or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lenovo to reportedly buy Google's Motorola Mobility for $2.9 billion [update: confirmed]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lenovo to reportedly buy Google's Motorola Mobility for $2.9 billion [update: confirmed] - Page 4

post #121 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


Patents are worthless. They have collected less than $10 million from total patent royalties

 

If Google hadn't bought up the patents, how much could it have had to pay if it were sued using those patents? 

post #122 of 235
1) As TS said: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

2) Looks like we're going to miss out on those wonderful and mysterious google products that were supposedly coming soon, right after motorola's product pipeline ran out. GG?

3) It seems pretty obvious what's going on. After google's ill-contrived plan to develop their own (successful) mobile hardware went down in flames, they felt increasing pressure that samsung would continue dominating android, then marginalize it with tinzen. So, like a cornered badger, google bites and scratches, and strong-arms samsung into implementing a less differentiated android OS (using maps as a bargaining chip), and candy coats the deal with a patent agreement.

4) And of course, GOOG has been skyrocketing and AAPL has tanked. What a complete joke, as if the manipulation wasn't plainly obvious before. Who is in a better position to monetize future tech growth? The answer is obvious (Hint: microsoft makes more money per android phone than google, and the majority of google's mobile ad profits come from iOS devices).

5) I hope Apple does not pay much attention to AAPL, and just continues to make awesome products.

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #123 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

Your mixing up cash flow, earnings, and balance sheet items.  Very creative accounting.

 

How is it creative? I'm just adding up the numbers people have put out there. If you have a better source for how much each thing brought in or cost then post it and we can all see.

post #124 of 235
Besides the majority of patents Google is also keeping the MM Advanced Technology and Products group.Can't say they haven't been full of surprises lately
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #125 of 235

I don't think it was such a bad move.  The $12.5B was a sunk cost, and the only real consideration should be what is the best move going forward.  If Moto was losing money, and Google had decided that they weren't going to make the commitment required to make it a success, selling the hardware business for whatever they could get and keeping the IP makes perfect sense. 

post #126 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

He'd love to explain it to you but he doesn't have any crayons.

Why does he need crayons? Is he still at kindy?
post #127 of 235
So, the Motorola patents really were worthless then...
post #128 of 235

OK.  So Google is selling at a lost but it is cutting it losses at the same time.

Moto has been costing Googlel money quarter after quarter.

post #129 of 235

Larry Page having some fun...

 

 

Credit to user @daneoni over at MacRumors for the gif.


Edited by lkrupp - 1/29/14 at 6:26pm
post #130 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Yes because despite the losses, they were still growing.  So now that they won't be continually losing money from the Motorola division, the stock went up.
Losing billions of dollars never affects your stock price? Ever? It allows to grow your market cap 200%?

I need to lose more money.

Yeah they have other ventures but continually losing money and having a sell off throwing away multiple quarters of profit is not good business. That's what started getting Microsoft into trouble thinking they're untouchable.
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #131 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Larry Page having some fun...




Credit to user @daneoni
 over at MacRumors for the gif.

Where did you find that? Instant classic. Google should've told Lenovo "tain't enough, call later" lol.gif

Edit: just realized that you stated where you found it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #132 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


Dude, that's YOUR mum!

1wink.gif

I wonder how much Nest will resell for...

My mom would've thrown me out of the house if I was online as much as TS.

You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #133 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

If Google hadn't bought up the patents, how much could it have had to pay if it were sued using those patents? 

 

Everyone except Google seemed to have known that the patents weren't worth that much, so I guess that they would have been sued for pretty much zilch.

post #134 of 235
In buying Motorola Google wanted to replicate Apple's model as being the maker of both the software and hardware. This has proved an expensive failure simply because they are NOT Apple! It follows that Microsoft will have the same fate with its Nokia marriage.
post #135 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by philky View Post

In buying Motorola Google wanted to replicate Apple's model as being the maker of both the software and hardware. This has proved an expensive failure simply because they are NOT Apple! It follows that Microsoft will have the same fate with its Nokia marriage.

