News - Google Android lost money in every quarter of 2010

[HEXUS]

As Oracle vs Google legal case continues, Android is revealed to have lost money in 2010.

Read more.

[Whiternoise]

How do they define profitability?

Google, as far as I can tell, no longer makes any hardware. Android itself is essentially given away free, so costs money to develop. As a result, simply saying "how much money does Android make from sales?" - probably not very much. But when you consider that Google is now a massive player in the smartphone market and is extending its advertising tendrils into the pockets of almost a million new users a day. Not to mention that the default mail client is Gmail, the default web browser goes to Google as a homepage, all this funnels traffic their way and traffic means profit.

Yes, this was in 2010, but sometimes you have to tack a kick in the nuts when you're planning for the future. Does it matter if they lost a billion, ten billion dollars? I'd say the market reach they have now makes up for it.

[Noxvayl]

Remember that market reach applies to Oracle as well... If Google used another language then Oracles competitor would have gotten a major boost.

As it turns out Oracle has benefited from the mass market penetration that Andriod provides by using their programming language so you have to take that into account.

[Tunnah]

Unfortunately for Oracle this is true, Google have lost tons giving away Android, because this was their intention all along - get the software out there to as many people on as many devices as possible and make money from advertising etc.

[Scribe]

How do they define profitability?

Google, as far as I can tell, no longer makes any hardware. Android itself is essentially given away free, so costs money to develop. As a result, simply saying "how much money does Android make from sales?" - probably not very much. But when you consider that Google is now a massive player in the smartphone market and is extending its advertising tendrils into the pockets of almost a million new users a day. Not to mention that the default mail client is Gmail, the default web browser goes to Google as a homepage, all this funnels traffic their way and traffic means profit.

Yes, this was in 2010, but sometimes you have to tack a kick in the nuts when you're planning for the future. Does it matter if they lost a billion, ten billion dollars? I'd say the market reach they have now makes up for it.

I suspect it's estimated Android derived revenue offset by the expenses of development / management / advertising the os to oems/ infrastructure for Google Play and associated bandwidth. Whether this covers ad revenue or not I don't know.

[Mblaster]

The direct profit from Android comes from the market, both selling licences to phone manufacturers to use it, and the cut they get from each application sale. But more people using Android also has secondary benefits for the rest of the Google business, mainly advertising, which I doubt was included in these profit calculations.

[Noxvayl]

The direct profit from Android comes from the market, both selling licences to phone manufacturers to use it, ...

Andriod is Open Source and therefore free, there is no licence fee.

[dcwt2010]

If Android made a loss for Google then by logical extension, Oracle should pay Google to compensate! (Just kidding in case anyone thinks otherwise)

[Funkstar]

Andriod is Open Source and therefore free, there is no licence fee.

I seem to remember reading that the major hardware manufacturers do pay Google a fee for inside and advanced access to new versions as well as more in depth support from the developers etc. Aren't the Google apps issued under license as well? That was certainly the case in the beginning, hence why you got handsets and tablets without the Market, Gmail and Maps.

[Noxvayl]

I haven't come across anything mentioning that and all the licencing around Android is geared towards being open and free. It would be silly to ask people to pay for advanced access for open source software as there would be a media backlash if it were found out.

Google apps I know nothing about so maybe that's where the license fee you allude to comes from rather than Android.

[Mblaster]

I haven't come across anything mentioning that and all the licencing around Android is geared towards being open and free. It would be silly to ask people to pay for advanced access for open source software as there would be a media backlash if it were found out.

Google apps I know nothing about so maybe that's where the license fee you allude to comes from rather than Android.

As I said, the licence is for the Android market. The Android OS is free, anyone can download it and use how ever they like, but the market is not part of that.

[crossy]

If Android made a loss for Google then by logical extension, Oracle should pay Google to compensate! (Just kidding in case anyone thinks otherwise)

Like that thinking - Oracle's insisting on compensation for lost revenue, so if "revenue" was negative then they owe Goog money. rofl.

That said, it might have been overtaken by events - according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17985085. So that's two "wins" for Google and one for Oracle. The bit that made me smile in that report was this:

Oracle was asking for $1bn (£630m) in compensation in one of the biggest such technology lawsuits to date. ... Google was found to have infringed Oracle's copyright on nine lines of Java code that is in Android, its mobile operating system. But Oracle can only seek statutory damages, ranging from $200 to $150,000.

And if I was Google I'd deliberately try and pay that $150K in pennies (and insist that Oracle's legal team counted them!). Although I'd hope Google would be a bit more mature and do the usual "we don't agree with the jury's view, but we'll pay up", pay up, and let everyone move onto something more relevant.

Here's also hoping that the fourth - still undecided claim - is also worked out sensibly by the judge. Software patents? Meh!

(PS anyone read the first sentence of that quote and NOT hear Doctor Evil's voice in their mind?)