Google Is Apparently Ready To Buy Smartphone Maker HTC (cnbc.com) 102
According to a Taiwanese news outlet called Commercial Times, Google is in the final stages of acquiring all or part of smartphone maker HTC. CNBC reports: The report seems fishy, since Google has already been down this road, but there's a reason why Google might be interested in HTC. The Taiwanese company builds the Google Pixel, which means it could be a good fit for Google as it continues to cater to consumers with its "Pixel" smartphone brand. Here's where it sounds off base: Google acquired Motorola Mobility and then sold it off just a couple of years later. Why repeat that move? Commercial Times said HTC's poor financial position and Google's desire to "perfect [the] integration of software, content, hardware, network, cloud, [and] AI," is the driving force behind Google's interest. The news outlet said Google may make a "strategic investment" or "buy HTC's smartphone R&D team" which suggests that the VR team would exist as its own.
As an added bonus (Score:1)
If they buy HTC to make the Pixel, the acronym would be HTCP which sounds a bit like HTTP.
Re: As an added bonus (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of companies offering huge screens. In fact, "normal-sized screens" are the rare ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but Samsung proved people want big phones with the original Galaxy Note.
The success caused every other major manufacturer to offer jumbo versions in the coming years. Even Apple followed suit.
Even the non-jumbo phones have been growing in size. The Galaxy S has grown in size and also has a + variant now.
Your stats come from 3rd world / ghetto budget phones and old devices. Which ties in precisely to your stat about old versions of Android.
Small phones suck.
Re: (Score:1)
Not exactly. Parse the data - 23% own Android 7 and later, only 11% have large screens. So less than half of Android 7+ users have large screens. simplistic, yes, but supported by the numbers, and that's an optimistic view that only Android 7+ users have large screens.
That's not to disprove your statement that Samsung did prove there was a reasonable profitable market for larger phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, according to that link, 7 and 7.1 make up 13.5%, not 23%.
Additionally, screen size category is reported by the device, and is arbitrary, and the labels are relative.
Thus as screens grow larger on average, the reporting of the size diminishes. That is, 2012's "large" phone is today's "normal" phone.
"Each generalized size and density spans a range of actual screen sizes and densities. For example, two devices that both report a screen size of normal might have actual screen sizes and aspect ratios that a
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, according to that link, 7 and 7.1 make up 13.5%, not 23%
I did state that the assumption was an optimistic one. ;)
Screen sizes are growing, and that's happening because people prefer larger screens. Apple resisted for years. The iPhone was the perfect size. Then they caved to market pressure.
And then they came right back and offered a smaller size again, which sells like hotcakes. Not everyone wants a tablet in their pocket. That said, I like the slightly larger 6, and don't know which way I'll go on the next upgrade.
Re: (Score:1)
Additionally, screen size category is reported by the device, and is arbitrary, and the labels are relative.
Thus as screens grow larger on average, the reporting of the size diminishes. That is, 2012's "large" phone is today's "normal" phone.
Have you got cites on that - that the labels are growing? According to the developer's guide, screen sizes are defined as:
xlarge screens are at least 960dp x 720dp
large screens are at least 640dp x 480dp
normal screens are at least 470dp x 320dp
small screens are at least 426dp x 320dp
A dp is 1/160 of an inch long - hence, the referenced sizes are absolute, not relative. As sizes increase, we can expect to see new standards for extra-large, extra-extra-large, etc. (The same applied to resolution values).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. "Normal" screen size refers to the physical size - around 4 inches.
Look at your chart again: Most of those screens have "hdpi" or "xhdpi" pixel density, ie' they're more than 640x480.
But yeah, I'd love a 4" screen with full HD resolution. Nobody sells them though, because .... oooh, squirrel.
Re: (Score:1)
A dip or dp is a unit of distance (1/160"), not a unit of density. A 'normal' phone phone starts at around 3" (470/160), a 'large' phone at 4" (640/160).