Unlikely. They could never have given gotten serious about hardware without pissing off major partners. It's been quoted in various places that the Motorola acquisition was mainly a patent buy. And it seems that Google is keeping most of those patents.

post #136 of 235

I think this is an offshoot of the recent Google-Samsung patent deal....

 

It's all about the IPs anyway...

post #137 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

Thinking up a manufacturing process and then actually, you know, *making it* in China is not remotely the same as *actually* making it in the United States.

 

 

Can you explain why? For example, if you look at manufacturing they have in Europe (since labor costs are through the roof there), the entire process is automated with only one person touching the product. Clearly the costs are all in the tooling and process.

 

Also consider Dell. The only thing they did when they manufactured in US is to install the software (completely automated) and add RAM and hard drives. The motherboards, for example, were built in China, and installed into a Chinese made chassis in China. However, it still qualified as US made.

post #138 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Well, starting with your $5,400,000,000 number, you left out that the purchase price included operating losses that Motorola had already incurred as Motorola...  This was money spent by Motorola, not Google, that Google got to write off after the acquisition.  $1,000,000,000 domestically and $700,000,000 internationally.  So another $1.7bil lopped off.... down to $3.7billion- and there were additional breaks that were expected to continue on to the tune of $700million/yr until 2019 according to Forbes... so when you factor that in the losses (if any) get pretty small pretty quick, especially since they still hold the patents they deem useful to themselves.

 

I don't think Moto Mobile was a 'win' for Google by any stretch, but the exuberant schadenfreude most of the avid Google haters really isn't all that warranted.

 

To me I'm just a little sad that the inventor of the mobile phone and the only smartphone designed and made in the US is gone =(

 

That's not right. When Google wrote off the $1.7B in losses, they only gained the taxes that would have been paid on $1.7B. The write off is deducted from any profit before taxes. Google did not write off $1.7B from the taxes they had to pay. So Google did not gain $1.7B from the write off, more like about $450M. (based on a 25% tax rate)

 

That is, unless you meant that Google actually gained $1.7B from a tax write off of around $7B. 

post #139 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Guys, stop ranting. Google has not lost money here. Not one cent. And I don't mean in a hypothetical sense, in a real world accounting sense.

Back when the Motorola acquisition was made, Google was facing three major threats to Android. Whole world was focussing on the threat from Apple law suits and Oracle law suits. The whole world was looking at how Motorola could help Google dealing with these law suits. It couldn't and it didn't, despite a lot of effort by Google.

But the biggest threat to Android was not from outside - it was from within the Android camp. Samsung was gaining a lot of clout and it was the ONLY player making money on Android. Not even Google itself was/is making money on Android.

Google was obviously worried about the growing clout of Samsung, and wanted to retain some control of Android.

With the recent Samsung cross licensing deal, and with the term being set as 10 years, Google has eliminated the internal threat to Android. So Motorola at least helped Google in some way.

But more importantly the amount Samsung agreed to pay upfront and over the years, more than makes up for the losses on Motorola. All Google had to do was set the duration of the cross licensing to as high a number as it was required, to make it attractive enough to Samsung, that Samsung would pay whatever it was that Google lost on Motorola. And it is clear that the number was 10 years.

The stock is going up today, simply because a loss making company is off Google's neck, and they have managed to do this without any impact to bottom line.

There isn't going to be a big wirite off this quarter.

I couldn't agree more. Google saw two advantages to the puchase: patents for at least the appearance of defending Android, and a manufacturing arm to influence their hardware market.

I suspect Google was using their bottomless cash machine and new manufacturing capabilities to strong-arm Samsung by threatening to dump more and more quality, zero profit Motorola handsets to squeeze them out of the mid-range price market. Something they couldn't do with just the occasional Nexus phone project. Apple was already squeezing Samsung in the lucrative premium market. None of the other OHA partners were big enough or profitable enough to provide blowback on such a move.

Samsung's own execs were reporting a slowdown in the premium handset market and they missed market estimates in their recent financials. I don't think Google was too happy about some of Samsung's recent moves: The heavy TouchWiz skinning, the competing apps & services, developer conferences, the magazine UI, etc.

Google got Sammy to toe-the-line on Android now, so they don't need the Motorola boat-anchor anymore.

