It was the right decision to make to sell Motorolla.
But it was an AMAZING BAD decision to buy them in the first place.
Perhaps. I'm glad they managed to make the Moto X and G though. Couple of friends of mine have bought the G as it's barely $200 and while it's not an iPhone 5S, it's certainly competitive in everything that matters. Lets just hope they continue to make quality products because this sort of competition is good for everyone.
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2013/Q4_google_earnings.html
Google's standalone revenue was up 22% year on year, at $15.7 billion. . .
Google Inc. announced today that its Board of Directors has approved a distribution of shares of the Class C capital stock as a dividend to our stockholders with a dividend record date of March 27, 2014 and a dividend payment date of April 2, 2014.
Q4 Financial Summary
Google Inc. reported consolidated revenues of $16.86 billion for the quarter ended December 31, 2013, an increase of 17% compared to the fourth quarter of 2012. Google Inc. reports advertising revenues, consistent with GAAP, on a gross basis without deducting traffic acquisition costs (TAC). In the fourth quarter of 2013, TAC totaled $3.31 billion, or 24% of advertising revenues.
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to happen? No deal is final until everyone, including the appropriate Government agencies, sign off on it. I suspect it may be the end of the year before it's official and thus hits the books.
You can kiss the $200 Moto G price goodbye.
They no longer have Google to subsidize the price for them.
No way Levono will loss money on every Moto G they sell.
You don't know they're losing money at $200. There's other companies playing in that same range. In the meantime tho the Moto G is really a great bargain.
Google/Moto were selling those units at a loss, just like the Nexus line.
I think that seems pretty unlikely really. We know Apple's margins would allow for a nearly cost sale at similar numbers. I doubt Apple's manufacturing efficiency pushes that too far either way.
Google goofed Big Time in buying MMI, because overnight it made Google a manufacturer of devices that infringed Apple patents. With Google a standalone software provider, without the manufacturing component, the best Apple might do now is (somehow) implicate Google as a facilitator/accomplice/conspirator to patent infringement by the companies that do still make devices running Android (for as long as that lasts). I don't know that anyone or any company has ever been found guilty of that in a legally punitive sense, though. The MMI acquisition also put Google in direct competition with other manufacturers, eliciting cries of favoritism (boo-hoo).
In any case, there are far too many Google apologists (and investors) to let the original purchase of MMI be viewed as a Google screw up.
I knew this was coming, my prediction was they would shut it down in 2 to 3 yrs when the purchase, I figure by some time in 2014 they would be out of the cell phone business, I figure they would just shut it down since I could not see anyone stupid enough to buy what was left.
Thanks Icahl for officially killing what was once know as Motorola.
I will give Lenovo credit for doing a good job with the IBM think pad and taking it forward, however they have something good to work with, I do not believe that to be the case here.
Think about this, Google license all the Moto IP to Samsung and then turns around and sell the business to one of the company eating Samsung lunch on the low end and license all the same IP to Lenovo as well.
Spot on. I would love to see the licensing details. What will Scamscum do when they feel undermined? Wll be interesting to see. Poor ol google can't do a straight up deal, everything is double spy handicapped because they ar a*holes.
Ahh, Apple's problem is they are a straight shooter. Get punished for that 'nievete' until... The market crashes and there is a flight to quality. Bank of Apple, Yeah!
Google reminds me of the movie "Pretty Woman". Larry Page is Richard Gere. Google bought Motorola without any ability of reviving Motorola. Motorola was played around by Google as a business toy.
You could have a lucrative career writing Corporate Mission Statements!
I still maintain, one of SJ's greatest contributions to tech was corralling SW/HW engineers and forcing them to produce user friendly products.
One only has to walk around Best Buy (depressing in-of-itself) to see all the blue, grey, black plasticky horrible products most other companies are producing.
P.S. Just finished the new book Dogfight about Google and Apple. Very quick read. First half was better than the second half, but still very interesting. One thing that stuck out for me was, Google's approach to releasing SW. Which was, put it out 75%-80% complete and then let customer feedback (read: customer complaints and frustrations) drive which areas of the SW needed improvements first. MS had the same approach with their OS releases.
Best.
I'm certainly not opposed to working with people in need of having the written word well crafted. If you know anyone, just send me a line at my permanent address.
This is perhaps the most dramatic evidence to date that Google acts based upon impulse rather than thought-out strategy. Taking actions without significant thought to costs or future consequences is the hallmark of kids.
Bingo. The point about this whole story isn't so much about how much Google may have lost on their Motorola acquisition, but about how it reveals a fundamental flaw in their long-term strategic planning and vision.
Bingo. The point about this whole story isn't so much about how much Google may have lost on their Motorola acquisition, but about how it reveals a fundamental flaw in their long-term strategic planning and vision.
Google reacts. Apple acts. The latter is better.
I've actually been reading and listening to a lot of great talks regarding Google, and while I still have huge privacy concerns, I think that Google is being run like a research lab. Sergey and Larry at heart were always researchers. Google search started out as a research project. Looking at it from that perspective, I think Google and Apple are fundamentally different. Apple is a product company that is hyper focused and Google is a research company that is willing to try anything. Researchers spend money like crazy in the name of coming of with the craziest things. Most research companies or research universities get government or private funding. Google on the other hand gets in funding through adverstising. In the end though, I think Google is a bunch of nerds trying anything and everything, because their founders want them to do that. That's why I think Android even exists. It is just one way to connect a lot of their projects, with their control over it. I like Apple more, and as corporations are concerned, I trust Apple more than Google. With that being said, I can now look at Google with a different set of expectations. I've met a lot of researchers in my life, and sometimes they have a hard time realizing what sort of impact their work will have. They just want to keep on doing what they are doing because they think it is crazy enough.
I've actually been reading and listening to a lot of great talks regarding Google, and while I still have huge privacy concerns, I think that Google is being run like a research lab. Sergey and Larry at heart were always researchers. Google search started out as a research project. Looking at it from that perspective, I think Google and Apple are fundamentally different. Apple is a product company that is hyper focused and Google is a research company that is willing to try anything. Researchers spend money like crazy in the name of coming of with the craziest things. Most research companies or research universities get government or private funding. Google on the other hand gets in funding through adverstising. In the end though, I think Google is a bunch of nerds trying anything and everything, because their founders want them to do that. That's why I think Android even exists. It is just one way to connect a lot of their projects, with their control over it. I like Apple more, and as corporations are concerned, I trust Apple more than Google. With that being said, I can now look at Google with a different set of expectations. I've met a lot of researchers in my life, and sometimes they have a hard time realizing what sort of impact their work will have. They just want to keep on doing what they are doing because they think it is crazy enough.
I like your analysis, foad. However, I'm not so sure that Google and Apple are all that different in terms of strength in research. Google seems like a much more research-oriented company because it wears it on the outside, whereas Apple hides it all. Google struck lucky with their search algorithms and used them as a basis for their ad revenue. This revenue enables them to fund all kinds of ambitious projects.
But when I look at Google Glass, I don't see the next iPhone but a company that can't see the wood for the trees.
I like your analysis, foad. However, I'm not so sure that Google and Apple are all that different in terms of strength in research. Google seems like a much more research-oriented company because it wears it on the outside, whereas Apple hides it all. Google struck lucky with their search algorithms and used them as a basis for their ad revenue. This revenue enables them to fund all kinds of ambitious projects.
But when I look at Google Glass, I don't see the next iPhone but a company that can't see the wood for the trees.
I don't think Apple lacks research strength. I just think that their focus in how they apply their research is different. I like to think of it like how I'm a huge lover of technology, and love reading about out there research (robotics, AI, etc.), but to my mom, she wants to know how something will improve her life. Touch ID had an appreciable impact on her use of her iPhone. Apple focuses their research on improving the lives of their users and society as a whole. Google researches in a way that sometimes is disconnected with the needs of the general public because they seem to be purely trying to come up with crazy stuff. They are just different approaches. That is to your point about Google Glass. Nerds think it is cool, but don't always look at its social implications, which I think are pretty bad and intrusive. I don't have to use Google's products to appreciate that they can come up with crazy technology. A lot of research is like that...in a bubble.
I like your analysis, foad. However, I'm not so sure that Google and Apple are all that different in terms of strength in research. Google seems like a much more research-oriented company because it wears it on the outside, whereas Apple hides it all. Google struck lucky with their search algorithms and used them as a basis for their ad revenue. This revenue enables them to fund all kinds of ambitious projects.
But when I look at Google Glass, I don't see the next iPhone but a company that can't see the wood for the trees.
It will be a long time before you see anyone with "the next iPhone", Apple included. That was a product launched in a perfect storm. Apple's iPad hasn't had nearly the same impact, and I can't imagine any of the remored products from anyone contributing anywhere near as much revenue. That doesn't mean these other products aren't worth pursuing and can't be financially successful, perhaps even hugely so.
It will be a long time before you see anyone with "the next iPhone", Apple included. That was a product launched in a perfect storm. Apple's iPad hasn't had nearly the same impact, and I can't imagine any of the remored products from anyone contributing anywhere near as much revenue. That doesn't mean these other products aren't worth pursuing and can't be financially successful, perhaps even hugely so.
I agree that the launch of the iPhone was at the right time and that is a rare thing to happen. I also remember that there were a lot of people that had a very similar sentiment of it not being able to have any impact on the industry. I have a feeling that the rumors of what Apple is going to release is probably short of what they will probably release. People (not saying you) had a dismissive attitude before and immediately after the launch of the iPhone. Now years later, the industry has completely changed because of the iPhone.
I think Apple is even more conscious than us of the fact that they don't want to depend on the iPhone as much as they do now. With the release of the iPhone 5c, it shows Apple repeating the iPod pattern and expanding the portfolio. Sure, the 5c was a misstep, but there were missteps even when Steve was around.
I do disagree with you a little regarding the iPad. While the iPad isn't selling in the volumes or revenue as the iPhone, it has had a dramatic impact on the PC market. It has even had a massive impact on Apple. I think the full impact and potential of the iPad is yet to be completely realized, but I think the iPad is what Steve Jobs envisioned when he released the first Mac.
Comments
It was the right decision to make to sell Motorolla.
But it was an AMAZING BAD decision to buy them in the first place.
Perhaps. I'm glad they managed to make the Moto X and G though. Couple of friends of mine have bought the G as it's barely $200 and while it's not an iPhone 5S, it's certainly competitive in everything that matters. Lets just hope they continue to make quality products because this sort of competition is good for everyone.
Google's standalone revenue was up 22% year on year, at $15.7 billion. . .
Google Inc. announced today that its Board of Directors has approved a distribution of shares of the Class C capital stock as a dividend to our stockholders with a dividend record date of March 27, 2014 and a dividend payment date of April 2, 2014.
Q4 Financial Summary
Google Inc. reported consolidated revenues of $16.86 billion for the quarter ended December 31, 2013, an increase of 17% compared to the fourth quarter of 2012. Google Inc. reports advertising revenues, consistent with GAAP, on a gross basis without deducting traffic acquisition costs (TAC). In the fourth quarter of 2013, TAC totaled $3.31 billion, or 24% of advertising revenues.
etc.
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to happen? No deal is final until everyone, including the appropriate Government agencies, sign off on it. I suspect it may be the end of the year before it's official and thus hits the books.
You don't know they're losing money at $200. There's other companies playing in that same range. In the meantime tho the Moto G is really a great bargain.
like i said it won't be anymore.
Google/Moto were selling those units at a loss, just like the Nexus line.
I think that seems pretty unlikely really. We know Apple's margins would allow for a nearly cost sale at similar numbers. I doubt Apple's manufacturing efficiency pushes that too far either way.
Google goofed Big Time in buying MMI, because overnight it made Google a manufacturer of devices that infringed Apple patents. With Google a standalone software provider, without the manufacturing component, the best Apple might do now is (somehow) implicate Google as a facilitator/accomplice/conspirator to patent infringement by the companies that do still make devices running Android (for as long as that lasts). I don't know that anyone or any company has ever been found guilty of that in a legally punitive sense, though. The MMI acquisition also put Google in direct competition with other manufacturers, eliciting cries of favoritism (boo-hoo).
In any case, there are far too many Google apologists (and investors) to let the original purchase of MMI be viewed as a Google screw up.
Sog, Google will still own MM until they don't. That won't happen for several months, and that assumes Lenovo gets the regulatory OK.
Spot on. I would love to see the licensing details. What will Scamscum do when they feel undermined? Wll be interesting to see. Poor ol google can't do a straight up deal, everything is double spy handicapped because they ar a*holes.
Ahh, Apple's problem is they are a straight shooter. Get punished for that 'nievete' until... The market crashes and there is a flight to quality. Bank of Apple, Yeah!
This is all pretty entertaining. Five days. APPL -10%, GOOG +1%
<your-favorite-spit-take.gif>
(I own some of both)
last 5 years:
Google up 275%
Apple up 550%
That's another funny thing. They're both pretty amazing for their investors.
Google reminds me of the movie "Pretty Woman". Larry Page is Richard Gere. Google bought Motorola without any ability of reviving Motorola. Motorola was played around by Google as a business toy.
Very well said, mdriftmeyer.
You could have a lucrative career writing Corporate Mission Statements!
I still maintain, one of SJ's greatest contributions to tech was corralling SW/HW engineers and forcing them to produce user friendly products.
One only has to walk around Best Buy (depressing in-of-itself) to see all the blue, grey, black plasticky horrible products most other companies are producing.
P.S. Just finished the new book Dogfight about Google and Apple. Very quick read. First half was better than the second half, but still very interesting. One thing that stuck out for me was, Google's approach to releasing SW. Which was, put it out 75%-80% complete and then let customer feedback (read: customer complaints and frustrations) drive which areas of the SW needed improvements first. MS had the same approach with their OS releases.
Best.
I'm certainly not opposed to working with people in need of having the written word well crafted. If you know anyone, just send me a line at my permanent address.
Best back.
Bingo. The point about this whole story isn't so much about how much Google may have lost on their Motorola acquisition, but about how it reveals a fundamental flaw in their long-term strategic planning and vision.
Google reacts. Apple acts. The latter is better.
I've actually been reading and listening to a lot of great talks regarding Google, and while I still have huge privacy concerns, I think that Google is being run like a research lab. Sergey and Larry at heart were always researchers. Google search started out as a research project. Looking at it from that perspective, I think Google and Apple are fundamentally different. Apple is a product company that is hyper focused and Google is a research company that is willing to try anything. Researchers spend money like crazy in the name of coming of with the craziest things. Most research companies or research universities get government or private funding. Google on the other hand gets in funding through adverstising. In the end though, I think Google is a bunch of nerds trying anything and everything, because their founders want them to do that. That's why I think Android even exists. It is just one way to connect a lot of their projects, with their control over it. I like Apple more, and as corporations are concerned, I trust Apple more than Google. With that being said, I can now look at Google with a different set of expectations. I've met a lot of researchers in my life, and sometimes they have a hard time realizing what sort of impact their work will have. They just want to keep on doing what they are doing because they think it is crazy enough.
I like your analysis, foad. However, I'm not so sure that Google and Apple are all that different in terms of strength in research. Google seems like a much more research-oriented company because it wears it on the outside, whereas Apple hides it all. Google struck lucky with their search algorithms and used them as a basis for their ad revenue. This revenue enables them to fund all kinds of ambitious projects.
But when I look at Google Glass, I don't see the next iPhone but a company that can't see the wood for the trees.
I like your analysis, foad. However, I'm not so sure that Google and Apple are all that different in terms of strength in research. Google seems like a much more research-oriented company because it wears it on the outside, whereas Apple hides it all. Google struck lucky with their search algorithms and used them as a basis for their ad revenue. This revenue enables them to fund all kinds of ambitious projects.
But when I look at Google Glass, I don't see the next iPhone but a company that can't see the wood for the trees.
I don't think Apple lacks research strength. I just think that their focus in how they apply their research is different. I like to think of it like how I'm a huge lover of technology, and love reading about out there research (robotics, AI, etc.), but to my mom, she wants to know how something will improve her life. Touch ID had an appreciable impact on her use of her iPhone. Apple focuses their research on improving the lives of their users and society as a whole. Google researches in a way that sometimes is disconnected with the needs of the general public because they seem to be purely trying to come up with crazy stuff. They are just different approaches. That is to your point about Google Glass. Nerds think it is cool, but don't always look at its social implications, which I think are pretty bad and intrusive. I don't have to use Google's products to appreciate that they can come up with crazy technology. A lot of research is like that...in a bubble.
[edited for clarity]
It will be a long time before you see anyone with "the next iPhone", Apple included. That was a product launched in a perfect storm. Apple's iPad hasn't had nearly the same impact, and I can't imagine any of the remored products from anyone contributing anywhere near as much revenue. That doesn't mean these other products aren't worth pursuing and can't be financially successful, perhaps even hugely so.
It will be a long time before you see anyone with "the next iPhone", Apple included. That was a product launched in a perfect storm. Apple's iPad hasn't had nearly the same impact, and I can't imagine any of the remored products from anyone contributing anywhere near as much revenue. That doesn't mean these other products aren't worth pursuing and can't be financially successful, perhaps even hugely so.
I agree that the launch of the iPhone was at the right time and that is a rare thing to happen. I also remember that there were a lot of people that had a very similar sentiment of it not being able to have any impact on the industry. I have a feeling that the rumors of what Apple is going to release is probably short of what they will probably release. People (not saying you) had a dismissive attitude before and immediately after the launch of the iPhone. Now years later, the industry has completely changed because of the iPhone.
I think Apple is even more conscious than us of the fact that they don't want to depend on the iPhone as much as they do now. With the release of the iPhone 5c, it shows Apple repeating the iPod pattern and expanding the portfolio. Sure, the 5c was a misstep, but there were missteps even when Steve was around.
I do disagree with you a little regarding the iPad. While the iPad isn't selling in the volumes or revenue as the iPhone, it has had a dramatic impact on the PC market. It has even had a massive impact on Apple. I think the full impact and potential of the iPad is yet to be completely realized, but I think the iPad is what Steve Jobs envisioned when he released the first Mac.