Google Selling Motorola Mobility to Lenovo for $2.91 Billion

[Gudi]

And what minute? Not going to watch that full in german.

The minute is right there in the link. And the important parts are in English anyway.

Again what minute and what was said?

„I don't wanna disparage the sincerity of his dedication to the global health initiative, but the timing of that, was to a level motivated by a desire to makeover his own image.“

And are there android mayor brands that dont use google as the default search engine?

Of course not, remember Google has a monopoly. They can afford to bid much higher than everyone else. Yahoo and Microsoft would need to pay much more than they can regain. It is far better for Microsoft to use their desktop monopoly to grow in search, than overpaying a competitor. And Yahoo, they are about the only big technology company, which hasn't a monopoly in its core business. Therefor they gonna disappear.

MS tried to copy the desktop windows model and failed market share remained low then they tried the android model and failed again now they try to apple model.

You got the first part right, Microsoft tried the desktop model, being a software company providing the operation system only. This strategy failed only because Google has ruined prices by giving Android away for free. Now Microsoft is trying the Apple model, being an integrated hardware and software company, making the money on selling the whole device. Microsoft has not yet tried to copy the Google model, because Google makes absolutely no money with it.

Google's model is based on gathering info and selling that.

Google is not selling information! Google is a gatekeeper to the internet, they can redirect traffic streams and so they are selling customers coming to your website. The information just helps you to pick which kind of customers you want to buy. Bring me those web-surfers who are searching for "best way to spend 1 million dollar".

What I meant to say was that MS doesnt license like android, it sells , therefor the comparison is not correct.

There wasn't a comparison. Microsoft has never sold their software, they keep the ownership and license out a limited usage right. It's how all software companies have always worked. Bill Gates is the inventor of licensing out software, the difference is only under which conditions. This forum isn't suitable to teach you the subtile differences between different licenses.

 

[BaldiMac]

It hasnt grown a thousand fold. Apple didnt find it important at the time and google benefited.

Check your math. 82 million to $1 billion is only a 12x increase. And the number of iOS devices has increased by far more than that.

Doesnt really matter.

It does if we are talking about Google and not AOSP.

Growth is worldwide

Yes, but again, the report indicated that most of the growth was on devices that do not include Google services.

ANd its not really true:

http://bgr.com/2013/12/13/google-android-china-analysis/

"The Information reports that Android has become Google’s unofficial “backdoor” to Chinese consumers who are buying up low-cost handsets from small-name vendors such as Xiaomi and Coolpad. This has essentially opened up a new channel to Google services for hundreds of millions of Chinese smartphone and tablet owners, all without Google making any significant investments within the country.

Of course, not every Android handset sold in China comes preloaded with Google’s major revenue-driving applications so it’s no lock that the proliferation of Android devices is a de facto boon for Google. Even so, sources at Google tell The Information that “there will be more Android device owners using Google services such as Web search, Gmail and Google Maps in mainland China than in the U.S. within the next year or two,” which means that Google expects more than 100 million Chinese users to use Google services through their Android devices next year."

Not really true? That doesn't contradict what I said!

What I meant to say was that MS doesnt license like android, it sells , therefor the comparison is not correct .

Microsoft does actually license Windows Phone. The fact that they charge money is irrelevant. In fact, most Android licensees pay Microsoft to run Android anyway.

 

[kdarling]

In fact, most Android licensees pay Microsoft to run Android anyway.

Everyone has to pay Microsoft to use their patents, either by cash, or via cross-licensing (as Apple apparently does), or a combo.

For prime example, Microsoft charges a fee for Exchange ActiveSync compatibility.

Microsoft also has patents on things like showing a web page before the background image comes in, showing an image placeholder, displaying signal and battery levels in a statusbar, synchronizing schedules, and all sorts of semi-obvious stuff that smartphones use.

It's easier to pay than to fight all those patents, especially if you want to use ActiveSync and/or make a mobile phone.

 

[Max(IT)]

So you have no problem with Apple, an American company, manufacturing their phones outside of the USA?

Would you like to pay it 100$ more ?

 

[kdarling]

Would you like to pay it 100$ more ?

According to Motorola, it only cost them $4 more per device to assemble the Moto X in the USA.

Don't forget... such assembly places have been set up as free trade zones.

