Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a recent conference call with investors, Apple's chief financial officer was unsurprisingly tight-lipped, but did admit he thinks Google spent "a lot of money" to acquire Motorola.



Peter Oppenheimer took part this week in a conference call hosted by investment firm Gleacher & Company. When asked about Google's announcement on Monday that it would acquire Motorola, the Apple senior vice president reportedly commented on the sale price by saying: "$12.5 billion is a lot of money."



If the Motorola purchase receives necessary regulatory approval, it will be the largest acquisition in Google's long history of purchases. The final sum well exceeds the $3.1 billion sale price of online advertiser DoubleClick in 2008, and $1.65 billion purchase of YouTube in 2006.



For its part, Apple does not make a significant number of major acquisitions, and none of Apple's deals have been nearly as large as Google. In 1997, Apple acquired NeXT for $404 million, and more recently, it bought microprocessor designer P.A. Semi for $278 million in 2008, and mobile advertising firm Quattro Wireless in early 2010 for $275 million.



Google's chief executive, Larry Page, has freely admitted that his company's mega-deal with Motorola was prompted, in part, by growing patent litigation in the smartphone business. Page said that he feels lawsuits from Apple and Microsoft targeting platforms like Google Android is "anticompetitive" activity.



Industry watchers believe that Google's ownership of Motorola will give it a stronger foothold in ongoing legal challenges from competitors. But at the same time, analysts on Wall Street do not expect the Google-Motorola deal to have a major impact on Apple or to affect sales of its wildly popular iPhone.



When asked about the Google-Motorola combination during this week's conference call, Oppenheimer said Apple strongly believes in competition, but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others. He said customers should be allowed to choose what is the superior product on the open market.



The CFO also reiterated the company's stance that Apple will "vigorously" defend its intellectual property as necessary. In keeping with that strategy, Apple is currently involved in patent infringement suits with a number of major companies, including HTC, Motorola, Samsung, and Kodak.



Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer.



Oppenheimer has worked for Apple since 1996 and in his role as senior vice president and CFO reports directly to Chief Executive Steve Jobs. He previously worked at Automatic Data Processing, where he was also CFO.



During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter. He also hinted that Apple has "neat stuff coming" to its iTunes Store in the coming months.
«13456

Comments

  • z3r0z3r0 Posts: 228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter. He also hinted that Apple has "neat stuff coming" to its iTunes Store in the coming months.



    Let the guessing games begin!



    Another CPU architecture switch? Apple TV (TV not box)? No more Mac's just Mobile devices (the horror!)?



    Safest bet is iCloud TV possibly iCloud gaming.
  • inkswampinkswamp Posts: 337member
    Quote:

    When asked about the Google-Motorola combination during this week's conference call, Oppenheimer said Apple strongly believes in competition, but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.



    Couldn't agree more! I've been saying this since these lawsuits have started. People accuse Apple of trying to stifle competition for suing over patent infringement, but I don't see cloning another company's product as competition. I think that's setting the bar for competition very, very low. I don't consider what Samsung or RIM or Motorola do in the tablet space to be competition.



    And because I anticipate being accused of fanboy-ism, I'll point out an example of what I think is true competition in the tablet market. Sony has shown some competitive spirit and real initiative with their S2. While it doesn't appeal to me personally, it's the kind of creative, tangential thinking in product design that I consider true competition.
  • sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    He should have said: "Libertyville, start you photocopiers!"
  • invoiceinvoice Posts: 20member
    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others
  • tleviertlevier Posts: 103member
    Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.



    Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:



    1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.



    2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)



    The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.

    The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.



    Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
  • drobforeverdrobforever Posts: 400member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post


    Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.



    Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:



    1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.



    2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)



    The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.

    The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.



    Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?



    2) is not really a negative because it's pretty obvious that Google is on the hook if Android manufacturers lose the suits to Apple anyway. In fact Google would lose at least $150-200 in stock price if Android devices cannot be sold anymore. It's almost like the last resort on Google's part, to by Moto and hope that they can somehow win the suits.



