I've written more posts detailing how Android is *limiting* Google than I care to link to. And just 3 days ago, I wrote:

There is no iPhone vs Android smartphone war. It is only Apple vs Samsung.

This is not a war between iOS and Android. In fact, if that was a war, Apple won. Resoundingly.

Thus, I am not at all surprised to read how iPhone continues to dominate sales at nearly all (non zero) price points or how Apple's iPhone continues to garner the vast majority of smartphone profits or that Moto is barely treading water, HTC is losing money and Sony is flailing.

But I am a little surprised that one of Android's chief proponents, Kevin Tofel, has dared break the news to the easily angered Android fanboys that "Android is faltering as iOS strengthens":

Based on a growing number of data points, Android’s sales dominance may be nearing its apex while iOS is on the rise. Even as a daily user of both an Android smartphone and tablet, I can’t deny the facts that Android’s partners are not doing as well as they used to. The conclusion that Android’s best days are behind is surely arguable, but I am starting to think that Android is on the decline for several reasons.

I certainly don't need to read the comments to his piece to know that he is being flamed as a stupid Apple fanboi -- and probably some sort of sheep faggot who hates the Internet.

The smartphone wars are a global, multi-trillion-dollar decade long fight.

We are in year 4.

Meaning...much will happen, much will change and no one, no platform, no device, no company can yet be declared the winner.

But Microsoft continues to look like it will be the loser if it doesn't start taking the smartphone seriously. And, and this is almost unfathomable to me, they still have no strategy!

As I predicted years ago, and as has now been confirmed, smartphones are outselling PCs. This will never again change. Apple's Mac is growing (much) faster than the "PC" industry.

iPad is destroying sales of new/cheap PCs.

And still I cannot purchase a quality Windows Phone phone in the US. 

How can not *legions* of employess at Microsoft, up to and including Steve Ballmer, not be unceremoniously sacked for this?

It's as if six months after Pearl Harbor, the US fleet chose not to engage the Japanese Navy but instead said...just you wait. In 18 months we'll show you who's boss!

Microsoft did *not* strike the iPhone when it was launched. Nor when it opened the App Store. Nor with 3GS. Nor with iPhone 4S. Nor with iPad. Nor with iPad 2.

Except for Samsung, *every single Android handset maker* is hurting. Motorola can't make a profit, despite all the love that has been lavished upon it by Verizon and Google.

Giant Sony continues to flail.

Blackberry -- dominant in the enterprise -- is in freefall.

HTC, once the mighty king of Android, a little Taiwanese company that long ago befriended Microsoft, and had dreams of becoming a global brand, is being utterly decimated by Samsung, once also a Microsoft friendly and who sends cash to Redmond for every single (tens of millions) of Android devices they sell.

Still Microsoft has no response.

How can this be? What has Microsoft been doing for the past ten years? Where have all the billions of shareholder dollars they've spent gone?

In Microsoft's home market of the United States, nearly every single new smartphone customer purchases a Android (57%) or an iPhone 34%). Almost none of the remaining 9% goes to any Microsoft/Windows device.

Microsoft's plan?

Zune.

Yes, that Zune. 

If you are one of the very few people to go into a Microsoft Store, wherever the hell those are, and get yourself a Windows Phone, Microsoft will give you a year's free Zune Music Pass.

That's straight up fucking embarrassing.

Ameica should be absolutely ruling the smartphone landscape! We have Apple and iPhone, Google and Android, Amazon and Android, Twitter, Facebook, Paypal.

In fact, we are! Sadly, however, Microsoft -- even in 2012 -- remains lost at sea.

There were two stories, both inevitable, that dominated the smartphone wars this week: the Facebook IPO date and confirmation that smartphones now outsell PCs.

Both of which pale in comparison to my personal news: I'm having Sheryl Sandberg's baby.

It's true! And it has nothing to do with the fact that this uber-smart -- and oh so beautiful -- lady will soon be worth a couple billion dollars. No. We love each other. 

She don't care if I'm a gold digga...

