or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola - Page 2

post #41 of 116
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?

Lets consider past patent deals.

Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000

450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent


Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000

12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent


Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000

Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.

Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.

Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES

I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
post #42 of 116
It's interesting that for all of Motorola's alleged patents (apparently they are many, though I assume a lot of them are old and related to analog tech), they sure as hell didn't act on too many of them.

Though going to court isn't cheap. Google has the resources to do just that.
post #43 of 116
Paying 60% over the maket cap is astronomical. When you consider moto's offerings this becomes troublesome. I hope they invest in some better designs at least.
post #44 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.


Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.

12.5 Billion ?!?

desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.

They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.

wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.

It has to be the patents they hold.

Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.

12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.

pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...

No, no, no.... You fail to understand: Google isn't anti-competitive, they're anti- legal competition -- now, illegal or unethical competition (or other conduct) is their modus operandi.

But, someone is going to hand Google its head on a platter -- ironically that someone may be Google.

If Google backs away from the MMI deal -- they lose $2.5 Billion.

If Google goes ahead with the deal -- they lose $12.5 Billion.

Either way they have damaged any trust they had by their partners -- and further tarnished Google's and Android's reputation.

I wish I had been long GOOG when this deal was announced -- I smell a class action by shareholders.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #45 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post


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

So why did HP not go forward with their rectangular metal thing? Was it because they could not make it work? Or because maybe it sucked? Or maybe .....
post #46 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?

Ask the markets.

Unless you believe (and the market does too) that you know more than it does.....

Otherwise, move along.
post #47 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple actually made them matter.

What an appropriate, simple, concise response -- and very Apple-like!

It is so obvious, now -- wish that I'd said it!

Boom!

Edit: Quadra, you should retire now... you'll never top that post!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #48 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ask the markets.

Unless you believe (and the market does too) that you know more than it does.....

Otherwise, move along.

you go by investors opinions?

any company who overtakes a smaller company with an acquisition this large always has initial negative impact on the company. thats nothing new.

funny how you skipped out on the math portion of my statement too
post #49 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

any company who overtakes a smaller company with an acquisition this large always has initial negative impact on the company. thats nothing new.

You're really pretty clueless when it comes to understanding how markets react to acquisitions, aren't you?

Btw, the word is not 'overtakes,' but rather takes over.
post #50 of 116
"A lot of money"? Let's call it what it is a desperate defensive move resulting in Google paying too much for the real world value of Motorola.


Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?

Lets consider past patent deals.

Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000

450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent


Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000

12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent


Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000

Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.

Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.

Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES

I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.

1) Patents are equal value items. You're one of those people that look at a spec sheet to see basic features without considering how they are implemented or if they are even usable.

2) Are you fudging the numbers? What are the chances that the Novell and Motorola patents cost exactly the same right down to one-billionth of a penny?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #51 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

you go by investors opinions?

any company who overtakes a smaller company with an acquisition this large always has initial negative impact on the company. thats nothing new.

funny how you skipped out on the math portion of my statement too

The math makes no sense -- you assume that each patent is of equal value -- and that each is applicable to the need at hand,

1,000,000 inapplicable patents !>= 1 applicable patent

They bought a failing business for some patents -- but a lot of baggage comes with the deal

They risked more than a year's profits that, likely, will never be recovered.

Edit: Read the following article for an interesting evaluation of the MMI purchase:

Android Isn't Free
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #52 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbell View Post

beside a lot of your history being messed up (e.g. The first mouse was credited to douglas engelbart from the stanford research institute who built the first prototype in 1963), what is your point?

You somehow seem to equate first with being original. For instance, you could create an mp3 player before me, and i can build one much later that is significantly different, maybe even better. Are you suggesting because i build a mp3 player after you, i didn't invent my own technology. That is bs. Take for instance your incorrect example of the computer mouse. Xerox's bill english built a mouse based on englehert's work. It cost $400 to build. Apple was looking to bring a computer to market for about $2, 000. It couldn't use a mouse that cost that much to build. Instead, apple created some serious magic and figured out how to build a mouse that did the same thing as the $400 mouse, but for $25.

