Report: Motorola Mobility to lay off employees after Google deal closes
Tech Crunch, it sounds like Google has already decided what to do with some of MM's employees as layoffs are supposedly set to occur "imminently". How many Motorola Mobility employees will be getting a pink slip is unknown, but when Google purchased the much smaller DoubleClick, it cut headcount by 40%. Motorola Mobility had 19,000 employees when Google announced the deal (DoubleClick only had 1,600) and had already laid off 800 people last October in a move totally unrelated to the Google purchase. According to Motorola Mobility, the layoffs were part of a wider restructuring.
With Motorola Mobility Sanjay Jha stepping down once the deal closes, Google is expected to replace him with Dennis Woodside. The Mountain View based firm had put Woodside in charge of the merger and it would make sense to have him take over from Jha. Google has said that it wants Motorola Mobility to be independent from its own operations which shouldn't be too hard to do considering that the main impetus to make the deal was to acquire Motorola Mobility's 17,000 patents, regardless of what Eric Schmidt has said.
2. 1ceTr0n (Posts: 448; Member since: 20 May 2012)
In the end, the REAL backbone of major companies which are the hard working, overworked, underpaid and GREATLY under appreciated workers never benefit from these mergers. Instead, they get shafted either by getting laid off or told to do even more with even less.
Farking hate this modern, greedy and unethical corporate run world at times......
40. Dadler22 (Posts: 159; Member since: 11 Dec 2008)
well, IF I didn't own a motorola droid 3 and it WASNT a piece of sh*t I might feel bad, but as far as im concerned motoblur, and motorola hardware has always been a sh!tshow, I'm glad all the people responsible for it are going to be let go. Maybe the can go work for cr@pple
3. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Before everyone jumps down the bandwagon, let me ask you something. How profitable ahs Moto been lately? Sales are sluggish and they are not making jack. If there are ways to streamline and reduce beaurocracy, they should do it. If it makes them a stronger company in the end, how is that evil?
you can lose 10% of the jobs and restructure the company, or you can keep it as-is and risk the whole operation being shut down. Which is worse?
5. KingShango (Posts: 89; Member since: 16 May 2012)
I have no problems streamlining and downsizing to create efficiency but it's Google that portrayed themselves as the saintly "anti-corporation" willing to pass up profits for public good.
"Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."
It doesn't matter if Moto wasn't exactly racking up profits. No one forced them to buy Moto they could just license the patents and still be fine.
Don't be evil...unless we need more money.
16. Non_Sequitur (Posts: 1111; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)
It's called capitalism and business. It's what Mitt Romney's company did (Bain Capital). They bought companies that were doing poorly and turned them around. This means that you have to make some changes which may or may not include laying some people off. Google isn't exactly a private equity company, but they've been doing excellently lately and should be able to change Moto for the better. If you have too many people in a corporation and the company is inefficient, then you're spending too much on employees and not earning enough. It's not evil at all.
23. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
there is a huge difference in "dont be evil" and "screw it, lets let the entire company go down so some peeps dont think were evil".
Part of dont be evil is doing as little harm as possible. laying off a thousand workers sounds bad.. but what if it saves another 50k workers jobs? Now, was it really so bad? You need to look at the whole picture. Bad decisions were made at the company long ago, and google is stuck with the mess.
Did they have to buy Moto? Yes. They paid regular price for Moto's patents and actually got the company for free as a perk. They did the math on the deal a while ago.
If it wasnt for Apple's patent trolling and court bullying, this move never would have been made. If you dont like it, blame Apple, not google.
32. KingShango (Posts: 89; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Really, you're going to blame Apple? So when Google comes in to "save" Moto and cleans up the "mess" by trimming the fat that's capitalism. But when Apple tries to protect their intellectual property that's "patent trolling"!? I'm sure now that Google owns the patents they'll just let everybody else use them for free.
I get how capitalism works and understand that sometimes people must be let go or that companies can just plain fail. I get it. What I take issue with is when a company says that they're above all that. They say their new and different and can make money without doing all those unfortunate things.
At the end of the day Google is all about making money, and thats OK. Just don't try and tell me you're some feel good company out to make the world a better place.
35. Non_Sequitur (Posts: 1111; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)
They aren't protecting anything!!! They sue the hell out of everyone to try to take down the competition!
You Apple people are just... brainwashed.
36. KingShango (Posts: 89; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Except I'm not an "Apple person". I've got a Windows laptop a Kindle Fire and Droid X2.
It sounds like you're the one that's biased. Google is just another company. No better or worse, just different. I give it six months for them to start suing people now that they have Moto's patents.
37. Non_Sequitur (Posts: 1111; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)
Deal. And I know Google isn't perfect. But come on. You're saying that Apple hasn't been bullsh*tting everyone with these patents?
38. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
I'll take that bet. Who was the last person that google sued in the mobile arena??
they havent yet. theyve been running defense only, though im sure there's more than a few patents apple is violating that they could take them to court over. notifications anyone?
39. KingShango (Posts: 89; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Google hasn't been suing because they haven't had the patents. Check out PA's own article:
Google only recently aquired all their patents from IBM and Moto. And I'm willing to bet they'll end up buying Kodak's just because they can. Moto was already suing Apple, that lawsuit is now Googles. Do you think that lawsuit is suddenly going to get dropped?
21. tedkord (Posts: 3954; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The problem is that when layoffs at major corporations occur, it's not the dead wood that usually goes. The people making the bad decisions are never sent packing, in fact after the layoff they get bonuses.
I was recently laid off from a major company. We also had an ops manager there who made a decision, which we all tried to talk her out of because those of us who actually work the job knew it would backfire. Well, it backfired, and cost the company well in excess of $100,000 to fix the damage. She was not laid off. (That's just one story from one area of the facility. There are many such stories throughout the complex where her ineptitude cost huge sums)
Look at Sunoco. Lynn Elsinhans (sp?) got $37 million when she left. She ran the company into the ground, finally closed the refineries laying off hundreds. The company lost millions while she was at the helm. First, she shrugged off the logistics part of the company, which once out from under her heel became profitable (record profits each quarter without her), while Sunoco under her continued to shrivel and die. Then, seeing that logistics was a cash cow (which made her original plan to get rid of it a bad one), she forced her way into it's board, brought the company back into Sunoco, and closed the refining section.
$37 million to kill a company. Not a bad payoff for poor performance.
24. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
for every story of a bad CEO there are thousands of untold stories of good CEOs. Think about how many bad CEOs you can name. Then realize there are literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of CEOs of businesses large and small in the US. A very small percentage of crap holes make a lot of noise for the rest of them. When a CEO is signed on, they sign all sorts of contracts for pay, bonuses, and fees if the contract is ended early. Many of the "golden parachutes" are contract obligations. It does not make it better, but it is a risk the company signed up for when they put that person in charge. And they will take the good with the bad from that moment forward.
7. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Have you perhaps ever thought about how business works? The layoffs are probably necessary, and may mostly be at management level.
Of course, the possibility of layoffs is speculation at this point.
Taco jumping to conclusions as usual.
9. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
OH this is rich. You're asking someone do they know how a business works, and yet you threw a huge hissy fit in the recent Verizon articles about them killing unlimited data for grandfathered users?
12. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
We've gone over this, MIz. Motorola is in a lot of trouble as a company, Verizon is not. Motorola has been in trouble for years, Verizon has not.
This potential change for Motorola is probably necessary. The change for unlimited users is probably not.
14. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
My name is not Miz. It's Mxyzptlk. That apparently flew right over your head. Motorola was doing poorly before, but they're much better off now than they were before.
Verizon isn't doing poorly, but data isn't cheap.
17. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Actually, once the network is in place, data IS cheap. It's building and maintaining the network that's expensive.
Also the iPhone.
With average users hitting 600 megs of usage, there was no reason to get rid of unlimited plans entirely.
If Verizon were to show some numbers indicating that the financial impact on their bottom line would be that much better without anyone on unlimited data (disregarding the fees collected from overages) then I might believe the move is justified.
And continually posting big losses isn't really doing drastically better. Motorola's market share has been dropping again over the past year or so. They do need restructuring, and when you restructure, you get rid of dead weight.
And I'm pretty sure you're the third incarnation of The Miz.
18. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Data usage is skyrocketing. The demand for data is way more than the supply available. Did you forget about Verizon's numerous LTE outages?
Many users don't even use 2gb of data. It makes perfect sense to move to tiered data. If you use a lot of data, then you should pay for it.
Motorola would be in a much better position if they made better phones and provided better updates to the phones they have right now.
19. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Yeah, they had outages because the network is still being built. It's called working out the kinks.
Data isn't about supply and demand. Data is an imaginary quantity, represented by electricity/light/whatever energy or physical means are used to transport it. Once the networks are mature, there is no excuse to not allow unlimited usage, as the cost to maintain that network will decrease.
If it doesn't actually cost any more to provide 2 gigs to one customer than to the customer who uses 1 gig of data, there is no practical reason to charge that money other than to pay for costs elsewhere.
And yes, Motorola has issues which need to be worked out. You fix those issues by bringing people in who know how to fix them.
20. MartyK (Posts: 669; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
"It makes perfect sense to move to tiered data. If you use a lot of data, then you should pay for it".
By using your statement, then if we don't use it all (data in our tier) can we get some money back from the Carrier?. I mean since this is supply and demand (gave the Carrier back some data).
