Liberty Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 But how will the devices they make be any different than the devices companies like Motorola, HTC, LG Samsung and others have produced running Android? Apple currently competes with all these companies that get Android for free and it hasn't effected their dominance in certain products. Do you think Google branded products are really going to significantly outsell the Android products made by HTC, Samsung, etc? They can only really compete with Apple in terms of producing hardware if they close of Android to other companies. It's a defensive move first. Google needed the patent warchest to defend itself. Anything else is a bonus. Having hardware engineers in-house will help Google's software engineers do a better job, and Google and other Android makers now know that the platform is better defended because they know Google will jump in if there are more legal challenges. This probably makes Android more sticky, rather than less (I'm sure they'll want to be reassured about a few things, but it's in Google's advantage to give them credible guarantees). As for Apple dominating, let's play the "what if" game. What if Android didn't exist? I'm sure Apple would make a lot more money against just RIM and Nokia and Winphones and such, so it's not like Android isn't competing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I'm just not clear what they are looking to do with Motorola? What patents does Motorola own that Google must have? Is Google planning on using Motorola to produce hardware? If so, why not buy HTC, which produces better products? Page's blog is very unclear. Seems like either way, it will probably take a while to see a return on the $12.5 Billion investment. Motorola Mobility has 24,500 patents. Google's lawsuit problems are basically over, because they now have a "mutually assured destruction" type of defence. Are you sure? Apple has sued Samsung and HTC, the no 1 and 2 Android vendors, not Google. Is Google going to spend money to protect its (now) competitors to which Motorola/Google has been losing marketshare to? Oracle sued Google on Java. Do you think Oracle is violating enough Motorola patents that it will change the tide of the lawsuit, given that Oracle really doesn't have a significant mobile presence? Google spend $12.5B dollars to protect a $1B Android revenue, some of which is canabalized search revenue. How much more are they going to spend on Interdigital's patents? Apple has spent only $2.5 B on patents even though its mobile revenues are much, much, much higher. Do you think Apple has much larger firepower to outbid Google for Interdigital's patents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 This sort of implies that they will keep Motorola as a wholly owned subsidiary, which also doesn't make sense to me. Google's brand is much better than Motorola, so I don't see why they would continue to produce hardware under the Motorola name. I also don't understand Android being free to Google. Pretty sure Google's developers don't work for free. Google's brand in phone hardware is nowhere near Motorola. Plus, Google has historically gotten it's logo on third party android handsets, which I suspect it will want to continue (without the confusion of an actual Google brand phone line). Killing the Moto brand would, I think, be counterproductive. It was Google's brand that sold Android phones. If you look carefully, Motorola's got its first Android success at Verizon which branded the phones at "Droid", Motorola's brand was de-emphasized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Are you sure? Apple has sued Samsung and HTC, the no 1 and 2 Android vendors, not Google. Is Google going to spend money to protect its (now) competitors to which Motorola/Google has been losing marketshare to? Oracle sued Google on Java. Do you think Oracle is violating enough Motorola patents that it will change the tide of the lawsuit, given that Oracle really doesn't have a significant mobile presence? Google spend $12.5B dollars to protect a $1B Android revenue, some of which is canabalized search revenue. How much more are they going to spend on Interdigital's patents? Apple has spent only $2.5 B on patents even though its mobile revenues are much, much, much higher. Do you think Apple has much larger firepower to outbid Google for Interdigital's patents? Chances are very high that Google will create a patent pool and give access to patents to Android handset makers and try to protect the whole ecosystem. The way software patents work, everybody is infringing a bunch of patents of everybody else, the question isn't "if", it only depends if you want to sue. I suggest you listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack The 1B revenue for Android is missing the point. Android is much, much more valuable than that long term (both as a revenue source and as a moat), and mobile searches, from the data that I've seen, aren't cannibalising desktop searches much at all (they are very complementary - ie. more during lunch breaks, the evenings and weekends, while desktop searches are more during working hours). Motorola isn't just a bunch of patents, though, it can be a profitable business that can now become better than it has been so far thanks to access to Google's talent and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarley Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 This sort of implies that they will keep Motorola as a wholly owned subsidiary, which also doesn't make sense to me. Google's brand is much better than Motorola, so I don't see why they would continue to produce hardware under the Motorola name. I also don't understand Android being free to Google. Pretty sure Google's developers don't work for free. Google's brand in phone hardware is nowhere near Motorola. Plus, Google has historically gotten it's logo on third party android handsets, which I suspect it will want to continue (without the confusion of an actual Google brand phone line). Killing the Moto brand would, I think, be counterproductive. It was Google's brand that sold Android phones. If you look carefully, Motorola's got its first Android success at Verizon which branded the phones at "Droid", Motorola's brand was de-emphasized. I disagree with your characterization, but there's probably not much sense in arguing the point. As I look at my first gen Droid, I see Motorola