such seething hate for no real reason from users here.
And you expected something else on a Apple-centric website? Seriously you're just here to stir the pot as it were. That's what I don't get. I own a Mac so Windows users call me a Mac fanboy. I have a PS3 so XBox users call me a Sony fanboy. I have a Dodge truck so Chevy and Ford drivers call me a Dodge fanboy??. well you get the picture. Maybe I am. But there's one thing I'm not. I'm not going to Windows, XBox or Ford specific websites and expecting unbiased reporting from them. In fact I'm not going to them at all. Know why? I couldn't care less about Andriod, or Windows etc. I have absolutely no interest in them. Now I suppose I could go to "Andriod Insider" and bitch about how it sucks and all but really why? You like Andriod? Good on you. Go to an Andriod site and praise it and slam Apple but to come here and expect anything but what you're getting is a be delusional.
I see you just registered this year for posting on this site. I take it from seeing some of your posts that it seems as you did so just to, as I said earlier, "stir the pot." Sad.
This, of course, ignores the fact that the pre-iPhone Android looks absolutely nothing like the current (post-iPhone) Android. Clearly, the iPhone changed Android's direction immensely.
Droid Pro, Cliq XT, Samsung's releasing several in this form factor. One of the benefits of Android is that it can be coded to fit a variety of form factors.
Quote:
So the victim is always guilty? That's absurd. Apple trusted Schmidt to honor his non-disclosure agreement and to honor his fiduciary responsibility to Apple shareholders. How is it Apple's fault that Schmidt violated that trust? (although it would be interesting to see a shareholder suit against Schmidt).
If Schmidt violated that trust, Apple would've taken him to court by now. I've signed NDA's before. They're pretty specific on what happens to you if you break them. That kinda stuff would give them a huge advantage (if true) in the lawsuits against android handset makers as well.
Yet they're silent. Also, Google makes a ton of money on the iphone, so why would they want to destroy it?
Quote:
What does that have to do with anything? Apple is successful. That doesn't mean that Google didn't steal from them.
"Your Honor, I did steal $1,000,000 from Bill Gates, but given the size of his vault, no harm done, right?"
And it doesn't mean that they did steal from them either. If Google had secret knowledge thanks to Eric's position on Apple's board, they could take Eric to court over it and it would lend weight to their arguments against android. They haven't.
Furthermore, when Eric stepped down, one of the reasons BOTH Apple and Eric listed was that he had to excuse himself from meetings too often because of conflict of interest.
They may have been attracted by the recent increased level of criticism of other companies that has arisen from flopping tablets, patent disputes etc., and then found themselves well fed when they got here. AppleInsider seems to get quite prominent coverage on Google News, so it's not even as if you have to visit to see the headlines.
And it looks like the resulting sensitization may have led to some being mistaken for, and labelled as trolls when they perhaps were not trying to be. Then the bar fight started...
Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.
'And' to starting sentences with conjunctions ...
Sorry couldn't resist given the claims to excellence. However, I want to agree with you that the Googles screwed up. That is bad of me I know
Let's see your evidence that Google did it on a whim. That would create a massive shareholder class action suit. NO ONE throws away $13 B on a whim.
Perhaps not whim but it sure looked rushed.
Quote:
Really? So you're a patent expert now? You know more about the value of the patents than the team of advisors who undoubtedly vetted this deal? I sure don't know what they're worth, either, but suggesting that google doesn't have any idea what they're worth is baloney.
So your contention is that Google must have done all the due diligence required in vetting Motorola's patent portfolio because it would be stupid not to. But that's just an assumption that corporations never enter into stupid buying decisions...heck, I can't think of any bad tech mergers and acquisitions...ever. /sarcasm
Quote:
First, tax losses does not mean that the company is consuming cash. In fact, it is not uncommon for a company to have tax losses and still generate cash. Second, you're ignoring the possibility (likelihood, in my opinion) for the operating division to be split up. There are parts that Google certainly won't want which can be sold. Finally, there is the fact that Google can add value to some portions of the division.
