If there is one company I trust to not screw this up it's Google and I think they have a good shot at getting this right. I'm sure their partner companies are going to be a bit ansy to start but they all compete on hardware / price anyhow which this doesn't change. A few points that pop to mind:
A. They already had to compete with Motorola, so they haven't lost or gained a new competitor.
B. They don't pay for Android so Motorola hasn't gotten some new financial edge. Google just has to ensure that all companies still get source releases at the same time. What they do with them is up to them. (aside: I expect we will see MotoBlur disappear with some of its key features rolled into future Android releases)
C. This will allow Google to protect Android much better which is very beneficial to their bottom lines, especially if it keeps patent licensing costs off of their products.
D. Google just has to be sure they don't play favorites but from what I have seen up until now they have been good about that.
E. This may have just brought the competition for who gets to build the next Nexus to an end. (unless the next Nexus is already basically "done" at another partner company)
I think they can get this right... and now hopefully we can get a whole line of nice Motorola hardware with current Android and unlocked boot-loaders, etc. I might have to reconsider the Droid 3 again (more like Droid 4 one day, since 3 is already in the wild as is)
a) there will be at least 1 company focused on android which will be protected with the cloth that is Google's legal team.
b) Google can make Motorola better
c) Google can make hardware to go with their software.
d) Google can finally make Motorola phones running android open.
e) We can finally see what it means for a hardware company to exist with a motto: "Don't be Evil". Sure Google is not perfect, but all other companies have the motto: "Money first, morals second."
f) Google can make an incredible experience which would become the de-facto standard for Android phones. Finally killing off HTC sense.
GOOG is a s/w company and not a manufacturer. The ability to integrate both sides of such different firms is very difficult. This puts both points b), c) and e) off the table.
Point f)? I'm not sure, but I really hope that they can do something while looking at exactly how it will play out on a phone. They did try this with the Nexus though, and that was not something which worked out perfectly imho.
M&A's have a tendency to be non-accretive to the purchaser. This looks like its going to be similar for Google.
Fanboys used to say the same thing about MS when they were working on the first Xbox, and they came out looking pretty silly for it. The first one was a bit clunky, but the second one, especially with Kinect, is gangbusters.
Integrating Motorola won't be as big a problem as you make it out for a company as smart and well funded Google.
I'm not sure that's the example I'd use. They sunk billions in the first on for little to show for it. Billions fixing broken xboxes in the second one and only recently have begun to gather some steam -- and even then it was helped by Sony's numerous missteps.
"Only recently?" If not for the $1B RROD write-down in 2008, Microsoft would have been profitable then. MS has been making money off Xbox ever since that writedown.
Got a cite for that? I think I saw estimates that the XBox project was still 5-10 Billion in the red at that point. Have they been making profits to even cover the interest they could have earned with that size of investment by leaving it in something low risk?
No cite for my specific claim, but I found this Engadget article claiming MS's Entertainment & Devices Division (read: Xbox) was $80 million in the black in 2008:
Are we looking at cumulative Xbox profits from day one? Generally one is interested in a division's ability to generate positive cash flow, no matter the initial cost, because it's assumed that division will generate said cash flow in perpetuity.
> "Fanboys used to say the same thing about MS when they were working on the first Xbox"
Microsoft already had a world-class design and manufacturing group at that point, making critically acclaimed peripherals. And the missing piece, making a glorified PC, was not nearly as cut-throat a business as making a phone. They didn't have to push the envelope and they didn't even try.
Google, having far less experience with consumer hardware, would have a far more difficult time making an already good hardware company better.
And, in any case, all indications are that they wanted a patent pool and are going to essentially leave Motorola Mobility alone for the near term. I'd be surprised if they even exerted pressure to bin or integrate MotoBlur extensions in the next couple years.
>This puts both points b), c) and e) off the table.
I don't see where you're coming from on b/c. Motorola makes great hardware - it would be hard to improve that. What Google can do is provide phones with unlocked bootloaders and the standard "Android Experience" UI. Google can make Motorola better precisely because they are a software company, and they can use that core competency to let Motorola focus on what they do best. (At the moment, Motorola shoots themselves in the foot by writing so much software.)
On e, yes, I think the hardware division will have to stay divided from Google.
>I don't see where you're coming from on b/c. Motorola makes great hardware - it would be hard to improve that.
That's exactly the problem. Google, as a software company, doesn't currently have to worry about a lot of the issues that the hardware side of Motorola does, like supply chain management(both on the production and disposal side), dealing with retail outlets, directly dealing with cellular service providers as a device manufacturer, governmental agency compliance for hardware, etc. Google doesn't have really any experience with this, which means they absolutely need to keep the people that are currently doing those jobs.
Also, from what I've heard from people that used to work there, Motorola's engineering culture is on the "very corporate" side of things. Integrating that into Google's rather loose culture will be difficult, I think. This is especially important because both sides will need to be working with each other very closely.
Best case, Google doesn't change much, and integrates Motorola's hardware chain well. However, if they do exert a lot of control over the hardware side, quality could decline in the short term as the issues I mentioned above get worked out.
Overall, I think it's a much stronger position for both companies. Motorola gets Google's software expertise, and Google gets Motorola's hardware engineering and supply chain.
> Google, as a software company, doesn't currently have
> to worry about a lot of the issues that the hardware
> side of Motorola does, like supply chain management
The purchase comes with the employees that are currently running these things. It's not like Google bought the operation sans the talent, and now has to use current Google employees (with no experience in this field) to run Motorola Mobility.
All they have to do is operate it as a separate business that has to follow certain 'edicts' from on high. If they want to further integrate it into the Google fold they can do it gradually over time.
That's exactly why I said Google's priority needs to be keeping those employees with those skills and talents. As with any acquisition of this nature, people are going to leave Motorola because of this. Google needs to make a lot of effort to identify and keep the key people.
It's important to note that this isn't anything like any of Google's previous acquisitions, both in scale and the nature of the company being acquired. Google usually has absorbed the entire startup that they bought, and ran it as just a new team. They can't do that here. It's too big, and too complex to just do that.
EDIT: I think I'm giving off too negative a vibe here. I do think that this is a very good merger for Google and Motorola, and I think that Google will handle this merger in the best way they can.
I just believe that there are a lot of potential "gotchas" that can(and probably will) snag the companies in the short term.
Remember the 280 North[1] acquisition by Motorola (they were a YC company)?
I don't know what will happen, but I'm optimistic as a complete outside observer. This acquisition was completely unexpected from any conventional/ conservative perspective.
personally, i'm looking forward to the acquisition so we can have Android devices that match up to the iPhone on a hardware level (emphasis on battery life). but the biggest concern i have is how Google is going to deal with the bureaucratic system that they will inherit from Motorola.
i'm currently working in the mobile industry, and a lot of manufacturing companies (Motorola included) indeed have a "very corporate" engineering culture. there are many levels between the devs/test engineers and the customer (whether it be the chip providers, service providers, other manufacturers) and the higher ups within the company. although Google is already a large company, i feel that they make an effort on minimizing the "corporate feel" and that a lot of engineers are attracted to that effort. but with this acquisition, will top-talent engineers get turned off? or will Google be able to minimize/eliminate the inefficiencies between the Google devs and Motorola engineers?
ps: i'm happy to finally be a part of the HN community :)
i think this will be accretive as $39bn of cash was just sitting there collecting minimal interest and motorola is moderately profitable.
google has a strong management team with a pretty successful bolt-on acquisition history. even though this is one of their largest acquisitions, i have faith in the management team to either sell off the hardware component of the business, or otherwise somehow make this transaction a success.
I expect the same, spinning off the H/W component, but if they do that, they can't use it as a shield/target for the other android handset phone manufacturers.
As for the patent portfolio, from what news I've currently read, it seems the patents aren't the most valuable commodity.
I thought they farmed that out to Dell to build. Motorola is a slightly bigger operation. (I know Foxconn will probably ends up doing the assembly anyway, but they'll still have to design the products)
Given that Samsung and HTC have already embraced openness as a policy having "googarola" on that same team will add even more momentum to it. Even more when you consider that arduino is the basis for android accessories. In the near-term it's almost irrelevant if android were a worse experience and android devices were less capable (I don't think that's the case, which is all the better) because ultimately it's about development momentum and the OODA loop. If the android platform can congeal a larger critical mass of talented hackers and developers and they can get into a tighter and stronger feedback-develop-release cycle on their software and their hardware then they will beat the pants off of any of their competition.
I hope you're right. But Google has certainly sold it to its Android partners as "we're going to use their patents to defend your crapware-ridden half-assed locked down handsets and then smother the hardware people with this wet pillow":
Wow, those quotes all sound the same... it's almost eerie.
