or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › With Nest in & Motorola out, Google now looking to acquire wearable tech companies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

With Nest in & Motorola out, Google now looking to acquire wearable tech companies - Page 3

post #81 of 100

Google bought Motorola for $12.5 Billion

Sold Set box division for $2.6 Billion

Sold Phone division for $2.9 Billion

They had $1.7 Billion in operating losses while Google owned Moto

Selling cost, Severance Cost, Sale of assets $1.0 Billion (investment banks charge 3-5% on sales, like a real estate broker)

 

12.5 - 2.6 - 2.9 + 1.7 + 1.0 = $9,700,000,000 loss on sale

 

But wait! 

What about the tax deductions?  Just as Motorola transferred the operating losses to Google, the same thing probably happened when Google sold to Lenovo.  In other words Lenovo now has the tax deductions since they bought Motorolla.

 

But wait!  What about the cash on Motorola's books.  Just as the cash transferred to Google when they bought Motorola, they were transferred to Lenovo.

 

So we have no proof that Google retains the tax deductions or the cash since they were transferred on the sale to Lenovo.  Just as they were transferred to Google in the first place.  Do you really think Lenovo would pay $3,000,000,000 for a cell phone company that is losing BILLIONS a year?  Really? 

post #82 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

I'm saying the patent is not worth what its ASSIGNED on paper.

 

Anytime you buy a company you receive HARD assets like cash, inventory, property, ect.  The amount you paid in EXCESS is ASSIGNED to intangible assets like Patents.  In no way, shape, or form does that mean those patents are actually worth that much.  PERIOD.  You are arguing they are.  I'm saying they are not since they only generated $10,000,000 from them so far and many have no use now that they won't be making hardware.

 

Have you ever heard of a company buying Patents by itself for $5,000,000,000? 

Especially when most are SEP's?

 

Nope. The amount you paid in excess of the acquisitions worth is assigned to goodwill, not made up categories. That would be illegal.

 

Have I every heard of a company buying patents for itself for $5 billion? Are you serious? That's exactly what Apple did through rockstar consortium.

post #83 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

Implantables. Leapfrog wearables.

Implantables, you say? (Caution, foul language.)
post #84 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

There's always going to be a lull in news cycle. Every day Apple is not talking is a lull. So you don't think there were any rumors between the iPhone and iPad announcements last year? Apple releases products on its own schedule and for its own reasons. Quieting WS is not one of those reasons.
As I said, I'm not just talking about Wall Street. And going 6-9 months without any product releases is a pretty big lull. I have a hard time believing the only time Apple can release new products is Q4. The other thing I forgot to mention before is employee morale. Can't be fun for Apple designers and engineers to know they're working on really cool stuff but see other companies getting all the love and the public perception being that Apple is no longer innovative and all they do is provide incremental updates to existing products. But maybe that doesn't matter. But what do I know, maybe employee morale at Apple is as high as it's ever been and the mentality of employees is 'screw everyone, we'll show them!'. 1tongue.gif
post #85 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

Google bought Motorola for $12.5 Billion

Sold Set box division for $2.6 Billion

Sold Phone division for $2.9 Billion

They had $1.7 Billion in operating losses while Google owned Moto

Selling cost, Severance Cost, Sale of assets $1.0 Billion (investment banks charge 3-5% on sales, like a real estate broker)

 

12.5 - 2.6 - 2.9 + 1.7 + 1.0 = $9,700,000,000 loss on sale

 

But wait! 

What about the tax deductions?  Just as Motorola transferred the operating losses to Google, the same thing probably happened when Google sold to Lenovo.  In other words Lenovo now has the tax deductions since they bought Motorolla.

 

But wait!  What about the cash on Motorola's books.  Just as the cash transferred to Google when they bought Motorola, they were transferred to Lenovo.

 

So we have no proof that Google retains the tax deductions or the cash since they were transferred on the sale to Lenovo.  Just as they were transferred to Google in the first place.  Do you really think Lenovo would pay $3,000,000,000 for a cell phone company that is losing BILLIONS a year?  Really? 

 

That $3 billion of cash was not transferred to Lenovo. Add that in with the $5 billion in Google's perception of Motorola's patent portfolio value and it's a $1 billion dollar loss to Google. It's a drop int he bucket for a Google and it's $400 billion market cap. And that $1 billion sale cost seems a little high but, I wouldn't know about that.

post #86 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


I said it on another thread. Cook needs to reiterate what Ive and Federighi have said before: new and different are easy, but better is hard. Or what Ive said in the 5S video: Apple isn't about technology for technologies sake; it's interested in doing things that truly enhance the user experience. Just keep hammering this point home over and over again. 

