Android cost Google over $97 million in 2010

Android cost Google over $97 million in 2010
While Google and Oracle duke it out in court over Java patents and trademarks, Android was dragged into the matter because Google wants to include certain Android expenses as copyright damage and Oracle feels that it should not be allowed to do so.

Since Google does not publicly report Android’s financial information, Judge William Alsup, who is presiding over the case, sealed an internal Google document that details Android’s 2010 profit and loss summery, but Alsup did read portions of it aloud in court.

Even though Android netted approximately $97.7 million in revenue for Google that year, it managed to lose money in every single quarter of 2010. "That adds up to a big loss for the whole year," Alsup said.

While those numbers may appear to be unsettling at first, it needs to be considered that Android was announced in 2007 and the first phone was only shipped in 2008. It takes time and a significant investment to bring a product like that to market and turn a profit. It is also a bit more difficult to track because many of the revenue streams from Android are generated indirectly.

That was also 2010, we would assume that by now, especially based on its growth, Android should be turning a profit. It is obvious that Google is looking at the long haul when it comes to Android profits, but until it shares some hard numbers with the world, it is all just estimates.

source: Reuters

FEATURED VIDEO

26 Comments

3. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

How did they come to the 97 million part? is that just their share of app downloads and liscencing for the app market itself? Does that account for all the add clicking and such, which is where google makes their real money?

5. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

Here we go questioning analysts unless of course they support your predetermined beliefs. I'm not surprised. Google didn't get into android for profit. It's a vehicle to make sure they keep a dominant share of advertising.

7. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

taco, you are one special troll.. and i dont mean in a good way. do you know how you learn? TO QUESTION. it has nothing to do with predetermined beliefs and everything to do with wanting to LEARN about how they come up with a number. do you know why they want dominant advertising? TO PROFIT. please, go troll somewhere else. I havent seen you all day, i had a small hope that u got banned again.. lol. guess not.

9. gwuhua1984

Posts: 1237; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

For any reporting, research, and analyst, the source of data is very important to determine the accuracy of the work. If someone just simply throw out their work without the source of data to back it up or the source of data isn't enough to represent the majority, then how could the work be of any validity. It'll be like me throwing out random numbers saying that WP devices have the number one market share in the US and tell everyone that I got it based on surveys taken from 50,000 people, that everyone will know is incorrect. We went over this topic of report validity on Samsung and Apple's Q1 sales already and I went over that with you during the article regarding Apple/Android demographics. Lesson is given, but still not learned.

10. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

you have to be willing.. and capable of learning, to learn.

11. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

You quoted a npbunch of wrong info and just discounted a report altogether.

13. gwuhua1984

Posts: 1237; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

My arguments are all based on whether or not there's valid backups. So, wrong info because it doesn't support your arguments and proves you wrong or makes all your arguments invalid? Living in denial is the same as living under a rock. It's rather sad to see someone this way.

16. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

taco, you discounted and ignored EVERY report that didnt agree with you somehow.. you do that for EVERYTHING. you are sad.

12. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

That's almost funny coming from the guy who hasn't banned himself because he's questioning the analysts declaring Samsung sold more smartphones than Apple. Pot, meet kettle.

14. gwuhua1984

Posts: 1237; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

There absolutely nothing to question regarding that. I've looked at how the analysts get their numbers. From how IDC gathers their number, I would say their number would be the most correct and closet to the actual count, while IHC doesn't give information to how they get their data. Like I said... like a frog in a well, some people only think whatever they have to be the best there is.

19. crankyd00d

Posts: 191; Member since: Oct 17, 2011

He asked a very valid question, I would also like to know how they come up with those numbers, he never said they were wrong, the most direct and quick way to LEARN is to ASK questions, or you will be ignorant forever, like you for example. We understand you hate Android and you're a pathetic little man, but don't drag the rest of us down with you, go ask your mommy for attention troll

23. gallitoking

Posts: 4721; Member since: May 17, 2011

the thing with remix he only has question when it doesnt favor Android.. when it does.. he has no questions what so ever...

24. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

silly troll. If only that were true, you wouldnt be such a chickenhead.

25. gallitoking

Posts: 4721; Member since: May 17, 2011

you know I am right..

26. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

about you being a chickenhead? yea your right. About me not being mostly objective? dead wrong and you know it.

6. jove39

Posts: 2147; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Till 2010 Google is said to make more money from iOS than Android...but its other way around in 2011-12.

8. BattleBrat

Posts: 1476; Member since: Oct 26, 2011

I wonder how they did in 2011...

17. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

Taco, the short bus is leaving....you need to go with it....now.

18. Bluesky02

Posts: 1439; Member since: Dec 05, 2011

That's why we call it Investment

20. alpinejason

Posts: 262; Member since: Sep 06, 2011

another reason why they should kill the buggy laggy freezing green robot

21. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The buggy, laggy green robot was killed off, with the introduction of Gingerbread. It no longer exists, replaced by the smooth, fluid, excellent robot, which has upgraded to ICS and become even better. Perhaps they should kill off the OS that comes with built in limitations and crashes apps the most. We all know which fruit tree that grows on.

22. matrix_neo

Posts: 334; Member since: Nov 03, 2011

Yeah I agree with you, this green robot received a lot of transformation. It is already owned by millions of people unlike other device, nothing huge changes. It means that millions of people like it which some sheeps still continue to deny and can't acccept that this green robot cut a big slice of this fruit tree .

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.