bigmushroom

mjtomlin said:

gunner1954 said:

So, yes,, this could cause embarrassment, and yes, Apple should scan for this misuse of code during the app approval/update process.

This is the main problem I have with this engineer's findings - he failed to mention (or maybe doesn't know) that Apple does look for this misuse, in fact, it's in the damned developer license agreement...

3.3.8 If Your Application makes recordings (including but not limited to an image, picture or voice capture or recording) (collectively “Recordings”), a reasonably conspicuous audio, visual or other indicator must be displayed to the user as part of the Application to indicate that a Recording is taking place.

I think the more interesting question is how Apple (or any other app store) can enforce this policy. Unless they scan the source code at great cost this kind of abuse cannot be reliably discovered.

gatorguy said:

melgross said:

This is all about the money. It’s already been reported that Google will pay Apple $3 billion this year, up from last year.

I don't think so Mel.

There was an analyst mentioned here at AI in an article guessing that Google might have to pay as much as $3B to secure rights. There was no one claiming it as fact to the best of my knowledge. 

Here is the article (one version at least):

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html

I think the more interesting info that I got from that article was that the Google payments are counted as part of service revenue for apple. 

Service revenue was at an annual run-rate of about 16 billion in 2014 and 28 billion now. 

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/17/02/01/see-how-apples-services-revenue-has-grown-steadily-amid-changes-in-other-business-segments

So that's an annual increase of 12 billion. 

Let's assume that it is true that Google pays apple 3 billion a year. In 2014 the paid 1 billion. So of the 12 billion increase 2 billion would be from Google. Let's say the rest is from apps, music etc (10 billion).

Now those 2 billion are pure profit for apple. 

Those remaining 10 billion have some cost especially music licensing etc. So lets say 50 percent is cost. Then the extra profit from services would be 5 billion.

So it's interesting that a significant part of profit increase might be coming from Google payments.

jameskatt2 said:

Soli said:

jameskatt2 said:

This is ENTIRELY GOOGLE's fault.

1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's. 

2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV.  MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.

BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.

I do blame Google for this but can they just include the VP9 codec in the app? I'm under the impression that this isn't allowed with Apple's App Store rules.

There is nothing stopping Google from including the VP9 codec in the app.  

Skype uses a proprietary Microsoft codec for streaming.
NetFlix uses its own codec.
SlingBox uses its own codec.
Plex uses its own codec.

Google is simply trying to hardball Apple into using Google's VP9 codec in Safari. 

Apple will never do this since VP9 is proprietary. MP4 is the standard.

MP4 does require licensing fees - which Google is being cheap about and does not want to pay despite billions in profits.

MP4 is a container format - not a codec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14

Netflix  and others don't use their own codecs - they use H.264, HEVC and VP9 (Netflix uses all 3, for example).

Not sure, what you mean with VP9 being proprietary - it's open sourced with a waver on all patent claims. However, it's not an ITU standard such as HEVC.

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

bigmushroom said:

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gwydion said:

Rayz2016 said:

bigmushroom 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.

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gwydion said:

Rayz2016 said:

bigmushroom 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.