And at the rate Motorola is burning thru cash, that won't last very long. Motorola is up against not only Apple and Nokia, but also Samsung and LG (and possibly HP, if they ever get their act together). All of them are larger, with better balance sheets.
Oh the cash would have lasted for several years at present rates, even at the rate that they lost over the last two quarters it still would have taken 12 years. Moto wasn't a success by any stretch but neither were they bleeding to death fast - it was more of a slow drip of failure.
They'd been treading water for years and they seemed quite able to continue to do so. There was no urgent need for them to sell their patents for a quick buck and indeed Jha's recent comments could be parsed as a public refusal to do so.
Sheesh, there is a lot of assumptions (realistic and unrealistic) in this thread regarding Google's intent (that goes against their exact words), OEMs responses (despite them being elated by this news - news which backs up Google's previous claims that it'll protect it's OEMs) and the future of Android.
Google may be iffy and all and being a publicly traded company I trust them as much as I trust any politician but they still have a certain style of doing things.
This reminds me of people saying Google would sue everyone if they won the Nortel (or Norvell...or both) patents despite Google having a very absent record when it comes to being on a patent offensive.
Time will tell, and this is all interesting news...I'd rather they not get into the Hardware business and I doubt they will.
Now if they'd fix Android a bit more....just polish it and offer better templates for app devs so making an beautiful app becomes a norm (easy to do) not a triumph (more time consuming though possible)
Sheesh, there is a lot of assumptions (realistic and unrealistic) in this thread regarding Google's intent (that goes against their exact words), OEMs responses (despite them being elated by this news - news which backs up Google's previous claims that it'll protect it's OEMs) and the future of Android.
Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.
First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, now they want to raise the "victim of conspiracy against Google" card again by saying that's why they have to acquire Motorola. Poor, victimized Google. They're not the underdog here, people. Their smartphone platform dominates and yet they dare play the victim.
They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.
I don't think you can equate using Google Services with trusting Google. They do some things very well -- and it would be self-defeating not to use those services.
But trust... No!
I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.
First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, . .
No they weren't, but that's a common misunderstanding.
Microsoft did ask if they were interested in joining them in some sort of partnership arrangement for the NOVELL patents purchased last year. But there's no claim they were welcome to join the Rockstar group headed by Apple/Microsoft for the Nortel patent bid.
what are all the Moto-Blur software developers going to do? I have a feeling a lot of software engineers on Moto side will get the boot? Or maybe GOOG might be nice enough to take them under their wing. Lets see how this plays out. I'm extremely excited about this news though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
We don't even have an announcement that Moto is going to kill Moto Blur with this merger, though certainly there will be great jubilation in the Android community if Moto promises to abjure hideous reskins in future and stick with stock android.
Interesting observation - what will happen to MotoBlur? The *stock* android UI needs to step up in order to be appealing to the masses who crave easy access to social media and other like apps.
I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.
I don't claim to know how others feel about Google -- or whether they trust them.
I suspect the majority of the population knows and cares little about how Google operates -- they simply use their services.
However, it is not uncommon to use a service where no equal or better alternative is available -- that does not mean one trusts the provider -- rather, that it was the best (or only) alternative available.
I believe, I originally asked if anyone trusts Google? You responded that millions used their services.
A poor analog, I know... But, millions of people used the services of the East German Government -- but I doubt if many trusted them.
Like many, I take what I see on TV, read, hear, see on the Internet with healthy skepticism... as do you, I suspect!
After all it's what people do that defines them -- not what they say.
IMO, Google has a very bad record of doing unethical things -- I don't trust them!
But this surely will not hold up Apple one bit. If the patents were being infringed Motorola is trying hard to stick it to Apple in the courts now.
Maybe Google has better Lawyers.
More than anything. Once the Samsungs and HTC's start jumping ship to Microsoft, this will give Google one company that is their very own.
All in all, the biggest losers will be Google. That is one big chunk of change.
Not necessarily.
I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.
But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.
So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.