22. tedkord (Posts: 3954; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Except two years ago Lowell the Liar told us all that once LTE was rolled out, Verizon's cost of providing data would decrease dramatically. LTE data transmission is much cheaper than EVDO, because of the width of the data lanes.
I wouldn't have an issue with tiered plans if they'd started out that way. When I got my first smartphone, Verizon told me I needed unlimited data, and they couldn't sell me a cheaper plan with a lower amount because I would need too much data.
Now that I have a device that can actually use unlimited data (since it's not bottlenecked by Verizon's painfully slow 3G), they want to do away with unlimited data. What good is LTE if I can't use it to stream music or video because I'll blow through my caps in 3 days?
34. aikonix1 (Posts: 1; Member since: 22 May 2012)
"It makes perfect sense to move to tiered data. If you use a lot of data, then you should pay for it".
people like you is what CAUSES carriers to move to tiered data.... guess what.. NOW OUR LANDLINES are moving to teired data because guess WHAT, tired f**king overages was only designed to get companies ONE thing, more money. get that through ur little head Miz. yeah called u Miz.
Unlimited Data needs to be heard. Consumers want unlimited data. Not Tiered, Not Throttled. Get that through your skull.
33. jcpwn2004 (Posts: 314; Member since: 18 Jan 2012)
you mean how like apple tries to nickle and dime everyone demanding incentives to consider opening up new buildings and actually creating jobs in the US?
6. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
They should fire whoever's idea it was to not update the Droid 3 and the DX2. Course, it's not surprising that they're screwing someone else again.
8. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Why the s**t do you care? Google/any Android manufacturer will never make a move you like.
10. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Don't cry to me, I don't make the boneheaded decisions at Motorola.
11. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
But this isn't about a Motorola decision. This is a Google decision.
By the way, hi Miz.
13. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Your reading is way off. The article does not say anything about this being a Google decision and you can't even get my name right.
15. som (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)
Say goodbye Motorola will be gone from earth or rename to Google Mobile.
25. Whateverman (Posts: 3162; Member since: 17 May 2009)
It never fails, a select few sees the name Google and their blood starts to boil. Just about every company that buys another company has to lay people off. It's an effed up part of doing business but sometimes it just can't be avoided, not even when Apple does it. So does that make Apple evil as well? And let's not confuse this with venture capitalism, which I don't think is evil either, but it's still different. Right now they have two of everything; two CEO's, CFO's, two this, two that... I hate seeing people loose jobs too, but they have to cut cost somehow.
26. nwright94 (unregistered)
Not trolling, just honestly curious about something. Whenever theres an article of Nokia, or some other company not linked to Google laying off workers everyones jumping down their throats and proclaiming them as evil, but when a Google related company does it, its justified and everyone see's them as saints? As I said, I'm not trolling and these layoffs may definitely be necessary for the continuation of Motorola, but the fans are so two faced.
27. Whateverman (Posts: 3162; Member since: 17 May 2009)
I wasn't sure if what you said was really happening, so I searched all the "lay off" articles and I can honestly say now that's not true. When re-reading some of the comments I saw people concerned for the workers for the most part.
One difference I did see, was that all the other companies were laying off as a result of their own bad desicions making. For example; RIM... They're laying off because they haven't put out anything compelling. They kept shoving Curves and Bold down our throats and the result was a huge lost of market share. Nokia killed their own OSs in favor of an OS made by the current Nokia CEOs former employer. He didn't try to freshen the OS, do more marketing, or add another OS to their stable to help. They just dumped it. Google isnt getting a pass. Those other companies are punishing their employees because of their leadreship's bad desicions making.
28. schecter7 (Posts: 99; Member since: 20 Apr 2012)
Hope they get rid of the morons in management that ruined the great company. Motorola made enormous contribution to technology - I was literally shocked when Google, a rather newcomer, bought Moto. Motorola could have been way bigger than Apple- heck it could have been the intel as well. Innovations can become garbage with some morons at wheel - Moto is the sad example of that. And for ****'s sake, release some decent GSM phones in the US and I'm tired of seeing all those CDMA moto phones. I hope Moto will regain its glory under google's smart management.
29. kanagadeepan (Posts: 592; Member since: 24 Jan 2012)
Though I don't support layoffs, this is OK if they are for the benefit of the great old company... But let them remove the persons correctly, who have been taking wrong decisions like LOCKED BOOT-LOADERS, etc...
30. elandrumiii (Posts: 109; Member since: 20 Mar 2010)
If they are still going to maufacture the phone in some asian country on the other side of the world. I wont buy them. Its just like buying a samsung or HTC so its not American made just American thought up.
31. Bluesky02 (Posts: 1439; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
I think it's normal to have a restructuring plan when merging.