Google To Acquire Motorola Mobility For $12.5 Bill 578
zacharye writes "Google and Motorola Mobility have announced an agreement whereby Google will acquire Motorola for $12.5 billion. The acquisition price equates to $40 per share of Motorola stock, or a premium of 63% over Friday's closing price. The move is considered to be an effort that will better-align Google to compete with Apple's iPhone, which currently owns two-thirds of profits among the world's top-8 smartphone vendors..."
That's one way to stop royalty payments.
is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Or did shit just get real? :-)
Re:is it just me (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno, did you just multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He's making a Slashdot comment, not a synthesizer
Re:is it just me (Score:4, Informative)
I dunno, did you just multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate?
He's making a Slashdot comment, not a synthesizer
And a big WHOOSH [xkcd.com] to you, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:is it just me (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on what you think the "shit" is. Some people are saying it's hw/sw integration, and others are all about patent trolling. In reality, this is part of Google's effort to strengthen its position in eCommerce, specifically mobile and POS payments.
Put an RFID chip in every phone and you instantly get an EMV-compliant card replacement and an EMV-compliant card acceptance point. Forget all that Square magstripe bs - this would be the real thing. Combine it with Google Wallet and you have an end-to-end solution where anyone can make or accept payments via their phone. With Google controlling the hw and the sw they can set the standards. To make it even more interesting, think of what would happen if/when Google buys MasterCard.
Go ahead with this and you'll have every taxi driver, flea market, convention booth and convenience store in the country with cheap access to payments issuance and acceptance. Now move that model to Africa and the Middle East. The future of mobile isn't handsets - it's payments.
Re:is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
So this is strictly a strategic move to corner the Mark-of-the-Beast market? :)
Re: (Score:3)
For completenes, the xkcd link:
http://xkcd.com/849/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Antitrust regulators must be chomping at the bit. This is old-school Microsoft behavior. Imagine how other Android smartphone vendors are feeling right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Again, stop with the lies. Google had been in talks with Sun to come to some sort of agreement - there was never an admission of infringement. Also, dalvik does not run java code, and there's absolutely nothing in copyright law that says you can't cross-compile. And there's no patent infringement in the device if you cross-compile, because the device is not using the original java class files.
It's the same as if you use Word to write up a document, then import it into OpenOffice, and distribute the resu
Re:is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes it can. If the terms for Google's new IP are up for renewal or renegotiation, you can expect cross-licensing deals and all sorts of things protecting Android phones and devices.
What this doesn't protect against is trolls like Mark Small, Nathan Myhrovld and all those. "Defensive" patents are a useless strategy against trolls since they have nothing to gain by cross-licensing any tech.
You know, if the incentive for copyrights and patents are to encourage creativity, then it certainly wouldn't hurt anything if the creators were not allowed to sell their intellectual property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No one ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of consumers. I think that's how the quote goes anyway.
Didn't see this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)
I read this on the BBC and I have to admit, I didn't see this one coming!
At least we know now why Google didn't seem too bothered about winning the Nortel patents. This gives it a serious cell phone patents battle chest, and a manufacturer of decent tablets and handsets to boot.
The question is, if it's going to be Google owned, will this mean Motorola devices will be opened up as up until now they seemed to be the most locked down Android devices. Judging by the openness of the Nexus One etc. I'd imagine and hope this will be the case!
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is, if it's going to be Google owned, will this mean Motorola devices will be opened up as up until now they seemed to be the most locked down Android devices. Judging by the openness of the Nexus One etc. I'd imagine and hope this will be the case!
That will be interesting: I suspect that it will tell us whether the locked bootloader nonsense is actually a carrier demand(and, if so, a carrier demand that they want to stick to, or one that they'll bend on with a touch of pressure) or whether it was a 'hardware companies would prefer that software upgrades be accomplished by hardware replacement' problem...
