> How would Android be called a successful strategy?

The monopoly that Apple does not have on smartphones as a whole, and the consequent constraints on its ability to dictate the functionality of the mobile web, to capture mobile web and app advertising revenue, etc.

That's the success of Android.

Apple would never have had a monopoly selling $700 phones and Apple would never sell low margin $225 phones (the average selling price of Android phone). If anything MS would have been more successful.

> Apple would never have had a monopoly selling $700 phones and Apple would never sell low margin $225 phones (the average selling price of Android phone). If anything MS would have been more successful.

A duopoly between two non-Google vendors (especially if they were effectively two monopolies in distinct market segments) would scarcely have been better for Google than a non-Google monopoly, so even if a low-end smartphone market existed and was substantial without Android, and your perception above in regard to Apple staying out of it without Android is correct, that doesn't materially change the nature of the success of Android for Google.

Without Android, Apple would likely have the vast majority of market share on mobile. Apple would be charging Google even more than they do already (billions) to be the default search engine on safari.

Lots and lots and lots of devices with google services and chrome. That bring ads. That bring money. A lot of money.

Do you think that Oracle's lawyers missed that when they said in court documents that Google made $31B on Android? A number that Google didn't dispute...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/ora...

Why would Google have disputed an obvious lowball? They were getting sued...

The first line at your link: "...revenue of about $31 billion and profit of $22 billion..." Again, fake numbers, but wow that's profitable.

Do you really think in discovery in official court documents that Google could get away with having false numbers?

22 billion in profit in almost a decade for having 80% of the market is peanuts.

Google has paid more than that to Apple for being the default search engine on iOS for the same time period.

It's not as if the chart of accounts has a particular account for "this is our profit from screwing over whoever bought the rights to Java". This would always be a judgment call, first from the inherent uncertainty in measuring that if one wanted to measure it correctly, but more importantly from the uncertainty over what can be proved in court. Remember, Oracle had the burden of proof in this situation, and they thought they could prove that the number was at least $22B. Google had no duty to argue the number should have been higher, because even if that duty existed how would it be enforced?

Much of your analysis in this thread suffers from a form of wishful thinking. I suspect you are a fan of "iPhone" devices.

It's not my analysis. It was Oracle's well paid lawyers' analysis. Do you have insight that they didn't have to come up with a more accurate number? I'm sure if you do, Larry Ellison will be glad to hear from you.

Oh yeah Larry will be waiting by the phone; I'll understand if he has to land his S.211 first. This is all fake anyway. None of these big corporate lawsuits are about justice or truth. We copyrighted an API that someone else wrote before they went out of business and we bought the remains, even though there was never an actual copyright notice and after all it's a blooming API? Give me a break. Those brilliant analytical lawyers were too busy pulling everyone's legs (not the jury's!) to dig up any more alleged profits... Oracle don't actually care if the lawsuit ever ends.

Does that include all the data from all the Android devices? I don't think Google could get data on eg. when every shop in the world is busy without Android devices sending them that data. So I'm guessing they have a whole bunch of data they can only get from Android devices that's valuable for their advertising business too.