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 3

post #81 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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

Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.

Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

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.

Not to mention that many of the Motorola patents are close to expiration.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #82 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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!

No problem, and I can't dispute the point that what a company says they are going to do and what they ultimately DO do are two separate things. However, I think it actually makes more sense for Google to use those patents as shields for their army than it does for them to actually enter the fray, not to mention perform fratricide. I had that opinion even BEFORE hearing any public statements on the topic. So in this case, their public statements totally dovetail with good business sense (setting aside that extreme cost). We shall see. Google may be naive and bold, in some ways, but they certainly aren't stupid, which is exactly what I think they would be if they really were intending on hurting their allies. All they have going for them right now is a semblance of strength in numbers. It could easily fall apart with any misstep.

Thompson
post #83 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.

Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.

You're a hostile little critter, aint ya.

To the best of my knowledge the purchasing company most often gets all of the assets of a company but, since you're not sure either, I'll let someone else answer that if they wouldn't mind (maybe Anantksundaram).
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #84 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?

You are close, I think, but with the right patents in hand (e.g. 4G related) Google doesn't have to "become a manufacturer" to go after Apple's iOS. Their ultimate goal would be to carve out a dangerous enough claim to enter negotiations with Apple. And one of their demands might be, "drop those suits with our partners, and let's cross-license some stuff".

To that end, Google could either shut down the newly acquired handset business or use it as a concept demonstrator (like they attempted with the two Nexus handsets). They are NOT going to switch to the Apple model of building their own stuff and shutting down their partners.

Whether they will be successful is a different issue. I just don't believe that their true goal is to enter the handset manufacturing business and dominate.

Look for Google to sue Apple directly over some software related issue by Xmas.

Thompson
post #85 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?

Nope, you've got some valid points. Although the first is probably negative for Google and the second is definitely negative for Google.

There's wanting to get into a fight and then there's getting into a fight.
post #86 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

They did pay a 60%+ premium on an overvalued company that has never made a profit...

Speaking of overvalued companies, does Google make any profit? Totally ignorant question here. It just seems like their whole existence is one big spending spree and after paying their employees and other overhead, I don't see what they could have left.

Is ad revenue really that amazing? Their search engine is slowly becoming the spam ridden ghetto that Yahoo was in the late 90s, and the simple layout that made them likable has been long gone. Apple tends to do a few things, and do them well; Google has too much on the table to do much of anything right at this point. MS is going through the same thing, but with Wndows and Office to creating constant revenue, their worries have been limited.
post #87 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebloggs View Post

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.

This is why I absolutely hate software patents. Thee is no need for them. Even if you are given the idea it is still hard work to actually implement it. The patent is just the very first step in a long and usually expensive development process.
post #88 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

Apple may not have invented many things (open for debate) but they surely were innovative enough to improve the design and function of the categories to make there products extremely successful in comparison to those you claim did.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #89 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.

Your question about whether I trust investors suggests you think you know something about investors. I suggest you are clueless on that topic and used your language as an example.

No one is being 'touchy'. A lot of the posters in this forum are pretty well-informed and knowledgable. Please think before you post.
post #90 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.

Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?

Just curious....
post #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Nope, you've got some valid points. Although the first is probably negative for Google and the second is definitely negative for Google.

There's wanting to get into a fight and then there's getting into a fight.

I agree, I think this is an accident waiting to happen unless Google sell off the hardware and just keep the patents. This is Google we are talking about ... The Beta Kings ... dumping bit of software even if millions have become dependent on using it is nothing to them. Zero support on anything is par for the course ... all well and good with code I guess ... but hardware?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #92 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

You're a hostile little critter, aint ya.

To the best of my knowledge the purchasing company most often gets all of the assets of a company but, since you're not sure either, I'll let someone else answer that if they wouldn't mind (maybe Anantksundaram).

I've been involved with dozens of acquisitions. In every single case (as is normal business practice), when a company sells its assets, cash is generally not included.

Now, it is POSSIBLE that they included the cash in this deal, but I haven't seen any reports that said so and since that is so different from standard practice, it probably would have been reported. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense - it creates extra work with no value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?

Just curious....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ndroid-Assets-
"Google's purchase of Motorola Android assets "

Purchases of this scale are almost always asset purchases when they involve only a portion of a major company. You generally only have equity purchases when you're taking over an entire enterprise - and even then it's often assets.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by bedouin View Post

Speaking of overvalued companies, does Google make any profit? Totally ignorant question here. It just seems like their whole existence is one big spending spree and after paying their employees and other overhead, I don't see what they could have left.

Is ad revenue really that amazing? Their search engine is slowly becoming the spam ridden ghetto that Yahoo was in the late 90s, and the simple layout that made them likable has been long gone. Apple tends to do a few things, and do them well; Google has too much on the table to do much of anything right at this point. MS is going through the same thing, but with Wndows and Office to creating constant revenue, their worries have been limited.

ROTFLMAO. You really should make an effort to educate yourself on a topic before posting.

Yes, Google is making a profit. A HUGE profit. $2.5 Billion in the last quarter.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8273091
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?

Just curious....

Wouldn't this have to be an asset purchase? I've not seen any mention of Google purchasing MMI's stock. If it is an asset purchase then it's a really expensive one and you'd think that at that price Google would want everything.

I guess time will tell.

[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #95 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Wouldn't this have to be an asset purchase? I've not seen any mention of Google purchasing MMI's stock. If it is an asset purchase then it's a really expensive one and you'd think that at that price Google would want everything.

I guess time will tell.

[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]

Yes, that's the way I understood several articles on the subject -- Google was buying MMI, warts and all, and MMI will no longer exist as an independent corporation after the deal is done.

An interesting side effect of the MMI purchase is the effect that it could have on the Oracle-Google litigation regarding Android. This was posted on Asymco:

Quote:
By: Steven Noyes
My only thought on the Oracle one (and to me, I would see Oracle seeing the new Googrola as a win. Google tried to claim that Android has $0 in value since it gives it away. Oracle can point to Google spending $12.5 billion to protect Android and Android has real monetary value to Google.

http://www.asymco.com/2011/08/17/the...#idc-container

If the poster is correct, then Larry may have stepped in it and undermined his own defense -- and increased the $ amount of the damages, should they loose. AIR, trebel damages are being asked????

...curiouser and curiouser...
"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 #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.

Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.

Okay... so now I've read the agreement.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...5807/dex21.htm

It definitely sounds like a stock (equity) purchase agreement.

Sure... there are a lot of things I don't understand; but in this clause...

SECTION 1.03. Effects of the Merger. The Merger shall have the effects set forth herein and in the applicable provisions of the Corporation Law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, at the Effective Time, all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises of the Company and Merger Sub shall vest in the Surviving Corporation, and all debts, liabilities and duties of the Company and Merger Sub shall become the debts, liabilities and duties of the Surviving Corporation, all as provided under the applicable Laws of the State of Delaware.


[on edit: I'm assuming that all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises means that Google gets everything... including the cash ]
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #97 of 116
What some analysts view as unusual is Apple's relative aggressive pursuit of lawsuits, causing a spate of counter suits... a stirring up of the status quo balance and pace of legal contention. On any count, Apple has been more litigious than the mobile or PC space is accustomed.

Apple comes to the convergence between consumer electronics, IT/PC/networking, and mobile data communications as it universally adopts IP broadband as the common venue for products and software. The company has obvious strengths in software, human interface/software, OS development platforms, . Apple has held only a token number of patents and few of importance in wireless or wireless communications specific technologies until recently. Most of the recent bolstering of wireless IPR comes from acquisitions rather than internal development. The Nortel IPR acquisition, led by Apple, and a series of cross licensing with wireless industry titans, has helped Apples achieve a balance between their traditional forte and the wireless centered base of IPR.

