
Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division - rpledge
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/29/us-google-lenovo-idUSBREA0S1YN20140129
======
mediaman
Huge announcement if true, and if this accounts for the entirety of the
Motorola purchase that Google made.

That means that in less than two years, Google shredded 85% of the $13bn paid
for Motorola. At the time, the high price paid was excused for the patents,
because the business itself did not generate nearly enough earnings to justify
the price. Now, if it is true that the patents are part of the deal (the
article states they are), it's proof that these did not have nearly the value
anticipated.

It's also a big statement on Google's ability to succeed in the hardware
market, where they've never seemed to be able to gain real success despite
their attempts with notebooks and phones.

Edit: the article states the deal would include more than 10,000 patents.
Originally Motorola was estimated to have 17,000 patents at the time of its
purchase by Google. So while this is still speculation, and we do not know
full details, there's a good chance Google may have cherry-picked the patents
they felt were important to retain.

Follow-up edit: the 10,000 patent number comes from this article:
[http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2014-01/30/content_17265533.htm](http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2014-01/30/content_17265533.htm)

Edit 3: The value destruction here isn't so bad as 85%. See Magicalist's
comment below for a good summary - Google picked up a lot of cash, tax loss
assets, and $2.2bn from the sale of one of Motorola's subsidiary businesses as
part of that $13bn original purchase price. Still a loss but not as dramatic
as the headline number.

~~~
lotso
> It's also a big statement on Google's ability to succeed in the hardware
> market, where they've never seemed to be able to gain real success despite
> their attempts with notebooks and phones.

And Google TV. Let's not forget that huge failure.

"By the summer of 2012, the majority of the televisions you see in stores will
have Google TV embedded in it." -Eric Schmidt

~~~
ChikkaChiChi
A year off and the name is different, but Chromecast has redefined the way I
think about 'Smart TVs' and HTPCs.

Google's long game still looks good in this area, IMO.

~~~
myko
Yeah, Chromecast is pretty amazing. I bought one and everyone in my family who
has been over to see it has purchased one as well.

~~~
yetfeo
What are the advantages of Chromecast over something like Apple TV?

~~~
pbreit
Much cheaper, doesn't need to plug into wall, more and more open viewing
options. Question should probably be reversed (says this Apple fanatic).

~~~
smith7018
I disagree. As someone who owns a Chromecast, I think you're doing a _huge_
disservice to the AppleTV. The Chromecast isn't a standalone device. Period.
Full stop. It's basically a mildly improved AirPlay device that still lacks
many features (even in the way of AirPlay). Off the top of my head:

1\. The streaming isn't system wide. Developers need to incorporate the
streaming ability into their apps whereas Apple has it builtin to the device.
2\. My parents are unable to understand the concept of "flinging" content;
they want it to be a DVR-like device. The AppleTV allows them to rent,
purchase, or view previously obtained iTunes content. 3\. Music sounds
terrible through it. It lacks an optical audio out port so it just uses the
TVs speakers which are obviously not great. 4\. This is probably a personal
issue, but Chrome tab streaming constantly drops out after a short period of
time. I've yet to get it working fully. 5\. AppleTV can support games being
flung to the TV while using the iDevice as a controller. This isn't a selling
point, but I'd like my N5 to do the same. 6\. My TV (while being a 40" 1080p
flat screen) is lacking a USB port so I do have to plug it in. 7\. Am I
missing where I can stream my Android device's OS on the screen? I know iOS
allows you to stream the entire device's OS so you can give presentations and
the like.

