Either Google is lying about [misrepresenting] its Android income * or stupid for continuing the Android quest at the risk of alienating Apple and losing income... Or both!
* to minimize penalties
And the $12 billion MMI purchase isn't going to get them to where they want to go...
That's my thinking. My first guess is that Rubin is not including all of the Android income. Google is not known for its honesty.
But if that IS all the income they're generating, it's not worth the hassle and expense of developing Android. Aside from the royalties that Google could end up paying (keep in mind that OEMs have to pay microsoft something like $10 per phone - which is more than the total Android revenue, so if MS or someone wins a case against Google, all that money is gone).
More importantly, if you do the math, if Android reduced iOS market share by even 5% or so, Google would have made more money if they had never made Android and let iOS take the lion's share of the market.
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
But anyway, here's what you're missing here.
This is the guardian's headline:
"Google's Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest"
Now it should be obvious why this happened. iOS had a big start in userbase and app count. It wasn't until 2010 that Android only *started* to increase those metrics. In 2011 Android still had about half the number of apps and subscribers of iOS.
So THIS is why "since 2008.." Android gathered less revenue than iOS - the low amount of apps and users until 2011 or so.
Even now there are 300 million Android devices and about 350 million iOS devices, but since Android is growing about twice as fast, it should surpass it soon. Same for the apps.
People keep confusing userbase with new quarterly sales. In userbase, Android is still a bit behind iOS, just like Apple is WAY behind Nokia and RIM in smartphones. But Android also has much higher subscriber growth than iOS in general (about 2x iOS, and 3x for iPhone, worldwide).
So it should surpass it in userbase very soon. But once again, this is for all the years, years in which the iPhone had a big head start against Android. This is why they made money from iOS "since 2008...".
Now do you get it, or will you continue to jump and up and down that Google was lying about the activation numbers? (which they aren't). This "since the beginning of time" number is almost as useless as that "Apple paid developers 3 billion since 2008". It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now, and the difference is a lot smaller for current data, than for the "total" data, between the 2 platforms.
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
Lies. What's funny is you even called it "apparently negative news".
I wonder if Google losing 80% of its mobile revenue (the fastest growing electronic segment) is enough be classified as "Thermonuclear"? Once Siri is out of beta, why would anyone use google in safari to search for something?
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
A troll user with one post who signed up just today; magically appears out of the blue to defend Google/Android.
Yeah, we "get it", alright. This is how the Googloids have to spend their "20% time" now...
I remember what Rubin said on Google+ and it answered some of the questions but there are still plenty of ambiguous or unanswered parts of this puzzle. Remember, it's being presented for marketing reasons on a social networking site whereas Apple's data are being presented for investors and the SEC. Google has been very hush about Android during their quarterly calls.
What was still ambiguous about how activations are counted? Perhaps there's a citation that will clear up your confusion if you'll post your question.
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
But anyway, here's what you're missing here.
This is the guardian's headline:
"Google's Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest"
Now it should be obvious why this happened. iOS had a big start in userbase and app count. It wasn't until 2010 that Android only *started* to increase those metrics. In 2011 Android still had about half the number of apps and subscribers of iOS.
So THIS is why "since 2008.." Android gathered less revenue than iOS - the low amount of apps and users until 2011 or so.
Even now there are 300 million Android devices and about 350 million iOS devices, but since Android is growing about twice as fast, it should surpass it soon. Same for the apps.
People keep confusing userbase with new quarterly sales. In userbase, Android is still a bit behind iOS, just like Apple is WAY behind Nokia and RIM in smartphones. But Android also has much higher subscriber growth than iOS in general (about 2x iOS, and 3x for iPhone, worldwide).
So it should surpass it in userbase very soon. But once again, this is for all the years, years in which the iPhone had a big head start against Android. This is why they made money from iOS "since 2008...".
Now do you get it, or will you continue to jump and up and down that Google was lying about the activation numbers? (which they aren't). This "since the beginning of time" number is almost as useless as that "Apple paid developers 3 billion since 2008". It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now, and the difference is a lot smaller for current data, than for the "total" data, between the 2 platforms.
Yeah, I'm going to go with "probably shouldn't strike a patronizing educate-the-benighted-Apple-people tone when my rational is insanely convoluted and makes little to no sense."
