3 ms·
> Google has historically stumbled in the difficult business of hardware, despite several multibillion-dollar attempts, including the $12 billion acquisition of
by raldi 9y ago
> Google has historically stumbled in the difficult business of hardware, despite several multibillion-dollar attempts, including the $12 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility (since sold off for $2.9 billion)
Are we really still repeating this nonsense? The $2.9B number quoted above was merely what Google sold Motorola Mobility's handset division for. It also sold the company's set-top box division for another $2.35B, plus it kept the $2.9B cash hoard that came with the acquisition, and additionally $2.4B in tax credits and a patent portfolio valued at around $4B.
Add those numbers up, and you get $14.55B.
Source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/1987261-googles-acquisition-of-motorola-not-such-a-failure-after-all https://seekingalpha.com/article/1987261-googles-acquisition...
Another source, with somewhat different numbers, but in the same ballpark and an order of magnitude above what Bloomberg reported: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/did-google-really-lose-on-its-original-motorola-deal/?_r=0 https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/did-google-really-lo...
- bitmapbrother 9y agoI expect these types of inaccurate financial reporting to come from Forbes, not Bloomberg.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoRevenue from selling the set-top box division, cash, and tax credits are all cash-like and easily countable. Do they have revenue from the patents? In the standard model of tech patent ownership, wherein you accumulate a big hoard of patents so that you can threaten to countersue anyone who sues you for patent infringement, a patent portfolio valued at $4B would be worth nothing to Google -- they already have patents.
- raldi 9y agoEven if the patents were worth $0, there's a big difference between a basket of assets worth $2.9B and a basket of assets worth $10.55B.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoI agree, but when you paid $12B for the basket, I think it's fair to be interested in whether it came out to be worth more or less than that.
- shawn-furyan 9y ago> Are we really still repeating this nonsense? I get the sense that this "fact" was used BECAUSE it's "well-known". It serves the narrative purpose of showing that Google is fallible, rather than sinister (truth be damned). The article begins by describing the CEO of one of the 10 largest companies in the world's office furniture. It was clear from the outset that this was not going to be an article terribly troubled by a sense of duty to present a completely neutral reading of the relevant facts.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Steko 9y agoDon't forget the nearly $2 billion in operating losses from the handset division while they had it.