> How would Android be called a successful strategy?
The monopoly that Apple does not have on smartphones as a whole, and the consequent constraints on its ability to dictate the functionality of the mobile web, to capture mobile web and app advertising revenue, etc.
Apple would never have had a monopoly selling $700 phones and Apple would never sell low margin $225 phones (the average selling price of Android phone). If anything MS would have been more successful.
> Apple would never have had a monopoly selling $700 phones and Apple would never sell low margin $225 phones (the average selling price of Android phone). If anything MS would have been more successful.
A duopoly between two non-Google vendors (especially if they were effectively two monopolies in distinct market segments) would scarcely have been better for Google than a non-Google monopoly, so even if a low-end smartphone market existed and was substantial without Android, and your perception above in regard to Apple staying out of it without Android is correct, that doesn't materially change the nature of the success of Android for Google.
The monopoly that Apple does not have on smartphones as a whole, and the consequent constraints on its ability to dictate the functionality of the mobile web, to capture mobile web and app advertising revenue, etc.
That's the success of Android.