The most fascinating outcome of this is that there is no longer a software pure play in the mobile world. Suddenly, Apple's business model of offering an integrated system (OS + phone), also espoused by RIM and HP, is the far simpler one. Both GOOG and MSFT have rather complicated business models, not to mention conflict of interest.
Many dissed MSFT when they paid over $1B to get Nokia to (happily) give up on Symbian and Meego. But if you ignore the patents (obvious not at all negligible), GOOG paid a far steeper price.
If SJ thinks this is bad, then Apple can put in a counter-bid for more. Goddess knows Apple's sitting on enough cash. Pay Google the $375 million break-up fee and Moto Mobile's shareholders $13,000,000 and everybody's happy (except Google).
Put differently: If Apple doesn't put in a counter-bid, given the capital resources available to Apple, then SJ isn't worried about this and therefore neither should we be.
Paying a 63% premium on a company for patents that are likely to be no help (at least in any offensive way), and at the risk of losing all your partners, is a move that just reeks of desperation. Whether it works or not, this is definitely not a well thought out play by a reasonable company in control of it's direction IMO.
The other big takeaway for me (and I think for a lot of the general public), is simply that this is the last nail in the coffin of respectability for Google. There is simply no way that they can ever play that game of maintaining that they are different, or more moral, or not as evil as all the other companies. This is a thoroughly grasping, self-serving, *sshole move that makes Apple look like Angels in comparison. It makes Google look nastier than Microsoft IMO and I think the general public will see it that way too.
A good portion of the Android-ites will feel stabbed in the back. Hippies and tech geeks around the world will do yet another double-take and wonder whether they've hitched their wagon to the wrong horse again.
This is a thoroughly grasping, self-serving, *sshole move that makes Apple look like Angels in comparison. It makes Google look nastier than Microsoft IMO and I think the general public will see it that way too.
Why on earth would anyone without Apple blinkers on see it that way? A company acquires another ot protects it's investment and that's evil? An **hole move? Self-serving?
How many companies has apple acquired this year? They bought Wi-Gear in November, Siri, Poly9. MS bought Skype and more.
That's a ridiculous comment, and sounds fearful to be honest.
I wonder if Motorola Mobility has any patents that will protect Google against Oracle's lawsuit. If Oracle derails Android, Google's purchase of MMI is really going to look expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
That's a big fly in the ointment.
Yes! Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android... then what would Google do -- they certainly won't be allowed to buy RIMM
This expensive purchase might make good sense if it were part of some well-thought-out, long-term strategy. But it feels more like an impulsive response to the big recent patent deal. Such a move may look bold and decisive, but to me it seems to reflect a lack of corporate focus.
... and this is the other side of the coin.
Google's youth may have just cost it big time. Arrogance and naiveté playing hand in hand. Google has shown in the past and present that it believes it is above the laws of business, firm in its belief that they can achieve things that other businesses couldn't and in ways that other businesses couldn't.
Google revealed on Monday that it will buy handset maker Motorola Mobility, giving the search giant an entrance into the hardware business and allowing it to compete with Apple more directly by building devices tailored specifically for its Android mobile operating system. [...]
Change "compete with" to "copy" in the above sentence. Boom: Google's Android business model.
Dear Android partners, we at Google are very happy to see that you've now made your entire businesses dependent on our free and open platform, and we are thrilled to see how the competition between you has shaved your profits on Android hardware down to 5%. It is this great effort of yours which has made Android the worlds leading mobile platform in under two years. Thanks for your help, we could never have done this alone. Today we have some interesting news for you however: We are going to compete directly against you with our own Android hardware!
Now that's what we call open!
PS: Guess who's gonna get first dips on new versions of Android and Google apps from now on *lol*
PPS: Hey, we did tell you anyone could use Android to build handsets, remember? ;-) Cheer up!
Yes! Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android... then what would Google do -- they certainly won't be allowed to buy RIMM
Chrome OS is there as Google's "Plan B." They know Android is doomed, and spewing $12 billion on Motorola Mobility is their last resort. As in "We hope the judge will be lenient because we're just too big to die. Aren't we? Yay open!"
Yes! Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android... then what would Google do -- they certainly won't be allowed to buy RIMM
Actually it turns out that this can't happen, or at the very least can't happen easily. After we both brought up the idea in a different thread I did some research and it turns out that apart from the Linux portions, Android is mostly under the Apache license.
The Apache license contains a specific provision whereby if you assert patents against the code so licensed, you immediately lose your access to it. So Oracle has no ability to use even the open sourced Android versions such as Froyo - as it has asserted patents against them.
Oracle may end up in the situation where it is the main financial beneficiary of Android, but it can never take control of the platform without Google's consent.