We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.
We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.
I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
Those quotes are from the heads of 4 major companies...
It's not just almost eerie. It really is, and makes me think of zombies walking. PR zombies.
Seriously, though, I imagine that there are pretty intense discussions taking place within a number of handset manufacturers right now about how to manage their risk:
* treat (but how? it's a Gulliver situation even for someone like Samsung)
* transfer (almost impossible to transfer the risks in this situation unless you join the MS camp)
* accept (and have your shareholders crucify you if you made the wrong call)
A very brave move from Google (in the Yes, Minister sense)
And do you think the PR guys asked them for a quote? No they did not. They wrote the quote and then asked the company if they would 'approve' it. (sort of quote by inference)
I was exposed early on to this when a PR person wrote up a quote, attributed it to me, and then ran it through the PR department where I worked who 'signed off' on the release although no one actually asked me if I had made that quote. When I protested they said "Oh it sounded like something you would say, should we seek a retraction?" It was a hell of an introduction to this 'known technique' in the PR world. I told them that in the future they had to clear any quote attributed to me, through me, which they were happy to do.
So my speculation is that the PR guys wrote these quotes, asked the partner's PR firm to approve, and they did, because none of the CEOs/GMs whatever have that flag set in their PR department that says "check with me before you approve something with a quote from me in it."
You don't actually think the CEOs said those things, do you? Google's PR people would have written to them saying "can we quote you as saying X?", and they would have written back saying either "sure, that sounds fine" or "no, use this quote instead: ...".
I read the responses, and I felt exactly the same way. The news has been shared with the partners beforehand and all PR responses have been choreographed. I don't know what they would do exactly, though, since Android is the best mobile OS choice they have. Can't touch IOS. Windows Mobile sucks. Symbian is going away. Not an easy place to be.
Sure Google is not perfect, but all other companies have the motto: "Money first, morals second."
You're kidding, right? By law, this is the modus operandi of any publicly-traded company. If you think any different, you've simply fallen for their rhetoric.
I think that Google's interpretation of "Don't be evil" is consistent with money making. They do it because they believe that in the long run, they will be more valuable if they are not "evil". Doing what is morally objectionable may lead to short term gains, but has a high maintenance cost. Not being evil is like having a clean sustainable system design; there is no need for kludges to hide the bad parts.
How would be "killing HTC Sense" not evil? How is Google not evil in requiring real names for G+ and banning people with pseudonyms? How is shutting down APIs (like translation) which developers have grown to depend on not evil? How is monetizing their search monopoly to undercut the business of other companies not evil? Or shaping with their mystical page rank the fates of a whole economy?
And on the other side:
What is Microsoft particularly doing today that they are seen as "evil"?
I have a ton of respect for Google, but companies are neither persons which act moral nor are they nations for which you pledge allegiance. You get no real life karma points for defending them delusionally in Internet flamewars.
You seem to have a very low bar for "evil". I don't see how most of those things (e.g. naming policies, shutting down or charging for free services that turn out to be too much of a burden, being popular enough that their algorithm is important to many business models) are even moral concerns. They might be stupid acts on Google's part, or very inconvenient for some people, but evil is a different kind of thing. You can't just expect others to live up to your own idiosyncratic idea of evil.
What made Microsoft evil: They used to go into acquisition talks with small companies without planning to buy them. They'd learn about their technology and duplicate it themselves.
Another example of evil is cell phone carriers giving users high internet speeds but putting ridiculous caps on them. Or Apple banning apps from the app store then copying their functionality into their own software.
I don't know if Google has done or does anything like that, and that is why people tend to think they're 'better' than other companies.
Therefore by evil what is meant is the company using slimy underhanded tactics on competitors or customers (such companies usually use them on both). Maybe it can be expressed in one word: Cheating. Does the company cheat customers, partners, etc?
Shutting down the translation API wasn't an evil act, it was being used by content farms to steal content from other publishers and get advertising from it.
Having a privacy policy which requires your real name isn't evil. You are not being forced to opt-in.
Is monetizing your core product really evil..? I didn't expect to read an anti-business comment on a site such as this...
The law absolutely does not require corporations to make decisions on any particular basis, and definitely does not require them to put profits first. Please stop spreading this myth, it confuses people and gives amoral executives an "out" for their horrible behavior.
Fiduciary duty is an abstract concept that basically means a duty of trust. If shareholders are told that profits are secondary, you don't violate trust by not putting them first.
Making bomb components and missile guidance systems is not evil in itself. If only evil men made and used weapons, the world would be in very bad shape.
I'm not arguing that the specific weapons mentioned weren't used for evil, I'm just making a general point that all the peaceful people in the world can afford to be that way because there are guns protecting them, so it's not as simple as weapons == evil.
Unless of course the first thing GOOG does is wipe out all the IP and Patents owned by Motorola that have anything to do with... you know, killing people.
It's not his son though, it's a grown man that he legally adopted simply to gain control of some land rights and which he promptly signed over to help build a railway.
Google's more likely to throw Motorola under the bus to advance Android than vice versa. Having Android on 80% of all devices is worth it.
The problem is, to get off of the analogy, that Google will be very tempted to design a great iPhone compete device. It's no secret that the iPhone is the best HW/SW integration on the market. For the first time Google can actually build something with no compromises w/ respect to Android.
I think Google's next play will be telling. Will they:
1) Buy a HW design/integration company - ala Intrinsity.
or
2) Spin off Moto Mobility, but keep share all patent rights (so either company could litigate).
If you see them start recruiting for people/companies like Intrinsity, they're going down the Apple route and partners should be worried. If they spin off Moto Mobility (and don't own much of the resulting company) it will show dedication to Android.
> The problem is, to get off of the analogy, that Google will be very tempted to design a great iPhone compete device. It's no secret that the iPhone is the best HW/SW integration on the market. For the first time Google can actually build something with no compromises w/ respect to Android.
I fail to see how this is a "problem". If Google keeps Android open, others can compete by doing great HW/SW integration as well. Competing via excellence is most emphatically NOT a problem.
Google will be very tempted to design a great
iPhone compete device
Past experience shows that Google doesn't have it in their DNA to build something akin to the iPhone. And the iPhone isn't great just because of how it feels, it's the customers service too. It would be stupid if they tried.
No, your best bet for an iPhone killer is Samsung, if only they would pull their head out of their ass for a moment and realize that the SG II is a disappointment as far as software goes and they should just install the original Android on it. Samsung should just focus on their strengths and let Google worry about the software.
This is Google's best approach - their stated goal for Android was to increase competition in the mobiles market. This strategy worked well (after all, their products are now distributed on most smartphones sold, what else could they want?) and they should just continue this strategy with Motorola -- and let Samsung and HTC compete directly with Apple, making Motorola release good products from time to time, just to keep them under fire.
the Nexus device gets a lot of press as its the first out of the gate with the new build, but realistically, even if that remains as they say it doesn't seem like it would matter much if Google does the rest of it right -- meaning stock Android, and Google updating the SW quickly and over decent time interval.
It seems most likely to me that the Nexus program will remain in place, but Motorola will have multiple "Nexus" type phones in the way that matters to consumers. Not first always, but with all the other properties of the Nexus. At least I hope that is where Google take this. It seems unlikely they would skin Android, and I'd hope they act as best of class in the SW update part of things.
Lots of interesting things here. This would make Google the #1 set top box provider in the country. I'm sure the mfg doesn't have too many degrees of freedom there, but still interesting.
"My son is going to have to bid to get the contract to build the new city building, just like anybody else. He will be on equal footing."
I won't believe it until I see a regular pattern of Moto not getting picked. That goes against too much human nature.
Equal footing in the bidding process doesn't mean that on average everyone gets an equal split. If Moto or any other company deserve to win the bid they should win regardless of how many times they've won it before.
A) But they didnt have to compete with Google so they have a new competitor
B) There is a lot at stake here, a good solution would be to donate android to an independent "Android foundation"
D) Still, google's phones will always be one step ahead with technologies that are hard to compete, like voice recognition, navigation and search.
In any case this could be a phenomenal move, and may even be a big boost for android tablets and other embedded devices, an unexploited area. It sounds like Google would like to try android on anything from cars, tvs and washing machines, but 3rd partners were unwilling to take the risk. Now they have their own hardware division.
B) a foundation would be either a total facade for the current status quo (i.e. Google controlling everything Android), like the JCP is, or would be a really bad idea -- after all, if these phone makers could have created a good smartphone platform, they wouldn't have needed Android in the first place
D) not necessarily; currently Google's partners have access to the latest Android developments before the public release. And I don't think stuff like voice recognition, navigation and search requires special hardware, otherwise all the software and apps do get released.