Very sneaky and very Googley.
Edited by Ration Al - 1/29/14 at 9:04pm
Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like he won.
Reply
Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like he won.
Reply
post #140 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

If Google hadn't bought up the patents, how much could it have had to pay if it were sued using those patents? 

Maybe the 10 million it made?

post #141 of 235

The inventor of the cell phone....sheesh.

 

I'm telling you...Google does not look at it as real money. They're making money on "clicks" for God's sake! 

 

It's not like they earned it, it's not real money to them.

 

Best.

post #142 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by philky View Post

In buying Motorola Google wanted to replicate Apple's model as being the maker of both the software and hardware. This has proved an expensive failure simply because they are NOT Apple! It follows that Microsoft will have the same fate with its Nokia marriage.

Brilliant. Best post.

 

Also, HP buying and sh*t canning Palm's WebOS. Copying Apple's model is way harder than it looks. And can't be done in a couple of years.

post #143 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ration Al View Post

I couldn't agree more. Google saw two advantages to the puchase: patents for at least the appearance of defending Android, and a manufacturing arm to influence their hardware market.

I suspect Google was using their bottomless cash machine and new manufacturing capabilities to strong-arm Samsung by threatening to dump more and more quality, zero profit Motorola handsets to squeeze them out of the mid-range price market. Something they couldn't do with just the occasional Nexus phone project. Apple was already squeezing Samsung in the lucrative premium market. None of the other OHA partners were big enough or profitable enough to provide blowback on such a move.

Samsung's own execs were reporting a slowdown in the premium handset market and they missed market estimates in their recent financials. I don't think Google was too happy about some of Samsung's recent moves: The heavy TouchWiz skinning, the competing apps & services, developer conferences, the magazine UI, etc.

Google got Sammy to toe-the-line on Android now, so they don't need the Motorola boat-anchor anymore.

Very sneaky and very Googley.

Yeah, 12.5B purchased 15000 patents and 2.9B cash. They sold set-top box for 2.3B, and then to Lenovo for 2.9B. So, 12.5 - (2.9 + 2.3 + 2.9) = 4B

So, for 4B, they now have Lenovo as a no-risk Android phone fab, and the IP leverage needed to put Samsung in its place with respect to cross-licensing. It's also got a losing entity off of its books for Wall St. concerns.

Yeah, Page lost a huge bet, but it's not a 12.5B loss as it appears on the surface, and vs. a 350B market cap, it's monopoly money.
post #144 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
 

Brilliant. Best post.

 

Also, HP buying and sh*t canning Palm's WebOS. Copying Apple's model is way harder than it looks. And can't be done in a couple of years.

 

It requires something you cannot buy: True Vision and the ability to build a loyal inner core that can wear many hats, are tops in their industry at nearly all levels, while being willing to embrace leadership from someone with a lifetime of insight that has never been common. In fact, its exceedingly rare.

post #145 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

Disappointing to the highest degree.

Another American company(with a manufacturing presence here even) lost to overseas clutches. This is a DEEP wound here Google. I will not forgive you for this one.

 

 

I always wonder that if Google hadn't been so greedy, (and it's very possible that Google may just run by a bunch of people with no business sense what so ever.) would Motorola (instead of Samsung) now be the largest cell phone maker or second behind Apple. All Google had to do was to exclusively license Android to Motorola. By shutting out the foreign cell phone makers of Android, the US with Apple and Motorola  may have dominated. (Without Android, Samsung (iPhone rip off) Galaxy line wouldn't even be near as popular as they are now.)  Not to mention that Microsoft might even be number 3. The US may have been in control of the technology in the cell phone market. But Google got greedy and gave Android away to all the cell phone makers that wanted to use it.  And in the end, even with Android having the lion share of the market, Google still makes over 75% of their mobile revenue from Apple iOS. Google never wanted to compete in the cellphone market. They don't know how. They just wanted to make sure that as many cell phones as possible, have something with Google in it. Even if they have to lose money to accomplish it. And for this, they destroyed a US company whose history goes back to when tube radios was the cutting edge in technology. Google couldn't care less.

post #146 of 235

Such BS  :mad:

post #147 of 235

They did it for the former Apple employees...