There are many, many things the Chromecast can't do. It's saving grace is its
price point which lessens peoples' expectations but I wouldn't start saying
the AppleTV should aspire to be it.

~~~
munificent
> The Chromecast isn't a standalone device.

I look at that as a feature. I already have applications I'm comfortable with
for browsing and selecting media. I just want a new rectangle to play that
media on.

The fact that anyone on my Wifi can access it with their phone, instantly,
with nothing to install is a magical experience.

> 3\. Music sounds terrible through it. It lacks an optical audio out port so
> it just uses the TVs speakers which are obviously not great.

HDMI Audio Return addresses that. If your TV and receiver support that (I
think most do?), then audio will flow from the Chromecast into your TV and
back _up_ the TV's HDMI cable into the receiver.

My Chromecast plays audio through the speakers hooked up to my receiver just
fine.

> Am I missing where I can stream my Android device's OS on the screen?

Maybe Chrome for Android supports that? I don't think there's OS level support
for Chromecast.

> There are many, many things the Chromecast can't do.

Sure, a boat can't do many of the things an airplane can, and vice versa.
They're different devices with very different user experiences.

~~~
yetfeo
> The fact that anyone on my Wifi can access it with their phone, instantly,
> with nothing to install is a magical experience.

Does ChromeCast not require an app on the device? I thought it wasn't
integrated with the OS.

~~~
deserted
Various apps now include chromecast support, so anyone with the
Netflix/YouTube app can stream to your chromecast.

------
palebluedot
Google just confirmed it, and explained some of their reasoning:
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-
mot...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-motorola-
mobility.html)

I'm inexplicably bummed about this. I was excited to see what Google would do
long term with Motorola, and I thought the Moto X and Moto G was a great
start. I thought eventually, a Google+Motorola powerhouse could provide a nice
yin to Apple's yang.

~~~
Pxtl
I bought my wife a Moto G. I've been pretty impressed with the device - I was
hopeful for the future of Moto/Google. This is disappointing. Lenovo is an
_intensely_ boring company, they're not going to do anything fun with the Moto
brand.

~~~
claudius
At least these phones don't have perfectly fine, working keyboards Lenovo
could 'improve'.

~~~
josteink
To be fair, I tried a recent Lenovo laptop and in the BIOS you can swap the Fn
and Ctrl-key so that they're back at where they should have been in the first
place.

After that, I no longer hated working with the laptop and found it pretty
decent.

That said, yes, Lenovo is the definition of a company making "boring" and
über-traditional devices.

~~~
claudius
Oh, I'm perfectly happy with the location of the Fn key, and, admittedly,
larger Del and Esc keys were also a good idea. Five-row keyboards are not (and
neither are six-row chiclet-style keyboards).

~~~
pointernil
Yup. I'm wondering how much it would be worth for their customers to select
the type of keyboard they would like for their new T-Series... even the
keyboards off the top-notch models have a much "cheaper", sloppier feel to
them.

(very personal impression obviously)

------
spinchange
It seems to me that this must have been the intention all along. When Google
purchased them, Motorola was about to start suing other members of the Android
ecosystem because they were that desperate. So the deal was always defensive.
I think the value of Motorola's IP was always overstated and Google knew that
but it made for a good story for shareholders along with Google signalling
they were serious about hardware. And maybe they are, but the whole "American
made" angle they took and all the tax incentives they got, and for what...to
sell the company 7 months after launching a flagship phone??? It's a great
phone, but it looks to me like this whole thing was set-up to sell out from
the start. If so, it was a brilliant unwinding of something that could have
been very bad for Android at a critical time. As others have pointed out, they
didn't take as bad a bath financially as it seems either.

The alternative narrative is that they suddenly had a change of heart because
of Nest, but why not just integrate or put that team in charge of Motorola if
it's about talent?

In any case, the Moto X is a really nice phone. I feel bad for the employees
of Motorola and find this maneuvering very "corporate" and un-Googley.

~~~
Eye_of_Mordor
Google _are_ corporate, they _were_ the good guys.

------
zmmmmm
It's hard not to draw connections between the various events of the last week
or so: 1) Google/Samsung patent deal, 2) Google purchases Nest, 3) Google
sells Motorola, 4) Samsung suddenly cools on Tizen.

Theory: Google gets offered the opportunity to buy Nest. Either Larry or
Sergey gets serious interested. They bought Motorola because they wanted a
serious stake in the hardware market. They toss up which is better - Motorola
or Nest? They decide Nest is the winner. They realize the valuations are such
that they could pretty much just swap Motorola for Nest. But there's a
problem: Motorola was also their insurance for making sure they would always
have an OEM to make Android handsets. If Samsung ever turned - they would
never find themselves unable to secure a Nexus partner. So they go to Samsung,
and offer a deal: patents, guarantees of support, probably other stuff: as
long as you agree to make Android your flagship each year AND GPE phone
version of it. This seems good enough. Motorola not needed any more and they
can get a new toy to play with - Nest is the winner.

