[eep_social]

Yeah, I generally agree with that framing. That’s a good detail about samsung that I was not aware of. But I will say that from an ex-insider perspective — what you describe is mostly a failure.

Google was searching desperately for revenue diversity and was acquiring pretty hard at the time. I think the intent with Moto was to acquire a hardware shop and establish a market leading brand to compete directly with Apple. They eventually arrived at Pixel by building it entirely in-house. That Moto got raided for IP and spun out to Lenovo did not meet those (high) expectations. There was no need for anyone to take a loss but I think Google wanted to make a whole lot of money and did not.

[sangnoir]

I'll defer to you an insider on the hardware efforts, but the timing of the Motorola acquisition in the immediate aftermath of Google's failed bid[1] on Nortel's patent portfolio made it seem more like a patent-play more than a hardware acquisition. I recall Motorola's then-CEO even threatened to sue Google over patent Android infringement just before the acquisition, so it most certainly wasn't just about building a hardware business.

1. It was a crazy time. The winning consortium - which included Apple and Microsoft - invited Google to join their $4.5B bid; which would have made the patents entirely useless as a defense of Google against Apple or Microsoft. Google wisely declined, but bought Motorola less than a year later for $12B. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/02/google-pi...