I actually think that Android phone-makers will be happy, because it is not in Google's interests to fuck up the Android ecosystem just so they can sell their own phones. They are not and never will be like Apple, they will never enjoy the huge profit margins that Apple does -- it is in their best interests however for Google's apps to be the default on all mobiles.
Only part of Motorola, and not generally the part considered the "original". :)
Motorola mobility was spun off of the main company in January - I think at the time there was commentary on the stock markets that it was done with the aim to get someone to buy it.
So Motorola will exist still - as Motorola Solutions (it is the bigger & more profitable part of the company anyway) and Google get a phone manufacture division under their control.
They did it for the patents. Larry Page: "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
Seems like the best jobs at Google will soon be the lawyers, not the engineers.
I suspect it is a little from column A and a little from column B; he did also talk about it being good for the user experience etc.
They get patents and a manufacturing arm (which then gives them control of the entire product cycle for Android).
The latter is a logical move; a lot of Apple's success comes from controlling all aspects of the iPhone. I know Android is open software, but internally for Google it makes sense to drive product development from the hardware side too.
I'm very curious to see the smartphones that will be coming out of Googorolla.
Google's been promoting the "top end phone with fast updates" with their Nexus line which makes me wonder if Motorola-manufactured Androids are all going to be top of the line models.
So do I. It's VERY old now and I'm very excited about the Droid bionic, but when it came out, it was a very nice piece of equipment, probably the best droid with a keyboard for its time, notwithstanding the buttons-falling-off-from-too-much-texting issue.
You know. The interesting thing here is; I had a Droid via work when it came out (and it was a beast). I also got my personal contract iPhone 3GS the same time.
Thew droid felt defunct somewhere in the middle of last year (and thus I upgraded), but my iPhone still feels awesome, even though I know positively that I am holding out an upgrade till iPhone 5 in a few months.
I've never really considered it from that perspective before... but nevertheless interesting. There is possibly something there that Android needs to look into.
Yup, after I got my masters and then got laid off I got an offer from a patent law firm to put me through law school if I'd come work for them. Patent law sort of sounded like one of the circles of Hell for me, though, so I didn't take them up.
Most of them come from an engineering background (at least education), you're right.
It's fascinating to me to see this shift, which Google seems to be leading, from tech companies fighting over new product development - and spending gobs of cash on it - to something entirely different: fighting over patents (and again, spending gobs of cash on it). Where a company spends its cash is a good measure of where its priorities are, and I'm not sure what that says about Google.
"It's fascinating to me to see this shift, which Google seems to be leading, from tech companies fighting over new product development...to something entirely different: fighting over patents "
I thought it was Microsoft and Apple that were aggressively filing patent lawsuits, and Google and other Android partners were on the receiving end, no?
One other thing I don't see being mentioned anywhere in these threads is that, "Motorola Mobility held $5.5B in cash and deferred tax assets; this could put Google's (GOOG) real purchase price around $7B."[1]
How is Google leading that charge exactly? From what I can tell they've been drug kicking and screaming into this mess. It simply says that they have to come up with a way to defend against the patent mess that the Apple consortium has threatened them with.
That's what I find interesting about this deal. It's still motivated by patent protection, but instead of putting it all in a defensive patent portfolio, they get a hardware company to innovate with as well.
That number of patents is "proof" that the patent system is broken. I have nothing against patents, but they need to describe actual innovations.
I have problems believing they had 24500 real innovations. If a company can produce 24500 patents, then most are not what I think of as innovations but just a result of standard engineering work.
A patent is a finite time period monopoly on the use/practice/sale of an invention. To innovate means to introduce something new. The two concepts aren't the same.
E.g. You can patent something economically useless, you can patent something and not build it. As a practical matter its not clear to me if you can or should require patents to be linked to innovations.
What exactly is "Motorola Mobile" and what is the rest of Motorala? I saw that in the news headline and figured there was going to be a lot of confusion over what actually got bought.
I think a lot of people are missing that they make stuff like DSL modems and IPTV too. If I was google I'd be interested in having a piece of that too.
Motorola spun off into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions. Think of Mobility as the classic consumer oriented Motorola who sells cell phones. Solutions targets enterprise/government.
"Motorola’s total commitment to Android in mobile devices is one of many reasons that there is a natural fit between our two companies. Together, we will create amazing user experiences that supercharge the entire Android ecosystem for the benefit of consumers, partners and developers everywhere"
and
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
One further thought on the patent portfolio. Don't forget that Motorola is widely considered to have "invented" the first practical cell phone. Their patent portfolio isn't just going to be stuff like "Using shades of gray in a UI". It's going to run deep into what constitutes a mobile device.
Those patents would have been issued in the 70s and long since expired. Even the first generation digital cell phone patents should be mostly expired. I'm not sure how involved Motorola was in the consortiums that developed the 2G/3G/4G standards, but my impression was that they were dominated by the chipset vendors (Qualcomm etc) and the telecom guys (Nortel etc).
Of course, there were competing standards, and who primed which varies, but I don't think Motorola primed any of them.
I agree, much of the early stuff will have expired, but Motorola being in the mobile biz so long probably means their waters still run pretty deep as far as core mobile functionality.
The announcement stated that they have 7,000 patents in the pipeline right now, so I would say that Motorola clearly still has a lot of important patents on modern hardware.
I'm also curious to know if the 17,000 patents number includes expired patents or only current, enforceable patents.
> Those patents would have been issued in the 70s and long since expired.
This makes sense if you're talking about individual patents, but often patents are interlinked, and with a "priority date" of a "key patent", subsequent patents can be filed and granted that effectively extend this window... these constitute a specific "patent portfolio".
Keeping Android open whilst treating their own phone manufacturing fairly will be a big challenge for Google. I hope they manage it. If done correctly the result should be a improvement in Android for all manufacturers, as the internal demands of Motorola will want to be heard, but cannot be prioritised.
I am still puzzled as to how Skype cost $8billion.
If they have any sense they are already negotiating the sale of the physical business on to someone else. Keep the patent portfolio and recuop $6 billion of the initial outlay.
I'm not sure why krakensden is being downvoted for their comment.
This is a continual gripe in the Android developer/hacker community. Has all of the Android 3.0/3.2 source finally been posted to android.git.kernel.org? Ice Cream Sandwich?
I'm not sure why krakensden is being downvoted for their comment.
Maybe because Google have been pretty emphatic about the fact that the Honeycomb / Ice Cream Sandwich code will be released, and because their delay in releasing this one specific revision is hardly the same thing as "closing Android" or whatever hyperbole is being floated around.
That said, I didn't downvote him. I didn't think the comment added much to the conversation, but it's not worth a downvote in my eyes.
I'm not sure I see the point of opening an Android release after it's developed. It defeats a primary benefit of open source software. And even then, on most models (HTC, Motorola), unless I'm willing to violate my warranty and root it or unlock the bootloader, I'm not able to actually use the source.
This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing, not to actually promote any openness (unless you buy a Nexus phone, which is what I own, FWIW)
I'm not sure I see the point of opening an Android release after it's developed. It defeats a primary benefit of open source software.
Well, having the code released at all, is always better than not having it. The more code released to the world under a reasonable F/OSS license, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, you make a good point... Android isn't necessarily developed in the most open of fashions, despite the fact that the source itself is, technically, open source. :-(
And even then, on most models (HTC, Motorola), unless I'm willing to violate my warranty and root it or unlock the bootloader, I'm not able to actually use the source.
Nonetheless, you do have that choice. That's a fundamentally different scenario than with, say, a win7 phone or whatever, where you don't have access to the source at all. Plenty of people are willing to take the chance with the warranty situation in order to load custom versions of Android, so clearly this matters to some people.
> I'm not sure I see the point of opening an Android release after it's developed.
Why? I certainly see a point in having the source to the software running on devices being sold.
> It defeats a primary benefit of open source software.
The primary benefit is having the source, being able to modify it and to build upon it. No OSI compliant license grants you the right to immediate access to the latest commits by all developers.
> And even then, on most models (HTC, Motorola), unless I'm willing to violate my warranty and root it or unlock the bootloader, I'm not able to actually use the source.
The decision is yours. I voided my warranty and I am very happy with 2.3.4 on my phone.
> This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing
Things like Cyanogen Mod wouldn't be possible without this "Android is open!" thing. If that's marketing, then I love it.
You're not mistaken about the commits, but you're mistaken about what it means. That command will clone the 2.3 branch, aka Gingerbread. Honeycomb has been shipping on devices for months now, and Ice Cream is the current development branch.
Even if you want to claim that I shouldn't be able to see the current work in progress in an "open" project, which is debatable, I should at least be able to get the code for the currently released version, which would be Honeycomb.
