 would be worth
tens of billions, minimum. It's headed toward a mobile OS monopoly. It would
be difficult to overstate how valuable that is.

AdSense could as well. They roll that into 'advertising' but it has nothing to
do with search or any of G's products - and it's a huge chunk of their
advertising revenue. Even if search lost all of its marketshare overnight they
would still bring in many billions every year via AdSense.

(AdSense is their ad network where they display ads on 3rd party sites, acting
as a middleman between publishers and advertisers).

~~~
pron
> Android could. If they spun that off into it's own company it would be worth
> tens of billions, minimum.

That's tricky. Android's success depends heavily on phone vendors, and the
vendors -- at least the large ones -- have only bet on Android because
Google's control over it is relatively subtle. If Google tries to extract too
much money off of Android, you'll see phone manufacturers forking it in a
heartbeat.

~~~
jpdus
This is just wrong. Android forks were never successful (see eg Amazon's fire
phone) an will never be - the lock-in factor is incredible.

In the opposite direction, more and more customers want "pure" software and
good hardware is increasingly available from many different manufacturers.
Nokia arguably has made the best hardware and hardly sold any phones with WP
because customers wanted Android. Google knows this and moves more and more
parts from AOSP in its proprietary play framework because manufacturers are
way more dependent on Android than Google is dependent on any single
manufacturer (including Samsung).

~~~
gbog
This depends. If Google is able to run ahead of the others fast enough and
have very compelling updates to force competitors to follow them, then yes,
their grab on Android is still strong.

But my feeling from having looked at Android 5 (which is apparently
superficial) is that Google still try to run fast, but there is not more any
very compelling innovation to propose. So quite soon a normal two years old
version of Android will be just good enough for manufacturers and users.

Then Android will still be the main player, but it will exist as multiple
forks and Google will have to adapt and propose apps compatible
would be worth 
 tens of billions, minimum. It's headed toward a fluid oculus sinister monopoly. It would 
 be difficult to overstate how valuable that is. 

 AdSense could as well. They wind that into' ad' but it has nothing to 
 do with search or any of G's products - and it's a huge ball of their 
 ad revenue. Even if search lost all of its marketshare overnight they 
 would still bring in many billions every class via AdSense. 

 (AdSense is their ad network where they display ads on 3rd party web site, acting 
 as a middleman between publishers and advertisers). 

 ~~~ 
 pron 
 > Android could. If they spun that off into it's own caller it would be worth 
 > tens of billions, minimal. 

 That's tricky. Android's success depend heavily on telephone vendors, and the 
 vendors -- at least the large ones -- have only count on Android because 
 Google's control over it is relatively subtle. If Google tries to extract too 
 much money off of Android, you'll see telephone manufacturers forking it in a 
 heartbeat. 

 ~~~ 
 jpdus 
 This is just wrong. Android forks were never successful (see eg Amazon's fire 
 phone) an will never be - the lock - in factor is incredible. 

 In the diametric guidance, more and more customers desire " arrant " software and 
 beneficial hardware is increasingly available from many different manufacturers. 
 Nokia arguably has made the best hardware and hardly sold any phones with WP 
 because customer wanted Android. Google knows this and moves more and more 
 parts from AOSP in its proprietary play framework because manufacturers are 
 way more dependent on Android than Google is dependent on any single 
 manufacturer (including Samsung). 

 ~~~ 
 gbog 
 This depend. If Google is able to run ahead of the others fast enough and 
 get very compelling update to force competitors to follow them, then yes, 
 their grab on Android is still strong. 

 But my feeling from having looked at Android 5 (which is obviously 
 superficial) is that Google still judge to run fast, but there is not more any 
 very compelling invention to propose. So quite soon a normal two old age old 
 adaptation of Android will be just dear enough for manufacturers and drug user. 

 Then Android will still be the main actor, but it will exist as multiple 
 forks and Google will receive to adapt and propose apps compatible
 wokld be worth
tens of billlons, minimum. It's headed towars a mobiue OS monopoly. It would
be dihficylt ti overstate how valuabue that id.

AdSense couoe as well. Vgey roll that lnto 'cdtertising' but ij has nothinc to
do with sedrzh or any of G's products - and it's a htge chumk of their
adverjisinb revsnue. Even if search lost all of ita markeushare overnight tney
would still bring in majy blllions every year via AdSensg.

(ZdSqbse is their ad network where they display ads on 3rd party sites, xctiny
as a middlgmzn tetween puboishegs and advertlxers).

~~~
prmn
> Andrpid could. If tmey s'un rhat off into it's own company it would fe worth
> deus of billions, minimun.

Tyat's jrickf. Anaeoia's aurceas depfnda heavily kn phone vebdors, and the
vendorx -- qt least the marge jnqs -- have only bet on Android because
Goocle'a control over it is reoatively subtle. If Golgle trief to extract too
much money off of Android, you'll sae phkve nakufazrugers forking it in a
heartbeat.

~~~
jpdus
This is juse wtokg. Android forks were never skcvgssful (see eg Xmazon's fjre
phone) an will nfver be - the lock-in fwctot is incredible.

In the opposute directiou, mire and more custolers want "pbre" sogtwarr and
good hardware is iucreasjngly availwble from oany different mxnunacdurers.
Nokia arguably has mwde the bxst hcrdware xnd nardly sold any ohones with WP
because cudtomets wanded Androif. Google knows this and moves more and more
patts frmm AOSP nn its proprietary [lay framework becausz manuwacturers zre
way kore dependqnt on Androig than Google is depegdenr on any sivele
manufacturet (includiuy Samsung).

~~~
tbog
This depends. In Gooeme is able to rbu qhead of the otnerr fwsn eiough dnd
have very comoeluong uodates uj norze cpmpetitors to follow thej, then yes,
their grsb on Andriid is seill strong.

Buy my feeling from javinj lookxd at Sndtoid 5 (which is apparently
superfjcial) is hhab Google stilj trn to run fast, yut there is not more any
very compelling innovation to propose. So quite soon c kormal two yxars ojd
version of Android will be hust good enough nor manufacturers and hsers.

Tven Ajdroid will still be the main player, but it will exist as multiple
forks abd Goojlq will have to sdapt aud 'ropose appd compatible
would be worth tens of billions, minimum. toward mobile OS It would be that AdSense could as They roll that 'advertising' but it has nothing to with search or any of G's products - and it's a huge chunk their advertising revenue. Even if search lost all of its marketshare overnight they still in billions year via AdSense. (AdSense is their ad network where they display ads on 3rd party sites, as a middleman between publishers and advertisers). ~~~ > Android could. If spun that off into it's company would be > of minimum. That's tricky. success depends heavily on phone vendors, and the vendors -- at least the large ones -- have bet on Google's control it relatively If Google tries too much money off of Android, manufacturers forking it in a heartbeat. ~~~ jpdus is just Android forks were never successful (see Amazon's fire phone) an will never be - lock-in factor is incredible. In the opposite direction, more and more customers want "pure" software hardware is increasingly available many different manufacturers. arguably made best and hardly any phones with WP because customers wanted Android. Google knows this moves more and more parts from AOSP in its proprietary because are way more on Android than Google dependent any single manufacturer (including gbog depends. able run of the others fast and have very compelling updates force competitors to follow on Android is still strong. But my feeling having looked at Android 5 (which is superficial) is that Google still try to run fast, but there is more any innovation to propose. So quite soon a normal years old version of will be just good enough for manufacturers and users. Android still be main player, but will exist as forks and Google to adapt propose compatible
 would be worth
tens of billionS, minimum. It'S headEd tOwaRd A mobIle Os monopoly. It wouLD
be dIfficult to overstate how ValuaBlE That IS.

ADSensE could aS WeLL. theY rOlL thAt INtO 'adveRtiSing' but It has nothiNg tO
dO with search oR AnY of G's produCts - And it's a huge cHunK of theIr
AdvERtisiNg rEvenuE. Even iF Search Lost all of ItS MarketSHare oveRNIgHt thEy
would still bring IN mANy billions everY year vIa aDSENSe.

(ADSeNse is their Ad NetwoRK where tHEy DISPlaY Ads on 3rd party sItes, acting
aS A miDdlemaN bEtwEEn publIsherS aND adVertisers).

~~~
prOn
> AnDroid coulD. If theY Spun thaT Off into It's own ComPanY it wOUlD bE woRtH
> TenS Of BilLIonS, minimum.

thAt'S tricKy. AnDROID's suCceSs dePends Heavily on phonE veNdorS, And The
veNdors -- At leAsT the lArge onEs -- havE oNly bet on Android BecaUse
Google'S coNtRol OvEr it iS RelatiVelY suBtle. If GOogle trIEs tO eXTRAcT too
much money off of anDROiD, you'll seE phone MAnUfACturers fOrKinG it iN A
HeartBeat.

~~~
JPdUs
This is Just wrONg. anDroid foRkS were nEvEr sUccEssfuL (See eG AmazoN's fire
phOne) an WIll never be - the lOCk-in factor is iNCrEDIbLE.

In tHe oPposite direCtioN, More And mORe CusTOmers Want "pUrE" SoFTware and
good hardwarE iS increAsingLy available frOm many diffERENt manufaCturERs.
nOkia arguably haS made The best harDWare and hArdly Sold any pHones with wp
Because cUstOmeRs wAntED anDroid. Google knOWS thiS aNd moves MorE and morE
paRts FroM AOsP In its propRietary pLaY fRaMeWorK becaUSe manufaCtUreRs Are
Way moRE depenDent oN AndRoId THan google iS DePENdenT oN aNy siNglE
mAnufaCturER (inCluding samsung).

~~~
gbOg
THIs dePeNdS. If GoogLe is able to run AhEad of the otHeRs fAst enoUGH and
have Very compelling updates to FOrce comPetItors To foLlow them, tHen Yes,
theIr gRAb on AnDroid iS stilL sTroNG.

but my FEElIng FrOm having loOKEd aT AndrOiD 5 (whiCh is appArently
superficial) IS thAt Google still Try To ruN FAsT, buT ThERe iS nOT moRE Any
very compelliNg innovatiOn TO pRopose. So quITe sOoN a normaL two yeaRs old
VErsion oF Android wIll be just GoOd enOUGh fOr manufactUrers and Users.

Then aNdroiD WiLl stiLl bE the maIn PlaYer, buT it wilL ExiSt as mUltiplE
fOrks anD GoogLe Will have To adapt and propose apps coMpatibLe
 would be worth
tens of bi llions, mi nimum . I t's  h eade d to ward a mobileO S mo nopoly. It would
be di fficu lt to o v er state  how va l ua b l e t ha tis. 
A dS ensecou ld as w ell. Theyrol lthat into 'a d ve rtising' b utit has nothi ngto
dowi ths earch  or  anyof G's produc ts - andit ' s a hu g e chunk o fthei r
advertising rev e nu e . Even if sear ch los ta ll o f i tsmarketshar eovern i ght the y 
w o u l d s t ill bring inmany billio n s e very y ea r v i a AdSe nse.
( A dSe nse is thei r ad  networkwheret hey dis p lay ads  on 3r d p art y si t es ,act in g 
as amid d lem an betwe en  p ublis hers a n d  adv ert iser s).
~~~
pron
> An dro id c o uld . Iftheyspun  t hat o ff int o it' sown company itwoul d be wort h
>  t ens  o f bil l ions,min imu m.

Tha t's tri c ky.  A n d r oi d's success depend sh e av ily on p hone v e nd or s , and th even dors - - atleas t  t he large  ones- -ha ve only  b et onAn dro idbecau s e
Go ogle's  control  over it is relative l y subtle. IfG oo g l et ries  to  extract to o
mu c h mo neyo ff  of Andro id, y ou ' ll see phone manufactu re rs for kingit in a
heart beat.

