The Next Web:

Sophos, the IT security and data protection company has a new warning on its Naked Security blog today that a fake Instagram app is infecting Android devices with malware.

Jackpot.

Earlier today, I linked to this article, that quoted Google CEO Larry page as saying:

I believe Android was very important for Google. I wouldn’t say it was critical.

He also discussed than Android is a means to get people to use existing Google services.

Now, Google doesn’t charge for services that most consumers use. It does, however, use them to display ads.

Therefore, it’s not a long stretch to simply say this: Android is no different from other Google services and products. It’s designed to get ads in front of people’s eyeballs.

Of course, as recently as March 29, reports have indicated that iOS is actually a bigger player than Android, when it comes to Google’s bottom line.

That said, here’s a quote from that Guardian article:

The figures also suggest that Android could generate more than $1bn in advertising revenues this year. To achieve Android “certification” handset manufacturers have to include services such as Google search, maps, YouTube and other functions. Some companies, including Amazon, have declined to do this.

So it seems that Android really isn’t doing what Google intended it for it to do.

Google seems unwilling or unable to enforce restrictions that would make it more profitable. Just think what the bottom line would do if all those non-certified Android devices ran Google’s official apps?

I think the core issue with Android is Google’s lack of care. It doesn’t make them a ton of money, but I do think that the “it’s not critical” bit from Page is more important than the money.

If Google doesn’t see Android — its foray into the mobile space — as critical, it’s easy to see how things like fragmentation and non-certified devices will continue to plague the OS.

But why doesn’t Google care enough about Android? Is it because of the finical issues? Is it because they can’t cram as many ads down Android users’ throats as they want to? Does the company see the problems as un-solvable? Is the problem that the company just doesn’t do “real” products[1] very well Google seems much more comfortable with making web apps.

Android can’t improve unless Google digs in and fixes things. And the company seems unwilling or disinterested, which is bad for its customers and its image.

Matt Macari for the Verge:

Oracle completed its cross-examination of Google CEO Larry Page today in the copyright phase of the trial between the two Silicon Valley giants, and Page was quite candid about Android’s importance to Google as a whole. When asked if he believed Android was a critical asset to Google around 2010, Page said: “I believe Android was very important for Google. I wouldn’t say it was critical.”

When asked whether Google’s board of directors was told that Android was critical to Google, Page stated that he wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, but that he wasn’t sure he’d go that far. He elaborated that Android was a means to get pre-existing Google services to mobile users. “We’d been frustrated getting our technology out to people,” said Page.

I don’t think this should be any real surprise. Android exists so people use Google’s services — that’s it. This goes a long way toward understanding why Google doesn’t seem to care that much about issues like fragmentation and under-whelming devices.

The iTunes Store was invented, on the other hand, for Apple to sell music for people to fill up their iPods with. iCloud is a free service because Apple wants people to spend money on apps, music and iPads.