I'm sorry to read that Motorola is being sold to Lenovo, which is basically the Chinese equivalent of Dell. I don't have much hope that this will result in better phones.
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
I stopped responding. Gudi ahs expressed a serious lack of understanding of what monopolies are and monopolistic business practices. He is looking for any reason to hate Google and Microsoft and anyone who is not Apple
Monopolistic business practices is using fishy or illegal methods to attempt to steer markets and dforce competition out. it does NOT mean you are a monopoly. Microsoft for example was NEVER proven to be a monopoly by any court. Found to be attempting to create one? sure, and they were stopped, but there was competition in the market place then.
The simplist I can say it so that he'd understand:
Being the #1 doesn't make you a monopoly. If there is even a single competitor, you are not a monopoly. A monopoly requires you to be, the exclusive, and ONly provider of product or service with absolutely zero options.
This was not the case with microsoft Ever. Google is not a monopoly either as Virtually every aspect of their business has competition from varying other companies.
Apple is not a monopoly. Despite rigid closed wall environments, you can get parody products from any number of competitors running any number of other Operating systems.
and example of the obvious bias:
And what do you think Apple Maps? Apples unified search? Siri? Mail, icloud, is?
its OK when apple does cut their competition out by forcing them off their devices..
but when google, or Microsoft do it, it's OBVIOUSLY evil monopolies
Why oh, why are you agreeing with him of all things on the one point he is wrong about? Self-driving cars, balloons and glasses are stupid distractions, trying to create a social-network isn't. Facebook knows much more about their registered users than Google will ever know by aggregating their search terms. Facebook has their name, age and gender and whom they went to school with. These are all valuable informations for targeted advertising. Social-networks have a huge potential of disrupting Googles advertising business, because the ads are targeted at who you are, not what you are looking for; men and women searching and liking "steel-boned bras" might have different things in mind. Unfortunately Facebook also is a free service so dominant that it has become a monopoly. You can't make millions of people to enter all their personal information twice and leave the platform where all their friends already are. There are plenty of Facebook clones but none can get traction. Its impossible to compete with Facebook, but it's okay that they tried it with Google+.
You're right. Calling MS an outright monopoly isn't 100% correct, but it's not too far off the mark, either. To sum it up for anyone reading...
In the mid-late 90's, if you were a computer shop, and you weren't selling Windows PCs, you'd probably go out of business, or at the very least take a huge hit to your bottom line. For all intents and purposes, they were the computer market back then. Now that isn't proof of MS being a monopoly in and of itself, but MS could demand that a shop only sell Windows based computers, or risk losing their license. The same thing happened with the OEMs, where MS stated in their contract that if they wanted to make Windows PCs, they had to make them exclusively. They couldn't use Linux or any other alternative OS aside theirs.
While they weren't the definitive example of a monopoly, they were dangerously close to it. MS had the control, the leverage, and the means to curtail competition entirely. And while they never quite made it that far, some of the anti-trust sanctions that got thrown their way were well deserved.
As for Google, while they have the vast majority of their respective market, it's based almost solely on popularity. They have a good product with a healthy amount of mind share, and people use it. There's no crime in that. But they also have to contend with a good amount of solid competition, which means they lack the leverage and control MS had back when. They're not a monopoly.
And Gudi being biased? Well...yeah. I'm not trying to convince him he's wrong so much as point out how wrong he is to anyone else reading.
And then we hear in the news last month that something that the DoD buys was having components made in China...
What has the USA come to now...?
No, they're more like the Chinese equivalent of IBM. Unlike Dell and their catalog of hits and misses, most everything they make is pretty damn solid.
To succeed, first one must fail. Failures are part of progress, Google has no fear and their great progress each year proves it.
The big loser in this deal is Apple. That's why a great majority of the posts in this thread are critical of Google.
People who otherwise claim to dislike Google are going to great lengths to post here. Bashing Google is highly fashionable in any dedicated Apple Forum.
As an Apple supporter, via spending my money year after year on Apple Computers Laptops iPads and the like, I welcome the added competition. It'll push Apple to improve their products.
That's win/win for everyone.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...est-loser-in-the-google-motorola-lenovo-deal/
And to restore his personal reputation and that of his family name. After all its called the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation not the Poor People in Africa Foundation. So you know who it is for. Also he doesn't know what else to do with all the money. Because he was in the game only to get rich, not to achieve something in particular. Steve Jobs having another billion to spend, would have build his company an even better new headquarter. He never believed in charity.
