Ballmer Takes A Swipe At Android
The Android’s first device, T-Mobile’s G1, was recently announced and it didn’t take long for Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer to make a valid point:
“We do,” Ballmer told Reuters, when asked whether his firm would stick with licensing fees. “We are doing well, we believe in the value of what we are doing.”
“It’s interesting to ask why would Google or Nokia, Google in particular, why would they invest a lot of money and try to do a really good job if they make no money. I think most operators and telecom companies are skeptical about Google,” he said.
I never thought of it that way, in terms of why Google would want to do something if there is no money involved but that is a very valid point. At the end of the day, these companies are profit-driven and if they’re spending money on something that’s not putting some back into their pockets, it’s going to be interesting to see just how long it lasts.
As for Microsoft, yes you do provide value, but we would love (and really appreciate) it if you could push products faster out of your doors. (via the::unwired)
Related posts
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Google wants to invest in things like this to get more people hooked on their services which will provide more advertising dollars. Google is an advertising company and the big deal in advertising is getting more eyes.
That’s true but considering that the Android does not show any signs of being ad-supported, will it really be liable to sustain it? Sure, there would be more people using Google services but would that translate into a big enough revenue to make Android viable? That’s what I, and I think many others, are wondering right now.
The use of search by firefox users is enough for google to almost singlehandedly support the entire development of a good browser. In fact the revenue generate by search is enough that google is essentially supporting two browsers now. Why wouldn’t it be enough to support a mobile platform. I think like most things google, they don’t really know either. But as more people have web enabled phones (and it is a very small percentage of the phone market still) more and more people will be doing their searches while mobile. That is a market share that right now is dominated by Windows, RIM, Symbian and Apple. The only way to break in for google is to have their own OS. They are also working on services for the others through licensing and compatible products, but it will never really take off until they have their own mobile OS. I also think that there is a need for a more consumer oriented device (more iphone, less Windows Mobile). I am not sure that Android is it, but it certainly makes google integration easy.
The thing about Google/Firefox is that when you use FF and do a search, boom, you’re brought to Google’s Search Engine’s page which is ad-laden on the top and side. That’s where the revenue is.
But on the mobile platform, Android, we’ve not seen any form of advertising in place. Now I am not sure if there are none or if I missed it but that’s what I am wondering. If the mobile platform does not have any advertising, then where would the money come from?
That’s what I think a lot of people are asking.
I agree Mozilla is the King for serious professionals online. And more than enough for a model.