Ah what? The reason that tax losses don't always consume cash is because it's used to offset the profits of another division or carried forward to offset profits in future years. But it's STILL a loss to lose a $1 to save $0.35 on taxes.
So on one side you can claim "Hey, Google gets a tax benefit!". On the other, what it really meant was that Moto's cash pile was smaller by that amount since they had to carry those losses forward because they couldn't offset non-existant or minimal profits.
Of course, without the billions in losses Moto wouldn't have been an acquisition target so you get what you get.
Quote:
And you know this because.....?
Because pretty much every step/option you describe costs money? Money that companies often report as a one-time write off as part of the costs of acquisition?
These costs will be offset by the sales and such but you can't JUST start with $12.9B and then deducting from that number using the full value of the sales or value of the assets (other than cash).
Any time you spend billions in cash (vs stock...huh, I wonder what Jha's prediction of the future value of Google stock was) at a huge mark up with a huge $2.5B withdrawal penalty six times the going rate you have to expect the impression that one CEO pulled the wool over the eyes of the other CEO in a big assed way and someone did an epic fail on their due diligence checks.
Arguing this is some awesome master stroke requires quite a few assumptions...the most major of which is that M&A isn't a blood sport and that Jha was looking for the most optimum outcome for all parties and not the optimum outcome for Motorola Mobility and himself. One CEO looks like a freaking genius. The other...well...we'll have to see but he made a huge hill for himself to climb and "Look Ma! Tax write offs!" is not exactly a good start, one fortunately he's not making for himself.
Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.
I highly doubt Google is going to make a press release saying "We're buying Motorola because it will keep up from having to pay taxes on our income" in a climate when large companies are already hated for tax dodging.
The Freescale patents are what have me thinking there was a lack of something on Googles part. What is your insight on that as a potential, if accidental, trojan horse they invited in?
@AbsoluteDesignz this isn't a great site for comments, most come from rather uneducated fan boys. But then again most of the articles are also by ignorant fan boys, so just read it for the occasional actual news and don't let the comments get to you, it isn't worth the frustration.
Apple is to this site what Republicans are to FOX News.
Both provide an equal level of ignorant reporting and shameless bias.
Let me explain this simply to you: This is a Fanboy website.
It's like a football/baseball/whatever team. We support Apple here. We do not support anyone else regardless.
You do not see a NO Saints supporter cheering on the opposition, and nor do you see a Man United fan saying things like "Walcott scored a good goal against us".
This is an Apple site, and we're all rabidly Apple Fans. The clue is in the name of the site - Appleinsider.com.
Let me explain this simply to you: This is a Fanboy website.
It's like a football/baseball/whatever team. We support Apple here. We do not support anyone else regardless.
You do not see a NO Saints supporter cheering on the opposition, and nor do you see a Man United fan saying things like "Walcott scored a good goal against us".
This is an Apple site, and we're all rabidly Apple Fans. The clue is in the name of the site - Appleinsider.com.
It didn't used to be that way though. It used to be a decent apple news site, with some nice exclusives and interesting commentary on Apple's decisions. That was several years ago.
Now it can't even be called an "Apple Enthusiast" site. Your term "Fanboy website" is appropriate because the exclusives are (Largely) gone, as is pretty much ANY apple commentary. Instead, we're left with articles where apple "fanboys" (as you call them) try to pass off their commentary on Android, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to try and PROVE how much better Apple is.
There's a difference between being fans of something, and being fanboy's. Heck, most Rim/Android/Palm/etc fan sites are also some of those platforms biggest critics. AI doesn't even have that.
It didn't used to be that way though. It used to be a decent apple news site, with some nice exclusives and interesting commentary on Apple's decisions. That was several years ago.
Now it can't even be called an "Apple Enthusiast" site. Your term "Fanboy website" is appropriate because the exclusives are (Largely) gone, as is pretty much ANY apple commentary. Instead, we're left with articles where apple "fanboys" (as you call them) try to pass off their commentary on Android, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to try and PROVE how much better Apple is.
There's a difference between being fans of something, and being fanboy's. Heck, most Rim/Android/Palm/etc fan sites are also some of those platforms biggest critics. AI doesn't even have that.
