Google buys HTC smartphone team for $1.1B [u]

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 79

    Motorola was already a failure before Google bought it. That's why it was being carved up and sold. Google arguably dragged it into the modern era with the Moto X. Was it and is it now a financial success? Perhaps not. Did it kick off a nice mid market of quality value Android phones? Yes.

    Motorola was the dominant Android manufacturer when bought for $12 BILLION by Google. Remember Droid?
    If it was a failure, it could have been bought like HTC for $1 BILLION, not $12 BILLION.

    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 79
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
  • Reply 23 of 79
    capnbob said:
    ...They will add it to their rag tag HW assets that are mostly there to push the HW side of whatever advances their advertising and data acquisition ecosystem along.
    Well said. Its exactly that.
  • Reply 24 of 79
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,603member
    capnbob said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They paid $3.5bn for the patents - seen as a fair market value at the time. It wasn’t a great deal but in preventing an all out war in android land and not losing much if any $s themselves it wasn’t a disaster.
    Yup, I hear you, but considering the patents didn’t win them anything in court … losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    williamlondonronn
  • Reply 25 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    sflocal said:
    As others mentioned above... I give it 2 years, 3 tops before Google runs HTC into the ground, Motorola being a fine example of Google's incompetence. 
    Geez... Google didn't buy HTC.

    Some commenters seem so anxious to say this and claim that, but lack the time to read beforehand. Here is what actually is proposed, explained in two simple paragraphs:

    "Google is hiring a team of HTC employees—about 2,000 people in all, members of HTC's "Powered by HTC" division—most of whom have already been working on Google's Pixel phones. Those employees will stay in Taipei, Taiwan, where HTC is headquartered, but they'll become full-on Googlers. In exchange for those workers and a non-exclusive license for some of HTC's intellectual property, Google's paying HTC $1.1 billion. Both sides hope to close the deal by early 2018. Even after the arrangement is finalized, HTC will continue making its own phones, and building Vive VR products.

    Google doesn't need an entire company; it just needs engineers that can help it tightly integrate Pixel hardware with its homegrown software. So rather than deal with enveloping HTC whole cloth, it can simply pay for and quickly get the team it needs. "

    Wired

    edited September 2017 dasanman69ronnlostkiwirevenantpatchythepirate
  • Reply 26 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    Rayz2016 said:
    capnbob said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They paid $3.5bn for the patents - seen as a fair market value at the time. It wasn’t a great deal but in preventing an all out war in android land and not losing much if any $s themselves it wasn’t a disaster.
    Yup, I hear you, but considering the patents didn’t win them anything in court … losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    Personally I think Google buying up Moto's IP prevented a whole lot of time and money wasted in courtroom patent battles, bringing an end to the platform patent wars. Microsoft stopped initiating lawsuits, Apple stopped initiating lawsuits...
    Considering the multiple-billions spent by Apple on IP during that same time frame I suspect both companies found value in patents even if some outsiders can't. 
    edited September 2017 singularity
  • Reply 27 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Paging GoogleGospelGuy, paging GoogleGospelGuy…
    Asking me for my opinion by using my forum name would be preferred. Please avoid trollish "calling LOL-I-thought-of-a-funny-name-for-you har har" behaviour meant to elicit a negative response. We're equally entitled as long-term contributing members of the AI community, and really should make at least a show of effort at respecting each other.

    So in the future when you'd like to hear my opinion on something please try to do so without resorting to what is essentially juvenile name-calling. It comes off as both bumptious and uncultivated whether it's done by a fellow forum member or a head of state, and I'm pretty certain that's not the perception you would wish to leave.
    edited September 2017 singularityavon b7roundaboutnowronndasanman69lostkiwirevenant
  • Reply 28 of 79
    gwydion said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
    And what exactly has that gotten them? What was so special about Motorola Mobility parents? This deal seems to me like Google giving HTC a cash injection so they can stay alive. That’s the reason Microsoft bought Nokia. The problem there isn’t a market for a 3rd mobile OS.
  • Reply 29 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    gwydion said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
    And what exactly has that gotten them? What was so special about Motorola Mobility parents? 
    Impossible to say since we're all outsiders. Perhaps Google receives royalties now, even from Apple. Perhaps the patent purchase lead to Apple discontinuing their IP lawsuits, or helped "encourage" Apple to reach an amicable cross-licensing agreement with HTC. Maybe it allowed Google to avoid being drawn into all the smartphone patent litigation, calming the waters with their own behind the scenes and privately delivered threats of retaliation if Google themselves were attacked...

    We don't know anymore than we know what buying Nortel IP got Apple, or what several of the Apple acquisitions actually accomplished. Suffice to say that neither Google nor Apple nor Microsoft suffers any financial distress if they spend a few $B on something they believe will assist their companies. They're all far richer than we can comprehend. 
    ronn
  • Reply 30 of 79
    gwydion said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
    And lost $100’s millions every quarter they owned Motorola’s production assets. The operational losses were never covered in that apologist BGR article if I recall. Adds another 1-2 billion in losses.

    The Moto deal was an in mitigated disaster. 
    ronnlostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    sog35 said:
    gwydion said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
    But don't forget the operating losses Google suffered when they owned Motorola. That was over $1.5 billion.

    Also don't forget all the transaction fees to acquire Motorola - legal fees, severance, ect.

    Also don't forget all the time/energy Google executives wasted working on the Motorola deal.

    And don't forget Google wrote off BILLIONS on the patents from the Motorola deal.

    All in All Google lost at least $5 BILLION on the Motorola deal, and a TON of wasted time and energy.
    Google or Apple spending even $5b on something that didn't work out is no worse than you spending a couple thousand on a washer/dryer combo that you don't like as much as you expected to after you bought it. On top of that you have zero knowledge of what Google actually DID accomplish with the Moto purchase or what the original reasoning was or whether it was valid. Like the rest of us you guess, with your opinion slanted by preconceptions (and wishes?) just like me and the other commenters.
    revenant
  • Reply 32 of 79
    gatorguy said:
    sflocal said:
    As others mentioned above... I give it 2 years, 3 tops before Google runs HTC into the ground, Motorola being a fine example of Google's incompetence. 
    Geez... Google didn't buy HTC.

    Some commenters seem so anxious to say this and claim that, but lack the time to read beforehand. Here is what actually is proposed, explained in two simple paragraphs:

    "Google is hiring a team of HTC employees—about 2,000 people in all, members of HTC's "Powered by HTC" division—most of whom have already been working on Google's Pixel phones. Those employees will stay in Taipei, Taiwan, where HTC is headquartered, but they'll become full-on Googlers. In exchange for those workers and a non-exclusive license for some of HTC's intellectual property, Google's paying HTC $1.1 billion. Both sides hope to close the deal by early 2018. Even after the arrangement is finalized, HTC will continue making its own phones, and building Vive VR products.

    Google doesn't need an entire company; it just needs engineers that can help it tightly integrate Pixel hardware with its homegrown software. So rather than deal with enveloping HTC whole cloth, it can simply pay for and quickly get the team it needs. "

    Wired

    That’s an even more ludicrous deal than them buying the company.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    gatorguy said:
    sflocal said:
    As others mentioned above... I give it 2 years, 3 tops before Google runs HTC into the ground, Motorola being a fine example of Google's incompetence. 
    Geez... Google didn't buy HTC.

    Some commenters seem so anxious to say this and claim that, but lack the time to read beforehand. Here is what actually is proposed, explained in two simple paragraphs:

    "Google is hiring a team of HTC employees—about 2,000 people in all, members of HTC's "Powered by HTC" division—most of whom have already been working on Google's Pixel phones. Those employees will stay in Taipei, Taiwan, where HTC is headquartered, but they'll become full-on Googlers. In exchange for those workers and a non-exclusive license for some of HTC's intellectual property, Google's paying HTC $1.1 billion. Both sides hope to close the deal by early 2018. Even after the arrangement is finalized, HTC will continue making its own phones, and building Vive VR products.

    Google doesn't need an entire company; it just needs engineers that can help it tightly integrate Pixel hardware with its homegrown software. So rather than deal with enveloping HTC whole cloth, it can simply pay for and quickly get the team it needs. "

    Wired

    That’s an even more ludicrous deal than them buying the company.
    If we were discussing Apple instead I think the typical response here would be:
    A. How many Fortune 100 companies have you lead?
     or
    B. Your should apply for an executive position at Google.
    ;)

    I don't think any of us are that qualified. But yes your opinion is certainly one that might be shared by other outsiders, even some investors.
    revenant
  • Reply 34 of 79
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,096member
    If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then Google must really love Apple. First Microsoft and now Google deciding that Apple’s business model of controlling both the hardware and the software is the way to go. And as another poster pointed out, this is going to piss off Samsung.
    lostkiwipatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gwydion said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
    But don't forget the operating losses Google suffered when they owned Motorola. That was over $1.5 billion.

    Also don't forget all the transaction fees to acquire Motorola - legal fees, severance, ect.

    Also don't forget all the time/energy Google executives wasted working on the Motorola deal.

    And don't forget Google wrote off BILLIONS on the patents from the Motorola deal.

    All in All Google lost at least $5 BILLION on the Motorola deal, and a TON of wasted time and energy.
    Google or Apple spending even $5b on something that didn't work out is no worse than you spending a couple thousand on a washer/dryer combo that you don't like as much as you expected to after you bought it. On top of that you have zero knowledge of what Google actually DID accomplish with the Moto purchase or what the original reasoning was or whether it was valid. Like the rest of us you guess, with your opinion slanted by preconceptions (and wishes?) just like me and the other commenters.
    Wow.

    You are such a Google apologist.

    So just because Google is big, its not a failure when they waste $5,000,000,000 on Moto?  And that does not even count the wasted time and effort and opportunity cost.

    Instead of wasting all that time and money on Moto they could have done other projects.


    And $5 billion is NOT small for Google.  When they sold Moto in 2014 Google made $14 billion in profit.  That $5 billion loss was equal to 35% of Google's total net income for 2014.  Not lets compare that to the average American worker who makes about $50k a year after taxes. 35% of that is $17,000.  You think the average person taking home $50k a year won't be STUNG from losing $17k?
    Sog, you still assume you know why Google bought Moto: So why did they?

    ...and whether the goals were accomplished: What were those goals?

    ... and whether Google considers it money well-spent. What does Google's executive reports say on the matter? .

    As I've heard said here too many times to count, perhaps by you yourself: How many $500B+ companies have you run?
    And yes $5B is relative-peanuts to Google, sitting on roughly $100B in cash alone today with zero liabilities.

    Neither Google nor Apple has a lack of ready cash, nor have they for a decade or more. You presume to be a much smarter business person that you likely are. I realize I'm not qualified to pass final judgement on any of Apple or Google's business acquisitions and avoid doing so. You've apparently not come to that realization yet. 

    To put in perspective here are some companies Google could buy outright, paying in cash, based on those company's market caps:

    • Lowe’s ($72.8 billion)
    • Netflix ($68.8 billion)
    • Tesla ($53.8 billion)
    • Southwest Airline ($35.3 billion)
    • Harley Davidson ($9.8 billion)

    Google could by any of these companies. For cash. No financing necessary. Apple is even richer and could buy all of them at the same time if you include their long-term marketable securities (which you should)


    There was no disaster even if it turns out it was a total waste of money to begin with, which none of us know.


    edited September 2017 singularityrevenant
  • Reply 36 of 79
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,096member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Paging GoogleGospelGuy, paging GoogleGospelGuy…
    Asking me for my opinion by using my forum name would be preferred. Please avoid trollish "calling LOL-I-thought-of-a-funny-name-for-you har har" behaviour meant to elicit a negative response. We're equally entitled as long-term contributing members of the AI community, and really should make at least a show of effort at respecting each other.

    So in the future when you'd like to hear my opinion on something please try to do so without resorting to what is essentially juvenile name-calling. It comes off as both bumptious and uncultivated whether it's done by a fellow forum member or a head of state, and I'm pretty certain that's not the perception you would wish to leave.
    Funny though, how you only show up and post when Google is mentioned, and it’s always in defense or promotion of Google. Maybe you should change your user name to GoogleEvangelist then as it would more accurately describe your participation in these forums.
    BlunttmaywilliamlondonbrucemcStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 79
    BluntBlunt Posts: 223member
    Gatorguy is hilarious. He will defend Google to no end.
    brucemcradarthekatStrangeDayswilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    lkrupp said:
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Paging GoogleGospelGuy, paging GoogleGospelGuy…
    Asking me for my opinion by using my forum name would be preferred. Please avoid trollish "calling LOL-I-thought-of-a-funny-name-for-you har har" behaviour meant to elicit a negative response. We're equally entitled as long-term contributing members of the AI community, and really should make at least a show of effort at respecting each other.

    So in the future when you'd like to hear my opinion on something please try to do so without resorting to what is essentially juvenile name-calling. It comes off as both bumptious and uncultivated whether it's done by a fellow forum member or a head of state, and I'm pretty certain that's not the perception you would wish to leave.
    Funny though, how you only show up and post when Google is mentioned...
    ...and Google gets mentioned a LOT!

    Since so few here take even a tiny bit of time to understand a subject involving Google or Android before commenting, often just regurgitating something they read here once, it's like shooting pigeons. :) /s
    Of course there are many other non-Apple/general tech news threads I comment in as well but you knew that.

    But there are a few here that try to be informed before proclaiming something as factual so those posters deserve credit. Off the top of my head Marvin, Mel, ErictheHalfBee, ASDASD, Spam, Soli, and DED come to mind and I'm certain there are others I missed. Unfortunately many others don't even try despite the relatively high number of Google or Android specific threads they comment in anyway.

    To be clear I'm not out to pick a fight with any other member here. Anyone who thinks something I've said is wrong or incomplete is just as entitled to point it out as I was. It's when they resort to silly, unhelpful attacks on the poster rather than the point that it becomes a poor reflection on the forum itself. Is it really so hard to rebut another person's opinion with an intelligent and considered sentence or three of your own (not you specifically) instead of playground insults?


    edited September 2017 roundaboutnowronnlostkiwirevenant
  • Reply 39 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gwydion said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:


    So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal.




    Losing 3.5 billion is the very definition of a ‘bad deal’. 
    They didn't lose 3.5B, they acquired ALL the Motorola patents for 3.5B
    But don't forget the operating losses Google suffered when they owned Motorola. That was over $1.5 billion.

    Also don't forget all the transaction fees to acquire Motorola - legal fees, severance, ect.

    Also don't forget all the time/energy Google executives wasted working on the Motorola deal.

    And don't forget Google wrote off BILLIONS on the patents from the Motorola deal.

    All in All Google lost at least $5 BILLION on the Motorola deal, and a TON of wasted time and energy.
    Google or Apple spending even $5b on something that didn't work out is no worse than you spending a couple thousand on a washer/dryer combo that you don't like as much as you expected to after you bought it. On top of that you have zero knowledge of what Google actually DID accomplish with the Moto purchase or what the original reasoning was or whether it was valid. Like the rest of us you guess, with your opinion slanted by preconceptions (and wishes?) just like me and the other commenters.
    Wow.

    You are such a Google apologist.

    So just because Google is big, its not a failure when they waste $5,000,000,000 on Moto?  And that does not even count the wasted time and effort and opportunity cost.

    Instead of wasting all that time and money on Moto they could have done other projects.


    And $5 billion is NOT small for Google.  When they sold Moto in 2014 Google made $14 billion in profit.  That $5 billion loss was equal to 35% of Google's total net income for 2014.  Not lets compare that to the average American worker who makes about $50k a year after taxes. 35% of that is $17,000.  You think the average person taking home $50k a year won't be STUNG from losing $17k?
    Sog, you still assume you know why Google bought Moto: So why did they?

    ...and whether the goals were accomplished: What were those goals?

    ... and whether Google considers it money well-spent. What does Google's executive reports say on the matter? .

    As I've heard said here too many times to count, perhaps by you yourself: How many $500B+ companies have you run?
    And yes $5B is relative-peanuts to Google, sitting on roughly $100B in cash alone today with zero liabilities.

    Neither Google nor Apple has a lack of ready cash, nor have they for a decade or more. You presume to be a much smarter business person that you likely are. I realize I'm not qualified to pass final judgement on any of Apple or Google's business acquisitions and avoid doing so. You've apparently not come to that realization yet. 

    To put in perspective here are some companies Google could buy outright, paying in cash, based on those company's market caps:

    • Lowe’s ($72.8 billion)
    • Netflix ($68.8 billion)
    • Tesla ($53.8 billion)
    • Southwest Airline ($35.3 billion)
    • Harley Davidson ($9.8 billion)

    Google could by any of these companies. For cash. No financing necessary. Apple is even richer and could buy all of them at the same time if you include their long-term marketable securities (which you should)


    There was no disaster even if it turns out it was a total waste of money to begin with, which none of us know.


    I've already explained it.

    $5 billion is a CRAP LOAD of money.  Instead of Moto Google could have purchased Beats (Apple Music and Headphones), Authtentech (TouchID creator), Prime Sense (camera tech on iPhone  X), LinX (camera tech), Faceshift (Animoji), PA Semi ( creator of A-class CPU) and much more.
    Hell Google could have bought each and every one of them. For cash. And still bought Moto. And still be banking $Billions. What lost opportunity are you referring to?

    We all underestimate how rich these companies actually are, what they could do with the cash sitting around if they wanted to, and the value of what they do spend it on. Some of us go so far as to think we know more than they do about their own businesses they very successfully built from the ground up.
    edited September 2017 revenant
  • Reply 40 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member
    Blunt said:
    Gatorguy is hilarious. He will defend Google to no end.
    And you will attack Google to no end whether based on FUD or not? Just curious and not accusing. 
    edited September 2017 revenant
Sign In or Register to comment.