POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

Back to Article

  • Lord 666 - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Worldwide presence, deep business and government penetration, and very deep discount. Reply
  • GrizzledYoungMan - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Brilliant idea. The potential for tight integration into Cisco networking products would be killer in the corporate IT/MIS markets. And I bet the addition of resources from Cisco would help RIM knock out some killer hardware.

    Add in QNX based OSes, and you have a phone I'd look forward to buying.

    F'ing finally.
    Reply
  • Stuka87 - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    I HIGHLY doubt this could happen even if Cisco wanted too. They are having enough financial issues as it is, much of which can be attributed to them branching out and buying up other companies.

    I doubt they would have the capital to buy a company the size of RIM.
    Reply
  • fic2 - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Not sure how large RIM is, but Cisco has $45.5B in cash according to Yahoo financial. Reply
  • scavio - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    They could offer 2x RIM's current market cap and still have15 billion in cash left over. Reply
  • Pirks - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Yeah, Lord 666 might as well suggest John Deere to acquire Nintendo. He's insane, don't listen to him. Reply
  • nafhan - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    I don't think cash in hand is the problem. The problem is that it's probably not a good way to spend $15billion+.
    Anyway, Cisco would probably run them into the ground - essentially throwing away all the money they spent in the acquisition.
    Reply
  • chaosrain - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    This can only mean the eventual death of the horrible skin that is MotoBlur. It is likely now that Motorola will be the manufacturer of choice for future Google Experience devices along the Nexus line. Good news. I'm still rocking my original Droid and though it's definitely showing its age, it's still a fine handset. Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/11/sanjay-jha-hint...

    "I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions."

    What I'd like to know is why the sudden about face from Motorola about their patent intentions regarding their Android competitors. Just a few days ago in a keynote speech, Motorola Mobility's CEO noted that Motorola has a large patent portfolio that can be used to create a "meaningful difference" for Motorola products against their Android competitors. Was this just a public smoke screen by Motorola's CEO? Did he not know how close the Google deal was to finalization or the complete details, which seems unlikely? Or since Google will continue to operate Motorola Mobility independently, is this still the plan? Such as Google perhaps opening up enough Motorola patents to Android licenses to keep them and the core OS protected from outside companies, but keeping select, high value, product differentiation patents to themselves to be used against Android competitors such as Samsung, HTC, etc.
    Reply
  • Chaki Shante - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    google nows only needs to acquire TI's OMAP business (which is reportedly up for sale) to get as integrated as Apple is. Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Another aspect of Apple's integration is they actually fund the construction of factories for their supply chain partners to operate. The recent talk was of Apple spending billions on LCD production from Toshiba and Sharp, but this has been the practice a long time.

    http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18809048/...

    For example, back in 1999 Apple gave $100 million to Samsung to expand their LCD capacity for Apple notebooks.

    I'd be interested to know if these capital investments are loans, making Apple like a bank, or if they are given freely without interest or need of repayment with the understanding that these facilities and equipment are dedicated for Apple's production needs.
    Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Apple is like a bank. Except instead of going to the government to get a bailout, they just go to Hollywood and pay them to help brainwash everyone into buying iBobbles. Reply
  • nofreelunch - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    You can mogoo to suck your dick Reply
  • Crono454 - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    You two will have to enlighten me on how outsourcing panel production, SoC production, Motherboard production(to Foxconn deathcamps no less), and every other thing under the sun(except antennas, and you know where that got them) is considered integration. Reply
  • michael2k - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    The comment preceding yours explained it: Apple (partially) funds the manufacturers to construct, maybe at discount or preferentially, the parts. So this includes HDDs from Toshiba, flash from Samsung, screens from Sharp, etc. Reply
  • xype - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Integration has to do with design, not with physical production. In other words, Apple bankrolls the factories in order to have exclusive access to the produced items as well as a say in how these are designed.

    It’s funny how badly informed people constantly sniping at Apple (and Google and Microsoft etc) are. I mean to claim Apple’s products aren’t well integrated because of who if manufacturing the items? Geez. It’s like saying Microsoft’s software isn’t well integrated with Intel and AMD CPUs because, well, Microsoft isn’t manufacturing these.
    Reply
  • fteoath64 - Saturday, August 20, 2011 - link

    If Google could get the OMAP business, they might as well get Nvidia too so they can rock a few markets and create more enemies.

    Kai-El is going to rock the tablet market by Xmas and maybe heading into the Win8 Ultra-lights. Then they have Chrome OS and HoneyComb for the laptop replacements or tablet enhancements, however one would call it.
    Reply
  • Wieland - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    That most of Motorola's products are now Android smartphones and that Motorola only uses Android for its smartphones should help Google's case with the FTC. Unless Motorola had plans in the works to start using other operating systems the acquisition shouldn't have any immediate effect on the competition between the mobile operating systems.

    It's amazing how ideal this acquisition is for Google. Motorola is one of only a couple companies that are primarily focused on Android devices. It's just the right size for acquisition. It is large enough that it has a huge collection of patents and is a a major player in the Android market, but it is also comparatively small and easy for Google to afford. Oh, and it just happens to be the only company that manufactures Android phones that is based in the US.
    Reply
  • Wieland - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    "is a a major player in the Android market"

    And Apple claims that allowing other companies to use the term App Store will cause confusion.
    Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    I don't think the anti-competitive concern would be focused on Google preventing Motorola from exploring other OS like WP7. The anti-competitive concern would be focused on whether despite Google's talk, if there is a risk that over time with Motorola phones being given first-party status will eventually squeeze out the ability of other Android licensees to compete. Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    I don't see any problem here. Apple allows IOS to run only on its own hardware. Even if Google's acquisition of Moto prevented other manufacturers from using Android in some way (which is very unlikely) they'll be just like Apple. Reply
  • TypeS - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Google would lose in that scenario where they are the only manufacturer of Android phones. Last I checked, Apple has the biggest share of units sold of their smartphones compared to any other sole manufacturer. The fact that Android devices as whole outsell iPhone is thank to it's open platform being embraced by 20+ manufacturers. Reply
  • chbarg - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Wouldn't it be great that T-Mobile exists as another carrier.

    I would like to see the business model that Google tried with the Nexus 1 to succeed. I want to be able to buy a phone at full price and then select the plan that best works for me, not just the ones that the carrier forces you to choose from.
    Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    I'm glad that's how it works in my country. Reply
  • sviola - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    "Also of concern to the agency is whether Google discourages its hardware partners from using non-Android operating systems on their handsets."

    It is very interesting you bring this, as of last week Motorola said they would be willing to go Windows Phone if offered a deal as similiar to the one Microsoft and Nokia have. Three days later, Google buys Motorola...
    Reply
  • rhangman - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Samsung probably sells more Android handsets than anyone and they also produce WP7 and Bada handsets. HTC are probably no.2 and they also do WP7. Seem to recall that HTC was working on their own OS to, although unlike Samsung I don't think they have released anything.

    Still possible that Motorola could sell WP7 handsets since they are to remain a separate company. Can't cost much to add additional OS' to existing hardware designs. Somehow I can't see Microsoft paying Motorola money if Google owns them though.
    Reply
  • ATOmega - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    This is good for Google and good for everyone really. They can continue going at the pace they want and nobody can threaten what is ultimately their well earned domination in the mobile market.

    Apple has never gotten by on innovation, simply a lot of marketing and opportunism.

    Fear mongers will rage ad infinitum about this, but none of their nonsense can add up to Google's sterling track record.

    It's time we took this situation as more of an indicator of just how evil Apple is and realize that we don't want another Microsoft.
    Reply
  • HMTK - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Did I miss the sarcasm somewhere? Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    If Google really had a sterling track record they wouldn't be investigated for antitrust violations by the FTC and the Europeans for search rank rigging, aggressively duplicating and marginalizing competing services, holding Google app compatibility as a club to keep Android OEMs in line, etc. That's not to say the allegations are true, but they are hardly frivolous if there is enough substance for governments on both sides of the Atlantic to start a probe.

    But this do no wrong attitude is definitely something Google believes in. Specifically, they believe that any wrong they do, they don't have to pay for.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-oracl...

    ""Zero is ridiculous," said Alsup, who rejected Google's argument that its ad sales should not be included in estimating damages from the Android system.

    "They're totally wrong on that," Alsup said."

    In the Oracle vs. Google Java case, both sides were asked to present estimates of damages Google would have to pay if Google was found guilty. Oracle asked for a extremely high number which was rejected. Google's estimate was also found "ridiculous" by the Judge. Google felt they owed Oracle $0 even if they are infringing on Oracle's IP, because Android is open source and free and Google's apps and services shouldn't count. So Google's position seems to be that even though they lead development of the Android platform, Android can take, copy, and steal anything they want from other companies' technology, and even if proven, Google owes the owners nothing, because the cloak of open source and free protects them.

    Is this the attitude of a do no evil company? Judge Alsup certainly rejects Google's attitude.
    Reply
  • beginner99 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    I'm not a fan of google but Oracle is probably one of the most unsympathetic companies out there. Reply
  • TypeS - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Unless you've been living under a rock, you left some pretty important hard facts. First that when Android was first being developed and at launch, Java was still Sun's IP and Sun had allowed Google to use it's Java IP for it's OS. Oracle than bought out Sun and therefore is now the owner of Java. Oracle did an about face suddenly said "Nu uh, we want to be paid for that or we'll sue you."

    And Oracle' suit isn't going so well as it seems evidence has been found that Sun did indeed allow Google to us etheir IP (not steal or copy it as you conclude). So do us a favour and enlighten yourself before you say Google infringed on someone's IP without their consent, Oracle has been the deceitful one about the use Java in Android.
    Reply
  • steven75 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Reply
  • name99 - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    "In the long run, as the companies become more integrated, we could see Motorola phones that exhibit an Apple-like synergy between hardware and software."

    Google explicitly claimed they would NOT do this, that they would treat Motorola no differently from any of their other Android partners. This may or may not be true but certainly the official story is no "Apple-like" integration.
    Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    If they aren't intending to extract any synergy between hardware and software then why buy the hardware division? Google could have bought relevant patents from Morotola or negotiated a license for Motorola's patents for Android that covers all Android makers. This would have saved themselves money too versus buying the whole company. Perhaps Motorola's financial situation or sales forecasts were more shaky then they let on and they needed a bailout? Reply
  • xype - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Either that or Google is planning to pull a Zune on the other Android phone makers. "Plays for sure, dudes!". Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    I don't pretend to understand how it all works, but if Google just licensed patents for Android, they probably wouldn't be able to sue MS or Apple back using those patents. That is the main reason I think. From what I've read in some articles Motorola owns a lot of patents in key areas which MS and Apple may be able to be sued for. Reply
  • Belard - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Nobody should have to play these games. FTC should see that apple is causing problems with vague lawsuits. This could be good for Android overall... allowing Motorola to be the launch platform for new releases, without bouncing between makers, doing NDAs etc. With all phone makers in danger from apple and even MS to some degree (the nortel deal) ... they'll welcome this... including Motorola which only makes Android phones.

    One thing is for sure... in an apple boardroom. I'm betting some loud F-bombs went off... and MS has just called up Nokia, letting them now that they'll have new masters. At this time WP7 cannot survive without Nokia and visa-versa... and I think it'll be a good fit. MS will never be as open as Android... so this is their best bet to stay in the game and also even improve wp7 development.

    When that happens, Samsung and others will drop WP7... not that it will hurt anyone.
    Reply
  • xype - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Why is it always Apple who are the bad guys? Those companies are all equal offenders, from Apple to RIM. Besides, Motorola first sued Apple, didn’t they?

    Apple isn’t the only ones "causing problems with vague lawsuits"—but they, just like everyone else, do and have to protect their investments, inventions and designs. Just because Google went in all starry-eyed and treated everything like a free buffet that doesn’t mean that everyone else will see the errors of their ways and kiss and make up.

    Besides, even if the system is broken now, it’s still way better than a "free for all" that many people think IP should be handled as. That would be even less fair and would stifle innovation even more.
    Reply
  • worldbfree4me - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    As an amateur investor I actually had Goog buying RIM this year and never saw the MOTO deal coming. Considering MOTO is sitting on about $3 Billion in Cash right now the net deal actually turns out to be less expensive than buying those 6000 Novell patents that MS and tried to extort Goog into buying at a huge marked price for about $4 Billion. Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    MS did not extort Google in any way. MS ASKED Google if they wanted to join in on the bid for the patents, Google said no. MS even posted the emails when Google started crying and saying the crap you are. And MS, Apple and RIM bought the 6000 Novell patents, not just MS. Reply
  • xype - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Sounds good for Google. Two questions remain:

    1) How many of those patents are enforceable? Motorola might have 25k patents, but for all we know 99.99% of those Apple, Microsoft, Nokia etc are safe against as they implicitly licence them when purchasing the controller chips for their hardware. In that vein, how many of those patents can be used against Apple as "Android protection" directly vs. being general hardware manufacturer patent ligitation material?

    2) How well are the other Android handset makers really taking this? Sure, they’re all happy now—but it wouldn’t be the first time a vendor did a purchase like that and claim everything was fine and dandy right up until the moment they brought out their own, well-integrated, well-marketed product whose software/hardware advantage "for technical reasons" couldn’t make it to other devices quickly enough. Heck, weren’t Android tables and Android 3.0 a bit like that? "Now you have the source! Now you don’t!"?
    Reply
  • Zingam - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    My bet is that Google will eventually sell off the hardware assets and keep the patent portfolio. Why in the world would Google want to become a hardware manufacturer. Making hardware is hard and not as profitable as making software.

    It would be a big mistake if Google pisses off the rest of the manufacturers and what I think is very important Google should reduce the fragmentation as much as possible. iPhone is so successful not because there are 1000 different models but because there is just one model each year that is highly recognizable and easy to select. If you have 20 different sets and you have to worry if your apps will work on a particular set, it will be much easier to pick an iPhone because you know that all apps will work on it. It is the same as consoles vs. PC. That's why I am put off by gaming on a PC is because I never know if the new game will run acceptable on my expensive PC. When you have a console, you know that each game you get, will run equally good on any console and you don't need to worry about hardware compatibility.
    That for me is more important then having the latest tech. Too expensive and too many problems kill the fun.
    Reply
  • xsilver - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    This is the exact reason WHY I do game on PC; every game released on console now is programmed for severely outdated hardware; the only time you see innovation is when new hardware comes out. Why not have that stagnated over several instances in time.

    When you buy a new pc, it will run new games; if its 3 years old, you will have to check.

    How can you honestly expect a 3 year old pc to run a brand new game perfectly.
    Its like asking why a ps3 game doesnt work on a ps2
    Reply
  • Finraziel - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link

    Yeah, exactly what I thought as well. It is a very good analogy... I did buy an xbox 360, and I do enjoy it (for kinect if nothing else), but I also find that games just don't look and play as well as on a well-specced pc. So yeah, it's at the same level of quality for everyone, but the level of quality for the PC is still better.
    The same goes for iphone, yes, you can be sure that all apps available to iphone will run on your iphone... but on android I can do stuff that I could not on iphone. Same thing, I choose to deal with a little insecurity about if everything will work as it should, for the potential to be able to do much more.
    Reply
  • TypeS - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link

    The whole PC > console argument is really one that goes nowhere. To begin with, a PC that will handle current gen titles (with "stunning" graphics") and run them at a playable fps will run you at least twice the price of the consoles available. Not to to mention the constant upgrading adds to that cost and while if you buy into a platform right at it's launch, it'll survive 2-3 upgrades before you need to start swapping parts like the power supply or motherboard and cpu. And the games that offer those awesome graphics on PCs usually need graphics cards that cost as much as a console alone.

