Isn't Motogoo a better name
When announcing its planned acquisition of Motorola Mobility, Google went out of its way to reassure existing Android device manufacturers that it wasn't cutting their legs out from under them. But whether or not Larry Page is actually revving up his amputation chainsaw depends on whether or not you believe him when he says: "We …
I think they are equally bad.
motogoo is making me think rule 34 on the RPG level-1 slime.
googlerola is making me think of a venereal disease.
Fire, when brain-bleach isn't enough!
Better name or not Motogoo isn't the counterpoint to Googlerola or Googarola, Motoogle or Motogle are!!
As for the question in the article, if vendors should pick up the phone and call Micro$oft for windphone:
that's a crap idea, as is obvious by consumer disinterest, nobody wants any more from the company with that nasty desktop monopoly they had to suffer for almost two decades...
Better they call Intel for some more MeeGo Linux goodness...
What about goorol?
Yes, I know, I know. I apologise in advance
You people and your narrow minded noun-combining.
What Google wants is a booming Android ecosystem. Whether Motorola makes profits or not is probably a rounding error in their ad business. If I was Andy Rubin, I would be pledging eternal love for HTC and Samsung...
You are missing one "interesting" part of the equation.
Motorola used to be a major IPTV STB manufacturer, holds a lot of the IPR and still holds some account relationships in that area. With Google and Android in the equation this can get very very intreresting and that business is definitely not a rounding error in Google ad business. That BU is still lingering somewhere under Motorola Mobility.
By the way it is frankly appalling that the illustrious El Reg research did worse research that the Chicago Tribune on this:
You're very right to point out about the TV boxes, however, Google needs to do a lot more.
Google TV has bombed (returns are outpacing sales) because of the lack of content. Google needs to work out content deals before going ahead, rather than afterwards and hoping content providers will go along with it – this is something that I think the hack, who you linked to, doesn’t reflect.
Additionally, Motorola’s boxes are rented or sold by cable companies to their customers, so they can record and watch the channels they subscribe to. Google TV boxes were pitched to the consumer directly with a basic idea that can watch stuff without paying those greedy companies – this didn’t work out as those companies blocked Google TV boxes from displaying their content out of the box. Without any deals over content, things ain’t going to change – cable companies ain’t going let Google cut into their revenue.
Android is about to become an open source platform in the same way Mac OS X is an open source platform.
Remember Darwin, it still exists - kinda?
Google has always kept firm control of the important bits..
If I were in charge of any of the other handset manufacturers I'd now be very busy figuring out what my next platform will be, because Android isn't it.
Are bigger than yours...
Motorola's phone division has been alternately flailing and struggling for years. I'm only surprised that Google paid so much for it.
This would be much _much_ bigger news if Google had bought the entire company - and would give a number of market dominators serious reasons to worry.
Which ecosystem are we talking about anyway? Android is in a mess. Dozens of manufacturers, none of them knowing today what they will be allowed or able to come up with next year.
The Android Marketplace not really gaining traction either. A lot more vulnerabilities and exploits than for any other mobile platform lately...
Android couldn't be more confusing to the end user than it is at the moment.
All fanboi-ism aside: iPhone/iOS/AppStore. THAT is an ecosystem. A handful of devices, one single OS, a massively successful appstore.
No it's not open. A lot of customers choose it anyway, and the majority stays with the brand later on. This working ecosystem generates lots of profit, and that's what the shareholders want to see. That's what keeps a company running and growing.
Now, if Google was to be trusted and Android was indeed intended to be open (which evidently it isn't), wouldn't that be a contradiction to an ecosystem? (per definition closed and generating profit)
Take off your halo, Google! You want to make money as much as any other big company out there. Except, you haven't quite figured out how to monetize your admittedly great ideas while wearing the false nice-guy costume.
Android is indeed an ecosystem, with multiple independent entities affecting each other and the system as a whole. Sure, Google is the most powerful driving force at the moment, but numerous companies are involved to a greater or lesser degree. There are certainly devices on the market which are not "Google approved".
iPhone/iOS/AppStore is a particular kind of ecosystem: a monoculture. Reliant on, and consisting solely of, a single entity (whether that is Apple or Jobs, I'm uncertain). The entire ecosystem lasts only as long as that one entity is strong and adaptable enough to survive.
Yeah like how open sauce Honeycomb is....no wait.
It is right that Android is becoming an outstanding product and a source platform like Mac OS X.
"As we said above, whether HTC, Samsung, and the other 36 Android partners should be placing calls to Redmond to inquire about Windows Phone 7 licenses depends on whether Page & Co.'s assurances are to be believed."
Not quite sure what the sense of what you are saying there is old chap but HTC and Samsung are *already* WP7 manufacturers.
Motorola was one of the remaining manufacturers that hadn't agreed to Microsoft's "We've never been able to get it to work, so you owe us" tax. It also hasn't been directly attacked in Apple's "We're the only ones who've been able to make it work right, so you owe us" lawsuits, either.
I suspect Google is attempting to step in and see if it can take a few bullets. It can't defend Android properly until it is, itself, under direct attack. At the moment, it just happens to be the maker of this 'free thing' that all these other manufacturers are getting clobbered over, for using.
I would be unsurprised that, having drawn the fire it seems to want - and presumably the game plan involves actually winning that particular battle - Google didn't simply divest itself of a (presumably strengthened) smart phones manufacturing division, since it isn't part of the company's core DNA.
If they fail, of course, we will never know what they were planning because it is a gamble that could take the whole operation down, if it is misjudged.