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.
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.
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.
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 $3 Billion on Nest.
Google trades at at PE of 30+, That is investor's money that they are playing monopoly with.
If their search engine / advertising combination really gets challenged in the near future, they are toast.
Yeah, 12.5B purchased 15000 patents and 2.9B cash. They sold set-top box for 2.3B, and then to Lenovo for 2.9B. So, 12.5 - (2.9 + 2.3 + 2.9) = 4B
So, for 4B, they now have Lenovo as a no-risk Android phone fab, and the IP leverage needed to put Samsung in its place with respect to cross-licensing. It's also got a losing entity off of its books for Wall St. concerns.
Yeah, Page lost a huge bet, but it's not a 12.5B loss as it appears on the surface, and vs. a 350B market cap, it's monopoly money.
The 2.9B cash were on Motorola books, they are not magically transferred to Google ones. If Google had kept the company, they would indeed lower the buy cost by increasing value, but what is left of it is transfered to the buyers. This is not a product or machine which is sold but a company that was kept as a 100% subsidiary with its own books, not integrated.
Google got almost nothing from the IP (2M from M$ 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.
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.
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!
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:
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?
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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
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.
Where did you find that? Instant classic. Google should've told Lenovo "tain't enough, call later"
Edit: just realized that you stated where you found it.
That’s “Spanky” McFarland from the Little Rascals shorts. You have to be old enough to remember because those shorts are no longer shown anywhere. They were deemed politically incorrect some years ago because of the characters “Buckwheat” and “Stymie.”
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.
Motorola was in trouble way before Google took over. They squandered a big early lead, and also championed the big screen phone, but their designs were uninspired which allowed Samsung to fly in and take the lead. I was saddened when Google bought them, and now this news saddens me even more. It's hard to watch a once great American company go down like this.
That’s “Spanky” McFarland from the Little Rascals shorts. You have to be old enough to remember because those shorts are no longer shown anywhere. They were deemed politically incorrect some years ago because of the characters “Buckwheat” and “Stymie.”
Yes I remember. Did you not get my "tain't enough..." reference? Weezer said that in the 'Helping Grandma' episode. You can find them on Amazon.
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.
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.
AI, please update the article. There is a news said Google will keep the patents. Don't be fooled by Google. Google is smarter than Apple.
Did you see this quote from the article?
Quote:
When Google made the Motorola buy in 2012, some speculated the acquisition was fueled at least in part by American telecom's patent cache. A subsequent statement from Motorola confirmed that Google will be hanging on to a "vast majority" of patents, including pending patent applications and invention disclosures. Lenovo will receive over 2,000 patents in the deal and has the option to license additional properties from the portfolio directly from Google.
See what AI has missed. I also think what is not reported in the deal is Google will license the patents to Lenovo just like it did to Samsung.
"Not only was Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility a play to supercharge the Android ecosystem, it was a way for Google to take control over Motorola's portfolio of 17,000 patents and another 7,000 pending patents. At the time, Android was facing a number of "anti-competitive patent attacks" from companies like Microsoft and Apple."
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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 $3 Billion on Nest.
Google trades at at PE of 30+, That is investor's money that they are playing monopoly with.
If their search engine / advertising combination really gets challenged in the near future, they are toast.
Time will tell.
Yeah, 12.5B purchased 15000 patents and 2.9B cash. They sold set-top box for 2.3B, and then to Lenovo for 2.9B. So, 12.5 - (2.9 + 2.3 + 2.9) = 4B
So, for 4B, they now have Lenovo as a no-risk Android phone fab, and the IP leverage needed to put Samsung in its place with respect to cross-licensing. It's also got a losing entity off of its books for Wall St. concerns.
Yeah, Page lost a huge bet, but it's not a 12.5B loss as it appears on the surface, and vs. a 350B market cap, it's monopoly money.
The 2.9B cash were on Motorola books, they are not magically transferred to Google ones. If Google had kept the company, they would indeed lower the buy cost by increasing value, but what is left of it is transfered to the buyers. This is not a product or machine which is sold but a company that was kept as a 100% subsidiary with its own books, not integrated.
Google got almost nothing from the IP (2M from M$ 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.
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
Picked up this interesting read from John Gruber/Daring Fireball:
Apple's $3 Trillion Valuation
Some quotes:
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!!!
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!
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Where did you find that? Instant classic. Google should've told Lenovo "tain't enough, call later"
Edit: just realized that you stated where you found it.
That’s “Spanky” McFarland from the Little Rascals shorts. You have to be old enough to remember because those shorts are no longer shown anywhere. They were deemed politically incorrect some years ago because of the characters “Buckwheat” and “Stymie.”
Motorola was in trouble way before Google took over. They squandered a big early lead, and also championed the big screen phone, but their designs were uninspired which allowed Samsung to fly in and take the lead. I was saddened when Google bought them, and now this news saddens me even more. It's hard to watch a once great American company go down like this.
Yes I remember. Did you not get my "tain't enough..." reference? Weezer said that in the 'Helping Grandma' episode. You can find them on Amazon.
AI, please update the article. There is a news said Google will keep the patents. Don't be fooled by Google. Google is smarter than Apple.
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.
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.
AI, please update the article. There is a news said Google will keep the patents. Don't be fooled by Google. Google is smarter than Apple.
Did you see this quote from the article?
Did you see this quote from the article?
See what AI has missed. I also think what is not reported in the deal is Google will license the patents to Lenovo just like it did to Samsung.
"Not only was Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility a play to supercharge the Android ecosystem, it was a way for Google to take control over Motorola's portfolio of 17,000 patents and another 7,000 pending patents. At the time, Android was facing a number of "anti-competitive patent attacks" from companies like Microsoft and Apple."