Google To Acquire Motorola Mobility For $12.5 Bill

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Acquire Motorola Mobility For $12.5 Bill

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday August 15, 2011 @12:42AM from the didn't-see-that-coming dept.

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.

578 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Or did shit just get real? :-)
1. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:49 · Score: -1
  
  Or did shit just get real? :-)
  Yes its just you. This cant help against Oracle, Microsoft or Apple. All these great hardware patents from Motorola can not protect them from these software IP suits. Google does not seem to have a grasp on their Android IP issues.
2. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Stop with the Oracle FUD. The Dalvik engine does not run java, and cross-compiling has always been legal. End of story.
3. Re:is it just me by erroneus · 2011-08-15 01:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh yes it can. If the terms for Google's new IP are up for renewal or renegotiation, you can expect cross-licensing deals and all sorts of things protecting Android phones and devices.
  What this doesn't protect against is trolls like Mark Small, Nathan Myhrovld and all those. "Defensive" patents are a useless strategy against trolls since they have nothing to gain by cross-licensing any tech.
  You know, if the incentive for copyrights and patents are to encourage creativity, then it certainly wouldn't hurt anything if the creators were not allowed to sell their intellectual property.
4. Re:is it just me by nharmon · 2011-08-15 01:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I dunno, did you just multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate?
5. Re:is it just me by royallthefourth · 2011-08-15 01:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  He's making a Slashdot comment, not a synthesizer
6. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:11 · Score: -1
  
  Stop with the Oracle FUD. The Dalvik engine does not run java, and cross-compiling has always been legal. End of story.
  Oracle FUD?
  Keeping your head in the sand is not going to help GOOG with it's copyright infringement claim from Oracle. By GOOGs own admission, they infringed and want to settle. Oracle wont let them off without a big payday. How will this purchase help them?
7. Re:is it just me by AliasMarlowe · 2011-08-15 01:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I dunno, did you just multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate?
  He's making a Slashdot comment, not a synthesizer
  And a big WHOOSH to you, too.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
8. Re:is it just me by Jello+B. · 2011-08-15 01:24 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  xkcd is awful.
9. Re:is it just me by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 01:33 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yup Google just switched over to the Apple model: complete control over both the hardware platform and the software, it's going to get real interesting. OTOH this must cause quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Samsung and other Android vendors, seeing as they are now not only competing against Google directly on a platform Google controls, but Google now also has even less incentive to help out their partners/competitors with patent issues.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
10. Re:is it just me by MightyYar · 2011-08-15 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  nuh-uh
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
11. Re:is it just me by should_be_linear · 2011-08-15 01:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If Google is able now to sue Apple out of mobile business I will laugh my ass off.
  
  --
  839*929
12. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Oracle don't have a copyright infringement claim against Google?
13. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Or did shit just get real? :-)
  "While you were away..... Shit got Serious" :)
14. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  Again, stop with the lies. Google had been in talks with Sun to come to some sort of agreement - there was never an admission of infringement. Also, dalvik does not run java code, and there's absolutely nothing in copyright law that says you can't cross-compile. And there's no patent infringement in the device if you cross-compile, because the device is not using the original java class files.
  It's the same as if you use Word to write up a document, then import it into OpenOffice, and distribute the resulting odt file. End users do not need Word, and the end user devices are not guilty of infringing Word.
  The Oracle java on dalvik is a lie, simply because dalvik doesn't run java and never did. Ellison is just propping up his buddy Jobs and being his usual pr*ck self.
15. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Google won't convert Android to an exclusive OS, a la iOS. First, it means stabbing long time partners in the back, and loosing a lot of advertising market share.
  Also that would play into Apple's hands because Motorola can't compete with Apple on it's own (yet) without a help from Samsung, HTC, Sony...and every other Android OEM that contributes to the platform becoming "new Windows".
  Now imagine that they have to fork Android, make it incompatible with each other, or even migrate to other OS-es like Bada.
  that would be detrimental to Google's business, a suicide move.
  Finally we have everyone, except Apple and Nokia, on the same OS ship, it would be tragic to destroy that kind of success.
  I don't believe that they shelled out $12bn only to get patents and sink the company.
  Motorola was outcompeted and becoming less and less recognizable as a brand. Google-Motorola will fix the latter. I would expect a lot of people wanting to buy Android product that is made by it's creator. Look how it works for Apple. Also they are in unique position to develop hardware and software at the same time, which can result in making great products. Again, only Apple is in such position now. In addition, they will be able to imitate Apple's business of buying next-gen technology ahead of time, because they have cash reserves, unlike most other OEMs (main requirement for this is brand recognition). So in the long term Apple is getting some very serious competition (if they, as I hope, choose to compete and didn't buy them only for patents).
  At last, the patents acquired are extremely valuable. The "weak portfolio" problem fixed very easilly for $12bn.
16. Re:is it just me by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-15 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  It does not matter for Oracle's case. They have patents pertaining to general VM implementation techniques (e.g. one patent is for JIT-compiling), and Dalvik certainly infringes if those patents are valid.
17. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  Oracle don't have a copyright infringement claim against Google?
  http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/1/
18. Re:is it just me by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Thats as likely as Apple suing Google out of the Software business.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
19. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  ... and that's a BIG if.
  All modern cpus do JIT - it's been ages since the instruction set was burned into the cpu instead of in microcode, and then there's the out-of-order and take-both-branches execution, etc. JIT patents? When the concept has been around in one form or another for decades? They'd have to be very limited patents, covering specific instances rather than the concept of a JIT, and therefore, too limited to apply to dalvik.
20. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes it saddens me that people reply with xkcd rather than Wikipedia. After all, this is slashdot, why making easy for the "WHOOSHED"?
21. Re:is it just me by erroneus · 2011-08-15 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the "potential" is certainly there though I doubt Google would resort to something as drastic as that. I think it would only take a sample action, say banning the import of iDevices in a small country, to give Apple a taste of their own medicine before they would come to the table happy to negotiate.
22. Re:is it just me by Lev13than · 2011-08-15 02:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Depends on what you think the "shit" is. Some people are saying it's hw/sw integration, and others are all about patent trolling. In reality, this is part of Google's effort to strengthen its position in eCommerce, specifically mobile and POS payments.
  Put an RFID chip in every phone and you instantly get an EMV-compliant card replacement and an EMV-compliant card acceptance point. Forget all that Square magstripe bs - this would be the real thing. Combine it with Google Wallet and you have an end-to-end solution where anyone can make or accept payments via their phone. With Google controlling the hw and the sw they can set the standards. To make it even more interesting, think of what would happen if/when Google buys MasterCard.
  Go ahead with this and you'll have every taxi driver, flea market, convention booth and convenience store in the country with cheap access to payments issuance and acceptance. Now move that model to Africa and the Middle East. The future of mobile isn't handsets - it's payments.
  
  --
  When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
23. Re:is it just me by zget · 2011-08-15 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, why is parent comment modded as flamebait? This seems to be trend on slashdot. No matter how well-made opinion and arguments are, if its even remotely against Google the fanboys will mod everyone down. That's constant abuse of the moderation system and it has been going on for years.
  
  --
  Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
24. Re:is it just me by iluvcapra · 2011-08-15 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So this is strictly a strategic move to corner the Mark-of-the-Beast market? :)
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
25. Re:is it just me by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Google won't convert Android to an exclusive OS, a la iOS. First, it means stabbing long time partners in the back, and loosing a lot of advertising market share.
  Also that would play into Apple's hands because Motorola can't compete with Apple on it's own (yet) without a help from Samsung, HTC, Sony...and every other Android OEM that contributes to the platform becoming "new Windows".
  Now imagine that they have to fork Android, make it incompatible with each other, or even migrate to other OS-es like Bada.
  that would be detrimental to Google's business, a suicide move.
  As I pointed out elsewhere Apple tried competing against licensees of their own software for a while (the Macintosh clones), it failed miserably and they had to switch back to the exclusive model. Of course Apple was in pretty bad shape at the time, Google is in a much stronger position and may pull it off.
  
  Finally we have everyone, except Apple and Nokia, on the same OS ship, it would be tragic to destroy that kind of success.
  I don't believe that they shelled out $12bn only to get patents and sink the company.
  You forgot HP, poor suffering WebOS :-). Also RIM.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
26. Re:is it just me by jelle · 2011-08-15 03:05 · Score: 2
  
  For completenes, the xkcd link:
  http://xkcd.com/849/
  
  --
  --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
27. Re:is it just me by gl4ss · 2011-08-15 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think this has much to do with rfid/nfc payments or such.
  by the way, if you'd like to make phones good for contactless card payments, you'd place a small holder slot in the phones for the chips that are currently already used. for example, if I could just embed the little chip from the local bus card into my phone, it would be enough for making it possible to get on the bus by just waving the phone - and all it would need would be a small hollow slot in the phones plastics, really.
  google buying mastercard? uh, do no evil and all that.. but that would really be the endpoint of having everything controlled by a single company.
  but this motorola acquirement is NOT for motorolas manufacturing, it's NOT for motorolas sw, it's for motorola phone div's patent/license portfolio. 60 percent premium for a struggling subdivision that just buys it's chips and plastics from outside vendors and hasn't made steady profit _ever_ says that.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
28. Re:is it just me by m50d · 2011-08-15 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  You know, if the incentive for copyrights and patents are to encourage creativity, then it certainly wouldn't hurt anything if the creators were not allowed to sell their intellectual property.
  Yes it would. Many creators can't or don't want to handle the business side of monetizing their creations; if they can't sell it then any financial incentive goes away. Even for those who could, it's a waste of their time and creativity to have them running a business (which is a completely different set of skills) rather than... creating.
  Not that there aren't problems with the current IP regime, but think a little before making these suggestions.
  
  --
  I am trolling
29. Re:is it just me by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, I fully expected to get modded down in this discussion. I could've just sat on the sidelines and engaged in mod wars against these kind of biased moderations but where's the fun in that? I'll mod another day, and burn some karma today.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
30. Re:is it just me by Rutefoot · 2011-08-15 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone remember the scene in Aliens when Ripley shows up at the end in the giant robotic suit and yells to the alien 'Get away from her, you Bitch!'?
  
  I feel like this parallels nicely.
31. Re:is it just me by jd2112 · 2011-08-15 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot HP, poor suffering WebOS :-). Also RIM.
  So has everyone else.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
32. Re:is it just me by gtall · 2011-08-15 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Ellison is just propping up his buddy Jobs and being his usual pr*ck self." Wow, so Apple has a public rift with Google and Ellison is propping up Jobs by going after Google? One thing we have learned about Oracle over the years is that they do no one any favors, they are only interested in the bottom line.
  What's more likely is that Oracle's lawyers got stars in their eyes when talking to Sun about the buy out. My suspicion is that Oracle asked about IP and Java since Oracle depends heavily on Java. In the course of the discussion, Google's interest in Java comes up. Oracle asks about what sort of money was involved here. Sun's lawyers think for about 2 seconds and with wide smiles that resemble Jimmy Carter eating fish guts out of a wire brush (thank you P.J. O'Rourke), "Oh, big money, BIIGGGGG money....Beeeelllions and Beeeelllions of dollars. Yup, fer sure!! Errrr...could you please finishing signing the buy out right there on the dotted line?"
33. Re:is it just me by phonewebcam · 2011-08-15 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yup - starting with Australia and then on to Europe,
34. Re:is it just me by icebraining · 2011-08-15 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Modern CPUs compile the code, instead of just interpreting it? I've never seen that anywhere.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
35. Re:is it just me by countertrolling · 2011-08-15 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Google is in the advertising business, not the software business, and so is Apple now.. And personally, I find it disturbing that an advertiser can accrue enough capital to have a real effect on the economy like this.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
36. Re:is it just me by countertrolling · 2011-08-15 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I was going to respond.. Then I read your sig...
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
37. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  by the way, if you'd like to make phones good for contactless card payments, you'd place a small holder slot in the phones for the chips that are currently already used.
  They already have options for that - you can use the SIM card (telcos like), the Micro-SD Slot (banks/networks like) or an RFID chip on the phone (handset mfgs like). The transit fare card becomes an application loaded onto one of the three options above, which they like b/c they don't have any more hardware costs/liabilities.
38. Re:is it just me by GooberToo · 2011-08-15 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with the low quality of /.ers these days. Its painfully obvious the average IQ has horribly fallen and largely those here these days are used to media outlets like Fox News whereby if any opinion differs from your own, its bad and wrong; even ignoring when their own opinion is factually invalid and widely known to be so. As such, rather than moderate anything based on its merit (or facts), the low IQ population now actively seeks out anything which might offend or to which they disagree and seek to censor. Censorship is highly prized by the average /.er these days.
  Hell, I literally just had someone walk through my history and troll moderate every post they could. Am I surprised? Nope. Unintelligent trolls, typically with factually wrong and half-assed opinions represent the lion share of posters these days.
  If you are at all interested in comments no /. dot, you literally have one choice - browse at -1 else many good comments will be missed because of the massive level of idiotic troll moderation which takes place these days.
  Holy shit /. has fallen.
39. Re:is it just me by Toonol · 2011-08-15 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  By GOOGs own admission, they infringed and want to settle.
  
  Cite? I don't believe you can provide one.
40. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  If that was the case, Google could have gotten more specialized expertise and saved money by buying Motorola Solutions instead. It was formerly the enterprise devices arm of Motorola, and it focuses on point of sale and other field service applications. Since Motorola Mobility's products are in the public eye more, I imagine that factors into the stock price somewhat. I dare say the guys on the Mobility side do a better job on the phone hardware. The business side doesn't make a lot of use of the phone feature.
  That said, mobile payments is an area that's gathering steam. There are security issues to overcome, and I doubt it'll be truly revolutionary.
  I work in point of sale customization for a Motorola Solutions partner, and my current project is an Android application for a Motorola Solutions device.
41. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Is there that much difference between an interpreter and a JIT compiler?
42. Re:is it just me by erroneus · 2011-08-15 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  No one ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of consumers. I think that's how the quote goes anyway.
43. Re:is it just me by Hognoxious · 2011-08-15 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read the nick of the person he's replying to?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
44. Re:is it just me by bonch · 2011-08-15 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  Antitrust regulators must be chomping at the bit. This is old-school Microsoft behavior. Imagine how other Android smartphone vendors are feeling right now.
45. Re:is it just me by sydneyfong · 2011-08-15 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what lies you're talking about, but patents don't work that way.
  
  --
  Don't quote me on this.
46. Re:is it just me by Tubal-Cain · 2011-08-15 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like companies are required to work on only one problem at a time.
47. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  ALL JITs interpret ... some (nowadays almost all) cache a copy of the result, to fetch again later.
  One of the patents in question: "A portion of the virtual machine instructions of the function are compiled into native machine instructions so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instructions."
  Nothing about caching for later use. This is the way that even the old BASIC interpreters worked.
  Verdict: Bogus patent.
  Or you could try this.
48. Re:is it just me by MachineShedFred · 2011-08-15 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  If Motorola had that kind of killshot in it's clip, don't you think they would have used it against Apple already?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
49. Re:is it just me by chaboud · 2011-08-15 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  The trick is that Google doesn't *need* to compete against their 3rd party partners. They win if their OS is on *any* vendor's product, pointing portions of pennies back to the mothership.
  Owning Motorola just allows them to set the device feature tone more directly.
50. Re:is it just me by erroneus · 2011-08-15 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who has problems monetizing just needs to hire a company to manage it for him. This is how landowners accumulate large amounts of land -- do you think they manage ALL of their own land or do you think they hire that service out to some management company?
  How about thinking a little before replying with such a weak counter argument.
  See, what's good about that idea is that copyrights and patents would remain in the hands of the creators and any management terms could be renegotiated at any time. Suddenly artists would be in the driver's seat when a publisher hasn't been paying their their payments and can be legally enjoined from publishing further until those obligations are met. (Incentive to play fair)
  Furthermore, all patent trolls would pretty much wither away and die since their M.O. is to buy patents to use against other parties rather than to create patented ideas themselves. Under the "management contract" plan, there is still potential for trolling, but at least it would be harder to play the game as it's being played today.
51. Re:is it just me by cayenne8 · 2011-08-15 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Put an RFID chip in every phone and you instantly get an EMV-compliant card replacement and an EMV-compliant card acceptance point. Forget all that Square magstripe bs - this would be the real thing. Combine it with Google Wallet and you have an end-to-end solution where anyone can make or accept payments via their phone. With Google controlling the hw and the sw they can set the standards. To make it even more interesting, think of what would happen if/when Google buys MasterCard.
  No thank you...I'll stick to cash my friend.
  Actually, I'm really, really hoping the new iPhone 5 does NOT,/B> have that near field tech in it...I do not want my phone to be used as a payment system. I don't want it to be able to be used as one....don't want the risks associated with that scenario.
  I want the new updated phone, something to replace my aging 3GS....but I don't want the payment crap on it.
  If the new phone doesn't have it..I"ll get it and have at least another 2-3 years without having to worry about it till I need a new phone then.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
52. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Facts:
  1. Ellison was a director of Apple for a while after Jobs returned.
  2. Jobs was the official wedding photographer at Ellison's wedding.
  3. "Steve Jobs is my best friend" - Ellison.
  So yes, Ellison is quite happy to throw a monkey wrench into Google's gears - aligning with Google instead would have meant going after his best friend.
53. Re:is it just me by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-15 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  You can read the patent and judge for yourself. The abstract is as follows:
  
  Systems and methods for increasing the execution speed of virtual machine instructions for a function are provided. A portion of the virtual machine instructions of the function are compiled into native machine instructions so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instructions. Execution of the native machine instructions may be accomplished by overwriting a virtual machine instruction of the function with a virtual machine instruction that specifies execution of the native machine instructions. Additionally, the original virtual machine instruction may be stored so that the original virtual machine instructions can be regenerated.
  The complete list of patent claims made by Oracle is available at this wiki.
54. Re:is it just me by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-15 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's pointless to read the title of the patent - it can be anything whatsoever, and bears no relevance to the claims inside. Even the abstract doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. The claims of the patent do cover caching of JIT-compiled code ("a stored data structure ...").
  The only way for Google to dodge this bullet, so far as I can see, is to strike the patents themselves down as invalid. I hope they do so (patent fees for JIT? really?), but I'm not sure they will be successful.
55. Re:is it just me by fritsd · 2011-08-15 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  You shouldn't <expect> all comments here on Slashdot to make real sense, probably ;-)
  
  --
  To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
56. Re:is it just me by mkiwi · 2011-08-15 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit /. has fallen.
  Unfortunately, you are right. I remember back to the days when an Apple story was pudge announcing a new version of iTunes, iMovie, or an incremental update in Mac OS X. Most of the hate was directed at Microsoft. Slashdot was quaint back then, and you could expect intelligent discussion.
  Now I'm seeing most of the hate being directed at Apple specifically by Google fanboys. I think a lot of the apple fanboys left slashdot entirely when the environment started to get hostile to them. Browsing at -1 is necessary just because people get downmodded for even being inferred as a fanboy for apple or microsoft.
  I am saddened by what slashdot has become. I guess it proves that fanboys from one group are really no different than fanboys from another group, except for the company/entity they root for. Honestly, I think it's a particular type of personality that does that.
  Ok fanboys of all faiths, you can mod me down, but please get off my lawn.
57. Re:is it just me by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think Ellison's willing to fuck Google on completely unrelated terms. Making SeÃ±or Jobs happy is only a fringe benefit. If Ellison made all of his decisions to make Apple happy, he'd push Java to not suck so bad and get it back into Apple's good graces.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
58. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  stop it you are scaring me
59. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Except Africa and Asia (not so much the middle east) already have a proven platform, that knocks the socks off anything that any American company has done so far. Can they make it even better? Sure, but don't think this is going to change the world mobile payment landscape. It WILL change how the american mobile payment landscape though, but only cause the US and Canada have absolutely failed at pushing a valid mobile payment platform for years.
60. Re:is it just me by C_Kode · 2011-08-15 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Stop with the Oracle FUD. The Dalvik engine does not run java, and cross-compiling has always been legal. End of story.
  Oracle FUD?
  Keeping your head in the sand is not going to help GOOG with it's copyright infringement claim from Oracle. By GOOGs own admission, they infringed and want to settle. Oracle wont let them off without a big payday. How will this purchase help them?
  Big is a relative term. The judge already told Oracle to be in the $100M settlement range. That is a far far cry from the $6B Oracle was asking for, not to mention the $12.5B Google is going to pay for Motorola and it's 17,500 patents and 7,500 pending patents.
61. Re:is it just me by s73v3r · 2011-08-15 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  All these great hardware patents from Motorola can not protect them from these software IP suits
  Because for some reason, one cannot enter hardware patents into a dispute involving software patents? Especially against several parties that make hardware?
62. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Unless they already have the expertise, and just needed a pipeline to crank out a ton of handsets with no questions asked from the OEM.
63. Re:is it just me by metrometro · 2011-08-15 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and no. The African system is a real beast to do transactions internationally. It's a problem, particularly if you want to do something Amazon-like. Online commerce basically doesn't exist in North Africa - there are few credit cards, and no way to do payments abroad, so there's nothing to buy online. It's a green field.
64. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  If you are at all interested in comments no /. dot, you literally have one choice - browse at -1 else many good comments will be missed because of the massive level of idiotic troll moderation which takes place these days.
  So true, but it's been this way for a looong time. The boogeymen have changed, but there's always been an unofficial party line that made reading at -1 worthwhile. There's not even much of a drawback to doing so anymore since most of the old shenanigans worth avoiding have gone extinct.
65. Re:is it just me by interkin3tic · 2011-08-15 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how you define "real" and if things like software patents or corporations fall into that. I think of them as mostly imaginary, just part of a massive but silly game we made up.
66. Re:is it just me by interkin3tic · 2011-08-15 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  The two are mutually exclusive? Well then no wonder my DIY synthesizer isn't working...
67. Re:is it just me by m50d · 2011-08-15 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  With a name like yours, surely that's just more reason to reply.
  
  --
  I am trolling
68. Re:is it just me by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-08-15 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  No thank you...I'll stick to cash my friend.
  While I agree with you, and in fact find people paying for small (under $20) purchases with a debit, or credit card to be annoying and inconsiderate. I wonder just how much longer cash will be an option.
  Already is have become almost impossible to get by without a credit card. This just makes it easier to be tracked all the time.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
69. Re:is it just me by roman_mir · 2011-08-15 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Then Google would be a late comer to an already existing market, like the Somalian market that uses phones for almost all payments.
  Yes, that very Somalia that everybody wants the Libertarians to move to - they have. That's why it has the fastest government free market with the most innovation in payment technology. Of-course it's the most competitive way to do payments there outside of cash, because there aren't many bank outlets around.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
70. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  And this is not new ... and wasn't new 20 years ago. The patent is like so many software patents, doubly bogus.
  "Execution of the native machine instructions may be accomplished by overwriting a virtual machine instruction of the function with a virtual machine instruction that specifies execution of the native machine instructions." Wow, they patented inserting a JMP to an alternate address to execute code. Viruses are prior art, but the patent subject matter itself is EXTREMELY trivial, and as such not patentable.
71. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  In a way I hope they succeed - because then we'll see the revival of the really old tech - the stuff that allowed you to, at runtime, compile the whole app to a different architecture and run it, while saving the complete image. No more JIT stupidity, no more problems with "Windows-only" software. JIT is lame in comparison.
  Think of it - the .class files only get loaded once on your machine, and you have a native binary forever that you can distribute to other machines of the same architecture, including those who don't have the runtime. True write-once, run-anywhere. We could do it 30 years ago, before we abandoned the technology, and there's no reason why we can't re-do it today (except for vendor lock-in, which is big in the mobile java space, and why Oracle is pulling this crap, trying to preserve their thousand different incompatible versions of Java on the phone with their LICENCE_TO_PRINT_$$$).
  I would *LOVE* to work on reviving that sort of tech. Think of the environmental impact in terms of saving energy that not having to run a JIT would have (not to mention the longer battery life in mobile applications).
72. Re:is it just me by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2011-08-15 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Go ahead with this and you'll have every taxi driver, flea market, convention booth and convenience store in the country...
  As long as taxi drivers exist...
  A 2 seat driverless car + google maps on touchscreen + simple payments would cover 90-98% of all taxi rides, and maybe make the remaining human driver needed rides so uneconomical the taxi companies may not be able to afford drivers.
  Before the 'taxi drivers can't speak english' jokes, a taxi gig is a simple job for an immigrant where they can trade their hours and health for a decent paycheck enough to possibly put their kids through school. It removes a path for 'your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free' to actually make their lives better.
73. Re:is it just me by dwater · 2011-08-15 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  do you want green eggs and ham?
  
  --
  Max.
74. Re:is it just me by dwater · 2011-08-15 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  champing, champing, champing!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltb_14CWqDA
  
  --
  Max.
75. Re:is it just me by WML+MUNSON · 2011-08-15 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Now move that model to Africa and the Middle East.
  I think you meant to say:
  
  Now move that model to the United States.
  Kenya has had "cheap access to payments issuance and acceptance" since M-Pesa launched in 2007. Similar services now exist in Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, and other countries. Available services include direct transfers, airtime top-up, bill payments, salary payments, insurance schemes, savings, loans, and international money transfers.
76. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, "yes."
77. Re:is it just me by ilguido · 2011-08-15 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Antitrust regulators must be chomping at the bit. This is old-school Microsoft behavior. Imagine how other Android smartphone vendors are feeling right now.
  Maybe better since Motorola was collecting royalties for android.
78. Re:is it just me by amiga3D · 2011-08-15 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have figured that MicroSoft would corner that.
79. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Look -- if you're going to capitalize the 'S' in Microsoft, as least make it a '$'
80. Re:is it just me by jafac · 2011-08-15 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  A couple of weeks ago, Goolge slapped Microsoft with a patent troll press-release.
  Now this.
  Or as Bugs Bunny used to say: "Of course you know, this means war." :)
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
81. Re:is it just me by node+3 · 2011-08-15 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Viruses are prior art, but the patent subject matter itself is EXTREMELY trivial, and as such not patentable.
  You keep making this sort of claim, but that is extremely delusional. The FACT is, this patent exists. It doesn't cease existing simply because some random jackass on the Internet says it doesn't. The only way for it to cease existing requires a legal process, which even Google (who has a lot to gain by doing this) isn't even trying to do.
  As for the basis of you claim, it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how patents work. It's not about the ingredients (i.e., executing a JMP to execute alternate instructions), but that this is done (with other things) to speed up a virtual machine. Just like a light bulb isn't patenting "heating up metal so it emits light", but doing that in a certain way to achieve a certain result.
  Or a mouse trap isn't invalid because people already know how springs work, triggers, and cross bars work.
82. Re:is it just me by gtall · 2011-08-15 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. Apple more or less told Oracle if you want Java on MacOS, you'll being doing it yourselves. That isn't Jobs blowing sweet kisses Oracle's way.
  For what it matters, Oracle understands interfaces much like a dog sniffs another's butt. That won't ever convince Jobs or Apples to climb into a business relationship with Oracle.
83. Re:is it just me by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-15 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  JIT as used in Java is, indeed, somewhat pointless. The long-standing argument is that it is possible to dynamically optimize code once you collect additional statistics once it has been running for a while. This isn't pure theory, as e.g. profile-guided optimizations in VC++ (which is essentially the same thing) provide a typical improvement of ~10%. But, even so, I find that modern C++ compilers still optimize far better, and one reason for that is because they can take their time, while JIT has to be relatively fast - even with Sun's hybrid approach with bytecode interpreter switching over to JIT only for frequently executed methods.
  However, Java is not a particularly good example. A better one is .NET, where generics are reified. And now you have to have a JIT, so that one shared library can export a generic class or method, and another can instantiate it with any types it wants (including its own). Of course, this can be done without JIT, if you do the same thing as Java for generics, but this is a severe perf hit. In .NET, generic instantiations are separately JIT-compiled where sizes of types differ. Since, in the presence of dynamic libraries, you don't know all possible instantiations at compile-time, you need some form of JIT-compiler for efficient generics. .NET actually does some pretty crazy things there - for example, it allows generic virtual methods - reified, remember! - which means that vtable is dynamically growing (as new instantiations of a generic method are created), and its slots are dynamically allocated as well (since you don't know when or if a particular instantiation will occur).
  Another beneficial aspect of JIT is the ability to dynamically generate bytecode, and have it compiled to efficient native code. In .NET, this facility is used quite often by the standard libraries - e.g. regex and XSLT both compile to bytecode. I'm not sure if Java standard libraries use this ability, but they certainly could.
  Though this all still leaves large swaths of code that could be precompiled. .NET gets halfway there by providing NGen, which is essentially such a precompiler, but unfortunately it's not fully transparent - you have to explicitly precompile assemblies on a particular system (normally this is done by the installer, so it's up to the developer to bother with this or not). At least it's fully transparent once NGen caches compiled code... But it would be much better if the OS itself would be aware of these kind of "portable" binaries, and automatically and transparently precompile them on first run (or use, in case of DLLs), cache the result, and recompile if any assumptions change (e.g. different CPU installed).
84. Re:is it just me by n0tWorthy · 2011-08-15 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  They should buy a mobile phone company and torpedo the price structure for mobile data plans. They should buy Sprint or T-Mobile.
  
  --
  "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
85. Re:is it just me by sarysa · 2011-08-15 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think Google wants to beat Apple, and thanks to Apple's existence they have an argument against said regulators. But I doubt they'd ever become Apple. It's just not their style.
  
  --
  Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
86. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  The only way for it to cease existing requires a legal process, which even Google (who has a lot to gain by doing this) isn't even trying to do.
  
  You might want to try removing that rock you've been living under. The patents are being attacked by Google, both at the USPTO and in court.
  As just one example, Google is arguing laches - that Oracle, as the successor to Sun, sat on their rights too long. Also, that they relied on Sun's public assurances, such as you can see here, which is an equitable defense.
  Oracle has already had most if its' claims thrown out. The rest will also die, or be settled for a trivial one-time payment, since the patents for the most part are close to expiry anyway.
87. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  So the real questions are:
  1. How do we get funding to redevelop and advance the now-long-gone run-once-save-the-image-as-a-binary tech?
  2. How do we incorporate all the new capabilities such as you pointed out?
  It's the funding part that's the bear - I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to work on such advancing such technology, so the "warm bodies" problem isn't the real roadblock.
  Maybe the ability to do the same with scripts such as php (and loading the resulting binaries into the server for really quick performance) would give enough $$$ energy savings to get some funding ...
88. Re:is it just me by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-15 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  On Windows, this could be done by extending .NET further and marrying it more closely with the OS (as it is, it ships in the box with Windows, but is still pretty much a separate product, developed by a different team etc). I'm not aware of any plans to do so, however. Given the recent renewed focus on native code, I don't expect this to change.
  On OS X, given Apple's infatuation with Objective-C - which, to me, seems a rather pointless exercise, being a fully statically compiled language that is also so high-level (message dispatch etc) that it would actually be better off with a VM - I don't expect any developments on this front. On the other hand, Apple tends to change architecture much more often than others - and considering the recent speculation that they might move to ARM to unify the product line - so they would benefit more from it. But then they're not as averse from forcing developers to recompile and otherwise update their products, deprecate APIs etc, compared to Microsoft.
  On Linux, this could be done by a few people in a matter of days by hooking up LLVM. Or Mono for higher-level stuff (it also has its own NGen analog). In fact, I would be surprised if someone already didn't cook something up with LLVM. The problem isn't in implementing this, but rather popularizing it - getting major distros like RedHat or Ubuntu or even Debian pick it up would be a hassle, and they'd likely wait until the concept proves itself. You can provide it as a third-party package, of course, but it is fundamentally pointless so long as users keep installing software from their package repositories, which are already compiled for all architectures they need... it would need some distro to actually adopt these "portable binaries" as a new separate architecture for their repository.
89. Re:is it just me by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-08-15 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly Google needs to explain to the Android ecosystem how its control over Android development will not tilt the playing field in the direction of its own hardware. I can think of some interesting arguments along the lines of "goodbye ROM lockdown". The absolute worst stance would be inscrutable silence on this issue.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
90. Re:is it just me by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-08-15 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's possible you don't understand just how much time Googlers have on their hands for reading Slashdot. Not much different from Microsoft or Apple really.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
91. Re:is it just me by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-08-15 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument fails to account for the possibility that increased criticism of Apple may actually be justified, or that Google fanboys are not the only critics.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
92. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  NET still requires a runtime. Runtimes == evil. The old tech I was referring to has no runtimes. It exercised all code paths in a file, and generated binaries for the target architecture. In other words, if you ran Word for Windows, you could generate a binary for linux or osx (of course, it never got to that stage of development, but you get the picture).
  It wasn't one of those "fat binary" things - the resulting images were suitable for running only on the target arch - and it's a shame that development was stopped (copyright issues for one ... seems nothing changes much).
93. Re:is it just me by scdeimos · 2011-08-15 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH this must cause quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Samsung and other Android vendors, seeing as they are now not only competing against Google directly on a platform Google controls, but Google now also has even less incentive to help out their partners/competitors with patent issues.
  Me thinks it's exactly the opposite.
  Google wants Android to dominate the market because it has so many hooks back into Google services (Mail, Music, Search, etc.). Google has next to no patents outside of advertising, market research, software and usability. Motorola has an extensive patent portfolio around electronics, communications and in particular mobile phone technologies... I can only see this as Google expanding their patent portfolio so that they can knock the Apple-Microsoft-Oracle consortium on the head.
  This acquisition can only help to protect Google and their Android partners.
94. Re:is it just me by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-15 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  NET still requires a runtime. Runtimes == evil. The old tech I was referring to has no runtimes. It exercised all code paths in a file, and generated binaries for the target architecture.
  .NET can be changed to not require a runtime (as in "VM runtime"; obviously you still need the runtime libraries). NGen does precompilation, so the only always-running thing left from runtime is GC - and that could be made optional. CIL bytecode is flexible and low-level enough to provide useful abstractions even without GC - e.g. raw (non-GC-traced) pointers wth pointer arithmetic, and "stackalloc" opcode (same as alloca in C). There's also security checks for method calls, but these can be implemented as precompiled calls to the runtime library.
  This is not pure conjecture. If you use VC++ with /clr, it can compile pretty much any standard-conformant C++ code into CIL, but the result will run just as well without any GC, since it doesn't define or use any GC-traced objects - so it can be considered as a proof of concept and a prototype implementation. I think CLR itself uses .NET strings internally for its own purposes, and those are currently GC-traced - but they could be reimplemented with reference counting.
  All in all, if you strip down CLR that way - moving GC and other stuff to higher-level optional modules - you'll end up with an intermediate language that is roughly as expressive as LLVM.
  Regarding runtimes; for higher-level languages, I have given some examples in an earlier post where you need runtime code generation - most notably, consuming generic types and methods across shared module boundaries in the presence of dynamic loading (plugins etc) - since every loaded shared library can demand new instantiations of a pre-existing generic type. So runtime should still be there. It should just be a separate module that is only loaded for those languages that need it - i.e. for C#, but not for C/C++.
  So, then, the architecture would be as follows. On the lowest level, we have a library with the single purpose of translating portable low-level bytecode to native code - LLVM is the obvious candidate here, but stripped-down CLR is another option. This same layer should also do caching, and not just on file level, but on the level of bytecode blobs (so that separate instantiations of generic methods can be cached - probably using hash of bytecode as index. On top of that sits the OS executable/library loader, or a plugin for the same, which uses the translator library to prepare loaded portable binaries for execution. The translator library, however, is public and can also be accessed directly by programs - so that e.g. code produced by compilers for higher-level languages can dynamically invoke for any runtime code generation (generics etc) that it may require, and still benefit from caching of JIT-ted results, such that no bytecode blob would be compiled more than once on the given machine until cache is cleared. And further above are libraries and frameworks providing higher-level abstractions - i.e. GC, RTTI, unified object models etc.
  Realistically, the reason why I mention CLR is because any implementation of this concept for Windows would require OS-level hooks, and therefore Microsoft involvement - and from experience I can't picture Microsoft using a third-party product when it already has a similar one on this own (heck, I wish I could use at least Boost when writing my code! alas...). On Linux, or any other open system, LLVM is the obvious choice.
95. Re:is it just me by tomhudson · 2011-08-15 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if it worked properly, you wouldn't need Microsoft's involvement - just load Windows kernel once, and generate a kernel that can be run under another OS directly (w/o a virtual machine). IIRC someone actually proposed trying to do that for an early version of Windows (think circa Win286), and got shut down really fast.
  We know that it can be done in theory ... the problem is, as always, $$$.
96. Re:is it just me by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-15 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to the Big-Brother-2084 market that Apple is patenting how? :)
  At least we can see examples of 1984'ish nations but I fail to reference this mark of the beast thing? is it an anime? perhaps religion?
97. Re:is it just me by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think this is an antitrust issue. It doesn't give Google anything that Apple doesn't already have, or Microsoft is about to get.
98. Re:is it just me by AmiMoJo · 2011-08-15 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  think of what would happen if/when Google buys MasterCard
  I thought Google's motto was "don't be evil" which would seem to make it incompatible with MasterCard. In fact I scratched out the logo on mine and replaced it with BastardCard, that's how strongly I feel about it.
  In all seriousness Google has its flaws but would still make a massive improvement to the banking sector.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
99. Re:is it just me by wwphx · 2011-08-16 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  And the number of the beast was 666, meaning all could read his files.
  
  --
  When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
100. Re:is it just me by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-08-17 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Antitrust regulators must be chomping at the bit. This is old-school Microsoft behavior. Imagine how other Android smartphone vendors are feeling right now.
  Burning 6 mod points to ask: How so? Google isn't buying competitors... Google is not in any way (until now) a competitor within the Android market. Since Android's inception, Google has worked very closely with Motorola on the Droid line and it only logically follows that they would want to acquire a company that they work so well with so they can actually become a competitor themselves.
  To "pull a Microsoft" and lock down Android and make it utter shit for everybody but themselves would be a terrible business decision because manufacturers would drop them (or maybe even fork Android into something that's NOT Google-powered) in a heartbeat. But, if Google were to do that (which, again, would be a very bad move), then how would they be any different from Apple? They make the OS and they manufacture the hardware for it. I don't see Apple taking any heat from antitrust litigation because of their stranglehold on iOS, so why would Google for theirs on Android?
Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-15 00:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!
1. Re:Didn't see this one coming by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 00:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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!
  That will be interesting: I suspect that it will tell us whether the locked bootloader nonsense is actually a carrier demand(and, if so, a carrier demand that they want to stick to, or one that they'll bend on with a touch of pressure) or whether it was a 'hardware companies would prefer that software upgrades be accomplished by hardware replacement' problem...
  
  Obviously Google doesn't want to lose money on their new hardware division; but it seems pretty unlike them(and poor strategy in the face of Apple's relentless hardware/software integration) to play nickel-and-dime software lock upgrade drive games to eke out a few extra handset sales at the expense of customer satisfaction and overall success of Android and the various web services that Google actually makes their money on.
  
  On the other hand, if handset locking is some sort of carrier fetish(that they are only willing to make limited exceptions to, for the occasional flagship device), we might not see much change. Google's attempts to crack the carriers through direct sales have been underwhelming in their success so far, and Apple's sales number suggest that Joe Public isn't clamoring for an unlocked bootloader... At least Google is unlikely to cruft up stock Android too heavily.
2. Re:Didn't see this one coming by JackieBrown · 2011-08-15 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully, they will unlock the Evo 4g and other older devices since Motorola seems to only be willing to unlock newer devices (and lock down the older devices right before releasing the newer devices.)
3. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Google isn't interested in making money off Android, or Android phones. Early phone retirements and forced phone upgrades do not fit into Google's business strategy. They are interested in getting people on the internet on their phones so they can be advertised at.
  This is why Android is free and open. This is why Motorola phones will get updates - to keep people happy with and using their phones.
  But let's not forget, it was never realistic for the original iPhone to run current versions of iOS. The same is true of Android phones. They will get old, and there will be a time when they should be retired by users and manufacturers who fit the OS to old hardware. The only difference here is that Google isn't interested in early retirements of older phones, if it can reasonably be updated, it will be, because that keeps people surfing securely on their phones, and keeps Google making money.
4. Re:Didn't see this one coming by neokushan · 2011-08-15 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't the EVO made by HTC?
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
5. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Alex+Zepeda · 2011-08-15 01:13 · Score: 2
  
  Supposedly the Photon 4G comes with an unlocked bootloader, and I suppose it's well known that Motorola already promised that their future phones would be unlocked. So, yeah. It'll be interesting to wait and see.
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
6. Re:Didn't see this one coming by GIL_Dude · 2011-08-15 01:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  At least Google is unlikely to cruft up stock Android too heavily.
  True, but looking at my new Droid 3 from Motorola - Motorola didn't cruft it up much. They put Blur and Motoprint on it. Verizon crufted the hell out of it. Enough to make me get my rant on here about it: http://gildude.blogspot.com/2011/08/call-to-action-for-verizon-and-motorola.html. Of course, if we just get rid of Blur and maybe the locked bootloader that will be enough of a win. But it would be great to get back to Google Experience Devices that don't have all the carrier garbage on them to begin with.
7. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2011-08-15 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  I am okay with carrier demands if they really are subsidising a product as long as it's possible to by the same product unsubsidised and unlocked.
  
  Hopefully Googorola* will try to open things up -- *we* need this as at present phone OS's aren't being updated by the manufacturers or the carriers quickly enough, and I'd imagine Google must be a bit concerned about the security implications of this?
  
  * Googorola | Motoogle | Motogoog | Gotoogla
8. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Motorola phones will get updates? Since when?
9. Re:Didn't see this one coming by V+for+Vendetta · 2011-08-15 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  [...]and a manufacturer of decent tablets and handsets to boot.
  
  I was wondering if the Motorola tablets are also produced by Motorola Mobility (the part Google acquired). I couldn't find anything in the press release other than Motorola Mobility being a "leading manufacturer for smartphones" ... which may or may not include the tablets.
10. Re:Didn't see this one coming by zget · 2011-08-15 01:24 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I bet other Android manufacturers are even more worried, now that Google owns their own hardware too. Suddenly all the Android manufacturers are using a competitors product and then trying to fight against them too. This is also why Nokia's stock price is rising up. It's bad times for those other Android vendors, and I think they're already looking at something else than Android.
  
