While most of us hate the litany of lawsuits that have become commonplace in the tech industry, one positive result has been revelations from emails, recorded transcripts, and testimonies that would have undoubtedly remained under wraps. Without the Skyhook lawsuit we wouldn't have nearly as many details about the Android device approval process. Apple and Samsung's lawsuit pressured Apple to reveal that despite Steve Jobs' nuclear reaction to Android as a product, he was willing to offer a licensing deal to Samsung (probably because Samsung provides so many parts for Apple).
Like the legal battles that preceded it, the Google/Oracle lawsuit has revealed more details about both companies. For example, apparently Oracle considered entering the smartphone race by buying RIM or Palm. The more troubling revelation to come out of this lawsuit came from none other than Google's CEO, Larry Page: "I believe Android was very important for Google. I wouldn't say it was critical."
Page was responding to the question of whether or not Android was critical to Google's strategy in 2010. While Page might have a different response for Android's importance in 2012, it's hard to believe that Google's CEO does not think Android was critical to Google's success two years ago. By 2010 Android had become one of the dominant mobile operating systems on the market. Page certainly knew that having a successful mobile strategy is essential to controlling the future of the company, so why would he think that Android was not critical? In what world would Google's future be secure without Android?
The idea that Android was not a critical asset to Google in 2010 raises the question of Android's importance to Google in 2012.