On the subject of gold...Almost from the beginning of this site I've written that the smartphone is a completely *new* personal computing platform. The old business models will not simply re-compile and port themselves from PC over to the smartphone. Thus, little click-thru ads are probably not going to do for Google what little click thru ads on the PC did.

Thus, I was the only one not at all surprised when Facebook called out "mobile" in their S-1 as a potential negative to their valuation. Unlike pretty much every other analyst and blogger who ran with: FACEBOOK CANT MONETIZE MOBILE!

Actually, being just about the most used app on just about every smartphone in the world and, soon, baked into iPhone 5, means that Facebook is in the lead for monetizing mobile activities. Only, it's a long, treacherous race and anyone can still win. 

But what about Sheryl Sandberg? I've repeatedly called her "the best hired hand in Silicon Valley -- ever". Score still one more for Mark Zuckerberg. Soon, she will be a multi-billionaire. Then, she will help Facebook reach at least 1.5 billion users. Then...she will no doubt seek new ways of directly improving the world. She is that smart, that capable and will have the resources to do so. My guess is she will create a global bank - start-up incubator - marketplace that provides all the tools necessary for every female on the planet to operate her own business, no matter how old, where from, how poor, how young.

One area I suspect Facebook to make money is as a platform for content distribution. Facebook currency, credit, sharing and likes should allow me to carefully discover and purchase quality stories, books, news analysis, movies, music. Which I think is a good thing.

I usually feel a bit hesitant asking for money from readers but then I remind myself that I drop $20 every month for the New York Times not only because it's great but because the company still can't make quality news gathering and analysis work in a digital world. I do my part and sure do hope that quality does not die. While former TechCrunch writers, for example, are boring us all with their stories about TechCrunch, and current writers at TechCrunch are doing them one better by writing still more boring stories about TechCrunch, others are out uncovering and writing -- well -- about actual stories of import. Sadly, it's the TechCrunch's of the world, and their spawn, that make money. Or, more correctly, they take money from wealthy insiders and never actually need to generate a profit.

The fact is that right now, using Google's business model, pure quality content is barely able to survive. I sure hope someone comes up with a replacement, fast. BigBlog, which thrives on Google, SEO and self-congratulation continues to be so self-obsessed as to be borderline irrelevant. We need real news. If it falls to Facebook, so be it.

Speaking of Google, I wonder if the Microsoft bear has finally awoken from its decade-long hibernation? Windows Phone is pretty damn good. Nokia Lumia is hot. And from what we've all heard, Windows 8 should beat Android at just about any carrier and at any price point. Plus, Microsoft is now starting to talk the talk once more. Y'all know I dig their Communications VP, Frank X Shaw, who is always happy to very publicly tweak Google (and Apple). Now more are jumping in. Just this week, Bing Search director, Stefan Weitz, told AllThingsD that Google saw what Microsoft was doing -- on search -- and blinked:

They did what we didn’t want to do, which was make the user experience peppered with this stuff, with +1s everywhere, the Google+ content in the top corner. I think [Google] realized we were ahead and they overextended. 

Heh.

But shiny new product and big talk aren't going to bring the world to a halt. As I've predicted for three years now, back when the world said I was MAD! MAD! I tell you!, smartphone sales have now eclipsed PC sales. Confirmed. Again.

This will never ever reverse itself.

Per Canalsys, smartphone shipments in 2011 totalled 488 million. PCs? A meager 415 million. And that 415 million *includes* the iPad. Meaning, Microsoft -- right now -- has the most lucrative software licensing franchises, but on a platform that is *shrinking*, has no iPad competitor whatsoever and for every 10 iPhones sold, I still bet doesn't even sell a single Windows Phone, of which all they would really receive is a OS licensing fee.

I don't know how many people and how much money it takes to protect and grow the Windows/Office franchise. But I will ask: what the hell has everyone else been doing in Redmond for the past 10 years?

Unlike Microsoft, Apple, per usual, didn't say much this week. As usual, us bloggers did all the talking for them. (Except for, you know, Apple's CEO letting it get out that Apple gave $100 million to high-visibility Silicon Valley-loved charities.)