~~~
yabatopia
I don't think Nest has much to do with it. As I see it: 1) Google and Samsung
sign a sweet patent deal, 2)Samsung halts or slows down the development of
replacements for Google apps and promises not to fork Android, 3)In return
Google drops Motorola, a direct competitor to Samsung.

~~~
smaddali
I agree with you. This may be a straight up barter with Samsung

------
IBM
This makes this tweet[1] from Chris Dixon hilarious:

"Which strategy wins the future: stock buybacks or investing in AI + robots +
smart devices?"

I mean it really shouldn't surprise anyone that a VC would be cheerleading
expensive acquisitions with no regard for shareholder value or whether it has
any hope of making a significant return.

But the real answer to his question is: organic growth. And if you are
confident in your ability to create organic growth, then the best way to use
large amounts of cash to create shareholder value over the long-term is stock
buybacks (assuming you have the cash to fund that organic growth and your
shares are undervalued, which in Apple's case, both are true).

[1][https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/427602474086584320](https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/427602474086584320)

~~~
mediaman
I know Google is trying to break out of their traditional business, but it
seems like they've been trying to do that for years and nearly all their
revenue is still ads.

Just because very smart entrepreneurs are able to capitalize on an opportunity
(search) and turn it into one of the world's largest companies, doesn't mean
they can arbitrarily do it again.

~~~
jerf
Has any company the size of Google ever successfully pulled of this sort of
diversification? (Honest question, there may well be answers I'm not thinking
of. But I do mean very large companies, I know smaller ones diversify all the
time successfully (and unsuccessfully).)

For context, you think about a company like Microsoft or Google
"diversifying", and, you know, for them it's not enough to "merely" build a
$250 million/year business for it to be considered a leg of the metaphorical
company stool, instead of just a "hobby". How can you hope to scale up a new
core competency to the requisite levels? (It seems "merely" having vast
resources is no guarantee of success.)

~~~
justin66
> Has any company the size of Google ever successfully pulled of this sort of
> diversification?

How many companies the size of Google are NOT heavily diversified? Think GE,
3M, etc.

~~~
michaelt
Is Wal-Mart diversified? Is Exxon Mobil? Bank of America?

~~~
justin66
> Is Wal-Mart diversified?

I know that you thought you were providing a counterexample (which is odd,
since I wasn't making some kind of universal claim) but yeah, they are.
Branching into groceries represented a pretty bold diversification. I'm pretty
sure they've talked about even providing banking services. They're about as
diversified as a dedicated brick and mortar retailer can possibly be, and it's
not hard to see why: they control their existing niches and they want to
continue growing.

~~~
michaelt
I wasn't aiming for a counterexample so much as an illustration of the fact
that whether a company is diversified or not is a matter of definition.

Is a company diversified if it operates in related markets in the same sector,
like a bank that does retail and business banking? Is a company diversified if
operations outside their core business are only a small fraction of their
turnover, like an oil company that has a small renewables operation?

If the purpose of diversification is to keep the company afloat if there's a
downturn in one market, these properties are important. Being in retail and
business banking won't help if the entire banking sector has problems, and 1%
of your business won't keep you afloat if the other 99% of your business is
sinking.

------
skizm
Better article:
[http://investor.google.com/releases/2014/0129.html](http://investor.google.com/releases/2014/0129.html)

Assuming that google keeps the majority of/important patents then they
basically bought the patents for $4.74 billion. They sold the "set top"
division for $2.35 billion and now they're selling the mobility division for
$2.91 billion. They also kept about $3 billion in cash that Motorolla was
holding when they bought them for $13 billion.

That's not even counting whatever tax incentives they get from these deals. So
all in all, it isn't as bad of a deal as it looks like on the surface (in fact
I assume it is what Google was planning from the beginning).