Andy Rubin is decidedly smart, accomplished ... when it comes to software. But what's his background and track record when it comes to hardware design? Even if we assume he had a big say in the design of the Sidekick at Danger, it was nothing remarkable (although, in terms of function, the product arguably helped to usher in the smartphone era).
Rubin already has had chances to influence if not control the design of Android phones in the Nexus reference series. Although each Nexus phone has been interesting and ahead of previous Droids, none has been groundbreaking or a standout. This is not surprising - Andy Rubin is not Steve Jobs. He is not Jonathan Ive. (Of course, they are not Andy Rubin either.) There is something special about the Apple culture built by Jobs that leads to the unique products that it generates. Jon Rubenstein took a bit of that magic with him to Palm, resulting in the distinctive Pre and WebOS. Neither Google nor Motorola has that kind of culture. Merging them will not produce it. This is no slag on either, for both are very good at what they do.
All to say, I expect to see improvement in the integration of hardware and software as a result of this merger, but I don't expect landscape shifting changes in the hardware.
This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.
I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.
If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.
First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, now they want to raise the "victim of conspiracy against Google" card again by saying that's why they have to acquire Motorola. Poor, victimized Google. They're not the underdog here, people. Their smartphone platform dominates and yet they dare play the victim.
They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.
And we didn't land on the moon, the government is well aware of Aliens LIVING AMONGST US!!! JFK was assassinated by a second gunman and "add-your-own-conspiracy-here"
In reality Google was quite clear on why they said no to the offer to join the consortium and lie or not, their reasoning makes sense...funny how you forgot to mention that as I'm sure it was in the same article as them saying "No" to the consortium...fancy that...something tells me you are being willfully ignorant.
As for playing the underdog? doubtful...they are not...what they are doing is building up a shield against the ever increasing litigation against their platform OEMs...which...ummm...is...uhhh...logical? smart? a duh moment? something they expressed interest in for maybe a year or more now?
We live in a 'facebook' world now. One cannot stay anonymous to your connected devices. All devices are tracked. Its the new reality. Its how said company uses your personal data is whats important. I am personally not 'afraid' of being tracked by Google.
Carriers track your location
ISP's track how much bandwidth you use
Facebook monitors what you like and dislike, and sells your personal information to 3rd party entities
Your credit score and finances can be checked through various online resources
Websites have been tracking your internet surfing habits for years through cookies
The list goes on...
This whole notion of 'Google gonna control your life' is a weak argument.
I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.
That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.
Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.
The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.
Definitely...it's that kind of die-hard conviction to any set of information (True or not) that leads to riots, lynching, etc...it's a mob mentality and while it is prevalent on all sides the Apple side is scary.
Based on my time on Android blogs and Apple blogs, iPhanboys and fandroids are as different as Fundamentalist Muslims and "militant" Atheists respectively.
I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.
That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.
Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.
The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
Serious question...what is your point?
You said alot, but you really made no point and seem to be trying to drum up a scare tactic rather than make a solid point.
Google is no greater of however many evils...Google is a multinational corporation out to make a profit.
Like Apple, Like Facebook, Like Microsoft, etc...etc...
I don't see how they are possibly worse aside from either overexaggerated or in some cases straight up made up details a la Microsoft's "Gmail Man" commercials.
I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.
That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.
Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.
The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you in as much detail as knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.
Sadly, this is the way the internet is going. I do not like it either, but say goodbye to 'anonymity' online. It looks as though this is standard protocol now.
The moment you are online, your presence is compromised. The facebook world we live in does not show an alternative.
Even on Google+, its mandatory to use a 'real name.' Obviously this is done to monetize you, the individual, into the Google platform/ecosystem.
If one is worried about these developments, I wonder why these same people go nuts over the patriot act, yet expose their personal information through facebook.
This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.
I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.
If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.
I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.
Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.
Comments
And at the rate Motorola is burning thru cash, that won't last very long. Motorola is up against not only Apple and Nokia, but also Samsung and LG (and possibly HP, if they ever get their act together). All of them are larger, with better balance sheets.