Out of all the examples you provide below, apple either paid for the technology upon which it build on (e.g. Itunes, cover flow, finger works), or outright brought its own design to the table. People don't understand apple paid xerox by giving it one million dollars worth of its pre-ipo shares. Do you know what that would be worth today? In exchange, all apple got was a visit to xerox parc where apple could view a gui in action (which was helpful because apple's engineers already wanted to build a gui product, but needed to convince jobs it was feasible).

Apple isn't complaining about hp or microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of apple's products, right down tot he packaging.

+++qft
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #53 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You're really pretty clueless when it comes to understanding how markets react to acquisitions, aren't you?

Btw, the word is not 'overtakes,' but rather takes over.

Hi Mr. Grammar Policeman.

overtakes, takeover, same diff. you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics.

you still haven't given a reasonable answer to the math i provided above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

"A lot of money"? Let's call it what it is a desperate defensive move resulting in Google paying too much for the real world value of Motorola.



1) Patents are equal value items. You're one of those people that look at a spec sheet to see basic features without considering how they are implemented or if they are even usable.

2) Are you fudging the numbers? What are the chances that the Novell and Motorola patents cost exactly the same right down to one-billionth of a penny?

Everyone is so touchy. I just provided some basic math.

I'm not fudging numbers. I actually got these figures from news reports. Those figures are accurate. Are they to the closest cent? No.
post #54 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Either way they have damaged any trust they had by their partners -- and further tarnished Google's and Android's reputation.

I'm sure Google has already reassured its partners that it doesn't intend on decimating the "Android Army". I'm sure they also told them that they will use these patents to protect their flanks, which Apple, and Microsoft have been harrying. Makes sense, no?

Thompson
post #55 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple isn't complaining about HP or Microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of Apple's products, right down tot he packaging.

It's more likely that they're not complaining because they either have cross-licensing agreements in place, or know that both of those companies have patent portfolios that make suing them corporate suicide (perhaps murder-suicide). Apple is perfectly happy to sue any infringers that can't defend themselves adequately, as opposed to most of the industry that licenses to anyone for the right price.
post #56 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

Hi Mr. Grammar Policeman.

overtakes, takeover, same diff. you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics.

you still haven't given a reasonable answer to the math i provided above.



Everyone is so touchy. I just provided some basic math.

I'm not fudging numbers. I actually got these figures from news reports. Those figures are accurate. Are they to the closest cent? No.

From the form and content it is clear that this droid fan is either a 13 year-old, or thinks and expresses himself like one. No point in engaging. Unless you are a 13 year-old girl.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #57 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

From the form and content it is clear that this droid fan is either a 13 year-old, or thinks and expresses himself like one. No point in engaging. Unless you are a 13 year-old girl.

can we stay on point here?

i thought we were discussing the value of the acquisition.
post #58 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

can we stay on point here?

i thought we were discussing the value of the acquisition.

Sorry, not a 13 year-old girl.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #59 of 116
Larry Page isn't stupid - he's a Stanford Ph.D. dropout after all (as is Sergey Brin, and, er, Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang.)

Google has finally realized that in order to copy the iPhone they need to copy Apple itself - both the software side and the hardware side of the company.

Too bad they've wasted Andy Hertzfeld's talents on cloning Facebook - he could do wonders to make an Apple-style Android phone with tightly integrated hardware and software that didn't suck.
post #60 of 116
"Thanks to all of the hardware manufacturers for supporting the Android platform and making it what it is today... Oh and by the way, did I mention that we're now competing with you in the handset space? Peace out and don't be evil."

My prediction is that Google will try to get Android even more traction. When they've taken it about as far as they can, they'll start charging their licensing partners so much for for the OS (while blaming others) that they drop the platform and Google-MotoMobile will become the only game in town for an Android device.
post #61 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

I'm sure Google has already reassured its partners that it doesn't intend on decimating the "Android Army". I'm sure they also told them that they will use these patents to protect their flanks, which Apple, and Microsoft have been harrying. Makes sense, no?

Thompson

Yes! Google has already given their partners a public reassurance of their intentions for Android.

And each partner, in turn, has made a public response to their faith in Googles intentions...

Oddly, several companies made press release comments that were worded almost exactly the same...