Googles, Facebooks and Microsofts popularity did wear off fast. Still even after you've developed pure hatred for one of them, it is still hard to escape them. And that doesn't mean its impossible, some people have successfully escaped Twitter to form App.net, but it trails behind in user numbers. Here on MacRumors we are virtually a self-help group for Windows escapists. But lets face it, out there Windows is still a monopoly and nothing is gonna change that. Whether Microsoft misuses that power or not, it's still there and works its ways.
So making the address bar and the search field in your Chrome browser one and the same isn't curtailing competition from ways to open websites other than searching them? Only one mistyped character and instead of opening the URL you are redirected to a default Google search. Just hope, you didn't forget to pay Google to be high on that search list. Otherwise your site traffic will drain fast. As you can see with Google Analytics. And you say this isn't doing damage to the market?
God, why I do I do this to myself...
Antitrust suit or no, Bill Gates left at the height of his popularity, when Microsoft was still at its absolute strongest. He hardly needed to start a charity to save face in the public eye. In fact, since leaving MS, we've heard far less from Gates than we did during his tenure. You'll see something about him pop up every once in awhile, but that's about it.
And give credit where credit is due. Bill Gates was largely responsible for the computer revolution being such a huge success. Pretty good for a guy who "just wanted to get rich".
Yeah, screw vaccinations. Apple's spaceship campus is far more important than a bunch of kids I'll never meet.
...right. I'm failing to see how this somehow puts Steve Jobs in a positive light.
And no, I'm not saying the new spaceship campus is some idol of avarice or whatever. Apple made a ridiculous amount of money off a number of great products, and they deserve their nice, new building. But I'm also not going to hold it up as an example of some ideal of morality or whatever.
Either/or would be pretty ridiculous.
Okay, in case you failed to read what I said above, Microsoft no longer has anything even remotely resembling a monopoly. They still have a strong enterprise presence, but the consumer market is split pretty well among Apple, Google, and MS these days. With so much competition from so many strong players, it's impossible for anyone to gain a monopoly in the consumer electronics market.
Because remember, having a dominant market position isn't the sole indicator of a monopoly.
Repeat that again.
Having a dominant market position isn't the sole indicator of a monopoly.
You could have 99.9% of a market, and it still wouldn't be a monopoly, so long as there is at least the potential that a competitor could thrive. Like everyone uses Facebook, but the mere existence of Google+, Twitter, and the thousands of other not nearly as popular social networking sites keep it from being a monopoly, because they all represent an equal alternative anyone could use in lieu of Facebook at any time.
What? The omnibar isn't curtailing competition. It's a convenience feature, and you can set it to use any search engine you want.
Hell, Apple does the exact same thing with their search bar in iOS7 Safari. Double hell, all iDevices link to Apple's own apps by default. Are they a monopoly?
And once again, something having the dominant market position/being popular isn't the sole indicator of a monopoly. The one reason why everyone uses Google is because everyone uses Google. Not because they're forced into using it.
You can't punish a company for its own success. Only when it uses that success as a means to curtail competition, which, as far as I know, Google isn't doing. Bing and Yahoo are alternatives you can use at any time.
Antitrust suit or no, Bill Gates left at the height of his popularity, when Microsoft was still at its absolute strongest. He hardly needed to start a charity to save face in the public eye. In fact, since leaving MS, we've heard far less from Gates than we did during his tenure. You'll see something about him pop up every once in awhile, but that's about it.
And give credit where credit is due. Bill Gates was largely responsible for the computer revolution being such a huge success. Pretty good for a guy who "just wanted to get rich".
Yeah, screw vaccinations. Apple's spaceship campus is far more important than a bunch of kids I'll never meet.
...right. I'm failing to see how this somehow puts Steve Jobs in a positive light.
And no, I'm not saying the new spaceship campus is some idol of avarice or whatever. Apple made a ridiculous amount of money off a number of great products, and they deserve their nice, new building. But I'm also not going to hold it up as an example of some ideal of morality or whatever.
Either/or would be pretty ridiculous.
Okay, in case you failed to read what I said above, Microsoft no longer has anything even remotely resembling a monopoly. They still have a strong enterprise presence, but the consumer market is split pretty well among Apple, Google, and MS these days. With so much competition from so many strong players, it's impossible for anyone to gain a monopoly in the consumer electronics market.
Because remember, having a dominant market position isn't the sole indicator of a monopoly.
Repeat that again.
Having a dominant market position isn't the sole indicator of a monopoly.