Oh the cash would have lasted for several years at present rates, even at the rate that they lost over the last two quarters it still would have taken 12 years. Moto wasn't a success by any stretch but neither were they bleeding to death fast - it was more of a slow drip of failure.
They'd been treading water for years and they seemed quite able to continue to do so. There was no urgent need for them to sell their patents for a quick buck and indeed Jha's recent comments could be parsed as a public refusal to do so.
And one Google to rule them all.......
I can't imagine anything online that's scarier.
One Microsoft to rule them all? It would be just like one Google to rule them all but with worse services
Google may be iffy and all and being a publicly traded company I trust them as much as I trust any politician but they still have a certain style of doing things.
This reminds me of people saying Google would sue everyone if they won the Nortel (or Norvell...or both) patents despite Google having a very absent record when it comes to being on a patent offensive.
Time will tell, and this is all interesting news...I'd rather they not get into the Hardware business and I doubt they will.
Now if they'd fix Android a bit more....just polish it and offer better templates for app devs so making an beautiful app becomes a norm (easy to do) not a triumph (more time consuming though possible)
As a tech enthusiast, I'm STOKED!
Are all of those Motorola Mobility products? Or do they include products made by other divisions too?
Are all of those Motorola Mobility products? Or do they include products made by other divisions too?
all that is part of Motorola Mobility Inc.
If you scroll down to bottom of page, you'll see it.
Sheesh, there is a lot of assumptions (realistic and unrealistic) in this thread regarding Google's intent (that goes against their exact words), OEMs responses (despite them being elated by this news - news which backs up Google's previous claims that it'll protect it's OEMs) and the future of Android.
Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.
They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.
I don't think you can equate using Google Services with trusting Google. They do some things very well -- and it would be self-defeating not to use those services.
But trust... No!
I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.
First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, . .
No they weren't, but that's a common misunderstanding.
Microsoft did ask if they were interested in joining them in some sort of partnership arrangement for the NOVELL patents purchased last year. But there's no claim they were welcome to join the Rockstar group headed by Apple/Microsoft for the Nortel patent bid.
what are all the Moto-Blur software developers going to do? I have a feeling a lot of software engineers on Moto side will get the boot? Or maybe GOOG might be nice enough to take them under their wing. Lets see how this plays out. I'm extremely excited about this news though.
We don't even have an announcement that Moto is going to kill Moto Blur with this merger, though certainly there will be great jubilation in the Android community if Moto promises to abjure hideous reskins in future and stick with stock android.
Interesting observation - what will happen to MotoBlur? The *stock* android UI needs to step up in order to be appealing to the masses who crave easy access to social media and other like apps.
I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.
I don't claim to know how others feel about Google -- or whether they trust them.
I suspect the majority of the population knows and cares little about how Google operates -- they simply use their services.
However, it is not uncommon to use a service where no equal or better alternative is available -- that does not mean one trusts the provider -- rather, that it was the best (or only) alternative available.
I believe, I originally asked if anyone trusts Google? You responded that millions used their services.
A poor analog, I know... But, millions of people used the services of the East German Government -- but I doubt if many trusted them.
Like many, I take what I see on TV, read, hear, see on the Internet with healthy skepticism... as do you, I suspect!
After all it's what people do that defines them -- not what they say.
IMO, Google has a very bad record of doing unethical things -- I don't trust them!
Who does trust Google?
Do you?
Google probably did buy Moto for their patents.
But this surely will not hold up Apple one bit. If the patents were being infringed Motorola is trying hard to stick it to Apple in the courts now.
Maybe Google has better Lawyers.
More than anything. Once the Samsungs and HTC's start jumping ship to Microsoft, this will give Google one company that is their very own.
All in all, the biggest losers will be Google. That is one big chunk of change.
Not necessarily.
I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.
But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.
So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.
Interesting perspective. But I disagree.
Andy Rubin is decidedly smart, accomplished ... when it comes to software. But what's his background and track record when it comes to hardware design? Even if we assume he had a big say in the design of the Sidekick at Danger, it was nothing remarkable (although, in terms of function, the product arguably helped to usher in the smartphone era).
