Only part of Motorola, and not generally the part considered the "original". :)
Motorola mobility was spun off of the main company in January - I think at the time there was commentary on the stock markets that it was done with the aim to get someone to buy it.
So Motorola will exist still - as Motorola Solutions (it is the bigger & more profitable part of the company anyway) and Google get a phone manufacture division under their control.
That number of patents is "proof" that the patent system is broken. I have nothing against patents, but they need to describe actual innovations.
I have problems believing they had 24500 real innovations. If a company can produce 24500 patents, then most are not what I think of as innovations but just a result of standard engineering work.
A patent is a finite time period monopoly on the use/practice/sale of an invention. To innovate means to introduce something new. The two concepts aren't the same.
E.g. You can patent something economically useless, you can patent something and not build it. As a practical matter its not clear to me if you can or should require patents to be linked to innovations.
They did it for the patents. Larry Page: "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
Seems like the best jobs at Google will soon be the lawyers, not the engineers.
Most of them come from an engineering background (at least education), you're right.
It's fascinating to me to see this shift, which Google seems to be leading, from tech companies fighting over new product development - and spending gobs of cash on it - to something entirely different: fighting over patents (and again, spending gobs of cash on it). Where a company spends its cash is a good measure of where its priorities are, and I'm not sure what that says about Google.
"It's fascinating to me to see this shift, which Google seems to be leading, from tech companies fighting over new product development...to something entirely different: fighting over patents "
I thought it was Microsoft and Apple that were aggressively filing patent lawsuits, and Google and other Android partners were on the receiving end, no?
One other thing I don't see being mentioned anywhere in these threads is that, "Motorola Mobility held $5.5B in cash and deferred tax assets; this could put Google's (GOOG) real purchase price around $7B."[1]
That's what I find interesting about this deal. It's still motivated by patent protection, but instead of putting it all in a defensive patent portfolio, they get a hardware company to innovate with as well.
How is Google leading that charge exactly? From what I can tell they've been drug kicking and screaming into this mess. It simply says that they have to come up with a way to defend against the patent mess that the Apple consortium has threatened them with.
Yup, after I got my masters and then got laid off I got an offer from a patent law firm to put me through law school if I'd come work for them. Patent law sort of sounded like one of the circles of Hell for me, though, so I didn't take them up.
I suspect it is a little from column A and a little from column B; he did also talk about it being good for the user experience etc.
They get patents and a manufacturing arm (which then gives them control of the entire product cycle for Android).
The latter is a logical move; a lot of Apple's success comes from controlling all aspects of the iPhone. I know Android is open software, but internally for Google it makes sense to drive product development from the hardware side too.
I'm very curious to see the smartphones that will be coming out of Googorolla.
Google's been promoting the "top end phone with fast updates" with their Nexus line which makes me wonder if Motorola-manufactured Androids are all going to be top of the line models.
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.
You know. The interesting thing here is; I had a Droid via work when it came out (and it was a beast). I also got my personal contract iPhone 3GS the same time.
Thew droid felt defunct somewhere in the middle of last year (and thus I upgraded), but my iPhone still feels awesome, even though I know positively that I am holding out an upgrade till iPhone 5 in a few months.
I've never really considered it from that perspective before... but nevertheless interesting. There is possibly something there that Android needs to look into.
What exactly is "Motorola Mobile" and what is the rest of Motorala? I saw that in the news headline and figured there was going to be a lot of confusion over what actually got bought.
Motorola spun off into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions. Think of Mobility as the classic consumer oriented Motorola who sells cell phones. Solutions targets enterprise/government.
I think a lot of people are missing that they make stuff like DSL modems and IPTV too. If I was google I'd be interested in having a piece of that too.
63% premium...insanity. This is all about patents, isn't it?
Instead of spending $4billion for patents, spend 3x as much, get a huge portfolio (I don't know how large, but it's supposedly quite large)..and a part of a company as well.
Patents are probably part of it. Another motivation may be that Google wants to avoid the Android ecosystem to spiral out of control. Android phones vary widely in quality, both with respect to hardware and software (thanks to vendor 'extensions'). Maybe they are hoping to produce an Android phone under tight control, to set a benchmark for the rest.
Also, Apple has shown that piles of cash can be made on good, though slightly expensive margins.
I checked out Motorola's product line up on their website. It isn't very exciting. (I don't live in the US, so I don't know how much brand value there is).
I'd say this was probably plan b, for if their previous patent purchase didn't happen.
The problem with Google, or any software company buying a hardware company is that generally the street values hardware at a lower multiple so this has the chance to pull down google's market cap.
We'll see how the market reacts to this during today's trading.
Was it plan B? Major purchases like this don't usually happen quickly. The Nortel and Novell stuff all went down in the last six months, and neither (separately or together) would have cost Google enough to make them back off an in-progress attempt to buy Motorola.
This could have been part of a Google patent blitz from the start.
I wonder about this too. Google made those bizarre bids like $3.149b, almost like they weren't really into it. They could have just been feigning interest to drive up the price. They probably would have been happy to acquire the patents for a good price, but they clearly already had another (more important) acquisition in the pipeline.
The Motorola deal I think is a lot better because it's not just patents, it's a whole hardware company with hands in a lot of pies that Google is in, like cell phones and set-top boxes.
I think they'll get a much better return on their investment into Motorola than they would out of Nortel patents.
This is strange, since you basically agree with me, on the overall point, but I flatly do not understand people who think Google made "bizarre" bids. What is bizarre about a fundamentally engineering-focused company bidding pi? Why is it impossible to both take something seriously, and have a little fun?
It's like the "work shouldn't be fun" crowd -- why the heck not?
It wasn't the first time they did something like that. Their IPO was intended to raise e billion dollars. And why shouldn't it be?
Using fundamental mathematical constants may be unusual, but it's absolutely no more arbitrary than boring "round" numbers with a bunch of zeroes, and it's like a big geek flag waving in the wind.
True, but one month isn't unheard of. During the crash of 2008, bank deals were being made after 72 hours of "due diligence":)
A company like Google is always in talks with other companies, a deal like this can happen very quickly if you've been having informal talks all along.
> The problem with Google, or any software company buying a hardware company is that generally the street values hardware at a lower multiple so this has the chance to pull down google's market cap.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate a little?
Software companies often have higher multiples attached to their earnings than hardware companies do. This is due to the fact that hardware companies usually have lower margins that software companies do.
If the street perceives Google to now be a hybrid hardware/software company then the street could lower the multiple that they use to value them.
Basically the profit margin on hardware is lower than on software, or at least that's the view of Wall Street ("the street"). Thus Google has spent a big chunk of cash on a business with an inherently lower profit potential than the rest of its business, so their stock value (which has only a tenuous relationship with the hard value of a company's assets) may decline.
I doubt it's going to make that much difference, though. Google hasn't actually directed money away from "software", they've spent part of their $40 billion reserve that wasn't doing anything useful on a hardware company designed to strengthen Google's position is a market it's already sort-of in.
Although it removes some of the fears that Google were going to have patent problems (I would assume anyway, their must be some patent gold in the 24000 somewhere). So that may have been previously been factored into the stock price?
Almost certainly. The only other thing I can think of would be that they want to get out of the OEM business and make phones internally, but they'd probably buy a better phone manufacturer in that case. Motorola is loss-making.
Patents are a big part sure, but it's more generically about strengthening Android's position overall -- partly in the legal system through patents, and partly in the market through Google having direct control of a major cell phone manufacturer with direct lines to the providers.
So they did overpay a bit. But there is a genuine synergy - a phone company being bought by a company that makes a phone OS.
This might hurt Android adoption a little, but I doubt Google really cares. All they really want are more browser phones, which will funnel more money into google (via adsense). Or maybe it will make Google more sensitive to what direction Android has to go.
I don't see how the "Googlerola" hardware can hurt Android adoption. If you are a smartphone maker with at least some ambition for market share you either use Android or get ready to fall short on sales.
Aside from Apple and MS-Nokia, until something disruptive happens in the phone OS scene Android is the way to go for phone makers.
Google wouldn't have done it just for patents. They want to enter the hardware game as well. Both to show others how Android phones should be made, but also to make many billions from selling devices, as well. I think this is just the beginning for Google as a hardware company, and in a way it was inevitable. They are a strong tech brand, and they could become very successful selling tech products.
Motorola != Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a recent spin-off from Motorola and encompasses the original company's handset business as well as its related patent portfolio.
What does Motorola do? Well ... cellular infrastructure is their core business, and they also have services/solutions for things like emergency response services (e.g. 911 in the US), law enforcement, and I think they still make walkie talkies.
Motorola was split in two companies the past 4th of January.
Motorola Mobility (MMI) and Motorola Solutions (MSI).
The cellular infrastructure, part of MSI, was sold to Nokia/Siemes Networks.
Motorola Solutions in mainly the Enterprise Mobility Business (Mobile Rugged Devices), WiFi systems, Tetra networks and a lot of other Government stuffs.
Thanks for the clarification. While MSI is considered the successor of the original Motorola, you are absolutely correct. I didn't realize that the cell infrastructure division(s) got sold (used to work on CDMA base-stations a decade a go). Makes me a bit sad. Do you know if they kept the employees?
My dad works for MSI - he kept his job, and a few people he knows at the mobile one kept theirs. I know layoffs are fairly common, although it's possible that is true for most other large companies.
"Motorola’s total commitment to Android in mobile devices is one of many reasons that there is a natural fit between our two companies. Together, we will create amazing user experiences that supercharge the entire Android ecosystem for the benefit of consumers, partners and developers everywhere"
and
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
On one hand, other Android based phone manufacturers are clearly going to face an uphill struggle if Google are going to release new versions of the OS on their own devices first.
On the other hand, it will hopefully provide some protection against being sued by Apple+Microsoft.
It doesn't help against Oracle though. If the OS goes what does it matter? Not that I think that will happen. More likely Google will be force to shell out some cash to Oracle.
Whoa. You know what would be even more interesting than this would be Google going after ARM and it's slew of licensing.
I wonder if this will make better or worse Motorola mobile phones. Will phones be pushed into retirement more early without upgrading their version of Android? Or will they have a longer software update cycle to keep them up to date in features?
There's no way an ARM acquisition by Google (or Apple, or Microsoft) would get past anti-trust issues; given that ARM, for all intents and purposes, owns the mobile market. Even if it got through, there'd be enough strings attached that there wouldn't be any value in it.
Assuming they spent the money for patents, is this the best way to resolve this issue? Would it not be easier to throw 1M a thousand time over and let developers create solutions around these patents and open source the projects?
So basically Google has acquired Motorala because they want to strengthen Android and build up a better patent portfolio. Funny how they don't mention users, better mobile experiences, etc all that much. I'm surprised how frank Larry Page is in his blogpost http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android...
I am not sure if Apple would ever be caught admitting that any of their products suck. They will always sell stuff in a more positive way (I mean they won't say "our product x sucked, this is what we do to make it better"). Why should Google do it differently.
He mentions patents specifically as one of the reasons for the acquisition.
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
So now Google has blessed a hardware manufacturer as the official Android manufacturer, and despite Google's insistence that Android is open, I don't think we've seen the Honeycomb source code yet. How long until Google no longer offers the Android source at all?
Samsung, HTC and the others are probably not very happy about this and will likely move them to start pushing their Windows Phone 7 handsets a bit harder than overly relying on Android.
I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to Symbian in the 90s, at its popularity peak almost everyone was using a licensed Symbian. Not that I agree with the model but it once hasn't a reality of the mobile phone market.
As for the open sourcing and then reclosing of Symbian, it's another story. I wasn't talking about the Symbian of the past few years.
>despite Google's insistence that Android is open, I don't think we've seen the Honeycomb source code yet
The word "yet" is mildly disingenuous. No one is waiting for them to do that -- google said a while ago that it wouldn't happen, but that they would release the source to Ice Cream Sandwich.
From the article, nice list of Android tablets showing those that comply with the GPL: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/ - a small proportion of the list are marked compliant, but most of the big names seem to be there.
Google doesn't have to as long as they don't distribute binaries. The liable ones are probably the phone manufacturers. But only the copyright holders can sue anyway, and I don't see that happening.
From Larry's post: "This acquisition will not change our commitment to run Android as an open platform. Motorola will remain a licensee of Android and Android will remain open. We will run Motorola as a separate business. Many hardware partners have contributed to Android’s success and we look forward to continuing to work with all of them to deliver outstanding user experiences."
Edit: Interesting to see huge difference in rationality/understanding of those who read Larry's post versus the TC'd version of the story.
Google is going the Apple route and building well-integrated hardware and software. The problem is that they're taking a detour into mid-90s Apple where other manufacturers were cannibalizing Mac sales. It's inevitable that Google will one day decide that it makes more sense to make $350 from every Android phone sold than from only 15% of them (or whatever Motorola's Android marketshare is).
Officially the other manufacturers have welcomed this as a move to protect Android. Which they profit from. Perhaps the patents that Google acquired can be lumped in with other patents from these companies for a 'MPEG like' protection cartel. Use it to get rid of any more additional payments to Microsoft or Apple in the future.
I hope Google uses the facility to build developer phones and tablets. That way you do not compete too much with the other phone makers. Release a new device every year with new features.
"Billionaire investor Carl Icahn urged Motorola to shop around its patent portfolio to cash in on interest in wireless technology from companies like Google Inc and Apple Inc."
It is worth noting this is the handset manufacturing part of Motorola.
Google's first foray into consumer electronics? That's big news. Phones and tablets. They are now competing directly in Apple's space.
Full control over the handset stack? (Did Samsung really push back that much on newer "GooglePhone" design?) Or access to patents? It's not really clear. However they do buy themselves a worldwide R&D facility.
This is the beginning of the end for Android as an open platform. Google will have a financial incentive to release the best phones as Motorola devices. I would not want to be HTC today.
I like how Larry Page talks about IP in the blog post. After all of that talk about how patents were overpriced, Google comes out and spends more money than anyone on acquiring what is basically a terrible handset maker with a large IP portfolio. At the end of the day, Google does what's best for Google.
Google has got to play the game until the rules of the game change. They need patents for protection. Yes, the patents are overpriced, but does Google have a choice?
But it's not clear how Google can break the cycle by themselves. If Google were to say no to patents, without there first being major reforms to the patent system, then they would be slowly squeezed by their competitors patents until they ran out of juice.
Android tablets are being pulled from shelves. What should they do? Just concede the market to Apple for the decade or so a serious attempt at patent reform will probably take? They're still not offensively suing anybody.
It's all about execution. It's not like it hasn't been in HTC/Samsung/Etc's best interest to release the best phones they could. Google showed as much with the Nexus line (same manufacturer, better handsets).
I don't think Google is interested in making profits with hardware sales. It is still about getting Google search into as many hands as possible (and collecting lots of data).
I swore off buying another Motorola product ever again after it took them an absurdly long time to roll out 2.2 for the Milestone. 2.3 is nowhere in sight. Shockingly terrible support for a flagship product.
We'll see how quickly Google can transform them. Android could really use a line of official devices that are consistently updated like iOS devices.
Motorola isn't the only manufacturer to fail their customers like that. Samsung is worse and HTC is only slightly better, but overall the outlook for any Android phone getting promptly updated over the duration of the contract period is bleak at best.
This is probably going to make some of the other handset manufacturers (HTC, Sony-Ericsson, etc) complain about Motorola having an unfair advantage when it comes to implementing Android.
Wonder if any of them are about to regret basing their smartphone offerings on Android? The move ought to strengthen the competition among the handsets, though, as Google can now ship their "dream-version" of an Android-phone.
I'm honestly not sure how much HTC cares about Motorola.
They're a competitor, yeah, but I doubt Googorola will be pumping out huge volumes of phones for every segment of the non-dumbphone market like HTC does, and HTC still pumps out Windows phones, too. I doubt they'll be shy about picking up another OS if a good one comes along, either.
I think HTC worries a lot more about Apple+iOS than they do about Motorola+Android. And they have an established friendly relationship with Google, I don't see that suddenly vanishing. It's not like they threw a fit when Google went to Samsung for the next Nexus phone.
Yep, this might be good news for the other "licensable" smartphone/tablet operating systems, which include WP7, webOS and MeeGo.
Samsung already has Bada, which may have ambitions to become a bit more of a proper smartphone operating system. But there is a bunch of manufacturers that may have to switch from Android because of this deal.
This was really funny; couldn't they've at least tried to make it look like the quotes weren't all written by one person?
q1v1: We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.
q1v2: We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.
q2v1: I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
q2v2: We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.
I think what you're seeing is not written by the same person, (Google couldn't be caught impersonating the owners of their partner companies) but probably a set of statements written by PR assistants all on the same "Please give us a statement on..." request using the same source terms out of the press release. All of them are toeing the corporate partner line for now.
Keeping Android open whilst treating their own phone manufacturing fairly will be a big challenge for Google. I hope they manage it. If done correctly the result should be a improvement in Android for all manufacturers, as the internal demands of Motorola will want to be heard, but cannot be prioritised.
I am still puzzled as to how Skype cost $8billion.
This will indeed be a challenge: keeping the interests of their own cell phone division and third party hardware makers. Might be just another "HTC Sense" type skin added to Android...
If they have any sense they are already negotiating the sale of the physical business on to someone else. Keep the patent portfolio and recuop $6 billion of the initial outlay.
Who would be interested in buying a marginally profitable manufacturing business in a highly competitive market for any significant amount of money.
Besides, I think Google are doing this, in part, to produce what everyone has been asking for - an Android phone without the crap heaped on it, a phone that will allow people to judge Android for what it is rather than for what Samsung, HTC and others think it should be.
Google always could. The Google apps you find on your Android phone are not open-source. HTC's Sense or Motorola's Blur aren't open source either. In fact, everyone could. My Nook is full of proprietary software. Android is just a software environment people build apps on top. The open-source core is fairly decent when compared to the competition, but no phone manufacturer I know ships only that.
You're not mistaken about the commits, but you're mistaken about what it means. That command will clone the 2.3 branch, aka Gingerbread. Honeycomb has been shipping on devices for months now, and Ice Cream is the current development branch.
Even if you want to claim that I shouldn't be able to see the current work in progress in an "open" project, which is debatable, I should at least be able to get the code for the currently released version, which would be Honeycomb.
I can't get access to those unless I'm in Google's Super Best Friends club.
GPL issues notwithstanding, Google is completely within their rights to keep their code away from me. However, it makes their trite definitions of "open" look pretty hollow.
I am quite sure all the GPL parts of Gingerbread are available. I am also sure Google is not withholding parts of Gingerbread for no reason. I have no knowledge about their reasons to do so, but, considering many if not all 3.x tablets run on Nvidia chips, I'd bet this has some relationship to Nvidia's historic reluctance in supporting open-source. I am also quite sure Google is working on that as it's not in their best interest to alienate the open-source developer community.
So you agree then, that Honeycomb is not available, and that google is withholding it for "some reason" (although you just have to look at their own statements, they're withholding it because they don't want OEMs putting it on phones).
"Android 3.0, Honeycomb, was designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes and improves on Android favorites such as widgets, multi-tasking, browsing, notifications and customization," Google said in an email to PCMag.com. "While we're excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we've decided not to release Honeycomb to open source. We're committed to providing Android as an open platform across many device types and will publish the source as soon as it's ready."
Meaning it's not ready. (emphasis mine)
I have to agree that, right now, Android has a closed branch (two - HC and whetever's not released) but claiming it's closed-source because it has one branch closed is not quite honest - like claiming MySQL is not open-source because they sell proprietary addons. My phone runs the open-source 2.3.4 version that was assembled by developers who don't work for Google.
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 to the conversation, but it's not worth a downvote in my eyes.
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)
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.
Well, having the code released at all, is always better than not having it. The more code released to the world under a reasonable F/OSS license, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, you make a good point... Android isn't necessarily developed in the most open of fashions, despite the fact that the source itself is, technically, open source. :-(
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.
Nonetheless, you do have that choice. That's a fundamentally different scenario than with, say, a win7 phone or whatever, where you don't have access to the source at all. Plenty of people are willing to take the chance with the warranty situation in order to load custom versions of Android, so clearly this matters to some people.
> I'm not sure I see the point of opening an Android release after it's developed.
Why? I certainly see a point in having the source to the software running on devices being sold.
> It defeats a primary benefit of open source software.
The primary benefit is having the source, being able to modify it and to build upon it. No OSI compliant license grants you the right to immediate access to the latest commits by all developers.
> 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.
The decision is yours. I voided my warranty and I am very happy with 2.3.4 on my phone.
> This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing
Things like Cyanogen Mod wouldn't be possible without this "Android is open!" thing. If that's marketing, then I love it.
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...
True, but it's not as though Microsoft bought Nokia. As crazy as that sounds, though, that would have been less crazy than Google's buying Motorola and how now they've suddenly become a mass-market hardware manufacturer. I really fear that things that Google has historically been bad at (support, etc) will come back to bite them hard.
How so? I see this bandied about as truth, especially by Linux fans and the anti-MS folk, but he was given charge of a sinking ship and is trying to do the best for the company.
>By burying the one that was actually good (and whose kernel could power an Android device easily)
Did you even read the article I linked?
Meego/Maemo was not ready on time. Even though the N9 may look okay, there's a lot of things missing that will make it very hard for Nokia to push the OS to devs etc. and have it on enough devices to make a difference in Eurasia.
And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do? It's not as if Android's kernel sucks or something. It's Linux underneath too. I don't get your point. Also, Google told them to take a hike during Nokia's discussions about switching to Android.
Anyway what happened to WebOS? It's a decent OS built on Linux but there's no uptake because of lack of a ecosystem and people wondering if it will be around in a few years.
> and has MORE customer satisfaction than Android phones.
Something which is yet to translate into phones sold.
> Did you even read the article I linked?
Sure. There is only a handful of WP7 devices out there and they are all very high-end. Android phones cover a much broader spectrum - there are low-end Android phones - and the number of disappointed users is going to be much higher.
From TFA: "The data might be skewed because of the limited number of Windows Phone 7 users out there"
> Meego/Maemo was not ready on time.
And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7.
> And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do?
It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
> Anyway what happened to WebOS?
It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
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 years to make?
>It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
And the N9 would now play second fiddle thanks to competition from Google itself.
>It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
That's EXACTLY my point. Meego/Maemo risked ended up being like WebOS, thanks to competition from Android/iOS/WP7,especially if the OS and multiple phones weren't ready. Getting an dev friendly ecosystem ready is not a joke. RIM's platform sucks for devs even after
And Meego wasn't, that's why the board fired the previous CEO and hired Elop. You think you know more than them and that they're all fools? Nokia is Finland's biggest company. If you think MS can 'install' a trojan horse just like that resulting in thousands of needless layoffs, then you're either deluded or paranoid. You should really read that Businessweek article.
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. Obviously, he is doing what his board perceives as the most profitable thing to do. 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.
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.
Isn't it questionable whether WP7 will be manufacturer-neutral? The level of cooperation between Nokia and Microsoft remains to be seen, but a possible outcome is that Nokia ends up looking like a subsidiary of Microsoft.
It might become a subsidiary instead of just looking like one, Nokia's stock jumped up over 10% here just now due to the speculation that Microsoft might be eying them especially after this move.
How would this fit in with a Nokia-WP7 Special Relationship though? Would MS kill off old and new BlackBerry OSes and just use RIM's old sales contacts to sell more WP7 phones or what?
That's a great question. I would expect MS to maintain the BlackBerry brand, which I think still has some clout in the enterprise. That and MS/RIM have a somewhat long-standing relationship too. As I understand it, BlackBerry is the only way to get end-to-end encryption from an Exchange server to a smartphone, although I'd be surprised if that's not added to WP7.
But basically, I think RIM is screwing up so much that they'll be an acquisition target soon, and MS seems like the most likely buyer to me.
I think the MS brand has more clout than RIM; if for no other reason than most large companies will have a relationship with MS for other products. In all of the large companies I've worked at buying from an existing vendor was preferable if the products were roughly comparable.
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.
WP7 is not exactly neutral anymore after the "special" deal they've made with Nokia, where they give them a lot more liberties than to the other manufacturers.
Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
What Google did was to gain access to Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio in order to defend HTC and Samsung from Apple and Microsoft. Google will own the company, but it will not become Google Mobility - it'll continue to exist as a separate entity.
They will probably manufacture the reference implementations. In order to reassure other phone manufacturers, Google will probably improve their code release schedule.
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
In practice, is the platform that much different from Windows? Anyone can slap it on any hardware and sell it as Windows and pre-install their own software. In fact, with Windows they don't have to follow the rules OEMs need to follow to bundle things like Maps and Android Marketplace with the phone.
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
I was comparing that to other platforms, both desktop and mobile (the difference is largely irrelevant to the argument, isn't it?).
With Android, the openness is exploited by the OEMs and carriers to install applications and always running services that CANNOT be uninstalled by the user, unless you root it(not easy for average user, and tough for even geeks because of locked bootloaders). These services and apps take up space and suck down battery. With Apple, you don't get such unremovable crap. With Windows 7, you can somehow uninstall it using tweaks and workarounds. With WP7, nothing can run in the background, and OEMs/carriers get a bigger tile on the main screen that can be removed with a long press and even uninstalled. How is the openness of Android helping here?
OEMs HAVE to abide by certain rules to get access to premium Google programs like Maps and to the Android Marketplace(try selling a phone without those).
So you say the openness of Android was used to customize the UI? Most people hate the UI customization since it further lags the phone and sucks down battery.
>And Windows OEMs can't change Windows itself - they can only slap things on top of it
True, but you can install things into the kernel itself and Dell ships a OS X like dock.
Do you have any examples of Android customisations that the OEMs made as a result of it being Open Source that improved the user experience that wouldn't be possible with, say desktop Windows?
Portions of Android are open source. I can't go to android.git.kernel.org, download the complete source and compile it into an identical image of what's on my phone.
Additionally, vanilla Android on a consumer device is fairly rare. Most are molested with Sense or BLUR or whatever tragic "vendor-added experience" Samsung inflicts. So in reality, most consumer Android phones aren't really that open source at all, holistically.
Android is open-source. What is not open-source is Sense or Blur, or the Gmail or Maps clients. You can't assemble the bundle that is preinstalled on your phone just like you can't download the TiVo software and turn your PC into one, even though the little gizmo runs Linux (as does your Panasonic, LG or Sony TVs, all of which run some flavor of Linux).
By the look of motorola solutions website, there's nothing that links the newly acquired company, at least directly, to the mobile phone hardware market.
From Wikipedia:
Motorola Solution Corporate structure
The company is structured into two divisions:
Enterprise: Comprises communications offered to government enterprise
mobility business.
Motorola develops advanced data capture, wireless infrastructure, bar
code scanning, two-way radios and business pagers, wireless broadband
networks and RFID solutions to customers worldwide.
Government: Produces public safety and government products. Motorola
develops analog and digital two-way radio, voice and data communications
products and systems, Wireless LAN Securities and mobile computing,
among others.
392 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 287 ms ] threadhttp://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/02/quick-and-easy-fix-to-...
Correctly interpreting - if not actual tarot reading.
Motorola mobility was spun off of the main company in January - I think at the time there was commentary on the stock markets that it was done with the aim to get someone to buy it.
So Motorola will exist still - as Motorola Solutions (it is the bigger & more profitable part of the company anyway) and Google get a phone manufacture division under their control.
Interesting move.
http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/01/did-motorola-just-hint...
~24,500 (~17000 Granted and ~7000 Pending)
I have problems believing they had 24500 real innovations. If a company can produce 24500 patents, then most are not what I think of as innovations but just a result of standard engineering work.
Seems like the best jobs at Google will soon be the lawyers, not the engineers.
It's fascinating to me to see this shift, which Google seems to be leading, from tech companies fighting over new product development - and spending gobs of cash on it - to something entirely different: fighting over patents (and again, spending gobs of cash on it). Where a company spends its cash is a good measure of where its priorities are, and I'm not sure what that says about Google.
I thought it was Microsoft and Apple that were aggressively filing patent lawsuits, and Google and other Android partners were on the receiving end, no?
One other thing I don't see being mentioned anywhere in these threads is that, "Motorola Mobility held $5.5B in cash and deferred tax assets; this could put Google's (GOOG) real purchase price around $7B."[1]
[1]http://seekingalpha.com/article/278932-can-motorola-mobility...
They get patents and a manufacturing arm (which then gives them control of the entire product cycle for Android).
The latter is a logical move; a lot of Apple's success comes from controlling all aspects of the iPhone. I know Android is open software, but internally for Google it makes sense to drive product development from the hardware side too.
Google's been promoting the "top end phone with fast updates" with their Nexus line which makes me wonder if Motorola-manufactured Androids are all going to be top of the line models.
Thew droid felt defunct somewhere in the middle of last year (and thus I upgraded), but my iPhone still feels awesome, even though I know positively that I am holding out an upgrade till iPhone 5 in a few months.
I've never really considered it from that perspective before... but nevertheless interesting. There is possibly something there that Android needs to look into.
Moto Mobile: general consumer devices (phones, tablets, GPS nav, DSL/cable modems, IPTV boxes, etc.)
Moto Solutions: enterprise and industrial stuff (2-way radios, RFID, barcode scanners, networking)
Instead of spending $4billion for patents, spend 3x as much, get a huge portfolio (I don't know how large, but it's supposedly quite large)..and a part of a company as well.
Also, Apple has shown that piles of cash can be made on good, though slightly expensive margins.
The problem with Google, or any software company buying a hardware company is that generally the street values hardware at a lower multiple so this has the chance to pull down google's market cap.
We'll see how the market reacts to this during today's trading.
This could have been part of a Google patent blitz from the start.
Notably, MMI peaked at $36.34 in January. I could see MMI's board thinking it was worth close to $40, given the crappy/insane state of the market.
The Motorola deal I think is a lot better because it's not just patents, it's a whole hardware company with hands in a lot of pies that Google is in, like cell phones and set-top boxes.
I think they'll get a much better return on their investment into Motorola than they would out of Nortel patents.
It's like the "work shouldn't be fun" crowd -- why the heck not?
It wasn't the first time they did something like that. Their IPO was intended to raise e billion dollars. And why shouldn't it be?
Using fundamental mathematical constants may be unusual, but it's absolutely no more arbitrary than boring "round" numbers with a bunch of zeroes, and it's like a big geek flag waving in the wind.
A company like Google is always in talks with other companies, a deal like this can happen very quickly if you've been having informal talks all along.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate a little?
If the street perceives Google to now be a hybrid hardware/software company then the street could lower the multiple that they use to value them.
I doubt it's going to make that much difference, though. Google hasn't actually directed money away from "software", they've spent part of their $40 billion reserve that wasn't doing anything useful on a hardware company designed to strengthen Google's position is a market it's already sort-of in.
This might hurt Android adoption a little, but I doubt Google really cares. All they really want are more browser phones, which will funnel more money into google (via adsense). Or maybe it will make Google more sensitive to what direction Android has to go.
Aside from Apple and MS-Nokia, until something disruptive happens in the phone OS scene Android is the way to go for phone makers.
The days of ad-subsidized, and democratized mobile devices are upon us!
GOOGLE Launch Date: 7/9/1998
What does Motorola do? Well ... cellular infrastructure is their core business, and they also have services/solutions for things like emergency response services (e.g. 911 in the US), law enforcement, and I think they still make walkie talkies.
Motorola Mobility (MMI) and Motorola Solutions (MSI). The cellular infrastructure, part of MSI, was sold to Nokia/Siemes Networks.
Motorola Solutions in mainly the Enterprise Mobility Business (Mobile Rugged Devices), WiFi systems, Tetra networks and a lot of other Government stuffs.
http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/Thomson_M&A/Moto...
http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/nokia-siemens-cut...
"Motorola’s total commitment to Android in mobile devices is one of many reasons that there is a natural fit between our two companies. Together, we will create amazing user experiences that supercharge the entire Android ecosystem for the benefit of consumers, partners and developers everywhere"
and
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
On the other hand, it will hopefully provide some protection against being sued by Apple+Microsoft.
I wonder if this will make better or worse Motorola mobile phones. Will phones be pushed into retirement more early without upgrading their version of Android? Or will they have a longer software update cycle to keep them up to date in features?
He mentions patents specifically as one of the reasons for the acquisition.
"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
Samsung, HTC and the others are probably not very happy about this and will likely move them to start pushing their Windows Phone 7 handsets a bit harder than overly relying on Android.
As for the open sourcing and then reclosing of Symbian, it's another story. I wasn't talking about the Symbian of the past few years.
The word "yet" is mildly disingenuous. No one is waiting for them to do that -- google said a while ago that it wouldn't happen, but that they would release the source to Ice Cream Sandwich.
From the article, nice list of Android tablets showing those that comply with the GPL: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/ - a small proportion of the list are marked compliant, but most of the big names seem to be there.
Posted earlier, but not enough votes: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2885787
And yeah, they publish all the GPL-derivatives like the underlying kernel, but not the stuff that makes Android Android.
Edit: Interesting to see huge difference in rationality/understanding of those who read Larry's post versus the TC'd version of the story.
I hope Google uses the facility to build developer phones and tablets. That way you do not compete too much with the other phone makers. Release a new device every year with new features.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-motorola-idUKTRE...
"Billionaire investor Carl Icahn urged Motorola to shop around its patent portfolio to cash in on interest in wireless technology from companies like Google Inc and Apple Inc."
Would've been nice to see that news a few weeks ago, then today's acquisition wouldn't have been so out of the blue.
Google's first foray into consumer electronics? That's big news. Phones and tablets. They are now competing directly in Apple's space.
Full control over the handset stack? (Did Samsung really push back that much on newer "GooglePhone" design?) Or access to patents? It's not really clear. However they do buy themselves a worldwide R&D facility.
I like how Larry Page talks about IP in the blog post. After all of that talk about how patents were overpriced, Google comes out and spends more money than anyone on acquiring what is basically a terrible handset maker with a large IP portfolio. At the end of the day, Google does what's best for Google.
But it's not clear how Google can break the cycle by themselves. If Google were to say no to patents, without there first being major reforms to the patent system, then they would be slowly squeezed by their competitors patents until they ran out of juice.
We'll see how quickly Google can transform them. Android could really use a line of official devices that are consistently updated like iOS devices.
Wonder if any of them are about to regret basing their smartphone offerings on Android? The move ought to strengthen the competition among the handsets, though, as Google can now ship their "dream-version" of an Android-phone.
They're a competitor, yeah, but I doubt Googorola will be pumping out huge volumes of phones for every segment of the non-dumbphone market like HTC does, and HTC still pumps out Windows phones, too. I doubt they'll be shy about picking up another OS if a good one comes along, either.
I think HTC worries a lot more about Apple+iOS than they do about Motorola+Android. And they have an established friendly relationship with Google, I don't see that suddenly vanishing. It's not like they threw a fit when Google went to Samsung for the next Nexus phone.
Samsung already has Bada, which may have ambitions to become a bit more of a proper smartphone operating system. But there is a bunch of manufacturers that may have to switch from Android because of this deal.
And - are there reasons to believe that Bada is not dead/completely irrelevant by now?
Really? I honestly do hope that something will come out of this that will relaunch WebOS.
http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/
I am still puzzled as to how Skype cost $8billion.
FYI Motorola Mobility had 24,500 patents when it was launched. http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobi...
Also, "open" in name only.
Besides, I think Google are doing this, in part, to produce what everyone has been asking for - an Android phone without the crap heaped on it, a phone that will allow people to judge Android for what it is rather than for what Samsung, HTC and others think it should be.
"open" as in:
Even if you want to claim that I shouldn't be able to see the current work in progress in an "open" project, which is debatable, I should at least be able to get the code for the currently released version, which would be Honeycomb.
I can't get access to those unless I'm in Google's Super Best Friends club.
GPL issues notwithstanding, Google is completely within their rights to keep their code away from me. However, it makes their trite definitions of "open" look pretty hollow.
So you agree then, that Honeycomb is not available, and that google is withholding it for "some reason" (although you just have to look at their own statements, they're withholding it because they don't want OEMs putting it on phones).
How is that "open"?
"Android 3.0, Honeycomb, was designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes and improves on Android favorites such as widgets, multi-tasking, browsing, notifications and customization," Google said in an email to PCMag.com. "While we're excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we've decided not to release Honeycomb to open source. We're committed to providing Android as an open platform across many device types and will publish the source as soon as it's ready."
Meaning it's not ready. (emphasis mine)
I have to agree that, right now, Android has a closed branch (two - HC and whetever's not released) but claiming it's closed-source because it has one branch closed is not quite honest - like claiming MySQL is not open-source because they sell proprietary addons. My phone runs the open-source 2.3.4 version that was assembled by developers who don't work for Google.
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?
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 to the conversation, but it's not worth a downvote in my eyes.
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)
Well, having the code released at all, is always better than not having it. The more code released to the world under a reasonable F/OSS license, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, you make a good point... Android isn't necessarily developed in the most open of fashions, despite the fact that the source itself is, technically, open source. :-(
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.
Nonetheless, you do have that choice. That's a fundamentally different scenario than with, say, a win7 phone or whatever, where you don't have access to the source at all. Plenty of people are willing to take the chance with the warranty situation in order to load custom versions of Android, so clearly this matters to some people.
Why? I certainly see a point in having the source to the software running on devices being sold.
> It defeats a primary benefit of open source software.
The primary benefit is having the source, being able to modify it and to build upon it. No OSI compliant license grants you the right to immediate access to the latest commits by all developers.
> 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.
The decision is yours. I voided my warranty and I am very happy with 2.3.4 on my phone.
> This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing
Things like Cyanogen Mod wouldn't be possible without this "Android is open!" thing. If that's marketing, then I love it.
At least not yet. But it seems Elop is doing his best to make it easy. Or, at least, cheap.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_24/b42320567...
By adopting the mobile OS nobody wants? By burying the one that was actually good (and whose kernel could power an Android device easily)?
You're dissing an OS that's not even out for a full year, and has MORE customer satisfaction than Android phones.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/wp7-ahead-of-android-and-...
How is that something that nobody wants?
>By burying the one that was actually good (and whose kernel could power an Android device easily)
Did you even read the article I linked?
Meego/Maemo was not ready on time. Even though the N9 may look okay, there's a lot of things missing that will make it very hard for Nokia to push the OS to devs etc. and have it on enough devices to make a difference in Eurasia.
And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do? It's not as if Android's kernel sucks or something. It's Linux underneath too. I don't get your point. Also, Google told them to take a hike during Nokia's discussions about switching to Android.
Anyway what happened to WebOS? It's a decent OS built on Linux but there's no uptake because of lack of a ecosystem and people wondering if it will be around in a few years.
Something which is yet to translate into phones sold.
> Did you even read the article I linked?
Sure. There is only a handful of WP7 devices out there and they are all very high-end. Android phones cover a much broader spectrum - there are low-end Android phones - and the number of disappointed users is going to be much higher.
From TFA: "The data might be skewed because of the limited number of Windows Phone 7 users out there"
> Meego/Maemo was not ready on time.
And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7.
> And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do?
It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
> Anyway what happened to WebOS?
It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
>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 years to make?
>It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
And the N9 would now play second fiddle thanks to competition from Google itself.
>It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
That's EXACTLY my point. Meego/Maemo risked ended up being like WebOS, thanks to competition from Android/iOS/WP7,especially if the OS and multiple phones weren't ready. Getting an dev friendly ecosystem ready is not a joke. RIM's platform sucks for devs even after
And Meego wasn't, that's why the board fired the previous CEO and hired Elop. You think you know more than them and that they're all fools? Nokia is Finland's biggest company. If you think MS can 'install' a trojan horse just like that resulting in thousands of needless layoffs, then you're either deluded or paranoid. You should really read that Businessweek article.
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. Obviously, he is doing what his board perceives as the most profitable thing to do. 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.
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.
I don't remember saying that. Nokia was doomed. Now, with Elop, it's even more doomed.
> and got a cash infusion of upwards of a billion for that
That's his only excuse
> All this was needed for survival interim while they rush out new devices. Android would've provided none of that.
Except a viable competitor. WP7 has, so far, failed to gain traction despite Microsoft's efforts. Nobody but Elop is betting on it.
> Atleast with WP7, Nokia is not competing with bargain basement Chinese phones
Do you really believe Motorola, HTC, Samsung and the other Android manufacturers are competing with them?
But basically, I think RIM is screwing up so much that they'll be an acquisition target soon, and MS seems like the most likely buyer to me.
Does MS really need a brand with enterprise clout though? Doesn't the MS brand itself have enough enterprise clout?
If nothing else, this might mean it will be easier to root Motorola phones in the future, as Google seems to see rootability as a feature.
What Google did was to gain access to Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio in order to defend HTC and Samsung from Apple and Microsoft. Google will own the company, but it will not become Google Mobility - it'll continue to exist as a separate entity.
They will probably manufacture the reference implementations. In order to reassure other phone manufacturers, Google will probably improve their code release schedule.
In practice, is the platform that much different from Windows? Anyone can slap it on any hardware and sell it as Windows and pre-install their own software. In fact, with Windows they don't have to follow the rules OEMs need to follow to bundle things like Maps and Android Marketplace with the phone.
Sure. OEMs get the full source code.
> Anyone can slap it on any hardware and sell it as Windows and pre-install their own software.
As long as they pay the license. Android OEMs don't have to. And Windows OEMs can't change Windows itself - they can only slap things on top of it.
AFAIK, the only OEM that got permission to customize WP7's interface is Nokia. And we are talking mobile OSs, not desktop ones, BTW.
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
I was comparing that to other platforms, both desktop and mobile (the difference is largely irrelevant to the argument, isn't it?).
With Android, the openness is exploited by the OEMs and carriers to install applications and always running services that CANNOT be uninstalled by the user, unless you root it(not easy for average user, and tough for even geeks because of locked bootloaders). These services and apps take up space and suck down battery. With Apple, you don't get such unremovable crap. With Windows 7, you can somehow uninstall it using tweaks and workarounds. With WP7, nothing can run in the background, and OEMs/carriers get a bigger tile on the main screen that can be removed with a long press and even uninstalled. How is the openness of Android helping here?
OEMs HAVE to abide by certain rules to get access to premium Google programs like Maps and to the Android Marketplace(try selling a phone without those).
So you say the openness of Android was used to customize the UI? Most people hate the UI customization since it further lags the phone and sucks down battery.
>And Windows OEMs can't change Windows itself - they can only slap things on top of it
True, but you can install things into the kernel itself and Dell ships a OS X like dock.
Do you have any examples of Android customisations that the OEMs made as a result of it being Open Source that improved the user experience that wouldn't be possible with, say desktop Windows?
Additionally, vanilla Android on a consumer device is fairly rare. Most are molested with Sense or BLUR or whatever tragic "vendor-added experience" Samsung inflicts. So in reality, most consumer Android phones aren't really that open source at all, holistically.
C'mon folks. Remember the moat analogy? Search? MOOLA!
From Wikipedia: