Hello Moto! Google to acquire Motorola Mobility

[Igor Khotin]

Seems like Google wants to be in the hardware game and increase it's
patent portfolio for protection.

http://investor.google.com/releases/2011/0815.html

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html

[Steven Siebert]

Very interesting timing, given Motorola hinted just days ago they may start charging royalties for their Android-related patents.

http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/01/did-motorola-just-hint-they-are-ready-to-join-android-ip-racket-with-their-own-patent-fee-demands/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[Calin Grecu]

This move may alienate other manufacturers long term. It may affect their platform commitment.
Interesting development ...

[Casper Bang]

On Aug 15, 6:19 pm, Calin Grecu <calin.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This move may alienate other manufacturers long term. It may affect their
> platform commitment.
> Interesting development ...

True. It's good news to those of us who disliked Motorola's aggressive
device lock-downs. I do wonder if this is their strategy for
broadening "the Google experience", which so few manufactures seems to
like.

[Chris Koerner]

Is this Motorola as a whole or just the mobile division of Motorola?

[Steven Siebert]

Motorola split off their mobile division early this year.

http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Launches-as-Independent-Company-352b.aspx

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Chris Koerner <ches...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is this Motorola as a whole or just the mobile division of Motorola?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/ctoee0Ytet8J.

[Igor Khotin]

No, it's only Motorola Mobility division. Motorola Solutions stays
apart.

[Scott Finnie]

All depends how google uses it.  It's not in their interest to cut out other android licensees.

Looks very much like buying an IP war chest.  Given moto's strength in mobile patents it could be a shrewd bargain.
 
 - S.

[Calin Grecu]

True, however, given the price they paid for it, it may look as an investment in the brand more that in its patents. I would not be surprised if Google will have a new phone line competing with others in one or two years. You know Google,  they pick a fight whenever they can :)

On Aug 15, 2011 5:12 PM, "Scott Finnie" <scott....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

Interesting news, of course. It's just plain a given that part of the puzzle here is Motorola Mobile's patent portfolio. That part of it is also good news for HTC, Samsung, etcetera. But what's next from here? Will google start manufacturing its own line of phones?

Calin Grecu said this may be a play for the brand, but that's clearly wrong. Motorola's brand is not _that_ great, and google has one of the most powerful brands, second only to apple and perhaps nike. They did also inherit a handset maker so whether Google is going to call them Google phones or motorola phones, the question becomes: Will google start making phones themselves?

If yes, that's not going to make Samsung, HTC, and other android handset makers happy. However, at this point I'm fairly sure Google wants to make Android grow marketshare more than earn money off of it, and making their own sets in bulk is likely to do the reverse, as it will probably scare off HTC and friends. One could argue by having full control over the phone they can create a better experience, but they in effect already have this - the NexusX line is developed by HTC or Samsung, but the software side is 100% google-driven.

That kind of reasoning (engage a splashy takeover to increase control over the process) makes far more sense if google bought a major telco.

So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?

[Scoot]

On Aug 16, 2:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a
> patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?

There's also suggestion it buys Google some manufacturing capacity to
head off apple's growing stranglehold over the semiconductor supply
chain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8702132/Google-
buys-Motorola-Mobility-in-12.5bn-deal.html).

However that feels like more of a "happy coincidence" - the patent
portfolio seems to be what they were after. Patents may (or may
not...) stifle progress instead of enabling it. But they're
undeniably big business.

Time to cross-train as a patent lawyer...? Oh wait, I only have one
soul, don't want to sell it...

- S.

[Casper Bang]

On 16 Aug., 03:33, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting news, of course. It's just plain a given that part of the puzzle
> here is Motorola Mobile's patent portfolio. That part of it is also good
> news for HTC, Samsung, etcetera. But what's next from here? Will google
> start manufacturing its own line of phones?

They already are, except they have HTC and Samsung do the actual
manufacturing.

> Calin Grecu said this may be a play for the brand, but that's clearly wrong.
> Motorola's brand is not _that_ great, and google has one of the most
> powerful brands, second only to apple and perhaps nike.

True, Motorola is relatively unknown in Europe. I don't even think I
could track down a Motorola device in the country where I live unless
I go to special importers.

> If yes, that's not going to make Samsung, HTC, and other android handset
> makers happy. However, at this point I'm fairly sure Google wants to make
> Android grow marketshare more than earn money off of it, and making their
> own sets in bulk is likely to do the reverse, as it will probably scare off
> HTC and friends.

I doubt so. HTC and Samsung will likely just see the move as Google
expanding the "Google Experience" mantra, which by definition means
other manufacturers know full well they can continue to distinquish
themselves as they've had great success with thus far. MotoBlur (or
whatever Monorolas customized UI overlay is called) is dead however!

> So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a
> patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?

Especially since the patents don't seem particular strong. Both
Microsoft and Apple are already hammering Motorola, so they don't seem
particulary concerned. I can't help feeling this is really Google's
second choice, that they would've been far better off with Nokia both
in regard to brand (widely known all over the world) and patents (some
fairly heavyweight GSM ones).

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On 08/16/2011 03:33 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
>
> So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars
> on a patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?
>

I think we should wait for some time to understand, in any case I don't
think you buy a large corporate for a single reason. In any case, I'd
not be surprised if it's largely a patent thing. I think Google has
learned the Sun/Oracle lesson, and competitors are getting more and more
aggressive on the patent thing (I think I've not seen the news here, but
Apple managed in suspending Galaxy Tabs in the whole Europe - AFAIU for
a design trademark (?)). Perhaps it's better to have some more weapons
to fire back.

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it

[Robert Casto]

They have to do something and they have to do it at a price that will stop others and make them think before they try to counter Google's offer. Yes, Nokia would have been a better choice but then there is the thought that Motorola split off its division so it could sell it. In other words, there were plans a while back and Motorola sees this as a benefit to themselves getting a huge amount of cash and being on the inside with Google.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.

To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

--
Robert Casto
www.robertcasto.com
www.sellerstoolbox.com

[Jared]

Unless Google uses this purchase to make their own Hardware and insure
it provides the same experience with accessibility that Apple does
this doesn’t change anything for me. While Android offers some
accessibility support my understanding is the Nexus S is not usable by
blind individuals do to a combination of a lack of physical hardware
controls and a bug in the Android operating system that makes it
impossible for assistive technology to work with virtual d-pads. While
Google does provide accessibility documentation no actual support for
phones or corporate statements on the accessibility of specific phones
is provided. As a blind individual this is why I’ll stick with my
iPhone, while I may have things about it I don’t like it took all of
about 10 seconds to turn on the included screen reading software. With
Android I’d have to spend hours researching different phones to
determine what has a shot at being accessible, spend even more time
getting the proper software installed, and hope all the information I
used to pick a phone was correct. While I enjoy technology with a full
time job I can find other things to do with my time then do research
on accessibility of different devices when it should just work. I
could be wrong and there could be an Android handset with a wonderful
accessibility experience out there but without an actual company
making a statement regarding it’s accessibility I haven’t found one
yet.

[Chris Adamson]

Wall Street clearly isn't happy with GOOG's announcement:

"GOOG today is down $20.47, or 3.7%, to $536.76; the stock is now down
4.8% since announcing the deal Monday morning. Or think of it this
way: Google’s market cap has been trimmed by $8.7 billion in the last
two days, suggesting serious doubts among investors about the
company’s strategy."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/08/16/google-s-sees-risks-in-deal/

"But today’s conventional wisdom (again! caveat emptor, etc) is that
Google has spooked Wall Street because it’s not really sure what
Google is thinking here: Is it really just buying patent protection,
which was the company’s messaging yesterday? Or is the big plan to
create an integrated soup-to-nuts software/hardware mobile phone
company, a la Apple?"
http://allthingsd.com/20110816/googles-motorola-buy-has-wall-street-selling/?reflink=ATD_yahoo_ticker

On that latter, point, Kara Swisher at All Things D argues that Google
really *does* want to turn itself into a mobile-focused integrated
services/software/hardware company, like Apple:

"And, also, in that it is more than just a little bit sneaky. Case in
point: Google’s yammering on about the importance of Motorola’s
patents in the deal. While the patent love is true and an important
element, bolstering Google’s own weak portfolio, it’s also a bit of a
feint by the search giant, which can simply never come out and say
what it is actually up to.
Which is to be the dominant and overwhelming player in the mobile
market that Google sees as critical to its future."
http://allthingsd.com/20110816/larry-page-might-be-bill-gates-but-he-wants-to-be-steve-jobs/

--Chris

On Aug 16, 8:42 am, Robert Casto <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They have to do something and they have to do it at a price that will stop
> others and make them think before they try to counter Google's offer. Yes,
> Nokia would have been a better choice but then there is the thought that
> Motorola split off its division so it could sell it. In other words, there
> were plans a while back and Motorola sees this as a benefit to themselves
> getting a huge amount of cash and being on the inside with Google.
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> > On 08/16/2011 03:33 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> >> So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a
> >> patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?
>
> > I think we should wait for some time to understand, in any case I don't
> > think you buy a large corporate for a single reason. In any case, I'd not be
> > surprised if it's largely a patent thing. I think Google has learned the
> > Sun/Oracle lesson, and competitors are getting more and more aggressive on
> > the patent thing (I think I've not seen the news here, but Apple managed in
> > suspending Galaxy Tabs in the whole Europe - AFAIU for a design trademark
> > (?)). Perhaps it's better to have some more weapons to fire back.
>
> > --
> > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people

> > Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it

>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "The Java Posse" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@**
> > googlegroups.com <javaposse%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
> > group/javaposse?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en>.
>
> --
> Robert Castowww.robertcasto.comwww.sellerstoolbox.com

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chris Adamson <inval...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wall Street clearly isn't happy with GOOG's announcement:

"GOOG today is down $20.47, or 3.7%, to $536.76; the stock is now down
4.8% since announcing the deal Monday morning. Or think of it this
way: Google’s market cap has been trimmed by $8.7 billion in the last
two days, suggesting serious doubts among investors about the
company’s strategy."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/08/16/google-s-sees-risks-in-deal/

It always makes me smile when articles try to make minor stock movements a bigger deal than they really are.

Looking back these past few weeks, Monday/Friday:

Jul 18: $594 $618

Jul 25: $618 $603

Aug 1: $606 $579

Aug 8: $546 $562

How about April?

March 28: $575 $595

April 4: $587 $578

April 11: $577 $530

April 18: $526 $525

and so on.

IMO, any fluctuation under 5% (or maybe even 10%) is not worth even mentioning in an article, but it's pretty clear that this $20 fluctuation has absolutely zero meaning.

-- 

Cédric

[Robert Casto]

No, I think the fact that Wall St is confused says it all. For years they didn't understand Amazon and kept them under $30. Now they understand what they are doing and it is almost at $200.

In this case they are probably scared of the lawsuit and are seeing Google buying up patents for protection. To them that means there might be merit and that Google would have to pay lots of money to Apple. They hate uncertainty and will make you pay dearly for it. It is best to ignore Wall St and make up your own mind and play the market long term. These short term changes won't mean much down stream.

2011/8/16 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[Russel Winder]

Stock market traders are just gamblers. As are high frequency trading
systems.

The speed of information flow since the market system was created has
introduced massive volatility into the markets enhanced by gamblers'
fear.

Analysts need to have something to write about on a daily basis. Short
termism is rife. Hyping up a big change is good for creating a story
that lasts more than a day.

Gamblers read the hype and panic, creating a positive feedback loop to
an already highly volatile system.

Stock price is decoupled from actual company performance and is an
abstract thing related only to the ability to buy and sell the stock.

It is absolutely no surprise to anyone that we have a cycle of boom and
bust.

The obvious cure, that will not be deemed acceptable of course, is
require stock transactions to take 4 working days to complete, with sale
requiring proof of ownership. This will introduce a dampening on the
positive feedback loop, and perhaps lead to stock price being determined
by companies' turnover and sales rather than on some abstract price
perceived by the gamblers.

> +unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Casto
> www.robertcasto.com
> www.sellerstoolbox.com
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse

> +unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On 08/16/2011 10:57 PM, Robert Casto wrote:
> No, I think the fact that Wall St is confused says it all. For years
> they didn't understand Amazon and kept them under $30. Now they
> understand what they are doing and it is almost at $200.

So, is Wall Street confused? Hell. I'd never suspected ;-) Back to
serious mode, I'm with Cédric, let's put a low-pass filter on market
fluctuations to guess some trend, especially in these times...

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people

Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:57:49 PM UTC+2, rcasto wrote:

No, I think the fact that Wall St is confused says it all. For years they didn't understand Amazon and kept them under $30. Now they understand what they are doing and it is almost at $200.

Apple is fluctating about as much as google is these past 2 months, as is most of the rest of the tech industry. That's probably because of the tea party downgrade. A 3%-ish swing in a single day following an announcement of this magnitude says only one thing: That news was evidently nearly irrelevant compared to the more widespread chaos that was already in play.

An article that takes these numbers, uses them as the basis of an entire story, but fails to mention you'd find such a swing on half the days of the past 2 months, is a _really_ horrible journalist who should be called on his deception. Just compare the July and August stock charts on finance.google.com of AAPL and GOOG. Then, given those 2 charts, point at the date where the moto mobile buyout announcement occurred. You can't. Point stands.

[Oscar Hsieh]

Sigh ... Last time Amazon under 30 was in early 2003, I am not very smart but I am sure most people had doubt of the chance for any internet company to survive the crash

Look, I dont like Wall street and I doubt any body like wall street unless you work and make tons of money there.  But what you are saying does not make any sense.

Take a look at the Wall street response after merger

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/08/15/goog-street-mixed-on-benefits-of-expensive-mmi-deal/?mod=yahoobarrons

I think in general the concerns are

1.  Google is entering hardware business, which is something that they have never done before
2.  Google is running the risk of alienating handset partners.
3.  12 billions is too expensive.

So for #1 google steps on other's toes all the time and for #3 google has enough cash in her pocket to burn anyway.  But for #2, you can not say it is not a legitimate concern.  Google has to walk this thin line not to make Motorola appear to have any advantage over other handset makers or you might start to see HTC (which already commit to WP7 handset) and samsung to search for alternative options to at least hedge their risk.  I know google said Moto will run as a separate company but if you were one of those CEOs, could you bet your multi-billion business on the good will of another company?  I know I could not.

Just my 2 cents.  Back to work
Thanks

[opinali]

On Monday, August 15, 2011 9:33:53 PM UTC-4, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:

So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?

Hard to comprehend for me, is the number of articles, blogs, comments..., of people claiming that Google paid 12B *only* for these patents; and making comparisons to the competitor's Nortel/Novell patent deal ("3X more money for 3X more patents" so it's the same thing etc.).  It's not the same kind of deal, because hey, Motorola is surely worth more than $0, right?  Yes it's not a market leader, it's a shadow of the StarTac times' Motorola; but it's certainly not a company that is near bankruptcy and hemorrhaging money - I just looked up their results for the last couple years and it seems they have been breaking even in the average, with very small net operating earnings or losses... not a company I would buy stock, but not a dead corpse either. It's possible that Google may be able to steer Moto into, some reasonable level of growth, so at the very least they don't lose any money. In the worst case Google can just spin off the hardware business and recoup a few billions, so the net price for the patent pool would be (per-patent) much lower than that of Nortel/Novell's pool.
 

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:33:53 AM UTC+2, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:

So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?

I know it's only August but I guess I win the 'Most ridiculously quoted out of context' award of 2011 with this one? Half a dozen folks jumped on this as if it wasn't my 2 cents of the dollars worth of speculation in this thread. "looking at it like that" is right in there even.

Getting back to the point, some X% of that buy was strongly inspired by the need to load up on weapons in this patent war. I'll happily point and laugh at anybody that claims X is likely to be in the 25% or less range. Even if only half the value GOOG saw in MotoMobile is the patent portfolio, I'd take that as a sign that (A) this patent stuff is costing large corporations a ridiculous amount of money, money which isn't going into more useful exercises, and that (B) for any new or small company, if they show up at these kinds of fights only with their own few patents, it's like bringing a pebble to a BFG9000 fight.

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 16, 3:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a
> patent portfolio.

If Google was just after the patents, they could have done a patent
licensing deal, just like they recently did with IBM. They didn't. Two
possible reasons spring to mind, and there's evidence for both.

Reason 1: Motorola would only sell the whole company, hook, line and
sinker

Except for maybe two or three quarters last year, Motorola Mobility
has only lost money for the last four years (http://www.asymco.com/
2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-
in-q2). This includes both quarters this year and isn't expected to
change in the short term. If you can't make money now, when both
smartphones and Android boom, then when can yoou?

The Motorola brand is not very strong in the US anymore and weak in
the rest of the world. The successful "Droid" brand belongs to
Verizon.

Motorola's marketshare is declining, down from 44% of all Android
sales in Q2/2010 to 22% in the last quarter (http://moconews.net/
article/419-npd-big-motorolas-market-share-is-down.-can-google-help).
The Motorola Xoom sales have been decent at best.

Motorola Mobility was taken public this January, so it was shopped
around last year but nobody wanted to buy them (this may explain why
the Google deal could have come together so quickly - they still had
all the due diligence papers laying around from last year ;-).

As a result, Motorola's market cap was around $8 billion before the
Google offer, about 60% less than just its patents at "Nortel auction
prices".

So you can see why Motorola jumped at the opportunity to sell
everything to Google.


Reason 2: Google actually wants the hardware business.

Patents are only mentioned at the very end of the announcement of the
planned acquisition (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/
supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html) - ok, this is tea leaf
reading.

From the announcement: "Together, we will create amazing user
experiences that supercharge the entire Android ecosystem for the
benefit of consumers, partners and developers everywhere." My
translation: "Dear Android OEMs, your phones and tablets kinda suck.
But now we can build better devices than you do."

Google also mentions home devices and video solutions. Google TV has
been a failure so far, so Motorola may be a good distribution channel,
given its set top boxes. I would argue, however, that Google TV needs
to be a better product first before distribution can make a
difference.

In the mobile business, Google only has two real enemies left: Apple
in phones and tables and Microsoft in tablets and maybe in phones.
Apple builds both the hardware and the software, Microsoft creates
tight specs for the hardware and software design. So Google may think
that it needs to build both the hardware and the software to fight
them more effectively.

"Wait", you may say, "Android sells like gangbusters, so Google has
nothing to fear!" I think they do:

Apple's biggest problems are limited distribution and inability to
meet product demand (iPhone 4 needed about 8 months for supply to
catch up to demand in major markets, iPad 2 about 5). Despite all
this, Apple still got 29% of all new smartphone sales last quarter in
the U.S. (http://moconews.net/article/419-npd-big-motorolas-market-
share-is-down.-can-google-help) and has a 60+% global tablet share.
Apple's working on all its problems: They sign up a lot of carriers
(more than 30 in the last quarter, if I recall). iOS 5 won't require a
PC / Mac anymore to set up and manage, so the iOS addressable market
grows by about 6 billion people. Apple hints at entering the pre-paid
market in earnest, which dominates emerging markets and is at around
20-50% in the US and Europe. And finally, Apple use its mountains of
cash to buy supplies and secure manufacturing capacity in advance -
which helps them build more devices and reduces competitor's access to
certain high-end supplies (like high-res displays).

Now on to Microsoft. I think it has a less than 50% chance to get back
into the mobile market: It's latest mobile sweetheart Nokia is
collapsing faster than expected (for a funny list of previous
strategic mobile partners, which included Motorola at one time, see
here: http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-previous-strategic-mobile-partners),
and the next Windows phone OS doesn't have any killer features
compared to Android and iOS. But tablets are a different story: In
September 2012, maybe earlier, there'll be a flood of Windows 8
tablets, produced by the very same manufactures that do Android
tablets. They all do Windows PCs, too, so Microsoft has a number of
ways to "convince" them to build a lot of Microsoft tablets. Now at
least Honeycomb tablets haven't been big sellers so far, and there
aren't that many applications optimized for it, indicating a lack of
interest by developers. Of course it's still very early for Android
tablets, but it's possible that a year from now, both the retina
display iPad 3 and Windows 8 tablets will outsell Android ones.

Now that does that all mean?

As far as patents go: Apple and Microsoft already sued Motorola, so it
may not be the patent silver bullet Google hopes it to be.
Technically, Motorola sued Apple first, but their court papers cited
fear of litigation from Apple as one reason for their suit (http://
fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-
other.html). And as everybody's favorite patent guy explains (http://
fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/miami-court-deals-huge-setback-
to.html), the countersuit of Motorola against Microsoft has no trial
date anymore, whereas the ITC will decide about Microsoft claims
against Motorola by March 5, 2012; the hearings just started. So it's
not going great for Motorola there, either. I think eventually they'll
all settle out of court, but this may cost Motorola more money than
they get, further hurting them.

And just hinting at competing with its own Android licenses will hurt
Google and Android in the long run. Supposedly, Samsung decided to
strengthen its own smartphone OS Bada the day after the Google
announcement (http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?
bicode=020000&biid=2011081766818). And I'm sure that Microsoft will
see increased interest from the Android licensees which often build
Windows phones, too - they may have a sweetheart partner in Nokia, but
at least they don't compete with their own channel.

I found this analysis of "Googorola" also interesting: http://5by5.tv/criticalpath/4.

[Kevin Wright]

Well, if it's patents for tablet devices they're after, Samsung may soon be bringing the whole crazy idea back down to earth in their current spat with Apple.

My favourite example of prior-art for tablets here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20096061-248/samsung-cites-kubrick-film-in-apple-patent-spat/

It's sci-fi, of course. Tablets in space, and we're not talking about protein pills either...

[Karsten Silz]

On Aug 16, 3:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, looking at it like that, they just dropped 12,000 million dollars on a
> patent portfolio. Boy. That's hard to comprehend, isn't it?

If an account of an answer by Google chairman Eric Schmidt (http://
www.businessinsider.com/google-chairman-eric-schmidt-2011-9) is to
believed (and he said some, um, questionable things in the past), then
it's also about the hardware:

"We did it for more than just patents. We actually believe that the
Motorola team has some amazing products coming....We're excited to
have the product line, to use the Motorola brand, the product
architecture, the engineers. [...] [We like] having at least one area
where we can do integrated hardware and software."

A clear nod to Apple's integrated / closed strategy, if you ask me,
and cause for a little worry at the Android OEMs. But what are they
going to do? It's not that the only other option for most (Windows
Phone) is flying off the shelves.

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

This area such a political minefield that whatever Eric Smidt says is probably has no relation at all to what he really thinks. That's the job of a CEO - tiptoe around political minefields.

He has to show the stockholders that aren't convinced the patent wars are something that's worth dropping 12 very big ones on that he has more in mind than just the patents, without being so obvious about it that he spooks Google's OEM partners (Samsung, HTC, etc) or reveals too much about future plans to the competition (Apple, nokia, RIMM).