I wonder if Google losing 80% of its mobile revenue (the fastest growing electronic segment) is enough be classified as "Thermonuclear"? Once Siri is out of beta, why would anyone use google in safari to search for something?
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
But anyway, here's what you're missing here.
This is the guardian's headline:
"Google's Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest"
Now it should be obvious why this happened. iOS had a big start in userbase and app count. It wasn't until 2010 that Android only *started* to increase those metrics. In 2011 Android still had about half the number of apps and subscribers of iOS.
So THIS is why "since 2008.." Android gathered less revenue than iOS - the low amount of apps and users until 2011 or so.
Even now there are 300 million Android devices and about 350 million iOS devices, but since Android is growing about twice as fast, it should surpass it soon. Same for the apps.
People keep confusing userbase with new quarterly sales. In userbase, Android is still a bit behind iOS, just like Apple is WAY behind Nokia and RIM in smartphones. But Android also has much higher subscriber growth than iOS in general (about 2x iOS, and 3x for iPhone, worldwide).
So it should surpass it in userbase very soon. But once again, this is for all the years, years in which the iPhone had a big head start against Android. This is why they made money from iOS "since 2008...".
Now do you get it, or will you continue to jump and up and down that Google was lying about the activation numbers? (which they aren't). This "since the beginning of time" number is almost as useless as that "Apple paid developers 3 billion since 2008". It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now, and the difference is a lot smaller for current data, than for the "total" data, between the 2 platforms.
I'll think about what you've said, but I'd also like to add some thoughts. In 2008 Apple sold ~12million iPhones. If Android activations are ~850k devices/day and increasing all of those iPhone sales are negated in ~15 days (not including the delta with iPhone sales). Plus all of those Android devices are better equipped for generating ad revenue than an iPhone in 2008.
My own experience with friends who have android phones is exactly what other posters have suggested and that might explain, in part, why the numbers are what they are.
That is they use their phones for the most basic of things - email, web, phone, photos, texting. And in two cases, they have had so much trouble with their phones that they're now waiting for their contracts to end so they can get an iPhone. Not because it's cool and they want to look like everyone else (they're both in their 50's) but because they know I don't have any of the problems they do with my iPhone.
I'm not sure they'll use an iPhone for any more than what they're doing now with their android phones, but what they want is for their gadget to just work. Sort of the same marketing that Apple used to do with the Mac vs PC.
The great majority of people don't care about walled garden or not (they think of a walled garden in the literal sense) or whether it has a super quad, amoled 3-D handheld zinger. They just want it to do what they need it to do without having to root this or that or make dozens of changes to get things the way they want.
Google earns 80% of its mobile revenue from iOS, just 20% from Android
but the majority of Google's mobile search, maps and YouTube traffic come through Apple's iOS devices, which make up more than half of all high end mobile devices and more than 80 percent of all tablets.
Maybe I'm blind but I can't find any mention in the article that supports the title's 80% figure.
Just browsing youTube, maps and search don't earn any revenue unless they click on an ad right?
I doubt that. I find it likely that many people buy the iPhone as the "default" purchase. Many people buy because of their friend's recommendation. Many people buy due to the salesman's recommendation. Many buy for many different reasons.
If the iPhone were some sort of unusual choice, you might have a valid point. but when the product is the standard default product for newbies, your conclusion is unsupportable.
I kind of like the brazen movement from the entirely ass derived "standard default product for newbies" to "your conclusion is unsupportable." Very scientific. "Newbies." Awesome.
The iPhone has a strong identity, and Apple heavily advertises exactly what you can do with it. Android phones are all over the map and the advertising suggests they are ray guns from the future, time machines, drugs, or spaceships. That would suggest (and use statistics certainly seem to bear this out) that iPhone purchasers have some specific idea of what they're going for, whereas Android purchasers are going for that "gimme one of them robot deals" when they're feature phone contract is up.
And dude: "salesmen's recommendation?" You've got to be joking. Have you actually ever been into a Best Buy/Verizon store? They will grudgingly let you have an iPhone if you absolutely insist.
Interestingly, all of that is just the first wave dynamic. As long as there are still people who have never owned a smartphone there are still low hanging fruit-- any phone with a proper browser, decent email and media support and some popular games is going to seem amazing.
