Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Motorola Adventure: Stinging Defeat, Or Semi-Victory?

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the all-the-way-to-the-bank dept.

Google 139

Nerval's Lobster writes "Google had previously sold Motorola's Home division for $2.4 billion. Combine that with yesterday's $2.91 billion sale of Motorola's remaining assets, subtract the $12.5 billion acquisition price for the company back in 2011, and Google's little smartphone adventure cost it roughly $7.1 billion even before you start throwing in expenses related to actual production, marketing, and personnel. That's a hefty chunk of change, but some analysts think the deal was ultimately a good one because it allowed Google to pick up patents, engineering talent, and insight into the mobile-device marketplace. It's debatable, however, whether those patents ultimately helped Android in the still-raging smartphone wars, and Google was slow to promote Motorola smartphones out of fear of irritating other Android manufacturers. At least Google can console itself with the thought that so many of its other acquisitions—including YouTube and DoubleClick—resulted in massive profits; but you can't hit a home run every time you step up to bat."

cancel ×

139 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who cares? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110837)

I don't really understand why people analyze this kind of shit to death. Does it really matter?

Re:who cares? (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 8 months ago | (#46111037)

It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter. It's interesting and that's all that matters!

Re:who cares? (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 8 months ago | (#46112657)

It gets ad impressions, and that all that matters!

Re:who cares? (3, Insightful)

Oysterville (2944937) | about 8 months ago | (#46111257)

Stock holders do.

Pee-Wee Herman (1, Offtopic)

the_skywise (189793) | about 8 months ago | (#46110861)

"I meant to do that!"

Re:Pee-Wee Herman (1, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#46112305)

"I meant to do that!"

Indeed. Yet another Google acquisition messed up, then tossed aside.

It might have made Google stronger, but that's not the way to make the economy stronger. It's far closer to corporate raiding than any kind of improvement to America.

The numbers (5, Insightful)

GeLeTo (527660) | about 8 months ago | (#46110873)

- $3.2B Moto's 2011 cash
- $2.4B Moto's 2011 deferred tax assets
- $2.35B Moto's Set-top-box business sold in 2012
- $75M Moto's factories business sold in 2013
- $2.91B Moto's Mobility business sold in 2014

So the "patents, engineering talent, and insight into the mobile-device marketplace" cost $1.56B, not $7.1B

Re:The numbers (-1, Troll)

organgtool (966989) | about 8 months ago | (#46110997)

And Google could have spent far less than $1.56B to lobby for the destruction of software patents that are costing manufacturers of Android devices billions of dollars in court, settlement, and licensing fees. But Google would rather talk out of both sides of their ass and say that they oppose software patents while taking no serious actions to work toward ending them.

Re:The numbers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111147)

There's no way google could bring down software patents in the US while Microsoft and Apple are pushing for them, along with a massive army of legal bods. Twat.

Re:The numbers (3, Insightful)

GreyWanderingRogue (598058) | about 8 months ago | (#46111247)

And Google could have spent far less than $1.56B to lobby for the destruction of software patents that are costing manufacturers of Android devices billions of dollars in court, settlement, and licensing fees. But Google would rather talk out of both sides of their ass and say that they oppose software patents while taking no serious actions to work toward ending them.

This was Motorola (inventor of the cellphone). Not all patents are software patents.

Re:The numbers (5, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about 8 months ago | (#46112691)

Yes, but Motorola's patents are on trivial things such as radio technology, modulation techniques, compression and encoding, antenna designs, digital signal processing techniques, using very little power, frequency hoping, GSM, and other things.

Those patents are insignificant next to the innovations of bouncy scrolling and pinch to zoom!

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112697)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cellphone is older than the patent length in the USA ...

Re:The numbers (4, Funny)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 8 months ago | (#46111293)

It is really cool that you will put yourself out like that on the internet and not even worry that you have demonstrated a complete lack of any real knowledge in the areas being discussed.

I wish I had that kind of Moxie!

