Google Android Co-Founder Rich Miner On T-Mobile G1, Developers, Apps, Mobile Search & Advertising
I was a bit bummed that T-Mobile and Google launched the first Android-based phone when I was in Cologne on business and couldn’t possibly participate in the conference call. Fortunately, I got a second chance earlier today when an email from Anthony House, Google’s head of communications and public affairs, announced that Rich Miner — co-founder of Android and Group Manger for Mobile Platforms at Google – would be available to U.K./Europe press and analysts for a 20-minute call.
It wasn’t much time and there was a lot of ground to cover, but we made the best of it. (We didn’t get to explore what mobile search will be worth to Google. This interesting ZDNet post, for example, reports that Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster reckons Google gets about $30 million to $50 million in mobile search revenue today. “Toss in Android and voila Google will see mobile search revenue of about $2 billion by 2012. In other words, mobile search will go from less than 1 percent of sales today to about 6 percent in about three years.” I side with Larry Dignan, ZDNet Editor in Chief, who cautions us against buying into these forecasts so early in the game.)
Alex Farber at New Media Age (a publication I am proud to contribute to) started off the call with the BIG question: What are Google’s plans to extend its advertising business model to the G1 or other Android-devices?
Rich’s reply: Mobile phone factors (tiny screen and keypad) make it tough to show people ads – let alone encourage interaction with brands. “That’s why even today, you really don’t see us throwing ads in the middle of Google mobile maps. It’s a great app. But the issue is: Until we really know how we can place ads in a way that’s context-relevant for the user and adds value, we’re not going to rush to do that.”
He continued: “For us, Android is very long-term strategic play. It’s about ensuring that no one entity controls the mobile platform…In many markets, it may be the only device people have for them to get access to the Internet services and of course, in some aspects, we hope Google services. So it’s a fairly significant platform. We want to ensure that no one entity controls that platform in a way that disadvantages us or others, but we’re not rushing to insert ads everywhere.”
So where is the money?
Android is a “great platform for Google, for our apps and for our services. I’m sure at some point, we’ll start monetizing mobile. But, at the moment, that’s not the real focus.” The real focus is to make sure there’s a great platform for developers that’s open and not controlled by any one entity.
I asked Rich what Google is going to do to ensure just that. After all, if other Android-based devices are equally as tied to Google’s services as the G1, then this will significantly impact how quickly the Android platform is embraced by developers and mobile operators alike…
Rich’s response: Judging from the “very vibrant online developer community and support group” as well as the fan groups that have started up their own websites Android has reach and momentum. “So we’re fairly confident that we already have a very strong third-party development group.”
He continued: “We’ve announced the Android market which is going to enable developers to publish applications and provide an experience for consumers to browse, discover, and download directly those applications.”
OK – a follow-up question from me that asks the same question from the mobile operator (T-Mobile) perspective. What are you going to do or how are you going to approach that to make certain that mobile operators embrace Android, which also supports services that are potentially competitive?
To be clear, Android has to be separated from G1. “Android as a platform is completely open and will be published when we open-source it very shortly here under the Apache 2.0 software license, which enables anyone to take that source code base and build derivative products.”
Still on the subject of Android: If T-Mobile wants to build instead of partnering with us and building a very tightly integrated Google experience as we did on G1 with them, and [instead] take Android and build deeply branded handsets with their own carrier brand, then the way is clear. “Even if they don’t want to include any Google apps – sort of shame on us if we don’t work with them to convince them to include some Google apps – there’s absolutely nothing that prevents them from doing that.”
And by the way, Google thinks that’s just fine. “If Vodafone Live wants to build a very tightly integrated Vodafone experience on a handset, our view is: We know that that phone’s going to have a great web browser on it and consumers are still going to go to Google.com. Even in the case that a partner or someone would choose to build a handset that had no Google services in it, from Google’s standpoint we still think that’s good because we know a lot of consumers will still use that device to touch our services.”
Alex wrapped up with the final question: a follow up on the developer community.
In plain text: What about the smaller, independent developers – and what about the brands?
Rich’s reply: “It doesn’t hurt to go with a few lead brands when you’re building a new device, and the fact that Amazon embraced this early and built a fantastic app for music downloads we thought was great.” Google has also been approached by some large games companies and groups like The Weather Channel, which Rich says Google has been building apps for. (Watch this space.)
However, Rich also believes in the energy of startups and the opportunity for them to make their mark. “If it’s a great app, it’s going to bubble to the top…. It’s consumer demand that’s going to result in the success of our app, and that’s a big change.”
