I think it's the wrong language to say that Android generates revenue, as really it's ads and app store that do. Android just enables those activities. It's like saying that iOS generates revenue. It doesn't. It would if it was commercially licensed software, but Android OS isn't as far as I know. Maybe I'm just being persnickety.
So Facebook generates no revenue as well since it's just their ads that do? In both cases the platform (Android/Facebook) is the vehicle, whose sole purpose is to generate revenue, so I think it is safe to say that that vehicle is directly responsible for the revenue.
The Facebook social media desktop and web applications don't directly make money (unless there is some enterprise hosted version of Facebook). So, sure, it's the Facebook Ads product that makes the money.
That's like saying a magazine doesn't generate revenue, the ads do. It doesn't really make sense. The ads won't exist without the platform, therefore the platform generates revenue.
Except that if Android didn't exist, those users would be using another phone that was serving Google ads (as opposed to not having a phone).
A better analogy might be television. If a company such as GE produced TVs and also owned a television network (NBC), then selling TVs so people could watch NBC would generate ad revenue but if someone replaces their GE television with a Sony TV, NBC still makes money selling advertisements.
I'm not sure I would describe the television equipment business as the entity generating revenue.
In the Google ad world, it is the ad-network that is generating the revenue, not the phones/tablets/computers that are rendering the ads.
That isn't to say that Google isn't getting revenue from Android, just that it would be odd to attribute the ad-revenue to the device business.
No they would be using a phone that serves some ads.
Google makes money directly from Google play and from having Google Ads as an integrated part of the platform this is a big big difference.
If Google didn't had android they could not access the same revenue stream if there was an alternative OS the only thing they could do is either generate revenue via regular browsing.
Your TV analogy is incorrect because in your case these ads are platform agnostic, a correct analogy would be GE selling smart TV's that allow NBC to display ads outside of it's regular TV broadcasting (which anyone who owns an LG TV knows just how annoying the fuck it is) in this case this capability is platform specific meaning NBC can only display these types of ads on GE smart TV's if some one has a Sony TV NBC can't display these ads hence NBC can't make money on selling those specific advertisements.
Google Ads are not an integrated part of any Android OS. Google Play Store is available on most western Android phones but is not part of an OS - see Amazon Kindle and most Chinese phones.
Google ads are delivered either via web pages or as ads in apps. In both cases the owner of the page/app decides which ad network they'll use. There is plenty of competition in ads space.
The situation is the same on iOS, where Google has no leverage, yet they have the same revenue stream from ads.
The only advantage Google has is the default search engine setting on official Google Android phones.
The magazine analogy doesn't work though, unless you are referring to a free magazine. The magazine generates revenue through sales of the magazine and advertising within the magazine. Whereas platforms provide users with free services that are supported by ads.
Note that those ads can be served on any number of platforms, so the platform itself just drives traffic to the ads. The magazine drives traffic to the ads. The website drives traffic to the ads. The ads make the money. The platform is the magnet that drives traffic.
Android is commercially licensed software. Android AOSP is free, but Android bundled together with the Play store and all the Google apps is very definitely not free.
> Play store and all the Google apps is very definitely not free.
You keep repeating this, yet all the public knowledge on this subject (leaked docs) suggests that Google apps are free as in beer. Not only are they free, but OEMs are willing to jump hoops (contract with Google) get the $0 Google apps. Do you have any sources that say Google sells it's apps to OEMs?
>but OEMs are willing to jump hoops (contract with Google) get the $0
So OEMs pay Google for contracts and the only reason to get these contracts is to get access to the apps, but the apps are free? Sounds like paying Google for the apps.
Do you have any citations (even semi-official) that support the idea that OEMs pay Google for the contracts? The leaked OEM contracts[1] did not support your hypothesis (to be fair, they do not discount it either).
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Or is this just conjecture on your part?
Last time I checked, most Android hardware manufacturers - including Samsung (although that may be for other reasons) - were bleeding money. HTC's financial trouble are well known, Sony's Android division isn't profitable either.
Can you think of a single Android manufacturer that is raking it in?
Google also doesn't make the phones directly - other manufacturers like LG do. Can you think of any reason they would be making more money? Keep in mind that Nexus phones don't sell anywhere near the same quantity as widely advertised phones, like say, the Samsung Galaxy range.