Obviously Google doesn't want to lose money on their new hardware division; but it seems pretty unlike them(and poor strategy in the face of Apple's relentless hardware/software integration) to play nickel-and-dime software lock upgrade drive games to eke out a few extra handset sales at the expense of customer satisfaction and overall success of Android and the various web services that Google actually makes their money on.
On the other hand, if handset locking is some sort of carrier fetish(that they are only willing to make limited exceptions to, for the occasional flagship device), we might not see much change. Google's attempts to crack the carriers through direct sales have been underwhelming in their success so far, and Apple's sales number suggest that Joe Public isn't clamoring for an unlocked bootloader... At least Google is unlikely to cruft up stock Android too heavily.
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:4, Informative)
At least Google is unlikely to cruft up stock Android too heavily.
True, but looking at my new Droid 3 from Motorola - Motorola didn't cruft it up much. They put Blur and Motoprint on it. Verizon crufted the hell out of it. Enough to make me get my rant on here about it: http://gildude.blogspot.com/2011/08/call-to-action-for-verizon-and-motorola.html [blogspot.com]. Of course, if we just get rid of Blur and maybe the locked bootloader that will be enough of a win. But it would be great to get back to Google Experience Devices that don't have all the carrier garbage on them to begin with.
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:4, Insightful)
They've got pretty much the best US cell network, which gives them a strong position to sell voice and data contracts at aggressive prices, why do they have to puke all over the devices that connect to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully Googorola* will try to open things up -- *we* need this as at present phone OS's aren't being updated by the manufacturers or the carriers quickly enough, and I'd imagine Google must be a bit concerned about the security implications of this?
* Googorola | Motoogle | Motogoog | Gotoogla
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet other Android manufacturers are even more worried, now that Google owns their own hardware too. Suddenly all the Android manufacturers are using a competitors product and then trying to fight against them too. This is also why Nokia's stock price is rising up. It's bad times for those other Android vendors, and I think they're already looking at something else than Android.
I'm pretty sure Google would be aware of that concern; they've already stated that it will remain as a separate business, and I expect that's because the last thing they want to do is be seen to be competing with their own partners. I'd guess this purchase was forced by the patent situation and not because Google really wants to get into manufacture.
Re Nokia, I'm not seeing that much change in their stock price. Yes, they're up and a bit today, but that only covers the previous months decline... but maybe I'm missing something.
Re other Android vendors, they'll have picked Android because it's in demand and they will have weighed that up against potentially having less control. They could still fork if it's a big problem though which is more than they could do if they'd gone with Window Mobile (or whatever it's called these days). Also, despite Nokia now being in MSs pocket and basically being the "preferred" partner, there still seem to be other manufacturers willing to go with winmo... so by extension, I wouldn't expect much change over on the Android side of things either.
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet other Android manufacturers are even more worried, now that Google owns their own hardware too. Suddenly all the Android manufacturers are using a competitors product and then trying to fight against them too. This is also why Nokia's stock price is rising up. It's bad times for those other Android vendors, and I think they're already looking at something else than Android.
I'm pretty sure Google would be aware of that concern; they've already stated that it will remain as a separate business, and I expect that's because the last thing they want to do is be seen to be competing with their own partners. I'd guess this purchase was forced by the patent situation and not because Google really wants to get into manufacture.
Of course they say that; what do you expect? Companies have teams of lawyers and PR professionals whose whole job is to come up with the right things to say.
The question is - why do you automatically believe it? I doubt you'd give any other company the same benefit of the doubt. Did you assume Comcast was being completely forthright with everything it said while purchasing NBC?
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)
They're up 15% immediately after the announcement. That tells something.
It tells us that the market thinks there's a greater chance Nokia will soon be acquired by someone else -- probably MS. This has nothing to do with mobile OS wars!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep seeing people claim that locked bootloaders are a carrier demand... When this is clearly NOT the case.
