Comment by raldi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by raldi | Hacker News Reader

> 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...

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-lo...

> 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.

Don't forget the nearly $2 billion in operating losses from the handset division while they had it.

Revenue 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.

Even 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.

I 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.

I expect these types of inaccurate financial reporting to come from Forbes, not Bloomberg.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com