>This puts both points b), c) and e) off the table.
I don't see where you're coming from on b/c. Motorola makes great hardware - it would be hard to improve that. What Google can do is provide phones with unlocked bootloaders and the standard "Android Experience" UI. Google can make Motorola better precisely because they are a software company, and they can use that core competency to let Motorola focus on what they do best. (At the moment, Motorola shoots themselves in the foot by writing so much software.)
On e, yes, I think the hardware division will have to stay divided from Google.
"They're going to continue building Motorola branded devices and it's going to be the same team doing it."
Too bad. My Droid RAZR suffers from all the crapware added by Motorola and/or Verizon. I'm sick of being asked if I would like to use VZNavigator instead of Google Maps. My personal hope for the acquisition is that someone at Google would tell them to stop making their phones suck so they could squeeze out a few additional pennies from each customer. From Google's standpoint, not shipping a product which maximizes customer happiness is penny-wise and pound foolish.
You don't spend $12.5 billion on a device maker for patents; You just buy the damn patents. (~_~)
I actually was far more bullish on Android's prospects before given the rapid device growth, the de facto stealing of Symbian's marketshare and the adoption of the platform as a basic and functional OS for most users. However, as a strategy I think this is quite flawed initially.
As a device maker, Motorola Mobility would be a good play for HTC or Samsung. They'd be integrating an established maker with contracts, devices, patents, etc. For the platform maker to outright buy them would immediately put most other makers on guard.
What guarantee do you have that Google won't favor Motorola? How do you know that they will keep things on an equal footing? You don't. Case in point: travel comparison on AdWords. Google has shown their willingness to integrate vertically and throw valued customers under the bus.
In the long run, it makes absolutely zero sense for Google to keep Motorola as "just another device maker" in the Android ecosystem. They most likely will give it lip service for a year, try and fight off some patent suits and then slowly integrate things much more tightly. I think they're betting that they can become another Apple in terms of integration with Android not being overly harmed by other vendors fleeing to Microsoft. It is the logical strategy - the one driven by reality, not some PR spin of being "open".
I think the subtext is that. before, the Google line on the acquisition is that it was solely for the patents. Possibly to not piss off their other partners who are making the hardware that competes with Motorola. To my knowledge this is the first Google exec to admit publicly that having control over both the hardware and software platforms could make better products.
> Google's successful Android business relies on it not competing with its customers, and becoming a wireless carrier would make conversations with AT&T and Verizon just too uncomfortable.
How is this different than Google's purchase of Motorola? Won't that make conversations with HTC, Samsung, and all the other hardware manufacturers uncomfortable if and when Google produces its own hardware?
I don't think Google is really interested in building hardware. They bought Motorola only for the patents. Didn't they even say that Motorola will continue to operate independently?
The new "Nexus Prime" (Google reference phone for their latest OS version) was not even made by Motorola.
>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 as a device manufacturer, governmental agency compliance for hardware, etc. Google doesn't have really any experience with this, which means they absolutely need to keep the people that are currently doing those jobs.
Also, from what I've heard from people that used to work there, Motorola's engineering culture is on the "very corporate" side of things. Integrating that into Google's rather loose culture will be difficult, I think. This is especially important because both sides will need to be working with each other very closely.
Best case, Google doesn't change much, and integrates Motorola's hardware chain well. However, if they do exert a lot of control over the hardware side, quality could decline in the short term as the issues I mentioned above get worked out.
Overall, I think it's a much stronger position for both companies. Motorola gets Google's software expertise, and Google gets Motorola's hardware engineering and supply chain.
> Google might be able to pull ahead of Apple for a period
That would be a huge mistake - and they know it. That's why they made it clear Motorola Mobility will be run as a separate business. It would be unbelievably foolish to hand Microsoft the Android ecosystem and Google is not known to sacrifice long-term profit.
> And, people familiar with the companies say, Google could decide to follow Apple's lead and build a phone from silicon to software, perhaps by creating a separate operating system for Motorola that other phone makers cannot use.
The only way I could see this happening (within the next few years) is if Google makes a Firefox OS-alike. They have way too much invested in Android to give it up so suddenly.
When Google bought Motorola, the reasoning I read was all about patents. They still have those patents, and it might have been a good acquisition no matter the state of Motorola the company...
Google has stated very often and very clearly that they're trying to maintain a separation between them and Motorola. They don't want owning Motorola to mess up their relationships with other hardware companies.
My personal theory / guess (and let's face it, we're all guessing) is that Google doesn't particularly want motorola for phones at all.
I think they've decided they need an in-house capability to produce hardware in general and they intend to suck all the juice out of Motorola and then discard its corpse so that they have the ongoing ability to invest in R&D for hardware like Google Glass, self driving cars, etc. Just like they decided years in advance of needing it that they had to have a mobile OS in their arsenal, they've now decided that strategically they have to be able to produce hardware. Not because they want to but because there are strategic initiatives they can't pursue without that.
Think of it as the biggest acqhire in history (+ a boat load of patents, of course).
> But I'd doubt google bought it for the same reason as apple bought semi-pa. Google seems pretty adament on working qith existing handset providers.
Apple made their first Phone with Motorola.[1] It is not easy to enter a hardware industry; more so if you have no prior experience with consumer hardware market (unlike Apple). I think its more likely that Google was testing the water with Nexus One to see how people will react to it and how the process of manufacturing phones work. If I remember correctly they worked closely with HTC and had quite a bit influence on how the final product will look like. Remember, they are also working on a slate device and a net-book device, which will debut sometime this year. While this acquisition might not have any direct relation to the Google hardware devices coming out this year. I think it is highly likely that they might start building their own devices with custom processors soon.
Open device? With them buying Motorola?
reply