Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2012 22:23 UTC
Google "Here's a business riddle: divine Google's intentions for its largest-ever acquisition, the $12.5 billion purchase of the once-great, now-faltering Motorola Mobility. Motorola represents one of the thorniest strategic and operational challenges in Google's 14-year history. Oddly, few seem to be paying attention."
Order by: Score:
v grammar check
by avgalen on Wed 11th Apr 2012 22:51 UTC
RE: grammar check
by MechaShiva on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:05 UTC in reply to "grammar check"
MechaShiva Member since:
2005-07-06

It is a valid if relatively uncommon use of divine.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: grammar check
by avgalen on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE: grammar check"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Thanks, I had never heard divine used as a verb before and some quick checking only showed the usage I knew (godly). Of course a more thorough check by me would have been better.

I was also surprised to see that this article actually requires registration to read (not sure if that is possible from everywhere around the world or if it would be free). Is it normal to link to such "hidden" articles on OSNews?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: grammar check
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: grammar check"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Huh. I can read it and I have no subscription :/.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: grammar check
by duplex80 on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: grammar check"
duplex80 Member since:
2011-05-11

At least here in the US, WSJ has a paywall up, requiring a subscription to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs. I can usually read full articles when on my Android device though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: grammar check
by avgalen on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: grammar check"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

It points me to this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577335990254...

and on that link I can read until "What of the factories churning out low-margin cellphones ..."

Above the text it says "Exclusive subscriber content, for full site access login or subscribe now and get 4 weeks free"

Below the text it says "to continue reading subscribe now"

I am accessing this article from The Netherlands

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: grammar check
by Alfman on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: grammar check"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Seconded. I created a free account (from US) and I still can only read the excerpt.

I do know WSJ is testing their planned subscription based business model, but I don't know who's included in the test.

The fragmentation of the web has begun, it's a preview of things to come.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: grammar check
by woegjiub on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: grammar check"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

How deliciously unusual, for the US browsers to be the ones unable to access websites due to regional issues, for a change.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: grammar check
by Sjon on Thu 12th Apr 2012 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: grammar check"
Sjon Member since:
2012-04-12
RE[6]: grammar check
by ricegf on Thu 12th Apr 2012 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: grammar check"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I'm blocked from the original article by a paywall (in Texas), but your link is open with "Article Free Pass - Enjoy your preview of subscriber content" at the top.

Thanks!

(It's WSJ's right to charge for their content if they like and how they like, and they definitely have good stuff. I'll get around to subscribing as soon as I've read the rest of the Internet... ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: grammar check
by demetrioussharpe on Fri 13th Apr 2012 21:13 UTC in reply to "grammar check"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

"divine Google's intentions"

Did you mean define?


No, he means 'divine'. Such as, using a divining rod to search for water. Which is why he said "riddle". He means for you to search for Google's intentions.

He used the correct word to imply the correct meaning.

Reply Score: 1

It's the new Patent War
by benali72 on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:04 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

It's patent wars, baby. Expect lots of litigation soon. See this http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/11/11120173-microsoft... on Microsoft's moves in this arena.

Reply Score: 1

maybe
by fran on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:13 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

The operational side of Motorola won't be a challenge, because Google acquired Motorola with all it's operations managers and experienced employees.

It is allaying the fears of other Android handset manufacturers that poses the biggest challenge.
A probable solution is to give HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony either a place on the Motorolla board, crosslicense patents and/or even possibly (exteme solution nonetheless) an option to buy a stake in Motorolla if they want to or easier an shareswop.
They could even share manufacturing facilities.

Another thing is the Google mindset. Selling advertising when the infrastructure is in place is relatively easy money compared to selling hardware in a cutthroat enviroment with low margins and all the other headaches that comes with selling hardware like honouring warranties ect.

Edited 2012-04-11 23:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: maybe
by viton on Thu 12th Apr 2012 00:32 UTC in reply to "maybe"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Selling advertising when the infrastructure is in place
Well, after all, Google is advertising company ;)

Edited 2012-04-12 00:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Project Glass?
by Morgan on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:21 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Call me crazy but I think they needed access to Motorola's patents, and perhaps even their future designs, in part to make it easy to bring Project Glass to fruition. It's purely conjecture on my part, but it makes sense to me.

I'm sure someone out there will eventually find the golden egg by digging through Motorola's patent portfolio, and I'm curious to see exactly which patents and ideas Google could use going forward.

Reply Score: 2

My two cents...
by tomcat on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:44 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Others have noted what Google wanted: Patents. But it doesn't look like the patents were worth $12B, since many/most of them are covered by FRAND agreements requiring Motorola to non-discriminately license them to other orgs. My bet is that Google keeps the hardware design side of the Motorola house, and sells off the manufacturing side; which doesn't (and never will) have the capacity of a HTC or Samsung.

Reply Score: 2

Tax
by demosthenese on Thu 12th Apr 2012 02:16 UTC
demosthenese
Member since:
2011-02-01

Google can offset motorola's previous two year's losses against its own profits. This means it can earn more tax free in the US this year rather than pretending these earnings are made overseas in a tax-haven. Effectively it allows them to bring back money in to the US while avoiding capital gains tax.

Reply Score: 2

What is you cable box brand?
by martini on Thu 12th Apr 2012 13:25 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

...nevermind.. I think it was the patents.

Edited 2012-04-12 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1