Google announces plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5B - Page 6

Originally Posted by droideggs

you say 'controlling' i say 'fully integrated'

We live in a 'facebook' world now. One cannot stay anonymous to your connected devices. All devices are tracked. Its the new reality. Its how said company uses your personal data is whats important. I am personally not 'afraid' of being tracked by Google.

Carriers track your location
ISP's track how much bandwidth you use
Facebook monitors what you like and dislike, and sells your personal information to 3rd party entities
Your credit score and finances can be checked through various online resources
Websites have been tracking your internet surfing habits for years through cookies
The list goes on...

Originally Posted by droideggs

This whole notion of 'Google gonna control your life' is a weak argument.

Originally Posted by sunspot42

And at the rate Motorola is burning thru cash, that won't last very long. Motorola is up against not only Apple and Nokia, but also Samsung and LG (and possibly HP, if they ever get their act together). All of them are larger, with better balance sheets.

Originally Posted by jragosta

And one Google to rule them all.......

I can't imagine anything online that's scarier.

Originally Posted by droideggs

As a tech enthusiast, I'm STOKED!

Originally Posted by AppleLover2

Are all of those Motorola Mobility products? Or do they include products made by other divisions too?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

Sheesh, there is a lot of assumptions (realistic and unrealistic) in this thread regarding Google's intent (that goes against their exact words), OEMs responses (despite them being elated by this news - news which backs up Google's previous claims that it'll protect it's OEMs) and the future of Android.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

I don't think you can equate using Google Services with trusting Google. They do some things very well -- and it would be self-defeating not to use those services.

But trust... No!

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton

First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, . .

Originally Posted by droideggs

what are all the Moto-Blur software developers going to do? I have a feeling a lot of software engineers on Moto side will get the boot? Or maybe GOOG might be nice enough to take them under their wing. Lets see how this plays out. I'm extremely excited about this news though.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

We don't even have an announcement that Moto is going to kill Moto Blur with this merger, though certainly there will be great jubilation in the Android community if Moto promises to abjure hideous reskins in future and stick with stock android.

Originally Posted by stelligent

I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.

Originally Posted by juandl

Google probably did buy Moto for their patents.
But this surely will not hold up Apple one bit. If the patents were being infringed Motorola is trying hard to stick it to Apple in the courts now.
Maybe Google has better Lawyers.
More than anything. Once the Samsungs and HTC's start jumping ship to Microsoft, this will give Google one company that is their very own.
All in all, the biggest losers will be Google. That is one big chunk of change.

Originally Posted by stelligent

Interesting perspective. But I disagree.

Andy Rubin is decidedly smart, accomplished ... when it comes to software. But what's his background and track record when it comes to hardware design? Even if we assume he had a big say in the design of the Sidekick at Danger, it was nothing remarkable (although, in terms of function, the product arguably helped to usher in the smartphone era).

Rubin already has had chances to influence if not control the design of Android phones in the Nexus reference series. Although each Nexus phone has been interesting and ahead of previous Droids, none has been groundbreaking or a standout. This is not surprising - Andy Rubin is not Steve Jobs. He is not Jonathan Ive. (Of course, they are not Andy Rubin either.) There is something special about the Apple culture built by Jobs that leads to the unique products that it generates. Jon Rubenstein took a bit of that magic with him to Palm, resulting in the distinctive Pre and WebOS. Neither Google nor Motorola has that kind of culture. Merging them will not produce it. This is no slag on either, for both are very good at what they do.

All to say, I expect to see improvement in the integration of hardware and software as a result of this merger, but I don't expect landscape shifting changes in the hardware.

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton

First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, now they want to raise the "victim of conspiracy against Google" card again by saying that's why they have to acquire Motorola. Poor, victimized Google. They're not the underdog here, people. Their smartphone platform dominates and yet they dare play the victim.

They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.

Originally Posted by droideggs

you say 'controlling' i say 'fully integrated'

We live in a 'facebook' world now. One cannot stay anonymous to your connected devices. All devices are tracked. Its the new reality. Its how said company uses your personal data is whats important. I am personally not 'afraid' of being tracked by Google.

Carriers track your location
ISP's track how much bandwidth you use
Facebook monitors what you like and dislike, and sells your personal information to 3rd party entities
Your credit score and finances can be checked through various online resources
Websites have been tracking your internet surfing habits for years through cookies
The list goes on...

This whole notion of 'Google gonna control your life' is a weak argument.

Originally Posted by stelligent

Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.

Originally Posted by ksec

No, they didn't bought Motorola because of building Andriod Devices or making hardware etc. They brought Moto because of their HUGE patents portfolio.

I have always called for Apple to acquire Moto. They have a gigantic no. of patents relating to Tele communication, much more then Nortel or Nokia.

Originally Posted by lkrupp

Give this man a cigar!

Originally Posted by addabox

I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.

That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.

Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.

The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.

Originally Posted by addabox

I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.

That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.

Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.

The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you in as much detail as knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.

Originally Posted by addabox

This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.

I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.

If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum



Listen To Me!

Originally Posted by lilgto64

I thought the design behind Android let IT be tailored to fit any hardware. Isn't tailoring the hardware to suit the software the opposite of that? Or are they just copying Apple once again and making hardware and software together that are designed from the get go to work together? ANd what impact will that have on any other mfgs desire to use the OS?

Originally Posted by droideggs

Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.

Originally Posted by stelligent

I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.

Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?

That should be your decision... not his!

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton

It's a test of faith in Google's not being evil claim. And he passed with flying colors

Originally Posted by Doxxic

It may be about patents, but it will definitely undermine 3rd party trust in Google.

It will be very tempting to bring all new developments to Motorola devices first, because Google now can develop hardware and software together.

Originally Posted by Wovel

Also important was Motorolas plan to sue all of the other Android makers.

Originally Posted by hittrj01

I agree with most of the posters on here that Google did this primarily for the patents. However, I'm sure Google will still keep releasing a new Nexus phone (and maybe even tablet, eventually) every year. Now they just don't have to partner with a phone maker, since they now own one.

Originally Posted by nikon133

Not necessarily.

I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.

But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.

So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?

That should be your decision... not his!

Originally Posted by droideggs

how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?

you have to use your own judgement.

Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.

At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.

Originally Posted by addabox

Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.

The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do.

Originally Posted by addabox

Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.

The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.

Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.

I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.

Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.

Originally Posted by droideggs

A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.

One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.

Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.

I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?

I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.

Originally Posted by droideggs

A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.

One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.

Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.

I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?

I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

But, also don't forget that Google created and has invested enormous amounts into Android for a reason. They see mobile as the future and killing that would have a huge impact on their business. Maybe not as large an immediate hit as Apple would take by losing iOS, but large nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.

If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/

IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.