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

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 116
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    It's interesting that for all of Motorola's alleged patents (apparently they are many, though I assume a lot of them are old and related to analog tech), they sure as hell didn't act on too many of them.



    Though going to court isn't cheap. Google has the resources to do just that.
  • Reply 42 of 116
    Paying 60% over the maket cap is astronomical. When you consider moto's offerings this becomes troublesome. I hope they invest in some better designs at least.
  • Reply 43 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


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





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



    12.5 Billion ?!?



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



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



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



    It has to be the patents they hold.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



    I wish I had been long GOOG when this deal was announced -- I smell a class action by shareholders.
  • Reply 44 of 116
    jdsonicejdsonice Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by invoice View Post




    Considering the claim against Samsung:

    Rectangular format

    rounded corners

    centered screen

    metal frame

    neutral band



    This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP



    So why did HP not go forward with their rectangular metal thing? Was it because they could not make it work? Or because maybe it sucked? Or maybe .....
  • Reply 45 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by droideggs View Post


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




    Ask the markets.



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



    Otherwise, move along.
  • Reply 46 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Apple actually made them matter.



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



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



    Boom!



    Edit: Quadra, you should retire now... you'll never top that post!
  • Reply 47 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Ask the markets.



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



    Otherwise, move along.



    you go by investors opinions?



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



    funny how you skipped out on the math portion of my statement too
  • Reply 48 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by droideggs View Post


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



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



    Btw, the word is not 'overtakes,' but rather takes over.
  • Reply 49 of 116
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    "A lot of money"? Let's call it what it is a desperate defensive move resulting in Google paying too much for the real world value of Motorola.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by droideggs View Post


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



    Lets consider past patent deals.



    Novell patents

    # of patents: 882

    cost of patents: $450,000,000



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





    Motorola patents

    # of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)

    cost of patents: $12,500,000,000



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





    Nortel patents

    # of patents: 6,000

    cost of patents: $4,500,000,000



    4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000



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



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



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



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



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



    2) Are you fudging the numbers? What are the chances that the Novell and Motorola patents cost exactly the same right down to one-billionth of a penny?
  • Reply 50 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by droideggs View Post


    you go by investors opinions?



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



    Android Isn't Free
  • Reply 51 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tbell View Post


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



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



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



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



    +++qft
  • Reply 52 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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



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



    Hi Mr. Grammar Policeman.



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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


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







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



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



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



    I'm not fudging numbers. I actually got these figures from news reports. Those figures are accurate. Are they to the closest cent? No.
  • Reply 53 of 116
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


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



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



    Thompson
  • Reply 54 of 116
    jukesjukes Posts: 213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


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



    It's more likely that they're not complaining because they either have cross-licensing agreements in place, or know that both of those companies have patent portfolios that make suing them corporate suicide (perhaps murder-suicide). Apple is perfectly happy to sue any infringers that can't defend themselves adequately, as opposed to most of the industry that licenses to anyone for the right price.
  • Reply 55 of 116
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,978member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by droideggs View Post


    Hi Mr. Grammar Policeman.



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



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







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



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



    From the form and content it is clear that this droid fan is either a 13 year-old, or thinks and expresses himself like one. No point in engaging. Unless you are a 13 year-old girl.
  • Reply 56 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


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



    can we stay on point here?



    i thought we were discussing the value of the acquisition.
  • Reply 57 of 116
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,978member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by droideggs View Post


    can we stay on point here?



    i thought we were discussing the value of the acquisition.



    Sorry, not a 13 year-old girl.
  • Reply 58 of 116
    blecchblecch Posts: 34member
    Larry Page isn't stupid - he's a Stanford Ph.D. dropout after all (as is Sergey Brin, and, er, Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang.)



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



    Too bad they've wasted Andy Hertzfeld's talents on cloning Facebook - he could do wonders to make an Apple-style Android phone with tightly integrated hardware and software that didn't suck.
  • Reply 59 of 116
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member
    "Thanks to all of the hardware manufacturers for supporting the Android platform and making it what it is today... Oh and by the way, did I mention that we're now competing with you in the handset space? Peace out and don't be evil."



    My prediction is that Google will try to get Android even more traction. When they've taken it about as far as they can, they'll start charging their licensing partners so much for for the OS (while blaming others) that they drop the platform and Google-MotoMobile will become the only game in town for an Android device.
  • Reply 60 of 116
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


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



    Thompson



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



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



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



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





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





    I have been observing large companies since 1958...



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





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





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





    Just an observation... No disrespect intended!
Sign In or Register to comment.