Lenovo folds smartphone unit under Motorola, plans to streamline mobile portfolio

Posted:
in iPhone edited August 2015
Apple competitor Lenovo on Thursday confirmed that it will shuffle all of its smartphone operations -- including design and manufacturing -- under its Motorola banner, and eventually shut down Lenovo Mobile entirely.




Motorola president Rick Osterloh will take charge of the newly merged unit "effectively immediately," a Lenovo spokesperson told NDTV Gadgets. Lenovo Mobile workers will be assigned to Motorola.

The company didn't say what will happen to the Lenovo Mobile brand name, which is invisible in North America but well-known in China and some other countries. ZUK -- a phone brand backed by Lenovo -- will continue to operate independently, and as-is, another spokesperson commented to Engadget.

Lenovo as a whole though is scaling back on the number of phones it produces, with the aim of offering more clearly differentiated models. Motorola already has a relatively trimmed-down phone lineup, consisting of the Moto E, G, and X lines, the Nexus 6, and three Droid phones for Verizon.

Earlier this month Lenovo announced that it would lay off approximately 3,200 people in order to save about $650 million during the second half of 2015. It took a pre-tax loss of $292 million in the June quarter, and wrote down $300 million in unsold phones.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    How long before enough competitors go bankrupt for Apple to be sued for a monopoly? :p

  • Reply 2 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Damn.

    I got excited for a while.  

    I thought lenovo was making a foldable phone.


    Another one bits the dust.

    They can always make it under the Motorola name.
  • Reply 3 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    How long before enough competitors go bankrupt for Apple to be sued for a monopoly? :p

    A monopoly isn't illegal. Apple will be fine if they reach a monopoly position if they don't abuse it.
  • Reply 4 of 30
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    A monopoly isn't illegal. Apple will be fine if they reach a monopoly position if they don't abuse it.

    Tell that to Microsoft.
  • Reply 5 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    A monopoly isn't illegal. Apple will be fine if they reach a monopoly position if they don't abuse it.
    Tell that to Microsoft.

    They totally abused it.
  • Reply 6 of 30
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,446member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Tell that to Microsoft.



    Not sure what you're going for here... but, Microsoft absolutely abused their monopoly position to thwart competition.

  • Reply 7 of 30
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,739member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    They can always make it under the Motorola name.

    I think you missed the joke.

  • Reply 8 of 30
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,435member
    this makes sense – – now it will be easier for Lenevo to sell off their money-losing phone business. I wonder where Motorola will go next… maybe Xiaomi will buy them....
  • Reply 9 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    mike1 wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    They can always make it under the Motorola name.
    I think you missed the joke.

    Sog35 has mentioned foldable phones as being the future of smartphones, so it was an easy joke to miss if indeed in fact he was joking.
  • Reply 10 of 30
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    They totally abused it.



    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

    Not sure what you're going for here... but, Microsoft absolutely abused their monopoly position to thwart competition.



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

    huh?  Microsoft is exhibit-A on how to exploit a monopoly.




    From what I remember about the trial, Microsoft did nothing that Apple isn’t doing now. Free iWork/iLife/bundled browser, etc.

     

    Even if it doesn’t apply, that precedent would be brought up in any Apple trial.

     

    EDIT: Oh, hello, torn out page from Time magazine on November 22, 1999 with an interview with Bill Gates that I happened to keep. What do YOU have to say?

     

  • Reply 11 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    They totally abused it.
    Not sure what you're going for here... but, Microsoft absolutely abused their monopoly position to thwart competition.
    huh?  Microsoft is exhibit-A on how to exploit a monopoly.


    From what I remember about the trial, Microsoft did nothing that Apple isn’t doing now. Free iWork/iLife/bundled browser, etc.

    Even if it doesn’t apply, that precedent would be brought up in any Apple trial.

    But one can get competing software quite easily. Back then getting another browser wasn't. They also tried to disrupt Sun's Java.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    > Lenovo is not an Apple competitor.

    > Its like saying I compete with Lebron James in basketball because I play basketball at the YMCA.

    Don't be so hard on apple. Lenovo's products are only marginally better than apple's products, saying that apple is playing at YMCA level just isn't fair.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member

    Who?

     

    Another outfit that just slams together a box and sticks someone else's bad, unoptimized OS on it isn't an Apple competitor. They compete with all the other outfits that don't understand how to do a vertical business model right.

     

    Those who truly care about their hardware do their own software, and vice versa.

  • Reply 14 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Those who truly care about their hardware do their own software, and vice versa.

    4 out 5 companies that tried this have failed. At this point nobody has the resources, nor the time to start a vertical business model, and be able to succeed.
  • Reply 15 of 30
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    4 out 5 companies that tried this have failed. At this point nobody has the resources, nor the time to start a vertical business model, and be able to succeed.



    You're right, of course. Doesn't bode too well for other players in the industry looking to differentiate themselves. 

  • Reply 16 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,166member

    From what I remember about the trial, Microsoft did nothing that Apple isn’t doing now. Free iWork/iLife/bundled browser, etc.
    Great find sir and I agree with you, it still applies today.
  • Reply 17 of 30
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Who?

    Another outfit that just slams together a box and sticks someone else's bad, unoptimized OS on it isn't an Apple competitor. They compete with all the other outfits that don't understand how to do a vertical business model right.

    Those who truly care about their hardware do their own software, and vice versa.


    I would not say that Motorola Mobility just "slams together a box". They actually make very nice mid tier smartphone. They may not be a direct competitor to an iPhone, but as a "budget smartphone" ie: moto e 2nd gen globally unlocked can be bought for $89.99, they surprisingly hold a very high value as far as a smartphone goes.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    From what I remember about the trial, Microsoft did nothing that Apple isn’t doing now. Free iWork/iLife/bundled browser, etc.

     

    Even if it doesn’t apply, that precedent would be brought up in any Apple trial.

     

    EDIT: Oh, hello, torn out page from Time magazine on November 22, 1999 with an interview with Bill Gates that I happened to keep. What do YOU have to say?

     


     

    But Apple OSX and iOS are not monopolies. Apple can't be abusing something they don't have.

     

    http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JBER/article/viewFile/2508/2554

     

    It wasn't so much the bundling of IE with Windows that got them in trouble as it was all the other stuff they did

     



    >>>To summarize, Microsoft’s predatory conduct and exclusionary behavior were not appropriate or even legal methods of conducting business. The main areas of fault are as follows:


    •  


    • ?  The bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows Operating System using the market power of its operating system to gain market share in the web browser market.


    • ?  Giving away its Internet Explorer web browser for free to keep other web browsers from becoming competitive and attempting to force other web browsers out of business.


    • ?  Creating a Microsoft-specific version of Java so that the Java language would not become standardized and therefore used by all web browsers.


    • ?  Microsoft featured Internet service providers on its Windows desktop if the provider denied the user a choice of web browsers allowing them to use only Internet Explorer. 







    • ?  Microsoft signed agreements with PC vendors like Dell if they agreed not to remove Internet Explorer from the desktop and agreed not to feature other browsers such as Netscape Communicator.


    • ?  Microsoft offered rebates to PC vendors if they agreed not to promote other operating systems.


    • ?  Microsoft gave preferential treatment to PDA and cellular phone vendors if they featured Internet Explorer as

      their web browser. <<<<


    •  

    •  

    •  

    •  

  • Reply 19 of 30
    ^^^ I still say Microsoft was not a monopoly. The government should not have gotten involved. When companies fail to be responsive to customers, they leave. Apple out-innovated Microsoft and now they are winning.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,328member
    ^^^ I still say Microsoft was not a monopoly. The government should not have gotten involved. When companies fail to be responsive to customers, they leave. Apple out-innovated Microsoft and now they are winning.

    That's just it, back in 1995, customers just couldn't leave. What other viable choice did the consumers have back then? Apple? Linux?

    One can argue today that customers can leave and use Apple with OSX and Linux as both have come a long way since 1995. Today, one can leave and even use Android and iOS on a tablet. But in 1995, MS did not have to be responsive to customers because they had a monopoly and knew the customers had no where to go if they left.
Sign In or Register to comment.