 

Great points. The thing I wish most for Apple to do, even more than release new products, is improve their PR, and I think the best way for them to do this is to do a lot more advertising; Apple seems to do very little. Not because of wall street, and not necessarily because they need to in order to sell more products, and not silly commercials just to build brand familiarity, but because apple deserves to have a fair public perception. Apple's typical hands off approach is often interpreted as tacit acknowledgment of FUD, or just indifference; the "above it all" approach is not working IMO. 

 

I love the ads Apple has been coming out with lately, but I think they should also focus on practical things, things that differentiate Apple and it's products that no one else can match, and emphasizing the effort behind them, that they are not just gimmicks. For example, custom A series chips, Touch ID, build quality, camera technology, etc. They could come up with any excuse to run a few ads. A few examples:

 

-Emphasizing Rogifan's points with concrete examples from their product line.

-The 30th anniversary of the Mac seems to be a huge missed opportunity, how about: 30 years ago Apple created the first computer with a graphical user interface, using a then revolutionary tool called the mouse, and controlling applications enclosed in *cough* windows. Today Apple is still the same, here is the new.. mac pro; iPhone; Mavericks (increases battery by %30(?) through the hard work of Apple's software engineers) ..and so on, with commercials pairing past advancements with current advancements. 

-Valentines day is coming up, how about something along the lines of: Love is in the air, and here at Apple, we put a lot of love into our products.. emphasize build quality; point out how worker oversight is actually best in business; show smiling faces of workers (American and Asian plant workers, retail staff, core Apple employees); or just pretty close up pictures of the products.

 

Apple is a great company, and you don't need to be a cult member or fanatic to see that. All Apple needs to do is tell us about itself, its products, and its values. They don't have to be in your face, just matter-of-fact reminders every once in a while about what Apple is all about.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

No more guidance

No more unit sales

No more insights about def revenue, currency flux, ect.

 

Keep it simple.

Don't give Wall Street ammo.

 

Total Revenue

Total Profit

 

Thats all anyone needs to know if a company is making money or not.

 

The rest should be glowing optimisum.  Watch what those clowns at Amazon, Google, and Facebook say during their conference calls.  Its all about selling.  There was no reason for Cook to say they failed to realize the demand for the 5C was going to be weak. No reason.  He should have just said the demand for the 5S was amazing.  We hear enough FUD from the media and hedge fund clowns.  There was no reason to explain channel inventory.  No reason to mention that carier policies in the US is hurting renewal frequency.  Thats just causing fear.

 

You can't be honest and tell the whole story to Wall Street.  They will twist the truth and tell lies to manipulate stock price.  They need to be as secretive about the financial data as they are with product secrets.  Steve Jobs did it right.  He gave guidance but it was so ridiculously low that everyone knew not to take it seriously. 

 

Good Earnings, Bad Guidance = Stock goes down

Good Earnings, Bad Units, Good Guidance = Stock goes down

Bad Earnings, Good Units, Good Guidance = Stock goes down

 

The only way the stock goes up is if earning is good, units are good, and guidance is good.  Mess up on any of those and the stock tanks.

 

While I like your sentiment, I also like Apple's general position about being transparent in everything they do (NSA/supplier issues/environment), and being open about the financials I think is part of that. What I would like to see is Apple being more proactive about countering the FUD, standing up to the bullies (wall street/NYT/bloomberg) (it's the only thing they respect); maybe Peter and Tim can send some snarky tweets once in a while or something. Maybe something like: "I hope the NYT is having better luck with their sources these days #mikedaisey"

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

Just got a email from a friend on the west coast who's deep into the tech sector.  He told me that Apple's next new product line won't be an add on to the iPhone.  He explained it won't be like the Galaxy Gear that works with the iPhone.  He said the new product will actually REPLACE the iPhone.  Wow.  Hope this is true.  He's been pretty on top of it in the past.

 

That sounds pretty interesting. I can't imagine a different form factor though. I'm always going to want a screen around, and the iPhone is (roughly) the perfect size. However, Apple is heavily involved in designing hearing implants, and could very well design a very discreet earpiece that would allow an iWatch to function independently as a phone without the actual iPhone present, and without making everyone look like Dicks (Dick Traceys) or glassholes.  :)

 

edit: typos


Edited by PatchyThePirate - 1/31/14 at 1:16pm

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #87 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Can't be fun for Apple designers and engineers to know they're working on really cool stuff but see other companies getting all the love and the public perception being that Apple is no longer innovative and all they do is provide incremental updates to existing products. But maybe that doesn't matter. But what do I know, maybe employee morale at Apple is as high as it's ever been and the mentality of employees is 'screw everyone, we'll show them!'. 1tongue.gif

Also can't be fun for any Apple employees with stock options or money in an ESOP plan (if they have one) to see their value plummet. If for no other reason than that the company should be more agressive in protecting the share price. Don't want valuable people jumping ship to go work for Google.
post #88 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post
 

 

Nope. The amount you paid in excess of the acquisitions worth is assigned to goodwill, not made up categories. That would be illegal.