  --
  Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
11. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  It makes total sense. Motorola Mobility is losing cash, let has a buttload of patents for hardware,software, and all manner of processes. Google has cash and a need for a defensive and offensive capability in the patent wars.
  Good luck to all the employees in Motorola Mobility! May you reap the benefits of your elevated stock price! Hopefully Google will fund your pension now...
12. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-15 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I keep seeing people claim that locked bootloaders are a carrier demand... When this is clearly NOT the case.
  Across ALL carriers, at least in the United States:
  None of the Samsung Galaxy S line have locked bootloaders. (Tab 7s may be mildly locked?) The exception is the Galaxy Tab 10.1 line, which actually has randomly locked bootloaders for the non-carrier-distributed wifi version. (Don't know about the Verizon LTE variant). Even then, the bootloader locking is fairly minimal. The closest to "bootloader locking" I've seen in a Samsung Android phone is locking out flashing alternate bootloaders (Infuse 4G), but never a bootloader that locked out flashing any kernel or userland you wanted.
  A small number of HTCs came out locked in early 2011 - HTC quickly reversed this decision after user outcry. The locked phones were distributed across multiple carriers.
  Nearly all Motorola Android phones are locked down, regardless of carrier.
  Motorola may claim it's the carrier - but if you look at the trends across carriers vs. trends across manufacturers, the trend CLEARLY follows the manufacturer and not the carrier.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
13. Re:Didn't see this one coming by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That, actually, could be one complication of this acquisition: Android has, historically, been largely open(with the caveats that the bestest-flagship-development-buddy of the moment often had pre-release access, and some of the new stuff *cough*Honeycomb*cough* takes its sweet time to be released); but that was at least in part because they had no pet OEM, and were willing to loss-leader the OS and some applications in order to get devices built and released.
  
  Now that they do have a pet OEM, will Motorola simply be the permanent bestest-ever-flagship-development-buddy, or will Google take the gamble of alienating 3rd party OEMs and increasingly close/lengthy delay everything that isn't GPL2/Linux kernel, to improve their Android devices relative to 3rd party ones?
  
  They don't have much of a choice about the Linux-derived stuff(unless they feel like migrating to an entirely different kernel, which wouldn't make much sense) or busybox, or about previously released Apache-license Android-specific components; but nothing obliges them to refrain from letting free releases of most of the Android userspace and libraries(ie. the stuff that actually makes Android useful as such, rather than as a slightly weird embedded linux variant) rot...(consider the OSX analogy: the Darwin kernel stuff and many of the underlying unixy bits are freely available as BSD or GPL; but everything that makes OSX OSX, rather than just a weirdo BSD fork, is closed up tight. Architecturally, nothing stops Google from doing the same with Android, if it suits them.)
  
  I'm hoping that Motorola is going to be used as a 'model design'/flagship house, along with a source of defensive patents; with 3rd party OEMs and merry ROM-cookers getting more or less complete access; but that isn't a given.
14. Re:Didn't see this one coming by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 01:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've never been quite sure if Verizon's cruft actually manages to make them enough money to make up for the universal loathing of it, or whether there is a deeply-frustrated 3rd-rate graphic designer embedded somewhere high in their structure who takes out his rage at his own failings by forcing them on the world...
  
  They've got pretty much the best US cell network, which gives them a strong position to sell voice and data contracts at aggressive prices, why do they have to puke all over the devices that connect to it?
15. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-15 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  They made that promise in April and then...
  Oh wait, the Droid 3 (released months later) is locked!
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
16. Re:Didn't see this one coming by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Google isn't interested in making money off Android, or Android phones. Early phone retirements and forced phone upgrades do not fit into Google's business strategy. They are interested in getting people on the internet on their phones so they can be advertised at.
  They won't be too interested in running that division at a loss either, and there won't be a sudden culture-change in the Motorola Mobile unless they get rid of current management which would be destabilizing (and might cause an outflow of talent.)
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
17. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Well open except that you can't submit code changes to Google. You can look and download but only once Google decides to let you, not during development, but it's pretty much read only. Hardly a winning definition of 'Open'.
  Honeycomb is just closed source. No argument there.
18. Re:Didn't see this one coming by SenseiLeNoir · 2011-08-15 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  yes it is (source motorola website).
  
  --
  Have a nice day!
19. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2011-08-15 01:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I bet other Android manufacturers are even more worried, now that Google owns their own hardware too. Suddenly all the Android manufacturers are using a competitors product and then trying to fight against them too. This is also why Nokia's stock price is rising up. It's bad times for those other Android vendors, and I think they're already looking at something else than Android.
  I'm pretty sure Google would be aware of that concern; they've already stated that it will remain as a separate business, and I expect that's because the last thing they want to do is be seen to be competing with their own partners. I'd guess this purchase was forced by the patent situation and not because Google really wants to get into manufacture.
  
  Re Nokia, I'm not seeing that much change in their stock price. Yes, they're up and a bit today, but that only covers the previous months decline... but maybe I'm missing something.
  
  Re other Android vendors, they'll have picked Android because it's in demand and they will have weighed that up against potentially having less control. They could still fork if it's a big problem though which is more than they could do if they'd gone with Window Mobile (or whatever it's called these days). Also, despite Nokia now being in MSs pocket and basically being the "preferred" partner, there still seem to be other manufacturers willing to go with winmo... so by extension, I wouldn't expect much change over on the Android side of things either.
20. Re:Didn't see this one coming by FirstNoel · 2011-08-15 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Good question, I was wondering from mobility side whether this includes what used to be Symbol devices as well.
  Where does the Mobility group start and stop?
  
  --
  "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
21. Re:Didn't see this one coming by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how they are going to make this work. Apple tried this back in the day, both producing its own hardware and licensing the software and it didn't work. Either you are undercut by your licensees and you are losing money, or you are too successful and destroy your licensees' ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see if Google can pull of this balancing act.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
22. Re:Didn't see this one coming by FirstNoel · 2011-08-15 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at the Motorola website, Tablets are included in the Mobility brand.
  The commercial/industrial side doesn't look like it's included. Though I could be wrong, I am no expert.
  
  --
  "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
23. Re:Didn't see this one coming by zget · 2011-08-15 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Re Nokia, I'm not seeing that much change in their stock price. Yes, they're up and a bit today, but that only covers the previous months decline... but maybe I'm missing something.
  
  They're up 15% immediately after the announcement. That tells something.
  
  --
  Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
24. Re:Didn't see this one coming by MightyMartian · 2011-08-15 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  Google bought Motorola for the patent portfolio. Any other benefits are incidental. As soon as the acquisition goes through, Google will have an invincible cache of cell-related patents. Won't help them with Oracle, but that case is looking progessively weaker all the time.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
25. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-15 01:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I actually made an assumption there, but you have a good point. I Googled Motorola mobility though, and got this:
  http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/GB-EN/Home
  The page title says:
  Motorola Android Mobile Smart Phones and Tablets - Bluetooth Accessories - Home Video Networks - Motorola Mobility, Inc. United Kingdom
  So it looks like it does include tablets. But what I didn't assume was the other things it appears to include:
  http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/GB-EN/Consumer-Products-and-Services
  I didn't even realise Motorola produced some of these things, but could it mean we'll see Google SatNavs, Google Car Kits, Google Cable/DSL modems, Google DVRs, and er, Google Baby Monitors?
  I'll be intrigued to know if Google discontinues some of those less relevant lines, but this is kind of exciting if you're a fan of Android, because if Motorola does DVRs, SatNavs and Car Kits too then Google may well be planning to extend Android into the car and living room with a bit more seriousness than previously the case. It looks like Motorola Mobility has it's fingers in all the pies a tech company might want to be able to produce a full lifestyle ecosystem encompassing home, and travel (god, I feel like I just spat out some sales speak there, excuse me whilst I go vomit).
  I've always wanted to be able to just add things to my calendar on my tablet in the kitchen, then walk into the living room and use it to display TVs listings to tell my TV what to play, or to choose some content from my fileserver to stream to the TV, then set it to play some music. Then when that's done, walk out to my car and automatically have my car continue playing whatever music I'd previously set playing on my TV, and when I reach my destination have my phone take over that playlist as I put my headphones on and plug them into it. Obviously you can kind of do all this now, but it requires some serious hackery, and is far from being a pleasant, seamless, system. You need to really know what you're doing.
  Let's face it, it's the future, it's just waiting for someone to take a serious stab at it. Will Google make an attempt at that now that they've got the hardware base to go with their software division? I'm hoping so!
  The only thing we'll need then is for it to be standardised so that you can buy a product from any manufacturer whether it's an iPad or a Playbook,a Xoom, or a Tab and have it integrate into such a system. Okay, well, maybe now I'm REALLY asking too much ;)
26. Re:Didn't see this one coming by JackieBrown · 2011-08-15 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Woops - there goes that.
27. Re:Didn't see this one coming by JanneM · 2011-08-15 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Apple tried this back in the day, both producing its own hardware and licensing the software and it didn't work. "
  Of course, in this case the software is licensed free of charge for everyone. I'd say that, and the fact that the base is all open source, does quite a bit to calm other manufacturers.
  The only thing Google would need to be careful about is to not give preferential access to its subsidiary; such as getting early builds before the other big manufacturers and so on.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
28. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2011-08-15 02:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They're up 15% immediately after the announcement. That tells something.
  It tells us that the market thinks there's a greater chance Nokia will soon be acquired by someone else -- probably MS. This has nothing to do with mobile OS wars!
29. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  The 'lockdownness' is usually more related to the carrier than the manufacturer.
30. Re:Didn't see this one coming by ozmanjusri · 2011-08-15 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Google bought Motorola for the patent portfolio.
  Mobility division also makes set top boxes. Patents may be part of the game, but they're not the only one.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
31. Re:Didn't see this one coming by nschubach · 2011-08-15 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Google may well be planning to extend Android into the car and living room with a bit more seriousness than previously the case.
  I can only hope so. I hate the fact that the only Car manufacturer seriously looking into "carputers" is Ford and they are leaning on MS. If they pick up some of the
  Home A/V market (not sure about that) I'm sure it will be a move to improve Google TV.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
32. Re:Didn't see this one coming by stupid_is · 2011-08-15 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Mobility contains all consumer devices, plus Symbol, plus set top boxes (which also run Android) and cable modems.
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
33. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Archangel+Michael · 2011-08-15 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that the few people that actually use the crap make a boat load of cash for Verizon. Not a cigarette boat, but a friggin super tanker size boat load. I know a person who paid for VZ Navigator even though Google Maps was on his phone. WHY??? It sucked.
  I'd be just happy if we could remove the crapware from the phone. Sure Verizon, install all the crapware you want, I don't care, just as long as I can remove the shit I don't want or don't need.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
34. Re:Didn't see this one coming by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  So Motorola owns nothing they could go after Apple for ... otherwise they would have rather than watching their business get destroyed by the iPhone and eventually dumping it on someone else ... like Google.
  So ... Google now owns a big ass patent gun ... with no bullets that will affect Apple.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
35. Re:Didn't see this one coming by DrXym · 2011-08-15 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola phones will get updates? Since when?
  Since now I guess.
36. Re:Didn't see this one coming by DrXym · 2011-08-15 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's necessarily bad for other vendors. Microsoft and Apple have been beating them up because Google can't fight back or countersue. Now it can and that most likely is a good thing for them. I also think it's worth observing that Motorola is really an also-ran as far as handset makers go. I doubt even Google could turn them around now. More likely they've been bought for their wide swathe of patents which would certainly be handy in a legal fight.
37. Re:Didn't see this one coming by DrXym · 2011-08-15 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  They're up 15% immediately after the announcement. That tells something.
  Yeah it says some market investors think they're they next one for the chop and most likely Microsoft will snap them up at a premium.
38. Re:Didn't see this one coming by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say that, and the fact that the base is all open source, does quite a bit to calm other manufacturers.
  The open source base you're referring to is rather useless without Google's dressing on top, which is not under the same license. You also actually have to port that OSS base to your hardware, which then makes that base exactly like pretty much every other mobile OS ... except free ... but without any of the useful bits that people want.
  Its cute that you think Android is 'Open Source' but the OSS parts have been OSS for 10 years and are useless by themselves. Theoretically, yes, its got some OSS in it. Practically, its closed as you're at Google's whim.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
39. Re:Didn't see this one coming by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  You're logic is ... well, isn't.
  You're claim is that its the manufactures ... because there are both locked and unlocked phones on all the carriers.
  Unfortunately for your logic, there are also locked and unlocked phones from pretty much all the manufactures other than Apple, which means by your logic, its not the manufactures either.
  There is no logical reason for a manufacture to care, they just want the phone sold.
  There are plenty of financial reasons for the carrier to care. Logic dictates that you follow the money trail.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
40. Re:Didn't see this one coming by ajlitt · 2011-08-15 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  At least some of their set-top boxes run Microsoft Mediaroom DVR software. I imagine that will change in the near future.
41. Re:Didn't see this one coming by stupid_is · 2011-08-15 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Scratch that, Symbol went to Motorola Solutions...
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
42. Re:Didn't see this one coming by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, in this case the software is licensed free of charge for everyone. I'd say that, and the fact that the base is all open source, does quite a bit to calm other manufacturers.
  That's not strictly true though is it. It might be true for old versions, but Google might well withhold access to new versions. They've already done so with Honeycomb, releasing early to the parties of their choosing. And then there's this mysterious quote from Google : "According to Google, Microsoft did not ask permission before showing Stevenson the Android source code. [...] "The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said."
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
43. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, Symbol stayed with Motorola Solutions. But you are correct about the set top boxes and cable modems.
44. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-15 02:49 · Score: 2
  
  Talk about going off on a tangent. What's this got to do with Apple? Oh, wait, if you're an Apple fanboy then it's always got something to do with Apple hasn't it?
  Oh well, I hate to burst your reality distortion bubble, but it's probably worth pointing out that Motorola Mobility HAS been after Apple over patents:
  http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Sues-Apple-for-Patent-Infringement-344d.aspx
  If you're going to publicly try and comfort yourself over your brand insecurity you could at least try and get your facts right, so that you don't look too paranoid about the future of your favourite brand.
  Fanboys. The worst kind of idiot.
45. Re:Didn't see this one coming by LWATCDR · 2011-08-15 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Here is my guess as to what it means.
  1. Google has cellphone patents.
  2. Apple and Microsoft can no longer avoid directly going after Google.
  3. Blur is dead.
  4. Every carrier now will have a selection of stock android cell phones that get regular updates.
  5. Now i know why the Motorola Triumph has stock Android.
  6. Tablets. Google can go after the iPad.
  The locking of the bootloader is because of the extorsion that is tethering in the US. For the companies that have killed their unlimited plans "Everyone but Sprint" this is the biggest scam I have ever seen. If I am buying x Gigabytes of bandwidth why do they care how I use it. The number one reason that people root is not custom roms, it is tethering. You can bet that it is the carriers that want it.
  I use an HTC phone and I like Sense a lot. I think it is a good interface but I love the idea of having a choice.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
46. Re:Didn't see this one coming by iluvcapra · 2011-08-15 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  but it seems pretty unlike them to play nickel-and-dime software lock upgrade drive games to eke out a few extra handset sales at the expense of customer satisfaction and overall success of Android
  I don't think there's any evidence that the bootloader issue or the "nickle-and-dime" upgrade issue significantly impacts sales or customer satisfaction...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
47. Re:Didn't see this one coming by iluvcapra · 2011-08-15 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Logic isn't knowledge. "Follow the money" is not, in itself, evidence.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
48. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-15 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly I'm amazed that a lot of this stuff hasn't been looked into in general.
  Between technology like NFC, Wifi, Bluetooth and so forth I'm suprised the linked in kind of consumer friendly technology ecosystem I described hasn't been done already. We could have really vibrant plug and play digital home technology setups today, where you can add things to it at will- a wall mounted tablet in the kitchen to sync up to your computer to access it's music, a tablet to control your TV recordings, and to take TV with you screened from the TV if you want to walk off round the house and so on.
  The technology is all there, and frankly it's not really too far fetched to put this sort of thing together. All the bits are there but they're really disaparate right now.
  Personally I assumed Apple would be first- they have all the pieces, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV and so forth but they haven't quite got it all together yet. They've largely been crippled by the desktop/laptop based iTunes tie in to this point, but at least with iOS5 they're stepping away from that, which helps them step towards this, but there's still quite some way to go yet to see the full potential here.
  Hopefully with Google seemingly entering the gadget market now the competition will heat up and we'll see a far greater push in this area, just like we saw a great smartphone push when Apple entered the smartphone arena.
  Fanboys like to pray that their "One True Company (tm)" will do everything perfectly, and take over the world, but really time and time again recent history has shown that sometimes it takes one company to kick your preferred company into gear. This is a notching up of the battle between Google, Microsoft, Apple, et al., and consumers whether they prefer Apple, Google, or whoever else are going to be the ones that truly benefit.
  It doesn't really matter what side you're on, or if you're one of those more rational types and on no side at all. This news is really great for everyone.
49. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Rennt · 2011-08-15 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  The closed Google bits are just a handful of applications that run on Android (notably the Market), they are not somehow required for building a useful Android stack. Complete, Open Source implementations such as Cyanogen exist, and are relatively popular.
50. Re:Didn't see this one coming by iluvcapra · 2011-08-15 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, in this case the software is licensed free of charge for everyone. I'd say that, and the fact that the base is all open source, does quite a bit to calm other manufacturers.
  Unless those vendors are shipping the AOSP or something like Cyanogenmod, they have to have a license agreement with Google in order to sell those phones, even if it's "stock" OHA Android. Google's free to license or not license whoever they please.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
51. Re:Didn't see this one coming by NicknamesAreStupid · 2011-08-15 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Then you will not be able to say the same about this one -- Microsoft will buy RIM in Q4 for $39B (outrageous amount). I've said this before -- http://slashdot.org/submission/1533832/Microsoft-Buys-RIM-in-Q4-for-39B .
52. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, EVO 4G is by HTC. There is now an unrevocked for Gingerbread EVO 4G OTA. So while HTC didn't unlock the bootloader, it has now been unlocked.
53. Re:Didn't see this one coming by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's(with the exception of Google's own userspace applications) 'Open' as in 'released under an open license'; but it is pretty much straight 'cathedral' when it comes to development. Google has never even pretended that it is some sort of 'community-developed' thing; but, honeycomb aside, it was open after release to third parties. I'm just curious to see if that will remain...
54. Re:Didn't see this one coming by bemymonkey · 2011-08-15 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, he's right in that Motorola is the one big Android device manufacturer that's had such insanely locked down phones, and is the one device manufacturer whose devices were nearly ALL locked (pretty much everything after the original Droid, wasn't it?)...
55. Re:Didn't see this one coming by ColdWetDog · 2011-08-15 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like you took too many happy pills this morning. Go and watch some financial news, that'll bring you down enough.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
56. Re:Didn't see this one coming by ColdWetDog · 2011-08-15 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  While you very may well be correct, the thought of Google knowing EVERYTHING that goes on in a home fills me with.... dread.
  Do no evil, indeed.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
57. Re:Didn't see this one coming by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming that most of their STB sales are bulk contract deals with cable companies, who would not take kindly to being yanked around just so that Google can spite Microsoft. Those sales will presumably continue for as long as the contracts run, quite possibly longer, if the profit is there.
  
  However, the "Future developments we actually care about" team is probably downloading the Android SDK and getting ready for some Google TV action as we speak...
58. Re:Didn't see this one coming by eht · 2011-08-15 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has unlocked phones now in the US.
  http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC603LL/A?mco=MjI4NTM2NTM
59. Re:Didn't see this one coming by LWATCDR · 2011-08-15 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't make me happy or sad. I do not work for Motorola or Google and I don't own a Motorola phone that is just my view of what happened.
  1. Well Google has said this will help defend them and Android makers from lawsuits. Motorola pretty much invented mobil electronics.
  2. Apple and Microsoft have been going after the "weak sisters" and not confronting Google head on. Now they really have no choice.
  3. Google has stated that it isn't a fan of skins. I doubt that they will keep Motoblur since it really isn't very popular.
  4. The Nexus line of Google phones all had stock android. Every carrier carries Motorola in the US now so it makes sense for Google to supply them with a selection of stock Android phones.
  5. Was a guess but everyone was asking why that phone didn't have Blur on it.
  6. Google needs a good tablet strategy and depending on tablet makers has failed. If you do not think they will go after the iPad?
  Is this good or bad all depends on who you are. For Apple it probably doesn't matter a whole lot. They will keep making money hand over fist for a long time. For Microsoft this is terrible news. Their mobile program is a disaster. They make more money off of Android than they do WP7 and if Google can defend the makers that will come to a screeching halt. Mango is probably going to be as good as the current Android and iPhone offerings more or less but with fewer apps and a small installed base it just isn't good enough. WP7 needed to be a homerun and it wasn't. Mango looks to be a single at best and in today's market that isn't good enough.
  Frankly Microsoft should go into services for Mobile. I have heard that Mobile Bing and Zunepass are both great. Put mobile office in the mix and Microsoft has some very compelling products. They are not enough IMHO to get people to jump to WP7 but If they where available for Android I would probably try them. Nokia should have kept MeeGo the N9 looks great but Nokia is just going to be another WP7 maker and will not get a cut of the market or have control over the OS. That will kill them in the long run if WP7 isn't a smash hit which so far it is not.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
60. Re:Didn't see this one coming by jo42 · 2011-08-15 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  manufacturer of decent tablets and handsets to boot
  GooMoto Xoom II sounds like something out of Idiocracy...
61. Re:Didn't see this one coming by gl4ss · 2011-08-15 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  well,
  device manufacturers have to _guess_ what the operators would like. you think they communicate clearly and to all the competitors? of course not, that would be a first in the business world.
  but what gets store time and which phones get subsidized aggressively by the manufacturer depends on few things, like luck and which the ceo happens to choose - dangling a "piracy free, locked down platform you can give to consumers and which they have to use your services with" card in front of their eyes has some weight, or at least the sales people(the feature design people..) for the manufacturer would think so quite easily. what the consumers then happen to choose is another matter, and for which platform their some internal heavy budget stuff happened to be written for dictates the rest.
  quite clearly the consumer would win and the operator would win in more service users IF they didn't insist on selling a complete experience, but if carrier just worked as carrier and manufacturer as manufacturer and the consumer cherry picked what he wanted - but the usa is a special case with it's practical local monopolies.
  oh and manufacturers have always shipped shit they said to carriers was something it wasn't, so it's up to the manufacturers to ship whatever they happen so ship. I bet at&t thought apples simlock was solid gold too!
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
62. Re:Didn't see this one coming by schnell · 2011-08-15 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Complete, Open Source implementations such as Cyanogen exist, and are relatively popular.
  Relatively is the key word there. Cyanogen or other OSS variants of Android are popular as after-market installations for the more computer-literate and tinkering-inclined Android phone users. But to my knowledge none of them are included on shipping mass-market devices, or have ever gone through carrier acceptance testing that is required to sell them through those channels. I think there is a pretty broad gap between you or me installing Cyanogen and a big phone manufacturer basing their investment in a new phone on it.
  
  --
  "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
63. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Cutting_Crew · 2011-08-15 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  on the back burner of all this... what is going to happen to QT?
64. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Calos · 2011-08-15 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can if you root. And hopefully, with Google at the helm, that will become very easy to do.
  I was hesitant to root with my phone (first-gen Droid). But after having done it and used it for a while, and found all the things I can do... Every Android phone I own will be rooted.
  
  --
  I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
65. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-15 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Show me one Samsung Android phone that has a locked bootloader that prevents you from booting an arbitrary kernel.
  Then show me one Motorola Android phone that wasn't shipped with a locked bootloader.
  The trend clearly follows manufacturer and there is zero carrier-dependent pattern to bootloader locking. (You might be able to discern some patterns with HTC, but the sample size here is too small - it's primarily dependent on release date in this case. HTC started in late 2010/early 2011, and quickly reversed it after public outcry.)
  NOTE: I am not talking about SIM locking, I am talking about bootloader locking, which renders the open-source aspects of Android irrelevant because even if you have complete kernel source, you can't execute the kernel without having Motorola's private signing key. SIM locking is a whole other beast (although the unlocked bootloaders and software architecture of Samsung devices makes it REALLY easy to SIM-unlock them.)
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
66. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-15 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Just as locked down as any other iPhone.
  I'm talking about firmware/software/bootloader lockdown, not SIMlocks. That's a completely different issue. Basically any GSM phone sold by a US carrier is SIMlocked to that carrier.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
67. Re:Didn't see this one coming by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-08-15 04:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I bet other Android manufacturers are even more worried, now that Google owns their own hardware too. Suddenly all the Android manufacturers are using a competitors product and then trying to fight against them too. This is also why Nokia's stock price is rising up. It's bad times for those other Android vendors, and I think they're already looking at something else than Android.
  I'm pretty sure Google would be aware of that concern; they've already stated that it will remain as a separate business, and I expect that's because the last thing they want to do is be seen to be competing with their own partners. I'd guess this purchase was forced by the patent situation and not because Google really wants to get into manufacture.
  Of course they say that; what do you expect? Companies have teams of lawyers and PR professionals whose whole job is to come up with the right things to say.
  The question is - why do you automatically believe it? I doubt you'd give any other company the same benefit of the doubt. Did you assume Comcast was being completely forthright with everything it said while purchasing NBC?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
68. Re:Didn't see this one coming by ArsonSmith · 2011-08-15 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Or they had more than enough to keep apple from going after them.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
69. Re:Didn't see this one coming by oakgrove · 2011-08-15 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Are you at it again with the FUD? Google has always had preferred OEM's when they made a significant update to Android. The G1 was HTC, the Droid was Moto, the Xoom was Moto, the N1 was HTC, and the Nexus S is Samsung. This changes nothing. Interesting seeing the rats scurrying. How them grapes taste?
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
70. Re:Didn't see this one coming by MightyYar · 2011-08-15 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  QT will be in the capable hands at Redmond. They love cross-platform and they love open source. Expect to see them use it as a basis for a cross-platform .NET.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
71. Re:Didn't see this one coming by oakgrove · 2011-08-15 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently the people that matter believe it and aren't fooled by the FUD.
  
  Peter Chou, CEO, HTC:
  We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.
  Bert Nordberg, President & CEO, Sony Ericsson:
  I welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.
  Jong-Seok Park, President & CEO, LG:
  We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
72. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-15 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  "The locking of the bootloader is because of the extorsion that is tethering in the US."
  Then why are no Samsung devices locked on the same exact carriers, and why are only a few HTC devices locked, with the pattern of "locked vs unlocked" following release date and not carrier?
  AT&T:
  Sam Captivate - no bootloader locking at all
  Sam Infuse 4G - Bootloaders locked from overwriting themselves, but will happily boot any kernel you want
  Motorola anything - Locked bootloader
  Verizon:
  Sam Fascinate - no bootloader locking
  Sam Continuum - no bootloader locking
  Samsung Droid Charge - no bootloader locking
  Motorola anything - Locked bootloader
  The Motorola Milestone was sold with a locked bootloader, and that's a purely international unit not sold domestically by any US carrier.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
73. Re:Didn't see this one coming by heson · 2011-08-15 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I can only hope so. I hate the fact that the only Car manufacturer seriously looking into "carputers" is Ford and they are leaning on MS. If they pick up some of the Home A/V market (not sure about that) I'm sure it will be a move to improve Google TV.
  When the "new car smell" is vented out, the onboard computer is an ancient artifact usable as a novelty item at most. Car makers understand this now, there are some amazing windows ce crap available if you lookaround.
74. Re:Didn't see this one coming by zget · 2011-08-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why you took out the last comment? By the way, they all four are almost identical comments. It pretty much looks like Google told them what to say.
  
  --
  Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
75. Re:Didn't see this one coming by oakgrove · 2011-08-15 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  It pretty much looks like Google told them what to say.
  Ha ha ha. Scurry on little troll. How them grapes taste?
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
76. Re:Didn't see this one coming by shmlco · 2011-08-15 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  $12.5 billion to buy Motorola Mobility... for the patents. $4.5 billion to buy Nortel... for the patents. $450 million to buy Novell's patents.
  What a ****ing waste of money.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
77. Re:Didn't see this one coming by MightyMartian · 2011-08-15 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't if buying a company with a big mobile patent portfolio basically immunizes you. Once this purchase goes through, any thoughts by Apple, for instance, of trying to slow Android adoption by making patent license claims is dead, because I'm sure that nifty portfolio has enough ammunition to cause Apple severe damage if it goes in that direction.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
78. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  The bootloader is not unlocked according to the guys who own them on xda-developers. However, it is fairly easy to root.
79. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Tubal-Cain · 2011-08-15 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. The GPL doesn't require that you open your project to external submissions. At least they don't even try to pretend that it's a community project, like Sun did with OpenOffice.
80. Re:Didn't see this one coming by afidel · 2011-08-15 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK any partner could gain access to whatever development stream they wanted, it was only hobbyists and non-partners (those make Android devices without the with Google mark) that had to wait for the public updates.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
81. Re:Didn't see this one coming by afidel · 2011-08-15 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  You think the engineers were happy working for Motorola?!? No, a change in management to Google style would almost assuredly be met with applause from the cubicle farms and labs.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
82. Re:Didn't see this one coming by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what the phone market looks like(a variety of pacific-rim mysteryphones are starting to ship with Android, probably not blessed by Google, rather than WinMo, probably not licenced from Microsoft; but I'm not sure of the provenance of the Android on carrier-blessed handsets...); but there are a number of devices in reasonably wide circulation running more or less completely non-Googled Android setups:
  
  All the B&N Nook devices(dual-screen, color, and touch) are Android-based, albeit running a custom B&N application for more or less their entire interface. With a touch of poking, they are pretty much straight 2.2 underneath.
83. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Patch86 · 2011-08-15 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Its open in that you can download the source and use it in your own devlopments, in accordance with the license.
  Nobody has ever said that being able to contribute code is the definition of open.
  I'll grant you that they do take the piss when it comes to source release timing, though.
84. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Trillan · 2011-08-15 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  At least we know now why Google didn't seem too bothered about winning the Nortel patents.
  
  Err. Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that whined publicly and repeatedly over the anticompetitiveness of the patents being for sale at all after they lost, insisted on an investigation, then misrepresented that investigation to the public as an "intervention"?
  They seem pretty bothered to me.
85. Re:Didn't see this one coming by owlstead · 2011-08-15 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Just a HDD recorder that is compatible with HDTV from my cable provider and an Android app. that can be used to put it on record from the other side of the world. Sale! Extra if it is a full remote and can download the guide.
86. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-15 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think if they were genuinely bothered about the Nortel patents, and weren't aware of the Motorola buyout (which must've been underway during the Nortel bidding) then they would've simply bid more for the Nortel patents. Motorola has cost them more than they bid on that, so they were clearly happy to spend the cash.
  I suspect this is also why they made such silly bids- because they weren't really that bothered about seriously winning. It was misdirection, I'll bet that they knew it didn't matter because they were grabbing Motorola mobile's patent chest instead whilst the other firms involved completely missed the opportunity to buy Motorola.
87. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Miamicanes · 2011-08-15 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's cultural. Motorola has a long history as a military defense contractor. They really, truly understand hardware encryption, and they use it with (almost) everything they touch simply because they *can* (and partly to use things like phones as a proving ground, showroom, and laboratory for new security technologies they have at their disposal). What better sales pitch for Motorola to throw at Sony and/or Microsoft when trying to sell security chips to lock down their next consumer game console than the fact that the bootloaders on the DroidX/Droid3/etc are still uncracked despite some very smart, very motivating people trying *really hard* for a year or more?
88. Re:Didn't see this one coming by sootman · 2011-08-15 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  > I Googled Motorola mobility
  Actually, Google just googled Motorola Mobility. :-)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
89. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Miamicanes · 2011-08-15 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  > Hopefully, they will unlock the Evo 4g
  Er... I think the Evo 4G just about the most thoroughly ROM-hacked phone since the PPC-6700 (the phone that basically put XDAdevelopers.com on the map). I know the Evo4G got off to a rocky start for the first month or two, but I'm pretty sure it had custom kernels and more Android distros than you could count without getting bored by mid-December.
  Or are you talking about the Evo3G, which is a newer phone despite having a smaller number (and in any case, isn't a Motorola phone).
90. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  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!
  Not all their devices were locked down. The Xoom is trivial to unlock by design.
91. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Trillan · 2011-08-15 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so you think all that (public) whining was just an act? That's possible, but I'm not sure that's any better.
92. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  You can bet that verizon shitting bing into all their phones paid some good bank.
93. Re:Didn't see this one coming by klui · 2011-08-15 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know this. Reddit's thread has a reply from some employees at that division. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/jj9s9/google_buys_motorola_mobility/c2ckym2
94. Re:Didn't see this one coming by mounthood · 2011-08-15 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't even realise Motorola produced some of these things, but could it mean we'll see Google SatNavs, Google Car Kits, Google Cable/DSL modems, Google DVRs, and er, Google Baby Monitors?
  Google Game System! Here's a chance for a standards based game computer in every home; promote Chrome/ChromeOS/NaCl/OpenGL ES; stick it to Microsoft; capitalize on software/SDK/game distribution/payment issues that Google excels at. Not to mention playing music, video and teleconferencing opportunities.
  
  --
  tomorrow who's gonna fuss
95. Re:Didn't see this one coming by JackieBrown · 2011-08-15 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  No - I am talking about the 4g. I had the wrong manufactor so my hope is shot, anyways.
  HTC locked down the bootloader right before I bought it. I assumed all the stuff you wrote above was still true when I purchased it, too.
96. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Archangel+Michael · 2011-08-15 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I wish some manufacturer would just ship with Cyanogen factory installed.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
97. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  I've never cared for Motorola's phones, since they were overall shitty phones to begin with
  However this might change the game. Let's say that Google continues to sell the Motorola phones, but drops the 30 different flavors in favor of maybe 3 (One bar/touch-screen, one flipphone+touch, and one QWERTY+touch type,) Then just updates these annually like Apple instead of making throw-away trash that most of the manufacturers have been making so far.
  Now continue to license out the phone's Android OS. Now Google sets the minimum bar for competitors to beat, instead of a race to the bottom like it has been so far. This has an analogy to MS-DOS back in the pre-386 era, where all the clones of the IBM's varied from proprietary crap (eg compaq) to ISA standard's based clones as IBM then failed repeatedly to establish lock-in. It wasn't until the PCI standard that PC's stopped being useless tools that only do spreadsheets and word processing. We have the same problem with Android here, too many people doing their own thing without a baseline standard that developers can use.
  Once carriers stop doing subsidy-lock/sim-lock shit in the US and all use the same LTE standards, we might see devices that don't suck. But until then we're stuck with devices designed to be thrown away every year because the radios can't be reprogrammed for different carriers frequencies.
98. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Tacvek · 2011-08-15 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Mobility includes virtually all consumer products, with the exception of consumer 2 way radios.
  It also includes the cable modems, and set-top boxes, of both the cable and IPTV style.
  It includes Cell Phones, Cordless wall phones, Baby monitor, Tablets, Bluetooth headsets, MotoNav, and TIMBUKTU.
  If you are at all in doubt find the official page for a Motorola product, and look down at the copyright notice. If it says Motorola Solutions, Google is not buying it. If it says Motorola Mobility, then Google is buying it, unless they spin it off as part of the process.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
99. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Kelbear · 2011-08-15 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Given Google's strategy/goal of aggregating all information. I would be surprised if they didn't choose to make motorola a "model design/flagship" house. I really do think it's a given.
  They don't stand to gain much at all by stepping into Motorola's shoes and assuming Motorola's same problems and using the same approach as Motorola in competing with 3rd parties. That'd be crazy. Google has delivered a huge upset to the market by making Android a ubiquitous mobile OS. By closing up behind only Motorola phones they'd just be hitting the reset button and turning things back to the way they were with every cellphone using individual platforms.
  No, Google would much rather have Android be as popular on mobile devices as Windows is popular on desktops and laptops. Google could then leverage that power into setting the standards for the mobile device market in a way that allows Google services to be at the forefront on all mobile devices. Every time Google thinks up a new service they think would be profitable in the mobile market, they could have an userbase practically overnight through the Android platform. Google would rather use the 3rd parties and benefit from all of them, rather than get down to their level and fight with all of them.
100. Re:Didn't see this one coming by BreazySpeculation · 2011-08-15 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  The motorola triumph is not locked.
101. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Kittenman · 2011-08-15 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  $12.5 billion to buy Motorola Mobility... for the patents. $4.5 billion to buy Nortel... for the patents. $450 million to buy Novell's patents.
  What a ****ing waste of money.
  Yes, that's patently obvious.
  (Thank-you, I'm here 'til Thursday)
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
102. Re:Didn't see this one coming by madhi19 · 2011-08-15 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually we are not that far from this. If am looking up and address on Google maps my Iconia a500 will know about it provided that when am doing that lookup am logged in the same Google account that I use on my Iconia.
103. Re:Didn't see this one coming by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-15 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Can't wait for the android cable modems and it's multitouch capabilities:
  "Look like you ISP is modifying your port forwarding set up, again, tap here to block connection"
104. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Vastad · 2011-08-15 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  I really hope you're right. According to the compatible devices list on CyanogenMod, there is still no Cmod available for my Droid/Milestone 2 and it's been out since November 2010. Granted this is a voluntary community and no phone gets tinkered with unless one of the devs actually owns it. But still. No one has even grabbed one off a friend?
105. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-15 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think it is what it was - a whining Google employee who possibly didn't even have any knowledge of the proposed Motorola takeover, because, as someone who has recently been involved in a large corporate takeover, I know full well that these things take time, but are kept very secretive until everything's in place to advance the takeover. Often only the board of directors will know about it, and even the people who will be key in managing any corporate integration wont know about it until things are pretty much set in stone.
  That is of course one of the downsides of letting your employees blog freely though- they may sometimes say things without realising they only know half the picture because their managers have had to keep things from them, often through legal necessity. Although personally, I don't think it outweighs the upsides of employee blogging however, so it's still worth doing. It just means things like that can happen.
106. Re:Didn't see this one coming by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  The Milestone/Droid suggests it's actually the other way around: the Droid was sold through a carrier (Verizon) and was pretty open. The Milestone was sold directly to users, and it was locked down.
  I really hope this acquisition changes this. I vowed to never buy anything from Motorola ever again, but if Google fires all the idiots in Motorola, and opens up their otherwise pretty awesome hardware, I might have to break that vow.
107. Re:Didn't see this one coming by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Show me one Samsung Android phone that has a locked bootloader that prevents you from booting an arbitrary kernel.
  Then show me one Motorola Android phone that wasn't shipped with a locked bootloader.
  The Droid. But that was a Verizon exclusive, which only supports the point that it's Motorola who wants to lock everything, while Verizon seems to want it unlocked (seems out of character for them, but who knows?).
108. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Trillan · 2011-08-16 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I see your point. Yes, quite likely.
  But I still think it came across as incredibly whiney and disorganized. Had it been a personal blog, this would have made sense. However, it was on the "Official Google Blog." I think a bit of coordination there would be reasonable.
109. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-16 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I was under the impression the Droid was lightly locked and it got broken (unlike now, you didn't have many other choices if you wanted a flagship 2.x phone when the Droid came out). I may be wrong on that - in that case the Droid is an extremely rare exception to the norm.
  All successors to the Droid have been locked. It may have been that Motorola just didn't have the locking technology they wanted in place yet.
  Similarly, someone might be able to find a Samsung Android phone that has a locked bootloader - but those are as rare as Motorolas with unlocked bootloaders. Samsung and Moto are polar opposites in this regard with no carrier-specific trends that are statistically significant.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
110. Re:Didn't see this one coming by Xest · 2011-08-16 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, it's a difficult balance giving employees freedom to interact with the public, but also maintaining some degree of professionality. If an employee is pissed off or otherwise emotional about something they they'll likely not be in a state of mind to really think about the potential consequences of what they post, as such I can at least full well understand why some companies choose to just not let their employees blog.
  I suppose there's a fair argument that Google could've just told it's employees "don't blog about the patent situation for the next 3 months" or whatever, perhaps they missed an opportunity there, which in hindsight could've been solved by something like that, who knows.
111. Re:Didn't see this one coming by shmlco · 2011-08-19 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Look up patent troll and non-practicing entities. A patent arsenal doesn't help you at all if you're targeted by jerks who make nothing and want your money.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
112. Re:Didn't see this one coming by V+for+Vendetta · 2011-08-20 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't even realise Motorola produced some of these things, but could it mean we'll see Google SatNavs, Google Car Kits, Google Cable/DSL modems, Google DVRs, and er, Google Baby Monitors?
  