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of the Nexus line was to offer a moderately priced and fairly capable phone running a clean/standard version of Android for development use.
See the Nexus One. Of course, ever since then they've been creeping on features, price, and Googleifying the clean/standard version of Android. The Pixel was the final "FUCK YOU". They're making Google iPhones now, not Android phones (let alone AOSP phones).
Re: (Score:2)
3. Keep offering updates after more than 2 or 3 years, especially when phones can last 5 years or more and are still perfectly usable. It's unpleasant to stop getting updates so soon. Support these phones for at least 6 years. Make it easy for Android users to run the latest version of the OS on older phones, even if some functionality may be limited, so app developers don't have to support 5 or more different Android versions just to get decent coverage of the market!
This item has very little to do with their HTC acquisition, and it isn't going to happen because of it.
First of all, Google does not release Android builds for OEM handsets. Realistically, they can't. Project Treble includes a HAL for Android which should make upgrades easier in the future. This is a new feature in Oreo, however, so it doesn't apply to anything currently on the market.
Second, developers can target multiple versions of Android fairly easily. The Android SDK allows you to specify both a minim
Can we just get an affordable, usable laptop? (Score:2)
Rosewill/Newegg or Intel or Kingston or Supermicro [,,,] that's the most maintainable, longest-lasting, best-value computer that you can get. No Dell or Apple customer will ever have it so good, so easy, so dependable, so long-lasting, or so reliable.
If phones were like that, everyone would be happy instead of sad.
I searched the brand names you provided, and most of them appear to be servers and desktops. True, servers and desktops can be like that. But in order for phones to have a chance of being like that, laptops first have to be like that.
Re: (Score:3)
If you do not, already, know that your perfect phone exists, and where to buy it, then having Google make one will not fix your inability to scan the market and find it now.
But, to pick a few nits:
- Reasonable size; 5 inches, or 5.5? That's a fairly big stretch. Be specific, or bigger will be better.
- Six years of OS updates is not merely pointless (the OS will grow beyond your phone's capacity in 3 years) but specious. Your battery will not last six years.
- Oh, and a replaceable battery, making the sis yea
Re: (Score:1)
Was that supposed to be funny?
Re: (Score:2)
Not funny, just... well, Google is into marketing. Maybe they could do something that, "HTCP vs HTTP".
Ready for a true Hardware/Software commitment (Score:5, Interesting)
Google acquired Motorola Mobility and then sold it off just a couple of years later. Why repeat that move?
First, Motorola was a patent play. Google gained much protection by buying the patent portfolio.
Second, Google's tried the 3rd party vendor route and gotten shit products out of it and continues watching Apple reap 95% of the mobile profit. Pixel was an attempt by Google to create a realistic competitor that would actually help them. Now that the Pixel appears realistic, Google needs more control to keep up with Apple who is ahead in many areas. (Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Google buying HTC outright will have another immediate effect - Samsung's profits. Unless Samsung takes a page out of the same book and creates their own OS dev team and branches Android into their own offering.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has sold more than 100 million of iPhones a year since 2012. That would hardly qualify as a "niche" customer base.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely not. An iPhone is only a status symbol to poor people in the trailer parks who don't know any better.
There IS a reason besides fanboyism that Apple has 95% of the profits, and it's tightly integrated software and hardware solutions that do what they're supposed to, all day every day.
Sure, an iPhone isn't as exciting or cutting edge in some regards as some of the flashy gimmicky Android toys out there (the ones that cost just as much as an iPhone, mind you). Just like a Toyota Camry isn't as excit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There IS a reason besides fanboyism that Apple has 95% of the profits, and it's tightly integrated software and hardware solutions that do what they're supposed to, all day every day.
No, the reason is a 30% cut of every sale from the marketplace and doing their utmost best at preventing purchases through anything but the marketplace. It's called a walled garden. Apple could give away it's phones and barely dent its profits.