Apple without wireless broadband (3.5G-4G) would not have displayed the innovation or explosion in growth. Other areas such as 'Cloud computing' (I prefer Cloud 4G or ICT), is becoming a major factor in Apple and many participants vision of the future. This too ids dependent on wireless connectivity to people. The Cloud without wireless is Steve Job's with a tin can (the iPod, iPad, iPhone) on a string.. Apple had the insights and skills needed to take advantage of WBB better than companies who previously dominated it. However, Apple's business formula participates, doesn't dominate.
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I've been involved with dozens of acquisitions. In every single case (as is normal business practice), when a company sells its assets, cash is generally not included.

Well, I've been involved in literally hundreds of acquisitions, major ones I mean. Cash assets were in every case transfered, as is normal business practice in major acquisitions.

Now. it may be that you were involved in the acquisition of your local grocery store or bakery for which it is normal to leave the cash out of the deal.
post #99 of 116
Maybe I have too much time on my hands, but the Steven Noyes comment about the affect of the MMI acquisition on the Oracle-Google litigation got me thinking...

I think it is time to codify Google's attitude and actions regarding others' IP and technology in general.


Let's call it Googlelogic -- or the Mantra of Mountain View:





• You cannot sue me for what I steal from you because I give it away.

• Even if you sue and win, there should be no damages because what I give away has $0 value.

• I am willing so spend $ Billions to protect my right to give away something of $0 value.

"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 #100 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

I agree. I always point to Windows Phone 7. Rather than copy Apple's iPhone, they went in a similar direction, but really made it their own. It's not bad... Pretty good actually.

I don't dislike Android. It's a nice OS. I simply have a problem with how it came to be.

+++

WP7, and WebOS, are both based on the same idea, but had real innovation that made them different from iOS. It was too bad they entered very late in the game (otherwise they would have gotten the Verizon Droid push, that jumpstarted Android).

Google, OTOH, realized that the time needed to build something innovative might hurt them irreversibly, so they basically just ripped off iOS.
post #101 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's final bid was closer to $4bn.
post #102 of 116
Here's an interesting read:




http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/

Quote:
As odd as it may seem, it's increasingly likely that -- come March 2012 -- Google could be trying to consummate the acquisition of a company that's legally barred from importing Android devices into the United States. How's that for a dowry?


Kiss you? I shouldn't even be in bed with you!
"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 #103 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

Well, I've been involved in literally hundreds of acquisitions, major ones I mean. Cash assets were in every case transfered, as is normal business practice in major acquisitions.

Now. it may be that you were involved in the acquisition of your local grocery store or bakery for which it is normal to leave the cash out of the deal.

I was going to suggest that, but thanks. You'd better duck.
post #104 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]

You're exactly right.

I've been meaning to post more on-time and more often on this, but I am on vacation, and roughly six hours off (my normal) time zone, so it's been rough trying to stay in sync!
post #105 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You're exactly right.

I've been meaning to post more on-time and more often on this, but I am on vacation, and roughly six hours off (my normal) time zone, so it's been rough trying to stay in sync!

I put a link to the agreement in a post (above about 7 comments).

It's just your basic $12.5 billion agreement... nothing too fancy...

I wish I was on vacation...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #106 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ndroid-Assets-
"Google's purchase of Motorola Android assets "

dailykos.com?! That's not exactly even a half-way decent source for financial news, the last I knew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Purchases of this scale are almost always asset purchases when they involve only a portion of a major company. You generally only have equity purchases when you're taking over an entire enterprise - and even then it's often assets.

Do you know the difference (if any) between "asset value" and "enterprise value"?
post #107 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I put a link to the agreement in a post (above about 7 comments).

It's just your basic $12.5 billion agreement... nothing too fancy...

I wish I was on vacation...

Nothing too fancy, indeed! Thanks for the link.
post #108 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

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.

If Microsoft sticks with their "Windows Everywhere" strategy, even if they become #2 they will be no threat
post #109 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points,

Yup. Now if people would stop quoting THE ENTIRE POST OF COMPLETE DRIVEL so that the ignore function would be more effective, the forums would be far more readable.
post #110 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?