and Verizon on the front, and Google and Verizon on the back. The Motorola branding was secondary in the Verizon marketing in favor of the Droid line, but that was confusing as there were multiple "Droid" phones from multiple handset makers. What rebranding could Google do? (1)Kill Motorola and sell those phones under and "Android" brand? No, Android is the generic OS name. (2)Kill Motorola and sell those phones under some version of the "Droid" brand? No, Droid is a Verizon line (licensed from Lucas) from various manufacturers. (3)Kill Motorola and sell those phones under the Google brand? Maybe, but is Google better than Motorola in terms of brand identity in mobile phone hardware? IMO, no. (4)Kill Motorola and sell those phones under some other new brand? That might be a worse option than #3 And, don't forget Google's only foray into an actual Google phone (Nexus One, Nexus S) was a giant waste of time and money. Best to leave the Motorola brand alone, at least for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 is Google better than Motorola in terms of brand identity in mobile phone hardware? IMO, no. Maybe not yet, but while Motorola is a well known brand, they're not really known for being a good brand. Go and read Android forums, review sites and tech blogs. Most of their phones are perceived as being garbage (and as an owner of Motorola Android phone, I agree with that and have no desire to buy another phone made by Motorola). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junto Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Don't forget that MMI has $3 billion in cash on the books, so the effective price is $9.5 billion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Are you sure? Apple has sued Samsung and HTC, the no 1 and 2 Android vendors, not Google. Is Google going to spend money to protect its (now) competitors to which Motorola/Google has been losing marketshare to? Oracle sued Google on Java. Do you think Oracle is violating enough Motorola patents that it will change the tide of the lawsuit, given that Oracle really doesn't have a significant mobile presence? Google spend $12.5B dollars to protect a $1B Android revenue, some of which is canabalized search revenue. How much more are they going to spend on Interdigital's patents? Apple has spent only $2.5 B on patents even though its mobile revenues are much, much, much higher. Do you think Apple has much larger firepower to outbid Google for Interdigital's patents? Chances are very high that Google will create a patent pool and give access to patents to Android handset makers and try to protect the whole ecosystem. The way software patents work, everybody is infringing a bunch of patents of everybody else, the question isn't "if", it only depends if you want to sue. I suggest you listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack The 1B revenue for Android is missing the point. Android is much, much more valuable than that long term (both as a revenue source and as a moat), and mobile searches, from the data that I've seen, aren't cannibalising desktop searches much at all (they are very complementary - ie. more during lunch breaks, the evenings and weekends, while desktop searches are more during working hours). Motorola isn't just a bunch of patents, though, it can be a profitable business that can now become better than it has been so far thanks to access to Google's talent and money. If Google defends its new competitors with its patent portfolio, it will help them and Motorola will lose even more market share. For a business this is not profitable already, that would hurt. If on the other hand, Google favors its Motorola division to produce better integrated handsets, it is likely to anger the ecosystem resulting in more fragmentation and forking and weakening of the Android ecosytem. I think Microsoft is the biggest gainer here. The 1B revenue IS the point for investors. That 1B includes Googles IOS revenues, not just Android. If that is all that it can bring in with 50% market share , what does it make assuming 100% marketshare 3 years down the line? What do the slim margins among Android handset makers do to Google's margins? Android has succeeded by producing cheaper handsets. Google has taken a commoditization approach to win while the handset makers bore the slim margins. Now, Google also bears the cost of its commoditization. It is a big leap to conclude from the timing of searches that revenue is not being cannibalized. How do you know that a search being performed while standing in line at Starbucks at 8:00 would not have been performed at 9:30 on the desktop, if mobile search didn't exist? Google has just hung a dead weight around its neck. It now has to deal with integration issues, culture clashes, regulatory issues and more. For a company that built itself on efficiency and nimbleness, this is a big issue. BTW, what happens to this? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500544082214566.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_business&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7014+%28WSJ.com%3A+US+Business%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I disagree with your characterization, but there's probably not much sense in arguing the point. As I look at my first gen Droid, I see Motorola and Verizon on the front, and Google and Verizon on the back. The Motorola branding was secondary in the Verizon marketing in favor of the Droid line, but that was confusing as there were multiple "Droid" phones from multiple handset makers. You referred to your phone as "my first gen Droid", not Motorola smartphone - that is branding. Verizon succeed with you in its branding efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarley Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I disagree with your characterization, but there's probably not much sense in arguing the point. As I look at my first gen Droid, I see Motorola and Verizon on the front, and Google and Verizon on the back. The Motorola branding was secondary in the Verizon marketing in favor of the Droid line, but that was confusing as there were multiple "Droid" phones from multiple handset makers. You referred to your phone as "my first gen Droid", not Motorola smartphone - that is branding. Verizon succeed with you in its branding efforts. Well, that's the name of the phone, so, I guess you got me there. The more important point