Also those "gimmicky" Android "toys" as you call them? They're introducing the features the next gen iPhone will sell you at a 300% markup and make you feel like you're an innovator for it.
Try being a little less of an Apple fanboy. They make a decent product, at
Re: (Score:2)
They have their downsides too, like changing adapter ports for no discernible reason other than getting to sell you all new accessories every few generations,
No reason other than your lack of understanding you mean. Apple changed their connector 8 years after iPod and 5 years after using it on the iPhone. The new connector is smaller and can be inserted either way. But progress is no reason change the connector according to you. [sarcasm]Unlike Android phones which never changed their adapter in that time other than: mini-USB B, micro-USB B, micro-USB B SuperSpeed plug, USB-C. Also proprietary chargers only used on specific brand/models. Other than those variati
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I have a $250 Android phone and it's fine.
My wife has a $150 Android phone and she's happy with it.
As much as people want to claim that cheap smartphones are worthless, for many people, they aren't. All I need from my smartphone is the ability to read email, browse the web, play a few games, run some business apps, read some books, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
That's interesting because I know and work with hundreds of people who own iPhones and none of them view or pass it off as a status symbol. In my experience, the only people who make it out like anyone thinks an iPhone is a status symbol are butthurt Fandroids who think everyone should only buy the phone they approve of.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, Google's tried the 3rd party vendor route and gotten %%%% products out of it
Hey, you be nice to my phone!
Unless Samsung takes a page out of the same book and creates their own OS dev team and branches Android into their own offering.
Not Android, but Linux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Android is basically Java on Linux.
Re: Ready for a true Hardware/Software commitment (Score:2)
That's correct. Tizen however is not based on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, Google's tried the 3rd party vendor route and gotten shit products out of it and continues watching Apple reap 95% of the mobile profit
Are you sure about that? Apple makes some profit on the hardware and a big chunk on iAds and on their 30% cut from the App Store. Google takes a similar cut from the Play store, and a lot more from their mobile advertising platform, without having to be in the low-margin hardware business.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. They do not reap much from the 30% cut - i think the last thing Apple reported last year was they handed out $6B or so to developers. That means Apple earned about $3B since the App Store opened. I realize
Re: (Score:1)
It's about the available profit in the mobile market. And yes, you're both correct that it's not 95%, it's 93% in Feb 2015 [barrons.com], 92% in July 2015 [wsj.com], 91% in Feb 2016 [fortune.com], 94% in Nov 2016 [appleinsider.com].
I apologize for the rounding error.
Shareholder attempting to cash out (Score:2)
Sounds more like rumours spread around by shareholders attempting to keep the market value up while they cash out before HTF folds.
Hey HTC support! Remember when I & others told you that abandoning support for your phones mere months after suddenly EOLing them was going to get you removed from everyone's supplier lists?
Re: (Score:3)
(Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Well, the exaggeration aside, not *really*. As a hardware platform, the iPhone is not particularly far ahead (or far behind) than the solid Android handsets. One *could* make the argument that people like iOS software, but that's more subjective than objective featureset. And contrary to Apple touting benefits of owning the whole stack in terms of what's possible, it's generally hollow talk without substance. It can be argued that in key areas it's a simpler ecosystem and therefore they don't have to pr
Re: (Score:1)
(Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Well, the exaggeration aside, not *really*. As a hardware platform, the iPhone is not particularly far ahead (or far behind) than the solid Android handsets.
It's not an exaggeration [slashdot.org] unless you consider 1% off being an error.
As for Google, they've been watching Apple clobber their vendors in performance, battery life, maintenance and upgrades over the years. The truth is, Apple makes a better overall product, by far, even if technically on paper they're using lower spec'd parts. It's not each individual part's capabilities that matter, but how it is put together as a whole and how it performs with the software. That they can get similar performance out of fewe
Re: (Score:2)
But they haven't been...
