Slashdot Mirror
Google To Acquire Motorola Mobility For $12.5 Bill
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.
Or did shit just get real? :-)
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!
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.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
$12B is cheaper then an ongoing battle over patents and maybe losing out to Windows Mobile. Also they have a better case in court and developers no longer have to worry about Droid users because there will probably be none in the foreseeable future.
This is Google using their power for GOOD, although it mostly benefits just them.
Droids are pretty good devices with keyboards... so maybe google is looking at Motorola for a proper Chromebook device to compete against something like the MacBook Air. (along with Xooms vs. iPads)
Hopefully this will allow them to give Apple a good slap
Companies like Google don't know where to stash their money nowadays anyway. With stock prices as depressed as they are, no better moment than now...
http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/
Most seem happy enough.
What does this mean for Android ? Google is now a direct competitor of all manufacturers selling Android phones.
And google is the one who gets to seen all the customer information via their Android store.
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.
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.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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...
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
...and more about building Google's patent portfolio so as to prevent the same kind of suits being levelled against them as Apple is currently levelling against Samsung for its Android based tablets.
Lawsuits like apple's, per device patent indemnification like microsoft are gonna be more fun (at least for google)... and average joe developer.
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
I have never heard of a twelve and a half dollar bill
So now that Google has all of Motorola's patents on 2G,3G,4G, (the hardware side) and apple has all those patents on user interface (software side), are we going to be seeing an epic east Texas showdown that results in every new smartphone requiring TWO huge additional licensing fees getting passed on to the consumer?
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, 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.
Are they buying just Motorola's cell phone division or does it also include Netopia (they make DSL/Cable modems).
I have to admit that this was Google's best option going forward, and it was clear that Motorola was twisting their arm to do this when they were making threats to go patent trolling other Android makers. Now, there are some obvious questions we should be asking: will they take their patents and get rid of the rest, or will they actually compete with the other Android handset makers? Will they use the patents to defend just themselves, or will they also defend other Android players? Any chance they'll go on the offensive and counter-sue Microsoft?
Before you start going crazy thinking about how great it'll be that Google owns Moto Mobility, remember that Google wants to snoop in on everything you do, everything you say, and everything on your phone so they can sell ads. They don't care about ecosystem, they don't care about fragmentation, they don't care about YOU. They want you to generate ads.
Android is nothing but a giant trojan horse. It is evil. It should be antithetical to everything Google claims to be("Don't be evil.").
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Let me guess--if they don't like your name on google+, your phone stops working?
Oh wait.
As a Google shareholder, I'm cautiously optimistic about this deal. On the one hand, Google has shown little ability to handle this sort of business (really, any sort of business involving real customers). But on the other, if they manage it correctly (and keeping it a separately-run company is a good start), it could be a massive gain for both companies and Android in general. If they can successfully tie-in the software & hardware, as Apple does (even half as good as Apple does), they'll be very profitable. And, while the other Android manufacturers might be hesitant in the wake of this, Android still seems like their best bet (at least now they know Google is quite serious about it).
And long term, one can see all the cogs slowly turning, bringing the pieces together . . . Google's core + Google Voice + ultrahighspeed fiber tests + GMoto = some really serious competition to the telcoms.
Either way though, it's better than them just sitting on 30B in cash . . .
We all know this is about the patents. But as Motorola Mobility is not Motorola Solutions, I'm curious to see what patents they actually got or if there are still a lot with the company Motorola Solutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola
Monopoly. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
Of course companies are free to expand how they like. However, they cannot make deals with manufacturers that force competitors out or unfairly leverage their position in another market to another. Apple hasn't done that, Google has, and Microsoft did so in the past.
Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
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!
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
And here I was wondering what exactly a $12.5 bill looked like. Or if it was a custom bill printed just for this transaction, with someone from Google instead of a U.S. President.
Now Google will be Six Sigmed by newly acquired Motorola execs and will fail hard.
Or you could learn what the word 'Monopoly' means and stop embarrassing yourself.
The Nortel patents were 4.5b, this purchase is 12.5b!
This is NOT just about patents.
Some of the comments above about Motorola being leading Android developer, Google maybe wanting to provide more open phones of their own, and so on; along with the patent portfolio defensive strategy MAY make sense.
Motorola made android popular again just when everyone thought it was a complete failure. Heck everyone throught motorola was a complete failure after android. This is a good match.
Here's looking at you going all the way down the drain.
Who says Google wasn't willing to make a deal? I think it was just the M$-centeredness of Stephen Elop that prevented a deal.
Good luck with WP7.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
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.
They couldn't bid the inverse conductance quantum constant??
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.
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.
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.
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 others).
This doesn't mean Android is a bad idea, but this is just a side effect. Everything Google does can be explained by creating more and maintaining old ways of beaming ads at you.
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.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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).
Are you kidding? This administration is all about big corporatism and special interests. Whatever makes gobs of money for the re-election campaign..
google stocks will rise again, and again, and again
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.
"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 )
Given that Google's number of patents was previously estimated to be around 700 something, this is a huge step up in the patent war - or a way to end it.
Motorola Mobile also invested in a lot of interesting startup companies. One of them was Danger, which MS bought and then lost its founders to Google, where they came to lead its Android project -- it is a small world. I wonder if Google will pick up those investments as well.
Another interesting twist is that this means that Google is now suddenly throw into a lawsuit with Apple. Hopefully some of these lawsuits will now be settled with cross-licensing without costing the consumer any more.
Microsoft gets Anti-Trust applied for bundling FREE IE with Operating system and gaining market share.
Google gives away Mobile phone OS for free. Gets Market Share...
Google gives away google+, gmail, google docs, etc etce for FREE and.... Gets Market Share.
Google doesn't expose full Youtube API to others, only them selves.
Google doesn't allow phone vendors to dual boot other OSs
Google scans books without asking the authors permission.
etc etc etc
Its time google got some Anti-Trust investigation...
Similarly.. Apple..
Apple should be forced to allow Flash/Silverlight/VLC Player and 3rd party browsers.
Imagine if Microsoft has such restrictions...????
They bought the handset business, not the other, older parts of Motorola. I'm just saying.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/08/13/036203/Motorola-To-Collect-Royalties-For-Android
Considering that Google didn't just wake up and said "I think that I will buy Motorola today", this article now makes perfect sense. I suspect that Google will be even more closed about Android since they are now an OEM.
I'm wondering how HTC is feeling now, after paying for those undisclosed patents to Microsoft?
I'm sure that, by some strange logic, having another entrant into the wireless market would raise grave antitrust concerns, bring down the terrifying Exaflood apocalypse, and probably destroy access for poor and rural Americans(have I covered all the FCC/FTC pleading points?) in a way that, say, letting AT&T acquire T-Mobile would not...
I for one wonder how AAPL has avoided anti-trust litigation after extending an iPod monopoly into an iTMS monopoly into an iPhone monopoly and now working on an App store monopoly. Guess who IS being investigated for anti-trust... Google. Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this picture??
Nothing to see here...keep moving.
You must be one of those impressionable retards that scream OPEN at anything not GPL and and cant stand to see successful proprietary companies.
This may be hard, but you might want to learn to starting thinking for yourself.
No one plays Apple's game better than Apple. When iPhone 5 and iPhone Lite come out in a few months...game over man! game over!
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/15/google_ceo_anticompetitive_apple_microsoft_forced_motorola_deal.html
25,000 patents. Do you think they're going to be used defensively to hold off lawsuits? For $12.5 billion, I doubt it - they have to make that money back somehow. Therefor, the next question is "is the Slashdot crowd going to continue supporting Google once they start flexing their new patent portfolio muscle?"
Google's bought tons of unused fiber, maybe that's part of what it's for? There's also nothing stopping them from leasing capacity from an existing network as various mobile carriers already do.
If Google were to buy a carrier they might want to look at Sprint. It would be the cheapest and already has a pretty fast and broad network. Not quite the coverage of Verizon or AT&T but they could work on that. Not like Sprint is doing so hot right now anyway. Google could get them for a steal. (They would have to deal with the iDEN Nextel network, though, and nobody seems to want that.)