You could have 99.9% of a market, and it still wouldn't be a monopoly, so long as there is at least the potential that a competitor could thrive. Like everyone uses Facebook, but the mere existence of Google+, Twitter, and the thousands of other not nearly as popular social networking sites keep it from being a monopoly, because they all represent an equal alternative anyone could use in lieu of Facebook at any time.
What? The omnibar isn't curtailing competition. It's a convenience feature, and you can set it to use any search engine you want.
Hell, Apple does the exact same thing with their search bar in iOS7 Safari. Double hell, all iDevices link to Apple's own apps by default. Are they a monopoly?
And once again, something having the dominant market position/being popular isn't the sole indicator of a monopoly. The one reason why everyone uses Google is because everyone uses Google. Not because they're forced into using it.
You can't punish a company for its own success. Only when it uses that success as a means to curtail competition, which, as far as I know, Google isn't doing. Bing and Yahoo are alternatives you can use at any time.
Last edited:
If you give me a chance, I'm also heating on Apple for iOS 7.
Good luck using monopolistic practices when you aren't a monopoly. I can see IBM going to computer shops, offering them a lower license fee for OS/2 but it must be paid for all computers, whether OS/2 is installed or not. Executing monopolistic practices only works when you have a monopoly.
And therefore it NEVER was. So there we have our higher authority with its definite answers.
When all other options become so poor, that they aren't really alternatives, than the market is down to one unavoidable supplier again.
The iPod market share over the years has been between 70 and 95%. When you wanted to sell digital music, iTunes was the only way. You had to agree to Apples 99-cents per song maximum or you were nearly out of business. Only later alternatives from Amazon and Google became viable, because of millions of Android devices capable of playing music. But after iTunes and before Android it was a monopoly.
Apple Maps isn't selling any advertisement, so it's not an attack on Googles revenue. All it does is turning a monopoly into a duopoly, so that Google withholding features from its app, doesn't mean they disappear from the iOS platform completely. Also the default search engine on iOS is still Google, despite Steve declared to go „thermonuclear war on this“ perceived theft of Android. So as much as I want to bash Apple, they have been nothing but nice to Google.
First, I've never argued evil only success. Google failed in its attempt to become hardware independent through acquiring Motorola. Trying it wasn't evil. Secondly, Google has given itself the slogan "don't be evil" to be remembered to never become like Microsoft. So who's bringing ethics into business? Thirdly, where is Apple forcing Google or Microsoft off their devices? Apple couldn't be happier to have Microsoft Office and Google Maps on their platforms as one of multiple options. They only learned the hard way, that it is inadvisable to become dependent on software and services provided by two competitors, who each have copied one of Apples operating systems. And Fourth, stop equalizing monopolies with evil. One is a state the other is an attitude. No reason to mix them up.
Have you been reduced to posting random blog links from writers who think this is good for Google, or was there a salient point you were hoping to make?
People, this is what an ad hominem fallacy actually looks like. Notice how he doesn't debate the argument contained within the article, rather he dismisses the entire thing based upon the source of the article itself.
Basically, John, you don't have a point, and you're arguing not because you believe you have an informed position that needs defending, but because you don't want to be wrong.
This doesn't surprise me. Motorola used to have good phones but not anymore and Lenovo computers are crap 3 computers at work none of them work correctly. So Motorola is definately on my list of never to buy again.
Not true, their android phones and tablets are awful. IN contrast many would argue the Moto X is the best executed android phone of 2013.
Maybe. Admittedly, I don't know much about their phones and tablets. Their computers are pretty good from what I hear, though.
All righty then, hate really oozes from you...
Just offering a different viewpoint than your own narrow one that is apparently undebatable.
Do you work for Google now?
Always have! If you work for Samsung, you automatically subcontract for Google.
And you know what that means, right? Two paychecks and free all you can eat at the Pizza Hut pasta bar!
Always have! If you work for Samsung, you automatically subcontract for Google.
And you know what that means, right? Two paychecks and free all you can eat at the Pizza Hut pasta bar!
Samsung never told me that when I got hired and I still only get one paycheck. Wait till I talk to the B.O.S.S. in the morning. I'm gonna ask him why you get two checks and I only get one.
Your post is largely speculation as you dont know the vast mayority of deals, why they did it, what revenue it generated / might generate,...
And its a simple fact that even wih what you summed up, google stock is outperforming apple's several times.
----------
The only joke is that you think to know all those patents and what they are worth not just now but the revenue they might generate from now.
No it doesnt perhaps you should actually read those aricles?
But feel free to be as ignorant as you wish.