I can't get access to those unless I'm in Google's Super Best Friends club.
GPL issues notwithstanding, Google is completely within their rights to keep their code away from me. However, it makes their trite definitions of "open" look pretty hollow.
I am quite sure all the GPL parts of Gingerbread are available. I am also sure Google is not withholding parts of Gingerbread for no reason. I have no knowledge about their reasons to do so, but, considering many if not all 3.x tablets run on Nvidia chips, I'd bet this has some relationship to Nvidia's historic reluctance in supporting open-source. I am also quite sure Google is working on that as it's not in their best interest to alienate the open-source developer community.
So you agree then, that Honeycomb is not available, and that google is withholding it for "some reason" (although you just have to look at their own statements, they're withholding it because they don't want OEMs putting it on phones).
"Android 3.0, Honeycomb, was designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes and improves on Android favorites such as widgets, multi-tasking, browsing, notifications and customization," Google said in an email to PCMag.com. "While we're excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we've decided not to release Honeycomb to open source. We're committed to providing Android as an open platform across many device types and will publish the source as soon as it's ready."
Meaning it's not ready. (emphasis mine)
I have to agree that, right now, Android has a closed branch (two - HC and whetever's not released) but claiming it's closed-source because it has one branch closed is not quite honest - like claiming MySQL is not open-source because they sell proprietary addons. My phone runs the open-source 2.3.4 version that was assembled by developers who don't work for Google.
Google always could. The Google apps you find on your Android phone are not open-source. HTC's Sense or Motorola's Blur aren't open source either. In fact, everyone could. My Nook is full of proprietary software. Android is just a software environment people build apps on top. The open-source core is fairly decent when compared to the competition, but no phone manufacturer I know ships only that.
Who would be interested in buying a marginally profitable manufacturing business in a highly competitive market for any significant amount of money.
Besides, I think Google are doing this, in part, to produce what everyone has been asking for - an Android phone without the crap heaped on it, a phone that will allow people to judge Android for what it is rather than for what Samsung, HTC and others think it should be.
This will indeed be a challenge: keeping the interests of their own cell phone division and third party hardware makers. Might be just another "HTC Sense" type skin added to Android...
63% premium...insanity. This is all about patents, isn't it?
Instead of spending $4billion for patents, spend 3x as much, get a huge portfolio (I don't know how large, but it's supposedly quite large)..and a part of a company as well.
Patents are probably part of it. Another motivation may be that Google wants to avoid the Android ecosystem to spiral out of control. Android phones vary widely in quality, both with respect to hardware and software (thanks to vendor 'extensions'). Maybe they are hoping to produce an Android phone under tight control, to set a benchmark for the rest.
Also, Apple has shown that piles of cash can be made on good, though slightly expensive margins.
I checked out Motorola's product line up on their website. It isn't very exciting. (I don't live in the US, so I don't know how much brand value there is).
I'd say this was probably plan b, for if their previous patent purchase didn't happen.
The problem with Google, or any software company buying a hardware company is that generally the street values hardware at a lower multiple so this has the chance to pull down google's market cap.
We'll see how the market reacts to this during today's trading.
> The problem with Google, or any software company buying a hardware company is that generally the street values hardware at a lower multiple so this has the chance to pull down google's market cap.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate a little?
Software companies often have higher multiples attached to their earnings than hardware companies do. This is due to the fact that hardware companies usually have lower margins that software companies do.
If the street perceives Google to now be a hybrid hardware/software company then the street could lower the multiple that they use to value them.
Basically the profit margin on hardware is lower than on software, or at least that's the view of Wall Street ("the street"). Thus Google has spent a big chunk of cash on a business with an inherently lower profit potential than the rest of its business, so their stock value (which has only a tenuous relationship with the hard value of a company's assets) may decline.
I doubt it's going to make that much difference, though. Google hasn't actually directed money away from "software", they've spent part of their $40 billion reserve that wasn't doing anything useful on a hardware company designed to strengthen Google's position is a market it's already sort-of in.
Although it removes some of the fears that Google were going to have patent problems (I would assume anyway, their must be some patent gold in the 24000 somewhere). So that may have been previously been factored into the stock price?
Was it plan B? Major purchases like this don't usually happen quickly. The Nortel and Novell stuff all went down in the last six months, and neither (separately or together) would have cost Google enough to make them back off an in-progress attempt to buy Motorola.
This could have been part of a Google patent blitz from the start.
True, but one month isn't unheard of. During the crash of 2008, bank deals were being made after 72 hours of "due diligence":)
A company like Google is always in talks with other companies, a deal like this can happen very quickly if you've been having informal talks all along.
I wonder about this too. Google made those bizarre bids like $3.149b, almost like they weren't really into it. They could have just been feigning interest to drive up the price. They probably would have been happy to acquire the patents for a good price, but they clearly already had another (more important) acquisition in the pipeline.
The Motorola deal I think is a lot better because it's not just patents, it's a whole hardware company with hands in a lot of pies that Google is in, like cell phones and set-top boxes.
I think they'll get a much better return on their investment into Motorola than they would out of Nortel patents.
This is strange, since you basically agree with me, on the overall point, but I flatly do not understand people who think Google made "bizarre" bids. What is bizarre about a fundamentally engineering-focused company bidding pi? Why is it impossible to both take something seriously, and have a little fun?
It's like the "work shouldn't be fun" crowd -- why the heck not?
It wasn't the first time they did something like that. Their IPO was intended to raise e billion dollars. And why shouldn't it be?
Using fundamental mathematical constants may be unusual, but it's absolutely no more arbitrary than boring "round" numbers with a bunch of zeroes, and it's like a big geek flag waving in the wind.
So they did overpay a bit. But there is a genuine synergy - a phone company being bought by a company that makes a phone OS.
This might hurt Android adoption a little, but I doubt Google really cares. All they really want are more browser phones, which will funnel more money into google (via adsense). Or maybe it will make Google more sensitive to what direction Android has to go.
I don't see how the "Googlerola" hardware can hurt Android adoption. If you are a smartphone maker with at least some ambition for market share you either use Android or get ready to fall short on sales.
Aside from Apple and MS-Nokia, until something disruptive happens in the phone OS scene Android is the way to go for phone makers.
Google wouldn't have done it just for patents. They want to enter the hardware game as well. Both to show others how Android phones should be made, but also to make many billions from selling devices, as well. I think this is just the beginning for Google as a hardware company, and in a way it was inevitable. They are a strong tech brand, and they could become very successful selling tech products.
Almost certainly. The only other thing I can think of would be that they want to get out of the OEM business and make phones internally, but they'd probably buy a better phone manufacturer in that case. Motorola is loss-making.
Patents are a big part sure, but it's more generically about strengthening Android's position overall -- partly in the legal system through patents, and partly in the market through Google having direct control of a major cell phone manufacturer with direct lines to the providers.
To make a broad point without going into details about patent quality:
Nortel: $4.5B / 6,000 patents = $750k per patent.
Motorola: $12.5B / 14,300 patents = $856,164.38 per patent.
Plus 6,700 patents pending.
Plus a hardware company.
There are obviously a lot of other factors, but it seems like a pretty good deal, and maybe a smarter way for Google to go about acquiring patents without having to deal with bidding wars with consortia of their competitors.
Either way, it seems the lawyers are winning. Everywhere.
The other critical factor is whether the acquisition is a cash deal or a share based deal, a share arrangement would be very efficient indeed, hard to find meaningful details of the acquisition.
you need to adjust for the fact that Motorola has 3 bil in cash and some deferred tax benefit of roughly equal amount -- the actual cost to Google is around $7 billion.
you could adjust for the fact that Motorola has 3 bil in cash and some deferred tax benefit of roughly equal amount -- the actual cost to Google is around $7 billion.
It's fascinating to see the behemoths (Apple, Microsoft, Google) positioning themselves for the fight ahead. The importance of this fight cannot be understated.
Microsoft won the last fight like this and they have dominated our desktops for 15 years (OK, maybe not all HN devotees) and pocketed gazillions.
Apple are ahead right now (manufacturing handsets, selling software, etc), Google are second and Microsoft are lagging behind in third, but this Motorola deal means that Google might be able to pull ahead of Apple for a period and alienated phone manufacturers who are using Android might flock to Microsoft, inflating their sails a little.
> Google might be able to pull ahead of Apple for a period
That would be a huge mistake - and they know it. That's why they made it clear Motorola Mobility will be run as a separate business. It would be unbelievably foolish to hand Microsoft the Android ecosystem and Google is not known to sacrifice long-term profit.
