Google Makes over $92B per Year by Owning Android

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Claims that Google earns over $92 billion a year from Android spark debate over how much of that revenue truly comes from the mobile OS versus search ads, the Play Store, and bundled Google services. Commenters argue over whether Android is meaningfully “open source” when key components like Google Mobile Services and many user-facing apps are proprietary, and whether charging app-store-style rents constitutes fair platform monetization or harmful gatekeeping. Others note that such profits help fund OS development but also reinforce tech-platform concentration and potential antitrust concerns.

Reaction to Article and Tone

  • Several see the article as outrage or clickbait about a company making money from software it owns, especially with an “open source, but charges money” framing.
  • Others read it as casual “did you know” content, not particularly outraged or insightful, and note some factual issues around GMS licensing.

Is Android Really Open Source?

  • One camp: Android (via AOSP) is clearly open source; you can build it yourself and vendors are expected to add drivers, apps, and custom UIs.
  • Another camp: “Android” as experienced by users is mostly proprietary (GMS, OEM layers), so calling Android itself open source is misleading. AOSP alone lacks many key apps and hardware support.
  • Some describe AOSP as “fake open source” because the foundation is open but most user‑visible components and many APIs are closed.

Missing Core Functionality in AOSP

  • Critics note AOSP lacks Google apps, many drivers, the dialer and messaging apps, and even a browser on newer versions (only WebView).
  • Others counter that Android is a general mobile OS (TVs, cars, devices without telephony), so making OEMs “bring their own” dialer, launcher, etc. is intentional and reasonable.

Google Mobile Services and Licensing

  • GMS is distinct from AOSP and generally not open source.
  • In the EU, OEMs can pay per‑device fees for GMS when Chrome/search bundling is constrained by regulation; elsewhere it’s often effectively funded by search revenue sharing.

App Store Economics and Platform Power

  • Many accept that platform owners take a cut (Play Store, Apple’s App Store, Steam, malls-as-analogy).
  • Criticisms focus on:
    • 30% cuts, including for subscriptions and in‑app purchases.
    • Lack of strong Play Store competitors and lock‑in behavior (e.g., Play Protect removing some sideloaded apps).
    • The line between fair platform fees and “rent‑seeking” is debated.

Revenue Attribution and $92B Claim

  • Some doubt the math, since Android is claimed to contribute over a third of Google’s 2022 revenue.
  • The article’s breakdown (Play Store fees, licensing, ads associated with Android) is seen as relying on vague or poorly sourced “expert estimates”; exact attribution is viewed as unclear.

Open Source vs Free, and Business Justification

  • Multiple commenters stress: open source doesn’t mean non‑profit or free of charge.
  • Developing and maintaining a full OS and ecosystem is expensive; a sustainable revenue stream is seen as necessary, even by some who criticize Google’s tactics.