Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 393 posts

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#301

Post by chc »

ralfd wrote: post #288
tspiteri wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Google's interpretation of "Don't be evil" is consistent with money making. They do it because they believe that in the long run, they will be more valuable if they are not "evil". Doing what is morally objectionable may lead to short term gains, but has a high maintenance cost. Not being evil is like having a clean sustainable system design; there is no need for kludges to hide the bad parts.

I am puzzled by this "Don't be evil" bullshit. How would be "killing HTC Sense" not evil? How is Google not evil in requiring real names for G+ and banning people with pseudonyms? How is shutting down APIs (like translation) which developers have grown to depend on not evil? How is monetizing their search monopoly to undercut the business of other companies not evil? Or shaping with their mystical page rank the fates…

You seem to have a very low bar for "evil". I don't see how most of those things (e.g. naming policies, shutting down or charging for free services that turn out to be too much of a burden, being popular enough that their algorithm is important to many business models) are even moral concerns. They might be stupid acts on Google's part, or very inconvenient for some people, but evil is a different kind of thing. You can't just expect others to live up to your own idiosyncratic idea of evil.

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#302

Post by runjake »

mindcrime wrote: post #291
runjake wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why krakensden is being downvoted for their comment. This is a continual gripe in the Android developer/hacker community. Has all of the Android 3.0/3.2 source finally been posted to android.git.kernel.org? Ice Cream Sandwich?

I'm not sure why krakensden is being downvoted for their comment. Maybe because Google have been pretty emphatic about the fact that the Honeycomb / Ice Cream Sandwich code will be released, and because their delay in releasing this one specific revision is hardly the same thing as "closing Android" or whatever hyperbole is being floated around. That said, I didn't downvote him. I didn't think the comment added much…

I'm not sure I see the point of opening an Android release after it's developed. It defeats a primary benefit of open source software. And even then, on most models (HTC, Motorola), unless I'm willing to violate my warranty and root it or unlock the bootloader, I'm not able to actually use the source.

This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing, not to actually promote any openness (unless you buy a Nexus phone, which is what I own, FWIW)

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#303

Post by sukuriant »

ldar15 wrote: post #297
sukuriant wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the understanding that their old phones were top of the line, e.g. the first Motorola Droid.

I own a "first" Droid, so I'm assuming that was sarcasm.

So do I. It's VERY old now and I'm very excited about the Droid bionic, but when it came out, it was a very nice piece of equipment, probably the best droid with a keyboard for its time, notwithstanding the buttons-falling-off-from-too-much-texting issue.

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#304

Post by recoiledsnake »

rbanffy wrote: post #281
recoiledsnake wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant the Businessweek article, not the ZDNet one. >Something which is yet to translate into phones sold. That doesn't still warrant the 'phone OS that no one wants'. >And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7. They announced the deal in Feb and they're going to release devices in Sep/Oct, is that not fast enough for a huge company like Nokia and with phone hardware that takes year…

> Meego/Maemo risked ended up being like WebOS And that's why I wouldn't suggest going with it. The fact remains, however, that the transition from MeeGo to Android would be much easier and that Nokia would have a competitive Android phone (and a very good one) now instead of a WP7 phone in September or October. > You think you know more than them and that they're all fools? No. I don't think Elop is an idiot. Obviou…

>No. I don't think Elop is an idiot

I was talking about the board decision to replace their current CEO. If things were all going to be hunky-dory as you claim, that would be an idiotic decision.

>the transition from MeeGo to Android would be much easier and that Nokia would have a competitive Android phone (and a very good one) now instead of a WP7 phone in September or October.

You have no idea about how fast a company like Nokia would move. Even carriers take months to test devices and look at how fast OEMs are able to release updates to Android.

To come to the bigger picture, Nokia just didn't want to be another Android OEM, they tried to pitch to Google, Google declined to play ball, but MS agreed. They made deals with MS for funding for ads, also some 'synergy' deals like Navteq maps etc. that MS needs for Bing(which is weak in Europe/Asia) and got a cash infusion of upwards of a billion for that. All this was needed for survival interim while they rush out new devices. Android would've provided none of that.

> What I don't think is that it will lead to Nokia making great phones as this is not a precondition to making a profit and Nokia has demonstrated, over and over again, this wouldn't be the safest bet.

Why not? What's inherently wrong with WP7 that's right with Android? Atleast with WP7, Nokia is not competing with bargain basement Chinese phones running the exact same OS and software as them as they would do with Android.

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#305

Post by emit_time_n3rgy »

w1ntermute wrote: post #107
RuadhanMc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but Apple make a ton more money per handset than Google does, so in my mind they are ahead. They also continue to lead design-wise. Manufacturers are still copying Apple products in this space.

Google doesn't (directly) make any money off of any Android handset, so I'd say that's very difficult to assess without knowledge and analysis of the impact Android has had on AdSense revenue, not to mention this money is a continuous stream of revenue following the purchase of an Android phone as opposed to a one-time up-front fee.

>>Google doesn't (directly) make any money off of any Android handset

And if the info in the follow piece is true, there is an example where money is being 'lost.' This July 19 Computer World article states an interesting piece of info (http://tinyurl.com/3k7mmlq):

"HTC last year entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft that, according to a report by Citi analyst Walter Pritchard, essentially sends Microsoft $5 every time HTC ships an Android-based device. Asymco analyst Horace Dediu has estimated that Microsoft is now generating $150 million in revenue just from shipments of Android phones, or more than five times the estimated revenue Microsoft has made from selling Windows Phone licenses.."

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#307

Post by cube13 »

pyre wrote: post #298
cube13 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't see where you're coming from on b/c. Motorola makes great hardware - it would be hard to improve that. That's exactly the problem. Google, as a software company, doesn't currently have to worry about a lot of the issues that the hardware side of Motorola does, like supply chain management(both on the production and disposal side), dealing with retail outlets, directly dealing with cellular service providers…

> Google, as a software company, doesn't currently have > to worry about a lot of the issues that the hardware > side of Motorola does, like supply chain management The purchase comes with the employees that are currently running these things. It's not like Google bought the operation sans the talent, and now has to use current Google employees (with no experience in this field) to run Motorola Mobility. All they hav…

That's exactly why I said Google's priority needs to be keeping those employees with those skills and talents. As with any acquisition of this nature, people are going to leave Motorola because of this. Google needs to make a lot of effort to identify and keep the key people.

It's important to note that this isn't anything like any of Google's previous acquisitions, both in scale and the nature of the company being acquired. Google usually has absorbed the entire startup that they bought, and ran it as just a new team. They can't do that here. It's too big, and too complex to just do that.

EDIT: I think I'm giving off too negative a vibe here. I do think that this is a very good merger for Google and Motorola, and I think that Google will handle this merger in the best way they can.

I just believe that there are a lot of potential "gotchas" that can(and probably will) snag the companies in the short term.

Re: Google Buys Motorola For $12.5 Billion

#309

Post by recoiledsnake »

etaty wrote: post #112
kylec wrote: post #30

Interestingly, this means the only manufacturer-neutral smartphone OS is now Windows Phone 7. iOS is on Apple, Android is on Motorola/Google, Blackberry on RIM, and webOS on HP/Palm. I wonder if this means we'll see an increase in WP7-based phones from HTC, Samsung, and LG...

Samsung has Bada : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_%28operating_system%29

I don't see how Bada is relevant. First, is it available to non-Samsung OEMs? Second, Bada is in the same situation as Symbian/Android is in now, a major h/w manufacturer leading the development, unlike WP7.
Post reply on HN