Re:The numbers (1)

ConallB (876297) | about 8 months ago | (#46111053)

- $3.2B Moto's 2011 cash

- $2.4B Moto's 2011 deferred tax assets

- $2.35B Moto's Set-top-box business sold in 2012

- $75M Moto's factories business sold in 2013

- $2.91B Moto's Mobility business sold in 2014

So the "patents, engineering talent, and insight into the mobile-device marketplace" cost $1.56B, not $7.1B

Don't forget :

$??? Perpetual licensing agreement to Motorola Patent Portfolio

That's got to be worth a fair chunk of change too.

Re:The numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111107)

and someone somwhere wrote that Google value the patents at 5.5B

Re: The numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111857)

Every single time Google has used a Motorola patent in court, it has lost miserably.

Re: The numbers (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46112207)

It is important also that these patents are not being used against Google and their partners in court threatening to. Rockstar would love to have them.

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111077)

Subtract 1.1B in 2012 losses and 645M is losses for the first three quarters of 2013.

Re:The numbers (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about 8 months ago | (#46111125)

You should also include the ~$1B loss that Google incurred as operating expenses while owning the company. It's still worth taking a loss on the sale in my opinion and that patents that they acquired may well be worth even more than the loss. Motorola was going to continue bleeding money and placed Google in an uncomfortable position with the other hardware manufacturers.

Re:The numbers (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 8 months ago | (#46111141)

That might be well worth it though. Take a few things into consideration here:

- Of all people, they sold it to Lenovo, who has been rather disruptive in the PC making industry; not an easy thing to do even when they first started. Remember, they took the hardware division from IBM that was doing so-so at best, crappy at worst.
- Lenovo wanted to get into the mobile business before buying Moto. If I were to guess, they came to Google on this one rather than Google coming to them (there wasn't any rumors of "motorola for sale" that I recall...maybe I'm wrong here.)
- Lenovo going into the mobile business with Android is a VERY GOOD THING for Google and Android in general. Think about it: The more OEM's you have pushing Android, the better, especially if they can take some of the market share away from Samsung, which I think they are probably the most well positioned OEM to do so.

Re:The numbers (2)

Old97 (1341297) | about 8 months ago | (#46111779)

Lenovo was already in the mobile business. They've been out competing Samsung at the low end of the market. What they needed was better products at the mid to high range. Motorola's newer phones looked good, but the marketing wasn't working. We'll see if Lenovo can do better.

Re:The numbers (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 8 months ago | (#46111967)

Lenovo is making a play to keep enterprise business, and choke Dell and HP off to consumer space only. Lenovo has some incredible services that come along with a contract to buy their stuff in an enterprise. They just bought IBM's xSeries and BladeCenter business. They are in quite tight with Intel when it comes to vPro management and SmartConnect. They are now rebadging thin clients and competing VERY hard on price against both Wyse (Dell) and HP.

This is a play to deal with their failures in the tablet space - they tried to get into business with the Lenovo Tablet (Android) and it didn't go anywhere because Android just wasn't ready for enterprise at the time. The Lenovo Tablet II used an Intel Atom processor and Windows 8, well you can imagine how that worked out. Even Intel guys didn't like that product because there was noticeable time between tapping, and things happening; and that doesn't even get into the shittyness that is Windows 8.

Motorola sells shitloads of gear to enterprise - handheld scan guns, manageable access points, ruggedized handhelds, etc. Lenovo now gets that business to leverage the rest of their sales as a "one stop shop" that no one else is set up to compete with - all they need to do is partner with a MDM provider that isn't garbage, and they'll already be better than Motorola was in 2010 when they were trying to hawk MSP to world+dog...

Re:The numbers (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 8 months ago | (#46112679)

Google bought Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is not Motorola. Google also sold off some parts of Motorola Mobility. Lenevo gets the cell phone business. Full stop.

Re:The numbers (2)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about 8 months ago | (#46112291)

Lenovo were already in the smartphone market with several Android phones [lenovo.com] . In fact, they were the fifth largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, shipping 45.5 million smartphones in 2013. Looks like most of those were in emerging markets though, so the Motorola Mobility acquisition should give them a big step forward into the western markets.

Re:The numbers (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 8 months ago | (#46111143)

Yeah, they could have gotten all of that much cheaper than 1.56 B, if that's the actual number.