Across ALL carriers, at least in the United States:
None of the Samsung Galaxy S line have locked bootloaders. (Tab 7s may be mildly locked?) The exception is the Galaxy Tab 10.1 line, which actually has randomly locked bootloaders for the non-carrier-distributed wifi version. (Don't know about the Verizon LTE variant). Even then, the bootloader locking is fairly minimal. The closest to "bootloader locking" I've seen in a Samsung Android phone is locking out flashing alternate bootloaders (Infuse 4G), but never a bootloader that locked out flashing any kernel or userland you wanted.
A small number of HTCs came out locked in early 2011 - HTC quickly reversed this decision after user outcry. The locked phones were distributed across multiple carriers.
Nearly all Motorola Android phones are locked down, regardless of carrier.
Motorola may claim it's the carrier - but if you look at the trends across carriers vs. trends across manufacturers, the trend CLEARLY follows the manufacturer and not the carrier.
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that they do have a pet OEM, will Motorola simply be the permanent bestest-ever-flagship-development-buddy, or will Google take the gamble of alienating 3rd party OEMs and increasingly close/lengthy delay everything that isn't GPL2/Linux kernel, to improve their Android devices relative to 3rd party ones?
They don't have much of a choice about the Linux-derived stuff(unless they feel like migrating to an entirely different kernel, which wouldn't make much sense) or busybox, or about previously released Apache-license Android-specific components; but nothing obliges them to refrain from letting free releases of most of the Android userspace and libraries(ie. the stuff that actually makes Android useful as such, rather than as a slightly weird embedded linux variant) rot...(consider the OSX analogy: the Darwin kernel stuff and many of the underlying unixy bits are freely available as BSD or GPL; but everything that makes OSX OSX, rather than just a weirdo BSD fork, is closed up tight. Architecturally, nothing stops Google from doing the same with Android, if it suits them.)
I'm hoping that Motorola is going to be used as a 'model design'/flagship house, along with a source of defensive patents; with 3rd party OEMs and merry ROM-cookers getting more or less complete access; but that isn't a given.
Re: (Score:3)
Google bought Motorola for the patent portfolio. Any other benefits are incidental. As soon as the acquisition goes through, Google will have an invincible cache of cell-related patents. Won't help them with Oracle, but that case is looking progessively weaker all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, they will unlock the Evo 4g and other older devices since Motorola seems to only be willing to unlock newer devices (and lock down the older devices right before releasing the newer devices.)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't the EVO made by HTC?
Re: (Score:3)
Supposedly the Photon 4G comes with an unlocked bootloader [popherald.com], and I suppose it's well known that Motorola already promised that their future phones would be unlocked [engadget.com]. So, yeah. It'll be interesting to wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
They made that promise in April and then...
Oh wait, the Droid 3 (released months later) is locked!
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering if the Motorola tablets are also produced by Motorola Mobility (the part Google acquired). I couldn't find anything in the press release other than Motorola Mobility being a "leading manufacturer for smartphones" ... which may or may not include the tablets.
Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually made an assumption there, but you have a good point. I Googled Motorola mobility though, and got this:
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/GB-EN/Home [motorola.com]
The page title says:
Motorola Android Mobile Smart Phones and Tablets - Bluetooth Accessories - Home Video Networks - Motorola Mobility, Inc. United Kingdom
So it looks like it does include tablets. But what I didn't assume was the other things it appears to include:
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/GB-EN/Consumer-Products-and-Services [motorola.com]
I didn't even realise Motorola produced some of these things, but could it mean we'll see Google SatNavs, Google Car Kits, Google Cable/DSL modems, Google DVRs, and er, Google Baby Monitors?
I'll be intrigued to know if Google discontinues some of those less relevant lines, but this is kind of exciting if you're a fan of Android, because if Motorola does DVRs, SatNavs and Car Kits too then Google may well be planning to extend Android into the car and living room with a bit more seriousness than previously the case. It looks like Motorola Mobility has it's fingers in all the pies a tech company might want to be able to produce a full lifestyle ecosystem encompassing home, and travel (god, I feel like I just spat out some sales speak there, excuse me whilst I go vomit).
