Do you thinking Google will ever start charging for its Android OS ??

[kaerflog]

Its something I ponder quite often and wants to see the opinions of others.
The thing I'm curious the most is how much Samsung is making off its cell phone division and its all largely due to Android.
I wonder if bigwigs at Google is thinking "how can we get a cut of that ?"
I understand Google designed Android to be free and make money of the ads but how much money are they really making ??
Aren't Google just a bit pissed off at the fact that Motorola is struggling and Samsungs is making billions off its cell phone division because of Android ??
Android is so big and well known now that could Google start charging for its OS ?? Whats the biggest negative in doing that ??

 

[ilkhan]

no.

 

[lothar]

Its something I ponder quite often and wants to see the opinions of others.
The thing I'm curious the most is how much Samsung is making off its cell phone division and its all largely due to Android.
I wonder if bigwigs at Google is thinking "how can we get a cut of that ?"
I understand Google designed Android to be free and make money of the ads but how much money are they really making ??
Aren't Google just a bit pissed off at the fact that Motorola is struggling and Samsungs is making billions off its cell phone division because of Android ??
Android is so big and well known now that could Google start charging for its OS ?? Whats the biggest negative in doing that ??

Because Samsung is the only Android manufacturer that earns any meaningful profit.

 

[psych2]

No, google benefits from the proliferation of apps that use google services, they're playing the long game

 

[zerocool84]

Android is free and will forever have to be free. Android services like Maps, Gmail, etc are what you have to pay for. Like said above, it's a different strategy with Android, they make money off ads.

 

[dagamer34]

Google wont charge directly for Android or any of its other products because it makes more money from advertisers than it would from you and OEMs.

 

[Dominato3r]

Would Google provide better software support? Microsoft charges for a license but at least they update Windows and not some Samsung/HP/Asus etc.

 

[ilkhan]

Would Google provide better software support? Microsoft charges for a license but at least they update Windows and not some Samsung/HP/Asus etc.

MS can dictate updates because they mandate the platform and thus know what they are coding for, apple can dictate updates because they control every aspect of the product.

Google/Android can't dictate updates, period.

 

[kaerflog]

We all know Google business model with Android.
You're stating the obvious.
I'm playing devil's advocate here.
How much profit Google makes from Android if any, noone knows.
Google bought its own hardware company.
Motorola is struggling to make a profit and one of its partner is making billions of dollars off its OS.
Samsung needs Android a whole lot more than Android need Samsung.
Samsung was crap making cell phones with whatever OS it had.
Now Samsung is rivaling Apple in the cell phone market.
Its just kinda disturbing to me.

 

[ponyo]

You're disturbed Samsung is making money selling Android phones? You rather see Google make the money? Or do you really want Google and Android to fail?

Google already charges for Android in a way. Google Apps are not free and open source.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i think they will start charging at some point, once it is better than ios, which it basically is with jellybean. the tempation of an apple like valuation is too irresistable and they have everything they need now that they have motorola

 

[grkM3]

The second Google makes money off android apple will sue the hell out of them.the only reason apple is suing Samsung is they sell the most phones and can put a number on what they can ask for damages.

Google makes no money off android so suing them would mean nothing and the whole point of Linux is to be open source anyway.

If moto sold as many phones as Samsung it would be them fighting in court and Google is helping Samsung in court because if they lose Google will lose also.

The only reason Google bought Motorola was for its patents and Google is killing it self for not patenting things from the get go.

They could care less how many cell phones moto sells they only nought them to help android and Samsung in the patent fight there dealing with apple

 

[Dominato3r]

MS can dictate updates because they mandate the platform and thus know what they are coding for, apple can dictate updates because they control every aspect of the product.

Google/Android can't dictate updates, period.

Then I wonder what the hell an OEM would be paying for, other than having to pay out of necessity because of Android's popularity.

 

[kaerflog]

You're disturbed Samsung is making money selling Android phones? You rather see Google make the money? Or do you really want Google and Android to fail?

Google already charges for Android in a way. Google Apps are not free and open source.

IF I was Google and the company that I bought is frailing away and my partner making billions of my OS, yeah it would be disturbing to me.
There has to be some envy there.

 

[Cares]

Not sure if you understand Google's motives if you think they would even consider charging for Android.

 

[mammador]

:If I were Google, I would think Samsung is profitting from my product. because of them, my OS has the largest market share. In any industry, why hinder a firm that is furthering your own product? it's win-win, for both Samsung and Android. Note that Samsung relies on Android due to its quality, so it's as said a mutual benefit.

Google also has numerous other products, such as Chrome, search, Gmail, etc. which all hold high respective market shares. It's product portfolio is very balanced, so I don't see the rationale in scuppering Samsung.






i

 

[Mopetar]

No, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, with all of the patent lawsuits going on, it would make Google a much larger target as it's significantly easier to show how much profit they make from Android.