~~~
eli
Curious: why would a deal like that have tax incentives?

~~~
skizm
Tax benefits from the purchase I think. They were saving something like $700m
a year in taxes for a bunch of years following the purchase. I forget the
details.

------
footpath
[http://investor.google.com/releases/2014/0129.html](http://investor.google.com/releases/2014/0129.html)

"Google will maintain ownership of the vast majority of the Motorola Mobility
patent portfolio, including current patent applications and invention
disclosures. As part of its ongoing relationship with Google, Lenovo will
receive a license to this rich portfolio of patents and other intellectual
property. Additionally Lenovo will receive over 2,000 patent assets, as well
as the Motorola Mobility brand and trademark portfolio."

------
cromwellian
Regardless of the Google specifics, we should really have some sympathy for
the Motorola employees. I doubt Lenovo will stomach quarterly losses the way
Google did while they restructured. My guess is, we're going to see big
layoffs.

~~~
raganwald
_My guess is, we 're going to see big layoffs._

Sometimes, a company sells a division or wholly owned business because it is
either that or massive layoffs, and it's better for morale to write down a few
billion dollars than to fire thousands of people.

Even if you're working in one of the profitable businesses, a real chill goes
around when the pink slip printing press starts hammering.

~~~
cromwellian
True, but Google has a number of unprofitable divisions. Technically, if you
look at G+, Maps, and to some extent, Chrome and Android, which are given away
for free, if these were separate businesses, they would bleeding money. I
guess technically you could look at Chrome like Mozilla and imagine some
ongoing deal to be the default search box. YouTube had no ROI for a long time,
certainly longer than the 2 years Google gave Motorola.

Motorola was probably going to go bankrupt before Google bought them. Like
Apple when it was bleeding money in the 90s, it needed a way to gain time to
reinvent itself. Google's purchase probably prevented mass layoffs in the
short term, but has Motorola been given enough time to turn itself around? I
dunno. We will see what happens shortly after Lenovo takes control.

Given Motorola's history in the technology industry, it's sad to see them go
under. Reminds me of Silicon Graphics, the company that basically invented the
majority of the fundamental facets of modern computer graphics, gone, while
people gleefully play games on their mobile GPUs unaware of where we'd be
without them.

------
ChikkaChiChi
I wonder if this has anything to do with Apple's focus on the Chinese market.
Google could effectively hand off a tightly wound partnership to an
established Chinese company in Lenovo that can then leverage Android more
effectively in a head to head battle with Apple.

In the interim, Google keeps its hands clean and doesn't enter into the
discussions that plague any sort of success in the Chinese marketplace.

~~~
adventured
Apple will never compete for serious market share in China no matter what
happens. They'll be lucky to hold onto 5% to 7% of that market. The domestics
will dominate, due to nationalism, price, and those companies better
understanding what Chinese consumers want. There's a reason Android already
has 80% (and climbing, as iOS loses market share) of China.

------
m0nastic
Despite the huge delta in what they paid for Motorola, vs what they're
reported to be selling it for, other people have pointed out that the way the
deal was structured may not actually wind up making it a huge financial loss
for Google.

I certainly can't think of any way to spin the way this turned out to be
positive for Google, but I don't think the absolute numbers will worry them
all that much.

I haven't seen anyone here mention that at the time of the acquisition,
Motorola was attempting to sue all the other Android manufacturers over its
patents; and it was posited that Google was basically forced to buy Motorola
to keep them from poisoning the ecosystem.

I assume that not happening was probably worth more to Google than what they
would up having to pay for Motorola.

Psychologically, it does help reinforce the idea that Google really doesn't
know what it's doing with regards to hardware (although hey, they just paid
more for Nest than potentially what they're selling Motorola for).