I've always wanted to be able to just add things to my calendar on my tablet in the kitchen, then walk into the living room and use it to display TVs listings to tell my TV what to play, or to choose some content from my fileserver to stream to the TV, then set it to play some music. Then when that's done, walk out to my car and automatically have my car continue playing whatever music I'd previously set playing on my TV, and when I reach my destination have my phone take over that playlist as I put my headphones on and plug them into it. Obviously you can kind of do all this now, but it requires some serious hackery, and is far from being a pleasant, seamless, system. You need to really know what you're doing.
Let's face it, it's the future, it's just waiting for someone to take a serious stab at it. Will Google make an attempt at that now that they've got the hardware base to go with their software division? I'm hoping so!
The only thing we'll need then is for it to be standardised so that you can buy a product from any manufacturer whether it's an iPad or a Playbook,a Xoom, or a Tab and have it integrate into such a system. Okay, well, maybe now I'm REALLY asking too much ;)
Re: (Score:3)
While you very may well be correct, the thought of Google knowing EVERYTHING that goes on in a home fills me with.... dread.
Do no evil, indeed.
We Did...a week ago..Re:Didn't see this one coming (Score:3)
http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2585760&postcount=13 [sprintusers.com]
we shoulda bought Moto stock then...
posted 8/8/11:
Re: (Score:3)
Talk about going off on a tangent. What's this got to do with Apple? Oh, wait, if you're an Apple fanboy then it's always got something to do with Apple hasn't it?
Oh well, I hate to burst your reality distortion bubble, but it's probably worth pointing out that Motorola Mobility HAS been after Apple over patents:
http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Sues-Apple-for-Patent-Infringement-344d.aspx [motorola.com]
If you're going to publicly try and comfort yourself over your brand insecurity you could
Not a bad chioce (Score:2)
Of the android phone makers, Motorola is one of the two best. I'm glad Google went for them instead of Samsung... *shudder*
Hopefully that means there will be Motorola android phones on Sprint.
Re:Not a bad chioce (Score:5, Insightful)
They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
I absolutely DON'T trust any of them to write a single line of code. Yes, I know how these companies operate.
Re:Not a bad chioce (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of the android phone makers, Motorola is one of the two best. I'm glad Google went for them instead of Samsung... *shudder*
Hopefully that means there will be Motorola android phones on Sprint.
Google went for Motorola (at least in part) because Samsung's phone business is some ten times bigger, and even the mighty GOOG isn't able to bite off that much at this stage of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
There already are Motorola Android phones on Sprint. The Photon 4G, XPRT, Titanium, and i1 on Sprint proper. The Triumph on Virgin Mobile.
--
The revolution will be mocked [cafepress.com] from the sidelines.
Reactions from other Android Manufacturers (Score:5, Informative)
Most seem happy enough.
Re: (Score:2)
notice anyone missing?
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung, HTC, LG and Sony Ericsson are there and they're the biggest Android manufacturers. Erm....ZTE, maybe? Is it anyone important?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah well, what are they gonna say ? "Shit, we're screwed." might have kind of a negative impact on the stock price.
Re: (Score:3)
For a second I thought I was watching Jon Stewart do another montage of politicians doing the "stay on message, offer the same sound bite they gave us in our talking points memo" shtick. Then I remembered these were future competitors of Google.
Non-zero-sum game (Score:3)
I don't see how HTC, Samsung, etc could be happy about this. Android is no longer Open and now Motorola will be a version or two ahead of them.
How is Android no longer Open?
Rewarding Microsoft for attacking their business (Android, via the Microsoft/Apple/Oracle patent troll consortium) would be even worse than rewarding Google as a competitor.
