Is Android bad for Google

I am beginning to think, despite what I have said many times before, that I was wrong about Android. I've said, repeatedly, that Android was a wise, bold move by Google. More importantly, that Google had no choice in the matter. They had to buy Android. They had to develop Android into an iPhone imitator. And, they had no choice but to give it away.

To spread their platform far and wide.

And ensure that Google, all Google services and apps, live on in this new age of the smartphone.

I am beginning to have doubts.

Turning Android into a free, ad-supported version of iOS was to Google the equivalent of Microsoft's "Netscape" moment. It galvanized the company, it helped slay competition, and it re-affirmed Microsoft's, er, Google's place at the top of the food chain.

Only, look at Microsoft now. Stuck in the 90s.

Does a similar fate await Google?

Since 2009, when I began this site, I have said we are at the cusp of a new era of personal computing; a smartphone age. And this will result in the destruction of everything. Of governments and educational institutions. Large businesses. Global markets. Outdated business models. Cable television. The Playstation. Everything. Including PCs and the PC ecosystem.

Google makes all its money, all those trillions of half-pennies, from boxy text ads that litter the websites of the world and which children cannot distinguish between actual content. And, yes, fine, from bright, garish display ads that similarly litter all the websites of the world. Point is, Google makes its money, and there is a lot of money to be made, from the PC ecosystem.

We search. We find. We click. Google collects.

But, the PC ecosystem is a dinosaur. Not long for this world. And even if you don't believe me -- and, really, how could you not belive me -- we have quickly gone from a world where a handful of people had a smartphone to a world where hundreds of millions of people have a smartphone. In the space of about three years. Soon, by the end of next year at the latest, more than a billion persons will have smartphones. More than the entire installed base of "Personal Computers". Plus, we are taking these smartphones with us everywhere, using them for an exponentially accelerating range of tasks and services.

Google had to be on the smartphone, I've said. No, Google has to *thrive* on the smartphone. This is where computing, and thus search is migrating. This is where ads are presented. This is where people interact with data and sites and entertainment and businesses and people and shopping.

And the only way Google could thrive on the smartphone, could ensure its survival on the smartphone, was to have its own smartphone operating system. Android. Otherwise, they risk losing control of their destiny. This was the only path.

Only, now I'm not so sure.  Now I wonder, if Android risks swallowing Google. Or worse, rotting it from within.

Consider "do no evil." Not the company's stated strategy but important enough that this statement was included in their IPO filing. And has been heavily promoted by Google for the past decade. Which is one reason why so many love this giant publicly traded corporation.

With Android, however, Google has repeatedly violated at least the spirit of this hopeful phrase. Did Eric Schmidt steal Apple's iPhone and iPad plans or data while he was on Apple's board -- and still CEO of Google? It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion then, yes. What of net neutrality? Long a hard-coded principal of Google's. Except, in battling iPhone, Google took Android to Verizon, America's largest wireless carrier. Suddenly, after years of unwavering support for net neutrality, Google *jointly* issues a statement with Verizon that strongly suggested a new method, non neutral, was necessary for wireless broadband. In their push for a thriving Android ecosystem, Google is using its considerable cash to buy up and/or license content, such as music and movies. Will Google 'owned' content get favorable results in our search queries? Naturally. And we trust Google a bit less.

In buying content, in fostering an Android app ecosystem, is Google shifting its course, even slightly, away from free services, free search, free access to (freely available) content? How might this impact future decisionmaking? Google is an advertising company. Not a digital media company. Will Android tactics throw them off their game?

Or consider Google's repeated pledges to abide by the sanctity of "open". Android is "open" they told us. All of us. Repeatedly. But by no industry standard definition does "open" apply to Android. Google gave Android "Honeycomb" only to select partners. You cannot tinker with the latest version of Android until Google gives you the okay. They determine what goes on Google's Android Market. After combing through your (potentially competitive) app. And force you to use Google Checkout. It is Google that decides who, specifically, gets a first look -- and first-to-market status -- of each new version of Android. In return for what?

This is not always known. Of course, Skyhook Wireless, which provides triangulated location data for smartphones is suing Google, claiming they coerced Motorola into abandoning them for a similar Android-supportive Google service.

Any of this strike you as evil? Make you think less of Google? Caution you against using any or all Google services, even if free?

And speaking of free, is it evil for Google to use its revenues in one line of business, advertising, to give away a product, Android, that no other company, like Nokia or Blackberry, could ever hope to match? Is a company using profits from one line of business to drive out possible competition in another line of business, it has just entered, doing evil? Perhaps not. Business is business, after all. But it sure doesn't make them one of the good guys. And our trust and faith -- and emotions -- toward Google are heavily linked with the brand.

Our growing fear of Google's power is just one area where Android may be harming the company. What of the competition?

Hundreds of thousands of apps are available to download to iPhone. For just about anything. Yet, Google Maps, Google Search and Google's YouTube have always come already installed. Not even mighty Facebook can make this claim. Plus, Google has always been the iPhone default search engine. Til recently.