I was right there at the head of the line cursing Apple for their foolish, over-reaching iBooks Author licensing agreement. The one whereby they effectively granted themselves control of your iBooks Author'ed property *everywhere* you sold it. Since Apple rarely speaks publicly, this act, which was either exceedingly sloppy and/or greedy and/or stupid and possibly illegal, created much finger pointing and gnashing of teeth.

Far too many fanboys tried to excuse Apple. 

I think my method was the better: call out Apple for something they did wrong. State it loud. State the obvious. Nothing more. Do *not* defend them when they should not be defended. And, unlike the haters, do not try and link one (bad) Apple act with all manner of conspiracies. 

Result: Apple revised their EULA. It's all good. And I know I did the right thing.

Speaking of doing the right thing, I confess I'm disappointed in many of you Apple fanboys out there with respect to over-reaching and naive accusations that Apple is "USING SLAVE LABOR IN CHINA"! 

Yes, the charge is bogus. Yes, Apple is being unfairly -- and dangerously -- singled out because they are so popular and so profitable. And, yes, the haters are always looking for any datapoint to add to their rage-filled quiver.

So the fuck what.

We use Apple not because of marketing or because of Steve Jobs (RIP) or because we are sheep: we use Apple because their products are so undeniably superior. We know Apple demands better of themselves -- and us -- and the result is something magical, revolutionary and amazing.

We should therefore demand better of Apple in all things, in my view. Even Gruber falls into the reflexive Apple defense trap on this whole Chinese labor kerfuffle, where he appears to mock Chinese Labor Watch for criticizing Apple more than the companies whose Chinese labor practices are worse, such as HP.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Apple is better. Of course the guy on the bench is going to do worse than Michael Jordan, say. Let's keep the pressure on Apple. I'm happy to demand more from Apple. Always demand more from the best. HP doesn't really matter to any of us. Apple does.

And speaking of Apple and demanding the best, I confess I loved this story, yes, about Steve Jobs, and his 'charge' for the iPhone:

When late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs assembled his first iPhone development team, he wasn't focused on conceiving a device that would run all sorts of apps and media but instead laid out a simple mission to his team: to create the first phone people would love so much, they'd never leave the house without it.

"His [charge] was simple. He wanted to create the first phone that people would fall in love with. That's what he told us."

Perfect.

I still recall the day I traded in my Blackberry for an iPhone. Thing is, I thought it was probably better and I knew I could not let it go. Yes, it's more important than my wallet. It has changed my life. Jobs' mission was fully realized. The entire Apple Insider piece is worth a read, though I confess to one disappointment: it offered no date! When, exactly, did Jobs assemble his first iPhone development team? I want to know. I want to know when because I want to recall exactly what the world was like at that moment.

Although, whenever it was, odds are high that RIM was selling plenty of Blackberrys and doing quite well. Unlike now. Just how bad, exactly, have things gotten for RIM?

So bad that Canada's Prime Minister, yes, they have one, labelled Blackberry a "critical technology" and thus the government of Canada, yes, they have one, could theoretically block the sale and/or foreign takeover of the company. Of course they won't, because that's not how Canada rolls. Still, kind of sad it's come to this, isn't it?

Though I confess that, sometimes, it would be nice to hear the leader of the United States talk similar to this:

“Takeovers of critical technology that the government’s invested in, or … hostile takeovers of key Canadian businesses, are obviously something that I think is widely understood is not in this country’s interest,” (Prime Minister). Harper said.

The government has the right to determine whether foreign takeovers over a certain size may go ahead. Its decision is based on whether the bid is considered of net benefit to Canada.

Net benefit to America, perhaps Mr President?

Actually, I think we will soon have a President uttering words such as the Prime Minister. Only, not because they are thinking about protecting the "net benefit" to the country. Rather, because we've allowed ourselves to fritter away much of our strength and indebt ourselves to people and nations not like us.

That and general seething anger over the harsh reality presented to us by a completely new world.

Such as being pissed that those hardworking and very smart Chinese kids that come to America, since we (still) have the best universities on the planet, are now the ones with all the cash. Per the Economist:

The number of foreign undergraduates has increased 25% in the past four years, while the number of Chinese students has almost sextupled, to about 57,000. China thus leads India and South Korea as the primary country of origin for foreign students. On the demand side, China produces vast numbers of highly qualified applicants whose families can afford to pay American fees. On the supply side, American universities are usually happy to accept such good students.

Public universities, moreover, have an additional incentive. Many are struggling financially because their states have been cutting budgets in a weak economy. So they take more pupils from other countries and states in part because they pay higher fees. For example, Californians pay an average of $13,000 a year at the ten campuses of the University of California; outsiders pay about $36,000. Naturally, this leads to some resentment among in-state applicants who fear rejection. 

Rich Chinese coming to America for our universities? I'd be fine with that if we did a far better job of ensuring they stayed here -- and helped create American jobs. I'm not so sure that's the case any longer. Meaning: we need to do a better job of bringing the right Chinese (and Indians and Malay, etc.) to this country and keep them here.

And speaking of jobs, I consider most academia-led typologies of how AMERICAN BUSINESS can create wealth -- and jobs -- to be comically off-base. But probably the worst such academic notion is the calcifying idea that every business must learn what "job" their product is doing for the customer. You know, that nice bottle of Evian isn't really "performing the job" of quenching thirst. Rather, it's "job" is to signal to others how cool and well-to-do and sophisticated you are.

Attempting to determine the "job" of your product is a very quick way of killing off your creativity. Probably forever. Thus, you get articles like this one, from Tim Bajarin, that are able to tell us that the various "jobs" people conduct are often better served by a tablet than a PC. Which is extremely true.

And tragically after the fact.

When Steve, er, Jobs, was building the iPad I can guarantee you that he never started, likely never considered, how he could create a device that would do a better "job" than the PC.

Though let's close with this notion of jobs since so many are looking for so few good ones. 

No one is buying Windows Phone, still, and Windows 8 isn't expected to be out til -- maybe -- late 2012. Late 2012! Anyone think *any* Windows Phone will be better than iPhone 5 or iPhone 6 by then?

Somebody, lots of bodies, need to lose their job over that.

Someone who should not lose their job, however, is Dan Frommer. He gets the award for chart of the week. This beauty reveals how dependent various tech companies are on their leading revenue generator. Not surprisingly, Google remains, for good or bad, in the top spot. Stationary web ads are still contributing over 90% of their revenue!

Here's hoping you have a great job!

Till next week!

What if "to Google" you required a Google device? Not a Google approved device, but a Google (only) device? What if to purchase from Amazon or eBay you needed a device from these companies, only?

Facebook has 800 million users. What if to use Facebook, to share and like and update and upload, you had to use a branded and controlled piece of hardware from Facebook?

The idea is not so far fetched. Indeed, we seem to be moving quickly toward just such a world. Think Kindle. Google's acquisition of Motorola. The mythical Facebook Fone.

Of course, bloggers, analysts and wannabes consider such hardware devices as, ironically enough, peripherals. A supplement to the core business. And for Google and Amazon and Facebook in particular, the core business is the same: platform.

On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a real business if you don't own a platform.

And this notion of a platform is what confuses so many -- including institutional investors and Big Money that ought to know better. This confused notion of the platform is also why $AAPL trades at such a relatively low P/E, particularly compared to Google and to Amazon (and to Facebook in time).

Money believes that if you control the platform, then you effectively own the market. Google believes this. They build out their server farms and pour billions into Android and offer more and more free services, like email, hotel listings, video, videochat and more not just to profit off your personal data. Just as important, possibly more so, is that they ensure that everything collapses inside their platform, which they own, they control and which they -- almost exclusively -- profit from.

Same with eBay.

Same with Amazon. Amazon is yet another closed walled garden web "platform" that opens itself up only enough to make sure that anything that is sold goes through their platform.

Investors have believed fervently in the notion of the digital web platform for two decades now. The platform is the network, in their view, and owning the network generates greater value and more revenues with each and every new participant. The platform, then, becomes its own de facto market -- and monopoly.

This is why Amazon has a P/E of an astonishing $135. It's why Google has a P/E of $20. 

And it's why $AAPL has a lowly P/E of $13.

Because Apple has no platform. Apple is a hardware company. Despite the fact that Apple is the biggest tech company in the world and earns the most profits of any tech company, and has managed to hold onto shockingly lucrative profit margins on its products for years and years, analysts remain convinced that such profits will eventually collapse.

Not simply because hardware profits are not sustainable. Not simply because so much money is at stake that other highly capable companies, like Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, Facebook and Google will do everything in their power to copy Apple, limit Apple and in every way possible snatch some of those sales and profits. Rather, the notion remains fixed within the brains of even the smartest investors that hardware, per se, is not a platform. Hardware is not a network.

The idea of the "network effect" originated with the old phone companies, such as AT&T. Each new customer exponentially increased the value of the network. It was not that one more customer had a phone -- a piece of hardware. Rather, it was that one more customer, with their new phone, was now accessing and participating in the network; the platform.

But what if this is no longer the case?

What if the iPhone is the network? What if the iPhone is the platform?

What if the iPhone is able to deliver the uber-high though temporal profit margins found in leading hardware but sustains them -- even grows them -- because it is also the platform?

If so, iPhone alone could become a trillion dollar business in just a few years, as more and more of the world joins this "network". 

The idea is not crazy. 

Would Path exist without iPhone? Would Instagram exist without iPhone? How few would ever use Evernote? Of all the hundreds of millions of Android devices in use around the world, *most* Google mobile searches come via the iPhone. More and more shopping is taking place via the iPhone and iPad.

It is not necessarily because iPhone is so much better than any other piece of hardware on the market. The iPhone is becoming the platform -- for everything mobile and social.

Facebook is growing increasingly dependent upon iPhone users. Same with Twitter.

If the iPhone is hardware than no doubt its profit margins will be forced to come down, and soon. But it may not be just hardware. The iPhone may be its own platform, its own network. If so, $AAPL is likely to explode. And everything you think about the web is inside out.

BGR suggests that even as the smarpthone wars jump into high gear in 2012, what with a new iPhone (OMG!) and Google's takeover of Motorola, and Windows 7.5 and/or 8, and the killing off of Symbian and the possible death of Blackberry and, well, lots of stuff really, it will continue to be a fight not between two platforms but between two companies:

Apple and Samsung

This is not a war between iOS and Android. In fact, if that was a war, Apple won. Resoundingly.

No, the war now is between Apple, which exclusively offers iOS, and Samsung, which leads with Android, but also offers Bada, has considered Blackberry and may be working on still another of its own platforms. Oh, and is probably gearing up to roll out several Windows Phone devices:

The analyst believes Samsung and Apple will combine to record 90% of the smartphone industry’s pre-tax profits in 2012.

“Smartphones continue to grow strongly, now accounting for over 30% of total volumes and over 75% of total industry revenues,” the analyst wrote. “However, the performance disparity between the stronger players – Apple and Samsung – vs. the others remains stark and these two now account for over 55% of industry revenues and over 90% of total EBIT.”

Why doesn't Samsung at this point take full responsibility for *it's* version of Android? End the whole fragmentation problem. Create an Android Market where all developers can be assured that over 90% of the devices, say, have similar screen sizes and hardware capabilities? 

Then maybe cut a deal with Bing and split the search ad revenues?

At this point, it seems as if Google needs Samsung more than Samsung needs Google.

After reading this from NextWeb, I may commit to Bing on my iPhone:

I’ve been tiring of Google’s shenanigans in many areas of search lately, especially the way that its Google Search + Your World changes have driven some of the best search results further down the list it coughs up.

So I decided to take Bing for a spin, changing it to my default search engine for a month or two. What I found was that it actually could be a very solid alternative to Google for a large portion of iPhone users, and that it might even be a better fit for the majority of those than Google is.

In almost all cases Bing was able to produce results for these searches that were just as relevant as the ones that Google was giving me, but were presented better. 

Think I"ll give Bing the month of February and test this bold NextWeb claim. If true, though I suspect it's not, than Google is in for a world of hurt.

Same results, better presentation will almost certainly win out.

I have a growing suspicion that the very savvy Sheryl Sandberg and the exceedingly wise Mark Zuckerberg read my work. From the beginning of this site I have argued that the smartphone is a completely new and transformational shift in personal computing, not a supplement.

The smartphone is the computer. The mobile web is the web.

This portends many changes in how we connect, learn, work, play and empower. It also reveals that what worked, even what worked very well, may not work at all in this new world.

Google Adwords, for example.

As I've documented, long before the bloggers and pundits clued in, wtih such posts as:

• The biggest question facing Google and its future: are mobile ad revenues supplemental?
• How much value does Android contribute to Google ($GOOG)?
• Google to the left of me Facebook to the right here I am stuck with no money again
• How does Facebook make money on mobile?
• No Facebook Phone? Okay, Facebook, show me the money.
• Facebook's future is mobile? Does that mean it's a future with no money?

…and many more...

There is no guarantee that even the sainted search-advertising-content presentation-display advertising model that has made Google one of the richest, most profitable companies in the world can deliver equivalent revenues, even when we have 5 billion smartphone users rather than the paltry 1 billion PC users.

Just late last year, in "Is Android bad for Google?" I stated:

Are we at Peak Google?

Google has spent billions on Android. With their planned purchase of Motorola Mobility, I estimate the costs of Android to Google to be approaching $20 billion.

Where is the return?

While Android quickly became the most popular smartphone platform in the world, thanks to Google's commitment to using its monopoly search profits to buy market share, actual revenues have been minimal.

What if they *always* will be? 

More frightening, for Google and others, but no less unlikely: what if mobile advertising revenues are always minimal *and* are not merely incremental? That is, as hundreds of millions and soon billions of users have smartphones, which we take with us all the time, everywhere, it is reasonable to expect that the smartphone becomes the *primary* platform for advertising. Rather than search for (often static) information on our PCs, at our desks, we instead use our smartphones for real-time, location-aware information that we can take advantage of at that moment at the point of presence. 

In such a world, which I find to be an extremely likely scenario of our very near future, advertising quickly evaporates on the PC and is shifted to the smartphone. Which may mean: Google is screwed. At least, Google as it exists today.

All Google's actions with respect to Android, the mounting costs of Android, their depressing, duplicitous statements re "managed" traffic instead of net neutrality, and their perversion of terms like "open" and "standards" all make sense when you realize that Google views the smartphone as I do. That is, as the future of the web and (nearly) all our web-based activities.

Except, there is simply no guarantee that advertising revenues on the smartphone are incremental. I believe that within only a few short years, smartphone 'search' and advertising will *replace* the bulk of search and advertising generated from the PC.

In Q3 2011, Google's quarterly revenues were nearly $10 billion. When providing its revenue numbers, Google noted that, at that time, (officially sanctioned) Android was already at about 200 million activations and that *annual* "mobile" (not Android) revenues were nearing $2.5 billion.

Facebook, apparently, understands what Google may not. From their S1 filing (via Business Insider):

Growth in use of Facebook through our mobile products, where we do not currently display ads, as a substitute for use on personal computers may negatively affect our revenue and financial results.

Mobile use of Facebook is growing faster than stationary/desktop use. Facebook claims over 400 million active mobile users. These users are spread over multiple platforms, such as iOs and Android, that could -- theoretically -- block or limit Facebook.

Yet the company focuses not on that potentially limiting factor but on monetization of mobile:

Although the substantial majority of our mobile users also access and engage with Facebook on personal computers where we display advertising, our users could decide to increasingly access our products primarily through mobile devices.

We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven. Accordingly, if users continue to increasingly access Facebook mobile products as a substitute for access through personal computers, and if we are unable to successfully implement monetization strategies for our mobile users, our revenue and financial results may be negatively affected.

Second to Google, and possibly second to no one, no company knows more about us than Facebook. And no service is more regularly used by more people around the world, across mobile platforms, than Facebook. 

Yet their ability to effectively monetize this information, in a manner that will earn them enough monies to justify their $100 billion valuation, or even a $50 billion valuation, is highly, and now formally, suspect. 

And, no, it is not because they are unable to build an ad platform just like Google's. Remember, Google isn't making money off mobile advertising either. 

The smartphone is not simply destroying old businesses and industries, it is destroying old business models. Google makes a fortune by having what is -- to date -- the world's most profitable business model. 

That is going away.

The entire *mobile advertising* industry is expected to generate about $2.5 billion in revenues this year. This is less than one quarter of Google's Q4 2011 revenues. 

This is not to suggest that the smartphone won't generate unimaginable sums of cash. Rather, despite the 1 billion and soon to be 5 billion smartphones in use -- these sums are likely to come from new sources and new economic models. Why do you think Google is spending tens of billions on Android, Google+, media subscriptions and other services, applications and platforms? 

Because they have no idea.

This is what makes the smartphone wars so fascinating -- and so deadly. This is also why I think Facebook has a legitimate shot of surpassing Google in both revenues and profits this decade. Not simply because lucrative PC-based/stationary web search is, I believe, not likely to survive this decade. Rather, it's that Facebook's "social platform" has, in my view, a greater potential to offer more valuable information, feedback and services than Google. Plus, unlike Google, Facebook is not wedded to a 20th century business model. 

Whereas nearly all Google's revenues (still) come from advertising, only 85% of Facebook's revenues do. Moreover, this percentage has been dropping each of the past 3 years. 

Additionally, even with Android and Gmail, Google Search and Google Maps and Google+ and GoogleOther, it's very possible, maybe likely, that more people will use Facebook more often than all Google properties combined and also be more *engaged* with Facebook. Already, the company has 845 "monthly active users" including 425 million mobile monthly active users. 

That is power, and power always generates wealth. Will it generate $100 billion of wealth we cannot say, not yet. 

Along with the filing, CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote:

By helping people form these connections, we hope to rewire the way people spread and consume information. We think the world’s information infrastructure should resemble the social graph — a network built from the bottom up or peer-to-peer, rather than the monolithic, top-down structure that has existed to date.

We also believe that giving people control over what they share is a fundamental principle of this rewiring. We have already helped more than 800 million people map out more than 100 billion connections so far, and our goal is to help this rewiring accelerate.

That, dear reader, represents a fundamental remaking not just of the web but of personal connectivity on a hyperglobal scale. Facebook is already well on its way to achieving -- and capitalizing -- on this vision. Yet to date, that capitalization has generated less than $4 billion in revenue. 

What this reveals, then, is that the killer business model of our new social, mobile, always-connected world has not yet been discovered. True, the odds are that the leaders in mobile, those companies with the most aggressive strategies, the most users, the most cash, the best talent, are likely to discover it first and possibly exclusively.

Google and Facebook are the leaders, possibly also Twitter. 

Still, their odds can't be considered great, nor even good. Think of all the portals and search engines that existed prior to Google stumbling upon Adwords, for example. Or how many mobile phones were in use and generating revenues for Nokia, Sony and others when Apple introduced the iPhone. 

Money -- big money -- from the mobile web remains an undiscovered country. Keep searching. 

Engadget has a revealing piece on how "product managers" working for AT&T. These "product" people determine not only which smartphones the company will promote at their stores, but how those devices will look, operate and function:

It begins with the creation of a formal document that lists the various traits and features AT&T desires. Since it takes so long to crank out a phone, the company needs to predict what the market's going to look like over a year in advance. This means our friends [ATT product managers] Dante and Chris have to ask themselves a few questions to hone their forecasting skills. What will be considered state of the art by then? How can we offer a truly groundbreaking product at that time? What will be on the low-end? What are customers going to want their phones to do? Answering these questions isn't easy, which is why AT&T has an advanced planning group that looks into all of the chipsets, displays and other components on the horizon.

The length of time a phone takes from conception to launch depends on a few factors: if the project was initiated by AT&T and the OEM needs extra time to work all of the crucial conceptual stuff, there are loads of extra vetting, testing and refining that needs to take place before the final product is ready. 

This probably helps explain why so many Android devices are so exactly like one another -- and why there is so much bloatware and non-personalization in these devices.

But I think it also portends how Google, which controls Android and which will soon own smartphone maker Motorola, will become still more closely aligned with carriers.

And no, not for the benefit of the users.