Maybe this will allow Google to address some of the interface lag seen in Android handsets. If they have the hardware and the software they have not excuse for this. I don't know what Apple and Microsoft did right about their interfaces and touchscreens. I just know that iOS and WP7 have interfaces that are extremely responsive compared to any of the Android phones I've seen, even the Nexus phones.
Dear Android partners, [...] Today we have some interesting news for you: We are now going to compete directly against you with our own Android phones and tablets! [...]
Wow. Didn't Microsoft do something like this when they were still blindly flailing around with Zune? I seem to recall that there was a Plays For Sure DRM alliance that Microsoft hyped in a last-ditch effort to catch up to iPod. And I seem to recall that Microsoft changed their mind one day and killed off all their hardware partners' products. And Zune still failed miserably.
Or maybe it was just a bad dream. I mean, could any technology firm operating in the 21st century be that stupid?
Any parent company acquiring a target company will fall in its share price because of consideration given to the target company, in this case $12.5 Billion.
Its part of business. It applies to all companies.
Depends. If they provide these patents to all of their partners for use in their Android products, none of them are going to complain too much. If they hold them tight, then yeah, their partners are going to revolt.
Wouldn't it be anti-competitive to give away IP to all but one company?
Apple is able to pay fair market value on the IP once the IP is considered on the market... correct?
It is one thing for a company to not license out their technology, but once they start licensing to other companies for $x dollars, don't other companies get to pay the fair market value?
Would Google be allowed to freely license their IP to all but Apple?
Wouldn't it be anti-competitive to give away IP to all but one company?
Apple is able to pay fair market value on the IP once the IP is considered on the market... correct?
It is one thing for a company to not license out their technology, but once they start licensing to other companies for $x dollars, don't other companies get to pay the fair market value?
Would Google be allowed to freely license their IP to all but Apple?
Maybe they would... I don't know.
Add the needed patents to the Open Handset Alliance agreement. Then all Apple has to do is join up to get the benefits.
Google has no interest in the hardware. This is why they are clear that moto will be run as a separate entity. Of course the patents will be transferred to google en masse. I don't think goog will even care if moto runs themselves out of business or maybe they will sell the corpse, sans patents, to an interested partner for the manufacturing and engineering experience that google has no interest in.
Maybe. But Google is an incredibly aggressive company with a culture of manifest superiority. They regard themselves as the smartest people in the room, always.
Given that, are they really going to be able to keep their hands off how Motorola designs and delivers phones? Andy Rubin now has a captive hardware design and manufacturing outfit to play with. Is he really going to just deliver the OS like always, or is he going to be interested in getting his hands into the Moto process, the better to deliver the best phone possible? And if he gets his hands into the Moto process, how long before Google starts making "improvements"? After all, Google people are going to encounter Moto people and you have to figure that the Google people are going to consider a lot of them old and second rate, because that's how Google rolls. Do you think they'll just shrug and let them do their thing? Or will they start "suggesting" some key personal to kick things up a notch?
Moto is decidedly old school compared to Google's model of übermenschen remaking the world in their own image. I really can't see things being left as they are, protests about patents and separate companies notwithstanding.
Maybe. But Google is an incredibly aggressive company with a culture of manifest superiority. They regard themselves as the smartest people in the room, always.
Given that, are they really going to be able to keep their hands off how Motorola designs and delivers phones? Andy Rubin now has a captive hardware design and manufacturing outfit to play with. Is he really going to just deliver the OS like always, or is he going to be interested in getting his hands into the Moto process, the better to deliver the best phone possible? And if he gets his hands into the Moto process, how long before Google starts making "improvements"? After all, Google people are going to encounter Moto people and you have to figure that the Google people are going to consider a lot of them old and second rate, because that's how Google rolls. Do you think they'll just shrug and let them do their thing? Or will they start "suggesting" some key personal to kick things up a notch?
Moto is decidedly old school compared to Google's model of übermenschen remaking the world in their own image. I really can't see things being left as they are, protests about patents and separate companies notwithstanding.
Could well be that is how things play out. For now, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that is the intent. Seems there would have been cheaper alternatives if what they wanted was to get into the hardware game.
Maybe this will allow Google to address some of the interface lag seen in Android handsets. If they have the hardware and the software they have not excuse for this. I don't know what Apple and Microsoft did right about their interfaces and touchscreens. I just know that iOS and WP7 have interfaces that are extremely responsive compared to any of the Android phones I've seen, even the Nexus phones.
And this is where I see problems between Google and its other handset partners. It's true that keeping other OEM's from using android would be a disincentive for Google, but that doesn't mean that any hardware/software optimizations need to be shared. In that scenario, Motorola would soon become THE android phone to buy because it works better than the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78
Wouldn't it be anti-competitive to give away IP to all but one company?