I bet Google sat with the CEO's of each of these companies, and said, roughly, "look, we're fucked on these patents. The only way out of this is for us to own more p
Patents (Score:3)
interesting how all the quotes say the same thing..."defending android and it's partners".
It's an incredibly clear message that it's the US Patent System that's crushing the market. In an era where the government needs to be doing all it can to encourage production, any government system that is crushing any morally legitimate market has no place.
No doubt Congress will do nothing about it but vie for the best seats to watch the Empire burn.
patent shield (Score:5, Informative)
From the Google press release:
Motorola and Nokia are the two leading patent holders within mobile business, so this is potentially a very good opportunity for Google to use that portfolio as a litigation shield and helping to keep Android (litigation) free.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely.
Just looked at the Motorola site. They have 24,500 patents granted and pending in 2G, 3G, 4G, H.264, MPEG-4, 802.11, NFC.
With the codec ones, there could be some benefit for WebM too....
Royalty payments. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one way to stop royalty payments.
That's also one way to keep OTHER PHONE MANUFACTURERS from extorting royalty payments.
If only that also worked against Microsoft...
Re: (Score:3)
Actually this will work directly against Microsoft. Unlike Google which gives away Android, Microsoft sells Windows Phone OS. This means that Microsoft is economically liable for patent infringement damages if Google chooses to litigate, and the ITC could rule specifically against windows phone OS instead of having to target phone manufacturers (Google partners in this case). Obviously the goal here isn't to sue Microsoft, although it may come to that, the goal is to use the threat of litigation to get them
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
When you announce you're going to buy a a huge number of shares in a company, the price of those shares usually go up. Most mergers and acquisitions usually pay a fairly hefty premium over the market price.
For example, have a look at this chart of BSkyb's share prices. Try to guess at what point News Corp announced they wanted to buy the remaining stake in the company, and guess at which point they announced they were abandoning that plan.
http://graphs.lse.co.uk/GetGraph.asp?gcode=BSY&mode=ShareCharts [lse.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Antitrust people would probably shit a brick if that were to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinks are about to get interesting :) (Score:2)
Lawsuits like apple's, per device patent indemnification like microsoft are gonna be more fun (at least for google)... and average joe developer.
Hardware vs Software (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hardware vs Software (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the patent battles now:
Google: we have patent "using radio waves to provide mobile telephony".
Apple: we have patent "making something in a rectangular shape with 1 button and rounded edges"
I still think all the vague patents need to be scrapped, but that won't affect any of the new Google "real invention" patents they've just acquired.
Re: (Score:3)
The original one yes but what about all of the other ones that follow for all of the improvements and new bits that have been added in? Unless Apple is using the same hardware/signaling etc. from 1973...
Re: (Score:2)
...are we going to be seeing an epic east Texas showdown...?
Nah, probably Apple will introduce their own awkward communication "standards", and Google will implement their own awkward user-interface principles. Subsequently, the universe will split in two halves and everybody has to choose sides or be sucked into the vacuum thus formed in between.
Motorolas patents are belong to google (Score:3, Informative)
Google is poisitioning itself to get more involved in the patent fights:
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html
Battle of the Apes (Score:3)
Battle of the Apes, and Ballmer not invited?
Seriously, this will make some interesting monkey business.
It is of the same importance when Microsoft decided to jump on the hardware wagon too, through the Xbox. A lot of analysts were surprised but not overly surprised. Google, being a software only until now, doing the same as Microsoft seems natural.
Re: (Score:2)
Google already had some hardware too; the Nexus, chromebooks, their cheesy servers. But admittedly nothing quite on the scale of Motorola Mobility.
The articles are quite confusing though, sometimes saying Google bought Motorola, other times stating Motorola Mobility. As I understand it, this is indeed only half of Motorola. Though the Mobility half also includes many non-mobile and non-consumer products. Wonder what Google will do with those products which are of no obvious strategic importance to Google.
Does this include Netopia? (Score:2)
Are they buying just Motorola's cell phone division or does it also include Netopia (they make DSL/Cable modems).
Re: (Score:3)
Just Motorola Mobility. Motorola Solutions is not affected.
Patents (Score:3)
If Google were a poker player... (Score:2)
They'd win the Poker World Series. This is a winning hand to show, after all of the recent moves and relatively quiet action regarding the patent battles. Dont buy into the consortium, play victim and complain about others destroying android, then buy Motorola (and their 17000 patents).
Bravo!
Great Match (Score:2)
Motorola made android popular again just when everyone thought it was a complete failure. Heck everyone throught motorola was a complete failure after android. This is a good match.
mroe royalties than sales (Score:2)
you know what this means.... Google gets to collect a royalty payment for ever Windows phone sold which means that ... ah. $50 additional revenue for Google.. ok, err.. lets move on to the next comment please.
Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
This will probably force Microsoft to buy Nokia outright. As much as they would like to just collect license fees, they need a vertically integrated platform.
awesome (Score:2)
google stocks will rise again, and again, and again
Motorola Symbol (Score:2)
I wish Google would buy the Motorola Symbol division so we could see Android on their industry leading mobile computers (ie barcode scanners). The embedded Windows CE / Windows Mobile on those devices is garbage.
That is a gigaton worth of patents... (Score:2)
"Our Mobile Devices business segment will have approximately 14,600 granted patents and 6,700 pending patent applications, worldwide. Our patent portfolio includes numerous patents related to various industry standards, including 2G, 3G, 4G, H.264, MPEG-4, 802.11, open mobile alliance (OMA) and near field communications (NFC)." ( http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/About_Motorola/Technology/Approach [motorola.com] )
Given that Google's number of patents was previously estimated to be around 700 something, this is a hug
More Like Half of Motorola (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The OS if free. Opening up the phones will only sell more hardware... something a hardware company should be doing.
If there were cellphone integrators on every block, and buyers actually exercised choice in their phone OS and didn't just accept what the phone shipped with, this would probably be true. But alas, all Google has to do is make sure Samsung and HTC have their copies of the source on time, and that takes care of a commanding majority of the market. They can release the source (maybe a slightly less useful source) to everyone else, but since a vanishingly small proportion of cellphone users make use of it, i
Easy way to increase production (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Easy way to increase production (Score:4, Informative)
There are specific exclusions for DOD or any government contract that allow electronics to NOT be required to be made in the USA.(read the FAR guidelines)
I can only see two ways for this to pan out (Score:3)
I reckon by 2013 Google will either be making all Android hardware, or none of it.
What will the other manufacturers making Android handsets think about this? Who would license an OS from a company which also manufactures directly competing hardware and sells it on a large scale? There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset. Clearly Google are most interested in the patents (to fight against Apple, Nokia, Microsoft et al) but is that worth destroying the partnership with other companies? Maybe they think they can go it alone.
Things Google should do (Score:3, Insightful)
Things Google should do that will benefit both Android users AND Google:
1.End all deals between Motorola and Microsoft/Yahoo to make Bing or Yahoo the default search engine on Motorola Android phones. Restore Google as the default search engine on these phones. Good for consumers who get full Google apps on all Motorola android phones and good for Google because they get more people using Google search and more eyeballs for Google ads.
2.Start unlocking bootloaders on all Motorola phones. Good way to make tech geeks love your phones and recommend them to all and sundry. (think about how much community support the first Droid got because of its unlocked bootloader vs how much the first Milestone with its locked bootloader got)
3.Throw away all your legacy phone platforms and standardize on Android for mid to high end phones (including anything with a web browser, email client etc as well as any phone that would have had a Java VM if it was based on a non-Android OS stack). Bring in a simple cheap new OS for dumbphones that dont have web browsing, Java or data connectivity.
Good for consumers (since they get more Android phones at the market points that used to be occupied with mid-high-end featurephones like the RAZR) and good for Google since they save money by abandoning work on a whole bunch of code from the various legacy OSs (including web browsers and Java VMs)
4.Threaten to use the combined Google+Motorola patent portfolio against Apple products like the iPhone and iPad unless Apple stops suing Android vendors. This is good for Google since (if Apple does the deal) it means less risk of being sued over Android and less patent royalties that would need to be paid. Good for consumers since patent royalties increase the cost of devices.
Even better would be for Google to create an Android defensive patent pool. Anyone working with Google on Android (including HTC, Samsung, Dell, LG etc) would be able to join the pool with any mobile device/OS/etc patents they want to contribute. Google would contribute relavent patents from the Google pool plus whatever the new Motorola pool has. Any Android vendor that is sued over an Android handset gets to use the entire Android patent pool as a counter-attack.
The end of Motorola (Score:3)
That's sad. Motorola was once a great company. They were the only electronics company to successfully transition from tubes to transistors to ICs. They once made the best microprocessors; the 68000 series was way ahead of its time. (If the MMU for the 68000 hadn't been years late and badly designed, the whole PC world would have been powered by 68000 machines.)
But the semiconductor business was spun off as Freescale years ago. After giving up commercial mobile handsets, this leaves Motorola making police radios and related niche items.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the only other decent Phone OS options get you iPwned, or Windows 7 (good ideas, easy development, complete lack of polish or apps), and, oh yeah, BlackBerry, I'm glad of it.
And for tablet, the options are one fewer for now.
I for one am GLAD google didn't stick to just search engines.
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one think that Google should stick to search engines.
It wouldn't too much surprise me if Google would actually prefer a world where they could do that. It's something that they are already good at, where getting patent-trolled seems to be less of a risk, and where their customer goodwill is probably at its highest.
Strategically, though, that tactic Has Problems in the medium to long term. If, increasingly "search" means something integrated into the shell of your lockdown iAppliance, or Microsoft OmniSuite 2012, Google becomes dependent on the goodwill of intermediaries, who have plenty of 'not as good; but they would tongue-wash our Ferrari for a chance to be our search provider' options to choose from.
Their various extensions into other markets, while probably driven partially by restless capital, also tend to be into areas that are calculated to enhance customer's abilities to continue to access core Google properties without involving intermediaries who have much to gain by either forcing Google out or forcing Google to pay for the privilege of remaining in.
Re: (Score:2)
Their various extensions into other markets, while probably driven partially by restless capital, also tend to be into areas that are calculated to enhance customer's abilities to continue to access core Google properties without involving intermediaries who have much to gain by either forcing Google out or forcing Google to pay for the privilege of remaining in.
I for one am looking forward to when Google buys up a 3g/4g nationwide/worldwide network and creates an actually competitive smartphone marketplace where $30 a month isnt the least you can pay for overhyped, underpowered service in an oppressive contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not a search company, Google is an advertizing company. The rise of payed apps and content (as opposed to webapps and free, ad-backed content) was what Google did not like at all. Chromium demonstrates best what Google wants you to use: A hardware window into the web, which then is stuffed full of Google ads.
Android was (and is) nothing but an isurance against the good old web turning into nothing but a delivery mechanism for data and content displayed by apps and payed directly for to Apple (or o
Haha, Nokia (Score:2)
Here's looking at you going all the way down the drain.
Who says Google wasn't willing to make a deal? I think it was just the M$-centeredness of Stephen Elop that prevented a deal.
Good luck with WP7.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one think that Google should stick to search engines.
They'd probably die.
Yes they are good at search.. but if that search is running on someone elses platform, and that platform is becoming more and more controlled (phones) .. they need to at least have their leg in the door.
That and at a certain size diversification is usually a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH I approve of everything that might in any way slap Apple fanboys in the face.
There's nothign worse than an apple fanboy. Except an Apple hater. Yeah, those are worse by a wide margin. They will even claim Apple is the original sin !