  What often happens if one company buys another for just parts of it, is that they try to split off the non-relevant parts and sell them straight away. I very much doubt that Google is interested in most of those products - at least in a short to medium timeframe. It's one thing to produce software and services, but another to manufacture goods. The Nexus didn't go so well, if I'm not mistaken.
I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:46 · Score: -1, Flamebait

I for one think that Google should stick to search engines.
OTOH I approve of everything that might in any way slap Apple fanboys in the face.
1. Re:I for one... by ByOhTek · 2011-08-15 00:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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).
2. Re:I for one... by MacDork · 2011-08-15 01:00 · Score: -1
  
  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??
3. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Monopoly. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
4. Re:I for one... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 01:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:I for one... by zget · 2011-08-15 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  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
6. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could learn what the word 'Monopoly' means and stop embarrassing yourself.
7. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:09 · Score: -1
  
  Christ, why can you slashtards not understand what a monopoly is. None of those are monopolies...
8. Re:I for one... by Anrego · 2011-08-15 01:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:I for one... by jeffmeden · 2011-08-15 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
10. Re:I for one... by joh · 2011-08-15 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
11. Re:I for one... by Pieroxy · 2011-08-15 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  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!
12. Re:I for one... by Ixokai · 2011-08-15 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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).
13. Re:I for one... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-15 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  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...
14. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  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.
15. Re:I for one... by gorzek · 2011-08-15 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:I for one... by andydread · 2011-08-15 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  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.
17. Re:I for one... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  ...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.
18. Re:I for one... by MacDork · 2011-08-15 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  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!
19. Re:I for one... by DrXym · 2011-08-15 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  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?
20. Re:I for one... by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  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
21. Re:I for one... by Catnaps · 2011-08-15 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  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)
22. Re:I for one... by MacDork · 2011-08-15 03:01 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  In no way does Apple fit into any of these categories
  You have a very short memory. iPod had greater than 80% marketshare years ago before iPhones came along and canabalized them. Most of us would agree >80% == Monopoly, so stick your head in the sand if you'd like...
  With that monopoly, Apple introduced a music store online with DRM'ed music files. RIAA required DRM to do business online, so Apple created Fairplay. Apple refused to license Fairplay to other stores and device makers so only iTMS files could play on the iPods that everyone had and only iPods could play the files sold at iTMS. Apple then rolled out more content... books, movies, and tv shows. Also encrypted with FairPlay
  After a short period of time, the iTMS became the largest music store in the world. iTMS beat out traditional brick and mortar retailers like Wal-Mart. Next Apple rolled out iOS. Again, only iOS devices (iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch) could play these encrypted files. Although iOS is starting to face competition from Android in the phone market, it gave Apple another monopoly in tablets.
  And iOS is where this anti-competitive behavior has really become blatant. Now, you cannot even write an app for these devices without getting Apple's permission. It's like Fairplay all over again, except it is for apps. If you compete with Apple, they shut you out entirely. Your app will never see the light of day. They have created a system that offers them complete control over the market for apps. And once again, they've creating a monopoly.
  But you go ahead... stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you!"
23. Re:I for one... by ColdWetDog · 2011-08-15 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  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!
24. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  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.
25. Re:I for one... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
26. Re:I for one... by ByOhTek · 2011-08-15 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  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).
27. Re:I for one... by sydneyfong · 2011-08-15 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Name a few?
  
  --
  Don't quote me on this.
28. Re:I for one... by DrXym · 2011-08-15 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Banning other languages than Objective C. Banning alternative runtimes including web browsers. Banning apps with in content purchases systems unless they go through Apple's store (kind of inconvenient for book / video / music stores), banning apps for reasons unknown (e.g. Google Voice), banning subscription based apps that don't offer an in-app subscription button that leads to app store, banning alternative ad providers, banning alternative file formats.
  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.
29. Re:I for one... by Ixokai · 2011-08-15 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  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
30. Re:I for one... by Ixokai · 2011-08-15 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  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/. :)
Not a bad chioce by ByOhTek · 2011-08-15 00:46 · Score: 1

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).
1. Re:Not a bad chioce by JamesP · 2011-08-15 00:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
  I absolutely DON'T trust any of them to write a single line of code. Yes, I know how these companies operate.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
2. Re:Not a bad chioce by localman57 · 2011-08-15 00:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This might work out ok then. Because I think Google has some software guys.
3. Re:Not a bad chioce by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  There is a Motorola phone for sprint, just released. Motorola Photon 4G. Looks fantastic.
4. Re:Not a bad chioce by jeffmeden · 2011-08-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Google went for Motorola (at least in part) because Samsung's phone business is some ten times bigger, and even the mighty GOOG isn't able to bite off that much at this stage of the game.
5. Re:Not a bad chioce by Alex+Zepeda · 2011-08-15 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  There already are Motorola Android phones on Sprint. The Photon 4G, XPRT, Titanium, and i1 on Sprint proper. The Triumph on Virgin Mobile.
  --
  The revolution will be mocked from the sidelines.
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
6. Re:Not a bad chioce by ByOhTek · 2011-08-15 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. I had a couple Samsung androids.
  Crash. Get stuck in airplane mode so you have to restart, etc.
  I'll take Motorola over that garbage. Anyway, with Google in change, I suspect the annoying software stuff will go away with Motorola.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
7. Re:Not a bad chioce by SenseiLeNoir · 2011-08-15 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, Moto has always made solid hardware that were built like the proverbial poo house, but their software did suck buckets, and always have. Slow, Kludgy, etc
  They bought UIQ from Symbian/SonyEricsson and mess that up to. When they went to Android, I remember saying how Motorola's Software engineers know how to "suck" on a cross platform manner. And i guess in a lot of ways I was right (motoblur).
  
  --
  Have a nice day!
8. Re:Not a bad chioce by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-15 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, Motorola is the worst. Poor software customizations combined with lockdown that prevents you from fixing the poor customizations.
  It was sad how two single-core phones (Inspire and Infuse) could smoke the Atrix in terms of real-world usability. Yes, Motorola screwed up the software THAT badly.
  Compare to Samsung, who has been providing highly polished devices with the Galaxy S line. Yes, they have made some stupid design choices (RFS, STL/BML partitioning) that they are starting to move away from, but more importantly - no Samsung phone has a locked bootloader and Samsung typically posts kernel source a few days BEFORE a device is released. So it's easy to fix RFS, and a little less easy to fix STL/BML.
  Actually STL/BML isn't that bad except for the fact that it's a proprietary module that won't load unless the kernel version is 100% unchanged. So you can't move to newer base Linux releases. That's why most Cyanogenmod releases for Samsung move to MTD (even though it's a pain in the ass for the original transition.)
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
9. Re:Not a bad chioce by JamesP · 2011-08-15 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, from my perception, Samsung is way better than Motorola
  At least you don't have to deal with the stupid Motoblur
  Still, I have a Samsung Android, and I agree with the points you made
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
10. Re:Not a bad chioce by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  You sure sound like you know how these companies operate. I can tell by your fantastic grasp on the English language.
11. Re:Not a bad chioce by JamesP · 2011-08-15 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Call me when you speak my native language perfectly. Or any language that's not English, for that matter.
  Oh and by the way, it's grasp OF the English language.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
12. Re:Not a bad chioce by Idbar · 2011-08-15 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I can see some reasons why Google would take over Motorola:
  1. Because is an American based company. Which probably means they have been growing their patent portfolio in the US for longer and probably have more legal tools for a battle.
  2. Because Apple just called the war against them, so Google probably wants to go a face the issue face to face, given that Apple has been going around the bushes attacking the manufacturers supporting Google's OS.
  3. Historical hardware developments from Motorola. If someone has precedents about telecommunication innovations, I'd put Motorola in a really good place, some others in top places are either too big or have no consumer device market segment.
  
  But mainly it's interesting because for the Apple vs. Motorola, it's now Google showing up for the meeting. It's like a bully fight in school.
13. Re:Not a bad chioce by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Only might, because the way these things usually go, the google guys will start dabbling in the hardware end of things and the ex-motorola guys will keep making the software.
14. Re:Not a bad chioce by BigFire · 2011-08-15 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Mobility is also one of the more vulnerable company that's ripe for takeover.
15. Re:Not a bad chioce by gl4ss · 2011-08-15 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  but has moto really had it's own hw guys in a while?
  they sit on some patents though. the contract manufacturing they buy from elsewhere google could have bought without them.. or waited for a while for them to be at brink of bankruptcy which seems to happen to moto in 3 year cycles(their last re-org spin off split of the profitable win ce industrial stuff, from the gutter phone biz, wasn't that long ago).
  point being - motos hw or sw isn't that important. it's the patents they got as legacy from motorolas earlier days which matter - my guess is that they paid the premium so that it wouldn't end up in someone else's hands, some bigger motorola investors must have been pretty fed up with their investment in it anyways, they haven't had a real hit year since razr's.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
16. Re:Not a bad chioce by jco · 2011-08-15 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Reading and commenting from a Samsung Infuse. It's my first Android phone, granted, but so far I'm not displeased. Couple of lockups and occasional lag; other than that: crystal clear screen, gorgeous color, awesome video. I've heard bitching about fonts, but I've never noticed any problem. I've heard raves and rants about most popular phones, so while I listen to such comments, I keep the salt shaker handy at the same time.
17. Re:Not a bad chioce by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, still?
  I remember in and around 2000, where it was well-known, that most of the Motorola employees themselves owned Nokia phones, because the Motorola UI was so bad. ^^
18. Re:Not a bad chioce by ByOhTek · 2011-08-15 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung Moment and Transform. They had good video, screen, good color, etc. However, there is no excuse, IMO, for a phone crashing, especially when it is on Android. Currently I have an HTC Windows Phone 7, which works great. I've used a friends HTC Evo, none of those issues, I have a Toshiba Honeycomb tablet, and not had the "sleep of death" issue, which is the only common issue for that device.
  Plenty of good stuff out there.
  And, by "lockup" do you mean crash/stall that forced you to restart? If so, and you don't find anything annoying about a "couple" of those, I'd say that says something bad about the user as well as the phone.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
19. Re:Not a bad chioce by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  but has moto really had it's own hw guys in a while?
  they sit on some patents though. the contract manufacturing they buy from elsewhere google could have bought without them.
  There's a significant difference between hardware development and contract manufacturing. Just because hardware is assembled overseas, doesn't mean the hardware development isn't done by Moto engineers. I recognize that in software all the work is done on the engineering end, but with hardware there are at least two groups of people involved. I've done hardware work where the assembly was done overseas and where the assembly was done locally. However in both cases the design was a local design done be local engineers.
  <rant>This is why the gripes over Apple not doing their own hardware annoy me. Apple employs a large group of hardware engineers to design their stuff, they contract with Foxconn to get it built. Dell also uses Foxconn, but they simply give them a list of specs for a given notebook and have Foxconn do the engineering, but Dell gets the pass.</rant>
20. Re:Not a bad chioce by nemasu · 2011-08-15 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I just bought the galaxy s 2 and for once in my life I have zero complaints...just fantastic.
  
  --
  I made an app! Shoutium
21. Re:Not a bad chioce by interkin3tic · 2011-08-15 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, what's wrong with samsung? I thought they were one of the less evil ones. Or is there another reason for the shudder that I'm not getting?
22. Re:Not a bad chioce by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
  That's kinda what I'm hoping for: Motorola's hardware with Google's software. Fire everybody who worked on Motoblur, Motonav, locking bootloaders and crap like that, and keep the people who build awesome hardware. I love Motorola hardware, but I hate their approach to software with a passion.
23. Re:Not a bad chioce by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  In its early days, my Milestone sometimes called somebody entirely by itself. I've also had one day where it was completely useless.
  Though for the last year, it's been working pretty well.
24. Re:Not a bad chioce by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  The interesting thing is: everything that Motorola does wrong, is something that Google does much, much better. If they manage to combine the good parts of both companies, you'd get some pretty awesome products.
25. Re:Not a bad chioce by Andy+Dodd · 2011-08-16 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. There are two ways this could go:
  1) Google puts a quash on the bootloader locking bullshit and things get MUCH better. Motorola devices were nice hardware with crap software and lockdown.
  2) Google continues with bootloader locking in order to extend the Honeycomb mess, paying open-source lip service. I understand a desire to get rid of "poison pill" poorly supported Android devices, but cracking down on Market licensing was the way to do this, not restricting source availability. At least Google seems to be forcing Honeycomb vendors to not slack as far as updates. HC devices seem to have a latency of 1-2 months at worst - not the nearly-a-year latency some phones see.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
This is brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:47 · Score: 0

$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.
1. Re:This is brilliant by alexandre_ganso · 2011-08-15 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  It is actually nice to see them spending money on engineers than on lawyers...
2. Re:This is brilliant by Anrego · 2011-08-15 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  They probably bought them for their IP, for the benefit of their lawyers ;p
  Remember back when products succeeded based somewhat on innovation and marketing.
  sigh.. good times :)
Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by mozumder · 2011-08-15 00:47 · Score: 1

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)
1. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by neokushan · 2011-08-15 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is all about Android, not ChromeOS. Make no mistake, Google's press release specifically mentions Android and if Google wanted such a device, they'd build another high-end "reference" device like the Nexus ONE was.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
2. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by Squiddie · 2011-08-15 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't get the people who are touting the "post-PC" label. PCs exist because people still need them. Would you write a term paper on your phone? PCs are here to stay until we can find something better, and I don't think that tablets and phones are something better, not yet anyway.
3. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by MightyYar · 2011-08-15 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't get the people who are touting the "post-PC" label.
  Because the current trend is for PCs to be marginalized. Just because PCs still make a better word processor doesn't mean people will need to buy them forever. I can see a cheap docking station for your phone/tablet easily running a competent word processor. People are already moving to phones and tablets for web and email. All that is left is the corporate market. That's a huge market, mind you. And I don't think PC sales will go down - it's just that growth will slow or stall while phone and tablet sales continue to increase.
  I think cost is the main hurdle right now. The good tablets are still more expensive than a decent PC.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
4. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  I still buy a phone as a phone. I refuse to pay exhorbitant rates for cell data plans. If and when they bring data plans down to something reasonable, say $5.00 a month for unlimited data (this includes tethering, texting, internet browsing, downloading, etc) then I might jump on. Until then, it's ho-hum phone as a phone for me.
5. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because the current trend is for PCs to be marginalized. Just because PCs still make a better word processor doesn't mean people will need to buy them forever. I can see a cheap docking station for your phone/tablet easily running a competent word processor.
  As soon as thats happens on an x86 processor, and I can run Windows (not mobile, the real Windows) or full OSX on it, I'll likely be first in line to buy multiple devices, but its got to give me everything my PC gives me, not just dumbed down tablet and phone apps. ARM is great, saves power, does a great job, but I really don't care about that, the technology will catch up so eventually x86 gets fast enough even at low power and I won't have to use an ARM device ... and I'll be able to run all the same apps at work, home, where ever since its all on my phone.
  Or at least thats my hope. I'd pay considerably more to replace the laptops in my home with phones and docking stations if the processing power could be equal on demand (So on battery its scaled back tremendously, thats fine)
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
6. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by ColdWetDog · 2011-08-15 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  I still buy a phone as a phone. I refuse to pay exhorbitant rates for cell data plans. If and when they bring data plans down to something reasonable, say $5.00 a month for unlimited data (this includes tethering, texting, internet browsing, downloading, etc) then I might jump on. Until then, it's ho-hum phone as a phone for me.
  Yes gramps, sure gramps. Time for a nice nap?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by MightyYar · 2011-08-15 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Until then, it's ho-hum phone as a phone for me.
  I agree with you on your personal choice, but you are not "the market". You don't get to determine what products are preferred by the population at large.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
8. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by MightyYar · 2011-08-15 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  As soon as thats happens on an x86 processor, and I can run Windows (not mobile, the real Windows) or full OSX on it, I'll likely be first in line to buy multiple devices
  I'm right there with you. I can't imagine not having a desktop. But we are not the mainstream, and the mainstream market is what determines what "era" we are in. My phone is a pathetic piece of computing crap compared to even my 2004 desktop, but people I know with tablets tend to sit there on the couch with them while watching TV - playing games, doing their facebook thing, checking email, and looking up stuff on IMDB and Wikipedia. That's not me, and that's why I'm not mainstream :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
9. Re:Or maybe google targeting post-PC devices? by bberens · 2011-08-15 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  When people speak of the post-PC era I don't envision it as PCs becoming nonexistent. For example, a lot of us live in the post-land line era. I still have a land line for my security alarm and for emergencies but I can't remember the last time I used it to actually make a phone call. I think the PC will still be there, like my land line, but its use will continually get marginalized over time. As a programmer I'll make more use of it than average joe, but even for me I do pretty much all of my non-work on non-PC devices.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Patent portfolio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:47 · Score: 0

Hopefully this will allow them to give Apple a good slap
1. Re:Patent portfolio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  a good slap?!? how about a good 12-ton sledge to the jaw!! twist that sick sadistic apple-core til it snaps
2. Re:Patent portfolio by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  If Motorola had something they could use to beat Apple down ... don't you think they'd have done it by now?
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
3. Re:Patent portfolio by BigFire · 2011-08-15 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have the money to waste on it. People with this much patent don't normally go around trolling for target. Now with this new war that Apple have initiated, Google has the ammo, and the lawyer money to respond.
Very good coup... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:49 · Score: 0

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...
Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Arch_Android · 2011-08-15 00:49 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/
Most seem happy enough.
1. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  interesting how all the quotes say the same thing..."defending android and it's partners". You think Google told them what to say when asked?
2. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by dwater · 2011-08-15 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  notice anyone missing?
  
  --
  Max.
3. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  Ed from the mailroom... and Janice from Accounting. That is all that is missing.
4. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by neokushan · 2011-08-15 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung, HTC, LG and Sony Ericsson are there and they're the biggest Android manufacturers. Erm....ZTE, maybe? Is it anyone important?
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
5. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Job's speech that basically said they can eat shit and die was too big for the page.
6. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by larry+bagina · 2011-08-15 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Upon reading the news, I couldn't help but wonder if this was the Microsoft plan all along... (Picture Steve Ballmer as Palpatine). FUD up Android with patents until Google is forced to turn to the dark side and buy up a handset manufacturer for the patent portfolio. The other manufacturers are fucked over and go with Windows OS Phone 7.
  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.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
7. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  ROFL
8. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Possibly, but you'd be wrong if you thought tech CEOs don't coordinate statements.
9. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-15 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah well, what are they gonna say ? "Shit, we're screwed." might have kind of a negative impact on the stock price.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
10. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Ptolemy+Too · 2011-08-15 01:48 · Score: 2
  
  Most seem happy enough.
  There's a striking uniformity to those quotes: "welcome ... commitment to defending Android ... its partners." It's almost as if they were given a template and asked to customize it.
  It's hard to image that they're really all that happy, though. Will all be partners be treated equally when Google owns one of them? Won't Moogle get privileged access to Android architects and programmers? Won't Moogle be preferred for future Lead Devices?
11. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by dwater · 2011-08-15 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Aha, Samsung have joined the party. Better late than never. Though, I suppose that depends on your point of view.
  
  --
  Max.
12. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/
  Most seem happy enough.
  Why can I see two sets of slightly re-worded comments?
13. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by chrb · 2011-08-15 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to image that they're really all that happy, though.
  One of the biggest threats to the Android bunch (HTC, Samsung etc.) is patents. Samsung just had a release of their new tablet halted by Apple everywhere in the E.U. (apart from the Netherlands) because of a patent attack. HTC is paying a license fee to Microsoft for every Android phone sold. If these threats are removed, then these companies can go back to competing in the marketplace instead of the courts, they get to keep a greater percentage of their profits, and their CEOs and shareholders will be happier.
  
  Will all be partners be treated equally when Google owns one of them? Won't Moogle get privileged access to Android architects and programmers? Won't Moogle be preferred for future Lead Devices?
  This is a potential threat, but in scale it is a much smaller threat than the patent problem. The core of Android being open source means that there isn't that much advantage to be gained from "closing up" development. The first day that a new device goes on sale, rival manufacturers get access to the complete source code - not just to read, but also to freely modify and redistribute. Contrast that with any other market, or any other device. If you were HTC CEO you really don't have a choice - writing your own platform is now out of the question, which leaves you with Windows vs Android. What would you see as a greater threat - the Microsoft+Nokia partnership, or Google+Motorola? The situation is pretty similar, but one partnership has already given you a perpetual never-ending license to redistribute the bulk of their platform code, for free, and that platform has 50% market share, versus Windows Phone, where you have no right to redistribute any of the platform, and it has only 1% market share. It's not a difficult choice.
14. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Why wouldn't they be happy? This acquisition shows two things:
  1) Google is REALLY serious about Android.
  2) Google can now defend Android successfully.
  Sure, some of their competition has closer ties to the OS manufacturer now, but do you really think Google would be stupid enough to screw with their ecosystem? From the beginning, they've made Android a PLATFORM. The entire point of it is that they want every manufacturer using it. They wouldn't cut off the source of their success to make a few extra dollars on handset sales, at the expense of (potentially) billions of future dollars in mobile advertising.
15. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Faux_Pseudo · 2011-08-15 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  For a second I thought I was watching Jon Stewart do another montage of politicians doing the "stay on message, offer the same sound bite they gave us in our talking points memo" shtick. Then I remembered these were future competitors of Google.
  
  --
  Ascii artist &
16. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by jrumney · 2011-08-15 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  notice anyone missing?
  Not really. Perhaps it would help if they were more noticeable, but in my local shopping mall, its all Samsung and HTC these days, with Motorola a distant forth behind those two and Apple, with Blackberry and Nokia still hanging on in some dusty corner somewhere with Sony Ericsson and LG.
17. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  I'll save you guys the trouble of following the link:
  “I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” x4
18. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  I guess you're in the US. This story 'arrived' quite a while ago and then Samsung wasn't on the list.
19. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-08-15 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Job's speech that basically said they can eat shit and die was too big for the page.
  Google may be eating shit, but as far as dying...
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
20. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  The quotes all sounded like variations on the /. meme: "We welcome our new Google overlords."
21. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Motorolla! :P
22. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by blarkon · 2011-08-15 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  As others have pointed out, a lot of those quotes come off as suspiciously similar. (all the tweets from partners all use use "Goggle" "committed" "defending Android" "it's password" in a very similar way) http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/googles-coalition-speaks-with-one-voice/3771 Which sounds like they all got the same tasty sandwich from Google PR and went with it.
23. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by madhi19 · 2011-08-15 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Off course they are happy all of a sudden somebody bought an hardware maker not unlike all of them for more than it was believed to be worth and probably making their own stocks rise. The added bonus is that Google might well be creating an Android patent pool for them to join up in the near future.
24. Re:Reactions from other Android Manufacturers by mcvos · 2011-08-15 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to image that they're really all that happy, though.
  One of the biggest threats to the Android bunch (HTC, Samsung etc.) is patents. Samsung just had a release of their new tablet halted by Apple everywhere in the E.U. (apart from the Netherlands) because of a patent attack.
  That block is not because of patents, but because the design is a direct copy of the iPad. (Though it turns out that Apple forged the evidence for that, so that block might disappear really soon.)
Android ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:50 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Android ? by localman57 · 2011-08-15 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  Only good things. Remember, it's not about Android. It's not about phones. It's about ads. Everything google does is just a way to serve up ads, and to serve up search which serves up ads. Google will make Android stronger. And if other manufacturers want to help, google will help them. Because it lets them sell ads.
2. Re:Android ? by bberens · 2011-08-15 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Great, I already have to keep having to hear the mantra about "Apple is not a software company, it's a hardware company." So now I get to hear "Google is not a hardware/software company, it's an ad company."
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
patent shield by tero · 2011-08-15 00:50 · Score: 5, Informative

From the Google press release:

We recently explained how companies including Microsoft and Apple are banding together in anti-competitive patent attacks on Android. The U.S. Department of Justice had to intervene in the results of one recent patent auction to âoeprotect competition and innovation in the open source software communityâ and it is currently looking into the results of the Nortel auction. Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Googleâ(TM)s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.
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.
1. Re:patent shield by tcr · 2011-08-15 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely.
  Just looked at the Motorola site. They have 24,500 patents granted and pending in 2G, 3G, 4G, H.264, MPEG-4, 802.11, NFC.
  With the codec ones, there could be some benefit for WebM too....
  
  --
  
  Information wants to be beer.
2. Re:patent shield by Microlith · 2011-08-15 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  helping to keep Android (litigation) free.
  I wish they'd do more to keep open and Free Software more litigation free. Not everyone is an Android fan.
3. Re:patent shield by Grond · 2011-08-15 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola is also involved in multiple patent lawsuits as the plaintiff, including suits against Google competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and TiVo. Unless Google promptly dismisses those suits, this purchase represents Google getting into the lawsuit filing game. So it remains to be seen how much this is about defense and how much about offense.
4. Re:patent shield by luisdom · 2011-08-15 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  On one hand I find a bit sad that a company as broad as Motorola is bought just for the sake of smartphone patents. It's logical given that Apple has turned from an almost bankrupt company to the biggest one with a single phone, but it's discouraging anyway.
  On the other, what do we have now, 3 behemoths in the playground, Apple, Motoogle and Nokiasoft. I'm not sure if this is going to be the best thing for us the consumers...
Motorola Android devices by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:50 · Score: -1

So are we going to get unlocked Motorola bootloaders now?
1. Re:Motorola Android devices by nschubach · 2011-08-15 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Royalty payments. by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-15 00:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Royalty payments. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Apple can almost buy controlling interest in Microsoft. They'd need $107B to pull that off.
2. Re:Royalty payments. by Goboxer · 2011-08-15 01:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Microsoft's number of shares: 8.38 Billion 51% of MSFT: 4,273,800,000 Market Price per share: $25 Cost to buy 51% at Market Price: $181,845,000,000 (Roughly $182 Billion) Apple's Net Income for Q2 2011: $7 to $8 billion Conclusion: Apple would be better served doing a massive buy-back of their own stock. They would drive the value of their stock up (something people seem to covet). They wouldn't have to deal with a nasty and fruitless FCC investigation. And they wouldn't be purchasing a sinking ship (as many see MSFT).
3. Re:Royalty payments. by neokushan · 2011-08-15 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  Antitrust people would probably shit a brick if that were to happen.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
4. Re:Royalty payments. by morgaen · 2011-08-15 01:27 · Score: 2
  
  Yay! I've been waiting years for IE to return on my Macbook!
5. Re:Royalty payments. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's too bad you suck at math.
  4,237,800,000 * $25 = $105,945,000,000
  The original poster was correct. Apple has $76 billion in cash right now. For an extra $30 billion, they could buy controlling interest in MSFT at current market price.
6. Re:Royalty payments. by ChinggisK · 2011-08-15 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  And fanbois on both sides would each shit two.
7. Re:Royalty payments. by Shompol · 2011-08-15 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot about leverage. One only needs to put down ~10% of the price, just like when you buy a house. I am not sure about 51%, I think it is all or nothing deal.
  
  Having said that, the above mentioned buyout would make no sense, because MSFT is both ridiculously overpriced and does not fit Apple's business model.
8. Re:Royalty payments. by bberens · 2011-08-15 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  For a company the size of MSFT with only 5-10% of the shares you can get your way on most decisions. Buying 51% would be a huge waste of money.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
9. Re:Royalty payments. by eparker05 · 2011-08-15 05:21 · Score: 2
  
  Actually this will work directly against Microsoft. Unlike Google which gives away Android, Microsoft sells Windows Phone OS. This means that Microsoft is economically liable for patent infringement damages if Google chooses to litigate, and the ITC could rule specifically against windows phone OS instead of having to target phone manufacturers (Google partners in this case). Obviously the goal here isn't to sue Microsoft, although it may come to that, the goal is to use the threat of litigation to get them to stop collecting patent licencing fees.
  My thought is that Google will use a mutually assured destruction approach. Rather than threatening to sue for licencing fees, they could threaten to sue with the intent of stopping all imports of phones/OS's containing infringing IP; no company is going to go against a Motorola patent trove in an all-or-nothing legal battle. Even a single low level (infrastructure level) tech patent from Motorola slipping past the defenses could mean a year or more of redesign/rewrite work to get a product selling again in the US.
10. Re:Royalty payments. by Patch86 · 2011-08-15 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  When you announce you're going to buy a a huge number of shares in a company, the price of those shares usually go up. Most mergers and acquisitions usually pay a fairly hefty premium over the market price.
  For example, have a look at this chart of BSkyb's share prices. Try to guess at what point News Corp announced they wanted to buy the remaining stake in the company, and guess at which point they announced they were abandoning that plan.
  http://graphs.lse.co.uk/GetGraph.asp?gcode=BSY&mode=ShareCharts&r=0.8588145571342161&p=9&ma=9&t=2&comp=
11. Re:Royalty payments. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Competing with your own OEMS is a risky business proposition.
12. Re:Royalty payments. by Meski · 2011-08-15 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen Microsoft's latest phone sales figures? They're going to get included with 'other' any day now.
13. Re:Royalty payments. by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-16 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but that doesn't prevent them to extort "licensing fees" for bullshit patents from Android phones' manufacturers.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
14. Re:Royalty payments. by Shompol · 2011-08-16 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  When you announce you're going to buy a a huge number of shares in a company, the price of those shares usually go up.
  And this is exactly why nobody in his right mind announces that he is going to buy a huge number of shares. Huge number of shares is bought in secret, in many odd lots.
  
  This is also the reason why buyouts do not go after 51%, but 100% of the company, and the negotiations are conducted in secret. Those who start buying shares like crazy before negotiations are made public are actually engaged in insider trading. A couple of guys got arrested for this a few years back. They got caught because the deal was called off in the last minute, and they already bought gazillion shares, acting on insider information.
15. Re:Royalty payments. by Patch86 · 2011-08-16 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you're planning on buying 100% of shares in a publicly traded company, you have to announce it eventually- shareholders usually get to vote on it, seeing as it's their shares you're talking about. Insider trading is usually taking advantage of exactly this crazy prize jump that happens when you announce it- you buy up shares at their regular price before the announcement, and then take advantage of the price hike after the announcement to sell at a big profit. If a company were able to purchase another company at a discount, this insider trading wouldn't make much sense, seeing as you'd be buying shares at more than you're going to be paid for them.
  Seeing as shareholders get to vote on any share-selling deal, they will never approve a sale of a company at less than market price- why would they? If you own shares in a company worth $1million at any time you want to sell them, why would you agree to sell them for $0.9million?
16. Re:Royalty payments. by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-16 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not when it comes to decisions that clearly sabotage the company's business -- what in case of Microsoft would be anything other than blatantly predatory behavior.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Less about stopping the royalty payments... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:51 · Score: 0

...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.
Fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:51 · Score: -1

So now I own a Google phone? Excuse my while I put my F3s on eBay...
Thinks are about to get interesting :) by youn · 2011-08-15 00:52 · Score: 1

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 :p
I have never heard by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:53 · Score: 0

I have never heard of a twelve and a half dollar bill
1. Re:I have never heard by larry+bagina · 2011-08-15 01:31 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  It's 1/8th of a Franklin.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
2. Re:I have never heard by orkysoft · 2011-08-15 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they're paying with 4 $3 bills and 50 cents.
  
  --
  
  I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Hardware vs Software by CaptainLard · 2011-08-15 00:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?
1. Re:Hardware vs Software by gbjbaanb · 2011-08-15 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I can see the patent battles now:
  Google: we have patent "using radio waves to provide mobile telephony".
  Apple: we have patent "making something in a rectangular shape with 1 button and rounded edges"
  I still think all the vague patents need to be scrapped, but that won't affect any of the new Google "real invention" patents they've just acquired.
2. Re:Hardware vs Software by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Google: we have patent "using radio waves to provide mobile telephony".
  Already expired: U.S. Patent 3,906,166: Radio Telephone System (Dyna-Tac) - Martin Cooper et al. (Motorola), filed October 17, 1973, issued September 16, 1975
3. Re:Hardware vs Software by StripedCow · 2011-08-15 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  ...are we going to be seeing an epic east Texas showdown...?
  Nah, probably Apple will introduce their own awkward communication "standards", and Google will implement their own awkward user-interface principles. Subsequently, the universe will split in two halves and everybody has to choose sides or be sucked into the vacuum thus formed in between.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
4. Re:Hardware vs Software by Grave · 2011-08-15 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, I suspect what we're going to see is that Google is going to ask Apple and Microsoft if they still wish to play the game of global thermonuclear war. When the dust settles, everyone will be cross-licensed with everyone else, and we can go back to letting consumers pick the superior product without fear of it suddenly being blocked by trade commissions.
5. Re:Hardware vs Software by Lifyre · 2011-08-15 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  The original one yes but what about all of the other ones that follow for all of the improvements and new bits that have been added in? Unless Apple is using the same hardware/signaling etc. from 1973...
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
6. Re:Hardware vs Software by LWATCDR · 2011-08-15 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you left out Palm. My guess is that they and a metric ton of patents on smartphones. Notice that Apple never went after them. In fact I wound if they hold a patient on syncing a mobile device with a PC.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
7. Re:Hardware vs Software by blair1q · 2011-08-15 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, those are still valid and still ofsetting.
  They'll stack them up like POGs and see what happens.
8. Re:Hardware vs Software by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Google will just buy Apple after Steve Jobs dies. duh.
Motorolas patents are belong to google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:53 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by G3ckoG33k · 2011-08-15 00:54 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Battle of the Apes by gbjbaanb · 2011-08-15 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry - once Elop is finished with Nokia, it'll be worth next to nothing and Elop can recommend to the board that it be taken over completely by Microsoft, thus handing MS the other half of all mobile patents.
2. Re:Battle of the Apes by mwvdlee · 2011-08-15 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Google already had some hardware too; the Nexus, chromebooks, their cheesy servers. But admittedly nothing quite on the scale of Motorola Mobility.
  The articles are quite confusing though, sometimes saying Google bought Motorola, other times stating Motorola Mobility. As I understand it, this is indeed only half of Motorola. Though the Mobility half also includes many non-mobile and non-consumer products. Wonder what Google will do with those products which are of no obvious strategic importance to Google.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
3. Re:Battle of the Apes by stupid_is · 2011-08-15 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  There ain't no such thing as Motorola anymore, as Motorola Inc split into Motorola Solutions (Networks) and Motorola Mobility (Handsets + set top boxes) - affectionately known as Motorola Solutions (making a small profit) and Motorola Problems (not quite making profit). As part of the deal, all of the IPR owned by Motorola Inc was transferred to Motorola Mobility to give it a revenue stream (and, I suppose, to make it more attractive on the auction block) and Motorola Solutions got a license to use what it wanted at the time of the split. Since then, Solutions has split into two, with the (3GPP and 3GPP2) mobile networks technology bit getting bought by Nokia Siemens Networks, leaving the TETRA/Govmt and iDEN businesses in the Motorola Solutions stable.
  "Motorola" as a brand is now thoroughly axed to death. I can't imagine that the brand will last long on consumer devices when under the Google umbrella, and the enterprise devices are either dying a slow/quick death (3GPP, 3GPP2 being replaced with NSN kit & iDEN cos it's a dying proprietary tech) or being outsourced to another well known brand (TETRA is relying on Ericsson for it's LTE enhancements, IIRC).
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
4. Re:Battle of the Apes by owlstead · 2011-08-15 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that MS made much hardware that could be considered a prelude to the XBox. It's an entirely different product from the rest of their portfolio. I don't see much of a difference with Google. And hardware or software - does it really matter?
Does this include Netopia? by scharkalvin · 2011-08-15 00:56 · Score: 1

Are they buying just Motorola's cell phone division or does it also include Netopia (they make DSL/Cable modems).
1. Re:Does this include Netopia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  I can see Netopia being sold off as it is not part of the core business.
2. Re:Does this include Netopia? by neokushan · 2011-08-15 01:19 · Score: 2
  
  Just Motorola Mobility. Motorola Solutions is not affected.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
3. Re:Does this include Netopia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  As a Netopia engineer, I can say with assurance that Netopia is part of the Home division within Motorola Mobility. So, yes, the acquisition does include Netopia.
4. Re:Does this include Netopia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yes... Netopia is part of Motorola Mobility (in the Home portion that also includes Cable and IPTV Set-Top boxes)
Questions questions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 00:56 · Score: 0

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?
What is the EU and DoJ going to think by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:01 · Score: -1

I cant imagine the DOJ or EU are going to let this through without some scrutiny. The effect it could have on competition would be profound if Google abuses its position.
On another note Google is getting too big for its britches. Just to be able to buy Motorola at a drop of a dime is ridiculous.
1. Re:What is the EU and DoJ going to think by EmagGeek · 2011-08-15 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding? This administration is all about big corporatism and special interests. Whatever makes gobs of money for the re-election campaign..
Google does NOT care about you. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 01:03 · Score: 0, Troll

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.
1. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by Anrego · 2011-08-15 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  `Long as it's automated, and the data is protected and inaccessible to other people, and not sold to other parties.. I'm actually ok with this. I know this puts me in the minority with the slashdot crowd, and I'm sure someone is gonna accuse me of atroturfing, and yes there are all the slipery slope articles and becoming accustom to surveillance is bad and all that, but I just don't care. My life isn't that interesting. If some algorithm wants to pour over all my lifes data to show me a guitar ad (cause I've been looking at guitar stuff recently) .. I can live with it.
  Maybe they could offer some kind of monthly payment plan where they don't collect your data, but I suspect it would get so little attention the revenue wouldn't justify the cost of implementing it. Most non-geeks share my opinion of data privacy.
2. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by Anrego · 2011-08-15 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  * astroturfing
  * arguments
  sigh .. monday :(
3. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I largely agree... When the service or product I'm using is free to me(eg: Facebook, GMail)
  When I buy a product though, I'd rather not be a trojan horse for ads. The Xbox360 pissed me off in a huge part due to this. The 360 shits ads at you even if you're paying for XBLA Gold.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
4. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by andydread · 2011-08-15 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  What then sir do you suggest hardware manufacturers should use as an alternative to Android for a big screen mobile operating system with an application base? The i-Ad powered iOS? or the maybe the Bing powered Windows Phone? All of them are selling advertising, All of them are collecting data metrics (snooping as u call it) in order to serve you ads to things you are most likely to purchase.
5. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by Anrego · 2011-08-15 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  That I can agree with. If I pay for the phone.. unless they offer a discount or something (which I might actually take) ..
  Is there any evidence that google is collecting data in this way or plans to? (real question not a snide comment, I really don't follow this stuff actively)
6. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  iAd and Bing aren't Apple and MSFT's bread and butter. Also, iAd at least, no idea about Bing, also has better data retention policies and better privacy policies than Google's AdSense network.
  As far as what should *vendors* do? I don't know. They're big boys ran by guys who have MBAs and PhDs. If I have to come up with the good ideas, they're fucked. They're doubly fucked if they rely on Android and if the future is Android for them. If the Oracle's permanent injunction comes down, they're triple fucked.
  What should *consumers* do? Not take this shit. Not from Apple, not from Microsoft, and especially not from Google.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
7. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  They don't, and I suspect, they wouldn't snoop in on your voice or text conversations(I was being needlessly hyperbolic), but they are actively tracking other data relating to phone and data usage and it's kind of scary.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
8. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by andydread · 2011-08-15 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  iAd at least, no idea about Bing, also has better data retention policies and better privacy policies than Google's AdSense network.
  [citation-needed]
  What should *consumers* do? Not take this shit. Not from Apple, not from Microsoft, and especially not from Google
  what shit?
9. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-08-15 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  "AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
  Google's AdMob, Adsense is similar.
  
  The iPhone generates twice a day a random ID and this ID is used for iAd. This is enough to get the right ad for the right place to the right device, but not enough to find out what device it is and what user it is (because the ID is random) and even this anonymous "you" can't be tracked over time, because the ID changes to another random ID every 12 hours. Tell me what you want, I think this is quite a reasonable implementation. I don't trust them, but with this implementation I don't need to trust them to begin with. As it should be.
  Source
  Seriously.
  Google is way more evil than Apple is. Sure, Apple's selling you a walled garden. But that's what you're expecting. Google's trying to say, "WE'RE FREE AND OPEN!" when what they really mean is, "WE WANT TO HARVEST YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR OUR ADVERTISING OVERLORDS!"
  Trojan. Horse.
  Fuck you, Google.
  (Okay, yes, I'll still use Search, Maps and images... but that's it!)
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
10. Re:Google does NOT care about you. by Kelbear · 2011-08-15 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Google's privacy policies have always been pretty upfront. They often present the policies in plain english instead of legalese, which is pretty rare.
  If you're wondering about the specific services you use, look here: http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/
  They sum it up in about 1 page for each one. Some link to the option to opt-out, I don't know how many of them do, I haven't looked at all of them.
And when you get on google+ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:03 · Score: 0

Let me guess--if they don't like your name on google+, your phone stops working?
Oh wait.
1. Re:And when you get on google+ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  From Bradley Horowitz, VP Product, Google+:
  https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
  
  When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed
  (July 25, 3 days before ITWorld article)
  https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/emPLDaxFjQ2
  
  As always, Google believes you own your data. In the event you are unable to comply with our names policy, you can still take all your content with you, even after your profile is suspended. Visit Google Takeout for more details.
  (Aug 11)
Genius or Disaster by V-similitude · 2011-08-15 01:03 · Score: 0

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 . . .
Patents by Grizzley9 · 2011-08-15 01:03 · Score: 2

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
1. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Also i find it funny that people consider this a done deal.....it is not....not even close.
  In fact it may never be allowed due to regulartory concerns...and lets not forget....Apple most likely has licensed the needed patents...they are very good at that....and one more thing......Dont forget Apple may make a better offer to Motorola Share holders who also must approve the purchase....and lets check the play sheet....oh yeah...Apple has more cash to buy Motorola Mobility than Google has....A LOT MORE.....as a Motorola Share holder my vote will be to sell to the highest bidder.....
  Interesting none the less...but dont go jumping to conclusions.....your over simplifying this whole thing.
  Also note that Google share price is down on this news....BWHAHAHAHAHA
2. Re:Patents by mla_anderson · 2011-08-15 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's my understanding that the proposed buyer in any major deal usually sees a drop in share price since they are proposing to reduce their available capital by a significant amount. What would be more telling is what happens to MSFT and AAPL.
  
  --
  Sig is on vacation
3. Re:Patents by stupid_is · 2011-08-15 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Mobility owns all the patents that Motorola owned. Motorola Solutions has sweet FA except for that which it filed post-separation, which is sweet FA as there was no budget for that.
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
4. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Since Google basically said "We are buying them for the patent portfolio", I'm guessing Google has done their homework and the patents DO belong to MMI.
  "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
5. Re:Patents by V-similitude · 2011-08-15 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's a lot of cash for Apple to blow just to stop Google from getting Motorola. Google benefits both from the patents and the phone hardward/software synergy. Apple would benefit far less from the patents (they already have a lot of their own, plus the Nortel batch), and not at all from Motorola's hardware capability. Plus, an Apple purchase would certainly be more heavily scrutinized than a Google purchase. In the first case, Apple is pretty much just eliminating a competitor (or two), whereas in the latter, Google is only strengthening the two parties.
6. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  It seems to me, from the wikipedia at least, that Google got the consumer device patents. Motorola Solutions seems like its the end of the business that would be trying to sell Verizon on hardware for the cell towers. Which Google probably don't want much to do with. But Motorola Mobility is the part of Motorola trying to sell phones to people. Which dovetails quite well with Google and Android.
7. Re:Patents by NeutronCowboy · 2011-08-15 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  The WP article says nothing about who got the patents. I can't imagine Google blowing $12 billion on a struggling handset maker, so I'm assuming that Motorola Mobility actually owns all the important wireless patents.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
If Google were a poker player... by riflemann · 2011-08-15 01:05 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:If Google were a poker player... by 0xABADC0DA · 2011-08-15 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  You're celebrating a company that profits from other people's creative works (original content), time and attention (advertising), and inventions. You cheered when google, a company without actual inventions themselves to speak of, complained about the patent system protecting inventors. And you cheered when they essentially bribed the system by buying other people's works; they payed ill-gotten money to make their patent abuse problem go away.
  Google is a parasite. Objectively looking at Google's behavior it's one of the more evil, corrosive companies in the tech sector, so why do you celebrate them?
$12.5 Bill by shawnmchorse · 2011-08-15 01:06 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:$12.5 Bill by orkysoft · 2011-08-15 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  They're paying with 4 $3 bills and 50 cents.
  
  --
  
  I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Six sigma by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:07 · Score: 1

Now Google will be Six Sigmed by newly acquired Motorola execs and will fail hard.
4.5b vs 12.5b, not just patents?! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:08 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:4.5b vs 12.5b, not just patents?! by brainzach · 2011-08-15 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  It is mostly patents. First, Motorola has a better patent portfolio than Nortel.
  Motorola is also a functioning company that can make profits. If you think that value of Motorola future cell phone business without its patents is $6 billion then the costs of the patent portfolio to Google is *only* $6.5 billion. If Google wanted to, they can sell the Motorola division off which they wouldn't be able to do with Nortel.
Great Match by aceofspades1217 · 2011-08-15 01:10 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Great Match by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed, I was about ready to sell my older Droid X... perhaps I'll hold onto it for a little while longer now.
Haha, Nokia by Compaqt · 2011-08-15 01:11 · Score: 1

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
mroe royalties than sales by gbjbaanb · 2011-08-15 01:11 · Score: 1

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.
What? by V-similitude · 2011-08-15 01:13 · Score: 1

They couldn't bid the inverse conductance quantum constant??
Microsoft by akirchhoff · 2011-08-15 01:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  If anything will be left of their platform by the time Nokia ships anything with WP7 (first will obviously be a N9 non-Meego variant).
  And then Microsoft will own Qt, what a show.
2. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  You say that like that wasn't Microsoft's plan from the beginning. They just needed to throw Elop in there to intentionally run Nokia into the ground first so they could then swoop in and buy the company for cheap in a firesale.
3. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. This is the beginning of an industry wide consolidation. I think patents are forcing this result.
  I think the RIM is next. HP will have to do something or they will be completely marginalized by the new big 3. Apple, Google and Microsoft.
4. Re:Microsoft by larryjoe · 2011-08-15 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  The other way to look at this situation is that now Microsoft is the sole cell phone OS vendor who does not compete in the phone manufacturing sector. So, the four big Asian Android phone makers might see Microsoft as the only OS alternative that won't be a direct competitor. This is a huge issue. In the 90's AT&T broke up into a carrier service and an equipment manufacturer for this reason. The Android phone makers should be worried. And, depending on your take on their "united" statements of support this morning, they are either totally not worried or totally worried. IMO, the highly scripted wording and timing reminds me of forced confessions from arrested suspects who have no practical alternative.
5. Re:Microsoft by Soul-Burn666 · 2011-08-15 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not only Microsoft!
  It will also force Apple to buy... um... Apple!
  
  --
  ^_^
6. Re:Microsoft by mcvos · 2011-08-15 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think Microsoft was already planning to do that anyway, only after running the value of the company into the ground, making it cheaper to pick up the bits they're interested in.
7. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-16 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  I really hope they do. Microsoft has no chance in the mobile business and their shareholders know it. I'd like their shareholders to again watch Microsoft spend more umpteen beeelions of their money on another futile attempt. HA HA!
awesome by hesaigo999ca · 2011-08-15 01:28 · Score: 1

google stocks will rise again, and again, and again
1. Re:awesome by MightyYar · 2011-08-15 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding. Most valuable company in the world? Vertically integrated tablet and phone (and computer I guess) maker Apple. I guess Google figures, hey, we can do that! Motorola makes decent hardware, and Google makes Android... Google has a fantastic brand name. Get some anal retentive product designers and you have a real Apple competitor.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:awesome by hesaigo999ca · 2011-08-15 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  >Get some anal retentive product designers
  I am availabel if Google wants me!!
3. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  How do you look in a black mock turtleneck?
Motorola Symbol by JamesA · 2011-08-15 01:29 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Motorola Symbol by mcvos · 2011-08-15 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I really want Google to track every single barcode scanned in the world.
That is a gigaton worth of patents... by perrin · 2011-08-15 01:32 · Score: 1

"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.
1. Re:That is a gigaton worth of patents... by nschubach · 2011-08-15 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Also, "H.264, MPEG-4" probably has to help them with the WebM battle.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Bring on Anti-Trust.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:33 · Score: 0

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...????
1. Re:Bring on Anti-Trust.... by ZombieBraintrust · 2011-08-15 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Anti-Trust only applies to Monopolies. Google only has like 45% of the smartphone market. That percentage goes down if you consider the entire cellphone market.
  The nearly have a monopoly on Seach. But this deal doesn't effect the search buisness at all. Plus their market share on Search is very fragile. It is based entirely on people wanting to use Google Search. It is not like oil, phone lines, or railroads. There is not a physical limit to the supply of Search engines. The only way Google could get a real monopoly on Search is by cutting deals with ISP's to prevent access to other search engines.
  Youtube also doesn't have a monopoly. It competes with Hulu, cable on demand, Netflix, and Amazon.
2. Re:Bring on Anti-Trust.... by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Google scans books without asking the authors permission.
  Please show one instance of a time where Google scanned the contents of a book written by a living person, whom they didn't make more than reasonable attempts to contact and get authorization from.
  The whole Google books deal has been a mess because a bunch of greedy fucks crawled out of the woodwork and made a bunch of noise as though they were getting cheated because Google was scanning a book that hasn't been in print for 30 years and no one on the planet gives a shit about ... except the greedy fuck who wrote it and thinks the world should serve him because of that.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
More Like Half of Motorola by thepainguy · 2011-08-15 01:33 · Score: 1

They bought the handset business, not the other, older parts of Motorola. I'm just saying.
1. Re:More Like Half of Motorola by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on what you consider half. How about the half of what remained of Motorola after they shed 3/4s over the previous decade or two?
  I started with Motorola in 1988. Huge company, fingers in many pies (though not television, that had been spun off to Quasar when I was a tot), I was in the semiconductor arm.
  Iridium wasn't the first part I watched go bye bye, but it was one that I had the closest connection to at the time. Every time a soldier uses one of those phones when radios won't work, I am at least intellectually pleased.
  Within 10 years, upper managers were asking "why are we making all these popcorn chips when only 10% of our products are where we make real money", and ON Semiconductor got a management buyout (which made customers of the 10% of the products made their real money wonder why they had to deal with 2 vendors now to get most of their needs met, and if they had to deal with 2, why did one of them need to be Motorola). Having killed one of the huge reasons why people were willing to pay premiums for microcontrollers and CPUS, Freescale was shat out to try to stand on its' own (knees are still more than a bit wobbly closing in on 10 years later). I won't go into the parts that were just flushed down the toilet along the way where Motorola has technical leadership and built huge patent portfolios, but couldn't figure out that expertise in those areas made other parts more successful, basic research is for governments and universities, after all.
  The defense sector was never profitable, except when it was, and dealing with governments suck if you aren't making things that go boom (they REALLY want a secure telephone based on Windows NT? Are they insane? Are they paying money? Cost+, right?), so gone around the early part of the 'oughts (how they lasted longer as a part of Motorola than the popcorn chip portion, I never quite grasped).
  Of course, with the part of Motorola gone that kept the automotive industry loyal for a couple of decades (They hated having to learn modern programming practices, but paid homage daily to the wonders of the TPU, all hail the bit-slice engine!), the remaining part of the automotive people were sucking wind to hold on to their customers.
  Of course, almost the only thing that remained was communications, and Ikahn seems to be happy to take credit for seeing that split up happen. The company that was at one time too big to be a takeover target for any competitors was down to a nibble size chunk for anyone with some cash and an interest in IP. But for $40/share, who am I to complain?
Amazing how a couple of days can change things... by cjjjer · 2011-08-15 01:33 · Score: 1

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.
What about HTC's vig to MIcrosoft? by mrawhimskell · 2011-08-15 01:35 · Score: 1

I'm wondering how HTC is feeling now, after paying for those undisclosed patents to Microsoft?
Only one problem by arcite · 2011-08-15 01:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait

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!
1. Re:Only one problem by TimeOut42 · 2011-08-15 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Oh come on, don't predict Apple's demise so quickly......
2. Re:Only one problem by DragonTHC · 2011-08-15 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  keep dreaming crapple!
  
  --
  They're using their grammar skills there.
3. Re:Only one problem by phonewebcam · 2011-08-15 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hey asshole - you'd lose count the number of Google patents the iPhone5 will now need to license. If it appears at all, its because the Apple bullies had to U turn sharpish and go cap in hand to Google. You seem to forget - this is the Telecoms business, not turdshine toys these newbies think they can block because they reckon they invented rounded corners. Google has their finger over the fucking disconnect button now - how many will they sell if it can't connect to a mobile network?
4. Re:Only one problem by Hognoxious · 2011-08-15 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  They won't just have rounded corners, the sides will be round too.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
5. Re:Only one problem by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-08-15 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  If Apple had wanted those patents, they could have bought Motorola for breakfast and still had enough cash left over to buy Microsoft for lunch.
6. Re:Only one problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  A cold drop of sweat sliding gracefully in the middle of Apple's fanboys|stockturfers butchecks.. thats when you know Google made a WIN. Yes, shit just got real, better pray to teh Jobs.
  Gotta be checking for new huge contracts in astroturf firms.
  Hide yo hipsters hide yo PHBs because Apple turfers will be raping everything.
25,000 patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?"
1. Re:25,000 patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Therefor, the next question is "is the Slashdot crowd going to continue supporting Google once they start flexing their new patent portfolio muscle?"
  I can answer that. No.
2. Re:25,000 patents by Grave · 2011-08-15 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  You're kidding yourself if you don't believe Google will make that back from continued sales of Motorola phones, continued Android growth, and not having to pay out for various lawsuits.
3. Re:25,000 patents by MozeeToby · 2011-08-15 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Begging the question much? There are all kinds of ways that Google can use what they gain in this acquisition to make money. Including... oh I don't know... selling phones perhaps? And besides, having one hell of a patent shield could absolutely be worth 12.5 billion USD in the long run.
4. Re:25,000 patents by sydneyfong · 2011-08-15 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're saying all the stock traders of MMI are wrong, and Google is right, by paying a huge premium to buyout the whole company.
  MMI have posting mostly losses for the past few quarters and years: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MMI&fstype=ii
  Google would be lucky just to keep their new division in the black. Particularly as Google doesn't seem to have much experience in making hardware. As for getting back that 12billion.... well, they won't sell enough handsets to do that, but they probably will be able to sell off the hardware divisions of Motorola -- but I'm betting that they won't be worth 12B.
  
  --
  Don't quote me on this.
5. Re:25,000 patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Relax. Google has promised to do no evil.
6. Re:25,000 patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  And you are kidding yourself if you believe that they will discard ALL other ways that would ADD EVEN MORE cash. That's the whole problem with corporations ... greed never knows when to stop. That's why the outsourced jobs aren't coming back even with the return of profits post-financial crisis. It's called "the new normal". You don't waste 12 billion dollars just to break even.
7. Re:25,000 patents by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-15 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  I love how every single attempt of FUD on the comments of this story have been stopped by plain common sense. Mod up
8. Re:25,000 patents by Locutus · 2011-08-15 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  FYI, Google makes billions off selling ads and they sell ads with Android using Google apps and lots of free apps paid for with ad banners. Now that some clue has been established by protecting Android from Microsoft they are therefore protecting their ad revenue and therefore do not have to use the patents offensively because they make money by not letting Microsoft and Apple shut down Android and all that Google ad revenue.
  
  They could use the patents offensively but there's no proof or obvious reason for them to do so.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Easy way to increase production by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 01:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Easy way to increase production by stupid_is · 2011-08-15 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  err - IIRC all (or a significant portion) of Motorola Mobility manufacturing is in China...
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
2. Re:Easy way to increase production by LWATCDR · 2011-08-15 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Also Motorola has been making "rugged" phones for years for the IDEN market.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
3. Re:Easy way to increase production by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  ... and all the wacko theories come out.
4. Re:Easy way to increase production by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. That is why I am suggesting that they bring it back.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
5. Re:Easy way to increase production by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  So, It makes sense to have enemies produce your communication? Hmmm.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
6. Re:Easy way to increase production by yeshuawatso · 2011-08-15 03:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There are specific exclusions for DOD or any government contract that allow electronics to NOT be required to be made in the USA.(read the FAR guidelines)
7. Re:Easy way to increase production by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  Won't manufacturing the phone in the US also increase costs drastically? I don't see how prices will be lowered.
8. Re:Easy way to increase production by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, many of the electronics are done with automation. The truth is, that labor makes up a VERY small amount of electronic costs. If you read some of the interviews by top taiwain manufacturers, they LIKE the idea of coming to America. They think that the regs are MORE than fair (even on the east coast). In fact, based on the fact that our power is plentiful and cheap, and that we have a decent infrastructure, we would be cheaper than China.
  
  Their grip is about our legal system. We allow right and left wingers to sue at will (mostly left). Our legal system has become a mess. However, for American companies, they are already in the thick of things. IOW, there is no difference for them wether the phone is made in China or America.
  
  BUT, if they can increase sales 10% or more, then they get to recover more of their money.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
9. Re:Easy way to increase production by gl4ss · 2011-08-15 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  but were those manufactured by the profitable portion.. which was spun off from the consumer mobile phone side, due to consumer mobiles doing loss?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10. Re:Easy way to increase production by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  There is a motorola mobility assembly and fabrication plant in America? News to me. Motorola phones are no more american made than any other.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
11. Re:Easy way to increase production by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  I have...issues...with that sort of thinking. You shouldn't be sourcing stuff from anyone other than allied nations- and China's NOT that.
12. Re:Easy way to increase production by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  There are specific exclusions for DOD or any government contract that allow electronics to NOT be required to be made in the USA.(read the FAR guidelines)
  Yes the FAR may make exceptions, but with recent well-publicised incidents involving USB flash drives with microcode beaconing back to china, you can bet the more paranoid sectors will not want operational coms going over products made in nations that have vested interests oppositional to our own.
13. Re:Easy way to increase production by Patch86 · 2011-08-15 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  They'll also be able to cure cancer, and catch Bin Laden's clone, and fart rainbows.
  The odds of Google bringing all of Motorola's manufacturing to the US after this merger are exactly the same as the odds of Motorola doing it before the merger- somewhere close to zero. Since when is the DOD budget officially used to bribe industries to move manufacturing plants around, anyhow? Isn't that kind of thing usually called "corruption"?
14. Re:Easy way to increase production by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think that the DOD had to be forced to allow plants to move around. They would prefer that everything was local to here. And I think that it is fair to say that comm links with troops probably rate up there with what you want to protect esp. from a nation that is in a cold war with us, but gearing up for a hot war.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
15. Re:Easy way to increase production by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Do you want your enemy making your smartphone?
16. Re:Easy way to increase production by vlueboy · 2011-08-15 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I do not think that would in any way help the case for a sub $500 android phone. If 3 years of manufacturing entirely out of China has been useless to make it affordable without a 2-year subsidy contract, imagine the percentage increases of bringing production lines back into the US to factor in US-type wages.
  Why would Google make a decision to favor a tiny government group (volumewise) and pricewise alienate larger one? Don't they still need the support of the American people, and the people of Europe, and the people of Asia, etc? Too many eggs in one basked is not a popular business motto in these times.
17. Re:Easy way to increase production by jafac · 2011-08-15 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Having all the smart phones produced in China makes ZERO sense.
  Unless you are a DoD Procurement officer who hopes to retire into a fat consulting gig with the American subsidiary of a Chinese smartphone manufacturer. . . . (big old fucking thousand-year-old DUH! Oldest DUH in the world. Like DUH dating back to ancient Rome.)
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
18. Re:Easy way to increase production by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  It this was not my OP, I would have modded you up. We have far too many corrupt ppl running around.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Every Mobile OS Manufacturer now has OS associated by CSHARP123 · 2011-08-15 01:52 · Score: 1

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
Re:Amazing how a couple of days can change things. by nschubach · 2011-08-15 01:53 · Score: 1

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.
Surprised! by motang · 2011-08-15 01:58 · Score: 1

This came out of nowhere.
1. Re:Surprised! by nemasu · 2011-08-15 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah no kidding, here I was thinking it was going to be another slow Monday. They did a good job of keeping this acquisition a secret too, not even the slightest hint.
  
  --
  I made an app! Shoutium
I can only see two ways for this to pan out by carou · 2011-08-15 01:58 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Emetophobe · 2011-08-15 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Other companies aren't going to drop Android when they're making insane amounts of cash off it. It's not like they can license and sell iOS devices, and WP7 has a tiny market, their only option is Android.
  HTC was a no-name taiwanese handset maker until android came along. Now HTC is one of the top 4 handset makers in the world, virtually overnight. Samsung is doing extremely well too. They sold 19 million android handsets last quarter and they'll probably pass Apple later this year.
  I doubt HTC and Samsung are worried about Google entering the fray. I say it's a good thing, more competition, cheaper/better phones, etc. Maybe Google can clean up and improve Motorola's horrible firmware while they're at it.
2. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by stretch0611 · 2011-08-15 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset.
  Really?!? The only dissatisfaction with the Nexus One was distribution. Google tried to sell it outside the influence of the carriers and the carriers played hardball.
  I have a Nexus One and I love it... I have no reason to change it (except for the upcoming merger of AT&T/T-Mobile which will force me on to a different network.)
  I never rooted it, even though it is easy to do, because nothing is locked out. I can use it as a portable wifi hotspot or tether it to another device with a usb cable.
  It still has plenty of power, I have not had any problem with performance, even with games. And this is a phone that was released 18 months ago...
  It still gets regular software updates. Right now I am running Android version 2.3.4. (and I just read an article yesterday mentioning that 75% of android phones are only running version 2.2.)
  Even though it has been discontinued a long time, there is still a demand for the phone. It still sells for $270-$300.
  That does not sound like broad dissatisfaction to me...
  
  --
  Looking for a job?
  Want your resume written professionally?
  DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
3. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  And what happens when Google goes to those manufacturers and offers them cross-patent deals, that drop the price to manufacture a phone significantly?
  Google understands that the market needs diversity: but also understands that this whole "patent war" thing is killing creativity.
  I agree: I wouldn't be surprised to see Google take over a large share of the production market, simply because hardware manufacturers have no imagination these days. they stopped wanting to develop anything years ago: mostly because of the legal trouble associated with invention these days. If google can create a market that hardware developers/manufacturers can get back to doing what they know best (Hardware R&D) maybe we'll see MORE hardware providers interested in the market.
4. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't say the Nexus One had "broad dissatisfaction". Sure, the marketing scheme of online only sucked (who wants to buy a phone that they can't hold and play with first) so sales suffered, but of the people who I know who have actually owned or played with a N1 I have heard very few negative comments, and tons of positive. It's a great phone.
5. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by carou · 2011-08-15 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset.
  Really?!? The only dissatisfaction with the Nexus One was distribution. Google tried to sell it outside the influence of the carriers and the carriers played hardball.
  I have a Nexus One and I love it... [...]
  That does not sound like broad dissatisfaction to me...
  I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.
6. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by carou · 2011-08-15 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.
7. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  >There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset.
  I thought it was more a case of, Google did a shit job of managing the expectations of future T-Mobile customers who believed they'd see 3G speeds in places like medium-sized towns in the midwest that STILL have only GPRS today, or indoors in fringe-suburban areas of cities like Chicago where their coverage footprint was broad-but-sparse. The angry customers called T-Mobile to complain, and instead of admitting to the customers that their 3G coverage map was a wee bit on the optimistic side, they just pawned them off on Google and said, "It's your problem, we didn't sell you the phone".
  I'm not 100% sure, but I think there ultimately WAS a configuration issue that was worked out and improved things, but took weeks instead of days to resolve due to the same inane blame game between T-Mobile and Google. Instead of just putting Google's developers on the phone with T-Mobile's engineers to figure out what the problem was and how to fix it, they lamely just pointed at each other.
8. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Americano · 2011-08-15 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, now those other companies just have to start making insane amounts of cash off Android, then they won't need to drop it. Problem is, they're NOT making insane amounts of cash off it, and this move by Google just ensured that they're going to be even harder-pressed to make insane amounts of cash.
  Google will likely have their phones always a step ahead of competitor phones in terms of features and capabilities. Google has, in a stroke, relegated HTC & Samsung to the low-end commodity phone market if they stay with Android. Shipping millions of low-margin phones may be GREAT for Google's advertising revenues, but it's not going to help HTC & Samsung produce a quality product that can make a sustainable profit.
  See: Nokia, Rise and Fall of
9. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  I don't recall "broad dissatisfaction" with the Nexus One, just a radically different distribution method that most consumers coulnd't grasp. It was a developer phone, and was sold unlocked and unsubsidized and with limited availability on only two carriers. I was salivating for one of them and just waiting for Verizon to offer it, but that fell through after months of marketing and teasing. The major dissatisfaction I recall was that you bought the phone through Google, but Google provided absolutely NO end user TECHNICAL SUPPORT. Geeks loved them, but anyone who was not a developer and paid full price for a G1 was in for a world of disappointment.
10. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  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?
  When the cost of the OS is zero, and your business model is based on making better hardware than the other guy, it makes no difference. In fact, the more the merrier. And because of the Open Handset Alliance angle, are all of the manufacturers doing the same?
11. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by deathguppie · 2011-08-15 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  I love my nexus one pocket computer too. I just wish it worked as a phone. I can't hear a phone call on it unless I put it on speaker phone or plug in headphones. That happened about 10 months into owning it. It's the best communications device I've ever owned, and kicks the crap out of non stock android devices. I just wish I could hear people talking to me.
  
  --
  once more into the breach
12. Re:I can only see two ways for this to pan out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  If not Android, then what else? Symbian is dead, with Windows Phone 7 you compete against Nokia (i.e. Microsoft), and iOS is probably not even an option. Roll your own? Quit the business entirely?
  No, this may be another case where Thucydides was right. The weak will accept what they have to accept.
Next one up the plate.... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-08-15 01:59 · Score: 1

Google bailing out Bank of America!

--
New Economic Perspectives
Things Google should do by jonwil · 2011-08-15 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Things Google should do by ZombieBraintrust · 2011-08-15 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Any deals between Motorala and Microsoft/Yahoo will have contracts enforcing them. They will only end when the contracts expire.
2. Re:Things Google should do by mlts · 2011-08-15 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'd add a couple more:
  5: Throw some development effort at Exchange support and some on phone security. eCryptfs is in the mainline kernel. EncFS is also around, but requires FUSE. It wouldn't be hard for an Android phone to store the key to the SD card in a protected place. Add to this encrypting the onboard filesystems, and that would provide solid protection for data. Add to this options for remote wipe, as well as wiping a phone if it has not seen network connectivity in x amount of days, and that should provide good protection.
  Exchange support is a make or break for companies to buy phones. Even Apple is playing Microsoft's game in this department.
  6: The best way I've seen bootloaders locked is on the Nexus phone, with the fastboot oem unlock command via ADB. This provides both protection for novice users who would likely stop at installing a SDK if directed to by some "pr0n viewer" app, especially when the dialog about voiding any and all warranties pops up (not to mention completely erasing the device). It also provides clued users the easy ability to unlock bootloaders and re-ROM.
  7: One of the best things about Android phones is that they are completely standalone. No syncing required. iOS 5 brings that capability to the iPhone, but if one wants to back up their iDevice and the saved games on it, they still have to plug it in and sync to a Mac or PC. It would be nice if Google could have some built in functionality similar to both Titanium Backup as well as Nandroid where both apps can be saved off on the SD card and to a cloud provider (with the option of encryption), as well as a complete ROM image. Bonus points if there would be a standardized PC application to allow people to plug their phones in and back them up, point/click style.
  8: The Atrix's phone/PC idea may be new, but it has a ton of potential, especially if the laptop dock is standardized so it can work with future handsets. This is useful, especially when travelling light, where the only thing one might need is the ability to remote into work, check Web stuff, read E-mail, and do some document writing. In fact, this might be a good place for ChromeOS, although having a regular Linux distro that allows for local saving of files in an encrypted storage area should be an option.
  9: Maybe Google can get some type of dock connector standardized. USB is fine, but the advantage of the iPhone/iPad dock connector is a structural component -- being able to hold the device in a dock. One of the biggest iPod/iPhone selling points is that one can just plop their device in any docking station, be it in their car, in an RV, on top of their RV, on their office desk, or on their clock radio and have their music. It would be nice to see a standard similar to this for Android devices.
3. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's all well and good, but you'r forgetting the fact that Android OS sucks and all those things would actually be bad for consumers in general. Sorry, but all that would only benefit Google and their shareholders, not regular guys.
4. Re:Things Google should do by brokeninside · 2011-08-15 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  You know what a contract is?
  It's a promise to pay a certain amount of money unless certain actions are taken. Sure, Google would have to pay penalties to get out those contract. But just because the contracts exist doesn't mean that they to run for the full time span.
  Probably more important, though, is that there are also contracts are between the mobile providers and Microsoft/Yahoo. Even if Moto delivers a phone configured to default to Google, Verizon or Spring could override that configuration to point to Bing or Yahoo.
5. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  "Threaten to use the combined Google+Motorola patent portfolio against Apple products like the iPhone and iPad unless Apple stops suing Android vendors. " Apple has more money than god and certainly more money that Google. If Google were to really go this route, Apple could very well buy the whole company outright 2 times over and depending on what they wanted to do to them, not be under the scrutiny of the FTC.
  Google wants the threat to be there, but if they were to actually do this, they would sign their own death warrant.
  Google may be a big player, but compared to Apple, Sony and Microsoft they are still a little shit software company whose only viable product that is actually making them money is a search engine.
6. Re:Things Google should do by soupd · 2011-08-15 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  A patent chest isn't like a sword, in that you can't just swing it at people you don't like. You have to, you know, like have an argument that your opponent is infringing on one or more of your patents.
  As for your talk of a defensive patent pool, the difficulty of this type approach is that is generally requires patent holders to surrender some control over their patens and if the patents in question are ones that bring in revenue through licensing, then companies are generally reluctant to do this.
  It also may have escaped your notice but Google have shown absolutely no interest in assisting companies who are being menaced by Microsoft and Apple so the test here will be waiting to see if Google will revisit this 'silent partner' now they have a sword. Exactly how sharp that sword is, remains to be seen.
7. Re:Things Google should do by phonewebcam · 2011-08-15 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Even if Moto delivers a phone configured to default to Google, Verizon or Spring could override that configuration to point to Bing".
  Why are you repeating yourself?
8. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  This is all driven by the patent pool. Anything else is a secondary (if a nice bonus) to that concern.
  And I have a feeling your point #4 will become moot, as it's doubtful that HTC, Samsung, and the rest will maintain quite as strong an interest in developing Android phones after this acquisition. But I suppose we'll see.
9. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  > 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.
  Yeah, 'cos that's good for competition.
  *sigh*
  It's a shame there isn't more competition in the search market; currently you have to decide between the lesser of two evils.
10. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't this acquisition actually put Google in an awkward position though?
  Now they make a mobile OS that they want others to adopt, but also compete
  with other phone makers via the same platform? Unless Motorola becomes one
  massive loss leader
11. Re:Things Google should do by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  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)
  Word of mouth is important, but the number of people that care about this one can be counted on your fingers. This just really isn't anything anyone outside a few loud mouth geeks who don't realize there are other bits of hardware that are far better for tinkering with than a $600 smart phone that are more capable, and are entirely open and run Linux. The 'OMFG ITS OPEN' thing only matters to a FEW people on slashdot. If you think it matters in the real world you're completely out of touch with reality.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
12. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  You say this as if Google's customers are consumers. They're not. Google's customers are manufacturers and carriers.
  You may not like Apple and you may not like the decisions that Apple makes, but at least Apple has been fighting carriers to make phones and features available to consumers that consumers (in Apple's opinion) want. Google has never been about that.
  On a deeper level, Apple's success and profits are due to pleasing (some segment of) consumers. Google's success and profits are due to finding out as much about consumers of other products as it can with its search/advertising monopoly. Android is just a way to give them access to more search/advertising revenue.
13. Re:Things Google should do by pavon · 2011-08-15 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  As for your talk of a defensive patent pool, the difficulty of this type approach is that is generally requires patent holders to surrender some control over their patens and if the patents in question are ones that bring in revenue through licensing, then companies are generally reluctant to do this.
  Another problem is existing cross-licensing deals. Hypothetically, if Samsung already had a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, and Microsoft pushed on HTC to pay patent royalties, HTC couldn't use Samsung's patents to push back against Microsoft. I think that would really limit what patents are available to be effectively used in an Android patent pool.
14. Re:Things Google should do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Instead, why wouldn't these handset makers just start using WP* with Micro$oft?
15. Re:Things Google should do by Thantik · 2011-08-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  #1 is providing protection to Google. By letting Yahoo/Bing become the default search engine on some devices, you can argue that it doesn't have a monopoly across Android. With the recent push by Microsoft and Apple to get Google into an antitrust suit, they don't need to change this at all.
  #2 is likely to happen. Even more likely to happen is that Motorola will start building reference designs for other manufacturers to build off of. Saves everyone money, gets more Android devices out there quicker and easier.
  #3 Not going to happen. There is already enough fragmentation without a dumbphone OS entering the fray as well.
  #4 This is pretty much implied with the purchase of Motorola. These companies don't openly communicate threats, there's enough silent communication going on right now between Microsoft, Apple, and Google.
16. Re:Things Google should do by dwater · 2011-08-15 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  ... but the number of people that care about this one can be counted on your fingers.
  in binary, perhaps..
  
  --
  Max.
17. Re:Things Google should do by jonwil · 2011-08-15 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Google may not be a big player. But Motorola has a LOT of patents covering cellular telephony.
18. Re:Things Google should do by jonwil · 2011-08-15 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola already makes dumbphones for all sorts of markets (emerging markets, prepaid operations like Tracfone, and more). So they wouldn't be building a new one, just replacing their existing one with something that has less features (and less code to maintain)
A bill of $12.50? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:06 · Score: 0

Seems like quite a bargain.
Misleading heading by codeButcher · 2011-08-15 02:27 · Score: 1

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.
Unlock locked bootloaders? by samwichse · 2011-08-15 02:29 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Unlock locked bootloaders? by mcvos · 2011-08-15 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Those are the biggest Motorola problems that Google needs to fix. If they do, I predict a happy future, and I might actually break my promise of never buying Motorola ever again.
U R wrong about Joe Public by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:32 · Score: 0

>>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.
So, new brand? by arunce · 2011-08-15 02:32 · Score: 1

MotoDroid? DroidMoto? GoMoto? MotoGo? GogoMoto? Moto+?
Classic, absolutely classic by argee · 2011-08-15 02:41 · Score: 0

Now that is a comment!
Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:45 · Score: 0

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.
Other handset manufactures feeling the evil? by datajerk · 2011-08-15 02:46 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Other handset manufactures feeling the evil? by datajerk · 2011-08-15 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Doh! s/Force/Source/
2. Re:Other handset manufactures feeling the evil? by arunce · 2011-08-15 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Can't you see the Borg queen in this story?
They make currency in a 12.5 denomination? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 02:47 · Score: 0

I've heard of 2 dollar bills, but 12.5? That's a new one. (and what a deal for Google!)
Re:Every Mobile OS Manufacturer now has OS associa by Microlith · 2011-08-15 02:50 · Score: 1

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.
It very well may by Sycraft-fu · 2011-08-15 02:56 · Score: 1

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.
No trial by Corson · 2011-08-15 03:07 · Score: 1

Google acquire Motorola so that Motorola does not sue them for patent infringement(s). It's been commented on a couple days ago.
We Did...a week ago..Re:Didn't see this one coming by neurocutie · 2011-08-15 03:07 · Score: 2

http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2585760&postcount=13
we shoulda bought Moto stock then...
posted 8/8/11:

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy
I didn't see anyone say yet, but Moto *is* well endowed with patents for wireless technology, so it may be that in the end, Moto could gain an upper hand in this battle (relative to other Android makers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub
MMI has about $6b market cap. Google was willing to pay $6b for Groupon which is just a glorified coupon company. What if Google just bought MMI and its patents for the benefit of all Android manufacturers?
+1 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:14 · Score: 0

Google would contribute relavent patents from the Google pool plus...
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... by JustinFreid · 2011-08-15 03:20 · Score: 1

I'm sure the decision to acquire Motorola was made algorithmically.

--
Hey, how's it going?
Re:Amazing how a couple of days can change things. by iluvcapra · 2011-08-15 03:21 · Score: 2

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.
fuck gooGle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:23 · Score: 0

this company sucks and should not be able to do shit(.)
Knife the Hardware? by buckhead_buddy · 2011-08-15 03:27 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Knife the Hardware? by GNUman · 2011-08-15 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  They could use it also to have their flagship phone. Just as they have Nexus One (HTC) and the Nexus S (Samsung), but may now have 100% control under how it is built. Having their "own" phone now hasn't driven others away, but has helped set the stage as to what you should get from a fully Android compliant phone.
2. Re:Knife the Hardware? by MichaelSmith · 2011-08-15 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  If Google keeps the business running the total cost of buying Motorola Mobile is almost zero. Google has the cash and it had to be parked somewhere. But if they run the business down their 12 billion bucks are gone.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
This is all about patents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 03:57 · Score: 0

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: cable modems, cable TV boxes, etc by vinn · 2011-08-15 04:14 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Don't forget: cable modems, cable TV boxes, etc by CaptainLard · 2011-08-15 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe some google engineer on their 20% time will finally figure out how to shut off the freakin hard drives when nothing is scheduled and I push the off button.
2. Re:Don't forget: cable modems, cable TV boxes, etc by afabbro · 2011-08-15 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Combine that with Google TV and other streaming services, and suddenly Google competes against Netflix...
  
  Actually, suddenly you see even more returns. Logitech cut GTV boxes by 60% ($249 to $99) and returns on GTV boxes still outpace new sales. Most content producers have shut the door on GTV. Netflix and Hulu are not losing sleep.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
LET'S HOPE THIS IS THE MOVE THAT KILLS GOOGLE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-08-15 04:16 · Score: 1

I pray that this is their AOL / Time Warner moment.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:LET'S HOPE THIS IS THE MOVE THAT KILLS GOOGLE by C_Kode · 2011-08-15 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  I pray that this is their AOL / Time Warner moment.
  Not...sure...if...serious....
2. Re:LET'S HOPE THIS IS THE MOVE THAT KILLS GOOGLE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-08-15 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Serious and earnest.
  "Don't be evil" When that can encompass selling your click-history to an Insurance Company, or to the FBI for side-stepping legal protections against unreasonable search?
  It requires rationalisations in the Werner Von Braun order of magnitude to justify such a declaration.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
Here's one I didn't see mentioned by BetaDays · 2011-08-15 04:21 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Here's one I didn't see mentioned by BetaDays · 2011-08-15 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  opps where's edit. Should have said Google has a tau in it.
  
  --
  Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
M$ now has Nokia in hands and is already in battle by egoshin · 2011-08-15 04:27 · Score: 1

M$ now has Nokia in hands and is in battle.
Future of the Altrix? by Rinikusu · 2011-08-15 04:27 · Score: 1

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
What patents comes with the purchase? by idobi · 2011-08-15 04:31 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:What patents comes with the purchase? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think that they forgot _anything_ with 12 billion dollars at stake.
2. Re:What patents comes with the purchase? by nemasu · 2011-08-15 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt it, I can't imagine that their lawyers wouldn't triple check information like that first.
  
  --
  I made an app! Shoutium
3. Re:What patents comes with the purchase? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, I'm sure that Google missed that one. That's what the lawyers are for, the entire list of patents to be transferred will be spelled out somewhere in the contract.
The end of Motorola by Animats · 2011-08-15 04:36 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:The end of Motorola by thegarbz · 2011-08-15 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  You palm this off as something lame but in fact the 2-way radio market is quite grand. Have you seen a modern TETRA radio? The ability to do data transfer city wide, lease dedicated timeslots on networks, or even set up your own standard network for your workplace which automatically falls back to an area wide network (Often run by Motorola) in case of failure is amazing.
  Every other division of Motorola has been in decline except for it's 2-way business where it is probably close to the number 1 in the market. That and those radios cost $2000 a pop so have quite a bit more profit margin than a cheap subsidized mobile handset.
  Motorola have been slowly taking over a world, just not your world for the last 30 years.
2. Re:The end of Motorola by MichaelSmith · 2011-08-15 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  They will shortly be a small company with 12 billion dollars in the bank.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Amazing how a couple of days can change things. by Daetrin · 2011-08-15 04:43 · Score: 1

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
Don't lament them too much by daves · 2011-08-15 04:57 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Every Mobile OS Manufacturer now has OS associa by marsu_k · 2011-08-15 05:10 · Score: 1

Actually, I've been quite surprised with Microsoft as of late. I subscribe to a few ASP.NET blogs, and recently there was an article on how to do mobile development. And the author's conclusion was the only logical one - that native apps are not worth it when having to support multiple platforms, HTML5 all the way. Similarly, I receive a newsletter from local MS every now and then, and some months ago there was an announcement on a Canvas competion. The competion seemed very uninteresting to me, but what caught my attention was the requirement that the submited works have to work in latest versions of IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera.
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.
Re:Amazing how a couple of days can change things. by BitZtream · 2011-08-15 05:23 · Score: 1

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
Re:Amazing how a couple of days can change things. by bberens · 2011-08-15 05:25 · Score: 1

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
Well by drolli · 2011-08-15 05:38 · Score: 1

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......
Re:Didn't see this one coming(QT) by Cutting_Crew · 2011-08-15 05:39 · Score: 1

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.
Non-zero-sum game by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-08-15 05:49 · Score: 2

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)
1. Re:Non-zero-sum game by larry+bagina · 2011-08-15 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Where is the source code for honeycomb?
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
2. Re:Non-zero-sum game by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-08-15 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Where is the source code for honeycomb?
  I haven't checked it out, but is this not it? A couple hits from the top of a Google search. The Cyanogenmod guys have had a version for many months.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Who got the better deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 05:56 · Score: 0

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.
Patents by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-08-15 05:57 · Score: 2

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)
Analyst said by kokoko1 · 2011-08-15 06:32 · Score: 1

“This is clearly a defensive deal, they were backed in a corner and they had to protect the Android platform.”

--
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
Poor Liddle Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 06:41 · Score: 0

Stop crying bitch.
You were dumb enough to try to spew your garbage and got smacked down.
Danger, anyone? by Gazzonyx · 2011-08-15 06:43 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Danger, anyone? by thegarbz · 2011-08-15 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Remember how Microsoft did when they bought Danger, the company that made the Sidekick?
  
  You mean the company which showed the first major failing of the cloud?
  Seems every time you bundle a company with Microsoft you create a potential disaster of history (in IT) defining moments.
Re:We Did...a week ago..Re:Didn't see this one com by blair1q · 2011-08-15 07:01 · Score: 1

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.
As a longtime Motorola shareholder, may I just say by gosand · 2011-08-15 07:11 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Didn't see this one coming(QT) by geminidomino · 2011-08-15 07:39 · Score: 1

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?
Re:As a longtime Motorola shareholder, may I just by afabbro · 2011-08-15 07:54 · Score: 1

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
Re:Didn't see this one coming(QT) by Cutting_Crew · 2011-08-15 07:54 · Score: 1

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.
Wrong Company? by Artagel · 2011-08-15 07:56 · Score: 1

Um, Motorola Solutions is the government radio company, not Motorola Mobility.
1. Re:Wrong Company? by WindBourne · 2011-08-15 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  no. the DOD is looking at switching to smart phones. Motorola Solutions no longer does those. Or is there some deal with them that allows that to happen?
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:Wrong Company? by Artagel · 2011-08-17 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen mixed things about this, which I attribute to reporters glossing some things over. Some talk about it integrating with the advance army radio system, which Motorola Solutions would obviously do. I also see things about using local cell phone coverage, which would be the Motorola Mobility strength. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Military would make itself dependent on easily destroyed, easily snooped cellular networks. But hey, it would be cheap, right?
Seriously, who pays 43% plus? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 07:57 · Score: 0

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?
1. Re:Seriously, who pays 43% plus? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-16 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you, code monkey, know more about M&A than bankers in NYC.
  If you have 100% of stocks and someone buys 49% from you, you lose 49% of your stocks.
  If they buy 51%, you lose 51% AND control over the company.
Re:Didn't see this one coming(QT) by geminidomino · 2011-08-15 08:37 · Score: 1

Here you go. Paragraph 2
Re:Every Mobile OS Manufacturer now has OS associa by dwater · 2011-08-15 08:39 · Score: 1

I agree :(

--
Max.
Shouldn't this put them in a worse position? by BlueCoder · 2011-08-15 08:55 · Score: 1

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.
big move, likely end of OMA by recharged95 · 2011-08-15 08:59 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Didn't see this one coming(QT) by Cutting_Crew · 2011-08-15 09:40 · Score: 1

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.
Could it be Meego salvation by madhi19 · 2011-08-15 16:52 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Every Mobile OS Manufacturer now has OS associa by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-15 17:51 · Score: 1

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.
Re:As a longtime Motorola shareholder, may I just by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-15 20:24 · Score: 0

If he took inflation into account then it's not that bad. Better than a savings account.
Ubuntu? by joleonard1 · 2011-08-16 02:45 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Ubuntu? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-16 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Oh yeah! good point.
  Btw, what happens if the laws of thermodynamics stop applying at my kitchen and I get a frozen chicken out of my melting owen?
No that is not it by SuperKendall · 2011-08-17 05:06 · Score: 1

Nope, Honeycomb is not yet released.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:As a longtime Motorola shareholder, may I just by gosand · 2011-08-17 07:13 · Score: 1

or he was being EXTREMELY sarcastic. ;)

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.