Check out my world simulator thingy.
One can only hope!
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The US DOD is studying using smart phones for troop communications. Having all the smart phones produced in China makes ZERO sense. Instead, Google can approach DOD and cut a deal that they will bring back manufacturing to the USA if DOD will buy their phones. WIth that approach, and throwing in automation, Google can have 10% of their phones being bought by the DOD. That lowers prices a great deal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Moto - Andorid, Sammy - Bada, HP - WebOS Nokia - WP7( I think MS may Buy Nokia), Apple - IOS BB - BB OS This is going to be interesting. What happens to companies like HTC and like who do not have any OS that is closely associated with them? Also the way BB is going. It could be a major acquisition target. Will HTC go for it. or will MS consume it for the sake of getting some more patents
Why? The OS if free. Opening up the phones will only sell more hardware... something a hardware company should be doing.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
This came out of nowhere.
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.
Google bailing out Bank of America!
New Economic Perspectives
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.
I for one wonder how AAPL has avoided anti-trust litigation
That is explicitly because Microsoft has been waving the antitrust flag at Google for about 2 years now. In Europe and the US Microsoft gathered a group of their partners together and filed antitrust complaints against Google In Europe and USA.
Seems like quite a bargain.
...using the power of a monopoly in one market to extend into another
Isn't google doing such a thing by leveraging their ad and search revenue? Microsoft by leveraging office and windows?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I didn't even know that the US printed a 12 dollar 50 cents bill... Go figure...
OK, now I'm going to read the summary. Perhaps even the article itself, although I think rather not.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Of course companies are free to expand how they like. However, they cannot make deals with manufacturers that force competitors out or unfairly leverage their position in another market to another. Apple has done that.
There... fixed that for you.
BTW, I'm typing this from my brand new 2011 Macbook Air. I've been using Macs exclusively since the dark days of Gil Amelio. I'm an Apple developer. However, I am not going to delude myself. Apple hasn't been playing fair for a while now. I enjoyed watching Apple smash the RIAA into bits, but ever since the iPhone I've had no more love for Apple. I don't worship them blindly the way you people do. I have and will never own an iPhone as long as they keep it locked down and rape developers of 30% gross at the App store.
Android is freedom. iPhone is for consumer slaves. Go Google! Smash the F'in iPhone!
Does this mean those of us dumb enough to buy a Motorola phone will finally get an update to... ANYTHING?
(Un)proud owner of an XT720 that was abandoned by Motorola as "no software updates" one (1) month after buying it new. Stuck on 2.1 for no good reason.
Yes the bootloader is locked down hard.
Sam
Of course companies are free to expand how they like. However, they cannot make deals with manufacturers that force competitors out or unfairly leverage their position in another market to another. Apple hasn't done that, Google has, and Microsoft did so in the past.
Where have you been the last few years when Apple has engaged in one anti-competitive practice after another?
>>Apple's sales number suggest that Joe Public isn't clamoring for an unlocked bootloader
This -> http://fs02.androidpit.info/userfiles/689923/image/Motorola%20users%20want%20an%20unlocked%20bootloader.jpg
You say the public doesn't want it but I am pretty sure the public has just spoken, unless you believe only nerds are on facebook.
MotoDroid? DroidMoto? GoMoto? MotoGo? GogoMoto? Moto+?
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Now that is a comment!
It's sad to see our patent system has come to this. It's cheaper to buy out an entire company just for patent shield instead of fixing the system.
Samsung CEO, "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." :-)
And if you think Google holding back the source was bad (http://www.thisgreenmachine.com/?p=914), wait, it'll get worse.
Only time will tell. Android is already fracturing. Handset manufactures are not consistent. In six months we will probably have "Open Android" from another outfit.
I wouldn't really agree WP7 lacks polish, especially compared to the hackjob overlays that most manufacturers lock their Android users into. Mango is looking very, very nice and I'm seriously considering a Nokia WP7 phone next time around. (Disclaimer: I have an HTC phone running CM7, no bias here)
I've heard of 2 dollar bills, but 12.5? That's a new one. (and what a deal for Google!)
It's quite terrible, really.
The newest field of personal computing rapidly becoming a closed, user-hostile space with a slew of incompatible devices whose hardware and software are totally controlled by the vendor. It's Apple and Microsoft's dream come true: The fully controlled, fully DRM'd, user-does-what-we-say experience.
Motorola has a lot of wireless patents. Remember they are the people who invented the cell phone. I'm sure more than a few are fluff patents, but I'm also sure they've got some real, defensible, important, technical patents.
That being the case, Google may be able to set up a patent war situation: MS and Apple agree to stop being dicks and going after Android, or Google goes after them, and wins. More or less a patent cross licensing agreement. Google agrees MS and Apple have a license to all the patents they control, perhaps for no charge, but in return MS and Apple agree to license all their patents to anyone who makes an Android phone.
Google acquire Motorola so that Motorola does not sue them for patent infringement(s). It's been commented on a couple days ago.
http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2585760&postcount=13
we shoulda bought Moto stock then...
posted 8/8/11:
I had to do a double-take there. I thought you wanted Google to contribute its social networking patents to Android.
I'm sure the decision to acquire Motorola was made algorithmically.
Hey, how's it going?
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, it doesn't really make a difference.
Samsung would be selling just as many phones if Android were closed. It'd be one thing if you were claiming there were 3rd-party developer benefits to Android, or moral benefits, but I don't think there's any evidence that the openness, in this case, creates sales, at least compared to the classic Microsoft model of closed source with an aggressive and open licensing strategy. From a business perspective Google's relationship with HTC or Huawei and MS's relationship with a Dell is identical -- HTC still needs a license agreement and to partner with Google in order to distribute the "real" Android, they're still under an NDA, etc.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
this company sucks and should not be able to do shit(.)
Any indications Google will just take the IP and kill the hardware business?
By making hardware, they risk driving other hardware makers to Windows Mobile or (if eventually opened) HP WebOS.
Right now, Motorolla Mobile has no significant reputation among the non-geek public. And Motorolla Mobile isn't amazingly profitable. So why wouldn't they just take the IP and shut down the questionably-profitable hardware liability? For the Android ecosystem this may even be a good thing.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If google won the nortel patent auction this would not have happened. I wonder how all the companies that bid against google feel about that decision now.
On another note, I wonder if there will be a culture clash between google and motorola. I wouldn't be surprised to see google spin the hardware part of the business out again in a few years if the culture doesn't work (keeping the patents for themselves of course!)
Don't forget, Motorola Mobility is more than just phones, and those businesses align with other areas Google wants to develop. Including:
1. Cable modems and other home networking gear. Toss in a analog telephone adapter and a small software stack, and suddenly Google Voice competes against Vonage... except... they also have Android, so you start seeing unified communications for the home user.
2. All those white boxed cable TV boxes, who do you think makes stuff like that? Companies like Motorola. And, Motorola has IP video capabilities as well. Combine that with Google TV and other streaming services, and suddenly Google competes against Netflix... except, they also have Android, so you start seeing cloud-based video available for purchase and viewable on any device.
I think the real important thing for Google right now is to be Google - they need to rapidly integrate this company and then immediately try to do a hundred different things. Most of those things will fail, but Google isn't afraid to toss those projects aside and keep moving on. That's what differentiates them from everyone else. Along the way, they'll create a real winner, and perhaps completely by accident.
----- obSig
I pray that this is their AOL / Time Warner moment.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Whether Apple is a monopoly or not is neither here nor there. The question is: Do their actions rise to the level of being considered 'anti-competitive'? If so, does it then at the point that it should be regulated? While I'm sure being labelled a monopoly carries greater leeway in determining relief, being anti-competitive can be regulated too.
