And? Are you saying that a company can't offer a free product?
Android objectiva was not being a source of direct revenue, it was a defensive move against someone having too much power on mobile devices.
Defensive move against who and in what market
Ironically all Android has resulted in is Samsung gaining too much power in the smartphone market and Amazon using it to own the budget tablet market. Now Google has to go spend 12 billion on Motorola and get into the phone hardware market to fight Samsung, whose rise it helped subsidize
Google is not a traditional company and does not intend to become one. Larry Page said it almost 10 years ago. If they only focus on direct revenue, you will not get Google Maps, YouTube, Gmail, Calendar, Android, Google Glass, Google Driver, Driverless cars etc. They are extremely successful because they think different.
Companies that offer free products monetize their input costs through those products' complements. Apple offers iCloud for free, which costs money to develop. It also underprices its software. Both of them strengthen the Apple ecosystem, so it's worth it for Apple to take the hit because it makes back iCloud and software input costs through increased hardware sales.
All those Google services - Google Maps, YouTube, Gmail, etc - are products that complement Google's primary revenue source - online ads. It puts them out for free so a ton of people will use them, they all lead back to ad revenue which cover the dev costs of YouTube etc in addition to creating profit.
Android does not do this to any substantial degree. Only thing it's done so far is benefit OEM's who no longer have to spend money to develop their own mobile OS or license one, which is why Samsung has gotten rich off Android and Google hasn't