I can see why you would say that, but I think you may be over-generalizing. The articles have become a bit one-sided, and obviously the site in general has a slant, but the comments are still interesting and, in many cases, well thought out. There are several genuinely knowledgeable contributors on both sides of the arguments. There are also a few others, on both extremes, who add nothing useful, but I still learn a lot reading the forums.
um... just to let you know... a recent thing occurred... they paid $2.5 billion for something... Nortel patents... Nortel was actually a dead company... the only thing of value was the patents... bought for defensive purposes.
... but for Apple... MotoMobile could have been more... tricky, but more... and Apple could have truly used the tax breaks to its advantage...
[ on edit: I also think that Moto's patents were of more value to Apple than to Google ]
Yep the Nortel purchase was one of their less innovation more defensive moves. Moto is not a company that has demonstrated a degree of innovation to interest Apple, I think. I seem to recall some approbation when Apple partnered with them to do the ROKR.
Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.
Bull. If you did large-scale M&A, you wouldn't make so many obvious blunders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
If Schmidt violated that trust, Apple would've taken him to court by now. I've signed NDA's before. They're pretty specific on what happens to you if you break them. That kinda stuff would give them a huge advantage (if true) in the lawsuits against android handset makers as well..
That is, of course, nonsense.
Schmidt could have gotten (and disseminated) a lot of information without breaking his NDA. Furthermore, proving that he violated the NDA would not be easy. That doesn't mean that he didn't do it.
The evidence is pretty clear. Look at Android's direction pre-iPhone and compare it to Android post-iPhone. And look at the timing. The change happened within months - far too quickly for it to be a simple market response.
Comments
But anyways. Too many words wasted on you.
Joined in August, 118 posts. Gee, it seems you aren't very short on words and likely one of our resident trolls come for another visit.
such seething hate for no real reason from users here.
And you expected something else on a Apple-centric website? Seriously you're just here to stir the pot as it were. That's what I don't get. I own a Mac so Windows users call me a Mac fanboy. I have a PS3 so XBox users call me a Sony fanboy. I have a Dodge truck so Chevy and Ford drivers call me a Dodge fanboy??. well you get the picture. Maybe I am. But there's one thing I'm not. I'm not going to Windows, XBox or Ford specific websites and expecting unbiased reporting from them. In fact I'm not going to them at all. Know why? I couldn't care less about Andriod, or Windows etc. I have absolutely no interest in them. Now I suppose I could go to "Andriod Insider" and bitch about how it sucks and all but really why? You like Andriod? Good on you. Go to an Andriod site and praise it and slam Apple but to come here and expect anything but what you're getting is a be delusional.
I see you just registered this year for posting on this site. I take it from seeing some of your posts that it seems as you did so just to, as I said earlier, "stir the pot." Sad.
This, of course, ignores the fact that the pre-iPhone Android looks absolutely nothing like the current (post-iPhone) Android. Clearly, the iPhone changed Android's direction immensely.
Droid Pro, Cliq XT, Samsung's releasing several in this form factor. One of the benefits of Android is that it can be coded to fit a variety of form factors.
So the victim is always guilty? That's absurd. Apple trusted Schmidt to honor his non-disclosure agreement and to honor his fiduciary responsibility to Apple shareholders. How is it Apple's fault that Schmidt violated that trust? (although it would be interesting to see a shareholder suit against Schmidt).
If Schmidt violated that trust, Apple would've taken him to court by now. I've signed NDA's before. They're pretty specific on what happens to you if you break them. That kinda stuff would give them a huge advantage (if true) in the lawsuits against android handset makers as well.
Yet they're silent. Also, Google makes a ton of money on the iphone, so why would they want to destroy it?
What does that have to do with anything? Apple is successful. That doesn't mean that Google didn't steal from them.
"Your Honor, I did steal $1,000,000 from Bill Gates, but given the size of his vault, no harm done, right?"
And it doesn't mean that they did steal from them either. If Google had secret knowledge thanks to Eric's position on Apple's board, they could take Eric to court over it and it would lend weight to their arguments against android. They haven't.