Reminds one of the the talking points provided to the news outlets by the political parties...


But, I wonder why the public votes of confidence were made at all...


I have been observing large companies since 1958...

Almost, without exception, a company's public vote of confidence is soon followed by actions which indicate that they had no confidence at all -- they were just mouthing the words.


You can go way back to the public statement "I find no fault in this man..." Pontius Pilate.


Said another way, a public vote of confidence often precedes a public crucifixion.


Just an observation... No disrespect intended!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #62 of 116
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.

The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
post #63 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLSTICE1221 View Post

The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.

Google started out at 900 million but they ended up bidding significantly more: billions more!
post #64 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by blecch View Post

Larry Page isn't stupid - he's a Stanford Ph.D. dropout after all (as is Sergey Brin, and, er, Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang.)

No, he is not stupid. None of them are. But to get a PhD at a respected university takes time and patience as well as aptitude and intellect.

It's interesting that so many of these guys drop out of college and then end up being huge successes in business. Steve Jobs included. What it suggests to me is that there are two kinds of smart, business smart and academic smart. PhDs envy the money made by corporate bigwigs, and CEOs are jealous of the respect that PhDs get for their knowledge and intellect. If you don't mind being poor, that's the kind of respect money can't buy.

I know someone who is a big success in business, and because of that he is convinced that he is always the smartest guy in the room. On any topic. In any room. His opinions on many things outside of how to make money are borderline looney. But because he is rich, he is convinced he is right. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich, right?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #65 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLSTICE1221 View Post

The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.

no, Apple is the main proprietor of the deal. The others would get cross-licensing deals from Apple. In essence, only Apple can sue another company if the patents they bought from Nortel were being infringed. Not sure if its just Apple though, could be Apple and MSFT. Too lazy to research at this point.
post #66 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLSTICE1221 View Post

The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.

Google tapped out at $4 billion dollars. Although no one but those involved know how the payments were divvied out, it has been reported that Apple paid the lion's share (around $2.5 billion) for outright ownership of several of the patents.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #67 of 116
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

And your point being...?
post #68 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

But because he is rich, he is convinced he is right. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich, right?

You are right... that's rich, Rob...

I am not rich... but I am Rich, but only sometimes right...

Isn't that right, Rob?

...And don't call me Shirley
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #69 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Sorry, not a 13 year-old girl.

You're really Chris Hansen, from Dateline NBC.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #70 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Actually Google is more of an Advertising company in my opinion. They want as many ways as they can to keep their greasy fingers in our lives. To Google we are nothing more than food. They offer "free services" (often using IP that they don't own) as a way of keeping a good supply of food for their real customers, the advertisers.



Wait. Are you talking about AI? We are just food to them too. They give us "free" content (using IP that they don't own) as away of keeping a good supply of food for their real customer, Google.
post #71 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?

Lets consider past patent deals.

Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000

450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent


Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000

12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent


Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000

Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.

Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.

Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES

I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.

Actually, considering that you are fairly uninformed, I'll help you out a little bit here...

Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.

... but... where you fail miserably is by applying the number of patents bought as if all patents are equal (as has already been mentioned). The 7k patents pending are more than likely the real meat with a few more sprinkled in from the other 24 or so k. Regardless... it's not the number of patents...it's the quality of the patents. If in the end game Google can only cause a stalemate in the patent war then they will definitely have paid a lot more at 9.3 than Apple did at 2.5... plus for the extra 6.8 billion Apple can probably pick up a few more patents along the way... and Apple hasn't been downgraded in the process.

By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #72 of 116
Clue in. http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

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
post #73 of 116
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?

Google's first foray into the courtroom failed miserably.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/judge-...-dispute/55299
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #74 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Actually, considering that you are fairly uninformed, I'll help you out a little bit here...

Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.

... but... where you fail miserably is by applying the number of patents bought as if all patents are equal (as has already been mentioned). The 7k patents pending are more than likely the real meat with a few more sprinkled in from the other 24 or so k. Regardless... it's not the number of patents...it's the quality of the patents. If in the end game Google can only cause a stalemate in the patent war then they will definitely have paid a lot more at 9.3 than Apple did at 2.5... plus for the extra 6.8 billion Apple can probably pick up a few more patents along the way... and Apple hasn't been downgraded in the process.

