Could Google's Motorola Buy To Fend Off Microsoft... Actually Drive More Business To Microsoft?
from the the-perverted-economics-of-patents dept
It's pretty clearly established at this point that Google bought Motorola Mobility in large part because of the patents. The number being tossed out is that 50% of the price was for the patents. A big part of the reason for those patents was to fend off Microsoft, who has been quite aggressive in claiming patents over things in Android. In fact, multiple sources have reported that thanks to patents and licensing, Microsoft actually makes more money from Android than from Windows Phone. Talk about perverted patent economics.Of course, the big question that many raised when Google did this deal was whether it would actually push some handset makers away from Android, out of a fear of competing with their own supplier. While big Android players like HTC quickly downplayed that risk, insisting that they were committed to Android, at least some are speaking out about being less willing to bet on Android, and how it might even drive them to look more closely at Microsoft's Windows Phone operating system.
Let's unpack this for a second, because it begins to show just how ridiculous this overall situation is:
- Microsoft, thanks to patents, makes more money from Android phones.
- In order to fend off patent threats, Google buys Motorola to get its patents.
- In doing so, handset makers scared of competing with Google, start looking at Microsoft as a partner.
- The end result: Microsoft may get more handset partners, but less money, since Android is a pure licensing profit center.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: android, patents, windows phone
Companies: google, microsoft, motorola
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Although, I can say if there is a handset maker that goes to Windows Phone, they won't be the one I am purchasing my phone from (and I'm not a 'Microsoft Hater')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention that the more devices with Android means more people using Google. Why would Google shoot themselves in the foot by limiting it to only their devices? Motorola will probably be no different than it is now, although hopefully sans MotoBlur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/Facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTH?
That triggered the spam filter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTH?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTH?
That triggered the spam filter?
Comments with no visible text in the comment box frequently trigger the spam filter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTH?
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(How often has following this line turned out bad - Taliban?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apple got the Samsung Android tablet held up by injunction in Oz and Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It really comes down to "does Google value motorola's phone R&D division more than it values the goodwill of phone manufacturers?"
The real winner here is HP, if it can execute. Phone manufacturers are wary of Google because of Motorola and Microsoft because of their cozy agreement with Nokia. This seems like a perfect opportunity for HP to execute on its WebOS IP, after it finishes divesting itself of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pinnacle of simplicity: Would you like your iPhone in white or black?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not worried-- Microsoft will probably get EU oversight.
Cause here's the thing- the main company with exports in Finland is Nokia, and unless Microsoft creates jobs in Finland for the positions it probably will send to India, it's possible that Finland and the EU will take care of Microsoft for Google instead.
So I hope Microsoft likes the merger, because hiring the most educated workforce in the world will definitely cost money one way or another.
On the plus side, maybe Microsoft will hire some Finns like Linus Torvolds and consider Windows 9 development in Finland. Once it's finished, it will be the best operating system ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft isn't known for their scrupulous in business. They have the routine down to a teeth when it comes time to pressure business partners and they are relentless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's bigger plan
Operating systems and handsets are merely the platform to mount eyeballs on the WEB page. Don't be surprised when Google starts offering inexpensive or internet connecting deceives with cheap or free airborne bandwidth sometime around 2013.
Microsoft/Nokia are too last century; too steeped in dieing business models; likewise Apple, which is still an integrated systems company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's bigger plan
Which is why Google makes money from iphones and Windows phones as well as Androids!
Eventually Google will buy Microsoft and Apple - problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
Valuations based on the US...not the world.
***EDIT***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
...plus all the 'back-to-school' products being sold...yeah, this isn't going to last past their next quarterly shareholders meeting.
Tomorrow there will be a good dip in their stock, but once they make that announcement...they'll easily be the most valuable company...
/fanboy
But it doesn't make it any less true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's bigger plan
More likely they will but a wireless carrier network. MS & Apple are not aligned with Google's core bizmess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's bigger plan
If Google can entrench itself in the mobile sector and they are almost there, then we are going to see a massive shake up in the industry when WhiteSpace connections and devices finally make it to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: .Re: Google's bigger plan
Now, one thing in your favor. If you keep saying it, someday you may be right. I mean, over time, things do tend to change. And I do thing Google is a good company. But for now, you're still wrong.
