Google to acquire Motorola Mobility

Intresting and overlooked fact about the Motorola Mobility purchase is that this not only included phones but set top boxes, A field we all know Google wants to get its hands on(See Google TV).

Motorola Mobility as a company only started this year, which again makes me think this is all part of a game-plan somewhere.

Example: Google and other OEM, including Motorola had a meeting saying they need to transfer patients so that we can defend Android. Motorola wanted to do this but would not be allowed by DOJ to do a strait transfer without opening bids for other companies. So out comes a split, couple of month later they recon time is right for the move and Mr CEO makes a speech that drops the share price. This allowed for Google to snap up the company before other people knew what hit them.

I mean, if you spend 12 Billion dollars, you have to get past so much red tape its not funny, there is just no way this could have been done within the 3 days it all took place.
 
Arthur said:
As an aside, there's so much prattling about "open source" advantage for Android. What is that exactly? I've never seen anyone actually spell out how being "open source" helps anything at all, other than a bit of ideological glow. Apps development any easier, better, smoother, more abundant? Nope. Hardware homologation? Nope. Hardware standardisation? Nope.

Seems to be more a question of what you're against ("closed source") than what you're for, hardly a recipe for long-term success and ongoing investment. So where's the beef with "open source"? Just asking.

The more I think about Google's Motorola bid the more I think it's a big mid-term mistake for them.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you not still working for Microsoft? I mean come on, even Microsoft use the Open Source model to benefit them. See the Microsoft additions to the Linux kernel in order to better support there OS's in a virtual environment.

Android is not just open for OEM's to include into their products but its also open for chip manufacturers to generate support for their products.

Actually just click http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=benefits+of+open+source an read a bit.
 
Arthur's question about the beef is a good one.

We've often debated on this forum about Google's Castle and the moat role Android is playing. Android is not making them money (beef) but is a moat to protect their other business interests. For Apple and MS their mobile OS's (and in Apple's case the hardware that goes with it) are key income generators. For Apple it accounts for 2/3 of income. Google, we are told, bought Moto for the patents in order to protect the moat ... a moat around the moat. Where's the beef? For Google it's in advertising and information, not Android.
 
Actually I should answer with a question:

If Open Source is so crap, why do people like Microsoft and Apple spend so much money and effort trying to kill it off, why dont they just rely on there supposedly superior models and products?
 
Elimentals said:
Actually I should answer with a question:

If Open Source is so crap, why do people like Microsoft and Apple spend so much money and effort trying to kill it off, why dont they just rely on there supposedly superior models and products?
Click to expand...

They're not trying to kill open source because it is real competition for their products. They attack the companies behind it, companies like Google that use it as moats. Losing business to Google because of Android hurts. As I explained earlier the other companies make their money from their OS's and hardware. Google's open source Android is only there to protect Google. In Apple and MS's minds any money looting nuisance must be eliminated. It's not about killing a superior or even equal contending OS.
 
If I was the CEO of Samsung, HTC or LG I will steer the ship away from Android now. That is why MS should not buy Nokia now but rather be more accommodating to these OEM's.
 
MS should now give all their WP OEM's the same rights as it gives Nokia. Make sure all are equal. That is the way for MS to gain market share.
 
BeVonk! said:
MS should now give all their WP OEM's the same rights as it gives Nokia. Make sure all are equal. That is the way for MS to gain market share.
Click to expand...
From their perspective but not in the other direction. Every OEM will want to have a better deal than everyone else and if they're treated exactly the same, they can't get any competitive advantage.
 
jannievanzyl said:
From their perspective but not in the other direction. Every OEM will want to have a better deal than everyone else and if they're treated exactly the same, they can't get any competitive advantage.
Click to expand...

They should all have the same rights to the OS, and MS should consider allowing OEM's more freedom of expression using the OS else there will be nothing to differentiate offerings. The fear is that Nokia will be allowed more freedom inside the OS. That must be corrected. All equal with same freedom of expression. Let the company that produces the best version of WP phones win. This is a challenge for MS and I get the idea they are unsure where to take this. Vertical or horizontal? Draadsitters are always losers.
 
Do google get money from product bought from the market? I meanif they get a percentage that would be meat, wouldn't it?
 
phoneJunky said:
Do google get money from product bought from the market? I meanif they get a percentage that would be meat, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I've bought no apps for my Galaxy S2 to date. No need to do so. All the things I need I got for free. Google not in it for the money ... not yet anyway.
 
Elimentals said:
Actually I should answer with a question:

If Open Source is so crap, why do people like Microsoft and Apple spend so much money and effort trying to kill it off, why dont they just rely on there supposedly superior models and products?
Click to expand...

Did anyone in this thread say open source was crap?

Since when is Apple trying to kill open source?
 
No-one's saying open source is crap. I use open source stuff, but not because it's open source but because it does a spot of work for me. I'm totally agnostic about the issue. I would venture that's probably true for most people other than ideological purists, but I've never actually done a comprehensive market survey, so it's just a hunch.

Arthur Goldstuck's view that Microsoft should/will now buy Nokia is quite mistaken - at least when it comes to the Microsoft I know (and the same people I know still run it). The company has always been very clear internally about what its business is, and just as important, what it isn't. (Xbox is an interesting discusion.)

As to giving all IHVs "equal access" to WP7: you've got to be very granular just what "equal" and "access" mean. At a certain level - ability to licence the same code base, for example - they already have that. But if you mean that everyone should get the exact same access to business plans, product development, engineering support, or the same discounts quite independent of the commitment they bring to the table, then that is emphatically a false equality, and in fact unequal. Commit more skin, you get more hair - that's the way the grownup business world works, and it makes more sense because it's much more fair than "everyone gets the same of everything" no matter what you buy/commit/bring to the party. This business is not a mechanism for implementing an egalitatian fantasy. It is about producing more than you consume (ie making a profit) so you can live today and invest appropriately for the New War next year and the year after and the year after that, repeatedly.
 
Arthur, by equal access I mean that MS treats Samsung exactly the same as Nokia if Samsung brings the same value to the table. Same goes for LG and HTC. Nokia is a competitor of these companies. Same now goes for Motorola and Google/Android. Why invest time/money/energy in developing devices for an OS when a competitor gets preferential treatment from the OS provider that results in a competitive advantage you can't outdo no matter what value you bring to the table? Why MS should never buy Nokia. In my mind MS should now make the likes of Samsung feel more appreciated in the WP fold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X