Talking to myself about this past week’s mobile events:

Why did Google buy Motorola?

Patents, primarily, but being able to bring out a reference device could have been in play. I also think that Google sees the carriers as a major cause of Android fragmentation and this could be a way to fight back.

Do you think Google is fundamentally giving in to the integrated business model used by Apple and RIM?

No although they may end there anyway as I think this will scare Android licensees.

Wait. Carriers have a role? in this Motorola-Google deal?

Yes. I believe the vendors are weak when dealing with carriers and Google needed leverage. I don’t think this was the original reason for the deal but do believe this is probably the biggest benefit for developers. Fracturing of the standard flavor Android platform should be less of an issue, excluding the Nook-Kindle-Chinese offshoots that will happen because Android is open source. Google should now have the direct leverage it needed to ensure that the Android operating system updates go out to device customers in a timely fashion.

What will happen with the two companies?

As their sizes are about the same I would think it would have at least even odds of working but offset that with two very different company cultures. I’m backing off of this question. There are way too many moving parts to know what impact this will have on Google, let alone the market.

What impact did Google-Motorola have on HP?

Very little for the decision would be my guess. I have a hard time believing this was just decided on Monday.

Really? Isn’t the timing suspicious?

I do believe the announcement timing was done on purpose but I doubt that the decision was precipitated by the Google-Motorola deal. Not convinced a public announcement was smart, though, at least if the goal is to license the OS.

So you don’t think HP is trying to license it?

No. What value does a public announcement have?

Hey, I’m asking the questions here.

Sorry. What I mean is the Google-Motorola announcement already puts pressure on those without an operating system to acquire one or build their own, non-Google flavor of Android. The public announcement of webOS devices being canceled doesn’t help that at all. There is plenty of pressure behind the scenes.

So why make a public announcement?

I don’t think it was a signal to other mobile hardware vendors. I think it was a signal to HP’s enterprise customers, Oracle and IBM. “We were distracted before with all this consumer hardware stuff,” I think HP is saying. “We aren’t anymore.”

So where does that leave webOS?

Without a home. Clearly the HP laptop division being spun out doesn’t want it otherwise it would have been wrapped into that announcement. It could have been easily bundled up with it. My guess is it will be sold off for expertise or patents.

Not as an OS?

I don’t think so as I don’t see who would want it. Okay, LG and HTC could want it but neither company has any real software experience. It is a huge difference between maintaining a skin on top of an OS and building an OS. Besides both companies are in a better position to customize Android then re-start with webOS, especially since they have built multiple years of expertise there. Samsung has Bada and I don’t think there is benefit in owning a second OS. Amazon is a long-shot as I think they are likely too far along with their Android customization efforts. Facebook… maybe they are the only ones but I would have thought all this would have been floated and discussed long before the announcement. There is no benefit in announcing the discontinuation of hardware before announcing a licensing partner. If HP had found a buyer or licensee I think that would have been announced instead.

Why is there no benefit in announcing hardware discontinuation? Wouldn’t that signal to a licensee that HP won’t compete with them like Google will?

Because the developers will all scatter to the wind and I can tell you from personal experience, once you are burned there is little chance of attracting developers back. A smartphone platform without developers is no better than a feature phone platform.

So who would buy webOS then?

I could see Apple and Microsoft both desiring the old Palm’s 1500+ patents. I could see Google making a play for them as well. They have plenty of cash left to plunk down another couple billion for the patents. Besides Apotheker, given the explosion in mobile patent costs, could claim victory by selling just the patents as those alone could be worth more than the $1.2B HP paid for it.

Apple is amazingly missing from this week’s announcements.

Oh, yeah? I would say Apple is everywhere in this week’s announcements. Motorola is in dire straights because Apple took all the profits. Apple, along with Microsoft, are also the ones suing everyone over patent infringement and Google needs to fight back there (or at least even the odds. And as for webOS… that one is obvious. HP is in essence saying it doesn’t want to compete with Apple (nor Google for that matter) for either tablets or smartphones anymore.

So where does this leave us as developers?

We have four major platforms now in the US: Android, iOS, BlackBerry and Windows Phone. BlackBerry OS will be usurped by RIM’s QNX operating system in the spring and the big question now is whether developers will go along with the move. If RIM handles this well they could mitigate Nokia-MS alliance before there are even devices. If they don’t then we imitate the band Genesis and name our next album “And Then There Were Three.”

Interesting news this morning as Google buys Motorola Mobility. This announcement follows a typical pattern: the news hits and all the news outlets report the information in the press release. Then the CEO does a conference call and everyone reports “the hidden agenda” beneath the conference call. And then the pundits arrive and espouse their philosophy about why the deal was good or why the deal was bad without having a clue what the intention is for the acquisition and how the acquirer will execute. The beauty is that 50% will be right and 50% will be wrong so each pundit has a pretty good chance of being “correct”. And by “correct” I mean they predicted success or failure correctly. Few ever get the details right.

So begins the inevitable wave of stories about how Google got it right or got it wrong:

– Google got it right because they needed patent protection against Microsoft and Apple. Motorola has a lot of patents and was relatively weak player that Google could pick off easily.

– Google got it wrong because 1/3 of your cash reserves was too much to spend on Motorola’s patent portfolio and the rest of the company, minus maybe UI/Design, you are going to kill off anyway.

– Google got it right because mobile phone markets derive profits for vertically integrated companies, not horizontal ones. This market is nothing like the PC market before it.

– Google got it wrong because they just bought a hardware company and took their horizontally focused company and made it vertical. This market, like the PC market before it, will win with platform plays.

– Google got it right because the financials are clear on these supposed partners. All of them, sans Samsung who has its own OS, are losing money and won’t be around long enough to help win 80% market share anyway and the rest — like Nook, supposed Kindle device and every manufacturer in China — are Android in name only, using the OS for its guts and ignoring the rest of Google’s guidelines.

– Google got it wrong because all these guys know how to do is imitate Microsoft. (And they didn’t even do it as well. Microsoft not only got a stronger brand in Nokia but didn’t even have to pay for it.)

– Google got it right because Samsung is going to ditch them anyway for Bada and, well, HTC is a whore who will make devices for anyone’s platform. How can Google rely on either of them?

– Google got it wrong because now they are imitating Palm! Are you guys crazy? Is it own both hardware and software or not?

– Google got it right because they can manage the delicate balance of owning hardware and manage an open software platform.

– Google got it wrong because they are an advertising company and ad companies want their ads to run everywhere. Owning hardware doesn’t get their ads more places. It restricts them to a single device line-up.

– Google got it right because they have missed the boat on managing the relationship with carriers. They are outside that relationship, leaving it to the hardware companies to control, and they aren’t getting the concessions Google expects.

– Google got it wrong because what the company needed was more ammunition for the US Federal Government and the EU to claim that Google is a monopolist who is using its dominant market position in search to buy up the mobile market.

I’m sure I missed a few but this should cover our bases. Which one do I think is the answer? Who knows. But it sure will be fun finding out!

Horace Dediu at Asymco continues to write some of the most insightful smartphone market posts around. One of the more insightful posts has been his recurring series on revenues and profits in the space. His most recent update: Apple controls 28% of revenues and 66% of profits. Google, by some accounts, is now approaching 50% market share.

But here’s the problem and the thing that has me thinking: if Android vendors are all driven out of business because they can’t make a profit then how does Google maintain its Android market share? Does having market share mean that eventually you will make a profit? Or does making the majority of profits mean that other companies starve to death and thus their market share eventually disappears as they go out of business?