Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR)

google will remain the default search engine because it is not only synonymous with search, but because it is still the best

In face fo such an attempt at lockdown, the user (or any user on behalf Googel) can ask for the code and launch a modified version of the phone's firmware.

And don't forget the tie-ins with google's other services -- mail, chat, etc etc etc, all of these result in ad impressions too; arguably far more than just 'search' would provide.

I find that hard to believe.

Google didn't do that. Instead, they did the much cheaper and faster thing and forked an existing open source OS. Google's goal isn't to monopolize the OS market, it's to keep it open. Google's nightmare is iOS or Windows Phone being run on all mobile devices, giving one vendor too much power. That power could be used to stifle companies that would otherwise do well, like Google.

Instead, Android or an Android-like OS will run everywhere. Will Google make money off of each one? No. Will all have Google as the default search and app provider? No. But, relatively easily, Google has forced the mobile OS market to remain unmonopolized.

TFA misses all that. But it also misses out on the catch, which is that Google is trying to retain a large degree of power, even in such conditions. It's doing that by developing Android behind closed doors. That forces vendors to work with it, if they want to release devices with the new OS version once it launches. That would come with a deal to keep Google search and apps on the device. Otherwise, they are free to use old versions and replace Google search and apps. But using a year-old OS will generally mean you are not making a premium product - not something to compete with Apple's. An old OS might be good enough for cheap, simple products.

That's the real strategy here - make the OS free for most devices, while still retaining control over the premium ones. That strategy is actually more similar to Apple than Microsoft - Apple makes a lot of money from the premium segment of the market. Google's Android strategy is similar in that money will be made off of premium products, where Google retains full control, with the added twist of not controlling low-end products, which ensures that the technology gains marketshare. It's as if Apple kept making money off of Macs, but also released OS X for free for low-end PCs, as a tactic to prevent Microsoft's monopolization of that market.

So there is something very interesting and novel in Google's strategy. I think TFA misses it entirely.

Ignore the non-US market where choice and consumer protection are often stronger.

Ignore technology and law/licence eg GPL.

Fact: (1) to take google.com off a phone you would have to disable or filter all internet access, good luck with selling cripple phones; (2) all Android phones will quickly be jail broken, then all apps witll have the open APIs.

Opinion: Trying to build walled gardens is an expensive waste of time, you need more engineers and fewer MBAs and Lawyers.

Android is open core. The basic system is GPLv2 and BSD licensed, but Google supplies a lot of the most impressive apps. For example, the Google Maps application, the GMail application, and others are proprietary. Any handset manufacturer that wants to give Google the finger will not be able to ship these applications, which is a major competitive disadvantage-- at least if you're creating a phone.

Also, even for the parts of Android that are completely open source, getting help from the original authors is valuable. It's almost always in the handset manufacturers' interest to work closely with Google so that they get technical assistance with any problems they might encounter and are aware of what Google's roadmap is for new releases, etc.

The Android App Store itself is run by Google. Sure, some network or handset manufacturer could try to compete with them, but that's not easy. Google has some of the top engineering talent in the world. And even a superior app store that has no apps (i.e. market share) will not be very attractive to customers.

In the end, I think that the handset manufacturers "control" will boil down to adding more lame shovelware, like the stuff that all Windows PCs come preloaded with these days.