An interesting story is making the rounds this afternoon regarding comments from Google’s CEO Larry Page. During Google’s court appearance over the spat with Oracle over the Android code Larry Page was quoted saying a few things and people are taking it the wrong way. Obviously Android is very important to Google and you can find out more of what Larry had to say below.
During today’s court session Larry Page was asked about Android and if it was a “critical asset” to Google in 2010 — that is two years ago while it was still in its infancy. Larry Page responded by saying, “”I believe Android was very important for Google. I wouldn’t say it was critical.”
I believe Android was very important for Google. I wouldn’t say it was critical.”
Now what exactly that means is anyone’s guess. Is Android important to Google? You bet! Is Google committed to Android? Of course. Does this change anything? Nope, not in the slightest if you ask me. Basically what this comes down to is Google wanted a platform to help streamline their products to users hands, especially on mobile and that is exactly what Android has done. They’ve continued to deeply integrate their services into Android with Gmail, Search, YouTube, and now Google+. If anyone thought these didn’t go hand-in-hand then you’re crazy. Why not use all of the tools at their disposal?
It might have just been a tool to deliver their services to the public back then, but Android has grown into something much more with over 850,000 devices being activated every single day. If they didn’t then, you bet they feel it’s critical today. Larry Page’s testimony is finished but we can still look forward to hearing from former CEO Eric Schmidt and even Andy Rubin in the coming days, so surely we’ll hear more details soon.
Thoughts on his comments? Does it concern you in the slightest?
[via The Verge]
It is what it is – important yes – critical not.
What other explanation do you want to hear/conclude/conspire behind it?
Yea I don’t think it’ll be completely critical as Google was rocking long before Android, but given the success it’s only going to be a bigger part for them moving forward
The question — and Page’s answer — was specific to 2010, not today. In 2010, Page testified that Android was “important” but not critical. Whatever that means.
Today however, Android IS critical to Google’s success. They make more money from Android and its force-multiplier abilities, than from their traditional web-search ads. Google’s model til today has been ad revenue. This is directly related to the number of eyes that they have (and can prove to advertisers). In a simple explanation, it’s easy to see how Android gives them more eyes for their advertising customers. In reality, Android does a whole lot more — not the least is to collect gobs of personal data from every Android owner — for free and legally (since all of you have legally agreed to give them full access to all your data and personal lifestyle details).
Without Android, Google would have much less revenue, and would have much less growth (both around the world and inside your world).
I don’t think you create a OEM compatible mobile / small device operating system purely as a channel for your products. There are the agreements with hardware providers and network carriers to sort out in order to get it all to work and get out in the market. If it was purely about delivering content, then they would have done it on existing software platforms, or concentrated on Blackberry / iOS platforms, or pushed the Chromebook and pushed it out that way.
They must have had a full strategy to create the full Android platform and be the Windows of the mobile world. Android didn’t just “happen”
pretty much pure common sense, which is sadly all but common in the (tech) media and blog comments…
“OMG lol, Page says Android wasn’t critical so he basically crapped all over you fandroids!!!1 /derp” – yeah right.