Perhaps, but Apple make a ton more money per handset than Google does, so in my mind they are ahead. They also continue to lead design-wise. Manufacturers are still copying Apple products in this space.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that last part. Perhaps hardware to some degree, but Android has lead in terms of software. Look at the intents system, notifications, and their implementation of multiple application support vs iOS. iOS may have the polish, but Android has a very nice system in place when you look at how things work.
Google doesn't (directly) make any money off of any Android handset, so I'd say that's very difficult to assess without knowledge and analysis of the impact Android has had on AdSense revenue, not to mention this money is a continuous stream of revenue following the purchase of an Android phone as opposed to a one-time up-front fee.
>>Google doesn't (directly) make any money off of any Android handset
And if the info in the follow piece is true, there is an example where money is being 'lost.' This July 19 Computer World article states an interesting piece of info (http://tinyurl.com/3k7mmlq):
"HTC last year entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft that, according to a report by Citi analyst Walter Pritchard, essentially sends Microsoft $5 every time HTC ships an Android-based device. Asymco analyst Horace Dediu has estimated that Microsoft is now generating $150 million in revenue just from shipments of Android phones, or more than five times the estimated revenue Microsoft has made from selling Windows Phone licenses.."
I'm not sure why Google would make much more in Adsense revenue on Android than they would on iOS. I think the primary issue is not conceding control of the platform their revenue is reliant on to a competitor.
iPhone app developers tend to use a variety of ad networks, based on whatever pays best. iAds usually has the best CPM, but inventory can be limited - and the fallback is usually AdSense (or... AdMob, which is also Google).
I think "ahead" is usually quantified by numbers out in the wild. We, as consumers, don't care about their profits, but we do watch things that are trendy and dominant (which Android is now).
Interestingly, this means the only manufacturer-neutral smartphone OS is now Windows Phone 7. iOS is on Apple, Android is on Motorola/Google, Blackberry on RIM, and webOS on HP/Palm. I wonder if this means we'll see an increase in WP7-based phones from HTC, Samsung, and LG...
Isn't it questionable whether WP7 will be manufacturer-neutral? The level of cooperation between Nokia and Microsoft remains to be seen, but a possible outcome is that Nokia ends up looking like a subsidiary of Microsoft.
It might become a subsidiary instead of just looking like one, Nokia's stock jumped up over 10% here just now due to the speculation that Microsoft might be eying them especially after this move.
How would this fit in with a Nokia-WP7 Special Relationship though? Would MS kill off old and new BlackBerry OSes and just use RIM's old sales contacts to sell more WP7 phones or what?
That's a great question. I would expect MS to maintain the BlackBerry brand, which I think still has some clout in the enterprise. That and MS/RIM have a somewhat long-standing relationship too. As I understand it, BlackBerry is the only way to get end-to-end encryption from an Exchange server to a smartphone, although I'd be surprised if that's not added to WP7.
But basically, I think RIM is screwing up so much that they'll be an acquisition target soon, and MS seems like the most likely buyer to me.
I think the MS brand has more clout than RIM; if for no other reason than most large companies will have a relationship with MS for other products. In all of the large companies I've worked at buying from an existing vendor was preferable if the products were roughly comparable.
Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
What Google did was to gain access to Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio in order to defend HTC and Samsung from Apple and Microsoft. Google will own the company, but it will not become Google Mobility - it'll continue to exist as a separate entity.
They will probably manufacture the reference implementations. In order to reassure other phone manufacturers, Google will probably improve their code release schedule.
Portions of Android are open source. I can't go to android.git.kernel.org, download the complete source and compile it into an identical image of what's on my phone.
Additionally, vanilla Android on a consumer device is fairly rare. Most are molested with Sense or BLUR or whatever tragic "vendor-added experience" Samsung inflicts. So in reality, most consumer Android phones aren't really that open source at all, holistically.
Android is open-source. What is not open-source is Sense or Blur, or the Gmail or Maps clients. You can't assemble the bundle that is preinstalled on your phone just like you can't download the TiVo software and turn your PC into one, even though the little gizmo runs Linux (as does your Panasonic, LG or Sony TVs, all of which run some flavor of Linux).
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
In practice, is the platform that much different from Windows? Anyone can slap it on any hardware and sell it as Windows and pre-install their own software. In fact, with Windows they don't have to follow the rules OEMs need to follow to bundle things like Maps and Android Marketplace with the phone.
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
I was comparing that to other platforms, both desktop and mobile (the difference is largely irrelevant to the argument, isn't it?).
With Android, the openness is exploited by the OEMs and carriers to install applications and always running services that CANNOT be uninstalled by the user, unless you root it(not easy for average user, and tough for even geeks because of locked bootloaders). These services and apps take up space and suck down battery. With Apple, you don't get such unremovable crap. With Windows 7, you can somehow uninstall it using tweaks and workarounds. With WP7, nothing can run in the background, and OEMs/carriers get a bigger tile on the main screen that can be removed with a long press and even uninstalled. How is the openness of Android helping here?
OEMs HAVE to abide by certain rules to get access to premium Google programs like Maps and to the Android Marketplace(try selling a phone without those).
So you say the openness of Android was used to customize the UI? Most people hate the UI customization since it further lags the phone and sucks down battery.
>And Windows OEMs can't change Windows itself - they can only slap things on top of it
True, but you can install things into the kernel itself and Dell ships a OS X like dock.
Do you have any examples of Android customisations that the OEMs made as a result of it being Open Source that improved the user experience that wouldn't be possible with, say desktop Windows?
WP7 is not exactly neutral anymore after the "special" deal they've made with Nokia, where they give them a lot more liberties than to the other manufacturers.
I don't see how Bada is relevant. First, is it available to non-Samsung OEMs? Second, Bada is in the same situation as Symbian/Android is in now, a major h/w manufacturer leading the development, unlike WP7.
True, but it's not as though Microsoft bought Nokia. As crazy as that sounds, though, that would have been less crazy than Google's buying Motorola and how now they've suddenly become a mass-market hardware manufacturer. I really fear that things that Google has historically been bad at (support, etc) will come back to bite them hard.
How so? I see this bandied about as truth, especially by Linux fans and the anti-MS folk, but he was given charge of a sinking ship and is trying to do the best for the company.
>By burying the one that was actually good (and whose kernel could power an Android device easily)
Did you even read the article I linked?
Meego/Maemo was not ready on time. Even though the N9 may look okay, there's a lot of things missing that will make it very hard for Nokia to push the OS to devs etc. and have it on enough devices to make a difference in Eurasia.
And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do? It's not as if Android's kernel sucks or something. It's Linux underneath too. I don't get your point. Also, Google told them to take a hike during Nokia's discussions about switching to Android.
Anyway what happened to WebOS? It's a decent OS built on Linux but there's no uptake because of lack of a ecosystem and people wondering if it will be around in a few years.
> and has MORE customer satisfaction than Android phones.
Something which is yet to translate into phones sold.
> Did you even read the article I linked?
Sure. There is only a handful of WP7 devices out there and they are all very high-end. Android phones cover a much broader spectrum - there are low-end Android phones - and the number of disappointed users is going to be much higher.
From TFA: "The data might be skewed because of the limited number of Windows Phone 7 users out there"
> Meego/Maemo was not ready on time.
And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7.
> And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do?
It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
> Anyway what happened to WebOS?
It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
I meant the Businessweek article, not the ZDNet one.
>Something which is yet to translate into phones sold.
That doesn't still warrant the 'phone OS that no one wants'.
>And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7.
They announced the deal in Feb and they're going to release devices in Sep/Oct, is that not fast enough for a huge company like Nokia and with phone hardware that takes years to make?
>It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
And the N9 would now play second fiddle thanks to competition from Google itself.
>It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
That's EXACTLY my point. Meego/Maemo risked ended up being like WebOS, thanks to competition from Android/iOS/WP7,especially if the OS and multiple phones weren't ready. Getting an dev friendly ecosystem ready is not a joke. RIM's platform sucks for devs even after
And Meego wasn't, that's why the board fired the previous CEO and hired Elop. You think you know more than them and that they're all fools? Nokia is Finland's biggest company. If you think MS can 'install' a trojan horse just like that resulting in thousands of needless layoffs, then you're either deluded or paranoid. You should really read that Businessweek article.
And that's why I wouldn't suggest going with it. The fact remains, however, that the transition from MeeGo to Android would be much easier and that Nokia would have a competitive Android phone (and a very good one) now instead of a WP7 phone in September or October.
> You think you know more than them and that they're all fools?
No. I don't think Elop is an idiot. Obviously, he is doing what his board perceives as the most profitable thing to do. What I don't think is that it will lead to Nokia making great phones as this is not a precondition to making a profit and Nokia has demonstrated, over and over again, this wouldn't be the safest bet.