Google makes pennies on each ad display. Phone bills are $40 - $100/mo. Current devices cost $500. There is a massive disconnect between the revenues and the costs of offering ad-based free cellular service.
Lemme help you out: Let's take Moore's law and say that those phones will cost just $80 by 2015, and the cellular bills will be down to $15/mo. OK, then, that's still too much money for Google to offer it on a ad-subsidized business model.
Why do you think Google can't do customer service well? Because that requires humans, and costs money at a measurable scale. This is one of the problems they found with the Nexus One. Pesky customers expected them to support their product, and that was not cost-effective.
The thing about running a business that earns monies in pennies is that, it truly can add up! However, it means you need to do everything at a massive scale. Huge volumes. And that means, your costs have to remain trivial, or they too will scale out of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: .Re: Google's bigger plan
Thanks for making an assumption as to what I think will happen moving forward.
One of the reason I recall the 700Mhz auction is because it was one of the biggest "fuck you guys" moments in recent business history. I knew Google was not going to win the auction, I never claimed they would. It does not change the fact that what they did do with there bid will eventually lead to a shake up.
Past there you seem to actual have little knowledge of how whitespace technology works as its NOT WIFI! Here is a simple quote on the newly ratified IEEE 808.22 standard.
"The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has published the 802.22 standard for Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRANs). The standard covers broadband wireless access at up to 22-Mbps per channel over distances up to 100 kilometers from a transmitter without interfering with terrestrial television broadcasts that use the same part of the spectrum." Thats a 62 mile range incase your math is poor.
Just so you dont make yourself sound foolish moving forward you should probably use the term WRAN instead of WIFI.
Now I also never claimed that its going to kill the current wireless carriers did I? What it is going to do and what I did say is that it is going to shake up the industry. Its going to be hard for a wireless carrier such as Verizon or Att to charge a what they do now for service when your city has an easy and efficient method of providing service. Since the current business model of the providers is betting on DATA more then ever, that statement is even more relevant.
Even better are the discussions about the Router itself, as its claimed that these devices supporting the 802.22 standard will be small enough and energy efficient enough for small start-ups to roll their own service or individuals to offer up their bandwidth free of charge. There are discussions going on right now on the tech for how these devices will jump from point to point without loosing the signal, similar to how your cellphone currently works.
Where Google comes into play is strictly the device itself and the foundation that it has built in the current market. What I am saying is that Google knew this would eventually come if they made the bid in the 700mhz auction and so they did. After that it was a matter of getting all their ducks in a row on the bandwidth thats most similar to how WRAN's will work. Google is in the business of getting eyes on the internet.
As to your irrelevant comments about device costs and bla bla bla... Well the tech in todays highend devices will be quite cheap by the time WRAN saturation hits.
Thanks for playing "Im a smartass", better luck next time.
:�)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's bigger plan
Citation, please.
I doubt > 5% of people overlook that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
He wants a citation showing that most people overlook this fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this unfettered marketplace existed in what fantasy land? And when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Can Think Of 3 Likely Scenarios ...
Result: Android loses.
2) Google uses the patents as a legal weapon, while also trying to prop up MM�s phone business as a going concern. The patent weapon works, the phone business continues going downhill and losing money, without being enough of a bogeyman to scare away the successful Android device makers away from Android.
Result: Android wins.
3) Google uses the patents as a legal weapon, but abandons MM�s phone business. The successful Android device makers keep on selling successful Android devices, free of patent attacks because of the threat of counterattack from Google.
Result: Android wins.
What do you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You put too much emphasis here on patents.
BY THE WAY, doesn't this move by Google, at least from your current view, undermine your notions about a business relying on "free" products from another? It can be withdrawn at any time, incidentally to larger goals of the supplier. A company that hooks you on "free" can't really be trusted, because /isn't dependent/ on your input of money!
Another point against the patent emphasis is that would protect them only for /future/ suits, so a complete unknown benefit, not least because how would they measure the suits that aren't filed? -- But I'm not ruling the patent angle out, because, again, Google has tons of /FREE money from advertising/ lying around, aren't bound by the usual considerations.
I can't resist also noting:
"Whatever happened to the simple system where companies just compete in the market place and the best one wins?"
You seem to have missed the 80's and 90's where Microsoft proved that copying someone else's ideas into mediocre products ruthlessly, unethically, and illegally marketed in absence of gov't regulation will win, big.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You put too much emphasis here on patents.
Whatever gave you that idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't buy it.
Yes, I am sure they are all concerned about what Google will do with MM and whether MM will get special treatment. And yes, I am sure they are all cautiously looking at their other options should Google give MM unfair market advantages. But, unless and until Google actually does anything to change the Android marketplace for the worse, its ridiculous to think that any of these companies would turn their business away from a proven seller and proven moneymaker, to jump on board the Windows Phone train as it putt-putts along.
In summary:
It is good business for mfg's to be concerned about what Google does with MM.
It is good business for mfg's to continue on the successful course they've been on, all the while keeping a watchful eye on MM.
It is a good idea for Google to make sure they keep a level playing field so that their partners continue selling phones with the Android OS so they can continue raking in ad revenue.
-Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also more Windows phone handsets could mean more money for Google as they license their new patents for Microsoft to use, should more handset manufacturers go with that platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling shenanigans on this idea
First off Google has already stated that it will keep Motorola a separate entity. IE nothing is going to change. Now this may not be completely honest, but the most I can see coming from this, is Google finally giving Motorola a shot at building a Nexus phone. That was bound to happen in the future anyway, as Google has stated that the Nexus platform is not intended to be supplied by any one manufacturer. So the worst that could happen is Google would have a larger say in what hardware and features go into a Motorola based Nexus phone. The worst that could happen with that is Google raises the bar for what defines a flagship Android phone, something that seems to happen at a monthly rate already.
Its possible that Google could sell it at a loss, and make up the difference on the back-end, in much the same way the video game console market works, but I doubt it will happen. I think Google would spot the disdain of this idea from other manufactures from hundreds of miles away. Not to mention that the life span of any given smartphone in the market is much smaller then that of a game console, and so the margins on the back-end returns would be much smaller because of this.
My prediction is that this will change nothing in the Android supply chain. My second prediction is that thousands of flame-bait articles will be written, when Samsung releases new Windows phones, ignoring the fact that Samsung has had every intention of doing, well before the news of the buyout was published.
Im waiting for someone to publish a VALID reason why this would cause manufactures to flee from the largest and fasted growing smartphone platform on earth. Not to mention the obvious fact that even if one did jump-ship, they would quickly be replaced. There a quite a few manufactures in China that are praying for an opening like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling shenanigans on this idea
I agree with you, but you forgot to add "and no one will buy the Windows phones because they were dead in the water about a year ago anyway." As noted by another poster, does anyone know anyone else that has a Windows phone? In a fairly sizable group of friends, family, and coworkers I don't know a single person bragging about their Windows phone. And before any pedants point it out, yes, I *do* think I would know, we all like to show off our little toys, don't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In doing so, handset makers scared of competing with Google, start looking at Microsoft as a partner."
Google is likely not to compete directly with other players. I think that Motorola will become pretty much an android phone company, but at the same time Google will continue to roll out Android and it's updates to partners, and keep them on a level playing field. They have no reason not to, Motorola alone would never put them in a dominant market position.
Remember, Google is all about getting in the middle of as many transactions and as many online visits as possible. Cutting out their Android partners would be a complete failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still will not buy it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still will not buy it
The phone carriers are the actual customers of the phone makers. It is what they buy, in volume, and what they choose to market and make available to the customer that gets bought. They subsidize the phones they want you to have.
Granted, this is not absolute. Consumers can revolt, backlash, or pay the full nut. But, sadly, the network operators have a greater influence than the consumer overall.
If you doubt me, ask yourself why you don't see free over the air TV receivers (cost $5) in every phone. Why Bluetooth took so long to arrive at Verizon, and was crippled when it came. Why tethering functionality is removed from Android phones when customers finally take possession. Why the Palm Pre didn't sell high numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I still will not buy it
"You're kidding if you think you understand the mobile phone distribution chain. Except for a few rugged individualists willing to pay the full $500 for their phone, the consumer does NOT decide what is in the marketplace."
As mobile computing devices become more ubiquitous, their prices will fall, you only need to look at the PC industry to see an example of this.
If the devices tumble in price it becomes more reasonable to sell the devices direct to the consumer without the carriers playing the middle man with subsidies.
Your in this field for a living how can you not see this as a legitimate possibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is news why?
HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony and Moto (obviously) are not dropping Android.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is news why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]