Now that Google has gone into *direct* competition with Apple's iPhone, how long can Google expect to have most favored nation status on iPhone? Apple wound up allowing users to select from several search engines, not just Google. And bought a mobile ad service. Rolled out iAd. And is working on a form of its own search engine based on Siri. All to limit Google and Android.

Apple had no choice. They had to hold off Google's threat. Had to offer as many paths to monetization for app developers as they could. Else, they lose them to Android or, worse, fund Android's continued growth. No surprise Apple has continued to push back against Google as Google seeks access to iPhone user location data. Better location data equals better maps equals better search. Google should have the best search results. Their direct assault on Apple makes this less likely now, at least for tens of millions of active iPhone users. What is this cost to Google?

Only, it's not just Apple. Look at Microsoft -- the old Google. Ten years into talking about tablet computers and still nothing. While iPad sells by the tens of millions. Microsoft similarly fumbled smartphones. No longer. With Google seeking to destroy Microsoft's business, using Google Docs, email, web services, Chrome, licensed content and more, Microsoft has awakened.

The combination of Microsoft's money, reach, Windows Phone operating system, Bing search, Nokia's Navteq mapping solution and Nokia hardware and global distribution makes for a very capable *potential* threat to Google's global smartphone hegemony. Would this have ever happened had Google not launched Android throughout the world? Would the sleeping bear remained asleep? Might Google have grown, even on Windows Phone, as users chose their search over Bing? Chose Google Maps over a Microsoft - Nokia solution?

Would Microsoft have been so willing to spend its billions in cash to cut deals with carriers: put Bing on your smartphones -- even your Android smartphones -- in return for our money? Would no-name handset makers in China, say, have been able to take Android, pump out millions of dirt cheap smartphones on no margins, only to make money by embedding Bing or Badu or Yahoo, even, or any possible Google competitor?

It's not just handset makers and carriers that can leverage Google's Android to slow Google itself. Consider Amazon. They are working on a tablet, likely to use some iteration of Android. They can provide search, content, shopping, apps, games, music and a host of functions -- including contextual advertising -- all without ever letting Google inside.

And how much is Android directly costing Google? How many engineers? How many working on their Android Market? Partnering with carriers? Building services just for Android? Reviewing apps?

We don't know. Google refuses to tell us. They float information out there that Android is 'already a multi-billion dollar business'. Or that they are "activating" 350,000 Android devices a day. Sort of like Microsoft telling us that Windows Phone is "meeting their expectations". No real numbers, of course. 

What is the financial drain of Android on Google? We know that Android has helped HTC and Motorola make money. And Samsung. Several thousand developers. Not Google. What are they hiding?

Also, what is the strategic cost? Forget for a moment my confidence that smartphones are the future, that PCs are dinosuars. Google's many many billions comes directly from the PC. Is Android diverting time and talent away from Google innovations on the PC? We will never know. Did focus on Android prevent Google from creating a superior alternative to Groupon, say? Or, becoming even more like Microsoft, will the rise of Android awaken even more pesky European regulators, all ready to go after Google + Android?

There was a time I was certain that Google had to continue to rapidly iterate Android. To release it to any and all handset makers. To guarantee that Google services had a home in the smartphone world. Maybe this is simply wrong. Facebook, for example, is nearing its 700 millionth user. Certainly, they will reach 1 billion. Plus, Facebook is one of the most popular apps, and most used, across *all* major smartphone platforms: iOS, Blackberry, Android, Windows Phone, Nokia.

While carriers, handset maker and those with a smartphone platform (e.g. iOS) may ultimately perceive Facebook as a threat, they view them first and foremost as an ally. No platform would dare banish the popular Facebook app. Because of Android, Google will never be viewed this way -- by any major platform provider and likely not by any carrier.

While considering Facebook, we can't discount Android's possible impact on Google's social media efforts. New CEO, Larry Page, made it clear: social media is job 1 at Google. All hands on deck -- all hands will have their bonuses modified by how well Google does in social media. Or not.

This is no surprise. Facebook has risen to become the most popular website and app. People turn to it, repeatedly, throughout the day. Users happily *volunteer* copious amounts of information about themselves, their friends and family. Information that is manna from heaven for advertisers. Facebook, probably more than any company in the world, is Google's biggest threat.

And Facebook is welcomed across all smartphone platforms.

Android, meanwhile, has cost Google money; almost certainly more than it has earned them in return. In the recent Q1 earnings report, analysts and investors were left scratching their heads wondering why rising "marketing and hiring costs" had not appeared to equally boost sales/revenues. Google said wait til the future.

What might that future be like? Android has awakened enemies. Created new ones. Android is consuming valuable resources that Google might put to better use battling Facebook head-on in social media.

And betrayed the company's core value.

So I have to ask: is Android worth it? Is Android bad for Google?