On *average* they have better performance, but that's because Apple doesn't even offer low end handsets. If you compare 'flagship' devices, they are pretty even on at least performance and battery life. Sure, people have less sleek image of Android because they used a sub-200 dollar new handset, but there doesn't exist such an Apple device.
Similarly for maintenance and updates, there are devices that keep up, but the water is murkier to know which are which.
Re: (Score:1)
But they haven't been...
On *average* they have better performance, but that's because Apple doesn't even offer low end handsets. If you compare 'flagship' devices, they are pretty even on at least performance and battery life. Sure, people have less sleek image of Android because they used a sub-200 dollar new handset, but there doesn't exist such an Apple device.
Similarly for maintenance and updates, there are devices that keep up, but the water is murkier to know which are which.
The number of labeled devices which are updated with Android even semi-reliably are countable on the thumb of 1 hand (Google).
As for the cheapest Apple device - it's $400 from Apple. You can go cheaper, with refurbs, etc. But, you only need 1 in 3-5 years, vs 3-5 with Android if you're wanting to stay current.
Re: (Score:2)
The Moto X they made in "collaboration" with Motorola after buying them was great. Its only problem was that it didn't have the full force of the Google ma
Re: (Score:2)
Google acquired Motorola Mobility and then sold it off just a couple of years later. Why repeat that move?
First, Motorola was a patent play. Google gained much protection by buying the patent portfolio.
Second, Google's tried the 3rd party vendor route and gotten shit products out of it and continues watching Apple reap 95% of the mobile profit. Pixel was an attempt by Google to create a realistic competitor that would actually help them. Now that the Pixel appears realistic, Google needs more control to keep up with Apple who is ahead in many areas. (Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Google buying HTC outright will have another immediate effect - Samsung's profits. Unless Samsung takes a page out of the same book and creates their own OS dev team and branches Android into their own offering.
The reason Apple makes significant profits (nowhere near 95%) is that they overcharge for everything. The Iphone hardware is 1/5 of the phones cost here in the UK. You can get the same spec from Samsung for less, go for a lesser known brand like Huawei, WileyFox or OnePlus and it's even cheaper. These companies are still making a profit, just not obscene amounts.
Also Samsung has little to worry about from HTC or Google's acquisition of HTC.
Now the real reason Google are buying HTC is because HTC are i
Re: (Score:1)
The reason Apple makes significant profits (nowhere near 95%)
It's 94% of the market profits [appleinsider.com] and this is not a historical anomaly [slashdot.org].
Buy and spit it out. (Score:1, Insightful)
They will take the best engineers, patents and then leave it for dead. Just like most of Googles acquisitions. Google should buy Slashdot, since it is Google shill central anyway.
Interesting if actually true... (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see how Google would take HTC forward if this turns out to be true. The problem these days is that "journalists" do very little actual fact checking. A rumor winds up as a story on some sleepy site where it's then picked up by more mainstream media outlets who also don't bother fact checking it.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not that interesting, Google took motorola, made them take out microsd cards, then sold them and they started putting sd card slots back in. Other than that google seemed to do jack to help or hurt motorola.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than that google seemed to do jack to help or hurt motorola.
Google bought Motorola to arm up on mobile patents. Phones were just along for the ride.
The Moto X Pure was the best 4G phone for Android for a while, though, for people who care about things like SD Cards and unlocked bootloaders.
Re: (Score:2)
*Record scratch*
*High budget CGI dazzle sauce*
*dumfounded consumer opens wallet*
So Google would own the HTC Vive (Score:1)
Very interesting.
Nope! (Score:2)
The Google purchase is for the unprofitable phone part only - HTC is looking to keep the Vive part of the company, from what we've been hearing.
Google Should Buy Google (Score:1)
Google should buy Google, so they can shut it down in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't work. They would just sell it back to Google. They'd make a huge profit, but claim a loss in their taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Physical keyboard goodness!
