They only hate analysts when Analysts are wrong, and analysts are only wrong when they say things against apple of course!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Selling Motorola Mobility to Lenovo for $2.91 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They only hate analysts when Analysts are wrong, and analysts are only wrong when they say things against apple of course!
When has anyone ever had a complete monopoly the last decades?
Android? Gmail ? Google Apps? Youtube? Advertisement? Maps? Analytics?
All top in there field.
So?
If google can make profit this way, why not.
The most stupid part here is that you actually think to be able to make better decision then the google itself.
But those "handful" of patents were the holy grail for Motogoogle's patent strategy. And they turned out to be worth a couple million, not four billion as Motogoogle ascertained in their lawsuit against Microsoft.
So, yes, Google thought they were buying $5.5 billion worth of patents at the time they acquired Motorola, but as a result of Motogoogle having their arses handed to them in the Microsoft lawsuit, the value was shown to be far, far less.
Don't get me wrong, those patents will generate a steady stream of revenue for Google over the life of those patents, but that will never cover the residual cash outlay for Motorola, not by a long shot.
Not to mention, they won't provide one iota of defense for Google or their Android handset manufacturers against other patent lawsuits, which was Google's stated primary intent.
As contrast, Microsoft generates more income from the sale of Androids (due to license fees from Android hardware manufacturers) than they do from their own Windows Phones and tablets.
That's what Google gets for putting a software engineer in charge of acquisitions.
Just twisting them back to what I meant. When I wrote about a wasted work-life, you made it about how life is so much more than just work. Fine spin.
You've stated your disinterest in the well-being of companies every community is depending on. Your fellow man can't benefit without companies benefiting as well. You ignoring these basic dependencies, doesn't make me twisting your words.
And because you have no better concept of what the purpose of corporations is and should be, the world you live in is a capitalistic society.
Only when you are crazy enough to imagine another kind of corporations. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the corporate world, are the ones who do.
I was under the impression that google was after the patents in order to protect android/goog from lawsuits, rather than make money. At least that's how the android websites are spinning it. Samsung's agreement to continue with android rather than Tizen is adding fuel to the 'thought' that Googles sale of Moto was for the appeasement of mainly Samsung, along with other OEMS. Moto was schooling them too much on how to make a proper android phone
I believe the thought is that this isn't about the money, but that can't be true
Well if money = lawsuits I suppose it really is about the money.
Where did you get the $5.5 billion from?!?!?!
- $3.2B Moto's 2011 cash
- $2.4B Moto's 2011 deferred tax assets
- $2.35B Moto's Set-top-box business sold in 2012
- $75M Moto's factories business sold in 2013
- $2.91B Moto's Mobility business sold in 2014
So the "patents, engineering talent, and insight into the mobile-device marketplace" cost $1.56B
Microsoft. Intel. Facebook. Google. Apple on iPods.
When has anyone ever made real money without a monopoly?
Android free. Gmail free. Apps free. Youtube free. Maps free. Analytics free. With free services you can gain market share quickly. Which isn't even a real market when no one gets paid. Goole Reader also was top in its field and than just stopped its free service. Googles highly profitable monopoly is in online advertising only. Now they need to build a moat around their castle to make it last.
First, Google didn't made a profit on Motorola. Second, Motorola lost more than Google could have gained. No value was created in this marriage, it only was a waste of time and money.
Some people believe in the infallibility of the catholic pope and others in the infallibility of higher management of corporations. I'm an atheist, I believe in nothing and can be convinced of everything. So reason with me, why do you think Google made the right decisions? Because to me it looks as if they are correcting a mistake.
„But the smartphone market is super competitive, and to thrive it helps to be all-in when it comes to making mobile devices. It’s why we believe that Motorola will be better served by Lenovo.“ Larry Page
Read: Better served than with Google, who is not all-in to making devices and can't bring Motorola to thrive in a super competitive hardware market. Google management knew, they know nothing about making hardware, when they bought Motorola and did it anyway. To me the sale of Motorola is just to correct the mistake of buying it in the first place.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that google was after the patents in order to protect android/goog from lawsuits, rather than make money. At least that's how the android websites are spinning it. Samsung's agreement to continue with android rather than Tizen is adding fuel to the 'thought' that Googles sale of Moto was for the appeasement of mainly Samsung, along with other OEMS. Moto was schooling them too much on how to make a proper android phone
I believe the thought is that this isn't about the money, but that can't be true
Well if money = lawsuits I suppose it really is about the money.
There are two basic types of technology patents.
FRAND patents are licensing terms agreed to in order to have technology included in standards. Patented technology gets included in the standards, the patent holder gets a steady stream of revenue, hardware/software is interoperable, and theoretically everyone is happy.
Then there are the patents inventors use to differentiate their products from their competitors. Those are closely guarded, and lawsuits obviously ensue when patented technology gets copied. This is nothing new, patents in the US go back to colonial times, and the framework for modern patents was enshrined into the original Constitution, (Article I, Section 8) so inventors could have the exclusive use of their inventions for a period of time.
The problem is that FRAND patents give up the "exclusive rights" part, which makes FRAND patents the wrong "weapon" to use to counter sue when your company has violated the patent rights of another company.
The thing is, somebody on the Google legal team had to know this, and had to advise the C-level executives why this strategy wouldn't work. And yet, the whole sordid affair had to play out in the courts, and now we're here where Google can't even provide legal cover to their Android manufacturers which (again) was their stated objective when the bought Motorola in the first place.
Google is _not_ a monopoly.
It may seem like it to those who don't understand, and especially to those who fear them, but Google will continue on even stronger as this deal closes.
If not for Google, Apples iPhone would not be as strong as it is... nor would it offer the kind of experiences it does today.
The entire mobile industry is constantly benefiting from Google's Innovation. We all reap great advantages from having Google services available to us.
Google is a winner.
Where did you get the $5.5 billion from?!?!?!
- $3.2B Moto's 2011 cash
- $2.4B Moto's 2011 deferred tax assets
- $2.35B Moto's Set-top-box business sold in 2012
- $75M Moto's factories business sold in 2013
- $2.91B Moto's Mobility business sold in 2014
So the "patents, engineering talent, and insight into the mobile-device marketplace" cost $1.56B
The $5.5 billion dollar number isn't mine, it's being trotted out by the Google apologists as the value of the Motorola patents Google obtained in the acquisition. If you re-read what I posted, you'll see that I'm calling out that number as being highly questionable.
BTW, I think you left out the two years of losses to retained earnings.
Windows has never been a monopoly? **************************!
About 9.970.000 results (0.20 seconds).
The $5.5 billion dollar number isn't mine, it's being trotted out by the Google apologists as the value of the Motorola patents Google obtained in the acquisition. If you re-read what I posted, you'll see that I'm calling out that number as being highly questionable.
BTW, I think you left out the two years of losses to retained earnings.
just out of curiosity. you keep trying to attack the numbers, and think you have some insite into them that nobody else has, calling out anyone claiming the 5.5b number for valuation of the patents and remaining assets being held by Google.
Can you back up your claim other than "google lost a few patent disputes"
cause the claim for 5.5b is actually been done by accountants and mathematics and based on accounting principles and facts.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312512312575/d357361d10q.htm
actual financial statements by Google to the government.
are you really trying to say you're opinion on this is more valuable than the accountants and financial analysts?
He does have a point.
Motorola was bought for patents, patents are essentially worthless, Motorola is sold at a loss.
Only significant revenue is advertisement which is not the most welcome thing on the internet (how long till it stops working?).
Their experiments (Glass, Car) are taking too long to reach the public. Glass is facing legal trouble already (and it's a niche market to begin with) and the car... Well no news in a long time and will face some legal issues too.
How are they gonna keep up with their image of being a great stock?
Windows has never been a monopoly? **************************!
About 9.970.000 results (0.20 seconds).
Do you know what a monopoly is?
A
googling a term and seeing lots of results doesn't make it true. Maybe if you read some you'll understand more.
These companies you have listed were not, and are not monopolies. There are competing tech's.
Microsoft in the 90's wasn't a monopoly. It was practicing anti-competitive behaviour, referred to as Monopolistic business practices, but there were plenty of available OS's. Linux, BSDs, Apples SO. BeoS and the like. They didnt offer anything close to what Microsoft had in regards to pure market penetration, But they still exist.
A monopoly is soley when 1 person or company is the sole and exclusive supplier of something, and there are no competing, comparable or parody products.
Some tech industries are Ologopolies. But there have been very few Monopolies (most western governments ban monopolies). And all the companies you listed, None of them have a true monopoly.
Oh, and if you're going on "microsoft says google has a monopoly". than thats just asanine. Microsoft and Google are competitors. Microsoft is going to say what they can to try and change peoples perspective of google's business practices.
Every company does it. Apple does it. Google Does it, Microsoft does it.
Doesn't mean cause they cry wolf that there are these monopolies you claim.
some key term reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
when did apple have a monopoly last 20 years ? Facebook? Google ? Apple on ipods ? They were/are at best the largest in the market .
There havent been any true monopolies since google was created , yet they made plenty of profits .
you simply dont understand googles business model .
and you base that on what ? The tiny amount of semi facts you believe you have .? Lol
You and i dont have. Clue not on short term and even less on long term .
I believe in facts , facts we lack here .
Wether or not they made the right decision i dont know and neither do you .