According to a report from Morgan Stanley, Google could pay more than $1 billion in 2014 to remain the default search engine on iOS. In 2009, Google paid only $82 million for the privilege.“ That's a 12-times increase!

2009 - 78 million iOS devices exist
2013 - 1 billion iOS devices exist

Assuming the analyst is correct, it seems like Google's payment to Apple has stayed a constant $1 per device per year. Of course, one could argue that a lot of those are no longer being used, so the price is actually going up. It would help if we knew how the analyst was calculating things.

 

[BaldiMac]

According to Motorola, it only cost them $4 more per device to assemble the Moto X in the USA.

Don't forget... such assembly places have been set up as free trade zones.



2009 - 78 million iOS devices exist
2013 - 1 billion iOS devices exist

Assuming the analyst is correct, it seems like Google's payment to Apple has stayed a constant $1 per device per year. Of course, one could argue that a lot of those are no longer being used, so the price is actually going up. It would help if we knew how the analyst was calculating things.

Around 700 million iOS devices had been sold by the end of 2013. And some percentage are no longer being used, of course.

(And the 2009 number depends of how many units of the iPod touch had been sold. 42 million iPhones were sold by the end of 2009.)

 

[Dave.UK]

Would you like to pay it 100$ more ?

Where did you get your figure of $100?

$2 - $3 quoted here -

http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/31/iphone-manufacturing-graphic/

 

[BaldiMac]

Where did you get your figure of $100?

$2 - $3 quoted here -

Image
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/31/iphone-manufacturing-graphic/

I'm guessing that the retail price difference would be closer to $100 than $2-3. I'd love to see how they came up with that number!

The infographic that number came from even points out the difficulty of raising a workforce that size on a seasonal basis in the US. Heck, I'd think taxes alone would have a much greater impact on the price of an iPhone.

 

[John.B]

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.

Oh, you're still around.

No, I challenged that you didn't bother to make a point. You posted a link to some blog and assumed that would make the point for you. We don't know what part of the writer's arguments you agree with, or if you agree with all of it. Next time, quote the salient point that you're trying to draw attention to.

 

[John.B]

got any evidence that those handful of patents were the "holy grail" . Motorola were suing before google even bought them.
Im sure out of 17000 these are not the crown jewels given that motorola were involved in the invention of the mobile phone

Yes. By virtue of the facts that:

1) These were the initial patent lawsuits Motorola chose to bring against Microsoft.
2) Motorola asked for $4 billion per year from Microsoft in damages.

 

[kdarling]

The infographic that number came from even points out the difficulty of raising a workforce that size on a seasonal basis in the US. Heck, I'd think taxes alone would have a much greater impact on the price of an iPhone.

First off, I think a lot of work in the USA could/would be put on robots instead of using 100 people in each of dozens of error-prone manual labor lines. No need to build employee barracks. Fewer parking spaces needed. Hundreds fewer managers needed.

That cuts down on social security taxes, etc. There are no customs duties because these factories are free trade zones, and most towns give huge tax breaks to attract the business.

As for the seasonal workforce ramp up... which America has with migrant farm workers... that's only necessary because Apple tied itself into only one major model introduction a year. Move the robots and workers between iPhones and iPads, plus perhaps even Macs, and the manufacturing loads even out better.

 

[Renzatic]

Oh, you're still around.

No, I challenged that you didn't bother to make a point. You posted a link to some blog and assumed that would make the point for you. We don't know what part of the writer's arguments you agree with, or if you agree with all of it. Next time, quote the salient point that you're trying to draw attention to.

He doesn't need to point out one specific passage because the entire blog post contradicts everything you've stated previously about the whole Google/Motorola hoolabaloo. He's provided evidence and editorials from (apparently) informed sources to back up his claims. This is something you haven't done. The only thing you've added to the discussion are blanket denials and stupid excuses to avoid having to address anything that runs contrary to your seemingly baseless opinions. When you get called on it, you fall back on snarky derision and a condescending attitude in order to save what little face you have left.

You're not arguing your point. You're clinging to it.

 

[Oletros]

Yes. By virtue of the facts that:

1) These were the initial patent lawsuits Motorola chose to bring against Microsoft.
2) Motorola asked for $4 billion per year from Microsoft in damages.

1) ah, the first patents used are the crown jewels
2) ah, because Motorola asked 4 billion for a couple of patents it means that they are the crown jewels and all the other are useless

I like this logic, it doesn't have any sense but it's funny

 

[BaldiMac]

First off, I think a lot of work in the USA could/would be put on robots instead of using 100 people in each of dozens of error-prone manual labor lines. No need to build employee barracks. Fewer parking spaces needed. Hundreds fewer managers needed.

That cuts down on social security taxes, etc. There are no customs duties because these factories are free trade zones, and most towns give huge tax breaks to attract the business.

As for the seasonal workforce ramp up... which America has with migrant farm workers... ]that's only necessary because Apple tied itself into only one major model introduction a year. Move the robots and workers between iPhones and iPads, plus perhaps even Macs, and the manufacturing loads even out better.

I don't agree with anything here. iPad and iPhone spike at the same time each year and Macs would in no way balance out the other two. The rest of the stuff is imaginary robots and unsupported tax assumptions.

 

[John.B]

He doesn't need to point out one specific passage because the entire blog post contradicts everything you've stated previously about the whole Google/Motorola hoolabaloo. He's provided evidence and editorials from (apparently) informed sources to back up his claims. This is something you haven't done. The only thing you've added to the discussion are blanket denials and stupid excuses to avoid having to address anything that runs contrary to your seemingly baseless opinions. When you get called on it, you fall back on snarky derision and a condescending attitude in order to save what little face you have left.

You're not arguing your point. You're clinging to it.

The entire blog post states the writer's opinion which, yes, contradicts my own view.

----------

1) ah, the first patents used are the crown jewels
2) ah, because Motorola asked 4 billion for a couple of patents it means that they are the crown jewels and all the other are useless

I like this logic, it doesn't have any sense but it's funny

Show us what patent lawsuits Motogoogle brought of equal size or weight since getting their arses handed to them in their 802.11/H.264 lawsuit against Microsoft.

 

[kdarling]

I don't agree with anything here.

*chuckling* Thanks, I needed that this morning.

We wouldn't want to break our tradition of often disagreeing

iPad and iPhone spike at the same time each year and Macs would in no way balance out the other two.

The only reason Apple needs such a huge production ramp up is because they make changes at the last minute. Better design and production planning takes care of that.

They also have this double down secrecy desire, which hasn't worked out so well

The rest of the stuff is imaginary robots and unsupported tax assumptions.

Apple's already using robots to build the Mac in the USA. And they get tax breaks from the Texas cities.

 

[typeadam]

I love how everyone is suddenly a business and economics expert talking about billion dollar acquisitions as if they eat them daily for breakfast and how Apple "would never do that" as if they're in the boardroom...
Any business acquisition is with the intention of making money. I seriously doubt Google did this to screw over the shareholders or b/c they don't know what they're doing.
Not every business venture is a successful one. Besides we all know how Google is it's own Shiva - we've seen them do it w/ a lot of their own ideas and creations. Apple certainly doesn't hit the mark w/ 100% success, 100% of the time...

 

[BaldiMac]

*chuckling* Thanks, I needed that this morning.

We wouldn't want to break our tradition of often disagreeing

I like to think it's respectful disagreement.

The only reason Apple needs such a huge production ramp up is because they make changes at the last minute. Better design and production planning takes care of that.

The only reason? Sometimes the tech is just not ready yet. And there certainly is a spike in demand around launch and the holidays.

They also have this double down secrecy desire, which hasn't worked out so well

I've always taken that to mean within Apple. Most leaks have come from third parties, particularly manufacturing partners.

Apple's already using robots to build the Mac in the USA. And they get tax breaks from the Texas cities.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they could offset enough of the workforce to move iPhone production to the USA. If robots were able to be created in the time frames they needed to do the manufacturing in a more cost effective manner, why wouldn't Apple be using them already?

And unspecified tax breaks compared to unspecified taxes lead to unspecific conclusions. I completely acknowledge that I don't have enough information to calculate the potential tax changes, That why I phrased it as speculation.

 

[kdarling]

I like to think it's respectful disagreement.

Yes sir, it is. Even if you're wrong most of the time.

If robots were able to be created in the time frames they needed to do the manufacturing in a more cost effective manner, why wouldn't Apple be using them already?

We know that Foxconn's parent is buying millions of robots, and wants to replace much of their workforce with them.

In Apple's case, there might be some manufacturing steps that require extra finger-like agility, and robots are just coming online to do such tasks.

So I think it's definitely coming, and that's why Cook sees an opportunity to bring production back closer to home where he can control it better. I doubt he was happy with the millions of iPhones that had to be returned because they came from the factory with scratches and gouges in the aluminum and coating.

 

[BaldiMac]

We know that Foxconn's parent is buying millions of robots, and wants to replace much of their workforce with them.

In Apple's case, there might be some manufacturing steps that require extra finger-like agility, and robots are just coming online to do such tasks.

So I think it's definitely coming, and that's why Cook sees an opportunity to bring production back closer to home where he can control it better. I doubt he was happy with the millions of iPhones that had to be returned because they came from the factory with scratches and gouges in the aluminum and coating.

I can agree with that (sorry! ) if you are talking about some unspecified point in the future. I was looking at it more from the "Why haven't they done it already?" perspective.

I don't think the iPhone 5S could have been manufactured in the US for a $2-3 retail price difference.

 

[kdarling]

I don't think the iPhone 5S could have been manufactured in the US for a $2-3 retail price difference.

Ah, I understand and agree that it's not possible yet.

I do believe that overseas labor costs (and re-do costs) are rising, so robots are looking better and better.

 

[Max(IT)]

If you really believe that an iPhone 5s manufactured in USA would really costs only 5$ more, well, I think you are a little bit delusional ...

Maybe it isn't 100$ more, but more likely 50-60$ and it's already too much.

 

[Wicked1]

Problem is Google kept certain patents, so not sure what is left of Motorola is going to do Lenovo any good. I see Motorola dying out after maybe 1-2 years, only popular on Verizon and with Apple and Samsung being major players looks like HTC, Motorola, BB, and some others can be in a life support situation in 1-3 years if not sooner.

 

[k995]

Check your math. 82 million to $1 billion is only a 12x increase. And the number of iOS devices has increased by far more than that.

They atually pay per device and the price keeps going up.

It does if we are talking about Google and not AOSP.
Yes, but again, the report indicated that most of the growth was on devices that do not include Google services.
Not really true? That doesn't contradict what I said!

Yes it does, my statement was google is growing, wether it be faster or slower(if you dont count those you think dont have google services) your comment doesnt make much sense, growth is growth .And the if ios shrinks at the same time, ios gets less important .

----------

The minute is right there in the link. And the important parts are in English anyway.

Watched the full part and its something about jihad in a mail. Nothing related to what you claim.

„I don't wanna disparage the sincerity of his dedication to the global health initiative, but the timing of that, was to a level motivated by a desire to makeover his own image.“

I dont see that here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k_NcVpADgM&t=36m40s

And the tense its written in its clear its not from gates himelf, so who is saying this?

Of course not, remember Google has a monopoly.

They dont have a monopoly, again you dont understand that word. Bidden higerh doesnt give you a monopoly .

Google is not selling information! Google is a gatekeeper to the internet, they can redirect traffic streams and so they are selling customers coming to your website. The information just helps you to pick which kind of customers you want to buy. Bring me those web-surfers who are searching for "best way to spend 1 million dollar".

BS, google cant do any of that, it offers info to his customers on you. Nothing more.

There wasn't a comparison. Microsoft has never sold their software, they keep the ownership and license out a limited usage right. It's how all software companies have always worked. Bill Gates is the inventor of licensing out software, the difference is only under which conditions. This forum isn't suitable to teach you the subtile differences between different licenses.

http://www.geek.com/mobile/windows-phone-licensing-cost-revealed-by-zte-23-30-1460401/

Android doesnt sell

http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html



And again the point was that MS and google are different, everything you say just enforces that. Your original point about nokia thus doesnt make any sense.

 

[BaldiMac]

They atually pay per device and the price keeps going up.

Maybe. Do you have a source for that claim?

Yes it does, my statement was google is growing, wether it be faster or slower(if you dont count those you think dont have google services) your comment doesnt make much sense, growth is growth .And the if ios shrinks at the same time, ios gets less important .

No, your statement that I originally responded to was that "Every point android grows ios get less and less important for google." I was simply pointing out that much of those points of growth for Android did not necessarily benefit Google at all.

----------

They dont have a monopoly, again you dont understand that word. Bidden higerh doesnt give you a monopoly .

Google would easily qualify as a monopoly under antitrust law in the search business. They have maintained 65-70% share for years. That would certainly be considered "significant and durable market power."

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/comp...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Nothing wrong with that, of course.