I hope this means more WP7 stuff, I want a WP7 phone!
It might, but MS are already in bed with a hardware manufacturer- in fact if Google are true to their word MS+Nokia will probably be a closer relationship than Google+Moto. WebOS has the same issue with HP. There is also the fact that people seem to want Android phones and not WP7.
I believe it. Motorola doesn't even make the most interesting Android devices right now. Google competes the Nexus partnership every year and selects the best product. Why would any of that change if it meant that releasing an inferior Nexus product is a lock at least for the next year or two?
I still think the primary motivation for the purchase was Google's patent portfolio. The patent game isn't about winning, its about having enough IP to bring about a legal stalemate.
Now, if you're saying a few years down the road, Google might start bringing Motorola more into the fold, designing hardware, etc. Yeah, I buy that, but definitely not right away and probably not next year either.
foxconn makes hardware.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say, but I don't thnk it will take that long, Google's board and stockholders won't tolerate an investment that size languishing while other handset/tablet manufacturers do well, Samsung had a 380% bump in mobile sales in the last 12 months, allowing them to get bigger yet is foolish.
It might, but MS are already in bed with a hardware manufacturer- in fact if Google are true to their word MS+Nokia will probably be a closer relationship than Google+Moto. WebOS has the same issue with HP. There is also the fact that people seem to want Android phones and not WP7.
The same was said about Microsoft's online division many years ago...And they're still losing money there I believe.Exactly, Google has a duty to their shareholders, and if they are intentionally letting their Motorola purchase languish for the sake of keeping Android "open", well, they're going to hear about it (or feel it in the stock drop).
The same was said about Microsoft's online division many years ago...And they're still losing money there I believe.
If them taking a loss on Moto means generating more profit by keeping Android open, then that is what will happen.
Many people assume shareholders would take action at most companies...Reality is most of them don't. They just sell their stock.
Hopefully this doesn't turn off the other Smartphone manufacturers
My point is that regardless of how many people complain(whether they are an individual or institutional investor or not), at the end of the day Ballmer still does whatever he wants with the online division.Well for starters, that's not really a valid comparison, because Microsoft keeps at it in online services because they think it will be profitable in the long run - not because its helping some other division.
That said, Microsoft DOES take heat after every earnings release for the performance of online services, and their stock has suffered accordingly, so I'd say you're proving my point, really. Its not the individual shareholder like you or I that makes noise - its the people from big investment firms and analysts that cause the uproar over these things.
Anyway, if it is in Google's best interests to improve the Motorola brand, they will. Considering the amount of profit Apple's smartphone unit generates, I'd say it is. And more importantly, whether you agree that they'll favor Motorola or not, you can't fault HTC/Samsung for being wary of this, and not fully believing Google when they say that's how it will be.
Google's history is full of them saying "no no, don't worry, partner with us on this, we aren't trying to subvert you", only to do so a few years later after they've grown. A prime example is Youtube - Google swore up and down that they weren't getting into the content business, so the media companies should let their shows on Youtube. Slowly but surely, Youtube is expanding its reach, now they're renting movies, how long until there's a movie or show that's exclusive to Youtube?
You can certainly make the argument that its in their best interests to keep Android on a level playing field, and maybe for awhile, they will - but that doesn't mean its going to stay that way.
My point is that regardless of how many people complain(whether they are an individual or institutional investor or not), at the end of the day Ballmer still does whatever he wants with the online division.
Insiders own 25% of Google stock. If you subtract 6.2% owned by Fidelity, 19% of Google stock owned by the founders/board of directors.
Doesn't seem like Google will have a problem in that regard to me.
Where did HTC/Samsung say they were wary of this deal? Link?
If HTC/Samsung are wary of this deal, why shouldn't they be wary of the Nokia/Microsoft deal?
Sounds like they might as well go bankrupt or invent their own mobile OS then.
My point is that regardless of how many people complain(whether they are an individual or institutional investor or not), at the end of the day Ballmer still does whatever he wants with the online division.
Insiders own 25% of Google stock. If you subtract 6.2% owned by Fidelity, 19% of Google stock owned by the founders/board of directors.
Doesn't seem like Google will have a problem in that regard to me.
They didn't publicly - they'd be foolish to do so, because their stock would plummet, too much of their business is tied up with Android. That doesn't mean they aren't saying it internally.Where did HTC/Samsung say they were wary of this deal? Link?
I'm sure they are, but its not as bad, considering Microsoft doesn't own Nokia, so they don't have nearly as much reason to give them special treatment. In fact, that's probably a large reason why they opted to do this deal with Nokia rather than attempting to purchase them.If HTC/Samsung are wary of this deal, why shouldn't they be wary of the Nokia/Microsoft deal?
Sounds like they might as well go bankrupt or invent their own mobile OS then.
Google is in the big leagues now.Microsoft has proceeded however they seem fit regardless of what investors think for a long time. Google is certainly capable of doing so, but that doesn't mean they will. We'll see what happens.
They didn't publicly - they'd be foolish to do so, because their stock would plummet, too much of their business is tied up with Android. That doesn't mean they aren't saying it internally.
I'm sure they are, but its not as bad, considering Microsoft doesn't own Nokia, so they don't have nearly as much reason to give them special treatment. In fact, that's probably a large reason why they opted to do this deal with Nokia rather than attempting to purchase them.
Huh? I didn't say they were going to drop Android, either. I said they are likely wary of the deal, and they have very good reason to feel that way.
Sure, but literally no one read the original statement as "they physically have manufacturing plants that build phones", when you refer to a hardware manufacturer of phones, you're referring to Apple, RIM, Samsung, etc.
Their patents made them valid, but honestly from what I read, the patents aren't killer, and won't do much in the current cases.
Edward Zander, who served as Motorola's chairman and CEO from 2004 to 2008 and called his own struggle to update the company's culture as "probably the hardest thing I've ever faced in my working career." Mr. Zander said he made some progress, and believes Mr. Jha has made more. But the performance has been inconsistent, making Motorola seem more valuable for its patents than its business. "They are going to have to stand alone and win in the marketplace, or Google will shut them down and just focus on the patents," he predicted...
It's apples vs. oranges.
Google now has a direct financial interest, and duty to its shareholders, in making Motorola Mobility the most profitable company it can be. http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/precious-bodily-patents/ mentions a few scenarios where Google's ownership of Motorola could directly hurt other Android handset partners.
I get the feeling that Google isn't exactly enthusiastic about being in the hardware business. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they ended up spinning off Motorola's manufacturing completely, keeping just the portfolio of patents as the surviving asset.
Without knocking Motorola phones, the reality is that phone hardware is rapidly becoming a commodity these days. There are tons of manufacturers out there, specifically in Asia, that can turn out high quality phones far more efficiently than their competition. While western companies pride themselves on product and software design, hardware-centric companies are being forced to become more efficient and to differentiate themselves from other hardware manufacturers.
Case in point, are all the dumb UI overlays on Android phones. They are intended to allow carriers and manufacturers to differentiate their products from competitors which might be using the same OS as a base for their products. No company wants to be selling exactly what the next company is selling, otherwise consumers will just focus on the price difference.
Moving forward, only companies that have a modern next-gen platform (Apple, Google, possibly MS with WP, and possibly RIM with QNX) will lead the market. Over time, companies that have failed to keep to keep their platform ahead of the curve (Palm/HP with PalmOS/WebOS, Nokia with Symbian/Meego, possibly RIM with BBOS) will find it increasingly hard to remain competitive.
No such fine exists.Did you miss my link where there's probably a big fine if they want to spin-off the hardware division?