In any case, their stated game plan with Moto wasn't to sell off the hardware handset division. Its was a screw up without a doubt, the only question is how much of a screw up was it.

Re:The numbers (2)

kaiser423 (828989) | about 8 months ago | (#46111197)

Don't forget that Google is keeping the Motorola advanced R&D "moonshot" division that has some top end talent and is also worth something.

Re:The numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111677)

Those folks were not really part of Motorola Mobility. They were hired after the acquisition and none came from Motorola.

Re:The numbers (4, Informative)

rlwhite (219604) | about 8 months ago | (#46111359)

Google said in a filing that they valued the patents at $5.5 billion: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20... [nytimes.com]

Based on what? (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46112425)

they valued the patents at $5.5 billion

One would be hard pressed to agree with that value given that EVERY time Google has tried to use them in court, Google lost...

It's nice to have patents for defensive purposes but it's not clear these are doing that much for them. People seem to be treating patents like piles of coal, ignoring that one persons pile of patents is quite different than another... it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 patents if your opponent has a key one you cannot work around.

As others have said, Google (and everyone) would have been far better off if they had spent $1b lobbying against software patents altogether.

Re:The numbers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111393)

If you're going to include what amounts to a $75 million footnote, you should also include the much more significant operational losses Motorola incurred during the time Google owned it which will significantly increase the cost (by most accounts, almost double your figure which, admittedly, is still about a third what the summary erroneously suggests).

Re:The numbers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111403)

The cash and deferred tax assets stay with Motorola. Google does not magically get these. They are also no longer this large.

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111463)

Buying up an icronic American company then breaking it and selling the parts? What happened to the big "Made in USA" effort? and selling to Lenovo? For me, Google and certainly lost its luster.

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112317)

"Made in USA" has been dying out just like the businesses it was attempting to save. Now it just means "Made for the NSA" to many. Of course since IBM's PC biz went to Lenovo, I have had no doubt the Chinese side of that enterprise (still an American group of former IBM'ers nearby in RTP, NC area - poor schmucks) has been quite busy seeing how much NSA-style hacks they can imbed in the firmware and hardware to gain "competitive (as in geopolitical) advantage".

I have liked my recent Moto Bionic and now Razer HD, but even under Google the downgrades in dropping Webtop and features like MotoPrint and flash drive slots have taken the bloom off that rose for me, and now NSA "Red-style" kills it completely.

YMMV

They got Motorola very cheap ... (2)

dc29A (636871) | about 8 months ago | (#46110887)

At least according to BGR [bgr.com]

Missing items (2)

stox (131684) | about 8 months ago | (#46110891)

-3B Cash ,and -1B Tax breaks. That brings it down to 3.1B.

Not the whole story (5, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 8 months ago | (#46110903)

I've seen pretty convincing analysis today showing that, when you take the tax benefits of the deal and Motorola's cash position into account, Google is about $1bn to the good out of the deal, and it's retaining the patents. So it has bought a loss-making company for $12bn, broken it up into bits it can sell for around $5bn, got $3bn cash out of it, and about $6bn off its tax bill over the next six years, while gaining a large and important patent portfolio. Doesn't look look like a loss to me.

Re:Not the whole story (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 8 months ago | (#46110933)

And yes, I know the numbers don't add up. It's an approximation. Get over it.

Re:Not the whole story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110973)

It's sad you have to write that because you know otherwise some nerd is going to be all smart and pull you up on it.

Re:Not the whole story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110987)

Defensive much?

Re:Not the whole story (5, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 8 months ago | (#46111157)

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money

Re:Not the whole story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111261)

That's quite possibly the funniest thing I've read in some time. Bravo!

Re:Not the whole story (2)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 8 months ago | (#46111883)

That's quite possibly the funniest thing I've read in some time. Bravo!

It's a pretty famous quote [brainyquote.com] ... and i work across the street from the Dirksen building [gsa.gov] .

Re:Not the whole story (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 8 months ago | (#46112413)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/E... [wikiquote.org]

Yeah, people *think* he said it, but even he admitted he didn't. Which is why I didn't attribute the quote.