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google is the most schizophrenic company in the history of incorporation. They're like a petulant child who gets a new shiny toy, then gets bored with it, throws it away, then wants a new one the next day.
The best thing to do is refuse to use any and all Google products, and maybe they'll go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is the most schizophrenic company in the history of incorporation. They're like a petulant child who gets a new shiny toy, then gets bored with it, throws it away, then wants a new one the next day.
Nope, that's HP. See how fast they've ditched Palm stuff after the $1b acquisition of it. (hint: less than 2 years)
Re: (Score:2)
Schizo implies inconsistent. All that era's HP did was overpay for acquisitions. They wanted bubble valuation, so they bought the most overvalued empty shell companies they could find: Compaq, EDS, Palm etc.
Re: (Score:2)
HP at least had a very visibly obvious explanation:
Hurd wanted desperately to expand the consumer space, Apotheker hated that concept with a passion, and wanted money to go piss away on getting scammed by Autonomy instead.
Whatever weird thing is going on with google's attention span isn't quite as blatantly obvious from the outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Profit covers over a multitude of mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should merge the VR team with the Glass team (Score:4, Interesting)
Having played with Google Glass I have to say it's pretty cool in many respects, there's certainly some first and some potential - but it's not much. By the time you're done with the new it's a creeper cam with head-mounted caller ID and an awkward Bluetooth headset.
HTC's V.R. team has a great head-mounted video game display that's not useful for all the time / daily wear.
Put these two together and see if you can make something genuinely useful in a real-world environment without making the wearers look like glass-holes.
This explains the dearth ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, after evolving from $400 to $1000 with no user-replaceable battery, no dual-sim slot|SD-card slot, the Pixel has evolved to no head-phone jack either. Sweeeeeet.
Why? Patents. (Score:1)
Re:Why? Patents. (Score:4, Informative)
Motorola had significant cash and tax offsets, making the effective price about $ 3bn.
see https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Google-buy-Motorola-for-12-5-billion-and-sell-it-off-for-2-91-billion :
"And what of Google’s supposed $10bn loss? It’s a misreported myth calculated by subtracting Motorola’s $2.91bn sale price from its $12.5bn purchase. What it misses are the $3.2bn Motorola had in cash, $2.4bn saved in deferred tax assets and two separate Motorola unit sales totalling $2.5bn in 2013. Factor in Lenovo’s purchase against roughly $2bn of Motorola losses during Google’s ownership and Google has still only paid $3bn for what it retained: $5.5bn worth of Motorola patents and the company’s cutting edge research lab."
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it's about patents. Although HTC has been in the market for a really long time. They manufactured smartphones, before they were even called that, like the HTC P3330 [gsmarena.com]. They were probably the best Windows Mobile manufacturer around. Back when Microsoft made a phone OS worth considering. They are a Taiwanese company and these typically do not have a lot of experience with patent warfare.
What would make this sale weird to me though was that HTC is owned by the daughter of the founder of the Formosa Plast
Re: (Score:2)
Was one of the richest men I guess. I didn't know he had deceased in 2008. Still her family, as well as she Cher Wang [wikipedia.org] personally, are quite rich.
Re: (Score:1)
Google screwed up Motorola. This will be the same. (Score:2)
Google sold Motorola at a $10 billion loss! Motorola had arguably better hardware design teams and arguably similar manufacturing capability as HTC. I've love to hear the argument from Google execs as to how and what they will do differently this time. And yes, I know Motorola was a patent play, but that still doesn't answer my question of how they will fix the mismanagement of the hardware teams.
maybe they'll fix Pixel's Hardware (Score:1)
It has hardware flaws (easily cracked board), crashes.
That makes a great device for $600
Maybe they can fix the HTC garbage. My other daughter has an LG Nexus, that's a decent product for 1/2 the price.
If they buy HTC, good luck.
Re: (Score:2)