Next-Gen iPhone & iPhone Nano Speculation
- Thread starter Arun
- Start date
If you take into account the cash on hand at purchase, and the money they got from selling divisions and the remainder to Lenovo and some other accounting stuff, I believe they only paid a billion or two? And they still retain the rights to all the patents. So it's really not as bad as it initially looked.
Cash on hand?
Wasn't the Moto division a drag on GOOG earnings during the time they owned the division?
It remains to be seen what Moto's patents are worth to Google because the cases are still ongoing?
But Motorola tried to get some products banned at the ITC and they couldn't?
Wasn't the Moto division a drag on GOOG earnings during the time they owned the division?
It remains to be seen what Moto's patents are worth to Google because the cases are still ongoing?
But Motorola tried to get some products banned at the ITC and they couldn't?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dea...le-really-lose-on-its-original-motorola-deal/
Motorola has $3B in cash when they were purchased and $1B in tax credits. That alone brought it down to $8B instead of $12B. Etc. (See link.)
Motorola has $3B in cash when they were purchased and $1B in tax credits. That alone brought it down to $8B instead of $12B. Etc. (See link.)
In at least some countries (such as my own), it is illegal to buy a company using said company's own funds. So the kind of book-keeping you mention sounds suspicious to me at least.
I don't think that's what he was implying. I think he meant to say that when they bought Motorola, they also got all their assets, which includes their bank accounts and tax credits. It's like buying a GPU for $300, to then get $100 included in the box with it (which you actually knew beforehand), which makes that GPU actually cost you $200.
I don't know the exact accounting rules, but I've seen first hand that in straight up 100% acquisitions, the assets can freely be mixed.
Whether or not the Motorola acquisition qualifies as such? No idea... But if Google acquired 100% of the shares, I don't see why not.
I obviously agree that you can't mix assets when you only have partial ownership.
If you buy Motorola and they have $X in cash in the bank, and then like Google did, turn around and sell it again, it'll be worth (at least) $X less when you sell it if you've helped yourself to said cash, so are you really gaining anything financially by plundering the company? Doesn't seem that way to me but maybe I'm missing something. 
iMacmatician
Regular
If the rumor of a 4.7" iPhone in September 2014 and a 5.5" iPhone in around Q4 2014 is true, then could it be possible that the 4.7" uses a 28 nm (say dual-core) chip and the 5.5" uses a 20 nm (say quad-core) chip?
That seems unlikely; They both will use the same SoC, TSMC has been producing a 20nm SoC since ~Jan.
You're missing that Motorola may have been sold to Arris and Lenovo without that money in the bank. If that is the case (I don't know if it was), then that pot of money became Google's money and both the selling price and that pot of money can be subtracted from the initial purchase price.If you buy Motorola and they have $X in cash in the bank, and then like Google did, turn around and sell it again, it'll be worth (at least) $X less when you sell it if you've helped yourself to said cash, so are you really gaining anything financially by plundering the company? Doesn't seem that way to me but maybe I'm missing something.
Now whether or not those Motorola patents are actually worth that much is an open question that can only be answered if Google ever puts them on auction.
See Kodak's patents, which were valued at $1B+ but only sold for $100M or so after all big players decided to collude and form a single bidder patent consortium.
See Kodak's patents, which were valued at $1B+ but only sold for $100M or so after all big players decided to collude and form a single bidder patent consortium.
So quad-core?