----------
Most of this is pure speculation . And apple sells plenty of hardware yet the stock just tanked , even seen over the year google up 30/40% apple 5/10%
Look, it's really simple. The valuation "done by accountants and mathematics and based on accounting principles and facts" was entirely predicated on their effectiveness to be wielded in countersuits, primarily against Microsoft and Apple. Unfortunately for Motogoogle, those patents have been completely ineffective in terms of legal leverage. I referenced an article from The Verge earlier in this thread with a chart showing the difference in scale between the $4 billion (with a "b") that Motogoogle tried to extract from Microsoft over Motorola's 802.11 and H.264 FRAND patents and the 1.8 million (with an "m") they were eventually awarded.
N.B. The Motorola patent portfolio may have very well been thought to have been worth $5.5 billion at the time of the Motorola acquisition. However, almost nobody (except a few vocal Google apologists on MR) believes those patents have anywhere near that value today.
Last edited:
Sure, but Google wants the protection of having complete control over its own platform. Look how many great companies (like Netscape) have been destroyed, only because Microsoft once decided, their service needed to become part of the wider Windows monopoly. What do you think Bing! search and maps is, if not an attempt to destroy Google? Google acquired Android Inc. in 2005 out of fear, Windows Mobile could become as dominating in mobile as it was on the desktop. Only later they found out that iOS was the competitor to beat.
Apple learnt the lesson, better not to be dependent on other companies, when Microsoft threatened to pull their office apps from the Macintosh platform, shouldn't they get a license to copy the GUI for Windows 1.0. Later they tried it again, when Microsoft wanted to force Apple to stop the development of QuickTime. The iWork apps only exist for Apple to not be susceptible to blackmail. When Google formed Android after the iPhone, they became the new Microsoft and Apple had to create its own Maps app, just to be not dependent on a competitor.
Independence is how a billion dollar company can keep its billion dollars to itself. The Motorola acquisition was in part for Google to become hardware independent. And it failed in that regard.
The article you cite takes Google's word for it that the patents are worth $5.5 billion (what a joke) and ignores two years of well documented losses. But feel free to be as gullible as you wish.
Well, I don't know what the W line is lacking with respect to IBM, so I don't miss it.
The thing I remember was cool was the butterfly keyboard, but that has not existed for even longer.
The fact that they spend their time developing nonsensical, useless products like cars, balloons, and glasses and pump all their time into propping up a failed social network while the rest of their core offerings is just astounding.
The only thing they can do right is advertising and search.. and, lately, they can't even do search (especially troubling given how much better Bing is becoming).
If they actually stopped breaking the law and being shading by paying the taxes rather than hiding them off shore, they'd be a LOT worse off. Their dubious business practices are their only saving grace right now. Their cellphones aren't selling and they make squat off of Android....
This paragraph right here just goes to show that you're not thinking about this objectively, and only want to bash Google for the sake of it.
The self driving cars and wifi balloons are awesome ideas in and of themselves. The glasses? Eh, they're interesting, I guess. A nice proof of concept at the very least. Google+? Okay, yeah. I'll agree with you there.
Of course not! So if you would google "windows monopoly lawsuit" for me and read the verdict and then tell me, why you're not convinced? It's not as if Bill Gates became a philanthropist, because nine states didn't agree with the settlement, arguing that „it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices“ and he needed to make good atmosphere to prevent his company from being broken up into a Windows and an Office part.
The reason why some companies are able to exercise monopolistic business practices and others can't, is because they have a monopoly. Monopolistic is just the adjective to the substantive.
Let me describe it in my own words. Google is auctioning off ad space associated with specific search terms. The only reason this is a billion dollar business, is because „to google it“ has become the dominant way of acquiring information, so that all other search methods are practically useless.
Yahoo and Bing are websites just as Google and can't break the monopoly of a superior yet free service. Its hard to divert usage from a dominant service if you can't beat it in price. Impossible to compete with = monopoly. Only Bing is dangerous because of the thread to be bundled with another Microsoft monopoly. A tight integration of Bing into Internet Explorer and Windows could divert users from Google to Bing without their conscious decision. Therefore Google needs to become independent from browsers and operation systems made by direct competitors.
Other forms of obtaining information by asking a phone or yelling at the television are also potentially disrupting to Googles business, because they could replace web search altogether. The world wide web is kind of dying already. More and more services that used to websites are turning into apps now. Or are founded as apps in the first place, see Instagram. People are starting to game the AppStore charts, as if they are the new PageRanks.
So yes, I think I understand what Googles business is.
Wait. Are you saying Bill Gates got into charity work as a means to keep Microsoft from getting trust busted?
Okay, I wanted to address this mistake as well. Just because something is popular, and other companies have trouble matching its popularity with their own products doesn't make for a monopoly.
Quite simply, a monopolistic company is defined more by its power to curtail competition and damage the market moreso than the percentage of the market it holds. Microsoft was the only company on your list that could be defined as a true monopoly. If they weren't one back in the 90's, they were about the next worst thing. Google? Not so much.
Last edited: