backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by guacamojo.. on Jan 30 at 3:54 PM

New reports indicate that Motorola may be leaving the mobile phone industry and/or may be bought by Chinese investors

Motorola enjoyed record success in 2005 with the release of the RAZR, which went on to sell 110 million units and boost the company to the number two position in handsets behind Nokia.  Since that time, Motorola has struggled to match this epic success. 

Motorola first tried to boost sales in 2006 by cutting prices, which led to a sharp drop in profits.  This in turn led to "cost-savings" in 2007, which basically equated to closing hardware and software development locations and cutting jobs

In Q4 2007, Motorola closed the year with a $1.2 billion USD loss.  The company's handset share also sunk in 2007 from 23% to a meager 13%.

Now there are reports that Motorola may be looking to cut its losses and leave the handset market entirely.  This would leave an uncertain fate for the company's more popular lines such as the new RAZR and the Sidekick.  These products and their engineering and support staff could be sold off to competitors or simply reassigned to different projects, keeping only a bare minimum for product support.

If Motorola exits the headset business, it will likely focus on becoming a government and enterprise company, said Richard Windsor, an analyst with Nomura International in a note to his clients released Tuesday.

There is also separate speculation that a Chinese buyout of the Illinois-based Motorola is forthcoming, but Windsor says this is unlikely.  He says that Chinese vendors do not have the expertise needed to deal with Motorola's software, hardware, and marketing woes, so both sides may be reticent to make a deal.

Motorola currently offers several competitive music phone-related headphone products, featured in last year's Holiday Guide at DailyTech.  These lines also share an uncertain fate if the handset business is phased out. 

Motorola is also involved heavily in the microprocessor, embedded computing, two-way radio, and networking markets.  Motorola was previously involved in the government sector, until 2001 when it sold off its defense holdings to General Dynamics.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not good
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2008 11:05:07 AM , Rating: 3
Yes thats what we need. Yet another American company possibly selling out to the Chinese. Motorola could just try to compete with good phones. My current cell phone is a Motorola. It's not a bad phone but its just under 2 years old and I can't talk on it for more than 5-10 minutes in a day before the battery starts beeping at me that it needs to be charged.

I know people with 10 year old Motorola phones that still work great and the battery lasts days. You know, back before the race to create phones that fit inside your nostril started. The Juke is close.




RE: Not good
By retrospooty on 1/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not good
By GreenyMP on 1/29/2008 11:35:01 AM , Rating: 5
Are you advocating that keynesian economics would reduce deals with China? (I think that the Clintons would disagree with you.) Or are you just spewing trash that you know nothing about?


RE: Not good
By retrospooty on 1/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not good
By eye smite on 1/29/2008 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 3
What you're saying about Republicans may be true, but as I recall, it was Clinton that badly twisted and got NAFTA in place. Then as time went on he removed laws that protected american workers and industry by allowing companies to move overseas with little or no penalties. Basically they can escape taxation on products produced by making them somewhere else.The sweat shops in Mexico, South America, India and China owned and run by Walmart are a fine example of that. But hey, that was all Clintons idea of making us part of the World Economy and doing away with our identity as America.


RE: Not good
By GreenyMP on 1/29/2008 12:08:19 PM , Rating: 4
And just think, you could have all of that all over again by simply checking the box.

[x] Hillary


RE: Not good
By judasmachine on 1/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not good
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2008 4:39:57 PM , Rating: 4
Ron Paul cares about nothing other than the America worker. Hence his extremely isolationist views when it comes to foreign policy and his desire to withdraw from all the free trade agreements we've signed(which I agree with). If anything he's too isolationist.


RE: Not good
By Zoomer on 1/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not good
By Machinegear on 1/30/2008 12:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ron Paul cares about nothing other than the America worker.


I looked him up on his campaign website and he has concerns on many issues that face Americans. You are making a huge assumption with your statement that can be easily proven as incorrect. You can see the litany of issues Ron Paul has concerns with via his campaign website.

I would also like to say from a personal standpoint I wish we had a President who "cares about nothing other than the American worker." That would be a positive change.

quote:
Hence his extremely isolationist views when it comes to foreign policy...


Words have meaning. I will help you with your word definitions:

Isolationist - a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

Noninterventionalist - abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.

Ron Paul has stated over and over again in televised debates and online articles he is a noninterventionalist. To not know at this point is to be willfully ignorant or malicious.

quote:
..and his desire to withdraw from all the free trade agreements we've signed(which I agree with).


To call NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. "free trade" is self deception. They are "managed trade" agreements marketed to the masses as "free trade." After reading a couple of these "free trade" agreements it becomes glaringly obvious they aren't. I suggest everyone take a look. Most of them are posted online, and one google search away.

quote:
If anything he's too isolationist.


This sentence is odd. Can one just be a tad isolationist and be OK? Isolationism is absolute in its very nature. Regardless, Ron Paul has stated he believes in noninterventionalism. Why? Because that is what our forefathers, especially George Washington, encouraged us to do.


RE: Not good
By retrospooty on 1/29/2008 6:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
Umm, sorry, that mass exodus all started WAY before Clinton and Nafta.


RE: Not good
By ksherman on 1/29/2008 12:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
So your spewing trash?

Corporations exist to make a profit, that is their primary function. The government should not me meddeling that deeply, or at all really, in the affairs of a buisness. Collect taxes, prevent monopolies as best as they can, maybe regulate a minimum wage, sure.

To meddle much more beyond that will ONLY serve to push MORE corporations to move overseas.


RE: Not good
By retrospooty on 1/29/2008 6:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed... Out govt should stay out, way out. What they HAVE done is give huge tax breaks and incentives to corporations, and have done zero to stop outsourcing.


RE: Not good
By eyebeeemmpawn on 1/29/2008 12:14:55 PM , Rating: 1
Speaking of corporate friendly rules, check out this site.

http://www.closetheenronloophole.com

Essentially, Enron is partially to blame for the incredibly high fuel prices we're seeing these days. They lobbied to have the federal regulation removed from energy commodity trading. This opened the door for the price manipulation that we're seeing today.

I was told that $1 of the price of every gallon of liquid fuel sold in the US goes directly to Oil Speculators.


RE: Not good
By Chaser on 1/29/2008 12:21:37 PM , Rating: 3
And what democratic Presidential policies or endorsed legislation have encouraged corporations to stay? From what the Democrats are saying they do not intend to renew the "Bush" tax cuts. You know those cuts for the rich and those evil fat cat corporations only?

I'm sure that will be a good step towards keeping corporations here.


RE: Not good
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2008 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. While yes corporate tax cuts might seem like the government playing ball to big corporations, they KEEP jobs in America because then the corporations taxes are lower and they spend less. Thus they can afford to keep hiring here in America.

The Democrats plans will kill jobs here in America. Hillary and Obama wanting to heavily tax big oil seems like a good idea. What will it actually cause? Me and you paying more for gas while seeing no benefit. At least those of us who pay taxes. They want to establish bigger government healthcare programs. What will that do? Possibly drive a lot of independent companies out of business (lost jobs) and tax the middle class even more for coverage we won't even use. Hillary wants to give $10,000 to every mom for every child she has. What will that do? Encourage poor people to have more kids and to do it cheaply so they can pocket that money.

Yes the Democrats are a great answer. Hell even this 'economic stimulus' package. I don't even think it should exist. But its going to happen and its ridiculous that the original plan got shot down by the Democrats. Instead we get a package where people who don't even pay taxes will get a "refund" (more like more welfare) and those who do pay taxes end up getting less. If you don't pay anything in to the system, you sure as hell don't deserve to get anything out when there's a "refund". That's like expecting to get the mail-in rebate on a product you didn't even buy.


RE: Not good
By PandaBear on 1/29/2008 2:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Remember, tax have to be from someone, so if they don't tax the big oil then it will tax other businesses or worse the individual tax payer.

So is it going to save job by taxing the big oil? I would say yes, even if that means gas price goes up.


RE: Not good
By Darnell021 on 1/29/2008 2:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
I generally agree with your comments FIT, and maybe this time its just that I'm young and naive. However, coming from a hugely liberal family in Massachusetts(a true cliche I know), I just cannot understand why the rich and successful need these tax breaks. You said American corporations need these in order to "keep" jobs in America. But I cannot see taxing Exxon-Mobile Wal-Mart etc. more money as running jobs out of the states, it shouldn't. Couldn't we cut taxes for the poorer-middle classes instead to create profitability and growth for smaller independent companies?


RE: Not good