Revisionist BS. Google specifically and publicly stated that Android was targeted at Apple and the iPhone. These statements were made by Vic Gundotra and he likened Apple to Big Brother at the time.
As we know, Google is Big Brother. You and Vic are shameless hypocrites and apparently incapable of honesty.
The speech you are referring to was made by Vic in 2010. 2010. Apple was a juggernaut and continuing its efforts to close off its 'walled garden.' Google and Vic stated that's exactly what Google wasn't doing and Android was the open choice. They also had some ads that were not even subtle in mimicking Apples previous 1984 ads. Remember, the ones that claimed IBM was evil and must be stopped at all costs because they controlled *both* the *hardware* and the *software* and that was just pure evil!....
So yes, in 2010 Android did (and does) stand in opposition to Apples philosophy and people are free to choose what system they like. That does not change the reason of why Google bought Android in the first place.
Google bought Android in 2005... The iPhone was released in 2007... How can you even remotely claim this is a counter to 'big brother' Apple? In 2005, Apple was a company that made PC's that few people used and had that nifty iPod thing. More or less a rather highly regarded nobody in the tech world.
Google thought mobile was going to be the 'next big thing' Everybody in 2005, if they had to pick a horse that was going to win the mobile race, was betting on Microsoft. Nobody at that time could fathom or predict the sheer ineptitude Microsoft would display on this front. They had actually displayed the same ineptitude on the 'internet' era but had managed to come out and scratch out a win purely by their market dominance. The consensus so far on the mobile front is 'too little, too late' and it looks like they've lost their mojo.
Microsoft had just released 'Microsoft Search' (it wasn't Bing yet). In their browser they made Microsoft search the default search engine and built in a 'search box' at the top so you wouldn't have to use a url (where you might be tempted to type in www.google.com). Fresh in everyone's minds (especially Googles!) was that Microsoft had put netscape out of business even with an inferior product simply by virtue of making it the 'default' in Windows. Deja vu!
Microsoft was predictably sued and forced to let users select other search engines easily. They obliged by not only adding a feature to let users pick their search engine, but provided a list of possible engines to choose from... several hundred of them... the goal being to make it more difficult for users to select Google by burying alongside many others. Its the type of behavior that made a lot of people Microsoft haters and reluctant to go back to anything Microsoft. Google's existence and survival was threatened by that prospect. Unfortunately for Microsoft their search product was so inferior that most people did take the time to select Google as their search engine.
The huge fear for Google was that Microsoft would dominate 90+% of the mobile market and lock Google out of the search business. Google scrambled to avoid that. They bought Android, open sourced, and the sole plan was to give it away free so that it proliferated and users would have access to Google search. That is why Android by design was never intended to make a profit. It was intended to ensure Google search would reach the widest audience possible. Apple was still years away from releasing the iPhone and people then would probably laugh at you if you tried to call Apple 'Big Brother'
Edited by Frood - 5/8/13 at 1:37pm