In particular, M$ has previously deliberately chosen to make use of any other software “a jarring experience”. They did that with DOS and browsers. Google needs the browsers to be free to visit Google and display Google’s ads.

It seems to me that the PC environment was exactly what led to the Google success. Where do you get the idea that it would somehow not coninue to work the same way?

I would imagine that Microsoft and Apple’s license take in such a scenario would bring some joy to their hearts as well. Even at 6 bucks, $6B would be a super boost to their profitability.

I know how desperate you fellows are to find some vindication for your years and years of Linux advocacy without any general acceptance of Linux by the consumer, but you have to keep your wits about you. Google gets the ad revenue regardless of whether or not the mobile OS is Windows Phone 7, RIM, iOS, Android, or even Symbian. The get the ad revenue because they are the market leader in the internet search market.

Similarly, Microsoft may miss uut on some PC OS revenue due to a “sharp” decline (1%???) in the PC system market, but that occurs regardless of which OS substitutes in the mobile market. Android does not matter to Microsoft in that regard any more than RIM, iOS, or Symbial.

In the smart phone OS market, if there really is one, Android matters, but that is just a nickles and dimes affair at the moment.

As to your suggestion that there is a horrible fate in store for Microsoft, due to these collapsing sales, I can only say that the fat lady has not yet begun to sing. We have been through a lot of economic strife the past few years and the lagging economy continues. What will you say when ther is a significant resurgence next year? You simply confuse cause and effect and choose to ignore the very bright side that shows an overall profit increase for Microsoft over that period of time.

Those profits can only increase from sales of Android, for that matter, due to the handsome license fees obtained due to the lack of IP assets of Android and the corresponding need to license technologies from Microsoft and others by the Android OEMs.

There is a question of how those license fees can be paid in the face of the GPL’s restriction on downstream licensing of anything where a patent license is required for legal operation. Everyone seems to be ignoring that part of the Stallman manefesto as well.

Of course there’s no revenue from Android. They give it away. There’s revenue from the ads and market, nothing to do with Oracle or its patents. Revenue for Google is all about growth. The PC market is not growing much. Android is growing astronomically. That’s a major opportunity for Google and everyone else because its open. Why would Google decline revenue from ads delivered via Android? Do you think they are nuts?

Google, Microsoft, IDC, iSuppli and others all report that Android is having an effect on Wintel. Why be in denial? Sales of “PCs” are sharply down, globally, and in the USA from the “usual” 10% year over year growth. We have seen that for several quarters now while smart thingies are running riot in the market. That is share being lost. That is reduced growth. That is money M$ does not get.

We can even describe the results in $ if you wish. Normally, M$ makes 10% growth year over year on the client division at $4billion that’s $400 million per quarter. They have lost $billions over the advent of smart thingies.

See Three months ending June30 2010, client revenue $4781 million. Three months ending June30 2011, client revenue was $4740 million. There is no longer any growth. The reason for that lack of growth was people buying smart thingies. In my family many smart thingies have been bought in the last year and no “PCs”. We have seen this effect now for several quarters. How long before you accept reality?

In Q1, the drop was from $4508 to 4393 from 2010 to 2011.

In Q4, the drop was from $5,361 to $4,985 million from 2009 to 2010.

That’s $billions lost to smart thingies (down $1200 million or so for no growth, and down $500 million for negative growth in two consecutive quarters = -$1700billion) and there’s no end in sight.

For about the same: Android has no significant effect per se on bread and butter Microsoft business. Happenings in the mobile world are independent of what happens in the personal computer business. Whether RIM, Apple, or Android dominate or whether all 3 share the mobile business or any other combination, there is the same affect on the PC software business. It doesn’t reall matter what the details are.

Google, despite the PR talk you cited, is not effectively monetizing Android. The same talking heads you reference claim in the Oracle lawsuit that Google gets $0 in financial returns from Android and hence they owe Oracle nothing for infringing on the java patents.

“Regular” Linux, such as that provided by Canonical and many others, continues to be rejected as a client OS by the vast majority of PC users and OEM suppliers. Where a few open source projects such as Firefox or Open Office have found success, the overwhelming majority of use is on Windows, not Linux.

Those are the facts.

I certainly acknowledge that Android is built using the kernel level code from Linux, #pogson, but I say that is an insignificant factoid in terms of its business effect. Certainly the basic Linux code is useful to anyone who wants to create their own OS and not have to pay someone else for using it. Phones fit that bill to a tee. Apple makes their own and for some reason Google is willing to give theirs away for the publicity value. RIM makes their own, too. Shortly, Microsoft is going to virtually give theirs away to Nokia, too. Maybe you can obtain some solace from the melee that exists and will follow in that market, but I cannot get very excited about it. That market has little to do with computer technology and all to do with social acceptance and resulting consumer whimsy.

see the Android Architecture on YouTube.

It really is unfortunate that someone who works in IT cannot acknowledge what under the applications.