Very interesting posts from everybody. I would report something more. Based on my experience, split process especially for worldwide company achieves a results really related to the region. At the time of worldwide Ericsson split to bring on the market special focus on enterprise, newco origined (it was Damovo) achieved unpredictable results in some regions and full shutdown in others. Despite Ericsson brand (was) is worldwide recognized. Is Motorola, in your view, in different condition respect to mentioned scenario?
Thanks Bolaji, for posting the latest happenings in Motorola. Motorola may have n number of reasons for clarifying and justifying the division. Some of the global brands used to split up their internal divisions for better administration and management, So that each groups can be more concentrate in their productive side. “Divide and rule”, is an old strategy and Motorola is trying for that in a new way. Motorola is a globally accepted brand name and they may need to retain the name for all their sub divisions also.
They might think that the same brand name can help them to drive the business up to an extent, which didn’t work out for the new names like Free scale and NXP semiconductors. For marketing products, global brand names will help them, up to a certain extent. Since Motorola is an old brand and have a good name in market, it’s easy for them to introduce new products in the same brand. Even majority of customers are also giving much importance to the brand name, rather than quality.
You were right. Motorola Mobility just announced its first tablet device, the Motorola XOOM. I can't wait to take it for a test ride. The company also introduced the Atrix smartphone, which it described as the "world's most powerful smartphone." Watch for the specs in my next blog. This may not be your daddy's Motorola anymore!
I can only guess that eventually one of the two Motorola companies will dump the name. I understand they may want to keep the name associated with Motorola for as long as possible but branding one of the two with a new name should not hurt on a longer term basis.
You mentioned the reverse stock split. I don't believe this represents lack of confidence in the company. This is typically done in the industry to ensure a company continues to meet listing requirements. In the case of Motorola, they may have done this to avoid slipping below the requirement and also to reduce the total number of stock outstanding, which would help when calculating earnings per share.
By the way, Motorola answered the last question I had in the column. Yes, they are coming out with a tablet. I was glad to read about it because it means they are truly fighting to be competitive.
I agree that the names are confusing, especially since both companies are involved in mobility solutions and devices.It would have been an opportune time to rebrand one or both of the companies.As for Motorola Mobility, which has been struggling for many years, has finally produced a profit with the success of the Droid.At least they are starting 2011 with some momentum and from what I understand the company plans to release a tablet on the new Honeycomb OS.
Bolaji - thanks for posting this article. When I first saw the announcement about the Motorola split, I must admit that the name(s) of the two companies was the first thing I wondered about. How can two separate companies be named Motorola? As you mentioned, when Motorola spun off its semiconductor division, it named it something completely different.
Since I trust that the Motorola management thought of the issues that lie ahead in having one name, I wonder if there was an ulterior motive to it. Is one being primed to be sold and is hanging on to the Motorola name for credibility?
It looks like Motorola Mobility just offered a 1 for 7 reverse stock split. Does this show a lack of faith in the company's future outlook?
I know my post generates more questions than answers, but I did find this very perplexing.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.