post #148 of 235
Basically you buy stock for two reasons: you like to own part of the company or you bet on high changes of the current stock value (both directions). Many investors do it because of the second reason. This change is influenced by how the company is actually doing and what investors believe will happen. Therefore it is always kind if a self fulfilling prophecy.
Now, looking at amazon their tactics obviously is to gain market dominance by destroying competition through little or negative margins before then they can crank up prices. And it is obviously believed that it will work out. Google follows a strategy of domination of the "personal information" market, something that is at the core of capitalism these days.
Apple OTOH makes a lot of profit but it is obvious that through increasing market saturation and the fact that their products are much less indispensable they need "the next big thing" on a regular basis. Something that will be increasingly hard to do.
All this has very little to do with product quality, company health. That's just how it works.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #149 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane View Post

Basically you buy stock for two reasons: you like to own part of the company or you bet on high changes of the current stock value (both directions). Many investors do it because of the second reason. This change is influenced by how the company is actually doing and what investors believe will happen. Therefore it is always kind if a self fulfilling prophecy.
Now, looking at amazon their tactics obviously is to gain market dominance by destroying competition through little or negative margins before then they can crank up prices. And it is obviously believed that it will work out. Google follows a strategy of domination of the "personal information" market, something that is at the core of capitalism these days.
Apple OTOH makes a lot of profit but it is obvious that through increasing market saturation and the fact that their products are much less indispensable they need "the next big thing" on a regular basis. Something that will be increasingly hard to do.
All this has very little to do with product quality, company health. That's just how it works.

 

Stay in that insane Asylum.

post #150 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Thinking up a manufacturing process and then actually, you know, *making it* in China is not remotely the same as *actually* making it in the United States.

 

 

It seems like you're overly concerned with the nationality of the lowest skilled worker in the entire manufacturing chain, wherein the lion's share of the overall process is created by your stated national preference.

 

Why shun all of the very highly skilled work done by Americans for the sake of the relatively simple work done by foreigners?  I didn't know the shrink-wrap on the retail packaging is some kind of hole in our national pride... dood.  

post #151 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post


Yeah, 12.5B purchased 15000 patents and 2.9B cash. They sold set-top box for 2.3B, and then to Lenovo for 2.9B. So, 12.5 - (2.9 + 2.3 + 2.9) = 4B

So, for 4B, they now have Lenovo as a no-risk Android phone fab, and the IP leverage needed to put Samsung in its place with respect to cross-licensing. It's also got a losing entity off of its books for Wall St. concerns.

Yeah, Page lost a huge bet, but it's not a 12.5B loss as it appears on the surface, and vs. a 350B market cap, it's monopoly money.

 

Monopoly money eh ?  That explains why they spent $3 Billion on Nest.

Google trades at at PE of 30+, That is investor's money that they are playing monopoly with.

If their search engine / advertising combination really gets challenged in the near future, they are toast.

Time will tell.

post #152 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post


Yeah, 12.5B purchased 15000 patents and 2.9B cash. They sold set-top box for 2.3B, and then to Lenovo for 2.9B. So, 12.5 - (2.9 + 2.3 + 2.9) = 4B

So, for 4B, they now have Lenovo as a no-risk Android phone fab, and the IP leverage needed to put Samsung in its place with respect to cross-licensing. It's also got a losing entity off of its books for Wall St. concerns.

Yeah, Page lost a huge bet, but it's not a 12.5B loss as it appears on the surface, and vs. a 350B market cap, it's monopoly money.

 

The 2.9B cash were on Motorola books, they are not magically transferred to Google ones.  If Google had kept the company, they would indeed lower the buy cost by increasing value, but what is left of it is transfered to the buyers.  This is not a product or machine which is sold but a company that was kept as a 100% subsidiary with its own books, not integrated.

 

Google got almost nothing from the IP (2M from M$ is chump change), so that is  7B lost with a 25% tax writeoff on that to come, so more than 5B in final. And losing 1.5% of the Market cap is not a little thing, and that should be reflected in stock price.

 

 

post #153 of 235
It seems most people here think Google made a bad move. Remember that it sold the set top box division for over 2 billions, and that it's keeping the patents. That was the point of buying Motorola in the first place. So now it's selling a division that's loosing money, of course the stock is up. And it's also a clear message to all phone manufacturers that they don't want to compete in hardware. Very smart move.
post #154 of 235

On August 15, 2011, Google announced that it would acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion
On January 29, 2014, Google announced it would sell Motorola Mobility to the Chinese technology firm Lenovo for US$2.91 billion in a cash-and-stock deal
•When Google bought Motorola, the hardware maker had about $3 billion in cash on hand and nearly $1 billion in tax credits. So that brings the original deal’s effective price down to about $8.5 billion.
•Then, Google sold Motorola’s set-top box business to Arris for nearly $2.4 billion. That lowers the effective price to roughly $6.1 billion.
•Now, Google is selling Motorola Mobility — primarily the handset business, along with a few patents — for $2.9 billion. So we’re at about $3.2 billion
There is one thing to keep in mind, however: whether the value of the patents holds up in court. Last year, Microsoft claimed victory in its dispute with Motorola over the value of standard essential patents, when a judge determined that a reasonable licensing rate for some patents was a shade under $1.8 million a year. That’s well below the $4 billion a year that Motorola had sought.
so the whole saga of Motorola is about $3.2 billion loss in transaction values, plus Motorola did not yield single penny during google's tenure (via,
New York Times‎)

Google share price grew 2.5x since the day of purchase
and even with such obvious write down of over 3 billion dollars share price fell mere 1% that too after market trading but not exactly after announcement
on the other hand Apple sold 80 million iOS devices in 1 quarter and made a profit of 13.1 billion on 38% margin!
Apple share price fell 12% straigt down

post #155 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Monopoly money eh ?  That explains why they spent $3 Billion on Nest.
Google trades at at PE of 30+, That is investor's money that they are playing monopoly with.
If their search engine / advertising combination really gets challenged in the near future, they are toast.
Time will tell.

Picked up this interesting read from John Gruber/Daring Fireball:

Apple's $3 Trillion Valuation

Some quotes:
Quote:
To read the headlines, you might think Apple is, again, doomed: “Apple’s Shares Slump on Weak Forecast” and “Apple iPhone Shares, Outlook Come Up Short” are just two examples. These headlines always encourage people to tell Apple what they must do. Here is a great list of past examples of “Apple must do…” (via John Gruber).

If you look at any valuation number for Apple (for example, a P/E of 12.6, an EBITDA multiple of 8.4) it is remarkably low relative to its competitors (for example, Google has a P/E of 32.2 and an EBITDA multiple of 18.6).

To put this into perspective, if Apple had Google’s P/E, it would be worth $1.2 trillion (yes, trillion with a “t”) instead of the $452 billion it is worth today. So why is Apple valued with a multiple so much lower than Google?
Quote:
If we assume that Apple will grow its owner earnings at 5% for the next 10 years, and then 2% for all years after that (with adjustments for cash and debt), Apple’s market cap wouldn’t be $453 billion. It wouldn’t even be $1.2 trillion. It would be $3 trillion. This is a share price of $3,275 in contrast to today’s share price of $506. At just 5% annual growth for Apple.

I can't imagine why a consistent 5% growth can't be realized by Apple with their App and Media stores alone, and possibly iBeacon payments on the horizon.

The extra 5% could easily be made by actually "skating backwards" rather than where the puck is going to be.

All in all... pretty incredible!!!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #156 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by reroll View Post

It seems most people here think Google made a bad move. Remember that it sold the set top box division for over 2 billions, and that it's keeping the patents. That was the point of buying Motorola in the first place. So now it's selling a division that's loosing money, of course the stock is up. And it's also a clear message to all phone manufacturers that they don't want to compete in hardware. Very smart move.

 

Smart??  Well, there is a problem with that.  Google purchased Motorola for the patents, mostly...as well as a possible serious entry into the hardware Android market.  After their disastrous (and childish) behavior during the Nortel Patents auction made them look foolish, Google was desperate to get some sort of patent portfolio that could arm them against Microsoft, Apple, et al...  In their financial statements, Google valued the patents at $5.5 billion USD.  However, when they went to trial with Microsoft, with said patents, hoping to get $4 billion USD in licensing fees from Microsoft, the judge ruled that the patent licensing was worth no more than $ 1.4 million!