------
jrs99
Google is a mess. Seriously. What happened? It's like there's been a void in
their executive leadership in the last couple years.

~~~
k-mcgrady
One co-founder is busy with moonshots and the other with getting Google+
integrated everywhere he can. I say this only slightly in jest. Google's two
co-founders are focussing on something most people hate and things that have a
small chance of paying off many many years from now.

~~~
snaky
>and the other with getting Google+ integrated everywhere he can

And what's more important - everywhere he cannot

------
RankingMember
Very odd news. Was looking forward to seeing what Google could do with their
weight thrown behind hardware.

~~~
w1ntermute
And they're off to a good start with the Moto X and Moto G. I don't really
understand why they'd want to sell Motorola now.

~~~
untog
Sale for the MotoX at least have been... unimpressive.

~~~
w1ntermute
You don't achieve impressive sales numbers for a smartphone in one generation,
because of the enormous importance of brand recognition. Samsung makes subpar
handsets at best, but achieve enormous sales because of their brand
recognition. That took them several generations to build up. It wasn't until
the S3 that people really started to recognize Samsung phones as a distinct
entity.

Google should've given Motorola at least 2 or 3 more years before calling it
quits, if they really wanted to gain a foothold in the hardware market.

~~~
marincounty
Yea--the only reason I even know about Moto X is because I was looking for a
cheap data plan, and stumbled upon the phone at rebublic wireless. My point is
I agree--it takes time.

------
slg
I am sure I am part of the minority on HN involved in the enterprise market,
but I am intrigued by what Lenovo's plans might be for Motorola. With their
already established relationships and customer base, Lenovo should have a much
easier time selling their hardware than Google did. At the very least, this
move might be the final death knell for Blackberry.

~~~
jjindev
I have a related suspicion ... that Google made the deal in part because they
believe Lenovo will run Motorola well, with goals compatible to Google and
Android.

I don't think Google was ever into Motorola to make it pay. They were there
for strategy, and Lenovo can do that too.

(Don't forget that Lenovo just bought IBM's x86 server business, and so is
"going big.")

Update, sorry for the bad link [http://www.pcworld.com/article/2090680/lenovo-
agrees-to-buy-...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2090680/lenovo-agrees-to-
buy-ibms-server-business-for-23-billion.html)

------
jsz0
The timing of this (vs. the Google/Samsung arrangement) really makes it look
like Google's involvement with Motorola was simply to intimidate Samsung. The
message was we'll piss away our advertising revenue to destroy you if you
don't do what we want. Short term success maybe but in the long term it puts
Google firmly on the Microsoft track. You can only gain so much via
intimidation.

~~~
notatoad
Alternate theory: this is samsung throwing their weight around. Google
purchased Moto because they wanted to get into the devices business, Samsung
tells google to get rid of it or else they will continue to diverge their ~70%
of the android market away from google's version of android.

Google clearly wants to be a hardware manufacturer: they've been circling the
market for a while now, trying different things: they bought moto, they bought
nest, they keep doing nexus devices, glass, the ever-growing lineup of google
play editions, chromebooks... I don't think they bought moto just to be a
bully, or just for the patents.

------
belgianguy
While many seem to predict doom and gloom here, perhaps Google decided it
rather gets an extra ally (Lenovo) that could produce Android phones and
recoup some money they spent on the acquisition in the process? It also clears
Google of any hints of favouritism towards Moto and frees up a lot of
resources. I don't think Google knew what to do with a mass-producing phone
manufacturer (plus its IP) under its direct control, just like a cat staring
at a ball of yarn, swatting at it for some time, before running off to do
something else. Verticalisation used to be the bees-knees and has a lot of
lock-in potential, but I don't think that's where Google's ambition lies, I
feel like it was weighing them down.