Re:Not the whole story (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 8 months ago | (#46111087)

The subtext, the one being ignored as people are totting up the ways Google made money on the deal, is that this is exactly the kind of behavior so often deplored when someone who isn't Google does it.

Re:Not the whole story (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about 8 months ago | (#46111149)

So how many people lost their jobs or retirement over this?

Re:Not the whole story (4, Informative)

TraumaHound (30184) | about 8 months ago | (#46111491)

At least 5200.

About 4000 [cnet.com] in August 2012 and another 1200 [cnet.com] in March 2013.

Re:Not the whole story (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 8 months ago | (#46112469)

Google's only mistake was paying full price instead of sending in a CEO to destroy the company.

Re:Not the whole story (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about 8 months ago | (#46112735)

Google could not do that without infringing Microsoft's patent on doing that.

Re:Not the whole story (0)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 8 months ago | (#46111367)

broken it up into bits it can sell for around $5bn, got $3bn cash out of it

So they did the typical corporate raider routine! I thought their motto was "Do no evil"

Re:Not the whole story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112021)

So it has bought a loss-making company for $12bn, broken it up into bits it can sell for around $5bn, got $3bn cash out of it, and about $6bn off its tax bill over the next six years, while gaining a large and important patent portfolio. Doesn't look look like a loss to me.

So when Google does it, that's just fine, but OMG $companyOrInvestorNotNamedGoogle IS A CORPORATE RAIDER BASTARD WHO TOOK ER JERBS!!! for doing the same thing.

Glad to see that the Slashdot double standard is still around.

lost of course in the story are the Employees (5, Insightful)

Brian Tarbox (2937461) | about 8 months ago | (#46112057)

Not surprising of course but zero mention of the employees of Motorola Mobility and Motorola Home who got whipsawed back and forth these last few years. I remember celebrating back when Google bought "us" a few years back...only to quickly see that they had zero interest in anything but the patents. So happy to have gotten out early.

Re:lost of course in the story are the Employees (3, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46112595)

Google didn't send a CEO to Moto to drive the business into the ground prior to acquisition and drive the price down. Motorola Mobility did that to themselves before Google got involved. They put the business in such a state that Google had to either buy it or let the patents for the cellular phone go to patent trolls. Those patents include codec patents important for Google's free and open codec. People seem to be forgetting that piece.

the cost was "only" $1B (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110911)

Actually there's a whole bunch more accounting that was done, and you can reasonably argue that it basically cost Google about $1B to get access to the patents:

At $12.5B, Motorola is Google’s largest acquisition to date. Google paid $40 /
share in cash, but received ~$11 / share in cash and $8 / share in deferred tax
assets. Thus the value ascribed to operations + patents was about $21 / share, or
$6.3B, reflecting a multiple of ~0.5x sales and 12x EBITDA. Now adjusting this
further for the $2.35B total consideration Google is expected to receive for the
Motorola Home business, we get a purchase price of just under $4B for Motorola's
handset business and patent portfolio (17K patents and 7.5K patent applications).

http://www.zdnet.com/googles-motorola-purchase-was-it-worth-it-7000009356/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147251 (via)

Absolute Victory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110919)

1. Patents that will later earn (or save) more money than they lost
2. Talent (what do self driving cars and autonomous robots have in common: the need to communicate wirelessly)
3. An indefinite multi-billion tax writeoff that ensures that Google joins GE and other large corporations that pay no taxes

Asset stripped.. (3, Insightful)

Dynamoo (527749) | about 8 months ago | (#46110951)

Asset stripped and dumped [mobilegazette.com] . Thanks, Google.

Re:Asset stripped.. (3, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 8 months ago | (#46111527)

Asset stripped and dumped [mobilegazette.com] . Thanks, Google.

Classic case of whole being less than the sum of the parts.

Motorola Mobility consisted of:
1. a handset business
2. a set top box business
3. a patent portfolio
4. a bunch of cash
5. a bunch of tax assets, which the company couldn't use because it wasn't making enough money

Google wanted the patent portfolio, so it bought the company (the price of which incorporated the cash), utilized the tax assets (which had been worthless until MM was purchased), sold the set top box business to a set top box maker (Arris), and is now selling the handset business to a company in the handset business.