Cretin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Monopoly. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. Because monopoly doesn't even kind of mean what you seem to think it means.
Apple isn't even close to a monopoly in either of its two biggest market-share products, iPod (75% I think?) and ITMS (largest single music seller, though I don't know what % that is). There are countless viable substitutions people can buy if they want to. There is no coercive force in play making it so you need to or must buy their products (compare and contrast this to Microsoft during its monopolist days, where it was incredibly difficult to buy a new computer without paying Microsoft a fee, and with any competitors software pre-installed).
Yes, its a vertically-integrated product line, but that is NOT the same thing as having a monopoly. "iPhone" is not the whole of a market, it is but one of a number of viable competitors. The App Store may be the only way to get native apps onto the device, but that doesn't mean Apple has an "iPhone monopoly" they are abusing to extend one market into another. The iPhone is not a market: there is plenty of choice out there for those who want to buy something else.
Monopolies are not illegal: only monopolies obtained or maintained through certain prohibited practices (which for single firms and not cartels are rather few and hard to prove: but you can't argue Apple with its industry-envied margins is engaging in predatory pricing, which is one of the things single firms can get bitten for doing under antitrust law), and using the power of a monopoly in one market to extend into another.
In no way does Apple fit into any of these categories (the only place you could even argue it is the App Store and its relationship to the iphone, except as Android supporters will tell you, iPhone is anything but a monopoly. You have to have a monopoly before you can use a monopoly to bad ends: and "monopoly" does not translate into, "the only person to make this particular thing that others are aggressively competiting with", even if "this particular thing" is the what you're making your addons for).
Re: (Score:3)
Its also rather important to note that a monopoly IS NOT ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY.
Now, there are plenty of things you can get in trouble for if you've been deemed a monopoly that you wouldn't otherwise get in trouble for, but just being a monopoly in and of itself is 100% legal.
You don't get punished for being good at what you do, you get punished for taking advantage of your size to bully others out of business.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us would agree >80% == Monopoly, so stick your head in the sand if you'd like..
Who is this 'us' that you are referring to? Antitrust is a specific legal formulation with it's own definitions and limitations. Just because the word you so happily bandy around sounds exactly like the word in the statute it means very little unless you apply it the way the law does. And you are most certainly not, as about a dozen other posters have pointed out.
Read up on Antitrust law and come back to us when you're so enlightened. That word really doesn't mean what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
I for one wonder how AAPL has avoided anti-trust litigation
That is explicitly because Microsoft has been waving the antitrust flag [groklaw.net] at Google for about 2 years now. In Europe and the US [informationweek.com] Microsoft gathered a group of their partners together and filed antitrust complaints [cnet.com] against Google In Europe and USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually nice to see them spending money on engineers than on lawyers...
Re: (Score:2)
They probably bought them for their IP, for the benefit of their lawyers ;p
Remember back when products succeeded based somewhat on innovation and marketing.
sigh.. good times :)
Re: (Score:2)
`Long as it's automated, and the data is protected and inaccessible to other people, and not sold to other parties.. I'm actually ok with this. I know this puts me in the minority with the slashdot crowd, and I'm sure someone is gonna accuse me of atroturfing, and yes there are all the slipery slope articles and becoming accustom to surveillance is bad and all that, but I just don't care. My life isn't that interesting. If some algorithm wants to pour over all my lifes data to show me a guitar ad (cause I'v
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is all about Android, not ChromeOS. Make no mistake, Google's press release specifically mentions Android and if Google wanted such a device, they'd build another high-end "reference" device like the Nexus ONE was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is mostly patents. First, Motorola has a better patent portfolio than Nortel.
Motorola is also a functioning company that can make profits. If you think that value of Motorola future cell phone business without its patents is $6 billion then the costs of the patent portfolio to Google is *only* $6.5 billion. If Google wanted to, they can sell the Motorola division off which they wouldn't be able to do with Nortel.