Rubin already has had chances to influence if not control the design of Android phones in the Nexus reference series. Although each Nexus phone has been interesting and ahead of previous Droids, none has been groundbreaking or a standout. This is not surprising - Andy Rubin is not Steve Jobs. He is not Jonathan Ive. (Of course, they are not Andy Rubin either.) There is something special about the Apple culture built by Jobs that leads to the unique products that it generates. Jon Rubenstein took a bit of that magic with him to Palm, resulting in the distinctive Pre and WebOS. Neither Google nor Motorola has that kind of culture. Merging them will not produce it. This is no slag on either, for both are very good at what they do.
All to say, I expect to see improvement in the integration of hardware and software as a result of this merger, but I don't expect landscape shifting changes in the hardware.
This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.
I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.
If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.
First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, now they want to raise the "victim of conspiracy against Google" card again by saying that's why they have to acquire Motorola. Poor, victimized Google. They're not the underdog here, people. Their smartphone platform dominates and yet they dare play the victim.
They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.
And we didn't land on the moon, the government is well aware of Aliens LIVING AMONGST US!!! JFK was assassinated by a second gunman and "add-your-own-conspiracy-here"
In reality Google was quite clear on why they said no to the offer to join the consortium and lie or not, their reasoning makes sense...funny how you forgot to mention that as I'm sure it was in the same article as them saying "No" to the consortium...fancy that...something tells me you are being willfully ignorant.
As for playing the underdog? doubtful...they are not...what they are doing is building up a shield against the ever increasing litigation against their platform OEMs...which...ummm...is...uhhh...logical? smart? a duh moment? something they expressed interest in for maybe a year or more now?
try harder.
you say 'controlling' i say 'fully integrated'
We live in a 'facebook' world now. One cannot stay anonymous to your connected devices. All devices are tracked. Its the new reality. Its how said company uses your personal data is whats important. I am personally not 'afraid' of being tracked by Google.
Carriers track your location
ISP's track how much bandwidth you use
Facebook monitors what you like and dislike, and sells your personal information to 3rd party entities
Your credit score and finances can be checked through various online resources
Websites have been tracking your internet surfing habits for years through cookies
The list goes on...
This whole notion of 'Google gonna control your life' is a weak argument.
I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.
That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.
Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.
The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.
Definitely...it's that kind of die-hard conviction to any set of information (True or not) that leads to riots, lynching, etc...it's a mob mentality and while it is prevalent on all sides the Apple side is scary.
Based on my time on Android blogs and Apple blogs, iPhanboys and fandroids are as different as Fundamentalist Muslims and "militant" Atheists respectively.
No, they didn't bought Motorola because of building Andriod Devices or making hardware etc. They brought Moto because of their HUGE patents portfolio.
I have always called for Apple to acquire Moto. They have a gigantic no. of patents relating to Tele communication, much more then Nortel or Nokia.
Give this man a cigar!
Many of Motorola's wireless/wifi patents are quite old, I would guess.
Not sure how much longer they can put a wall around them.
I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.
That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.
Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.
The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
Serious question...what is your point?
You said alot, but you really made no point and seem to be trying to drum up a scare tactic rather than make a solid point.
Google is no greater of however many evils...Google is a multinational corporation out to make a profit.
Like Apple, Like Facebook, Like Microsoft, etc...etc...
I don't see how they are possibly worse aside from either overexaggerated or in some cases straight up made up details a la Microsoft's "Gmail Man" commercials.
I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.
That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.
Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.
The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you in as much detail as knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.
Sadly, this is the way the internet is going. I do not like it either, but say goodbye to 'anonymity' online. It looks as though this is standard protocol now.
The moment you are online, your presence is compromised. The facebook world we live in does not show an alternative.
Even on Google+, its mandatory to use a 'real name.' Obviously this is done to monetize you, the individual, into the Google platform/ecosystem.
If one is worried about these developments, I wonder why these same people go nuts over the patriot act, yet expose their personal information through facebook.
This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.
I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.
If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.
I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.
Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.