Apple is able to pay fair market value on the IP once the IP is considered on the market... correct?
It is one thing for a company to not license out their technology, but once they start licensing to other companies for $x dollars, don't other companies get to pay the fair market value?
Would Google be allowed to freely license their IP to all but Apple?
Maybe they would... I don't know.
Actually, unless the IP becomes standardized, a company can choose who and who not to license and for how much on a case by case basis.
Comments
Many dissed MSFT when they paid over $1B to get Nokia to (happily) give up on Symbian and Meego. But if you ignore the patents (obvious not at all negligible), GOOG paid a far steeper price.
Put differently: If Apple doesn't put in a counter-bid, given the capital resources available to Apple, then SJ isn't worried about this and therefore neither should we be.
I'm glad someone finally noticed this.
Paying a 63% premium on a company for patents that are likely to be no help (at least in any offensive way), and at the risk of losing all your partners, is a move that just reeks of desperation. Whether it works or not, this is definitely not a well thought out play by a reasonable company in control of it's direction IMO.
The other big takeaway for me (and I think for a lot of the general public), is simply that this is the last nail in the coffin of respectability for Google. There is simply no way that they can ever play that game of maintaining that they are different, or more moral, or not as evil as all the other companies. This is a thoroughly grasping, self-serving, *sshole move that makes Apple look like Angels in comparison. It makes Google look nastier than Microsoft IMO and I think the general public will see it that way too.
A good portion of the Android-ites will feel stabbed in the back. Hippies and tech geeks around the world will do yet another double-take and wonder whether they've hitched their wagon to the wrong horse again.
This is a thoroughly grasping, self-serving, *sshole move that makes Apple look like Angels in comparison. It makes Google look nastier than Microsoft IMO and I think the general public will see it that way too.
Why on earth would anyone without Apple blinkers on see it that way? A company acquires another ot protects it's investment and that's evil? An **hole move? Self-serving?
How many companies has apple acquired this year? They bought Wi-Gear in November, Siri, Poly9. MS bought Skype and more.
That's a ridiculous comment, and sounds fearful to be honest.
How did the authorities let this pass?
Wow, you manage to cram a lot of wrongness in only 7 words.
I wonder if Motorola Mobility has any patents that will protect Google against Oracle's lawsuit. If Oracle derails Android, Google's purchase of MMI is really going to look expensive.
That's a big fly in the ointment.
Yes! Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android... then what would Google do -- they certainly won't be allowed to buy RIMM
This expensive purchase might make good sense if it were part of some well-thought-out, long-term strategy. But it feels more like an impulsive response to the big recent patent deal. Such a move may look bold and decisive, but to me it seems to reflect a lack of corporate focus.
... and this is the other side of the coin.
Google's youth may have just cost it big time. Arrogance and naiveté playing hand in hand. Google has shown in the past and present that it believes it is above the laws of business, firm in its belief that they can achieve things that other businesses couldn't and in ways that other businesses couldn't.
Maybe Google is about to get burned big time.
Time will tell.
Google revealed on Monday that it will buy handset maker Motorola Mobility, giving the search giant an entrance into the hardware business and allowing it to compete with Apple more directly by building devices tailored specifically for its Android mobile operating system. [...]
Change "compete with" to "copy" in the above sentence. Boom: Google's Android business model.
Now that's what we call open!
PS: Guess who's gonna get first dips on new versions of Android and Google apps from now on *lol*
PPS: Hey, we did tell you anyone could use Android to build handsets, remember? ;-) Cheer up!
Peace out, Larry
Don't be evil indeed.
Yes! Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android... then what would Google do -- they certainly won't be allowed to buy RIMM
Chrome OS is there as Google's "Plan B." They know Android is doomed, and spewing $12 billion on Motorola Mobility is their last resort. As in "We hope the judge will be lenient because we're just too big to die. Aren't we? Yay open!"
Yes! Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android... then what would Google do -- they certainly won't be allowed to buy RIMM
Actually it turns out that this can't happen, or at the very least can't happen easily. After we both brought up the idea in a different thread I did some research and it turns out that apart from the Linux portions, Android is mostly under the Apache license.
The Apache license contains a specific provision whereby if you assert patents against the code so licensed, you immediately lose your access to it. So Oracle has no ability to use even the open sourced Android versions such as Froyo - as it has asserted patents against them.
Oracle may end up in the situation where it is the main financial beneficiary of Android, but it can never take control of the platform without Google's consent.
Dear Android partners, [...] Today we have some interesting news for you: We are now going to compete directly against you with our own Android phones and tablets! [...]
Wow. Didn't Microsoft do something like this when they were still blindly flailing around with Zune? I seem to recall that there was a Plays For Sure DRM alliance that Microsoft hyped in a last-ditch effort to catch up to iPod. And I seem to recall that Microsoft changed their mind one day and killed off all their hardware partners' products. And Zune still failed miserably.
Or maybe it was just a bad dream. I mean, could any technology firm operating in the 21st century be that stupid?
mmi +56.93%
goog - 0.99%
aapl + 1.81%
Any parent company acquiring a target company will fall in its share price because of consideration given to the target company, in this case $12.5 Billion.
Its part of business. It applies to all companies.
Depends. If they provide these patents to all of their partners for use in their Android products, none of them are going to complain too much. If they hold them tight, then yeah, their partners are going to revolt.
Wouldn't it be anti-competitive to give away IP to all but one company?
Apple is able to pay fair market value on the IP once the IP is considered on the market... correct?
It is one thing for a company to not license out their technology, but once they start licensing to other companies for $x dollars, don't other companies get to pay the fair market value?
Would Google be allowed to freely license their IP to all but Apple?
Maybe they would... I don't know.
Wouldn't it be anti-competitive to give away IP to all but one company?
Apple is able to pay fair market value on the IP once the IP is considered on the market... correct?
It is one thing for a company to not license out their technology, but once they start licensing to other companies for $x dollars, don't other companies get to pay the fair market value?
Would Google be allowed to freely license their IP to all but Apple?
Maybe they would... I don't know.
Add the needed patents to the Open Handset Alliance agreement. Then all Apple has to do is join up to get the benefits.
Google has no interest in the hardware. This is why they are clear that moto will be run as a separate entity. Of course the patents will be transferred to google en masse. I don't think goog will even care if moto runs themselves out of business or maybe they will sell the corpse, sans patents, to an interested partner for the manufacturing and engineering experience that google has no interest in.
Maybe. But Google is an incredibly aggressive company with a culture of manifest superiority. They regard themselves as the smartest people in the room, always.
Given that, are they really going to be able to keep their hands off how Motorola designs and delivers phones? Andy Rubin now has a captive hardware design and manufacturing outfit to play with. Is he really going to just deliver the OS like always, or is he going to be interested in getting his hands into the Moto process, the better to deliver the best phone possible? And if he gets his hands into the Moto process, how long before Google starts making "improvements"? After all, Google people are going to encounter Moto people and you have to figure that the Google people are going to consider a lot of them old and second rate, because that's how Google rolls. Do you think they'll just shrug and let them do their thing? Or will they start "suggesting" some key personal to kick things up a notch?
Moto is decidedly old school compared to Google's model of übermenschen remaking the world in their own image. I really can't see things being left as they are, protests about patents and separate companies notwithstanding.
Maybe. But Google is an incredibly aggressive company with a culture of manifest superiority. They regard themselves as the smartest people in the room, always.
Given that, are they really going to be able to keep their hands off how Motorola designs and delivers phones? Andy Rubin now has a captive hardware design and manufacturing outfit to play with. Is he really going to just deliver the OS like always, or is he going to be interested in getting his hands into the Moto process, the better to deliver the best phone possible? And if he gets his hands into the Moto process, how long before Google starts making "improvements"? After all, Google people are going to encounter Moto people and you have to figure that the Google people are going to consider a lot of them old and second rate, because that's how Google rolls. Do you think they'll just shrug and let them do their thing? Or will they start "suggesting" some key personal to kick things up a notch?
Moto is decidedly old school compared to Google's model of übermenschen remaking the world in their own image. I really can't see things being left as they are, protests about patents and separate companies notwithstanding.
Could well be that is how things play out. For now, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that is the intent. Seems there would have been cheaper alternatives if what they wanted was to get into the hardware game.
Maybe this will allow Google to address some of the interface lag seen in Android handsets. If they have the hardware and the software they have not excuse for this. I don't know what Apple and Microsoft did right about their interfaces and touchscreens. I just know that iOS and WP7 have interfaces that are extremely responsive compared to any of the Android phones I've seen, even the Nexus phones.
And this is where I see problems between Google and its other handset partners. It's true that keeping other OEM's from using android would be a disincentive for Google, but that doesn't mean that any hardware/software optimizations need to be shared. In that scenario, Motorola would soon become THE android phone to buy because it works better than the others.
Wouldn't it be anti-competitive to give away IP to all but one company?
Apple is able to pay fair market value on the IP once the IP is considered on the market... correct?
It is one thing for a company to not license out their technology, but once they start licensing to other companies for $x dollars, don't other companies get to pay the fair market value?
Would Google be allowed to freely license their IP to all but Apple?
Maybe they would... I don't know.
Actually, unless the IP becomes standardized, a company can choose who and who not to license and for how much on a case by case basis.