 

Have I every heard of a company buying patents for itself for $5 billion? Are you serious? That's exactly what Apple did through rockstar consortium.

 

No the amount of excess can be ASSIGNED to intangible assets like Patents, Customer lists, Copywrites, ect.  Goodwill is just the remaining that is not assigned.  But that does not mean those patents are worth even close to the amount assigned to them.

 

The Nortel/Rockstar patents were sold for $4.5 Billion but they are worth 100x more than the Motorola patents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20075977-92/apple-rim-in-group-buying-nortel-patents-for-$4.5b/

post #89 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As I said, I'm not just talking about Wall Street. And going 6-9 months without any product releases is a pretty big lull. I have a hard time believing the only time Apple can release new products is Q4. The other thing I forgot to mention before is employee morale. Can't be fun for Apple designers and engineers to know they're working on really cool stuff but see other companies getting all the love and the public perception being that Apple is no longer innovative and all they do is provide incremental updates to existing products. But maybe that doesn't matter. But what do I know, maybe employee morale at Apple is as high as it's ever been and the mentality of employees is 'screw everyone, we'll show them!'. 1tongue.gif

I don't think Apple employees care about other companies. They know they are working on amazing stuff. They know they've changed the world before and will do it again. They know the Apple stores are crowded and Apple has never been more popular.
post #90 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I don't think Apple employees care about other companies. They know they are working on amazing stuff. They know they've changed the world before and will do it again. They know the Apple stores are crowded and Apple has never been more popular.
And i'm sure they're all doing it for free.
post #91 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

Worth more now!!! What a clown.

They only were able to get $10,000,000 from Microsoft.

Like I said its an accounting issue.  They need to book the difference between the cash they paid to buy Motorolla and the value of the hard assets.  The difference goes to bull Shit stuff like intangible assets (patents) and goodwill.

I'm an CPA with SEC experience.  I know how all kind of BS goes into intangible assets /goodwill when companies are bought for more than book value (value of Hard assets)

So you are trying to say a patent's worth is only what it can win in a lawsuit? I don't know where you work, but that's not GAAP.

Now you're being obtuse.

That's not what he's saying.
post #92 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

The Nortel/Rockstar patents were sold for $4.5 Billion but they are worth 100x more than the Motorola patents.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20075977-92/apple-rim-in-group-buying-nortel-patents-for-$4.5b/

Based on what? I remember news from a couple weeks back that they were unexpectedly having problems with licensing many of them, so they've turned to selling them off piecemeal. I think there was one license taken by Huawei for some unknown amount, but otherwise these hi-profile lawsuits haven't resulted in any revenue and may not ever.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Based on what? I remember news from a couple weeks back that they were unexpectedly having problems with licensing many of them, so they've turned to selling them off piecemeal. I think there was one license taken by Huawei for some unknown amount, but otherwise these hi-profile lawsuits haven't resulted in any revenue and may not ever.

 

Thanks, that's exactly my point. I gave SEC documents to prove what Google finds the patents be worth and I get bashed. Then, he goes and says the 100x crap with absolutely nothing to back it up. The bias is showing.

 

I really hate that Google and Apple and everyone else are buying up these patents for nothing but lawsuits. It's sickening.

post #94 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Implantables, you say? (Caution, foul language.)
Hey ... if somebody gets a rise out of it, who's to argue? 1biggrin.gif

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleDigger View Post

And i'm sure they're all doing it for free.

What does that have to do with anything? They get salary and benefits regardless of the competition.
post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I said it on another thread. Cook needs to reiterate what Ive and Federighi have said before: new and different are easy, but better is hard. Or what Ive said in the 5S video: Apple isn't about technology for technologies sake; it's interested in doing things that truly enhance the user experience. Just keep hammering this point home over and over again. And throw the dogs a bone once. Apple gave us an early look at the Mac Pro. How about doing something similar with Apple TV? Or maybe some of their software programs? But really I think Apple should move away from announcing almost all new products in September and October. Spread out product announcements so there aren't these long lulls where others can fill the vacuum with FUD and D&G.

What's the venue? What's the frame, the packaging? The occasion?

By my count, you have four different complaints about his management. To justify all this kvetching and diffuse advice, I think you have to give him more specific help.

Meanwhile, we're talking about the world's most successful company, led by the guy who Steve Jobs found to be unperturbably competent.

