Well, maybe the apps listed there could actually just be the running or suspended apps, not "every app even those aren't even running anymore since the last time this list was cleaned".
I don't need a single row of my entire application list.
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 'Supercharging Android' With Acquisition of Motorola Mobility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, maybe the apps listed there could actually just be the running or suspended apps, not "every app even those aren't even running anymore since the last time this list was cleaned".
I don't need a single row of my entire application list.
wow, can you imagine all those Motorola devices that will now have the ability to be purely Google branded?
Your cable modem (I'm currently using a SB6120 modem)
Your TV cable set top box (Comcast uses motorola boxes for their customers)
Your Smartphone (Droid series, and more)
Your Feature Phone
Your Router
Your Phone
and more
Motorola Mobility + Google = the perfect marriage.
This is a much better buy, then say, Zynga or LinkedIn IPO come Q1 2012
I don't think the modems, routers and set top boxes are made by Motorola Mobility?
Google should buy Comcast next.
Then the holy trifecta is complete
Hardware (motorola), Software (android), Content (comcast)!!!!!!!
Yes, modems, routers all part of Motorola Mobility
Then the holy trifecta is complete
Hardware (motorola), Software (android), Content (comcast)!!!!!!!
Yes, modems, routers all part of Motorola Mobility
Last edited:
Motorola's customers for set top boxes are primarily the cable companies. I assure you, none of them want Google anywhere near their stuff.
You're short sighted. Google's core moneymaking business is advertising, but they have always been a software company. Instead of following the "traditional" business model of selling software to customers they have decided to:
1. Charge businesses only (for the most part)
2. Give a lot of the software away for free to consumers and make more money in the long run by pushing ads to them. They also collect demographic/usage/behavioral information which makes the ad space they sell more valuable.
Apple made computers, but they have halfway-morphed into an electronics company. The only reason that Apple still writes software is because that is what is necessary to add value to their products and try to lock in their customer base. Don't forget that Macs now use PC hardware. There is very little difference between the components on a MacAir or a high end Lenovo X-series notebook.
What you have are two large companies that are starting to compete in the same market having come at it from opposite ends.
Apple was in the hardware business first, and got into software in order to sell their devices.
Google was in the software business first, and is getting into hardware in order to keep distributing their software.
In terms of market dominance, Apple has nowhere the hegemony that Google has put together. Electronic devices are great, and the iPhone is a clever device.... but 2 years from now, no retailer will be able to sell an iphone 4 to a consumer because technology will have progressed. Just compare how many people still use their iPhone 2G from 2007 to how many people are still using Google search, Gmail, and Google maps that they have had for 5+ years.
Basically, you shouldn't expect Google to act like Apple. Different companies, different culture, different goals. Google is aiming at being the default/defacto service portal to the interwebs, no matter what type of device you use. Apple is trying to sell you as many gadgets as you can and get you to purchase service subscriptions.
Apple has made headway compared to their low point in the late 90's, but it is a business model that has limits. They have to sell you a physical good before they can take your money, and despite all the window dressing... hardware tends to be expensive and their software tends to be restrictive. Every device that Apple makes is made by someone else who does it better (except maybe for the iPad, at the moment).
On the other hand, Google doesn't have to sell you anything. You sign up for their free services and they automatically make money off of you. Google 'succeeds' by having a presence in every market they can. This is why they come out with competitors for Twitter (google Buzz), facebook (google plus), iOS (android), hotmail (gmail), etc etc etc.
Apple has started to realize this. This is why mobileme is becoming icloud and why Apple is rolling out free iOS messaging and trying to develop their own map program/service.
Its kind of funny.... instead of offering equivalent functionality, Apple offers a 'sense of identity' and charges you money for the privilege. It is EXACTLY like being in a cult and many Apple fanatics are completely incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
I use Android and Google services and I have NEVER given Google, Inc. a penny of my money. Kind of puts things in perspective, eh?
So yes, cheer for Apple having a huge stock price and a massive profit margin. After all, that is *your* money making that happen. LOL
I think the most profitable move for Google plays out like this....
1) first you turn the customers for all the major handset competitors into Android customers and commoditize the mobile phone industry.