    This is the same situation with smartphones at the moment and why Apple's iPhone was so quickly propelled to the top. It's not about performance, it's about the entire experience.
    Reply
  • shenjing - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Come go and see, will not regret it Oh look

    http://www。ifancyshop。com
    Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    Nokia stock is bouncing off a 10+ year low. It is extremely oversold on the weekly chart. It may technically be "up 10%" but it is still some 20-30% lower than it was 3 months ago. Reply
  • medi01 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    1) Exactly how is Google going to profit from developing android platform? This deal seems like a move to save android from lame US patent system. But regardless, ignoring 12+ billion deal, how does one make (a lot of) money with free to use product?
    2) Why don't phone manufacturers go multiplatform? Let consumer choose, if he wants android, WP7 or (god forbid in brainwashed US) Symbian, why not? Too pricey?
    Reply
  • TypeS - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link

    Are blind or intentionally ignorant? To answer your questions:

    1) How else do you think google pays for it's staff and all its software development? Ads. It runs a large network of targetted ads that companies pay for as well as it owns Youtube. The same goes for Android as well and ads you get on there through apps. This has been Google's money maker for years now (the online ad business)

    2) How do they not... ? HTC offers both Android and WP7, so does Samsung. Nokie offers WP7 and until recently Symbian but killed it. Sony was Android and Sybian (though they're last release was the Satio). Symbian is just about dead. How is choice not already given?
    Reply
  • mosu - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link

    But Apple and Microsoft won't aloud that to happen, at least in US.this should be a window opportunity for asian manufacturers.On the other hand, it is a good thing that Google has now it's own handset manufacturer in US and needs just OMAP to complete the circle of hardware support. Reply
  • fhaddad78 - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link

    It's sad that Google has to resort to these tactics. Clearly, this move was in effort to fight off Apple. All these retarded costly patent and copyright lawsuits are tacked on to the price "we" the end user have to pay for products and services from these companies. I don't even get how Apple has the grounds to even file these suits. Did Apple invent the tablet? No.

    So they own some generic patent, which they bought, and now they feel anyone who makes a product similar to theirs should be eliminated. Then why can't Apple be sued for making a phone? Someone else invented a phone before them. Why can't Apple be sued for making a mouse to use with their computer? Someone made a mouse before them.

    Why can lots of companies make LCD screens? How come all the LCD screen manufacturers aren't suing each other? How come Nintendo can't sue Sony and Microsoft for making video game consoles? How come Atari can't sue Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony for making a joystick to use with their consoles? How come the first person to write an operating system can't sue anyone who writes an operating system?

    See where I'm going with this? All these products are an evolution. No one owns the rights to any of these things.
    Reply
  • JonnyDough - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link

    this would just make it that much easier for Google to track everyone, moreso than they already do. If you aren't aware of the evil that Google is up to just...umm...Bing it. After all, Google is already googley-eyeing you.

    (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goo...
    Reply
  • JonnyDough - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link

    Oops, the paranthesis screwed the link. Here ya go:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goo...
    Reply
  • JonnyDough - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link

    "Google is among the companies rumored to be considering buying Kodak's IP, which was recently valued at almost 5 times its market worth. (Source: Triple Helix Online)"

    Hmm, now what could they want that digital camera IP for...hmm? To SPY ON YOU? Remember Google Street View...Android phone sales...Motorola Purchase...Massive databases...Search Engines...Energy investments...Etc.

    Is anyone else starting to get the impression they want to be in control of everyone?
    Reply
  • JonnyDough - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link

    Oops, almost forgot the link to go with that one too...from right here on Anandtech.

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22469
    Reply
  • Bhusta - Friday, November 11, 2011 - link

    If a person does not have a family doctor or internist, injury or sudden illness often means a visit to the emergency room or outpatient section of the nearest hospital, where staff doctors who may know little about the patient's personal medical history must treat that person symptomatically and, more often than not, on an urgent basis. This usually is not a good way to establish a lasting physician-patient relationship. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now