    Right now the potential big winner is not Apple but Microsoft, it's stock is dirt cheap and if Android is dead, WinPhone7 will become the 2nd largest mobile OS very quickly and there's no way Apple can win suits against MSFT's huge patent warchest.
  • joebloggsjoebloggs Posts: 35member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    Maybe. But Apple bought all these raw ideas and spent massive amounts of time and money to develop them to the point where they a) worked properly; b) were marketable: c) were affordable; and d) were profitable. Mr. Oppenheimer's comments are aimed at those who simply take someone else's ideas, without paying for them, and who don't develop them but simply copy them to make a profit for themselves.
  • mbarriaultmbarriault Posts: 237member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    "Copying" and "extending" are two very different things.



    Oh, as for the mouse and GUI, they were involved actually. It was a research project at Xerox and they invited Apple to produce a commercial product, the Lisa and then the Macintosh. While they were in development, Apple invited Microsoft in to see their new GUI OS so Microsoft could get a head start on development of Office, which they did, but also copied everything pretty much verbatim to make Windows 1.0.
  • prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.



    Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.
  • bulk001bulk001 Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...self-image.ars
  • jukesjukes Posts: 213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.



    Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.



    Oh Prof. Peabody. "Almost every one of these points" is unusually vague for you. Your posts are usually so levelheaded. You shouldn't let this sort of post get to you.



    In related news, Google has halted all hiring for the rest of the 2011 year.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    the Apple senior vice president reportedly commented on the sale price by saying: "$12.5 billion is a lot of money."



    And the ocean is big. Do I also get an article in AI for stating the obvious?
  • wovelwovel Posts: 953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    Welcome to the forums. Nice to see you have an Axe to grind. I really like the Psion one, that is cute. By the way, you have been posting two days and made 10 posts. You have already managed to copy yourself.



    There has got to be a joke in that somewhere.
  • addicted44addicted44 Posts: 813member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea - Apple paid for the visit, with the understanding that they could commercialize the ideas they would see. Besides, there were massive improvements between what Xerox had, and Apple did. Xerox did not think these could make commercial products at all.

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes: How did they not invent the iPod? You are right about iTunes. They purchased the company that invented it.

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion: I have no idea about this.

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks: Which is why Apple licenced the technology and subsequently bought them.

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea: Umm, and?

    - that didn't invent Coverflow: Yup. They bought the company that invented it.

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS... yeah, because those MS tablets looked exactly like what the iPad does now...just because Apple borrowed the name doesn't mean they aren't substantially different products.

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format: Huh?



    all these idea's taken from others



    These ideas were all fairly licenced or purchased from others. Unlike Google which simply stole the idea (and patented ones at that). I am not sure why you can't tell the difference. In fact, you missed the classic example of when Apple pulled a Google. Dashboard. This was a very clear ripoff of Konfabulator (sp?), and Apple got a ton of flak for it.



    They learnt their lesson, and the next time they wanted to take an idea someone else had used (CoverFlow) they purchased it from the developer.
  • povilaspovilas Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    You forgot THE WHEEL, Apple didn't invent that too.
  • leonardleonard Posts: 528member
    Meh, I think Apple should have kept their mouth shut, like they usually do.



    $2.5 billion is alot to pay for NORTEL patents, too. It's a fair price and well worth it, mind you, but still alot, and one of their bigger purchases.
  • wovelwovel Posts: 953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Leonard View Post


    Meh, I think Apple should have kept their mouth shut, like they usually do.



    $2.5 billion is alot to pay for NORTEL patents, too. It's a fair price and well worth it, mind you, but still alot, and one of their bigger purchases.



    They did pay a 60%+ premium on an overvalued company that has never made a profit...
  • prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jukes View Post


    Oh Prof. Peabody. "Almost every one of these points" is unusually vague for you. Your posts are usually so levelheaded. You shouldn't let this sort of post get to you.



    In related news, Google has halted all hiring for the rest of the 2011 year.



    Well, it's such obvious nonsense I shouldn't have replied at all. So I started to, then I realised every single thing he said was crap and that not only that the point of view he is working from is flawed as well. I shouldn't have replied at all.
  • antinousantinous Posts: 25member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post


    but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.





    Says the CFO of the company:



    - that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea

    - that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes

    - that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion

    - that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks

    - that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea

    - that didn't invent Coverflow

    - that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS

    - ...



    - that didn't invent the rectangular format



    all these idea's taken from others



    I think you're in the wrong room. Try engadget.com.
  • invoiceinvoice Posts: 20member




    Considering the claim against Samsung:

    Rectangular format

    rounded corners

    centered screen

    metal frame

    neutral band



    This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
Sign In or Register to comment.