By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.

so you're saying they paid even less than 12.5 billion? ok. btw Motorola had over $4 billion in net cash as of end of July 2011, so by your calculation it would be even less.

How do you know that the 7k patents pending are the 'real meat.' If you can provide a source on this that'd be great. Not trying to put you on the spot. Willing to gather more data.

Quality of the patents sure matter, and Google scored a treasure trove by getting them from Motorola, who have been in mobile phone industry since, yeah, Day 1. I'm pretty sure if Google had to pick Nortel or Motorola patents only, they would pick Motorola's.

of course apple shook the mobile industry in January of 2007.

This acquisition shook the mobile industry as well. A lot of changes are going to be made. If you deny this I don't know what to say other than the fact that you're trying really hard to minimize the impact this will have on the entire industry.
post #75 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.

This seems to be a common theme here at AI. At a macro scale, Google doesn't care about Apple much. Google cares about Microsoft, which threatens its core business. Android is about preventing MS from being successful in the space. To a certain extent, Apple should thank Google, as MS is a much more dangerous long-term threat. In particular, MS is immune to the sort of patent attack that Apple has been using to try and squash Android hardware.
post #76 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

This seems to be a common theme here at AI. At a macro scale, Google doesn't care about Apple much. Google cares about Microsoft, which threatens its core business. Android is about preventing MS from being successful in the space. To a certain extent, Apple should thank Google, as MS is a much more dangerous long-term threat. In particular, MS is immune to the sort of patent attack that Apple has been using to try and squash Android hardware.

Finally a post that makes sense
post #77 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

ok. btw Motorola had over $4 billion in net cash as of end of July 2011, so by your calculation it would be even less.

I think MMI actually had $3.2 billion and MSI had $4 billion... the headline is very confusing because it melds both companies together. Sloppy on their part.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #78 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

... overtakes, takeover, same diff.

Wow, seriously?

Quote:
overtake
1.
a. To catch up with; draw even or level with.
b. To pass after catching up with.
2. To come upon unexpectedly; take by surprise: geopolitical strategists who were overtaken by events in southeast Asia.

Quote:
take over
1. To assume control, management, or responsibility.
2. To assume the control or management of or the responsibility for: She took over the job after he left.
3. To become dominant: Our defense took over in the second half of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics. ...

When you don't understand the semantics, you can't even communicate your argument, so you've lost before you even start.
post #79 of 116
You assume all patents are equally worthwhile and valuable. Many of Motorola's patents are a part of a standard's body. Meaning they have to be licensed under FRAND terms. Those aren't as valuable as a patent that isn't part of a standard's body.


This deal is bad because Google 1) is undermining Android partners who don't want to compete with Google (and Google has no qualms with competing with the partners, 2) Motorola's business is losing money so Motorola will not eventually pay for itself, and 3) the purchase doesn't help Google with its current legal problems.

Android partners would be smart to stick with Android for the sort term, but then all dump Android together for either Microsoft or HP's Web OS (assuming HP can be talked into that).

Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?

Lets consider past patent deals.

Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000

450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent


Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000

12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent


Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000

Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.

Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.

Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES

I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
post #80 of 116
Apple's business model is to sell hardware by making that hardware unique and highly consumer friendly. By licensing its technology to knock off providers, it undermines the value of its products. Apple has never been afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft in Court. Yet, historically Apple really isn't sue happy outside of Android.

I honestly think Apple could care less about Microsoft because it thinks it can compete fairly with it, and Microsoft is not blatantly knocking Apple off. Apple has a real chip on its shoulders for Android though. Probably because Apple feels like Google's CEO while sitting on Apple's board played underhandedly. Further, Google made little effort to come up with its own OS. It took the Java code, and used Apple GUI as a guide to patch on Java.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

It's more likely that they're not complaining because they either have cross-licensing agreements in place, or know that both of those companies have patent portfolios that make suing them corporate suicide (perhaps murder-suicide). Apple is perfectly happy tsue any infringers that can't defend themselves adequately, as opposed to most of the industry that licenses to anyone for the right price.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola