Opinions - Google’s acquisition of Motorola changes everything... again

[HEXUS]

The broader motives and ramifications of the mega-deal are becoming apparent.

Read more.

[Gordy]

I've been reading all the pundits theories and views on this for the last 2 days and it makes great reading. I think this is going to be a defining moment for Google and the mobile phone industry.

I think Google felt forced to purchase moto for whatever price they could. Moto saw it coming and took them to the cleaners. And fair play to them I bet there are some very happy share holders out there today.

I think the oddest thing about this is that Google have spent 1 and half years profit on Motorola. That's a very odd thing to do for Android. Something that is already I assume a losing proposition for them. I don't see a good business case for it? $12.5 billion more to earn seems a very large amount of searches.

It's very interesting seeing the battle between Apple/Google/Microsoft in the mobile sphere. They are all in it with completly different plans and reasons.

Google want bums on seats and don't care about OEM's profits
Apple want to make the good money and don't care about market share. Their customers are the end users.
Microsoft want to sell as many licenses as possible.

It's not a battle that we've ever seen before in the tech world.

Lets hope it benefits us customers in the end.

[mrochester]

I think the oddest thing about this is that Google have spent 1 and half years profit on Motorola. That's a very odd thing to do for Android. Something that is already I assume a losing proposition for them. I don't see a good business case for it? $12.5 billion more to earn seems a very large amount of searches.

There's not only that, Motorola Mobility are actually making a loss too, so this acquisition is actually going to cost Google quite a lot of money. Something drastic needs to be done to make Motorola Mobility a profitable concern.

[3dcandy]

Most phone companies are struggling though...Nokia, SE and LG aren't actually posting decent results and haven't for years!

[mrochester]

Most phone companies are struggling though...Nokia, SE and LG aren't actually posting decent results and haven't for years!

They also need to take drastic action too (and we know what that is for one of them). Could loss-making + Google's Motorola acquisition be enough to push SE and LG et al away from Android? The shareholders of these companies will be looking for whatever way they can to maximise profits, and it may come to a point where that means abandoning Android if it remains unprofitable.

[Scott B]

They also need to take drastic action too (and we know what that is for one of them). Could loss-making + Google's Motorola acquisition be enough to push SE and LG et al away from Android? The shareholders of these companies will be looking for whatever way they can to maximise profits, and it may come to a point where that means abandoning Android if it remains unprofitable.

...and go where?

[mrochester]

...and go where?

WP7, WebOS, develop their own OS?

[Gordy]

There's not only that, Motorola Mobility are actually making a loss too, so this acquisition is actually going to cost Google quite a lot of money. Something drastic needs to be done to make Motorola Mobility a profitable concern.

True, though I suspect the fact that it's now owned by google and will probably get some preferential treatment will improve that situation.

I was reading a report earlier that each android handset generates $6 in revenue for Google via adverts. Now if that figure is true they are years and years away from recovering just what they paid for Motorola let alone all the other money already spent.

They also need to take drastic action too (and we know what that is for one of them). Could loss-making + Google's Motorola acquisition be enough to push SE and LG et al away from Android? The shareholders of these companies will be looking for whatever way they can to maximise profits, and it may come to a point where that means abandoning Android if it remains unprofitable.

You have to believe Microsoft are very happy now. I cannot believe that the other Android OEM's are at least looking a wp7 far more seriously than before.

[Scott B]

WP7, WebOS, develop their own OS?

The problem with the other platforms is that they too favour one OEM - Nokia and Palm respectively. Also, as I said in the piece, you need a strong developer community and that's an issue for webOS and any new OS.

[oolon]

Personally i think the need for patents became urgent when Apple fire the first shot, in the current war, and needed to counter the Nortel patent set. With patents they can fight back but trying to ban their products for something else. This all ends up with everyone cross licensing technology, this is good for them as it stops new entrants (without patents) getting into the market, and so keeps competition down, reducing innovation and the dreaded emergent technology (from a existing players point of view).

Personally I think this is why patents are so BAD, the idea of a patent was show someone how to duplicate a technology which they otherwise would not be able to know about, in return of a licence fee, however now its more like a mine field, with most patents little more than a way to try to Fence in an area. Governments are addicted to the amount of money they get from granting them, so I don't see how the cycle will end.

[mrochester]

The problem with the other platforms is that they too favour one OEM - Nokia and Palm respectively. Also, as I said in the piece, you need a strong developer community and that's an issue for webOS and any new OS.

Maybe they'll go with developing their own platform then? One thing is clear though; they have to do something to become profitable.

[Gordy]

The problem with the other platforms is that they too favour one OEM - Nokia and Palm respectively. Also, as I said in the piece, you need a strong developer community and that's an issue for webOS and any new OS.

I think that if the other OEM's came knocking Microsoft would be very willing to do a deal.

Personally i think the need for patents became urgent when Apple fire the first shot, in the current war, and needed to counter the Nortel patent set. With patents they can fight back but trying to ban their products for something else. This all ends up with everyone cross licensing technology, this is good for them as it stops new entrants (without patents) getting into the market, and so keeps competition down, reducing innovation and the dreaded emergent technology (from a existing players point of view).

Personally I think this is why patents are so BAD, the idea of a patent was show someone how to duplicate a technology which they otherwise would not be able to know about, in return of a licence fee, however now its more like a mine field, with most patents little more than a way to try to Fence in an area. Governments are addicted to the amount of money they get from granting them, so I don't see how the cycle will end.

The patent system has been in trouble for a long time. With all the patent trolls out there like Lodys et al. To blame one company for it is completely misunderstanding the complexity. Google are pretty much screwed in the Oracle case as even they themselves knew they were infringing.

Patents are there to protect investments in R&D. Without them I think a lot of products we take for granted today wouldn't have been made. R&D is very pricey. If companies didn't expect a good return as other competitors could steal their ideas they would not be nearly as willing to invest the money.

[Defiant]

I think patents are needed but they are being abused by companies days to the extent that they are now beginning hurt innovation. Its a bit like trademarking words or names, it angers me to think these companies own what I see to be already owned by the native speaking people of that country. No one should be able to own words.

[mrochester]

I think patents are needed but they are being abused by companies days to the extent that they are now beginning hurt innovation. Its a bit like trademarking words or names, it angers me to think these companies own what I see to be already owned by the native speaking people of that country. No one should be able to own words.

There has to be a balance. There needs to be suitable leway that allows competitors or new starters to gain a foothold, but the research and development costs of manufacturers must also be protected else their investments would come to nothing. What should that system look like? Well, I have no idea myself.

[oolon]

There has to be a balance. There needs to be suitable leway that allows competitors or new starters to gain a foothold, but the research and development costs of manufacturers must also be protected else their investments would come to nothing. What should that system look like? Well, I have no idea myself.

I think that system is called "copyright", if someone copies your design then its breaking copyright. If some comes up with a product that does the same job as your one without copying your design, its competition.

[mrochester]

I think that system is called "copyright", if someone copies your design then its breaking copyright. If some comes up with a product that does the same job as your one without copying your design, its competition.

Would copyright provide enough flexibility to allow things to be suitably protected but still foster an innovative environment? Where does the concept of 'design' begin and end? Let's say I make a product. It's made of certain materials, it's put together in a certain way and it looks a certain way, all of which are part of the design of that product. If someone else comes out with a product that is made of different materials, is put together in a different way, but looks the same, am I therefore entitled to sue them? What happens if their product doesn't look identical, but looks very similar? Is the resemblance close enough that I still have a case against this company?

I'm not entirely sure if copyright would be a sufficient measure!