The question you need to ask is how much a video codec factors into Android's success. What would happen if they dropped VP8/VP9 entirely? Every single video on YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, etc. would still play. Nobody would encounter problems with video chat, sharing, etc. because those apps all require H.264 unless they only support Android users with high-end CPUs.
At the end of the day, VP8/VP9 is interesting as a possible bandwidth optimization or share certain patent/free software positions. It's just hard to believe that this would decide even a single phone purchase, much less enough to significantly affect Android development priorities.
Do they actually have a good way to monetize android - are they selling phones? Last I checked they had a great search engine. How does the revenue model on mobile compare? Android is different on every oem so though it might be huge - is it really even a google product or more of a Google open source project?
Do they actually have a good way to monetize android
As far as I understand, the initial motivation is to avoid being locked out. Suppose that iOS held 80% of the market, they could change the default engine, replace Google Maps with Apple Maps (like they did), etc. Given that smartphones and tablets are now commonly used to access the web, Google could have lost a serious chunk of traffic.
In other words, Google does not have to monetize Android directly, it exists to keep people in Google's ecosystem.
That makes no sense. Android is no different to Windows or OSX. It is irrelevant which codec it uses. It doesn't benefit the platform either way to use VP9, MPEG2, H.265 or any other codec.
Sure there are royalty costs for using H.265. But one could argue that (a) Android already costs money due to Microsoft licensing and (b) there are likely patent issues with VP9 just like there was with VP8.