I was talking about the board decision to replace their current CEO. If things were all going to be hunky-dory as you claim, that would be an idiotic decision.
>the transition from MeeGo to Android would be much easier and that Nokia would have a competitive Android phone (and a very good one) now instead of a WP7 phone in September or October.
You have no idea about how fast a company like Nokia would move. Even carriers take months to test devices and look at how fast OEMs are able to release updates to Android.
To come to the bigger picture, Nokia just didn't want to be another Android OEM, they tried to pitch to Google, Google declined to play ball, but MS agreed. They made deals with MS for funding for ads, also some 'synergy' deals like Navteq maps etc. that MS needs for Bing(which is weak in Europe/Asia) and got a cash infusion of upwards of a billion for that. All this was needed for survival interim while they rush out new devices. Android would've provided none of that.
> What I don't think is that it will lead to Nokia making great phones as this is not a precondition to making a profit and Nokia has demonstrated, over and over again, this wouldn't be the safest bet.
Why not? What's inherently wrong with WP7 that's right with Android? Atleast with WP7, Nokia is not competing with bargain basement Chinese phones running the exact same OS and software as them as they would do with Android.
I've wondered the same thing. It's not necessarily an either-or situation. If Google's willing to spend X billions of dollars on defensive patents, why not spend even a fraction of that on lobbying for software patent reform. If any company has the will and the means to do so, it would be Google.
While you can certainly throw some money behind a favorable legislation, I don't think it's as easy as making out a check to Washington DC and have your words be law. Politics are still a complicated, slow and cumbersome process.
One interesting side note: Sprint/Nextel has always heavily relied on Motorola phones, and a few months back, Sprint and Google rolled out tight integration between Sprint service and Google Voice (http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/sprint-integrate...)
So now I'm wondering 1) Was Spring anticipating this merger, and 2) will Google's purchase of Motorola be a boon for Sprint?
I'm not a Sprint customer, but in the name of keeping more competitors in the mobile market, I do want to see them stay in the game.
He mentions patents specifically as one of the reasons for the acquisition.
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
"Billionaire investor Carl Icahn urged Motorola to shop around its patent portfolio to cash in on interest in wireless technology from companies like Google Inc and Apple Inc."
This is probably going to make some of the other handset manufacturers (HTC, Sony-Ericsson, etc) complain about Motorola having an unfair advantage when it comes to implementing Android.
Wonder if any of them are about to regret basing their smartphone offerings on Android? The move ought to strengthen the competition among the handsets, though, as Google can now ship their "dream-version" of an Android-phone.
This was really funny; couldn't they've at least tried to make it look like the quotes weren't all written by one person?
q1v1: We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.
q1v2: We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.
q2v1: I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
q2v2: We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
I think what you're seeing is not written by the same person, (Google couldn't be caught impersonating the owners of their partner companies) but probably a set of statements written by PR assistants all on the same "Please give us a statement on..." request using the same source terms out of the press release. All of them are toeing the corporate partner line for now.
Yep, this might be good news for the other "licensable" smartphone/tablet operating systems, which include WP7, webOS and MeeGo.
Samsung already has Bada, which may have ambitions to become a bit more of a proper smartphone operating system. But there is a bunch of manufacturers that may have to switch from Android because of this deal.
I'm honestly not sure how much HTC cares about Motorola.
They're a competitor, yeah, but I doubt Googorola will be pumping out huge volumes of phones for every segment of the non-dumbphone market like HTC does, and HTC still pumps out Windows phones, too. I doubt they'll be shy about picking up another OS if a good one comes along, either.
I think HTC worries a lot more about Apple+iOS than they do about Motorola+Android. And they have an established friendly relationship with Google, I don't see that suddenly vanishing. It's not like they threw a fit when Google went to Samsung for the next Nexus phone.
If Google hope to get better vertical integration it's my guess they are in for a surprise.
On the surface these acquisitions always sound like they are a good idea. Combine X strenght with Y strenght.
In reality you have two very strong cultures that have to work together. That's simply not going to happen.
Vertical integration is not just a question of having the skill all the way down to manufacturing. It's even more about being able to carry a design vision all the way trough.
Anyone who worked in or with a large organization know how plausible that is.
What's the worst case scenario vis-a-vis Android openness and competitiveness?
Google can't take back the code it's already released other than the non-open source apps like Google Mail. But it can stop releasing new code. HTC et al are making too much money from Android, I doubt they'd stop investing in the platform, resulting in slow platform divergence a la Unix in the 80s and 90s.
3.2 hasn't been fully released to the open source community, but HTC and all the important players have it already, and I doubt that their license allows Google to yank it unilaterally.
Google does have to keep releasing code it based on GPL'd work, primarily the kernel, but that's a very small portion of the Android IP.
The first litmus test will be the release of Honeycomb.
Best case scenario? To me, that would involve Google moving towards a more open development model similar to what virtually all other successful open source projects employ.
They will be forced to make moves to placate HTC and all of their other partners, but whether those moves benefit us is the question.
> The first litmus test will be the release of Honeycomb.
You mean Ice Cream Sandwich? Google has made it clear that they won't be making a Honeycomb source drop. Instead, ICS would contain the 'converged' codebase from their phone (Gingerbread) and tablet (Honeycomb) trees.
If we want to get ultra-technical, releasing the git sources of Ice Cream Sandwich will pretty much require releasing the Honeycomb source as a prerequisite. However, there's not much point of basing your work off of Honeycomb over Ice Cream Sandwich at that point.
I'm of the mindset that this is chiefly for the patents... But.
The real benefactors of this? The former Danger team that made the TMobile Sidekick, one of whom created Android.
If you recall, shortly after the last I/O the gang was announced reunited at Google working on a plethora of hardware toys. I think Google just bought them a new playground to play in.
Does this include any of the H264 patents that Motorola hold? If so this makes this story even more interesting, the cases for WebM/VP8 would change substantially.
"Parties with patents or patent applications determined by MPEG LA’s patent experts to be essential to the H.264/AVC standard (“standard”) so far include Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Polycom, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Thomson, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC)."
The problem is knowing which part of Motorola held the patents, if it was mobility, which would seem logical in some ways (encryption of video streams and media) it would be a boon. Microsoft have a big case against Motorola over the license fees for h264.
Plus I assume there's the iDEN patents, which I suspect will have lots in the download/media area. It will certainly keep the wolves from the door.
My big hope is that Google do something altruistic with this, however it's shareholders may have other ideas.
At first this made absolutely no sense to me. Totally random borderline crazy, reasonable for defense but a huge risk. Why would Google buy a low margin phone builder thats struggling to make money, its just not reasonable unless they dont want to make money on phones.
Google isnt about the sky its about the floor. Yeah Google does all sort of crazy crap with self driving cars and wind energy but the real focus has always been raising the base. Look at Chrome and Android raising our expectations for speed, usability, security and cost. Google doesnt want Moto to build the Android iPhone, Google wants an Android Razr. The Android Razr would be a rugged dirt cheap smartphone. A new base level 'free' phone that out classes any feature phone. Its in Google's best interest to get a smartphone into the hands of every single person on the planet. How many Google searches can you do on a free AT&T Samsung Rugby® II, probably not that many. Its not a bad move and if executed well this could mark a huge push for the internet and personal communication devices.
Don't forget MotoMobile also got Moto's cable box business. Think of every new Comcast, TWC, etc. subscriber suddenly having a Google TV box by default; which is fully integrated with their cable system. Apple and Roku's boxes wouldn't stand a chance.
I'm not so sure about that. AppleTV and Roku boxes don't rely on a ridiculously expensive monthly subscriptions to be useful. The only damage to sales would be the people who would have bought an AppleTV/Roku box and retain their cable subscription.
A year's subscription to Netflix and a Roku or AppleTV are each just a little more expensive than a month of cable subscription, saving you a little less than 10 months of cable subscription fees. Google would have to add around $700/year worth of value to all these set top boxes to compete with that (not to mention having to play nice with the various cable companies and such).
This is obviously great news for both Google and Motorola. I am glad they did not let the not buying Sun mistake repeat.
I have no idea what Sprint is worth but Google buying or investing in Sprint might take this to yet another level! And Larry had shown he isn't shy of adventures.
Still remains to be seen, how this impacts other manufacturers' support of Android. Could be WP7's gain. EDIT: http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/ - Many including Sony Ericsson, LG and HTC have responded favorably.
In case there's any doubt this is about "defending Android", head over to http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/ . Each of the four statements from an executive at a major device manufacturer users the particular phrase "defending Android."
Funny how I've been anticipating Apple expanding into Google's search, services, and map space, but I certainly never thought of Google getting into hardware. I think it shows just how different the modern consumer space is from the last decade of computing. Unless you believe this is entirely about patents, Google has identified a need to give the Android ecosystem at least one device that's been holistically designed end-to-end.
It is worth noting this is the handset manufacturing part of Motorola.
Google's first foray into consumer electronics? That's big news. Phones and tablets. They are now competing directly in Apple's space.
Full control over the handset stack? (Did Samsung really push back that much on newer "GooglePhone" design?) Or access to patents? It's not really clear. However they do buy themselves a worldwide R&D facility.
I don't get it about the patent protection thing. If Apple can sue Motorola today despite Motorola's 17,000 patents, how could Google get any protection with the same 17,000 patents?
Google shares already lost 4% on the Frankfurt Stock exchange ( http://www.boerse-frankfurt.de/EN/index.aspx?pageID=35&I... ), and Google didn't answer any questions on how they came up with this extraordinary price. I don't think $12.5bn is justifiable...
In terms of what they'll add to Android (patent protection for partners, stronger steering of hardware & user experience), it'll pay for itself pretty quickly.
esr has foreseen this: "This morning came the news that Google has agreed to buy Motorola Mobile for $12 billion. I was half-asleep when A&D regular Jay Maynard phoned me with a heads-up, but not surprised for a second; as I told him, I’ve been expecting this for weeks."
"make no mistake: this purchase is all about Motorola’s patent portfolio. This is Google telling Apple and Microsoft and Oracle 'You want to play silly-buggers with junk patents? Bring it on; we’ll countersue you into oblivion.'"
esr envisions a rosy future for Android: "now that Google has shown it’s willing to fly cover for Android handset and tablet makers, likely there’ll be more of them signing on. This move will accelerate Android hardware down the price curve."
This is the beginning of the end for Android as an open platform. Google will have a financial incentive to release the best phones as Motorola devices. I would not want to be HTC today.
I like how Larry Page talks about IP in the blog post. After all of that talk about how patents were overpriced, Google comes out and spends more money than anyone on acquiring what is basically a terrible handset maker with a large IP portfolio. At the end of the day, Google does what's best for Google.
Google has got to play the game until the rules of the game change. They need patents for protection. Yes, the patents are overpriced, but does Google have a choice?
Android tablets are being pulled from shelves. What should they do? Just concede the market to Apple for the decade or so a serious attempt at patent reform will probably take? They're still not offensively suing anybody.
But it's not clear how Google can break the cycle by themselves. If Google were to say no to patents, without there first being major reforms to the patent system, then they would be slowly squeezed by their competitors patents until they ran out of juice.
It's all about execution. It's not like it hasn't been in HTC/Samsung/Etc's best interest to release the best phones they could. Google showed as much with the Nexus line (same manufacturer, better handsets).
I don't think Google is interested in making profits with hardware sales. It is still about getting Google search into as many hands as possible (and collecting lots of data).
So basically Google has acquired Motorala because they want to strengthen Android and build up a better patent portfolio. Funny how they don't mention users, better mobile experiences, etc all that much. I'm surprised how frank Larry Page is in his blogpost http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android...
I am not sure if Apple would ever be caught admitting that any of their products suck. They will always sell stuff in a more positive way (I mean they won't say "our product x sucked, this is what we do to make it better"). Why should Google do it differently.
So now Google has blessed a hardware manufacturer as the official Android manufacturer, and despite Google's insistence that Android is open, I don't think we've seen the Honeycomb source code yet. How long until Google no longer offers the Android source at all?
Samsung, HTC and the others are probably not very happy about this and will likely move them to start pushing their Windows Phone 7 handsets a bit harder than overly relying on Android.
>despite Google's insistence that Android is open, I don't think we've seen the Honeycomb source code yet
The word "yet" is mildly disingenuous. No one is waiting for them to do that -- google said a while ago that it wouldn't happen, but that they would release the source to Ice Cream Sandwich.
From the article, nice list of Android tablets showing those that comply with the GPL: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/ - a small proportion of the list are marked compliant, but most of the big names seem to be there.
Google doesn't have to as long as they don't distribute binaries. The liable ones are probably the phone manufacturers. But only the copyright holders can sue anyway, and I don't see that happening.
From Larry's post: "This acquisition will not change our commitment to run Android as an open platform. Motorola will remain a licensee of Android and Android will remain open. We will run Motorola as a separate business. Many hardware partners have contributed to Android’s success and we look forward to continuing to work with all of them to deliver outstanding user experiences."
Edit: Interesting to see huge difference in rationality/understanding of those who read Larry's post versus the TC'd version of the story.
Google is going the Apple route and building well-integrated hardware and software. The problem is that they're taking a detour into mid-90s Apple where other manufacturers were cannibalizing Mac sales. It's inevitable that Google will one day decide that it makes more sense to make $350 from every Android phone sold than from only 15% of them (or whatever Motorola's Android marketshare is).
Officially the other manufacturers have welcomed this as a move to protect Android. Which they profit from. Perhaps the patents that Google acquired can be lumped in with other patents from these companies for a 'MPEG like' protection cartel. Use it to get rid of any more additional payments to Microsoft or Apple in the future.
I hope Google uses the facility to build developer phones and tablets. That way you do not compete too much with the other phone makers. Release a new device every year with new features.
I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to Symbian in the 90s, at its popularity peak almost everyone was using a licensed Symbian. Not that I agree with the model but it once hasn't a reality of the mobile phone market.
As for the open sourcing and then reclosing of Symbian, it's another story. I wasn't talking about the Symbian of the past few years.
With the patent war being fought by Apple and Microsoft they had no choice but to arm themselves. Otherwise they would soon face a mobile space dominated by the other two mobile OS vendors due to license fees that would make Android unprofitable for hardware vendors.
Apple and Microsoft would then push Google ads out of the mobile space by demanding a large share of ad proceeds or by pushing apps instead of HTML5.
I contracted at Motorola for a half-year - systems administration.
They were very segmented, regimented and separation of duty'd. It felt like you couldn't sneeze without having the boss's boss's boss sign off on it. And then over to security for his chop.
I've never been to Google or to Spain but from what I've read .. the culture mix is going to be interesting.
Yeah, I agree. I contract at Motorola in China, and it is extremely regimented. The Chinese are very good at it, though. Coming from a startup culture, I can tell you it is hard to believe the two cultures are going to sit well with each other. There are going to have to be some changes.
I think its convenient how the software structure is already on Gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/), and we all use Google Apps for email, etc.
You don't spend $12.5 billion on a device maker for patents; You just buy the damn patents. (~_~)
I actually was far more bullish on Android's prospects before given the rapid device growth, the de facto stealing of Symbian's marketshare and the adoption of the platform as a basic and functional OS for most users. However, as a strategy I think this is quite flawed initially.
As a device maker, Motorola Mobility would be a good play for HTC or Samsung. They'd be integrating an established maker with contracts, devices, patents, etc. For the platform maker to outright buy them would immediately put most other makers on guard.
What guarantee do you have that Google won't favor Motorola? How do you know that they will keep things on an equal footing? You don't. Case in point: travel comparison on AdWords. Google has shown their willingness to integrate vertically and throw valued customers under the bus.
In the long run, it makes absolutely zero sense for Google to keep Motorola as "just another device maker" in the Android ecosystem. They most likely will give it lip service for a year, try and fight off some patent suits and then slowly integrate things much more tightly. I think they're betting that they can become another Apple in terms of integration with Android not being overly harmed by other vendors fleeing to Microsoft. It is the logical strategy - the one driven by reality, not some PR spin of being "open".
I am quite confident that this deal does not bring much changes to Android and related companies, because even tough Google bought Motorola Mobility, their commitment to the other device manufacturers (Samsung, HTC, LG...) will be as strong as ever. It's Google's goal to reach as many people as possible with their Android operating system, so they can sell ads and be the default/dominant search engine on the mobile platform.
I would even argue that, after the acquisition, they are going to take extra good care of their relations with Samsung and HTC. Also I'm quite positive that the executives of the before mentioned firms, who've already both been sued by Microsoft and Apple, welcome the acquisition at least in the short term, as it strengthens Android's position in the patent lawsuits. We must not forget that it's Android that made HTC and Samsung great in the smartphone business.
Androids (Google's+Motorolas) success, is HTC's, LG's and Samsung's success.
So from my point of view, all the above mentioned companies depend on each other, which is why I don't expect any big strategic moves/changes in the next few months/year on either side.
The headline threw me at first, then I started thinking about how closely they worked with them on the Xoom, iirc they Honeycomb guys were testing and working on the Xoom exclusively (From the Google I/O keynote I think)
I wonder if we'll see more open (i.e. easily rootable, well documented etc) handsets coming from this deal.
