Google sells the technology so that they can sell advertising for third party products.
I see this a lot of HN, and I wonder if people are just assuming? To put it into context, I see far more ads on my iPad and iPad Touch than I ever have on my Nexus 5.
Outside of the money Google makes from their book, video, and apps stores, they sell the technology to ensure that their services remain viable, and cannot be cut out of the market. They make the platform so Google has less concern about being cut out of the ecosystem.
I mean we see the paradox on here constantly where people will gloat about how much more valuable iOS users are to advertisers, but then that Android is a platform for ads.
<quote>I see this a lot of HN, and I wonder if people are just assuming? To put it into context, I see far more ads on my iPad and iPad Touch than I ever have on my Nexus 5.</quote>I have zero ads on any of my apps on my iPhone (if I find one that has added ads, I discontinue it's use and buy another app that doesn't insult me). If you see any ads on your apps, you're buying the wrong ones.
If you mean website ads, then you can thank Google for that - I'm pretty sure that a significant majority of all web ads use Google's ad networks. Of course, thanks to Apple's double-tap for zoom, I usually bypass most of this visual cruft when browsing on my iPhone.
>They make the platform so Google has less concern about being cut out of the ecosystem.
True, but let's not ignore that their core business is selling advertising. Before Android came along that business was at the mercy of Apple (in the mobile space anyway).
>I mean we see the paradox on here constantly where people will gloat about how much more valuable iOS users are to advertisers, but then that Android is a platform for ads.
Android isn't specifically a platform for ads, but it was indeed built so that Google wouldn't lose the ability to serve ads on mobile hardware.
> Before Android came along that business was at the mercy of Apple (in the mobile space anyway).
Android has existed for the entire time mobile advertising was becoming huge. The iPhone was a big innovation, but in its first year it wasn't nearly the mass market device it is now, and its impact on mobile advertising at the time should not be overstated. Mobile and mobile advertising only started becoming really big in 2010.
I don't think Android was built with the specific goal to directly put Google's services into people's hands. I believe Android was built and released as free to be used by anyone to create an easy-to-use platform for any vendor with very capable connectivity features. It was hoped that this would increase use of Google's services on mobile, not because Google was forced into the market, but because people would have devices capable of web services in general.
Android seems to be made with a goal of making a market, not taking a market. That is why there is this diverse market for Android, and that's why all those associated problems exist. Its strategy also directly made possible this Fire Phone.
Google's core business is making services that people like to use. That they monetize some of those services via advertisements is a function of the industry that they operate in: There was no market for a pay search engine, or even a pay consumer mail provider: Those genres had long been supported by ads, and users expected that. Anything else was a non-starter.
Their core business is that monetization, by definition. Making services that people like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. They are constantly scrambling to find different ways to make money because they are a company run by extremely wealthy and intelligent people who would love for all of the great things they do to be in service of some core business other than selling targeted ads. So far they haven't had the same level of success in any of those other endeavors, but I completely understand why they keep trying.
Your redefinition of 'core business' is confusing.
IBM's core business is monetization, by definition. Making services that enterprises like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Walmart's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling goods that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Toyota's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling cars that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
The local florist's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling flowers that people like is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Every for-profit's core business is monetization, by definition. Performing a large variety of things that make money is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Their core business is that monetization, by definition.
The NFL is primarily sponsored through network agreements, which themselves are primarily sponsored through advertisers. Is the "core business" of the NFL, then, advertising?
Of course it isn't. Such an argument is specious to the point of uselessness, and only appears in the form of rhetoric. The NFL's core business is making an entertaining sports product that people like watching, and then they find ways to monetize from that.
The discussion is what Google's "core business" is. Google makes less than 1/5th of their revenue from their ad network in third party products and sites. The overwhelming majority of their money comes from monetization of their own services.
Apple operates and promotes its own ad network, and its lack of success in that market doesn't somehow separate it from that reality. No one would claim that Apple's core business was iAds.
The key part is third party products, most of the ads you see on your iPad is served from Google's infrastructure. Google makes money on all platforms.
I see this a lot of HN, and I wonder if people are just assuming? To put it into context, I see far more ads on my iPad and iPad Touch than I ever have on my Nexus 5.
Outside of the money Google makes from their book, video, and apps stores, they sell the technology to ensure that their services remain viable, and cannot be cut out of the market. They make the platform so Google has less concern about being cut out of the ecosystem.
I mean we see the paradox on here constantly where people will gloat about how much more valuable iOS users are to advertisers, but then that Android is a platform for ads.