I wanted to write a fairly brief post following on from my post about Android vs iOS. Since that post Google have acquired Motorola Mobility, and a lot of debate has been raging about if it’s a good deal or not.

I’ve heard various arguments from all kinds of people (developers, iOS fanboys, Android fanboys, people who don’t care, etc.) and while you can argue about the notion that Google’s purchasing of Motorola’s mobile division is linked to getting patents, I disagree. I think the acquisition is all about phones and Android.

You don’t spend that much money developing a mobile operating system only to spend $12b to protect it against patent suits.

Their issue lies with the fact that Android is a fragmented unintuitive pile of sub-par software that doesn’t come close to the iOS experience. In my opinion, of course. However, if you build a great phone and tailor it to the software (like iPhone and iOS) you create a tailored, direct and driven experience for consumers that makes it worth the cash. You also don’t fragment your audience with similar bits of hardware, but rather have a flagship piece of hardware and everything else follows it.

This means you have your iPhone-esque experience but you can still get the cheap experience with a phone you got free with a DVD rental.

It also gives Google the opportunity to build hype like Apple do prior to release. Not only that, the hardware should be there to guide other hardware manufacturers on what path to take with device building. So the MotoGoog phone can be the template for Samsung, etc.

More than this, though, Google need to make money from Android. They’ve already shown this isn’t possible with the current business model, and either putting ads into the OS or charging suppliers for licensing the software. Either way, it’s bad for the consumers. Instead of alienating your fragmented audience, Google can use the Apple route. iOS is free but the device isn’t. They make money from apps and their ecosystem. Google need to nurture that idea to generate revenue. Making some profit on a device helps keep that ecosystem alive.

Moving forward, the more control Google can get on the hardware the better. There’ll still be third party Android devices, but Google can use the (albeit failed) system Microsoft tried with Vista, by having “verified” stickers on boxes of devices that Google deemed to have been good enough for Android. These would sit alongside Googles first party offering. Thus meaning the barrier to entry can be low on the cost side, which is what Apple needs to address with the iPhone (relying on carriers to beef out long and complex contracts to make phones cheaper at the tills doesn’t work).

All-in-all, this is probably the best move Google could make. I’m sure there are other reasons for this move (patents etc.) but overall I think this was a commercial decision to help push Android more towards iOS and away from Microsoft’s offering. The way it’s going now, there’ll be iOS and everything else. Google would be more than happy with it being iOS, Android and then everyone else.