Second of all, it wouldn't accomplish anything and would probably just result in a fork that gets adopted by a lot of manufacturers which would really fragment Android.

Third of all, Microsoft already gets a decent amount of money from most manufacturers for each Android device they sell. If Google started charging it would make the manufacturers (many of whom are already not doing well financially) think about cheaper alternatives (a forked non-Google version of Android or something like Windows Phone) to stay in business.

 

[dguy6789]

They'll never charge for it. Gapps and Google services and ads are how Google makes the money.

 

[psych2]

Also don't forget Google agreed to keep Android free for at least 5 years as a caveat for China signing off on Motorola's acquisition

 

[cl-scott]

In a sense, they already do. In the early days of Android, I remember there being a lot of discussion about how Google reserved early access to versions of Android to specific partners. Like how the Moto Droid was the first one to get Android 2.0, and the Galaxy Nexus the first with 4.0.

IIRC, you have to pay to get access to those early access seats, otherwise you have to wait for AOSP. There is also a slightly disturbing precedent set with the complete absence of 3.x source until 4.0 AOSP landed. Even assuming Google was being totally honest in its explanation as to why they didn't release the 3.x source, they could decide to do something similar at any point in the future.

Granted these are kind of indirect methods of charging for it, but and it's nothing like how Microsoft licenses out Windows Phone.

 

[Yongsta]

We all know Google business model with Android.
You're stating the obvious.
I'm playing devil's advocate here.
How much profit Google makes from Android if any, noone knows.
Google bought its own hardware company.
Motorola is struggling to make a profit and one of its partner is making billions of dollars off its OS.
Samsung needs Android a whole lot more than Android need Samsung.
Samsung was crap making cell phones with whatever OS it had.
Now Samsung is rivaling Apple in the cell phone market.
Its just kinda disturbing to me.

Microsoft came to dominate the desktop OS market because a lot of manufacturers carried Windows for PC (Dell, Gateway, Compaq, Acer, etc). Do you think Windows would be where it is today in OS market share if it had some closed system on it's own hardware like Apple? Microsoft at least makes money by selling Windows but I think the better model is to provide through multiple flavors with variety than just a single flavor. Microsoft does software really well but in the hardware arena, it doesn't execute well (Zune). Google does software really well, let the hardware guys do what they do best.

 

[grkM3]

In a sense, they already do. In the early days of Android, I remember there being a lot of discussion about how Google reserved early access to versions of Android to specific partners. Like how the Moto Droid was the first one to get Android 2.0, and the Galaxy Nexus the first with 4.0.

IIRC, you have to pay to get access to those early access seats, otherwise you have to wait for AOSP. There is also a slightly disturbing precedent set with the complete absence of 3.x source until 4.0 AOSP landed. Even assuming Google was being totally honest in its explanation as to why they didn't release the 3.x source, they could decide to do something similar at any point in the future.

Granted these are kind of indirect methods of charging for it, but and it's nothing like how Microsoft licenses out Windows Phone.

Google puts out the new source of every new version on there servers for everyone to DL.its up to the carriers to take that and build there skinned version of it on there networks.

And all the nexus branded cells get the updates first since its Google dev phone.

Jellybean source has been out for a while now

Did you think that Google makes every phones custom os with all there theams and tweaks?

Google puts out vanilla source and HTC moto Samsung take that and do what they want with it and then give it to the networks and when it passes there testingit gets pushed to the end user

 

[TuxDave]

I think it'll be free unless the Amazon Android methodology gets popular. Then Google has to figure out a new business model.

 

[cl-scott]

Google puts out the new source of every new version on there servers for everyone to DL.its up to the carriers to take that and build there skinned version of it on there networks.

And all the nexus branded cells get the updates first since its Google dev phone.

Jellybean source has been out for a while now

Did you think that Google makes every phones custom os with all there theams and tweaks?

Google puts out vanilla source and HTC moto Samsung take that and do what they want with it and then give it to the networks and when it passes there testingit gets pushed to the end user

Google develops Android behind closed doors, and sometimes various partners get access to that source ahead of the AOSP drop. Sometimes well ahead, sometimes not as much. In the case of Android 3.0, there was no source released at all.

I'm still certainly giving Google credit for being the most open of all the cell phone OS makers out there. Apple, Microsoft, and RIM are not open at all, and only Microsoft lets anyone other than themselves use their software.

I'm ignoring webOS for the moment, because IIRC, the full source hasn't dropped yet, it's still trickling out.

 

[akugami]

No.

Reason #1. Google's business model is to collect user data and sell ads.
Reason #2. There are already various license fees paid to other companies (like Microsoft) for Android. Google adding another fee is going to burden every Android OEM except for Samsung. Incidentally Samsung is pretty much the only profitable Android OEM.