Because Google is going to have to sell even more ads to just break even on what they have spent on developing and now protecting Android?

If I were a Google stockholder I wouldn't be too pleased right now - people ridiculed Microsoft for the Entertainment divisions losses with the Xbox - at least MS wasn't being sued right and left for patent violoations!

Quote:
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.

Why would sole ownership be important if Google was interested only in defense and not aggression?

Apple buying in a consortium that shares is bad but Google buying in sole ownership is good?

Really?

And Apple fans are fanbois?

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

Set top boxes are part of MOBILE?

Again, really? I honestly don't know - but this will be interesting to research...

Even if true, Google TV will still suck

EDIT: Apparently set top boxes are also part of Motorola Mobility - but I'm not the only one that is skeptical: http://www.slate.com/id/2301856/

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

Yeah, with HP's exit it's a vote of no-confidence!

I highly doubt HTC and Samsung are going to wait around to get "Zuned". Samsung at least has Bada...

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

Well there is a "motherhood and apple pie" statement if I ever heard one. Duh!

The real question is will it be in reaction to Google? Highly debatable....
post #111 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?

And after watching similar assurances from Microsoft with it's Plays4Sure partners do you think if I am Samsung or HTC I'm going to take them at face value?

Ha! The ripples from this are going to be far reaching - even if they don't fully play out for the next 7 months or so.
post #112 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Google may be naive and bold, in some ways, but they certainly aren't stupid, which is exactly what I think they would be if they really were intending on hurting their allies.

"Allies"? Please - Google used the handset makers like a cheap trick. The bait was a "free" operating system. If I were a handset maker I would trust Google far less than Microsoft. At least Microsoft is honest about their relationship with their "partners" - there are no illusions about "open" and "doing evil" and other irrelevant crap related to business. And at least Microsoft was motivated to respond to the phone makers wants because with Windows Mobile, the phone manufacturers and through them the carriers were Microsoft's customers.

With Android ADVERTISERS are Google's customer. Period!

Quote:
All they have going for them right now is a semblance of strength in numbers. It could easily fall apart with any misstep.

Meh - the strength in numbers thing is vastly overblown since the only ones making real money are the phone carriers via subscriptions. Neither Google nor the phone manufacturers are making significant profit from Android.

Androids strength is in it's close tie to other Google services - why do you think they fall in line with Google and jockey for early access to Android?

Now, if MS gets it's act together they could challenge Google for all the non-search stuff - and who knows, Bing could possibly too. I test it out from time to time and really, I don't see much of a difference between Bing and Google as far as finding what I need. What I do notice missing on Bing are many of the obviously ad-placed links - and far fewer link farms. Heck, now that I think of it - other than habit why the heck am I sticking with Google? I need to change back to Bing and give it a more serious run.

Bing Maps may not be as rich as Googles but check this out: http://maps.nokia.com Every since I found out about Nokia's maps I don't use Google's any more. Its faster and as more up to date information than Google maps - probably because of the company that Nokia acquired and who's logo is in the lower corner of their pages.

Why do you think Apple is aggressively pursuing iCloud?

Many of the legitimate things that Android has over other platforms are about to be eliminated (and no, I don't think iCloud is in response to Androids integration with Google - with Mobile.Me it's pretty clear Apple understands the value of sync - they had other fish to fry and now it's time to polish up this corner of their ecosystem and perfect it). With Google now having the capability to "zune" their partners I think six months from now you are going to see allot less activity and enthusiasm around Android for phones.

You did hit one thing on the head - I think Google naively thought they would toss Android out there and because it was "free" it would just take over. I also think that Android was a stop gap for the iPhone and that Google assumed by now Chromebooks would have taken over the world. Apple with the App store, first on the iOS devices and now on MacOS, have pretty much slammed the door shut on Chromebooks. They may gain some traction in the enterprise in certain instances, but for normal people at home? Not a chance.
post #113 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

You forgot THE WHEEL, Apple didn't invent that too.

Ugh invent wheel. Ugh show wheel to friend Egh, Egh hit Ugh over head and steal Ugh invention.

Lawsuit over wheel drag on many days. Ugh and Egh get clubs and fight until both tired and hungry.

Finally, so many copies of wheel made by neighboring tribe to the East that wheel was declared Public Domain.

Ugh never make dime and very bitter about whole thing.

Later, he tell friends " Gadzooks, what good does it do for a man to invent a new groundbreaking product just to have rapscallions like Google steal it ?".

Friends think Ugh hit on head too many times.
post #114 of 116
I approve of the idea that the concept of a lawsuit came about before the invention of the wheel.
post #115 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

And after watching similar assurances from Microsoft with it's Plays4Sure partners do you think if I am Samsung or HTC I'm going to take them at face value?

Ha! The ripples from this are going to be far reaching - even if they don't fully play out for the next 7 months or so.

Have you really thought through your analogy?

First of all, Microsoft's "PlaysForSure" platform was going nowhere fast. Android is doing much better, on phones at least, so Google has no incentive to "pull a Zune". The reverse, actually.

Secondly, I don't think Samsung or HTC have much of a choice, unless you think running to Microsoft for a mobile OS is a better solution to their dilemma. Ironic, because that's who you just provided as the poster boy for backstabbing. RIM? Don't make me laugh. Their OS is ruined.

Bottom line is that Android remains the best alternative for Samsung and HTC, and Google knows that they need their army to keep their momentum going. They deserve each other. Theirs will be a marriage of convenience for quite some time.

Thompson
post #116 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

"Allies"? Please - Google used the handset makers like a cheap trick. The bait was a "free" operating system...

With Android ADVERTISERS are Google's customer. Period!

Agreed.

I'm not DEFENDING Google here. I don't like Android, personally. I'm trying to reason what they are most likely to do for their own selfish ends. And the answer I come up with is that they need as many hardware partners as possible to beat Apple. I still think they won't win that battle in the long run, but I think that if they go it alone they will get dominated in a New York minute. And I think they know it. Without the other hardware vendors, their Android numbers will shrink, and therefore their advertising dollars will shrink. Period! So they won't go it alone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Meh - the strength in numbers thing is vastly overblown since the only ones making real money are the phone carriers via subscriptions. Neither Google nor the phone manufacturers are making significant profit from Android.

Thus my use of the word "semblance". They are a loose confederation at best. But it's all Google can get, and they must keep it in tact or they are truly screwed. They know this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Androids strength is in it's close tie to other Google services - why do you think they fall in line with Google and jockey for early access to Android?

<Snippity Snippity Snip>

Doc, you obviously have a point to make, and I am sympathetic to it. The majority of the stuff I just snipped out in the quote directly above I already knew and (mostly) agree with. But you are WAY off my topic. I am not trying to prove Google is "doing no evil" or that they will even win. I am simply stating what is obvious to me: Google's best chance against iOS has ALWAYS been to make Android as available as possible. And that's why they won't shut it down to just themselves now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

You did hit one thing on the head - I think Google naively thought they would toss Android out there and because it was "free" it would just take over.

Actually, Android on phones has done much better than I originally anticipated. I doubt they can keep it up under the current circumstances, but we shall see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I also think that Android was a stop gap for the iPhone and that Google assumed by now Chromebooks would have taken over the world. Apple with the App store, first on the iOS devices and now on MacOS, have pretty much slammed the door shut on Chromebooks. They may gain some traction in the enterprise in certain instances, but for normal people at home? Not a chance.

Oh, I think that the Chromebook is a bad idea except for a very specialized niche of people. If Google really strongly expected it to take off - as opposed to an idea they were giving a try - then I would be very surprised. They don't seem to mind throwing out little ideas and seeing what sticks. Rolling in advertising dollars affords you that luxury.

Thompson
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