Probably a whole lot. When my sister, who would otherwise be in front of a computer at most half an hour a day, can get an android smartphone for 150 euros and idly browse the Web all day, Google makes a shitload of money they wouldn't have if all these people were on cheap nokias.
Then again, markets are funny things. In a world without Android, I can't imagine the expensive iOS ecosystem being the only game in town. Something might have filled the sucking void at the cheap end of the market, but what?
So without Android isn't it safe to assume HTC would still be pumping out Windows phones, perhaps at $389 retail rather than $349?
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/21/real-time-research-ios-domi...
Interesting framing and perception - I've never read anyone say that "Mozilla charges Google for being the default Firefox search engine", it's always been "Google pays Firefox to be the default Firefox search engine".
Same result, really, but it's interesting how much of a change it implies, passive vs active, etc.
I only found this, about limited ad revenue sharing: http://paidcontent.org/2010/03/26/419-androids-secret-sauce-...
http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/a...
"the remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees."
When I read that a couple weeks ago, I assumed distribution partners meant carriers, though I guess I don't really know what it means. Also, operating fees probably means Google, so I stand corrected.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/15/mobile-paradox/
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/12/mobile-facebook-and-google-...