Google seems to have found a new niche to explore, though. It seems to have
circled the 'Internet Of Things' on their todo list quite clearly and seem to
be taking no risk of arriving late to the party. In a sense, what Apple did
earlier to secure its iPhone launch, is what Google is doing now wrt the IOT.
That and the smartphone market seems to be slowing down to a point of maximum
saturation. Then there's not much to do for Google with a mid-tier phone
manufacturer under its belt with ever decreasing margins. On the other hand,
who would be a good ally to have when you were interested in the Internet Of
Things? Maybe some manufacturer which produces everything from smartphones,
washing machines, TVs to tanks and ships, and which coincidentally also
happens to be the biggest Android manufacturer? A slightly cynical me perhaps
even sees the Motorola sell-off as some sort of token sacrifice to ease all
worries on both sides of the 10 year patent deal (I could imagine Samsung not
releasing Tizen as a smartphone OS to compete with Android, but perhaps use it
as a basis for IOT-related appliances, whatever those might be, and complement
Android rather than fight it).

But that's all speculation from my side, but to be honest, I was yearning for
some new technology developments, most of the land has been claimed in the
space of smartphone technology and most of the battles taking place nowadays
seem to be patent trolls and patent bullies doing what they do best: stink it
up for everyone involved.

------
tptacek
They're keeping the patents, right?

~~~
jcdavis
Almost certainly. Still, surely the patents aren't worth $9B are they?

~~~
mediaman
The article suggests that 10,000 patents are part of the deal. I'm not sure if
that's the same number as were originally purchased, but I have to think it's
the lion's share of them.

~~~
maxerickson
I see 'certain patents'. I don't see a reason to read a number out of that.

~~~
berberous
It's from China Daily: "The acquisition, worth at least $2 billion, will
include more than 10,000 mobile communications patents currently held by the
United States company, according to a person familiar with the matter." [1]

Wikipedia said of the original Google purchase: "Motorola Mobility has 17,000
patents with 7,500 more patents pending."

[1]
[http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2014-01/30/content_17265533.htm](http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2014-01/30/content_17265533.htm)

------
justin66
It's a tangent but I'm a little disappointed by this latest executive-level
assault on the language, from Larry Page:

> So until then, it’s business as usual. I’m phenomenally impressed with
> everything the Motorola team has achieved and confident that with Lenovo as
> a partner, Motorola will build more and more great products for people
> everywhere.

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-
mot...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-motorola-
mobility.html)

"Partner." Yeah...

------
mindcrime
Wow, that seems... sudden. If the Motorola Mobility purchase was meant to be
strategic (and surely a purchase that big was), how could they have possibly
had time to implement that strategy and truly gauge its effectiveness?

I'd say this announcement, if true, is downright shocking. Not saying it's
_wrong_ , mind you, just that it's very, very surprising. At least from the
Google perspective.

Now, Lenovo, OTOH, this seems to fit the "PC Plus" view very well. If this is
true, it could be a huge win for Lenovo.

------
joezydeco
There are a lot of Chicago real-estate agents that won't sleep well tonight.

The Mobility move to downtown was supposed to happen in a few months. Google
signed a 15-year deal on 750,000 square feet ( _17+ acres_ ) of office space
at the Merchandise Mart. Will Leonovo assume that lease?

------
yitchelle
And to think that they've just released the MotoX, and now this.

~~~
sliverstorm
I was so close to buying one, I'm going to have to hold off now.

------
sirkneeland
It's really too bad. The Moto X is my favorite phone since the Nokia N9. And I
work at Nokia.

------
dsl
I'm not a huge fan of Android, but I had hoped that Google would use Motorola
to take a holistic approach to security similar to what Apple can do. This
would have been a serious pain for both the NSA and the PLA, but instead they
are selling the whole business to the PLA.

------
badman_ting
I wonder if it's true that G did buy it in somewhat of a panic due to what was
happening with patents at the time, as some have speculated. I dunno how
something as protracted as an acquisition can happen as a result of panicking,
though.

------
huangc10
This is bad news. Motorola handsets were starting to look good. Now that
Lenovo is taking over it will definitely go downhill from here.

------
rayiner
Unfortunate. I was sitting waiting for a Moto X successor to see if I could
get a phone designed in the U.S./assembled in the U.S.

~~~
snaky
It's not so unlikely to see new Lenovo's Motorola phone designed/assembled in
the U.S. Based on MTK chipset.

------
Pxtl
I know this is a fantasy at best, but I keep fantasizing they're doing this so
they can have the cash liquid... to buy Nintendo. Or Sony.

I like Google's attitude towards hardware and I want them in the gaming
industry.

~~~
ricardobeat
So we can finally get all the AAA titles for free and covered in ads!

------
altero
Lenovo is already making decent phones and in china are quite big. Perhaps
they want on US market.

------
Pxtl
What!? But... I loved the Moto G. And honestly, I don't get the love people
have for Lenovo. Thinkpads are... okay. Lenovo's ownership of the brand could
be described as stewardship at best. But they took the leading brand in PC
laptops and kept it the leading brand in PC laptops while tablets and Apple
destroyed the entire market for PC laptops.

Lenovo will never do anything _great_ with the brand. Google had promise.

------
bcohen5055
3Billion dollars? Wasn't Lenovo going to pay close to 4.5 Billion for RIM in
october? Either RIM was overvalued or this is a steal

------
rtpg
Slightly disappointed this is happening, Google having its own place to start
really getting invested in consumer hardware seemed like a good thing (getting
"pure" experiences without having to pay top dollar). I got the Moto G and
it's probably one of the better value propositions out there.

I wonder how things will go with Lenovo in charge.

------
JosephBrown
"Google will retain the vast majority of Motorola’s patents, which we will
continue to use to defend the entire Android ecosystem."

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-
mot...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-motorola-
mobility.html)

------
codelap
I suspect the patents were proving to be of less value than Google thought.
Combine that with Samsung and other big players investigating other OS's for
fear of Google pulling a Microsoft with the Surface. Any way I slice it
though, it still sounds like a 10+ billion dollar mistake.

~~~
psbp
Closer to $7 billion. They have made $5 billion together with the set top box
acquisition.

~~~
dclara
How about $3B cach minus $1B debts, make it $5B loss?

------
staunch
Google looks a lot smarter to me now. They paid _way_ too much for Motorola
Mobility just to get the patents. Maybe they were forced to buy a bunch of
stuff they didn't want? It makes sense to recoup as much of the money as they
can by selling off what they didn't even want.

------
alexeisadeski3
As a Verizon customer who's reliant upon Dev Ed handsets, let me just say that
this sucks.

------
dba7dba
I wonder if Samsung was aware of this? Were Motorola patents part of the
cross-licensing?

------
Zigurd
Best move all year for Google.

Owning Moto's handset business was a goiter on Google, and the lack of clarity
on Google's intentions might have been necessary to extract maximum value from
this sale, but it was very bad in every other way.

------
fharper1961
Smart move from Google, they remove the possibility of being suspected of
favoritism. And I suppose they keep the patents, which is what they were
really interested in all along.

~~~
objclxt
I don't know how anyone can see selling off a company for $9.5 billion less
than you paid for it two years ago as a "smart move". It is prudent to get rid
of Motorola now before it eats up even more cash, but the smart thing would
have been to never buy the company in the first place.

~~~
dba7dba
I agree. Don't care how much money you have or are making annual, but losing
9.5 billion in TWO years doesn't look good. What's google thinking?