however, is that Droid is a Verizon brand not a Google brand, and as a result, not really an option as a replacement for Motorola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Droid is a Verizon brand not a Google brand, and as a result, not really an option as a replacement for Motorola. I'm a bit confused by your point here; Google Android is the real brand. Verizon markets the Android devices they carry under the 'Droid' name, but they are all Android devices, and pretty much the same devices can be purchased through various carriers throughout the world. Most people know this, and you generally dissociate with the Verizon marketing after you walk out of the Verizon Wireless store, and the brand becomes all about Google. The hardware is a commodity, the same way PC's are for the manufacturers. I have to think that the patents are really what Google wanted, but as I said earlier, if the patents are mostly related to hardware, I'm not really sure why they want them. As I said earlier in this thread, unless Google decides to stop allowing other companies to use Android, Google using Motorola to produce hardware makes little sense to me. If Google just want the patents and decides to shut down Motorola as a producer of hardware, then the real winners become companies like HTC, Samsung, LG, etc.. ETA: I just read this info on Forbes: "Google intends to run Motorola as a separate company that will continue to develop Android devices. Android will remain an open platform, allowing other companies to develop devices that run the platform". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 If Google defends its new competitors with its patent portfolio, it will help them and Motorola will lose even more market share. For a business this is not profitable already, that would hurt. If on the other hand, Google favors its Motorola division to produce better integrated handsets, it is likely to anger the ecosystem resulting in more fragmentation and forking and weakening of the Android ecosytem. I think Microsoft is the biggest gainer here. The 1B revenue IS the point for investors. That 1B includes Googles IOS revenues, not just Android. If that is all that it can bring in with 50% market share , what does it make assuming 100% marketshare 3 years down the line? What do the slim margins among Android handset makers do to Google's margins? Android has succeeded by producing cheaper handsets. Google has taken a commoditization approach to win while the handset makers bore the slim margins. Now, Google also bears the cost of its commoditization. It is a big leap to conclude from the timing of searches that revenue is not being cannibalized. How do you know that a search being performed while standing in line at Starbucks at 8:00 would not have been performed at 9:30 on the desktop, if mobile search didn't exist? Google has just hung a dead weight around its neck. It now has to deal with integration issues, culture clashes, regulatory issues and more. For a company that built itself on efficiency and nimbleness, this is a big issue. BTW, what happens to this? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500544082214566.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_business&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7014+%28WSJ.com%3A+US+Business%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher Not sure if you've read some of my earlier comments in this thread and the MSFT thread, but I answer some of those questions. I think you are misunderstanding GOOG's strategy in that space and focusing on the wrong things. Like Berkshire, they are in it for the long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarley Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I just lost a longer reply, but it boils down to: yes the patents are the critical piece of the transaction for Google. But, there is value in the handset business which is best realized through keeping the Motorola handset business active in the market (not killing it or rebranding the hardware). They could scrape the patents out and resell the husk of the handset business, but that seem like a hard and expensive way to get the patents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Quotes from Android partners: http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/ “We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.” – J.K. Shin President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division “I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Bert Nordberg President & CEO, Sony Ericsson “We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.” – Peter Chou CEO, HTC Corp. “We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Jong-Seok Park, Ph.D President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company “We are positive towards Google’s continued commitment and investment in an open Android for the benefit of all players in the eco-system.” – Weili Dai Co-founder, Marvell Technology Group “Best Buy has worked closely with both Google and Motorola to bring great solutions to our customers. Now, with today’s news, we are excited to see what we can do together to serve consumers. Both companies have been tremendous partners to Best Buy and we expect that connection to get even stronger in the future.” – Brian J. Dunn CEO, Best Buy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Apparently, MSFT might have wanted to buy Motorola too: http://gigaom.com/2011/08/15/guess-who-else-wanted-to-buy-motorola/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Quotes from Android partners: http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/ “We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.” – J.K. Shin President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division “I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Bert Nordberg President & CEO, Sony Ericsson “We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.” – Peter Chou CEO, HTC Corp. “We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Jong-Seok Park, Ph.D President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company “We are positive towards Google’s continued commitment and investment in an open Android for the benefit of all players in the eco-system.” – Weili Dai Co-founder, Marvell Technology Group “Best Buy has worked closely with both Google and Motorola to bring great solutions to our customers. Now, with today’s news, we are excited to see what we can do together to serve consumers. Both companies have been tremendous partners to Best Buy and we expect that connection to get even stronger in the future.” – Brian J. Dunn CEO, Best Buy I guess those could also be read as 'were scared that Google will close android off to other manufactures in the future, so we better start kissing some ass'. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 I guess those could also be read as 'were scared that Google will close android off to other manufactures in the future, so we better start kissing some ass'. :P Without any context, maybe, but if you know others things that Google has done, it's obvious that they intend to keep Android open and that this move is likely to have benefits to other Android handset makers. Google runs on linux, contributes to countless open source projects, has opened the code to Chrome's browser and javascript engine, Chrome OS, and Android. This is a logical continuation of their strategy, and trying to be the sole 'owner' of Android would just hurt the platform and make it less competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 If Google defends its new competitors with its patent portfolio, it will help them and Motorola will lose even more market share. For a business this is not profitable already, that would hurt. If on the other hand, Google favors its Motorola division to produce better integrated handsets, it is likely to anger the ecosystem resulting in more fragmentation and forking and weakening of the Android ecosytem. I think Microsoft is the biggest gainer here. The 1B revenue IS the point for investors. That 1B includes Googles IOS revenues, not just Android. If that is all that it can bring in with 50% market share , what does it make assuming 100% marketshare 3 years down the line? What do the slim margins among Android handset makers do to Google's margins? Android has succeeded by producing cheaper handsets. Google has taken a commoditization approach to win while the handset makers bore the slim margins. Now, Google also bears the cost of its commoditization. It is a big leap to conclude from the timing of searches that revenue is not being cannibalized. How do you know that a search being performed while standing in line at Starbucks at 8:00 would not have been performed at 9:30 on the desktop, if mobile search didn't exist? Google has just hung a dead weight around its neck. It now has to deal with integration issues, culture clashes, regulatory issues and more. For a company that built itself on efficiency and nimbleness, this is a big issue. BTW, what happens to this? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500544082214566.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_business&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7014+%28WSJ.com%3A+US+Business%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher Not sure if you've read some of my earlier comments in this thread and the MSFT thread, but I answer some of those questions. I think you are misunderstanding GOOG's strategy in that space and focusing on the wrong things. Like Berkshire, they are in it for the long-term. As you know, I've already responded on the MSFT thread. Google may be in it for the long term, but that does not mean they are going to do well. MSFT is in it for the long term too, look at how much money they are losing on Bing. Here are some more analysis on the Motorola buy: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/25-billion-google-motorola-break-up-fee.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20092728-38/a-motorola-lawsuit-primer-infographic/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 I'm not sure Motorola ends Android's patent problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I guess those could also be read as 'were scared that Google will close android off to other manufactures in the future, so we better start kissing some ass'. :P Without any context, maybe, but if you know others things that Google has done, it's obvious that they intend to keep Android open and that this move is likely to have benefits to other Android handset makers. Google runs on linux, contributes to countless open source projects, has opened the code to Chrome's browser and javascript engine, Chrome OS, and Android. This is a logical continuation of their strategy, and trying to be the sole 'owner' of Android would just hurt the platform and make it less competitive. 1, http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/partly-eu-funded-study-finds-android.html 2, http://paidcontent.org/article/419-google-tells-itc-judge-microsoft-revealed-our-secret-source-code/ 3, Google did not really open the Chrome browser. The browsing engine comes from an open source browser called Knoqueror. Apple took Konqueror's code, added more on top of it and open sourced it as a project called WebKit. Google took Webkit and built Chrome on top of it. 4, Google has technology called MapReduce that it uses extensively. Some of their engineers wrote a paper on it. Yahoo's engineers read the paper, implemented it and open sourced it as a project called Hadoop. Hadoop is now a thriving open source ecosystem with multiple companies built around. AFAIK, Google has not contributed to the open source version of its own technology. Its own MapReduce technology remains closed. 5, A company called OpenX built an open source ad exchange and serving software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenX_(software). They have a thriving business around it: http://www.openx.com/. Google's own adserving technology remains closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 I think you are cherry picking. You could find just as many sources that say the opposite about Motorola, the Chrome browser's engine might be webkit, but the rest of the browser (a browser is more than a rendering engine) is open sourced under the name Chromium and improvements are contributed back to the webkit main branch, and the javascript engine, which was revolutionary at the time of launch, is open-sourced under the name V8. Google contributes to TONS of open-source projects and funds external projects and competitions tool. They are probably the biggest corporate contributor along with IBM (probably ahead of IBM, in fact). Finding one thing that they didn't open source doesn't prove anything. People said the same thing about search at first - that it wasn't making any money and that it never would - but Google thought the priority was to focus on quality and marketshare at first before focusing on monetization. People just need to do the thought experiment of what would Google's mobile position be if Android didn't exist and how many more threats they would be facing.. Besides, I don't really believe the 1B number that is floating around for Android. Google took so long to IPO because they wanted to hide how profitable they were to competitors, and they're not breaking down Android precisely probably for the same reason. As for your answers in the MSFT thread, I don't remember seeing anything very convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2S Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/25-billion-google-motorola-break-up-fee.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20092728-38/a-motorola-lawsuit-primer-infographic/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 I'm not sure Motorola ends Android's patent problems. Good reads, thanks. Since someone here quoted raving press releases from Android OEMs (seriously, what else were they supposed to say in public?), I thought Nokia's response was the most informative: "This further reinforces our belief that opportunities for the growth of Nokia's smartphone business will be greatest with Windows Phone. This could prove to be a massive catalyst for the Windows Phone ecosystem. Additionally, with our respective intellectual property portfolios, Nokia and Microsoft are working together to build and nurture an innovative ecosystem that benefits consumers, operators, developers and other device manufacturers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 IMO the proof will be in the pudding. Of course everybody's going to spin this announcement and say that it will benefit them. What will matter are the actions of Google over the next couple years. We'll have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Interesting article on low end Android phones for the 3rd world markets. "Although Windows and Nokia encourage the adoption of their operating systems, frankly, these OS’s have either fallen from grace or have failed to get off the ground. Among these players, it seems Android is best equipped for a global presence, whereas Apple and the others probably won’t fall far from the high-end tree unless they re-calibrate their strategies. There’s enormous potential for low-end phones in developing markets, and Android is taking charge." $80 Android Phone Sells Like Hotcakes in Kenya, the World Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I think you are cherry picking. You could find just as many sources that say the opposite about Motorola, the Chrome browser's engine might be webkit, but the rest of the browser (a browser is more than a rendering engine) is open sourced under the name Chromium and improvements are contributed back to the webkit main branch, and the javascript engine, which was revolutionary at the time of launch, is open-sourced under the name V8. Google contributes to TONS of open-source projects and funds external projects and competitions tool. They are probably the biggest corporate contributor along with IBM (probably ahead of IBM, in fact). Finding one thing that they didn't open source doesn't prove anything. People said the same thing about search at first - that it wasn't making any money and that it never would - but Google thought the priority was to focus on quality and marketshare at first before focusing on monetization. People just need to do the thought experiment of what would Google's mobile position be if Android didn't exist and how many more threats they would be facing.. Besides, I don't really believe the 1B number that is floating around for Android. Google took so long to IPO because they wanted to hide how profitable they were to competitors, and they're not breaking down Android precisely probably for the same reason. As for your answers in the MSFT thread, I don't remember seeing anything very convincing. For the sake of argument, lets assume I am cherrypicking. Instead, lets examine Linux, an OS widely used by Google for all its server infrastructure since day one and also as the core of Android. Would you expect that Google has made significant contributions to the OS that it has developed so much on? Take a look: https://lwn.net/Articles/451243/ Google has been building custom server infrastructure for years, yet a relative newcomer like Facebook open sources its architecture while Google still is closed: http://opencompute.org/ Since you don't believe the $1B Android number, maybe you can tell me what it really is? You seem to disagree with what Google had announced during a conference call: http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/10/15/android-pulling-in-1-billion-revenue-this-year/ Maybe we should send Google an email asking them to correct their Android revenue estimates ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Quotes from Android partners: http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/ “We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.” – J.K. Shin President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division “I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Bert Nordberg President & CEO, Sony Ericsson “We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.” – Peter Chou CEO, HTC Corp. “We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Jong-Seok Park, Ph.D President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company “We are positive towards Google’s continued commitment and investment in an open Android for the benefit of all players in the eco-system.” – Weili Dai Co-founder, Marvell Technology Group “Best Buy has worked closely with both Google and Motorola to bring great solutions to our customers. Now, with today’s news, we are excited to see what we can do together to serve consumers. Both companies have been tremendous partners to Best Buy and we expect that connection to get even stronger in the future.” – Brian J. Dunn CEO, Best Buy I guess those could also be read as 'were scared that Google will close android off to other manufactures in the future, so we better start kissing some ass'. :P Maybe they're using the Android press release generator: http://android-press-release.com/ ; :D :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now