Google's Android revenue $31 billion over OS's entire lifetime, Oracle lawyer says
The Android operating system has reportedly generated $31 billion in revenues for Google since it first launched in 2008, creating $22 billion in profits largely from mobile advertising.
The information was revealed at a court hearing last week by a lawyer for Oracle, which is suing Google on the accusation that it used Java to develop Android without paying for it, according to Bloomberg. In a more recent filing, Google protested the lawyer's disclosure, arguing that it was based on confidentially shared internal documents and that parts of the public transcript of the hearing should be redacted and sealed.
The transcript in fact disappeared from electronic court records on Thursday afternoon without any sign of a ruling on Google's request.
Google makes most of its Android-based revenue from mobile ads, or from a cut of app sales on Google Play. The company does sell branded phones and tablets, but these are developed in cooperation with third-party hardware makers and are often deliberately sold at a lower profit margin as showcase devices. Most Android hardware revenue is generated outside of Google.
The new data indicates that Apple's iPhone revenues from the September quarter alone (about $32.2 billion) surpassed what Android has made over its entire lifespan. The two revenue streams are very different however, and more apt points of comparison would be iAd and the App Store, if iAd were Apple's primary business instead of a shrinking sideline.
The information was revealed at a court hearing last week by a lawyer for Oracle, which is suing Google on the accusation that it used Java to develop Android without paying for it, according to Bloomberg. In a more recent filing, Google protested the lawyer's disclosure, arguing that it was based on confidentially shared internal documents and that parts of the public transcript of the hearing should be redacted and sealed.
The transcript in fact disappeared from electronic court records on Thursday afternoon without any sign of a ruling on Google's request.
Google makes most of its Android-based revenue from mobile ads, or from a cut of app sales on Google Play. The company does sell branded phones and tablets, but these are developed in cooperation with third-party hardware makers and are often deliberately sold at a lower profit margin as showcase devices. Most Android hardware revenue is generated outside of Google.
The new data indicates that Apple's iPhone revenues from the September quarter alone (about $32.2 billion) surpassed what Android has made over its entire lifespan. The two revenue streams are very different however, and more apt points of comparison would be iAd and the App Store, if iAd were Apple's primary business instead of a shrinking sideline.
Comments
Yet when Samsung lawyers did the same with Apple (making a statement to the media that shouldn't have been made) it was OK.
Just shows that hypocrisy continues to reign supreme.
Anyway, the important takeaway is that Google doesn't get rich from Android according to the leak. Of course the leak doesn't explain how the figure was arrived at AFAIK. I think articles like this one are guessing how Oracle arrived at it and the period covered, but not entirely certain. It would not shock me at all to find Oracle actually overstated it since it benefits them to do so.
In any event I would not be surprised if Google would have made a different choice knowing what they do now. When the decision was made to use the API's as an organizer (that's the only code Oracle is claiming) it was Sun who controlled it. While they might not have been overjoyed at the way Google used Java they also at least publicly had no complaints about it and in fact congratulated them on Android, welcoming them to the Java platform. I imagine most code creators at the time did not believe a license was needed for API's. Some still don't believe they do.
So a couple years go by and here comes Oracle to scoop up Sun. They have a different view on it, monetization plans for Java that Sun never intended when they created it. In essence nothing was "stolen" from Oracle. When Sun created and owned it it Google's use was at least begrudgingly acceptable. (Mr guess is the relationship Schmidt had with them but it's just that, a guess). Oracle suspected they knew what they were buying even if Google did not. Smart guy.
Had they anticipated that someone else might someday buy up the IP and more aggressively use it as a money-maker I believe Google would have taken a license to begin with whether they thought they needed one or not back in the day. Hindsight is 20-20. IMHO Google will end up paying a $B or more for their oversight, tho out-of-court would be my guess.
Your constyant bashing of Tim Cook and comments like this makes you a parody of yourself
And how they don't give a damm about it?
2. You might be correct. Haven't looked.
3. Nope. Mobile is still a secondary revenue source for Google.
It can be assumed that Google is making some licensing money on those patents since royalties coming in went up nearly a $Billion dollars in the year after they purchased Moto, and Google kept the IP after selling off the other parts.
With or without Android Google would still have needed a bucket-load of IP if they were to avoid some of the lawsuit silliness that went around the past 6 years. Where's there's billions in profit the attorneys are never far behind. Now they have one of the largest patent troves in the world, which almost certainly has slowed the rate of patent lawsuits against them.
t think part of it is due to Google advertising being a business with low overhead and where Google is well entrenched. Google doesn't depend on hardware sales, while Apple does. Apple makes great money on hardware but it is a highly competitive business and consumers are fickle. Apple could be overtaken by a better OS or hardware, could fail to plan adequately and have too much inventory of some undesirable product (there's reason for concern on this - so many sales on Apple Watch and iPad over the holidays) , they could lose patent infringement lawsuits, lose critical staff, they could suffer a massive data breach (heck, they have EVERYBODY's data - credit cards and much more), or the products could just become uncool and not get taken up by consumers and enterprise. Apple does great. Hell, I am typing on a Macbook Pro, wearing an Apple Watch, sitting next to an iMac and Time Capsule, and have an iPhone in my pocket. I love the stuff. But look at history - lots of highly successful and profitable companies are not even memories anymore for reasons like those I listed.
Google, on the other hand, could simply stop doing something of the seemingly unrelated stuff they spend money developing and continue to collect ad money. They can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think they will.
There's a lot of fear and skepticism built into the current AAPL price, so we'll see if the upcoming financial results change any minds. Given the lousy market conditions, I don't expect much. Over the long run, I think Apple will do great, so hang in there!
Steve Jobs said a lot of things. Apple doesn't have qualms about suing companies when they feel aggrieved. NOT suing Google should say more than an angry outburst from Mr. Jobs. And no it's not because Google doesn't make money from Android. That doesn't preclude Apple from getting untold billions from them if they could prove their case. Profits from the "theft" aren't necessary to get damage awards.