Not entirely sure but I think the Nexus One was the last really transparent HTC Android device...
I also wonder if this will affect Google's choice of launch partner for Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0). Current rumours have that either being Samsung or that there are multiple partners. It'd be too late to back down on a Samsung choice, but if there were multiple partners...
The patent reform they are fighting for will take years if not decades. This is a good short term move, they can't just sit and watch the Apple/Microsoft patent attack.
Dropbox valuation is nearly as much as Moto mobility. I wonder if you hand those kids that started Dropbox a bunch of chips, whether they would make a Droid handset? Are these enterprises the same level of complexity and know-how? There is no bubble...
The thing I don't understand about this deal is if the patents are as valuable as Google claims why did they only pay (effectively) $9B for them? Motorola hasn't really been on the bleeding edge of cellular technology for about a decade. Going back to 2003 (at least) they've been using Qualcomm radios for example. In more modern times they are assembling someone else's radio, GPU and running someone else's OS. I'm sure they do have some valuable IP but given the low sale price I'm thinking it's getting seriously overstated. In a $150B/year SmartPhone industry that continues to grow how are these super valuable patents only worth $9B?
The Razor is still the favorite among the phones I've owned, and the StarTac is the only phone I ever truly lusted after, but I can't help feeling that this purchase turns Google into just another conglomerate. And without any intent at snark, the first thing this reminded me of was AOL - seven years ago it would have been brilliant, today the looks like a committee decided to take the "nobody ever gets fired for" approach. Google's mobile strategy just seems incoherent.
Seems odd that nobody is mentioning spectrum ownership. Maybe now we could start to see some areas with open/free access to high-bandwidth wireless data networks.
Not sure actually - and quick searching only turns up sparse info around the 700 MHz and 2.5-2.6 GHz auctions, along with a few bits about LTE and WiMax. Maybe there are some long-term licenses or other agreements that could prove useful?
I guess things are unclear at best, but there is enough content to keep me curious about the possibilities.
I'm not against companies using Google flexible UI to innovate the interface but I strongly believe Android needs a good example of consistent user experience. Everything is just too fragmented right now. Just look at system icons alone in any Android phone, they are of million different styles.
With Motorola, Google should try its best to have a phone with everything thought out from hardware to software design.
A companies identity is a peculiar thing. Remember not so long ago it was rumored that Microsoft was going to buy Nokia? People seemed to out of hand reject this as a bad move. Yet Google comes along (with arguably the same ambitions) and buys Motorola (makers of the 68000 probably the greatest chip ever created), and everyone seems to think it's a pretty good idea.
Whoa. You know what would be even more interesting than this would be Google going after ARM and it's slew of licensing.
I wonder if this will make better or worse Motorola mobile phones. Will phones be pushed into retirement more early without upgrading their version of Android? Or will they have a longer software update cycle to keep them up to date in features?
There's no way an ARM acquisition by Google (or Apple, or Microsoft) would get past anti-trust issues; given that ARM, for all intents and purposes, owns the mobile market. Even if it got through, there'd be enough strings attached that there wouldn't be any value in it.
I swore off buying another Motorola product ever again after it took them an absurdly long time to roll out 2.2 for the Milestone. 2.3 is nowhere in sight. Shockingly terrible support for a flagship product.
We'll see how quickly Google can transform them. Android could really use a line of official devices that are consistently updated like iOS devices.
Motorola isn't the only manufacturer to fail their customers like that. Samsung is worse and HTC is only slightly better, but overall the outlook for any Android phone getting promptly updated over the duration of the contract period is bleak at best.
On one hand, other Android based phone manufacturers are clearly going to face an uphill struggle if Google are going to release new versions of the OS on their own devices first.
On the other hand, it will hopefully provide some protection against being sued by Apple+Microsoft.
It doesn't help against Oracle though. If the OS goes what does it matter? Not that I think that will happen. More likely Google will be force to shell out some cash to Oracle.
Assuming they spent the money for patents, is this the best way to resolve this issue? Would it not be easier to throw 1M a thousand time over and let developers create solutions around these patents and open source the projects?
By the look of motorola solutions website, there's nothing that links the newly acquired company, at least directly, to the mobile phone hardware market.
From Wikipedia:
Motorola Solution Corporate structure
The company is structured into two divisions:
Enterprise: Comprises communications offered to government enterprise
mobility business.
Motorola develops advanced data capture, wireless infrastructure, bar
code scanning, two-way radios and business pagers, wireless broadband
networks and RFID solutions to customers worldwide.
Government: Produces public safety and government products. Motorola
develops analog and digital two-way radio, voice and data communications
products and systems, Wireless LAN Securities and mobile computing,
among others.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but MY first thought was Google bought Motorola so they can directly defend Android against Apple's Samsung-style lawsuits (which are now including the Xoom).
Motorola recently bought Symbol is this included in the acquisition? If so this is huge and I wonder what is Google's plans for the rest of the company outside of the phone division.
I realize this is an old converstaion, but, just so you know, Motorola bought Symbol about 5 years ago, but more recently, Motorola was split up into two companies: Motorola Solutions (B2B focused-> Symbol is a part of this business), and Motorola Mobility (more consumer focused). It is this second company that Google acquired. They are traded under the symbols MSI, and MMI, respectively.
Before we laud Google's awesome engineering capacity too much, perhaps we can consider the fuck-awful interfaces for adwords and adsense... It's not without its weaknesses.
Everyone is focusing on mobile patents, but what impact does this have on the lawsuit with Oracle? Didn't Motorola have a Java license? Would that protect Google?
Will they allow motorola employees to work on google things? I've known motorola programmers and they are not at all of the same caliber as google programmers
I was at DoubleClick when it was bought by Google -- same issue. I left before the deal was completed, but it is my understanding that many people were told "we'll give you a year's salary if you would please just not come to work anymore". In a few months, everyone I knew from that job (minus a select few who were Google material) was working somewhere else.
Wow, Google is pulling a Microsoft by entering into competition with its former partners. I can't believe that LG or Samsung are going to be excited about this. I guess that is the price you pay when you don't have control of the software.
Technically, yes. However, given how much other OEMs have invested into Android, any significant special treatment to Motorola will have the anti-trust dogs on them in no time. With the scrutiny Google's under right now, they don't have much of a choice.
Well, except for android, they can probably keep Motorola separate (as they said), wait for patent wars to stop/calm down, and then resell it. No real integration effort would be required.
From what I have read in previous HN threads - merged in employees still have to interview for placement purposes - could be off on that one though, but I em pretty sure I have read this more than once. Could also be a different story if the nature is more of a talent acquisition, but that is clearly not the case here.
Motorola != Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a recent spin-off from Motorola and encompasses the original company's handset business as well as its related patent portfolio.
What does Motorola do? Well ... cellular infrastructure is their core business, and they also have services/solutions for things like emergency response services (e.g. 911 in the US), law enforcement, and I think they still make walkie talkies.
Motorola was split in two companies the past 4th of January.
Motorola Mobility (MMI) and Motorola Solutions (MSI).
The cellular infrastructure, part of MSI, was sold to Nokia/Siemes Networks.
Motorola Solutions in mainly the Enterprise Mobility Business (Mobile Rugged Devices), WiFi systems, Tetra networks and a lot of other Government stuffs.
Thanks for the clarification. While MSI is considered the successor of the original Motorola, you are absolutely correct. I didn't realize that the cell infrastructure division(s) got sold (used to work on CDMA base-stations a decade a go). Makes me a bit sad. Do you know if they kept the employees?
My dad works for MSI - he kept his job, and a few people he knows at the mobile one kept theirs. I know layoffs are fairly common, although it's possible that is true for most other large companies.
A. They already had to compete with Motorola, so they haven't lost or gained a new competitor.
B. They don't pay for Android so Motorola hasn't gotten some new financial edge. Google just has to ensure that all companies still get source releases at the same time. What they do with them is up to them. (aside: I expect we will see MotoBlur disappear with some of its key features rolled into future Android releases)
C. This will allow Google to protect Android much better which is very beneficial to their bottom lines, especially if it keeps patent licensing costs off of their products.
D. Google just has to be sure they don't play favorites but from what I have seen up until now they have been good about that.
E. This may have just brought the competition for who gets to build the next Nexus to an end. (unless the next Nexus is already basically "done" at another partner company)
I think they can get this right... and now hopefully we can get a whole line of nice Motorola hardware with current Android and unlocked boot-loaders, etc. I might have to reconsider the Droid 3 again (more like Droid 4 one day, since 3 is already in the wild as is)