds its most profitable division, because of losing the ability to earn less than a quarter of what the advertising portion of their business brings in?
I guess it’s an irrelevant point anyway, we don’t live in that world, but that’s an interesting perspective, and I don’t think I share it. I think Google could stop charging entirely for all Google play services and they would still develop android because it brings them hundreds of billions of dollars a year. I don’t think they will, mind you, so it’s again, an irrelevant point, but my point is, as I said above, Google Play revenues do not support the development of android, that development is supported by costs to manufacturers in licensing Google services, before a phone ever makes it into the hands of a consumer for them to buy apps in the Google Play store.
Android exists because it was developed by enthusiasts. It was purchased by Google, not created by them.
Anyways, if we look at googles revenue streams, it’s clear that advertising is significantly more valuable to them than Play store, and they get much of their valuable data through the android platform. Personally, I’d argue it’s far more logical that androids continued development serves their advertising business than it is to say that android is an avenue to Google Play revenues.
It wouldn’t have 5% of the market without Google, let alone anything resembling 50.
In a hypothetical world where Google was forcibly divested of the Play Store, the CEO would be fired in less than a week if he said he wanted to keep developing Android.
Play store revenue, while sizable, is less than a quarter of the revenue collected by their advertising business. As I said, much of the data requisite for that advertisement business’ revenue is collected from the 1 billion android devices with Google services installed. You’re saying, Google would give up the data of 1 billion people, which feeds its most profitable division, because of losing the ability to earn less than a quarter of what the advertising portion of their business brings in?
I guess it’s an irrelevant point anyway, we don’t live in that world, but that’s an interesting perspective, and I don’t think I share it. I think Google could stop charging entirely for all Google play services and they would still develop android because it brings them hundreds of billions of dollars a year. I don’t think they will, mind you, so it’s again, an irrelevant point, but my point is, as I said above, Google Play revenues do not support the development of android, that development is supported by costs to manufacturers in licensing Google services, before a phone ever makes it into the hands of a consumer for them to buy apps in the Google Play store.