~~~
evandena
As noted a half dozen times throughout the comments, they didn't lose 9.5
billion, it's looking more like possibly 2 billion. But they also had a strong
bargaining chip vs Samsung, and will likely reap benefits far exceeding their
Moto stake.

~~~
dba7dba
My comment was way early in the thread so the dozens of comments saying they
didn't lose 9.5 billion didn't exist yet when I posted...

Still, it's a strange/not-so-great move on google's part.

It's sad how a once mighty company is being sold around like a piece of house
by some property flippers, and costing the flipper pretty 2 billion too...

------
pbreit
The thing that always surprised me was how quick Google was to get out of the
set-top business. That seemed like a pretty incredible opportunity to me.

------
jareds
I wonder if I should be in a hurry to buy a Moto G now as a test device and
secondary phone? I'm not sure how good Lenovo's cell phones are.

------
skaevola
Lenovo has been looking to enter the U.S. Smartphone for some time[0].
Acquiring a newly revitalized brand seems like a fairly good plan to do so.

0:
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732333610...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323336104578502843289017624)

------
ihsw
Makes me wonder how this affects their recent patent pact with Samsung -- now
that they have Samsung as a form of support, they no longer need Motorola
Mobility?

Perhaps a patent pact with Motorola Mobility would've been better than buying
them outright?

------
Touche
My guess is that Google and Samsung have come to some arrangement that will
bring them closer. Perhaps Samsung gets more engineers working on Android
directly, perhaps Samsung drops S-Voice and some of its proprietary stuff.

------
fredgrott
we are forgetting something here at least the TC post did

Moto still has Fed/Military contracts as this is why foreign buyers were nto
considered the first time around.

This might not go through to completion

~~~
gnaffle
This is Motorola Mobility though, which only includes the cell phone business
and was spun off from Motorola (not called Motorola Solutions) and later sold
to Google.

------
ulfw
With the sale of Motorola, the intro of Chrome Apps for Mobile, the stepping
down of Andy Rubin - is Google losing interest in Android? When will we see
ChromeOS for Mobile?

~~~
mtsmithhn
Did Andy step down or finally have an opportunity to peruse his dream?

> For Rubin, manufacturing is a return to the past. According to a 2007
> profile, Rubin began as a robot engineer at lens manufacturer Carl Zeiss and
> had a brief stint at Apple as a manufacturing engineer before devoting his
> working hours to developing computers instead. However, robotics remained a
> hobby, with Rubin both building his own and amassing a collection of robots
> from Japan.

~~~
ulfw
Could very well be! And why not follow your dreams when you're rich? Fact
still remains that Android is now under ChromeOS chief Sundar Pichai.

------
72deluxe
Very interesting! Lenovo's laptops seem good quality to me.

Hopefully this will make my Atrix and Lapdock more sought after.... and my
Xoom..... (perhaps too much Motorola hardware???)

------
tking8924
From the Lenovo perspective, this would be two very large acquisitions in a
short span of time. Very interested to see what they do with this...

~~~
mindcrime
I have to admit, I'm thinking "buy Lenovo stock" right now. I like what
they're doing lately.

------
spiderPig
Good move. Nipping it in the bud is better than dredging it along years and
eventually 'writing it off' like a certain company.

------
cmollis
super-terrific, (non_)mathematical-ish analysis of their original purchase of
Motorola (from 2012).

[http://brandnewgames.tumblr.com/post/26984798194/commuter-
tr...](http://brandnewgames.tumblr.com/post/26984798194/commuter-train-
analysis-of-android-windows-phone)

------
mzs
Any word on if phones will still be assembled in US? Some Moto X models are
today.

------
dschiptsov
Is it a signal that ARM based handset business (and technology) is peaked?)

------
evo_9
That is still too much for Motorola handset division. Google must estatic at
he chance to recoup that much from one of the worst deals they've ever done.

------
scottcowley
One big experiment by Google to cheaply increase worldwide mobile connectivity
and subsequent ad dollars.

~~~
megablast
So much spin I get dizzy just reading this sentence.

------
pearjuice
It's over, Android is finished. With Google parting hands with Motorola and
abandoning Nexus all together (Google Play Edition phones will take over), the
consumer is entirely dependent of consumer-oriented manufactures like Samsung.
A black day for Android, a good day for Samsung its monopoly.

~~~
billnguyen
Nexus phones/products have always been made by external partners (HTC,
Samsung, LG, etc...), none of which have ever been Motorola. Why does the Moto
sale affect the Nexus line?

------
Yhippa
Step 1: Buy Motorola Mobility

Step 2: Firewall the two companies

Step 3: Extract patents from Motorola through the firewall

Step 4: Profit???