It's amusing to imagine the look he would give us if we were to make these suggestions to him in person.
post #97 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post
 

 Of course. It's listed in Google's SEC filing. Note 8. $5.5 billion to be more precise.

 

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312512312575/d357361d10q.htm

That whole SEC filing from 2012 is worth a read. The takeaway though, regarding Motorola's patent worth, is that the figure you cite is what Google placed on them, not what industry peers placed on them. From that same SEC filing:

"Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported and disclosed in the financial statements and the accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to the accounts receivable and sales allowances, fair values of financial instruments, inventory valuation, intangible assets and goodwill, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, fair values of stock-based awards, income taxes, and contingent liabilities, among others. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. "

There is no way in hell, that any other company on Earth would have payed $12.5 billion for Motorola, or valued the patents at $5.5 billion.

 

Let us not forget too, that Motorola was actively involved in litigating against manufacturers of Android devices. Again from that same SEC filing you linked to, it states:

"Patent and Intellectual Property Claims

We have had patent, copyright, and trademark infringement lawsuits filed against us claiming that certain of our products, services, and technologies, including Android, Google Search, Google AdWords, Google AdSense, Google Books, Google News, Google Image Search, Google Chrome, Google Talk, Google Voice, Motorola devices and YouTube, infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain features, functionalities, products, or services, and may also cause us to change our business practices, and require development of non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenues for us and otherwise harm our business. In addition, the ITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) has increasingly become an important forum to litigate intellectual property disputes because an ultimate loss for a company or its suppliers in an ITC action could result in a prohibition on importing infringing products into the U.S. Since the U.S. is an important market, a prohibition on importation could have an adverse effect on us, including preventing us from importing many important products into the U.S. or necessitating workarounds that may limit certain features of our products.

Furthermore, many of our agreements with our customers and partners require us to indemnify them for certain intellectual property infringement claims against them, which would increase our costs as a result of defending such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. Our customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies, as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenues and adversely impact our business."

 

Clearly, Android became a legal morass for Google. It is highly likely that the acquisition of Motorola was to stop the threatened lawsuit by Motorola towards Google. Google overpaid, because they had no choice - well played Motorola. Not hating on Google, (& the ability of a company to write off or write down expenses for tax purposes aside), but no one could reasonably think that they were happy with what they got, for what they paid.

post #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

What's the venue? What's the frame, the packaging? The occasion?

By my count, you have four different complaints about his management. To justify all this kvetching and diffuse advice, I think you have to give him more specific help.

Meanwhile, we're talking about the world's most successful company, led by the guy who Steve Jobs found to be unperturbably competent.

It's amusing to imagine the look he would give us if we were to make these suggestions to him in person.
Something other than a 2 minute segment on ABC World News Tonight on a Friday night. 1wink.gif

I find some of Apple's media outlet choices odd to say the least. Last year when Apple offered up Cook, Ive and Federighi the two publications of choice were Bloomberg Business Week and USA Today. Who the heck reads Bloomberg Business Week? And is USA Today really the audience Apple wants to capture?
post #99 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Something other than a 2 minute segment on ABC World News Tonight on a Friday night. 1wink.gif

I find some of Apple's media outlet choices odd to say the least. Last year when Apple offered up Cook, Ive and Federighi the two publications of choice were Bloomberg Business Week and USA Today. Who the heck reads Bloomberg Business Week? And is USA Today really the audience Apple wants to capture?

I agree it 's alien to the normal human, but maybe they calculated that they want to reach the number nuts of Wall Street and the biz world, not the public, at the same time snubbing the treacherous WSJ and NYT.

As for ABC, I have no ideas for their choice except avoiding CNBC, Fox, MSNBC might have been a factor.

Too bad Apple PR is behind the Great Wall of Apple too. There's no public or customer-facing department. Or is there, aside from Tim Cook's email stream of 900/day?
post #100 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I agree it 's alien to the normal human, but maybe they calculated that they want to reach the number nuts of Wall Street and the biz world, not the public, at the same time snubbing the treacherous WSJ and NYT.

As for ABC, I have no ideas for their choice except avoiding CNBC, Fox, MSNBC might have been a factor.

Too bad Apple PR is behind the Great Wall of Apple too. There's no public or customer-facing department. Or is there, aside from Tim Cook's email stream of 900/day?
I'd say Schiller needs some new duties and bring someone in who can run marketing and PR together. It's not like there is a lack of stuff to do at Apple. I'm sure Cook could find another role for Schiller. Maybe overseeing Apple's applications teams or something,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › With Nest in & Motorola out, Google now looking to acquire wearable tech companies