This isn't "asset stripping," since the pieces are worth more, and can be more successful, as separate pieces. It's breaking up a conglomerate that didn't make sense.

Re:Asset stripped.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111593)

In other words Google did effectively the same thing to Motorola that Carl Icahn does with his technology holdings, but with a lot less noise.

Re:Asset stripped.. (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 8 months ago | (#46112063)

At least Google didn't saddle Motorola with their own $12B acquisition price (how can that even be legal?).

Re:Asset stripped.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112731)

Not really. Icahn does things like taking on debt, buying a company for its physical assets, and then selling off the physical assets to pay the debt, leaving the company itself crippled and resulting in massive job losses.

That's not really the same thing as taking a business that is made up of several going concerns that can exist separately, and then selling those going concerns as going concerns.

Re:Asset stripped.. (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about 8 months ago | (#46112359)

What is the Google motto?
Something like 'Do Know Evil'?

Are we exporting more tech to China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110971)

Bad deal in that case.

How About, Pointless Waste. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46110993)

How about calling it a pointless waste. Google had an idea. Either they changed their mind or they weren't able to execute the idea.

Either way, they lost $7,000,000,000.00 on the "deal'. It was a pointless waste. And now a Chinese company owns what was an important American technology company/division.

Speaking of pointless wastes... I am again forced to use beta.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] Yea, it still blows goats.

Re:How About, Pointless Waste. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111231)

what was an important American technology company/division.

No - what was a FAILING American technology company.

Speaking of pointless wastes...

Like your entire post?

Re:How About, Pointless Waste. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111347)

I hope the SEC stops this sale to Lenovo. Already, sensitive agencies have banned Lenovo laptops... and having another core technology going to be owned by a country not friendly to the US is a bad thing.

Re:How About, Pointless Waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111717)

Why is that a bad thing? The U.S. is not friendly to anyone. I would rather trust the Chinese than the U.S., who have shown they cannot be trusted in matters involving communication.

Re:How About, Pointless Waste. (2)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 8 months ago | (#46111459)

they lost $7,000,000,000.00 on the "deal'. It was a pointless waste.

Except they didn't, and they got what they wanted out of it - the patent portfolio.

The Price is the Fair Market Value of the IP (1)

LibertarianLawyer (1881666) | about 8 months ago | (#46111029)

The value of the patents is the question. The definition of Fair Market Value is the price determined between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The proposition that all Google was ever really wanted from Moto was its IP seems self evident. Google was willing to buy the Home and Phone hardware operations to get the IP. Google was under no constraint or duress. Like other major players in the phone space it had a need to own enough IP not to be a target for constant demands. The financial press suggested for the outset that Google intended to sell both hardware operations. It delayed the sale of phone production to gain additional intangible value, IP. The price it paid for the IP after netting out the dollars received for the unwanted assets is the very definition of FMV.

real cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111083)

Was more like ~1.5B (or less) and at that price it wasn't a bad deal at all to pick up the patents and a few choice pieces of the company.

Re:real cost (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112055)

Tell that to the 4500 people that are now standing in the unemployment line.

Linking to Self? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111103)

Good job linking to the Slashdot subsite no one reads.

Wait is youtube that profitable? (2)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 8 months ago | (#46111173)

As far as I remember it was barely worth the massive bandwidth bills. But last time I heard about this subject was before the stupid video ads.

Re:Wait is youtube that profitable? (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | about 8 months ago | (#46111515)

Well, according to Variety [variety.com] it is:

YouTube is expected to generate about $5.6 billion in gross advertising revenue worldwide this year, according to a report from research firm eMarketer — an estimate considerably higher than previous Wall Street forecasts.

Google doesn’t break out financial results of YouTube, the Internet’s No. 1 video destination by a wide margin. The eMarketer analysis, based on data points gathered from multiple research reports, tops previous projections for 2013 from firms including Jefferies & Co.’s $4.5 billion and Barclays Capital’s $3.6 billion.

