Calling Android a rip-off of Windows Mobile is hilarious. If Windows Mobile were one tenth as good as Android, I doubt anyone would be considering non-Microsoft smartphones. But the fact of the matter is that Windows Mobile is a nightmare to use and a nightmare to program for -- and is very, very outdated.

Android may be a rip off of iPhone OS, but it's certainly not a rip off of Windows Mobile.

(I could barely even make calls on my Windows Mobile phone, much less browse the Internet in a meaningful way. On Android, those two things both work wonderfully.)

I don't think that was the point of the article?

You're right; the article quoted this statement from another, but didn't refute it. I thought I would.

I guess I could have refuted in the article; Windows Mobile's suckage seems like a well understood phenomenon. Hee.

There is a bit of Opinion in your thoughts. WM is a nightmare to program for? I would disagree, before Android it was the best phone to code for. Iphone is a nightmare. WM is elegant. I haven't touched android yet, but on this I think its each to their own.

I do think this is much more about search/advertisement than the author think. Google Chrome is Google way of removing all threats between its users and its advertisement, Chrome OS is one step further. It's a perfectly logical move.

Before Chrome & Chrome OS : You & me -> OS (Windows, MacOS X, etc.) -> Browser (IE, FF, Safari, etc.) -> Google Search -> internet / webapps

Perfect world for Google: You & me -> Google (OS, browser and Search) -> internet / webapps

Cellular phones, and the iPhone in particular, bring the threat one step further. Because what should be webapps are simply Apps on the iPhone, making Google a complete outsider instead of the gateway toward mobile apps. When you look for an iPhone App, Google is an outsider. A second choice after a failure with the iTunes Store Search.

I see Android as the answer to Apple standing between Google and its customers on the mobile market. And Apple standing in the way today sounds a bit like Microsoft standing in the way back in the 90ies...

I think efforts like Wave illustrate how much Google would like to find brand new markets to compete in; I don't think they have had much like getting real advertising dollars out of things other than search.

But you're right at least to a degree -- they have decided that open-ness is better for Google. Whether it is just for search or for other future things is a debatable point I guess.

This post is great; right on, in my opinion.

Remember webmail before Gmail came along? My free Hotmail account stored something like 2 MB - it was a joke. Google gets into lots of different domains to scare companies into action, but I'm pretty sure most of their revenue still comes from search advertising (maybe someone can verify that?).

It's a fantastic long-term strategy as they're setting the stage for even more success. More than any other company I know of, Google has an eye towards the future.

Search is 98-99% of their revenue.

One of the better explanations of the Google approach I've read. Google aims to shape the market to their benefit, to create new markets. They think not so much in terms of products as how those products will affect the existing structures.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Google just want that more people will use internet, and for longer time. That way, their ads will gain more exposure.

FYI -

> And for two- I would be shocked if Google's only business model was "Create things which will force people to look at more of our ads"

is not an argument.

Google is essentially forcing Survival Of The Fittest without having to spend energy to fight themselves, or in geek history terms, Google is forcing Microsoft on Apple.

Yes! Forced accelerated evolution. Good way to think of it.

I agree with most of this article, but I was disappointed to hear the author repeating the same old tired line about Google Voice removing the need to have a voice plan. I don't know why that piece of bull gets so much traction. Wishfull thinking maybe? Google Voice isn't VOIP!!!!! Gizmo5 (also owned by google) is VOIP, but Google Voice isn't.

But far more fundamentally last I'd checked every cell provider has much greater coverage for voice than they do for 3G data, and I'd assume that VOIP over GPRS or EDGE speeds would be pretty unimpressive.

Think about all the steps that you take to interact with your computer and get something done.

There are 5-6 steps in this process, from booting up your computer to looking for information on the web.

Google wants a stake in every step.

Why? Google wants to organize the world's information, so they can put ads on it!

> That’s kinda far from their core business, advertising.

Fixed.

You could make this argument, although all their services have advertising. But I bet the lion's share of money comes via search advertising.

They bought DoubleClick for however many billions to change this.

AdMob, too, is not a search-based ad network.