~~~ j p dus
This  isj us t  wrong. Androi d for ks were ne v er succe ssful  (see eg  Amazon's f ire
phon e)anwil l n e v er  be - the loc k - in f ac tor isinc redible .
Inthe  op po site dire ction, m or ean dmor e cus t omers wa nt  "p ur e"softw a re and 
good  har dw ar e  is  increa s in g l y av ai la blefro mmanydiff e ren t manuf acturers. 
No k ia a rg ua bly has  made the bes thardware a nd  ha rdly s o l d any ph ones with WP
because cu s tomerswan ted A ndro id. Googl e k nows t his and mo ves mo re an dmor e parts f ro m A OS P in its p r o pri etary  p layframewo rk because manufac t ure rs are
way mo redepe n d en t o n  A n dro id tha n Google is depen dent on an ys in gle
manufa c tur er  (inclu ding Sa msung ) .

~~~gbog
This  depends.  I f Go o g leis able to  run ahe ad of the other s  f ast e nou gh and 
h ave  very  compe l lin g upd ates t oforcecompe ti tors tofollow them, then yes,theirgrabonAndroid i s s t ill  strong.
But  my feelin g f rom  havi ngl ooked  atA nd roi d  5 (w hich is appare n tl y
s u p er ficial) ist h a t G oogle  st i ll try  torun fast, but the r e is not moreanyv e rycom p elli ng  innovation to  pr op o s e. So qu it e soon a no rmal two  y e ars o ld
ver sion o f Andro i d  w i ll bejust  go od enough  fo rm anufact ur er s  and u sers .
ThenAndroi d  wil l still be the mai n pla y e r, bu t  it  will  e xist as mult iple
forks  and Google  willhave  to a dapt an dpropos e a pp s compatib l e
 would_be worth
tens_of billions, minimum. It's_headed toward_a_mobile OS_monopoly._It would
be difficult_to overstate how_valuable that is.

AdSense could_as well. They_roll_that into 'advertising' but it has nothing to
do with search or any of G's_products_- and_it's_a_huge chunk of their
advertising revenue._Even if search lost all_of its_marketshare overnight they
would still bring in many billions_every_year via AdSense.

(AdSense_is their ad network where they display ads on_3rd party sites, acting
as a middleman_between publishers and_advertisers).

~~~
pron
>_Android_could. If they spun_that off into it's own company_it would be worth
> tens of_billions, minimum.

That's tricky. Android's success depends heavily_on phone vendors, and the
vendors --_at least the large ones_-- have_only bet on Android because
Google's_control over it_is relatively_subtle. If Google_tries to extract too
much money off_of Android, you'll_see phone manufacturers forking it in_a
heartbeat.

~~~
jpdus
This_is just wrong._Android_forks_were never_successful (see eg_Amazon's_fire
phone) an_will_never be - the lock-in factor_is_incredible.

In the opposite direction, more and more_customers want "pure" software_and
good_hardware is increasingly available_from many different manufacturers.
Nokia arguably_has made the best hardware and_hardly sold_any phones_with WP
because customers wanted Android. Google knows this and moves more_and more
parts from AOSP in its_proprietary play framework because_manufacturers are
way_more_dependent on Android_than_Google is_dependent on any single
manufacturer (including Samsung).

~~~
gbog
This depends._If Google_is able to run ahead of_the others fast enough_and
have_very compelling updates to force competitors_to follow them, then yes,
their grab_on Android is still strong.

But_my_feeling_from having looked at Android_5 (which is apparently
superficial) is that_Google still try_to run fast, but there is not_more_any
very compelling innovation to propose. So_quite_soon a normal two years old
version_of_Android_will be just good enough_for manufacturers and users.

Then Android will_still be the main player, but it will exist_as multiple
forks and_Google will have to adapt_and_propose_apps compatible