YouTube will net $1.96 billion in ad revenue, up 66% from 2012, after paying content and ad partners, according to eMarketer. YouTube’s projected $1.1 billion in U.S. net revenue would represent 6.3% of all of Google’s net ad revenues for the year, the firm estimated.

About 79% of YouTube’s U.S. ad revenue is from video advertising, with an estimated $850 million in for the year. That would give it a 20.5% share of the overall $4.15 billion U.S. video ad market. In 2014, eMarketer estimates YouTube video-ad revenue to hit $1.22 billion taking a 21.1% share.

To analyze YouTube revenue, eMarketer said it developed forecasting models based on third-party research on its ad revenue, ad impressions, rates, usage, partner fees and other figures.

Re:Wait is youtube that profitable? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 8 months ago | (#46112875)

All your numbers are revenue and there's not one mention of the bandwidth expenses.

not slow just savy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111205)

Google was not slow to market Moto X. Knowing that they will sell the business they did not invest much into it.

"Works as designed" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111225)

They never wanted to become a big phone manufactor (that would have scared away others), they wanted the patents to protect the android eco-system...

You throw away the wrapper... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111267)

Google bought Motorola's IP and sold off the only thing left of value (the name)

this is so hard to understand halp

Re:You throw away the wrapper... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112081)

The Motorola name is still worth something, after the long string of absolute garbage abandoned-at-launch phones for the last 4 years?

That IS hard to understand.

Microsoft, is that you? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111279)

I thought it was only teh Micro$$$oftss that had to buy companies and strip away their IP because of lack of innovation....
 
come on Fandroids, where are your cries against this kind of IP dickering today?
 
Disgusting. LOLzzz!!!! YOU AIN'T GOT NOTHING!!!!! Just a bunch of cheap dime store hoods with neckbeards.

it went exactly as planned (0, Troll)

nimbius (983462) | about 8 months ago | (#46111311)

People forget Google is keeping the patents previously held by motorola in this deal. The patents would be used solely to defend against litigious trolls like Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft -- having failed deleteriously to make any headway in mobile phones -- being relegated to siphoning off revenue from Google, and Apple having run out of gas to keep innovating after blowing their wad on iDevices in the Jobs era. Without a strong patent portfolio Google would expect to find itself bled quarterly in tandem with microsofts earnings and losses reports like so many other TomToms and Samsungs. And without said patent portfolio Apple would surely enjoy bleeding Google dry in court for centuries given their deep pockets.

Motorolas mobile phone technology was easily outclassed by HTC and made further irrelevant by the fact that Google has vehemently resisted becoming a hardware company. This is the equivalent of sucking the juice out of a Capri Sun, and finding someone willing to buy the packaging. Any patents or prior claims inherited by the Motorola purchase, one would conjecture with much chagrin, would be employed to defend against Microsoft hardware patent chicanery in court. As of late Redmond has taken a keen liking to sticking their dick in googles hardware manufacturers as a means of surviving a market that doesnt seem to give two shits about them beyond XBox.

Re:it went exactly as planned (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111547)

Here we go again...
 
Everything MS and Apple does is evil and they can't survive without leeching off of Google. Google is good and will lead us to the promise land where there will be milk and honey and Google will keep us safe from the bad MS and Apple.
 
Give it a frigging rest. We've seen time and time again that Google plays there games too. If it wasn't for you Fandroids they'd be on the heap of crap companies just like the rest.
 
At one time Google did some neat stuff for the man on the street and their employees. But Google grew up and we're starting to see how they're becoming like every other mature company on the planet.

Re:it went exactly as planned (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 8 months ago | (#46111975)

The best analysis of this seems to be ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com] , which looks into the conflict with Samsung. Even in the beginning of the deal, people were furrowing brows on how Google can be competing on hardware with the rest of Android.

I live in Chicago. I have a relative in Motorola. Google spent a lot of cash to get people to move to the Merchandise Mart downtown, spending a huge wad of cash to lease out an entire floor of the Mart. This was very disruptive for the teams, and only would pay longer term benefits. This doesn't seem to me to be a strip-and-dump purchase by Google, but the Samsung-Tizen thing kind of forced their hand. People were worrying about Android fragmentation, and the sale of Motorola was the pound of flesh that Google needed to give up to stop a huge split with Samsung.

Summary Reaction != Market Reaction (2)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 8 months ago | (#46111323)

The summary tries to paint the picture that Google's acquisition and sale of Motorola was somehow not quite what Google had hoped for. When Google announced that they would buy Motorola Mobility on Aug 15 2011 Google closed at: $557.23. Today Google is at $1140. Between yesterday and today Google jumped > 3%. Obviously Google's stock price is influenced by many factors but the acquisition of Motorola has not seemed to deter the massive gains Google has experienced over the past 2 or 3 years.

$12 Billion sitting in a bank account really doesn't do anything for Google, and it makes investors upset. So they bought talent and patents, took what they wanted from Motorola and are now selling the left over parts. They are not taking a loss. This isn't MySpace being bought for $500 million and being sold for $35 million, it is idiotic to suggest this was a stinging defeat. It was a shrewd business decision.

Long view... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111411)

Google got the patents they wanted. Put the rest of them into the hands of a company who will play ball with google in the future.

There's more to profit than MONEY RIGHT THE FUCK NOW... This move is going to make google money far into the future.
Both for themselves alone and as a partner with their good buddies over at lenovo.

But 'investors' don't see that. So you're right. Totally right. Google is a terrible stupid evil company and you should sell off your google stock RIGHT NOW.
(and kick yourself in another year or 5 when the google money just keeps rolling in for everyone else)

Google sucks at this (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#46111465)

I got up early for Motorola's Black Friday sale to get a developer's edition Moto X. They launched three hours after their advertised start time. Once their systems came online, I got an order in in less than three minutes. I got an order confirmation and hours later Motorola staff was posting on social media, urging people to buy the model I got. The next day, they send me a cancellation notice saying they have no stock and they're not going to honor my order, despite offer and acceptance.

Google sucks at anything that requires anything that resembles customers service. Humans don't map/reduce well.

Re:Google sucks at this (1)

bored (40072) | about 8 months ago | (#46111767)

B&N did the same to me a couple years ago with the touchpad fire sale. They even took my money and had to refund it a month later when they discovered they sold a million of the things but only had 5 in stock.

Re:Google sucks at this (2)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 8 months ago | (#46111925)

I got up early for Motorola's Black Friday sale to get a developer's edition Moto X. They launched three hours after their advertised start time. Once their systems came online, I got an order in in less than three minutes. I got an order confirmation and hours later Motorola staff was posting on social media, urging people to buy the model I got. The next day, they send me a cancellation notice saying they have no stock and they're not going to honor my order, despite offer and acceptance.

Google sucks at anything that requires anything that resembles customers service. Humans don't map/reduce well.

To be fair, this was probably a Moto and not a Google issue. I used to work in Moto R&D.. wonder how morale is now.

Peanuts to Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111543)

Google's market cap is $380 Billion. Even if they had lost the $12 Billion entirely (and obviously, they didn't), this would be chump change to them.

I find it more interesting that the sale price was so low for Motorola and Nokia.

Apple have a nominal market cap of $450 Billion, at least half of that must be because of their iPhone profits. How can Apple's phone division be 100 times as valuable as Motorola?

Samsung (5, Interesting)

saleenS281 (859657) | about 8 months ago | (#46111591)

The Moto X was actually an outstanding phone. I dumped my gs3 for one. I think the real end-game here was getting Samsung back in line. Motorola phones were selling enough units to raise alarms at Samsung. It's not like Samsung was in any danger of losing their stranglehold on android phone sales in the short term, but long-term with Google's backing it was only a matter of time until Motorola started taking significant chunks. End result: Samsung has supposedly agreed to dump it's custom UIs and custom applications and fully embrace the Play store and the Google ecosystem. It seems unlikely the timing is just a coincidence.

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/29/report-samsung-to-hold-the-touchwiz-on-future-android-devices/ [gigaom.com]

Re:Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112559)

Nail, head, hit you did.

Re:Samsung (2)

confused one (671304) | about 8 months ago | (#46112675)

There are reports that Samsung threatened to fork Android. With the new UI they showed at CES, it sort of drove the message home with Google and apparently that prompted meetings that led to where we are now...

You can't hit a home run when you don't even swing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46111671)

And you CERTAINLY can't hit a home run when you don't even swing the bat.

One of the first things they did when they took over was start abandoning Android platforms.....

One of the Best phones around was the Photon, Motorola kept promising an upgrade to later Android revs, and 'supposedly' had one in the release queue, but once they got bought, it got delayed, and delayed, then ultimately cancelled...leaving Sprint customer with a phone that wasn't being updated, and left behind (and had many usability problems that were fixed in later Android versions). Their solution was to give you a $100 certificate towards ANOTHER MOTOROLA PHONE....Give me a break....

Way to take care of your customers, Google...

Bough 6 Samsung phones within 2 months after that....

Google vs. Apple (1)

scorliss (1595579) | about 8 months ago | (#46111949)

How is it that Google posts a $7Billion+ loss and the stock rises $30+ and Apple posts record profit yet the stock drops $50? That is just absurd!!

Re:Google vs. Apple (1)

LaughingVulcan (3511853) | about 8 months ago | (#46112377)

It's called The Economy, where many more numbers than profit and loss factors into stock price, see. And why depressions happen: People think they can outguess people with decades of experience and do better as Mom & Pop... happens enough, a lot of people lose their shirts when control is reasserted. That said, I will miss the old Motorola. But that's the 21st Century Economy: Profit, profit, PROFIT! or die.

How is it that Google posts a $7Billion+ loss and the stock rises $30+ and Apple posts record profit yet the stock drops $50? That is just absurd!!

Re:Google vs. Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112387)

Because you know fuck-all about financial markets, that's how.

How is it that people can get away with posting complete garbage in a thread concerning corporate finance?

If I started posting elementary-level comments in a thread about a NASA mission, or a coding discussion, I would expect to be mocked. As far as financial matters go, Slashdotters seem to take a perverse pride in their ignorance.

Re:Google vs. Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112539)

-1 for the most insightful comment on the thread. Why don't you go ahead and mod his dog-shit question up, too? Suck my dick mod cunts, anybody dumb enough to be modding me down should waste another point on this comment. It's like evolution in action - you fire your semen (or mod points) into a farm animal, and the IQ of the rest of the site slowly rises.

Motorola has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112149)

It's all about Samsung. Samsung desperately needs a bailout, with its floundering smartphone offerings, failing consumer appliance division, and failing consumer TV division, and failing semiconductor division. Selling off Motorola frees up Google's time to focus on taking over a much bigger fish in the consumer market, while Lenovo, which is decidedly happy with the business niche it has carved out for itself, will similarly be happy with turning Motorola back into a business products company like it should be.

I think this new alignment is better for everyone, and will better position Samsung and Google to defend itself against Apple's never ending barrage of lawsuits.

Re:Motorola has nothing to do with it (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46112389)

Samsung has a failing semiconductor division?
They make the CPU in the most popular phones. You know, every Samsung phone and every Apple phone.
Not to mention the RAM and flash chips.

You sound like a FUD machine.

Microsoft and Skpe (1)

fwarren (579763) | about 8 months ago | (#46112275)

I doubt Microsoft will every be able to justify the 8 billion dollar price tag it paid for Skype.

I think Google should go out to and make another wise investment. I would love to so MS buy something like Pinterest for 15 billion.

It wasn't really optional (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46112343)

If Google didn't buy them, someone else would now have those patents.

Speaking of Android... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112661)

How hard would it be for Google to provide Android updates to smartphones themselves, rather through the carriers?

If their fear is Samsung forking Android, why not just provide alternate Android OTA updates? 90% of the OEM phones are just ARM/Snapdragon/OMAP/Adreno variants, It's not like Samsung/LG/HTC design custom ICs for use in their phones. They're basically ARM SOCs with some OEM branding. They have standard CDMA/GSM radios, so they don't need any proprietary drivers from Verizon or AT&T.

Google could release a "universal" Android version tomorrow and Verizon/AT&T/Sprint customers would download it in droves. Less bloat also.

   

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?