Furthermore, when Eric stepped down, one of the reasons BOTH Apple and Eric listed was that he had to excuse himself from meetings too often because of conflict of interest.
Wow. What's with the huge influx of trolls?
They may have been attracted by the recent increased level of criticism of other companies that has arisen from flopping tablets, patent disputes etc., and then found themselves well fed when they got here. AppleInsider seems to get quite prominent coverage on Google News, so it's not even as if you have to visit to see the headlines.
And it looks like the resulting sensitization may have led to some being mistaken for, and labelled as trolls when they perhaps were not trying to be. Then the bar fight started...
Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.
'And' to starting sentences with conjunctions ...
Sorry couldn't resist given the claims to excellence.
Let's see your evidence that Google did it on a whim. That would create a massive shareholder class action suit. NO ONE throws away $13 B on a whim.
Perhaps not whim but it sure looked rushed.
Really? So you're a patent expert now? You know more about the value of the patents than the team of advisors who undoubtedly vetted this deal? I sure don't know what they're worth, either, but suggesting that google doesn't have any idea what they're worth is baloney.
So your contention is that Google must have done all the due diligence required in vetting Motorola's patent portfolio because it would be stupid not to. But that's just an assumption that corporations never enter into stupid buying decisions...heck, I can't think of any bad tech mergers and acquisitions...ever. /sarcasm
First, tax losses does not mean that the company is consuming cash. In fact, it is not uncommon for a company to have tax losses and still generate cash. Second, you're ignoring the possibility (likelihood, in my opinion) for the operating division to be split up. There are parts that Google certainly won't want which can be sold. Finally, there is the fact that Google can add value to some portions of the division.
Ah what? The reason that tax losses don't always consume cash is because it's used to offset the profits of another division or carried forward to offset profits in future years. But it's STILL a loss to lose a $1 to save $0.35 on taxes.
So on one side you can claim "Hey, Google gets a tax benefit!". On the other, what it really meant was that Moto's cash pile was smaller by that amount since they had to carry those losses forward because they couldn't offset non-existant or minimal profits.
Of course, without the billions in losses Moto wouldn't have been an acquisition target so you get what you get.
And you know this because.....?
Because pretty much every step/option you describe costs money? Money that companies often report as a one-time write off as part of the costs of acquisition?
These costs will be offset by the sales and such but you can't JUST start with $12.9B and then deducting from that number using the full value of the sales or value of the assets (other than cash).
Any time you spend billions in cash (vs stock...huh, I wonder what Jha's prediction of the future value of Google stock was) at a huge mark up with a huge $2.5B withdrawal penalty six times the going rate you have to expect the impression that one CEO pulled the wool over the eyes of the other CEO in a big assed way and someone did an epic fail on their due diligence checks.
Arguing this is some awesome master stroke requires quite a few assumptions...the most major of which is that M&A isn't a blood sport and that Jha was looking for the most optimum outcome for all parties and not the optimum outcome for Motorola Mobility and himself. One CEO looks like a freaking genius. The other...well...we'll have to see but he made a huge hill for himself to climb and "Look Ma! Tax write offs!" is not exactly a good start, one fortunately he's not making for himself.
Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.
I highly doubt Google is going to make a press release saying "We're buying Motorola because it will keep up from having to pay taxes on our income" in a climate when large companies are already hated for tax dodging.
Joined in August, 118 posts. Gee, it seems you aren't very short on words and likely one of our resident trolls come for another visit.
Add him to your ignore list
'And' to starting sentences with conjunctions ...
Sorry couldn't resist given the claims to excellence.
I love starting sentences with And and But. Its my way of rebelling.
I love starting sentences with And and But. Its my way of rebelling.
But it's wrong. And you should know that.
Perhaps not whim but it sure looked rushed.
The Freescale patents are what have me thinking there was a lack of something on Googles part. What is your insight on that as a potential, if accidental, trojan horse they invited in?
But it's wrong. And you should know that.
I got a phantom memory pain in my left ear from a long gone English teacher's gnarled fingers when I saw that.
@AbsoluteDesignz this isn't a great site for comments, most come from rather uneducated fan boys. But then again most of the articles are also by ignorant fan boys, so just read it for the occasional actual news and don't let the comments get to you, it isn't worth the frustration.
Apple is to this site what Republicans are to FOX News.
Both provide an equal level of ignorant reporting and shameless bias.
Let me explain this simply to you: This is a Fanboy website.
It's like a football/baseball/whatever team. We support Apple here. We do not support anyone else regardless.
You do not see a NO Saints supporter cheering on the opposition, and nor do you see a Man United fan saying things like "Walcott scored a good goal against us".
This is an Apple site, and we're all rabidly Apple Fans. The clue is in the name of the site - Appleinsider.com.
Let me explain this simply to you: This is a Fanboy website.
It's like a football/baseball/whatever team. We support Apple here. We do not support anyone else regardless.
You do not see a NO Saints supporter cheering on the opposition, and nor do you see a Man United fan saying things like "Walcott scored a good goal against us".
This is an Apple site, and we're all rabidly Apple Fans. The clue is in the name of the site - Appleinsider.com.
It didn't used to be that way though. It used to be a decent apple news site, with some nice exclusives and interesting commentary on Apple's decisions. That was several years ago.
Now it can't even be called an "Apple Enthusiast" site. Your term "Fanboy website" is appropriate because the exclusives are (Largely) gone, as is pretty much ANY apple commentary. Instead, we're left with articles where apple "fanboys" (as you call them) try to pass off their commentary on Android, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to try and PROVE how much better Apple is.
There's a difference between being fans of something, and being fanboy's. Heck, most Rim/Android/Palm/etc fan sites are also some of those platforms biggest critics. AI doesn't even have that.
It didn't used to be that way though. It used to be a decent apple news site, with some nice exclusives and interesting commentary on Apple's decisions. That was several years ago.
Now it can't even be called an "Apple Enthusiast" site. Your term "Fanboy website" is appropriate because the exclusives are (Largely) gone, as is pretty much ANY apple commentary. Instead, we're left with articles where apple "fanboys" (as you call them) try to pass off their commentary on Android, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to try and PROVE how much better Apple is.
There's a difference between being fans of something, and being fanboy's. Heck, most Rim/Android/Palm/etc fan sites are also some of those platforms biggest critics. AI doesn't even have that.
I can see why you would say that, but I think you may be over-generalizing. The articles have become a bit one-sided, and obviously the site in general has a slant, but the comments are still interesting and, in many cases, well thought out. There are several genuinely knowledgeable contributors on both sides of the arguments. There are also a few others, on both extremes, who add nothing useful, but I still learn a lot reading the forums.
Google Gets An Absurd Patent For Its "Google Doodles"
um... just to let you know... a recent thing occurred... they paid $2.5 billion for something... Nortel patents... Nortel was actually a dead company... the only thing of value was the patents... bought for defensive purposes.
... but for Apple... MotoMobile could have been more... tricky, but more... and Apple could have truly used the tax breaks to its advantage...
[ on edit: I also think that Moto's patents were of more value to Apple than to Google ]
Yep the Nortel purchase was one of their less innovation more defensive moves. Moto is not a company that has demonstrated a degree of innovation to interest Apple, I think. I seem to recall some approbation when Apple partnered with them to do the ROKR.
Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.
Bull. If you did large-scale M&A, you wouldn't make so many obvious blunders.
If Schmidt violated that trust, Apple would've taken him to court by now. I've signed NDA's before. They're pretty specific on what happens to you if you break them. That kinda stuff would give them a huge advantage (if true) in the lawsuits against android handset makers as well..
That is, of course, nonsense.
Schmidt could have gotten (and disseminated) a lot of information without breaking his NDA. Furthermore, proving that he violated the NDA would not be easy. That doesn't mean that he didn't do it.
The evidence is pretty clear. Look at Android's direction pre-iPhone and compare it to Android post-iPhone. And look at the timing. The change happened within months - far too quickly for it to be a simple market response.