Beyond that, until this year, there was also the de-facto lock-in because of Apple's exclusivity on ATT. This has obviously eased somewhat now that iPhone is sold by Verizon (in the US at least which is where I assume this discussion is concerning), assuming you can take apps from your ATT iPhone and run them on your new replacement Verizon iPhone. That the cost of getting out of your ATT contract to move to another device/carrier was a barrier to market freedom was certainly something to consider for most of the life of the iPhone.
anyone notice that Google is paying TAU % over the stock price 6.283185307179586 http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_18684398 hwere it says "Google said it will pay $40 a share in cash for Motorola Mobility's stock, a premium 63 percent higher than the stock's closing value on Friday. Shares in Motorola Mobility were climbing on Monday"
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
M$ now has Nokia in hands and is in battle.
It'll be interesting to see how they can handle the Altrix. I imagine if they keep the platform, they will figure out a way to do something like android on the handset, chromebook when in the dock. With the right data plan/carrier, you've got built-in "tethering," as well. Dear Googlerola: Please don't put the fucking phone BEHIND the screen. Perhaps create a "dock" in the spot where most people put a touchpad and use the phone itself as the pointing device, or as a quicklaunch pad, etc.
I really hope this means more "vanilla", quickly upgraded Android phones. This is where most mfgs are dropping the ball and seem to be reliant on customers getting impatient and just buying a new handset.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
It occurs to me that Motorola Inc. owns the patent, not Motorola Mobility. In the purchase of Motorola Mobility, it's not clear what patents are included in the deal. I doubt Motorola just handed Google their entire patent portfolio. Did Motorola just trick Google into buying an empty bag?
Uh.
iPods played MP3 just fine. Also, iTMS files now play just fine on any given device that supports AAC, at the behest OF Apple.
Also, Apple not sharing the iTMS isn't monopolistic or unfair. Vendor lockin for consumers? Sure. Unfair from a device vendor stand point?
Hardly.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
Actually i saw articles speculating about Google buying out Motorola at least a couple days before that, and they were theorizing that Motorola's threats to sue other Android developers was an attempt to "motivate" Google to make/finalize the offer. "If you don't buy us out we'll &#$% up your #$%^, just sayin."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I remember thinking the same thing in the 80's, when Motorola sold off their television business. They have a history of finding the next big thing.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
Now, it is not very cynical to assume this is simply PR (CSS 2.1, anyone?), but IMHO they seem to be working towards interoperability when it comes to the Web; perhaps due to IE losing its overwhelming majority, perhaps due to the rise of mobile web, who knows. Whether their efforts are genuine is quite irrelevant really, as long as mobile devices have recent browsers, cross-platform development is possible* no matter how closed the platforms are**.
*) I'm aware HTML+CSS+JS isn't enough for some applications, but is surprisingly versatile nowadays; with some processing on the server pretty amazing things can be done.
**) Having said all this, a future with only completely closed platforms would be terrible personally, and I'm really not sure what my next phone will be when my N900 is retired. WP7 or iOS don't really appeal to me, and I already use an Android tablet, Google knows enough of me as it is. So what does that leave me? WebOS? ( I don't think there are any being sold here) Meego? (I already bought an N900, and don't want another) ...so what is there left? Suggestions are welcome.
Opening up the phones will only sell more hardware...
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
Theres really no logical reason 'opening up the hardware' will sell noticeably more phones than they are already selling. The number of people that will actually DO something that requires an 'OPEN' device is within the margin of error from a stastical perspective ... i.e. those people aren't even white noise.
Opening the hardware doesn't sell enough extra devices to deal with the side effects. There are other open forms of hardware for tinkerers to tinker with.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
For companies of this size it will take a year or two before we start seeing meaningful changes. It would be painful (and silly, imho) for Google to have Motorola can any WP7 products mid-stride. Google also has to be careful about not cannibalizing its Android business partners which it will awkwardly need to compete with...
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
I have a HTC WP7 device as well (the Arrive). I like it better than my Samsung Androids. The static page orientation all over the UI, that often requires flipping my phone between horizontal and vertical annoys me.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Its kind of an interesting approach. Open a system, distribute it for free, buy the company which made one of the best devices out of it. If google would be oracle the next step would be to cut down the distribution of the system or ask for money......
yeah we all know that won't happen if MS gets a hold of Nokia. not only will QT will locked away in a redmond basement but it will be utterly removed from existence with no knowledge that is ever existed. I would hope the buy out clause would be to not include QT stuff - and let it continue to be free.
Name a few?
Don't quote me on this.
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 patents than they do* and we have the cash to buy Motorola. We'll share hardware work with you, go at this as a partnership, and we'll build a wireless future together that will leave Apple and Microsoft in the dust. Let's play this as a non-zero sum game and take out the cause of our problems together."
This isn't Pepsico buying KFC and Pizza Hut, because Burger King and Pizza Hut were not collaborators. Giving the Motorola group preference against their partners would be suicidal.
* not planning on a political revolution - overthrowing the corrupt US Government would be the other way out - they're the enabling force behind the patent trolls
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What a waste of money for Microsoft to buy Skype (lol) for US$8.5 billion. When you consider that for another $3.5 billion they could have bought Motorola Mobility.
Either Skype was way way overvalued or Motorola is way way undervalued.
interesting how all the quotes say the same thing..."defending android and it's partners".
It's an incredibly clear message that it's the US Patent System that's crushing the market. In an era where the government needs to be doing all it can to encourage production, any government system that is crushing any morally legitimate market has no place.
No doubt Congress will do nothing about it but vie for the best seats to watch the Empire burn.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
“This is clearly a defensive deal, they were backed in a corner and they had to protect the Android platform.”
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
The simple and obvious fact is they have been leveraging their position as OS owner to squash the opposition with a series of increasingly petty and monopolistic acts. I except their next trick will be to gimp HTML because a number of apps are using HTML5 and local storage to provide the functionality they can't implement otherwise. I would not be surprised if suddenly HTML5 apps suffer a mysterious 2mb storage limit or similar.
Stop crying bitch.
You were dumb enough to try to spew your garbage and got smacked down.
Remember how Microsoft did when they bought Danger, the company that made the Sidekick? I think Nokia would like to remain the most widely sold phone in the world.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
You left out
Quote:
IMO it is far too early in the process to be making any sort of predictions because there are just too many moving parts.
Which was correct. This was a logical move for Google, but not an imminent one.
If you cast around the net, you'll find just about any possible future described in a prediction somewhere. Finding them after the fact doesn't make them any more likely.
THANK YOU!!!!
I got a job out of college at Moto in the cellular division back in 1993. I bought up some shares in their employee stock purchase plan. I left the company after about 5 years, I just wanted to broaden my experience. When I left, the stock had done a 3-1 split and was around 35 a share. Then the bottom fell out, it got down to about $4 at one point I think. Recently MOT split into MSI and MMI (mobility). Right about now, after the stock jumped after this announcement, I have just about broken even. Not bad for an 18 year investement.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Wasn't that a clause in the agreement when Nokia bought it in the first place? That if it ended up being locked away ,that it would revert to LGPL or BSD or something like that?
Right about now, after the stock jumped after this announcement, I have just about broken even. Not bad for an 18 year investement.
Breaking even after 18 years is an insanely awful investment.
Advice: on VPS providers
i am not sure about this - maybe someone can confirm the agreement and terms of the Nokia TrollTech buyout. It would be utterly repulsive if QT were to be at the hands of any company willing to shred it out of existence.
Um, Motorola Solutions is the government radio company, not Motorola Mobility.
Shouldn't buying in bulk net you a lower price? Who are these people who get these top jobs, and are obviously incompetent in their field?
Here you go. Paragraph 2
I agree :(
Max.
This will make them directly liable. I still understand they will keep it as a subsidiary to limit their liability but still.. they can lose 12.5 billion.
Another point is that now Google is a competitor against other handset makers. Shouldn't they be worried about using Android or Motorola getting unfair advantage? Also the carriers will be on them again about locking down Android although they are in a stronger position in not being a new hardware company. And the U.S. government will have greater leverage against them due to government contracts on phones and phone service.
I am wondering why they wouldn't just reassign the patents to themselves and sell off the company. They could license the patents back to Motorola without charge or maybe exchange for new patents or cross licensing with the ability to initiate lawsuits.
What I can easily see is Google spending a few billion dollars litigating over twenty years, suing everyone until the first few agree to cross licensing then proceeding with the rest, tying up the US court system with a handful of patents at a time against different companies, refusing to settle. Bogging down all patent cases in federal court to the point that the patent system becomes a hundred times the joke it already is. Force congress to enact reasonable new IP laws and have the companies they sue support them. Bury everyone with paperwork. They will probably invest in paper recycling and print shops near the law offices of everyone they sue just to show how green they are.
Note Moto has collided with Sun back in the day as well, so this purchase will qwell both Apple's and Oracle's lawsuits.
Problem is this purchase could spell the end of the OMA:
Google+Moto == MotoBlur2 == FORK
HTC == Sense SDK == FORK
Samsung == Touchwiz == FORK
Oracle == Some up their sleeve == FORK
All non smartphone vendors == FORK (Amazon Kindle v3?, Nook, radios, etc...)
All signs point to someone forking Android... It may as well be Google itself! Imagine Redhat, OSF, GNU, and IBM getting together, this is the new Google.
On the bright side, if Oracle wins, vanilla Android will likely be released as true F/OSS, much like under the model as OpenJDK. That could be a win for developers, but we are heading towards the many forks/distro as the Linux ecosystem--which is a double edged sword.
My memory is fine.
First: being a monopoly is not illegal. Its the goal of every business to get there. Once you get there (and in certain /very limited/ circumstances, how you get there) then maybe you have to take care with what you do, or you may run afoul of Antitrust laws.
However. That said: even assuming your first assertion is correct, that Apple had a monopoly of iPod (and I don't actually, at all, think you're right on that at all -- a monopoly means there is no real choice, not that everyone has chosen your product. There is a very big difference, and if you can't see the difference then this discussion is pointless. Successfully beating your competitors does not a monopoly make, and there was never any shortage of MP3 players)... even if your assertion was true, what followed with the iTMS is NOT an example of a monopoly being leveraged to take another market unfairly.
Its simply *not*. It would not in any way run afoul of antitrust laws.
Apple was under absolutely no obligation to license FairPlay. That they did not do so meant that content purchased via iTMS was indeed locked into their own devices-- but there is nothing actually illegal about vendor lock-in and proprietary formats. The iPod was perfectly capable of playing MP3s you bought from other services. You were able to quite readily and easily use content obtained from any other service (unless said other service encrypted it: but that's them being monopolists according to you) on the iPod.
There's many excellent reasons to avoid vendor lock-in and proprietary formats, especially in situations like Government, but there's nothing wrong with a company doing it, from a legal or antitrust standpoint. My Kindle books can only be read on my Amazon-provided apps, for instance. And Amazon is biggest book seller in the world (I don't actually know that as a fact, it may be hyperbole on my part), but that does not mean there is any monopoly-ness anywhere around what they're doing either.
The iPad isn't a monopoly, either, though its damn close: but its too new of a market for you to use words like 'monopoly', and there's active competition going on still, and people have choice. The non-iPad choices just suck at the moment, so no one is choosing to buy them.
You seem to confuse "success" with "monopoly": they simply are not the same thing. Even being a monopoly is not illegal, and is not actionable. Its only *certain, specific proscribed* types of behavior that is deemed "anti-competitive" and "restraint of trade", that *remove* consumer choice or manipulate prices through collusion and the like, that's illegal.
The App Store is an argument you can make, but you'd have to somehow define the market very narrowly -- and you'd fail, I bet. Psystar tried to define "Mac" as a market unto itself and thus declare Apple a monopoly, and that didn't fly. As long as developers can write for multiple platforms, and as long as customers can choose multiple platforms, and ESPECIALLY as long as the iPhone isn't even a majority platform, you'll never succeed in arguing Apple's control of the app store is a "monopoly", and even if it IS, that is NOT ILLEGAL.
Apple has a tightly integrated series of products, and it is designed in such a way that once you buy one of their products, the value proposition of the others increases. As you buy a second, your first becomes more useful and valuable to you. As you add more (be it an Apple product, iTunes content, Apps or what not), the value continues to increase: and as one wears down, the value of a competitors product is lower then replacing it with an Apple, because your new device won't fit into the synergistic ecosystem you've got going.
That's not monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior: that's good business. At no stage there did you, the consumer, get forced to choose the Apple device: at no stage there were you unable to use a competitors device. You can buy an Android phone and use it instead of the iPhone, you can use a Zune and even be proud
Some people have suggested Google of doing bad things with its search/ad business, but I don't know specifics to really comment.
Microsoft? I don't think they are anymore.
It depends on exactly what they're doing and what you mean by "leveraging": its not illegal for a monopoly to grow their business into new areas, every business wants to do that.
Its illegal for them to use their monopoly in such a way that they get an unfair edge in this new market, _because_ of that monopoly. I am not really aware of any leveraging Microsoft is really doing anymore with regards to Windows and Office: they're leveraging a cash pile and filling up standards bodies to manipulate the hell out of them, and while that may be unethical, I don't really think its antitrust-liable. IANAL. But Windows? Besides that Office for the Mac is inferior and so the only 'real' version of office runs on Windows, that's not really leveraging in the way that matters I think -- a company has no obligation to write software for alternate platforms.
The classic example of "leveraging a monopoly to build another" is the OEM Windows licensing deals Microsoft made. Nearly everyone wanted Windows, but to be price-competitive, OEM's needed to get a special price from Microsoft to do it. If they didn't, they would simply not be able to do business, period. So Microsoft wrote into the contracts rules that forbade the OEM's from installing Netscape on the computers, even though customers arguably wanted it, and then other rules that forbade OEM's from offering 'bare' machines or say, machines with Linux on them. So no matter what, every single machine paid Microsoft a few bucks, even if Windows was never on it at all. And when Microsoft wanted to beat Netscape, suddenly OEM's that previously were bundling Netscape no longer were allowed to, no matter what customers preferred.
Is MS doing anything like that these days? I'm not really aware of it, but I may not have been paying attention. The OOXML joke of a process and other lobbying-related marketing effects are the most recent nasty I remember them doing, but none of that is illegal according to Antitrust and competition laws, IIUC.
Google... has perhaps what amounts to a monopoly in ads, perhaps; I'm not sure if people can do business and ignore adsense and survive. And some have accused that their search rankings unfairly bias towards their own services, which could I suppose be claimed is using one monopoly to leverage into another. But, I dunno for sure.
Its easier to point out when stuff firmly is /not/, then it is to be sure if it /is/. :)
Here you go. Paragraph 2
thanks for the link. I'll post the quote.
The Foundation has a license agreement with Nokia. This agreement ensures that the Qt will continue to be available under both the LGPL 2.1 and the GPL 3. Should Nokia discontinue the development of the Qt Free Edition under these licenses, then the Foundation has the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license or under other open source licenses. The agreement stays valid in case of a buy-out, a merger or bankruptcy.
With Google prioritizing their own phone dev could that push other hardware maker like Samsung to go after another open source mobile OS like Meego to differentiate themselves.
Apple buying BB? Since having a smartphone would be useful (finally) for my future work I've been debating betwen iOS vs Android vs BB... but iPhone + BB will close the deal for me and as a former Apple fanboy than now mocks the fruity company It's quite terrible indeed. People forget that BB it's huge almost everywhere outside USA, BBM have too much following to ignore.
If he took inflation into account then it's not that bad. Better than a savings account.
Google has purchased MMI intending to install Android on phones which they now manufacture. Right? Okay, and what happens when Ubuntu and other versions of Linux become the standard OS for cell phones? Just wondering.
Nope, Honeycomb is not yet released.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
or he was being EXTREMELY sarcastic. ;)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.