2) you acquire one of the manufacturers
3) you squeeze the existing manufacturers out of the market with licensing terms that heavily favor google (including closing the source code)
4) you claim all those mobile phone customers for yourself since you become the one-stop shop for the best Android phones
The only problem with this plan is that it depends on Android-loyalty. Surveys indicate that customer satisfaction with Android may not be high enough to pull all the Android customers under one roof. The other problem is that this would have to be executed in baby steps (i.e. Squeezing out the competitors) in order to avoid tripping alarms with the FTC.
if Google executes a plan to centralize Android manufacturing in-house, I think they will have the opportunity to vastly improve the Android experience through more control.
The other problem with all of this is that Google would be accused of hypocrisy, but they have dealt with that already.
EDIT: I'm still speculating here and trying to figure out the non-patent angle on this since Moto's patents have so far done nothing to trigger a decent cross-license with Microsoft.
1) first you turn the customers for all the major handset competitors into Android customers and commoditize the mobile phone industry.
2) you acquire one of the manufacturers
3) you squeeze the existing manufacturers out of the market with licensing terms that heavily favor google (including closing the source code)
4) you claim all those mobile phone customers for yourself since you become the one-stop shop for the best Android phones
The only problem with this plan is that it depends on Android-loyalty. Surveys indicate that customer satisfaction with Android may not be high enough to pull all the Android customers under one roof. The other problem is that this would have to be executed in baby steps (i.e. Squeezing out the competitors) in order to avoid tripping alarms with the FTC.
if Google executes a plan to centralize Android manufacturing in-house, I think they will have the opportunity to vastly improve the Android experience through more control.
The other problem with all of this is that Google would be accused of hypocrisy, but they have dealt with that already.
EDIT: I'm still speculating here and trying to figure out the non-patent angle on this since Moto's patents have so far done nothing to trigger a decent cross-license with Microsoft.
I really shouldn't respond to this because you tried to compare apple to a cult, which pretty much invalidates anything else you have to say but whatever, I'm bored.
How are you comparing the iPhone to Gmail, Google Maps, and Google search? Of course more people are going to use those then an iPhone from 2007...that's a silly comparison.
Believe it or not, money is what every company wants, even if you've somehow convinced yourself that Google just wants harmony or something.
Secondly, good products sell. If the extent of your argument is essentially "LOL" @ capitalism, then yeah I guess you have a point...
The truth is, Apple is doing what they do and they're doing it better then anyone else out there. To downplay that is just
Google does what they do as well, and they do it well also. Marketshare is the only metric where Google leads, and that's because they flood the market. Apple is far more successful then Google, and the only people who would argue otherwise are those who say "LOL" because Apple charges for what they make...
These could occur IF that was Google's #1 objective in this deal, which from everything I've seen so far, it doesn't appear to be. So far, it seems as if the immediate goal driving this purchase was accessing Motorola's patents. It's a really, really large patent portfolio, and (upon completion of the deal) instantly allows Google to bulwark Android against continued attacks (I'm guessing mostly via simply cross-licensing of patents).
The other important aspect is that it allows Google to produce hardware running a non-customized variant of Android, and thus allow for greater stability for those purchasing a Motorola-branded (Google) Android device. I don't see Google preventing other manufacturers though from offering their own modified variants of Android. It'll simply come down to either going with one of Google's devices and getting the "pure" Android experience, or going with another manufacturer if that company's style more closely suits what someone wants.
People here are approaching how Google will handle other manufacturers from a very Apple-centric perspective (i.e. Apple purchases a company for software/technology/etc., discontinues it and only offers it as an Apple service/device), but Google and Apple are two very different companies...
Lol Google Baby Monitors
And is MotoNav popular? If so that a huge win for Google Maps/Navigation.
However what are the major arguments against android? Fractionation, speed (or lack completely) of upgrades, and all the skins. Android can now do something about that. I think for starters the Motorola skin will be gone. Then when new versions of Android come out you can expect Motorolo phones to get them quickly and often. Those two items alone will make Moto Android phones more appealing to customers. If they become more popular for users then developers will write more toward the Motorolo phones.
There does not have to be an overt bias directly toward Motorolo android phones for them to become the "de facto" Android phones. All is takes is for Google to demand (which they will) that Motorolo do Android "right". They now have a company where they can dictate how Android is implemented so I will be shocked if they does not mean it will be a better Android experience for consumers.
Not likely. They're already in bed with Nokia, and Nokia definitely makes nicer hardware. I can see that acquisition happening soon.
No big loss. While WP7 is actually a nice platform, the ecosystem is just not there, and frankly that's what's needed for a successful phone platform.
Maybe you should read the article a bit more carefully. And since you believe that this is a made up story maybe you should check techcrunch as well?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/ap...unction-was-seriously-misleading-as-in-false/
And before you claim that techcrunch is also talking bull go to the original source http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107599/apple-levert-onjuist-bewijs-in-zaak-tegen-samsung.html
Last edited:
Bravo! Your list happens to match mine! Looks like you can be objective! Who else wants to join in?
1.) inability to print to any printing device
2.) iOS Task Manager
3.) the way the auto-correct functions - this drives people nuts!
4.) the lack of live information (via widgets or anything else) on the home screen or lock screens
5.) inability to navigate a central point for local storage
Now, having just used two different Android phone for two weeks...
1.) Everything is unnecessarily complicated
2.) Apps look unrefined - largely due to the system typeface, different size screens, etc.
3.) Unwanted apps, stores, etc. from the device maker and phone network
4.) no iTunes Store
5.) Inconsistency in how things work from one device to another.
6.) Having to run everything through a Google account to make the phone do basic functions made me feel uneasy.
7.) Inability to print to any device.
Bottom line, if I was going from a BlackBerry or standard mobile phone to Android, I'd be thrilled with it. Going from an iPhone to Android, though, seemed like a step down.
Sheesh. What have Nokia and Microsoft done recently in the mobile field? Nokia WAS dominant and squandered its position; MS has never been dominant in mobile and despite having cash and stamina seems unlikely to ever dominate mobile--because they are playing catch-up to Android and Apple.
I have zero idea where you get the idea I believe Apple has ever patented "magic." What Apple has been able to do is to create entire new eco-systems and then dominate them. And yes, MS did that with Windows and Office, but those are past tense--and given their continuing erosion I'm not sure how you think a Nokia-MS partnership is any kind of behemoth in waiting.
The Nokia-MS partnership reminds me of Sears and K-Mart merging--two former companies that dominated their respective markets and then got annihilated by the newer kids on the block as newer markets developed.
And I have no problem with that, because...she's Megan Fox.
wow, can you imagine all those Motorola devices that will now have the ability to be purely Google branded?
Your cable modem (I'm currently using a SB6120 modem)
Your TV cable set top box (Comcast uses motorola boxes for their customers)
Your Smartphone (Droid series, and more)
Your Feature Phone
Your Router
Your Phone
and more
Motorola Mobility + Google = the perfect marriage.
This is a much better buy, then say, Zynga or LinkedIn IPO come Q1 2012
I don't think Google bought all of that. They only bought Motorola's cellular/mobile business. All the other gizmos and radio related items aren't part of "Motorola Mobility", are they? I think those fall under "Motorola Solutions."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
No I'm just brainstorming here because the patent angle seems like a red herring or diversion to me. I think there is more to this acquistion than Google is letting on (nor do i think they should be revealing all their cards just yet).
Maybe Motorola's patent portfolio is strong enough to hold off Microsoft. I thought I had read that Motorola caved and agreed to license from Microsoft, but I cannot find that anywhere. So if they had not caved like HTC then that made them the best choice of acquisition as well.
If Motorola does have the best portfolio to withstand a lawsuit from Microsoft, then the patent angle might be the primary reason for the acquisition, but Google has turned on it's partners in the past so that move would not surprise me - in fact it could be brilliant if played correctly. Patents may be the primary reason, but Motorola Mobility is just another powerful trump card in Google's hand, and they have no problem playing their cards when they need to. There is quite a bit of room for Google to do more with this acquisition if the need should arise.
to me, the best Android site is XDA.. that is a great community of devs and users who help each other out.. whether it be a small issue or collectively creating a custom ROM, kernel, or UI. you rarely see anyone blindly praise silly things there. if anything.. people post constructive criticisms. having been a member of this forum for a while now.. i can see how ridiculous some of the "fanboyism" (hate this term) has become here.
What are they going to call the new subsidiary of Google?
Some of these come to mind:
Gotorola (Go Goto!)
G-Mobile
Gobility
Some of these come to mind:
Gotorola (Go Goto!)
G-Mobile
Gobility