And the whole ball game just became more interesting.
Because Apple was so focused on Samsung. lol
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
From Steve Jobs' Biography: "I'm going to destroy Android"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And the whole ball game just became more interesting.
Because Apple was so focused on Samsung. lol
Ah, the virtues of customisation. You can the homescreen into a grid of icons a-la iOS, just leave it plain or add a widget or two.
And the video invalidated all arguments implying that Google instantaneously moved onto touchscreen hardware post-iPhone. I'm pretty sure phone development takes more than a month.
Yea, I just have 2 quick dial icons on my home screen. Pretty much anything else can stand a swipe to the left
In the comments of the article, there's a REALLY good comment that I had to cross-quote:
link for quote
This is the story: Android was started to hit MS' model because they were worried about MS. Anyway, it's a funny observation that Google isn't really good about having alliances with other companies XD Isn't that one of Apple's biggest strengths?
Last edited:
It is true that Android is taking off more than iOS. The question is whether we expected Apple to remain in the lead in terms of market share? Not really! Google has taken the place of Nokia and have copied the Apple model to get there. However Apple was never going to be the stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap player in the market. Google is Asda (Walmart) for the technology sector. Good on them, but I never shop at Asda because I have the luck to be able to afford more. I am lucky, but there are millions like me.
Who cares about growth? I care about product and in that regard Samsung is really biting at Apple's heals. I like that because the powers in Apple must be thinking how the nest iPad and iPhone can set itself apart. Apple cannot stay ahead by taking obvious steps; they need something new that takes the rest of the industry a year to catch up with. Siri wasn't that.
Apple should be compared to Apple. What we care about is Apple's growth numbers in terms of revenue and margin. Google has achieve very little in this regard.
Who cares about growth? I care about product and in that regard Samsung is really biting at Apple's heals. I like that because the powers in Apple must be thinking how the nest iPad and iPhone can set itself apart. Apple cannot stay ahead by taking obvious steps; they need something new that takes the rest of the industry a year to catch up with. Siri wasn't that.
Apple should be compared to Apple. What we care about is Apple's growth numbers in terms of revenue and margin. Google has achieve very little in this regard.
I don't get the whole "Buy cheap if you want. I can afford the best, so I buy Apple" line of thought. Most of the top tier Android phones cost roughly the same, and offer most of the same features as the iPhone.
To me, it's less "if I want something good, I spend extra money for an Apple device", and more "if I want something good, I spend X amount of money".
Android has failed on two very important metrics: It has been a financial deadweight for Google. And it has failed to challenge Apple's App Store for developer mindshare. And I see nothing on the horizon that is going to change that. Google is going to continue to throw money down the Android hole. And Android customers, by and large, are going to continue to not pay for software.
Apple has annual revenues of more than $60 billion, and profits of more than $20 billion from iOS. Google's "mobile revenues" (which come mostly from searches on iPhones, by the way) are about a billion, nowhere near what Google spends on legal fees and settlements to defend Android - let alone its actual development costs. Google just this year threw $12 billion down the toilet buying MMI.
If Android "won" anything, then the victory was bought at such a price as to be indistinguishable from defeat.
Apple has annual revenues of more than $60 billion, and profits of more than $20 billion from iOS. Google's "mobile revenues" (which come mostly from searches on iPhones, by the way) are about a billion, nowhere near what Google spends on legal fees and settlements to defend Android - let alone its actual development costs. Google just this year threw $12 billion down the toilet buying MMI.
If Android "won" anything, then the victory was bought at such a price as to be indistinguishable from defeat.
lolwut?
October 14, 2011: Google Q3 profits beat estimates, 190M Androids activated
July 14, 2011: Google profit up 36%, at 550,000 Android activations per day
January 21, 2011: Google Profits Up, Fueled by Android
I'm going to say this as nicely as I can.
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They'd like you to think that they did. So they brag about 300,000 or half a million "activations" per day at the same press conference where they announce their financial results. They don't actually lie (even billionaires can go to prison for deliberately lying about their companies financial performance) - but they toss unrelated "facts" out there, and hope that the people listening make incorrect assumptions.
Quick question: If you gave away a half a million tasty Ice Cream sandwiches every day, charging each sticky-fingered kid who took one precisely zero cents, how much money would you end up with in your pocket?
Then Google talks about "mobile revenue" - which is the way they trick the simple minded into overlooking the fact (which Google itself admits) that two thirds of "mobile revenue" actually comes from iOS users. Still more comes from people using Blackberries. They even get a couple of bucks from Windows Phone users. (Go figure...) So, repeat after me: "Mobile Revenue DOES NOT EQUAL Android Revenue." The latter is a quite small subset of the former.
Google does not break out Android revenue, expenses, profit or loss, on their income statement. There's a good reason for that: They are losing money hand over fist on it.
The good news (at least for Google) is that their main business (search advertising, done on desktops and laptops) is incredibly profitable.
I will note that some Android fans claim that Google is really making money by collecting data on its users, which they will somehow convert into a huge financial windfall at some point in the future. I tend not to believe this. But if you do, then that theory ought to scare you to death.
Thank you for proving your complete lack of understanding of Android and how Google makes money off of it.
Google never said any of the stuff nor do they say that they do not make money off Android.
They do not make money directly off Android and that is true. They make money off things like the App market, ads, and then the google Apps and chances are some things they have with the manufactures are dealing with the Google Apps which are NOT and I repeat NOT part of the AOSP.
You mostly are spread FUD and not understanding anything about it.
Android is a way so Google has a lot of say in the mobile web. They rightfully so do not trust Apple and Microsoft to control how it is grown. Both those companies would try to lock it down and keep Google from having any say in it. Android forces Apple and Microsoft both to play nice in Mobile web and it gives Google an insane amount of say in how it grows.
It means more of an open standard in the mobile web growth. Not some lock down were either only Apple or MS products really work well there.
I'm not sure if you're serious or if you're trolling at this point.
Does Google obtain a licensing fee for every device on which Android is installed? Obviously not, since it is open source. But to say that Google makes no money from Android is patently false. The Android Market is closed source, and manufacturers must pay a licensing fee to include it on their devices. Analysts have determined that Android generates ~$10.32 for Google per device.
Now how is that possible if Google doesn't make any money from Android?
Thank you for making it very clear how Bernie Madoff, Worldcom, Enron, and pretty much every financial disaster/Ponzi-scheme in history managed to happen.
You think Google is making bank off the Android App Market? Don't make me laugh....
That's exactly where they make money. I honestly have no idea why you think that's funny.
That's why
Google's take (ie. 30% of $240 million) is $72 million. Google spent more than that on Larry & Sergei's private planes.
More to the point, I don't think Apple makes serious money on its App store. How much actual cash do you think Google is socking away from that $72 million, after factoring hosting costs, legal fees, administration, bandwidth, etc. etc.
Obviously pointing out that the Emperor has no Clothes (i.e., that Google is losing money on Android) really gets the Fandroids in a conniption.
If Google were making money on Android, they'd trumpet it in their financial statements. They don't, and in fact go out of their way to disguise the issue. If you can't see that, or understand how you are being duped, thats your problem - not mine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Google Licenses out their in house apps. GAPPS...
Also indirectly Google makes money from ad impressions.
Would google, a multi-billion dollar corporate do it if there was no money in it? get real
Right. Because believing it would be inconvenient to your argument. I mean comeon, the whole fact that Google has made its billions on the dissemination of information practically since the day they opened their doors is stupid, right? No one makes money off of that! The whole concept is flawed, and only idiots would believe something so precarious would work! How they've managed to stay in business all these years is a complete mystery. It must somehow be illegal!
Wait? What? TV stations have been making money off a similar strategy for well over half a century now? No they haven't! They make money off of...I dunno. But it ain't from selling information and ad space to advertisers! That's a business strategy built for failure! Like Google's failed! When they made those billions using a more streamlined, modernized version of the concept built around the internet! THE SUCKERS! HA!
DARP DARP HERPA DARP DARP DUP DERP DEEP! THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY IS TO SELL PRODUCTS DIRECTLY! ALSO THE EARTH IS FLAT AND SATELLITES ARE A LIE!
Here's a dollar. Go buy yourself an education.
from both of these post you made I can clearly see that you did not read my entire first post.
I provided a list of location that Google makes money off Android. No where did I say they were making bank off the Android market. I listed it as one of the location Google is making money.
Also that 72 mil they made off it market only accounts for Apps that cost money. That does not account for anything from the ads that run in free apps. That is not accounted for there.
Reno, maker of Angry birds, publicly stated they are were making more money off the FREE angry birds on Android than iOS because of the ad revenue. That money is not accounted for in the Market place.
Also you glossed over the fact that it is to make sure Google has a lot of say in the quickly grown mobile web.
Do note
You people need to take a step back from this.
Google is a profitable ~$40 billion company. And from its $40 billion in advertising revenues (because thats where Google actually makes its money) it makes about $12 billion a year. A 28% profit margin. Fair enough, but also worth noting is the fact that every dollar of revenue isn't equal to a dollar of profit. (I'm going to ask the Fandroids present to keep this little factoid in mind...)
Got that? Revenue DOES NOT EQUAL PROFIT.
I've convincingly shown that Android's revenues are (relatively speaking) tiny. Licensing revenue= zero. App Store revenue: $72 million per year. Advertising revenue: Arguably 40% of $2 billion in "mobile revenue". Call it $800 million.
But that $800 million isn't pure profit. It costs Google something to serve it up. Its got all the same costs as it does on its other searches. Bandwidth, servers, data centers, R&D, etc. etc. Lets say that Google's "operating profit" on the $800 million pure Android search revenue is 40%. Thats $320 million. A lot of money to you and me - but a rounding error to a company of Google's size.
Thats also before you look at Android's costs. The developers salaries. The bandwidth and hosting costs. The legal bills. Let's be generous, and say that Google's Android costs are 60% of Android revenues: $192 million. Leaving $128 million in "profit" from Android.
Not a lot of scratch for a $40 billion corporation. (Actually, more of a rounding error.)
Now, you also need to keep in mind Google's business model, and its hopes for the future.
Android's business model is that it hopes to make money from Advertising Impressions. Fair enough. But it ignores the fact that not all Ad Impressions are created equal. In very few words, an "Ad Impression" to a user in North America or Western Europe is worth many times what an Ad Impression in Asia or Africa is worth.
Android has already captured most of the most profitable users its ever going to get. And its losing money by the train car load doing so. If Android "activates" a billion users in China (where Baidu is the dominant search engine, and Google is prohibited from doing business) what do you think that is going to do for Google's bottom line?
Keep down voting my posts. But until you have the intellectual courage to address these issues, I've got very little respect for you.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
The only thing I like about android is the mp3 doenloads
The only thing I like about android is the mp3 doenloads
That is kind of hard to do since you just gloss over ones that I provided for you.
So you might want to say you should have very little respect for yourself as you seem to lack your own requirements.
Every figure you just posted is pure speculation. Unless you have a source for your claims, they hold no merit whatsoever. Still - even if we assume that you are correct - you're still contradicting what you said earlier:
Cite sources for your claims if you expect anyone to take you seriously. This, for example, is a reliable source, and this is the first sentence:
There's no shame in admitting when you're wrong, vrDrew.
Last edited:
vrDrew said:
This applies to EVERY SINGLE COMPANY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED! Google is no exception. Nor is it a solitary example.
What's to argue? You're taking the fact Google doesn't make much off their app store, and extrapolating it to represent the income for every division of the company. You throw in some random guesswork numbers, woefully inaccurate conjecture based off of things you either know very little about, or have such a skewed view of that what you do know is entirely useless, and call it done.
Your argument basically boils down to "Google made 40 billion. Of that 40 billion, they made, like, 5 dollars in profit. Cuz, you know. Here's some numbers I read on a webpage. Then I've got these numbers here I'm gonna pull out of my ass to prove my point. They are a failure as a company".
But what about Apple? Of the 60 odd billion they made last year in revenue, how much did they make in profit? All of it? They have to face similar costs of doing business as Google, so they couldn't have. They have R&D. They have employees. They have products that need updating. They have to pay out for lawsuits, patents, and legal issues. How much did it cost them AFTER revenue? How much actual profit did apple make?
Does it really cost Google 40 billion a year to stay in business? Does it cost Apple the same amount, but because they made roughly 20 billion more, they're a resounding success? Where in the hell are you getting these numbers?
Really, you have no argument.