Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I wonder if this guy did the Googlezon video (that is the one where Google and Amazon merge and become a planet dominating company) people would start work at Google and then post it to the company wide 'misc' mailing list. It was almost like clockwork.

I think Android has had an impressive run. There is an interesting article about how it dominates Chinese smartphones but Google isn't getting any return on that investment (80% of Android phones in China ship with Baidu as the search provider). That is something that didn't happen with Windows.



> That is something that didn't happen with Windows.

Baidu dominates on the desktop in China as well. China is a unique situation, since the government actively encourages domestic copycats of foreign companies while preventing/making it difficult for those foreign companies trying to enter the Chinese market.


Yes, it dominates the desktop, but Microsoft doesn't depend on search revenue quite like Google does.


I guess most copies of Windows in China are pirate too.


Yup, by Ballmer's estimate (as of early 2011), 90% of the copies of Windows in China are pirated.

http://www.neowin.net/news/ballmer-9-out-of-10-copies-of-win...


Google doesn't just make money on Android via search; they have a pile of other services integrated with Android, and they also make money from app sales and ad-infested apps.


Can ads not be used responsibly? Must apps with embedded ads be referred to as "infested"?


As long as there are no true mobile flatrates at a reasonable price (1 Gigabyte with reasonable bandwidth a month? Today I downloaded an update for an android game that was > 1.5 Gigabyte) and as long as mobile networks are overburdened all the time, any ad on a mobile device that is not just text is irresponsible.


I have yet to see an app with ads that didn't also demand a pile of permissions it shouldn't otherwise have (location, phone information, network activity for an otherwise offline app, notifications, etc) just to make the ads more valuable.


Economic forces always push ad use towards "annoying."


Do they, really? Would that not result in less revenue as people move to your less-annoying competition?


The less-annoying competition pays less, and end users don't have a choice of ad "vendors"; only app authors have that choice. App authors will choose whatever maximizes revenue; if more annoying ads drive off a few users but bring it more revenue from the remainder, the app will use more annoying ads.


If it did everyone would use chrome/firefox with adblock. A huge portion of the population seems to put up with all the ads thrown at them.


I didn't say it would push things to infinitely annoying. But the needle gets stuck leaning that way.


> here is an interesting article about how it dominates Chinese smartphones but Google isn't getting any return on that investment (80% of Android phones in China ship with Baidu as the search provider).

They still maintain Google as the app-store though? So Google gets ~30% of every app/media-item sold?


I'm not sure that they do. AFAIK, they take open-source Android (that is, with no Google apps) and build on it.


Doesn't Google's App Store tend towards free apps moreso than others? I don't have an Android phone but I remember that was the case previously. Angry Birds was a paid app on both Apple's and Microsoft's store, but free on Android for some reason.


no, most androids don't even have Google app store in China. When we ship our apps we have a bot pushing to over 20 android markets.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: