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

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    I am not sure Motorola was such a bad deal for Google:

    - They sold Motorola to Lenovo for 2.9 billion (as the article correctly reports).
    - They also sold the cable modem and set-top box business to Arris for 2.35 billion in 2012.
    - Motorola had 3 billion in cash.

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

    http://bgr.com/2014/02/13/google-motorola-sale-interview-lenovo/

    So one view is that they paid about 3.5 billion for Motorola patents - which is less than Apple and Microsoft paid when they teamed up to buy Nortel patents for 4.5 billion.

    But more importantly, Motorola was about to sue other Android manufacturers (Samsung, HTC). Google appeared to buy Motorola to end that threat because Android was not yet the dominant alternative to iOS. If Motorola would have sued everyone else, it could have disrupted the whole eco-system.

    So I don't think Google regrets buying Motorola - it might have been a defensive move (getting more patents, prevent a patent war with other Android OEMs) but it wasn't hugely expensive in the end.


    Here is part of the deal you left out, they had to help finance the deal, they were part owner in Arris and they had to get Comcast to pony up money as well to make the deal go through. Everyone would like to say they did not lose money, they did, because the pumped lots of money into Motorola before they killed it off. I suspect they had to help Lenovo do the deal as well. The big loss was the fact they paid $12B for the IP and the FTC and EU rendered the patent workless and they said Google was bared from suing its competitors.

    The Motorola deal was plan B in the IP wars, they were going after the Nortel IP and lost to Apple and its friend so they turned around and did the Motorola deal within 72 hour, they did not do any due diligence, if they had they would have found out the courts and FTC was about to hand Motorola its ass for trying to Force Apple to turn over all its GUI IP on the iPhone to license Motorola Cellular patents. Apple offered Motorola $4B for a license on all it cell phone FRAND and non-FRAND IP as a one time fee and Motorola could never come after Apple in the future. But Motorola was being vindictive and wanted the $4B plus a cross license on all of APPL non-FRAND IP. Apple report this to the FTC when Google both Motorola and the rest if history.

    patchythepirate
  • Reply 62 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    maestro64 said:
    If they couldn't make Motorola work, how are they going to make HTC work?


    exactly, Motorola was top to bottom a better company and Google could not manage to hold it together and make it work.

    Also, very few people are aware of this, HTC got its start in cellphone manufacturing thanks to Motorola. Motorola use to have HTC design and build their low end feature phones for emerging markets. Motorola would provide them a design spec and a product ID and they would go off and design and build the phones for Motorola which Motorola turned around and sold around the world.

    I am taking better over or under 18 month on this being a royal failure, next bet do they shut it down or sell it, how much of a loss will they take. I think last one may not be a big issue, since it was not a $12B purchase like Motorola.

    Sell it? What would they be selling? They didn't buy HTC, and didn't buy HTC patents, and didn't buy any of the remaining HTC factories or equipment. They acquired an engineering and development team. 
  • Reply 63 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    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 $Bilions.

    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 built from the ground up.
    You will never admit the Moto deal was a mistake.....so sad
    This article essentially implies that Google lost 9.5 billions on the Motorola transaction - this is a commonly repeated claim but does not seem correct.

    In 2012, Google didn't really seem to want to buy Motorola for anything but defensive purposes: prevent Motorola from suing other Android OEMs (they had made threats just before the sale because Motorola was losing against Samsung and even HTC) and get hold of some patents. Whether it cost them 3.5 billion or 5 billion - in either case it doesn't seem like a huge cost given how valuable Android is for them today.

    What they definitely did not try to do is building Motorola into a real competitor to Samsung etc. They went out of their way to handicap Motorola and not give them any prior access to Android code. Their focus was growing the Android eco-system - not to build a dominant Android OEM. In 2012, Microsoft was still pushing Windows hard and even Blackberry was still quite big. This wasn't the time for Google to risk all this and push Samsung into Microsoft's arms.

    Now the situation is very different: there is only iOS and Android left. Google also now has wider hardware ambitions such as Chromecast, Google WiFi, Nest etc. Android OEMs are trying to push their own services (Bixby etc.) and hide Google's services. Regulators in Europe and elsewhere might force Google to no longer require OEMs to pre-install Google Apps in exchange for access to the Play store (as it already happened in Russia). So it makes complete sense for them to give the hardware phone business a real try and produce phones where they control the software aspect completely.

    To summarize, the Motorola acquisition was neither particularly terrible for Google nor is it particularly informative about their chances of success with HTC.
    Revisionist history.

    If Google truly only wanted the patents, they could have bought those patents or made a deal with Moto for WAY LESS THAN $15 BILLION.  Moto probably would have settled for $1 Billion or less.
    So now you've determined that Motorola would have parted with all their IP separate from the company and for a relative pittance?

    HTC isn't doing that, nor did Nokia when they "sold" to Microsoft. They retained their IP. What rationale do you have for Moto giving up their patents while still manufacturing? Wouldn't that have left them open to attack from Apple, which I believe was already being threatened, but now lacking control of patents to counter with? It certainly doesn't seem likely but perhaps you can make a well-reasoned argument as to why they would, something beyond just proclaiming it to be true. 
    Not give up, but doing a cross platform patent arrangement.

    No. Google had huge ambitions for Motorola, way beyond patents.

    Just read what Google/Moto said after the deal was done:

    "Our aim is simple," Woodside said in a prepared statement. "To focus Motorola Mobility's remarkable talent on fewer, bigger bets, and create wonderful devices that are used by people around the world."

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/technology/google-motorola/index.htm

    • Google and Motorola Mobility together will accelerate innovation and choice in mobile computing. Consumers will get better phones at lower prices.  (NOTICE THIS WAS THE FIRST BULLET POINT BEFORE MENTIONING PATENTS)
    • Motorola Mobility is great at devices. The combination of the two makes sense and will enable faster innovation.
    https://www.google.com/press/motorola/


    Its a TOTAL BULLSHIT argument that Google bought Moto just for patents.

    Its a WEAK ASS EXCUSE for the failure of Moto's hardware divisions.  Oh, so Moto hardware failed?  But, but, but, but, Google didn't buy Moto for hardware anyway......................BULLL SHIT. And you know.

    Google itself said the main reason they bought Moto was for hardware expertise. Just look at the linked press release by Google. The FIRST BULLET point was Moto's hardware chops NOT patents.


    What did you expect Google to say after they acquired Motorola in 2012?

    "We bought them so they won't start pointless patent wars with our Android OEMs?" 

    Certainly not.

    But actions speak louder than words and it is well known that Google went out of their way to not show any favoritism to Motorola.


    Yes actions do speak louder than words.

    Moto made several phones under Google ownership.  So yes on of the main reasons if not the main reason for purchase was hardware.  Just because Google didn't give Moto special advantages does not mean they were not serious about hardware.  Giving Moto special advantages would be suicide to the Android platform. But make no mistake: Google had HUGE hardware ambitions in purchasing Moto.

    While Google has collected exactly $0.00 from patent royalties from the Moto 'treasure trove'

    So you seriously think Google CEO/Chairman would do a press release saying they bought Moto for hardware and lie about it?  Come on.  No way will they be lying to their shareholders about a $15 billion purchase.
    Are you certain Google isn't receiving royalties?

    Motorola patents are part of the basic standards that ALL smartphones use, in addition to reading on several non-SEP technologies in smartphones and other devices, as of course they would be as Moto was responsible for inventing a great deal of the the technology that makes iPhones and such today possible.

    If Google is not receiving royalties, despite the fact that other companies who are also part of the same standards groups do, it would be by choice. Google does not want them. That of course would not be out-of-line with Google's general patent policies since they have been one of the biggest champions of organizing groups of companies willing to share patents openly between them with no expectation of payment. Still, I don't recall ever reading that Google has chosen to make all their patents royalty-free. Nice move for tech in general if they have tho. Any royalties would not be a major revenue source anyway, anymore than they are for Apple. 

    In any event for casual readers who missed it: Google is not buying HTC, nor buying even HTC patents so any comparison to "what happened with Motorola" are not very applicable anyway. 
    saying Google got $0 for Moto royalties was an exaggeration.

    But the truth is the amount they are getting is so immaterial that it never shows up on any SEC filings or press releases.
    So they didn't buy them for the royalties. I would have more surprised if Google was aggressively monetizing their patents (a larger number even than Apple holds) like Nokia and LG have with their standard and non-standard IP.
    ronn
  • Reply 64 of 79
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,055member
    If they couldn't make Motorola work, how are they going to make HTC work?
    Because Asians are smarter than whites? 
  • Reply 65 of 79
    Oh well, it looks like Motorola all over again. 
    Except it's not. Look again and try to comprehend what you are reading. 
    ronn
  • Reply 66 of 79
    ronnronn Posts: 336member
    sog35 said:
    ronn said:
    HTC was rapidly failing as a company, despite building Google's Pixel phones. Look what Google did with Nest, let alone Motorola. How is Samsung--already on edge with Google--going to want Google in control of Android? How is Google going to be better at hardware now that its original Andy Rubin Android team left for Essential? Motorola's patents didn't do anything for Google, regardless of what BGR claims was "not so bad". For less than $13 billion Google should have been able to build a hardware line from scratch, along with a silicon empire, a retail empire, an AR platform and a fashion headphones business. Apple did!
    I think everyone is looking at this short-term. Google is obviously looking at this long-term. HTC was/is committed to probably at least the next two iterations of the Pixel line. So Google had to step in and buy the hardware division. For them the $1.1B sum is paltry and may even be less that what they would have eventually spent taking their business to another shop over the next couple years to continue the Pixel line (and possibly other hardware).
    Spend $1 billion to sell 10,000 phones?  

    And that doesn't even count all the salaries you need to pay these people.

    Another loser deal just like Moto.  Google will spend billions to release a phone that sells 10,000 units a month.
    You contradict yourself with sales numbers above. I'll assume you omitted "a month" for the first figure and claim they sell just 10K/month. That would be totally off as the most pessimistic guesstimate is that Google sold at least a million Pixels in the first 8 months. Other more optimistic figures believe Verizon alone sold over a million Pixels since it first went on sale. So that would mean more than 10K Pixels per week.

    Again, this purchase will probably be cheaper in the long run for Google than starting all over again with another manufacturer. Especially as they will be expanding from just the Pixel line of phones.
  • Reply 67 of 79
    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 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.
    he adds context that others have forgotten or do not realise. I am not a google fan in any way shape or form, but he makes good points. and many times his comments are not in the defense nor the promotion of google but rather setting the record straight. it is easy to bash google, just as easy as macrumour kids bash apple, but the key is keeping everything in context and not overshooting our knowledge of the subject (and I am not sure how many forum folk actually work for google, or as high up enough to say how much was actually lost, so our numbers should be held suspect). 
    gatorguyronnwilliamlondondasanman69
  • Reply 68 of 79
    ronn said:
    sog35 said:
    ronn said:
    HTC was rapidly failing as a company, despite building Google's Pixel phones. Look what Google did with Nest, let alone Motorola. How is Samsung--already on edge with Google--going to want Google in control of Android? How is Google going to be better at hardware now that its original Andy Rubin Android team left for Essential? Motorola's patents didn't do anything for Google, regardless of what BGR claims was "not so bad". For less than $13 billion Google should have been able to build a hardware line from scratch, along with a silicon empire, a retail empire, an AR platform and a fashion headphones business. Apple did!
    I think everyone is looking at this short-term. Google is obviously looking at this long-term. HTC was/is committed to probably at least the next two iterations of the Pixel line. So Google had to step in and buy the hardware division. For them the $1.1B sum is paltry and may even be less that what they would have eventually spent taking their business to another shop over the next couple years to continue the Pixel line (and possibly other hardware).
    Spend $1 billion to sell 10,000 phones?  

    And that doesn't even count all the salaries you need to pay these people.

    Another loser deal just like Moto.  Google will spend billions to release a phone that sells 10,000 units a month.
    You contradict yourself with sales numbers above. I'll assume you omitted "a month" for the first figure and claim they sell just 10K/month. That would be totally off as the most pessimistic guesstimate is that Google sold at least a million Pixels in the first 8 months. Other more optimistic figures believe Verizon alone sold over a million Pixels since it first went on sale. So that would mean more than 10K Pixels per week.

    Again, this purchase will probably be cheaper in the long run for Google than starting all over again with another manufacturer. Especially as they will be expanding from just the Pixel line of phones.
    he contradicts himself all the time slapping up numbers that fit his cause and changes those numbers at a mere whim or forgetfulness of what he put up the first time.
    ronn
  • Reply 69 of 79
    I am surprised that DED hasn’t written an article laying out all those wasted money yet.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 79
    ronnronn Posts: 336member
    mubaili said:
    I am surprised that DED hasn’t written an article laying out all those wasted money yet.
    It wouldn't surprise me to see exactly that in a matter of days.
  • Reply 71 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    ronn said:
    mubaili said:
    I am surprised that DED hasn’t written an article laying out all those wasted money yet.
    It wouldn't surprise me to see exactly that in a matter of days.
    Nope, I think he already did that one, we just forgot about it. You could probably search it up. 
    ronn
  • Reply 72 of 79
    I suspect that, from Google's perspective, this is as much about helping HTC remain viable and competing in the Android smartphone market as it is about anything else. A billion dollars represents a huge capital infusion for HTC. And keeping HTC around means a healthier and more diverse Android smartphone market.

    We're talking about a company with a market cap of around $2 billion. It's lost around a half a billion dollars a year for the last 2 fiscal years, and a couple hundred million dollars or so through the first 6 months of this year. Its cash holdings had been dwindling. A billion dollars buys it more time.

    Regarding Google's Motorola acquisition: Google was clear from the outset that a major reason for that acquisition was to help protect the Android platform on legal fronts. Google may or may not have been sincere in its supposed intentions to combine Google and Motorola's respective skills in order to (itself) compete more effectively selling smartphones under the Motorola brand. But even if it was, that was only part of the reason it acquired Motorola. And if it wasn't, it wasn't likely to admit that at the outset; it wasn't likely to disclose that it intended to sell off the Motorola Mobile operation in short order.

    What is clear from Google's SEC filings is that the patents and developed technology that it was acquiring, and not the Motorola Home and Motorola Mobile operations themselves, represented the bulk of the value that Google saw in Motorola. Taking the $2.9 billion in cash it got out of the $12.4 price it paid for Motorola, the patents and developed technology accounted for $5.5 billion of the remaining $9.5 billion valuation. Motorola's ongoing operations weren't valued all that highly. Indeed, Google recognized a net gain on both the sale of Motorola Home and the sale of Motorola Mobile, though there were recognized operational loses (from Motorola Mobile in particular) in the meantime.

    The accounting is tricky, but Google ended up effectively paying around $5 or 6 billion for the Motorola patents which it kept. There are unrealized tax benefits for Google (associated with the acquisition and sale of, in particular, Motorola Home) which could potentially reduce that effective cost, but I'm not fully accounting for them as they are uncertain. Have the patents been, or will they end up being, worth that $5 or 6 billion? I'm not sure But considering their value in the patent wars / negotiations and ongoing licensing revenue, I can believe that they have or will. It's a question that isn't easy to (fairly) answer.
    edited September 2017 gatorguy
  • Reply 73 of 79
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:
    If they couldn't make Motorola work, how are they going to make HTC work?


    exactly, Motorola was top to bottom a better company and Google could not manage to hold it together and make it work.

    Also, very few people are aware of this, HTC got its start in cellphone manufacturing thanks to Motorola. Motorola use to have HTC design and build their low end feature phones for emerging markets. Motorola would provide them a design spec and a product ID and they would go off and design and build the phones for Motorola which Motorola turned around and sold around the world.

    I am taking better over or under 18 month on this being a royal failure, next bet do they shut it down or sell it, how much of a loss will they take. I think last one may not be a big issue, since it was not a $12B purchase like Motorola.

    Sell it? What would they be selling? They didn't buy HTC, and didn't buy HTC patents, and didn't buy any of the remaining HTC factories or equipment. They acquired an engineering and development team. 
    What you think Google got with Motorola, it was lots of engineers and supply chain people. As I said the IP they got was mostly worthless. It is also the same IP they have to HTC, they did not have to buy HTC IP since Google already had access to it as part of Google giving HTC the Motorola IP.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    carnegie said:
    I suspect that, from Google's perspective, this is as much about helping HTC remain viable and competing in the Android smartphone market as it is about anything else. A billion dollars represents a huge capital infusion for HTC. And keeping HTC around means a healthier and more diverse Android smartphone market.

    We're talking about a company with a market cap of around $2 billion. It's lost around a half a billion dollars a year for the last 2 fiscal years, and a couple hundred million dollars or so through the first 6 months of this year. Its cash holdings had been dwindling. A billion dollars buys it more time.

    Regarding Google's Motorola acquisition: Google was clear from the outset that a major reason for that acquisition was to help protect the Android platform on legal fronts. Google may or may not have been sincere in its supposed intentions to combine Google and Motorola's respective skills in order to (itself) compete more effectively selling smartphones under the Motorola brand. But even if it was, that was only part of the reason it acquired Motorola. And if it wasn't, it wasn't likely to admit that at the outset; it wasn't likely to disclose that it intended to sell off the Motorola Mobile operation in short order.

    What is clear from Google's SEC filings is that the patents and developed technology that it was acquiring, and not the Motorola Home and Motorola Mobile operations themselves, represented the bulk of the value that Google saw in Motorola. Taking the $2.9 billion in cash it got out of the $12.4 price it paid for Motorola, the patents and developed technology accounted for $5.5 billion of the remaining $9.5 billion valuation. Motorola's ongoing operations weren't valued all that highly. Indeed, Google recognized a net gain on both the sale of Motorola Home and the sale of Motorola Mobile, though there were recognized operational loses (from Motorola Mobile in particular) in the meantime.

    The accounting is tricky, but Google ended up effectively paying around $5 or 6 billion for the Motorola patents which it kept. There are unrealized tax benefits for Google (associated with the acquisition and sale of, in particular, Motorola Home) which could potentially reduce that effective cost, but I'm not fully accounting for them as they are uncertain. Have the patents been, or will they end up being, worth that $5 or 6 billion? I'm not sure But considering their value in the patent wars / negotiations and ongoing licensing revenue, I can believe that they have or will. It's a question that isn't easy to (fairly) answer.
    That statement is not accurate, it was Google Very much interested in the home business first it was make money where you think the $3B came from. Also Motorola home controlled the video delivery technology and IP and we know that Google was trying to get into this market.

    However, comcast and at&t and others petition the government to force Google to sell off the home business. They did not want Google having control over their hardware and software for video content delivery manufacturer.  Google could not have access to any of the home video IP.

    Google really got screwed over all this.
  • Reply 75 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    maestro64 said:
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:
    If they couldn't make Motorola work, how are they going to make HTC work?


    exactly, Motorola was top to bottom a better company and Google could not manage to hold it together and make it work.

    Also, very few people are aware of this, HTC got its start in cellphone manufacturing thanks to Motorola. Motorola use to have HTC design and build their low end feature phones for emerging markets. Motorola would provide them a design spec and a product ID and they would go off and design and build the phones for Motorola which Motorola turned around and sold around the world.

    I am taking better over or under 18 month on this being a royal failure, next bet do they shut it down or sell it, how much of a loss will they take. I think last one may not be a big issue, since it was not a $12B purchase like Motorola.

    Sell it? What would they be selling? They didn't buy HTC, and didn't buy HTC patents, and didn't buy any of the remaining HTC factories or equipment. They acquired an engineering and development team. 
    What you think Google got with Motorola, it was lots of engineers and supply chain people. As I said the IP they got was mostly worthless. It is also the same IP they have to HTC, they did not have to buy HTC IP since Google already had access to it as part of Google giving HTC the Motorola IP.
    Huh???
    ronn
  • Reply 76 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    maestro64 said:
    carnegie said:
    I suspect that, from Google's perspective, this is as much about helping HTC remain viable and competing in the Android smartphone market as it is about anything else. A billion dollars represents a huge capital infusion for HTC. And keeping HTC around means a healthier and more diverse Android smartphone market.

    We're talking about a company with a market cap of around $2 billion. It's lost around a half a billion dollars a year for the last 2 fiscal years, and a couple hundred million dollars or so through the first 6 months of this year. Its cash holdings had been dwindling. A billion dollars buys it more time.

    Regarding Google's Motorola acquisition: Google was clear from the outset that a major reason for that acquisition was to help protect the Android platform on legal fronts. Google may or may not have been sincere in its supposed intentions to combine Google and Motorola's respective skills in order to (itself) compete more effectively selling smartphones under the Motorola brand. But even if it was, that was only part of the reason it acquired Motorola. And if it wasn't, it wasn't likely to admit that at the outset; it wasn't likely to disclose that it intended to sell off the Motorola Mobile operation in short order.

    What is clear from Google's SEC filings is that the patents and developed technology that it was acquiring, and not the Motorola Home and Motorola Mobile operations themselves, represented the bulk of the value that Google saw in Motorola. Taking the $2.9 billion in cash it got out of the $12.4 price it paid for Motorola, the patents and developed technology accounted for $5.5 billion of the remaining $9.5 billion valuation. Motorola's ongoing operations weren't valued all that highly. Indeed, Google recognized a net gain on both the sale of Motorola Home and the sale of Motorola Mobile, though there were recognized operational loses (from Motorola Mobile in particular) in the meantime.

    The accounting is tricky, but Google ended up effectively paying around $5 or 6 billion for the Motorola patents which it kept. There are unrealized tax benefits for Google (associated with the acquisition and sale of, in particular, Motorola Home) which could potentially reduce that effective cost, but I'm not fully accounting for them as they are uncertain. Have the patents been, or will they end up being, worth that $5 or 6 billion? I'm not sure But considering their value in the patent wars / negotiations and ongoing licensing revenue, I can believe that they have or will. It's a question that isn't easy to (fairly) answer.
    That statement is not accurate, it was Google Very much interested in the home business first it was make money where you think the $3B came from. Also Motorola home controlled the video delivery technology and IP and we know that Google was trying to get into this market.

    However, comcast and at&t and others petition the government to force Google to sell off the home business. They did not want Google having control over their hardware and software for video content delivery manufacturer.  Google could not have access to any of the home video IP.

    Google really got screwed over all this.
    And another HUH??? Where do you get this stuff from? 
    edited September 2017 ronn
  • Reply 77 of 79
    ronnronn Posts: 336member
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:
    And another HUH??? Where do you get this stuff from? 
    I think it's pulled straight from... nvm  ;)
    revenantwilliamlondon
  • Reply 78 of 79
    maestro64 said:
    carnegie said:
    I suspect that, from Google's perspective, this is as much about helping HTC remain viable and competing in the Android smartphone market as it is about anything else. A billion dollars represents a huge capital infusion for HTC. And keeping HTC around means a healthier and more diverse Android smartphone market.

    We're talking about a company with a market cap of around $2 billion. It's lost around a half a billion dollars a year for the last 2 fiscal years, and a couple hundred million dollars or so through the first 6 months of this year. Its cash holdings had been dwindling. A billion dollars buys it more time.

    Regarding Google's Motorola acquisition: Google was clear from the outset that a major reason for that acquisition was to help protect the Android platform on legal fronts. Google may or may not have been sincere in its supposed intentions to combine Google and Motorola's respective skills in order to (itself) compete more effectively selling smartphones under the Motorola brand. But even if it was, that was only part of the reason it acquired Motorola. And if it wasn't, it wasn't likely to admit that at the outset; it wasn't likely to disclose that it intended to sell off the Motorola Mobile operation in short order.

    What is clear from Google's SEC filings is that the patents and developed technology that it was acquiring, and not the Motorola Home and Motorola Mobile operations themselves, represented the bulk of the value that Google saw in Motorola. Taking the $2.9 billion in cash it got out of the $12.4 price it paid for Motorola, the patents and developed technology accounted for $5.5 billion of the remaining $9.5 billion valuation. Motorola's ongoing operations weren't valued all that highly. Indeed, Google recognized a net gain on both the sale of Motorola Home and the sale of Motorola Mobile, though there were recognized operational loses (from Motorola Mobile in particular) in the meantime.

    The accounting is tricky, but Google ended up effectively paying around $5 or 6 billion for the Motorola patents which it kept. There are unrealized tax benefits for Google (associated with the acquisition and sale of, in particular, Motorola Home) which could potentially reduce that effective cost, but I'm not fully accounting for them as they are uncertain. Have the patents been, or will they end up being, worth that $5 or 6 billion? I'm not sure But considering their value in the patent wars / negotiations and ongoing licensing revenue, I can believe that they have or will. It's a question that isn't easy to (fairly) answer.
    That statement is not accurate, it was Google Very much interested in the home business first it was make money where you think the $3B came from. Also Motorola home controlled the video delivery technology and IP and we know that Google was trying to get into this market.

    However, comcast and at&t and others petition the government to force Google to sell off the home business. They did not want Google having control over their hardware and software for video content delivery manufacturer.  Google could not have access to any of the home video IP.

    Google really got screwed over all this.
    In what way is the part you bold-ed not accurate? That is what Google itself reported. Of the $12.4 billion it paid, the cash it was getting (that Motorola had) was worth $2.9 billion and it valued the patents and developed technology at $5.5 billion.

    I didn't suggest that Google wasn't interested in Motorola's operations. One way or another those operations contributed to the value Google saw in Motorola. If for no other reason, those operations represented assets that could be sold. But the bulk of the value it saw, after taking into account the cash it got which offset a significant portion of the purchase price, came from the patents and developed technology. You make think Google's valuation of that aspect of what it was getting was off, but that is how Google valued it.
  • Reply 79 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    For those that like to keep up with this stuff the deal with HTC just closed in the past couple of days. 
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/google-is-designing-more-in-house-phone-chips-to-take-on-apple
Sign In or Register to comment.