 

ooops.

 

So, clearly, Google misstepped and, frankly, did not do due diligence when they bought Motorola because the patent portfolio is turning out to be worth a pittance compared to what they paid for them.

 

I'd hardly call that smart.  In fact, it's real, real DUMB!


Edited by FrankenFuss - 1/30/14 at 3:42am
post #157 of 235
It's not as big a loss as it seems. Below is a quote from the NYT though you also need to factor in the annual Motorola losses.

"When Google bought Motorola, the hardware maker had about $3 billion in cash on hand and nearly $1 billion in tax credits. So that brings the original deal’s effective price down to about $8.5 billion.
Then, Google sold Motorola’s set-top box business to Arris for nearly $2.4 billion. That lowers the effective price to roughly $6.1 billion.
Now, Google is selling Motorola Mobility — primarily the handset business, along with a few patents — for $2.9 billion. So we’re at about $3.2 billion."

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #158 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

It's not as big a loss as it seems. Below is a quote from the NYT though you also need to factor in the annual Motorola losses.

"When Google bought Motorola, the hardware maker had about $3 billion in cash on hand and nearly $1 billion in tax credits. So that brings the original deal’s effective price down to about $8.5 billion.
Then, Google sold Motorola’s set-top box business to Arris for nearly $2.4 billion. That lowers the effective price to roughly $6.1 billion.
Now, Google is selling Motorola Mobility — primarily the handset business, along with a few patents — for $2.9 billion. So we’re at about $3.2 billion."

 

You forgot to mention that Motorola Mobility was not profitable in the 1 year and 9 months that Google owned it and had an operating loss of about $1.8B.  So were back up to about $5B. 

post #159 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

It's not as big a loss as it seems. Below is a quote from the NYT though you also need to factor in the annual Motorola losses.

"When Google bought Motorola, the hardware maker had about $3 billion in cash on hand and nearly $1 billion in tax credits. So that brings the original deal’s effective price down to about $8.5 billion.
Then, Google sold Motorola’s set-top box business to Arris for nearly $2.4 billion. That lowers the effective price to roughly $6.1 billion.
Now, Google is selling Motorola Mobility — primarily the handset business, along with a few patents — for $2.9 billion. So we’re at about $3.2 billion."

 

Yeah, per lukefrench, this is probably a more sensible way to look at it than my analysis. The cash didn't lose value, so the depreciation was on other assets.

 

At any rate stock price is flat now, so seems to be little impact other than cash, which was a risk going in.

 

APPL dropping the other day after hours is silly, but happened.

post #160 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by reroll View Post

It seems most people here think Google made a bad move. Remember that it sold the set top box division for over 2 billions, and that it's keeping the patents. That was the point of buying Motorola in the first place. So now it's selling a division that's loosing money, of course the stock is up. And it's also a clear message to all phone manufacturers that they don't want to compete in hardware. Very smart move.

 

Google made a move it had to make to protect Android. Motorola was losing money and threatened to start suing other Android manufacturers over patents. Google likely bought Motorola to stop that from happening. However, Google paid a premium for the patents. Google paid 12.5 billion for Motorola. Motorola had about 2 billion in the bank and about a billion worth of tax credits. That brought the price down to about 9.5 billion. Then Google sold the set top unit for about 2 billion. That brings the cost down to about 7.5 billion. Now Google is selling Motorola for about 2.9 billion bringing the cost down to  4.6 billion. This excludes whatever money Motorola lost since Google buying it. 

 

About two thousand of the patents are going with Lenovo and presumably there is some kind of Lenovo gets to use the rest it needs agreement. So the question is was Google paying about 4.6 billion for Motorola's patents which to date have only brought in a few million dollars worth it? From the perspective of collecting royalties on the patents, clearly not. From the perspective of beating up on Microsoft or Apple, clearly not. From the perspective of stopping Motorola from attacking other Android users, maybe. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lenovo to reportedly buy Google's Motorola Mobility for $2.9 billion [update: confirmed]