What happens next is all of those users have been converted and that stuff isn't enough to impress. They'll be looking for quality, support after the sale, and breadth of ecosystem. Many of those people will choose another Android phone, but many of them will not. I suspect fewer iPhone users will jump ship, if only because of the very high satisfaction numbers and the somewhat stickier ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers go as we move into that phase.
You do remember how "activations" were defined by Google, right? Only purchased devices that use licensed Google services and have been activated by a service provider such as Verizon, Orange, ATT, Duetche Telecomm, etc.
Tablets or other Google Android devices (tho perhaps relatively few) without a cellular contract/connection wouldn't be counted as activations, nor would devices still sitting unsold on a store shelf since they very obviously wouldn't be activated by the provider.
I mention this as you could leave some readers with the impression that Android activations might not be based on anything legitimate like sales as compared to Apple figures by the way you structured your statement.
When you first turn an Android device on and run through the set up process it asks you to log into a Google account or set one up.
I've done it hundreds of times when selling cheap, crappy PAYG android phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
This doesn't seem to make sense. $550 million across 4 years? Against the initial costs of acquiring Danger, ongoing Android development costs, and the acquisition of Motorola Mobility, how long before Google can expect to turn a profit from the entire adventure? 10 years? 15?
I doubt that. I find it likely that many people buy the iPhone as the "default" purchase. Many people buy because of their friend's recommendation. Many people buy due to the salesman's recommendation. Many buy for many different reasons.
If the iPhone were some sort of unusual choice, you might have a valid point. but when the product is the standard default product for newbies, your conclusion is unsupportable.
The default standard for newbies are free phones. People go out of their way to buy $100 or $200 iphones with a contract.
Maybe I'm blind but I can't find any mention in the article that supports the title's 80% figure.
Simple math. Rubin claimed that Google has made $2.5 B in mobile advertising. Their court documents claim that they've received $500 M from Android. If that's all advertising, then Android accounted for 20% of Google's mobile advertising - with iOS being most of the rest.
Comments
Either Google is lying about [misrepresenting] its Android income * or stupid for continuing the Android quest at the risk of alienating Apple and losing income... Or both!
* to minimize penalties
And the $12 billion MMI purchase isn't going to get them to where they want to go...
That's my thinking. My first guess is that Rubin is not including all of the Android income. Google is not known for its honesty.
But if that IS all the income they're generating, it's not worth the hassle and expense of developing Android. Aside from the royalties that Google could end up paying (keep in mind that OEMs have to pay microsoft something like $10 per phone - which is more than the total Android revenue, so if MS or someone wins a case against Google, all that money is gone).
More importantly, if you do the math, if Android reduced iOS market share by even 5% or so, Google would have made more money if they had never made Android and let iOS take the lion's share of the market.
But anyway, here's what you're missing here.
This is the guardian's headline:
"Google's Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest"
Now it should be obvious why this happened. iOS had a big start in userbase and app count. It wasn't until 2010 that Android only *started* to increase those metrics. In 2011 Android still had about half the number of apps and subscribers of iOS.
So THIS is why "since 2008.." Android gathered less revenue than iOS - the low amount of apps and users until 2011 or so.
Even now there are 300 million Android devices and about 350 million iOS devices, but since Android is growing about twice as fast, it should surpass it soon. Same for the apps.
People keep confusing userbase with new quarterly sales. In userbase, Android is still a bit behind iOS, just like Apple is WAY behind Nokia and RIM in smartphones. But Android also has much higher subscriber growth than iOS in general (about 2x iOS, and 3x for iPhone, worldwide).
So it should surpass it in userbase very soon. But once again, this is for all the years, years in which the iPhone had a big head start against Android. This is why they made money from iOS "since 2008...".
Now do you get it, or will you continue to jump and up and down that Google was lying about the activation numbers? (which they aren't). This "since the beginning of time" number is almost as useless as that "Apple paid developers 3 billion since 2008". It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now, and the difference is a lot smaller for current data, than for the "total" data, between the 2 platforms.
Give it up Page! Android aint doing what it was intended to do. Apple is only getting stronger.
Time to sell android to RIM or HP. Time for Rubin to disappear.
Android is winning?
Because marketshare is the only metric...
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
Lies. What's funny is you even called it "apparently negative news".
It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now?
And they make more on iOS.
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
A troll user with one post who signed up just today; magically appears out of the blue to defend Google/Android.
Yeah, we "get it", alright. This is how the Googloids have to spend their "20% time" now...
I remember what Rubin said on Google+ and it answered some of the questions but there are still plenty of ambiguous or unanswered parts of this puzzle. Remember, it's being presented for marketing reasons on a social networking site whereas Apple's data are being presented for investors and the SEC. Google has been very hush about Android during their quarterly calls.
What was still ambiguous about how activations are counted? Perhaps there's a citation that will clear up your confusion if you'll post your question.
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
But anyway, here's what you're missing here.
This is the guardian's headline:
"Google's Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest"
Now it should be obvious why this happened. iOS had a big start in userbase and app count. It wasn't until 2010 that Android only *started* to increase those metrics. In 2011 Android still had about half the number of apps and subscribers of iOS.
So THIS is why "since 2008.." Android gathered less revenue than iOS - the low amount of apps and users until 2011 or so.
Even now there are 300 million Android devices and about 350 million iOS devices, but since Android is growing about twice as fast, it should surpass it soon. Same for the apps.
People keep confusing userbase with new quarterly sales. In userbase, Android is still a bit behind iOS, just like Apple is WAY behind Nokia and RIM in smartphones. But Android also has much higher subscriber growth than iOS in general (about 2x iOS, and 3x for iPhone, worldwide).
So it should surpass it in userbase very soon. But once again, this is for all the years, years in which the iPhone had a big head start against Android. This is why they made money from iOS "since 2008...".
Now do you get it, or will you continue to jump and up and down that Google was lying about the activation numbers? (which they aren't). This "since the beginning of time" number is almost as useless as that "Apple paid developers 3 billion since 2008". It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now, and the difference is a lot smaller for current data, than for the "total" data, between the 2 platforms.
Yeah, I'm going to go with "probably shouldn't strike a patronizing educate-the-benighted-Apple-people tone when my rational is insanely convoluted and makes little to no sense."
I wonder if Google losing 80% of its mobile revenue (the fastest growing electronic segment) is enough be classified as "Thermonuclear"? Once Siri is out of beta, why would anyone use google in safari to search for something?
Because Bing SUCKS
An Apple site jumping the gun once again on any apparently negative news about Android. You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
But anyway, here's what you're missing here.
This is the guardian's headline:
"Google's Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest"
Now it should be obvious why this happened. iOS had a big start in userbase and app count. It wasn't until 2010 that Android only *started* to increase those metrics. In 2011 Android still had about half the number of apps and subscribers of iOS.
So THIS is why "since 2008.." Android gathered less revenue than iOS - the low amount of apps and users until 2011 or so.
Even now there are 300 million Android devices and about 350 million iOS devices, but since Android is growing about twice as fast, it should surpass it soon. Same for the apps.
People keep confusing userbase with new quarterly sales. In userbase, Android is still a bit behind iOS, just like Apple is WAY behind Nokia and RIM in smartphones. But Android also has much higher subscriber growth than iOS in general (about 2x iOS, and 3x for iPhone, worldwide).
So it should surpass it in userbase very soon. But once again, this is for all the years, years in which the iPhone had a big head start against Android. This is why they made money from iOS "since 2008...".
Now do you get it, or will you continue to jump and up and down that Google was lying about the activation numbers? (which they aren't). This "since the beginning of time" number is almost as useless as that "Apple paid developers 3 billion since 2008". It's useless because developers only care about how much money they can make now, and the difference is a lot smaller for current data, than for the "total" data, between the 2 platforms.
I'll think about what you've said, but I'd also like to add some thoughts. In 2008 Apple sold ~12million iPhones. If Android activations are ~850k devices/day and increasing all of those iPhone sales are negated in ~15 days (not including the delta with iPhone sales). Plus all of those Android devices are better equipped for generating ad revenue than an iPhone in 2008.
That is they use their phones for the most basic of things - email, web, phone, photos, texting. And in two cases, they have had so much trouble with their phones that they're now waiting for their contracts to end so they can get an iPhone. Not because it's cool and they want to look like everyone else (they're both in their 50's) but because they know I don't have any of the problems they do with my iPhone.
I'm not sure they'll use an iPhone for any more than what they're doing now with their android phones, but what they want is for their gadget to just work. Sort of the same marketing that Apple used to do with the Mac vs PC.
The great majority of people don't care about walled garden or not (they think of a walled garden in the literal sense) or whether it has a super quad, amoled 3-D handheld zinger. They just want it to do what they need it to do without having to root this or that or make dozens of changes to get things the way they want.
Google earns 80% of its mobile revenue from iOS, just 20% from Android
but the majority of Google's mobile search, maps and YouTube traffic come through Apple's iOS devices, which make up more than half of all high end mobile devices and more than 80 percent of all tablets.
Maybe I'm blind but I can't find any mention in the article that supports the title's 80% figure.
Just browsing youTube, maps and search don't earn any revenue unless they click on an ad right?
I doubt that. I find it likely that many people buy the iPhone as the "default" purchase. Many people buy because of their friend's recommendation. Many people buy due to the salesman's recommendation. Many buy for many different reasons.
If the iPhone were some sort of unusual choice, you might have a valid point. but when the product is the standard default product for newbies, your conclusion is unsupportable.
I kind of like the brazen movement from the entirely ass derived "standard default product for newbies" to "your conclusion is unsupportable." Very scientific. "Newbies." Awesome.
The iPhone has a strong identity, and Apple heavily advertises exactly what you can do with it. Android phones are all over the map and the advertising suggests they are ray guns from the future, time machines, drugs, or spaceships. That would suggest (and use statistics certainly seem to bear this out) that iPhone purchasers have some specific idea of what they're going for, whereas Android purchasers are going for that "gimme one of them robot deals" when they're feature phone contract is up.
And dude: "salesmen's recommendation?" You've got to be joking. Have you actually ever been into a Best Buy/Verizon store? They will grudgingly let you have an iPhone if you absolutely insist.
Interestingly, all of that is just the first wave dynamic. As long as there are still people who have never owned a smartphone there are still low hanging fruit-- any phone with a proper browser, decent email and media support and some popular games is going to seem amazing.
What happens next is all of those users have been converted and that stuff isn't enough to impress. They'll be looking for quality, support after the sale, and breadth of ecosystem. Many of those people will choose another Android phone, but many of them will not. I suspect fewer iPhone users will jump ship, if only because of the very high satisfaction numbers and the somewhat stickier ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers go as we move into that phase.
You do remember how "activations" were defined by Google, right? Only purchased devices that use licensed Google services and have been activated by a service provider such as Verizon, Orange, ATT, Duetche Telecomm, etc.
Tablets or other Google Android devices (tho perhaps relatively few) without a cellular contract/connection wouldn't be counted as activations, nor would devices still sitting unsold on a store shelf since they very obviously wouldn't be activated by the provider.
I mention this as you could leave some readers with the impression that Android activations might not be based on anything legitimate like sales as compared to Apple figures by the way you structured your statement.
When you first turn an Android device on and run through the set up process it asks you to log into a Google account or set one up.
I've done it hundreds of times when selling cheap, crappy PAYG android phones.
This doesn't seem to make sense. $550 million across 4 years? Against the initial costs of acquiring Danger, ongoing Android development costs, and the acquisition of Motorola Mobility, how long before Google can expect to turn a profit from the entire adventure? 10 years? 15?
$750 million for AdMob, something smells fishy.
I doubt that. I find it likely that many people buy the iPhone as the "default" purchase. Many people buy because of their friend's recommendation. Many people buy due to the salesman's recommendation. Many buy for many different reasons.
If the iPhone were some sort of unusual choice, you might have a valid point. but when the product is the standard default product for newbies, your conclusion is unsupportable.
The default standard for newbies are free phones. People go out of their way to buy $100 or $200 iphones with a contract.
You guys talk a lot more about Android than Android sites talk about Apple.
Har! That's because all of the Android trolls come over here. Apple fans couldn't be bothered going over to an Android site.
Maybe I'm blind but I can't find any mention in the article that supports the title's 80% figure.
Simple math. Rubin claimed that Google has made $2.5 B in mobile advertising. Their court documents claim that they've received $500 M from Android. If that's all advertising, then Android accounted for 20% of Google's mobile advertising - with iOS being most of the rest.
Lies. What's funny is you even called it "apparently negative news".
True. Only Fandroids might construe this is "negative news."
It's just news.