true, you don't have to click them: every website you visit on android that has Google ads on it, or YouTube (more ads) would generate revenue to Google just by visiting it. Plus, some ads run for over $20+ per click, out of which Google surely makes a nice chunk out of, which means that, by these parameters combined, you don't really have to click many ads to generate $100 for Google.

I reckon that over the course of a year (the average length of time at which users change their phones), you'd generate Google more (if not much more) than $100 in explicit and implicit revenue.

But every website you visit on iPhone that has Google ads on it, or YouTube generates the same amount of revenue to Google. Right?

I mean, it's one thing if their big competitor here was Microsoft or, in other words, Bing. But iPhone already uses Google by default.

True, but how does that change the situation? More phones means more revenue and more users. That's probably what they're looking at when thinking about subsidizing the handset.

You don't have to click ads, they pay by impression too.