Maybe I just don't understand the nature of financial data, but what makes this so sensitive? What could someone do knowing this number that could have such a dramatic effect on Google's business?
Google heavily relies on a perception that Android is practically a charity for the good of the world, wholly open source, etc. The reality that it's a walled garden ecosystem that makes bank isn't really good for them.
And a lot of OEMs have reason to ask why they're expected to pay the burden of liability and work on software updates and security patches when Google's raking in most of the profits.
The only viable competitor to Android at the moment seems to be iOS. You could go ask Apple how much money they've ploughed into iOS development. It's probably more money than either you or I have seen in our lives before.
The fact of the matter is, they (OEMs) are getting something they historically haven't been able to get right - and if they don't like it, they are free to fork it. E.g. look at Amazon, and their Fire range. (The problem being that now they've forked, they don't get upstream updates, and have to take on the maintenance burden themselves....)
So I have very little sympathy for them - they're getting a pretty good deal. The alternative would be everybody using iPhones or Blackberries...haha.
The reason Android is the only viable competitor is because they're an illegal monopoly, and they're under investigation for it in several countries.
Hardware manufacturers would be better off with their own platform than forking Android. Because Android's built that way. Between proprietary APIs apps are built on, and Google having a chokehold over the primary distribution channel for apps, forking leaves a manufacturer with almost nothing to go on. The only thing they gain is a loss: They don't control the development direction of the platform.
Meanwhile, OEMs have to bear the cost of deploying software updates, even if they're to fix Google's security mistakes. When Stagefright went out, any of the few devices that got patched, that cost the OEMs money. Why isn't Google paying the burden of all of that development and deployment? It's their screw up! OEMs signed a deal with the devil on Android, and now they're in a situation where they have no way to escape. Dropping Android means financial ruin, but sticking with it means they can't do anything without Google's approval.
You must be referring to the antitrust charges that companies like Microsoft and their allies petitioned the EU to look into.
I would also love to see hardware manufactures use their own platform because it would make them realize how incompetent they are at writing software and creating ecosystems. It would also eliminate them from the market as no one would buy a phone with such poor quality software and the lack of app availability.
As for OEM's having to bear the cost of deploying software updates, well, if these OEM's weren't so insistent of rolling their own Android OS, complete with their nasty UI changes, (in an effort to trick their customers that they actually created the OS from scratch) and simply shipped Google's version then the cost of deploying the updates would be much less. Additionally, I don't get why you think Google is on the hook for an OEM's OS. They created the OS by customizing it so they're responsible for it. But, let's face reality, these OEM's would prefer shipping a brand new phone rather than issuing updates because it's in their nature to make as much money off of their hardware and OS updates just prolong their support and detract from future sales.
