Talk:Motorola

message: I'm curious whether anyone can find information on Motorola's financial history.  I've seen mention elsewhere that during some time-frame (mid-1980s? mid-1990s? perhaps to early 2000s) Motorola's company President ordered their semiconductor division to hand over their products to their mobility division below cost.  As a result it appeared on paper that Motorola was a combination of a profitable cellphone manufacturer and a massively loss-making semiconductor design company.  This then resulted in more funding being spent on the cellphone division.  Once upper management was shaken up it was found that the reverse was true and changes to funding decisions greatly improved real profitability.
Story I recall seeing and was curious about... 207.172.210.101 (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Management History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motorola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119054016/http://broadband.motorola.com/iradio/ to http://broadband.motorola.com/iRadio/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113113437/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/ to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The information box says the company id "defunct" as of 2011.  Is that correct?  Motorola effectively split into two parts.  One part was sold to Google.  The other part is still an operational company.  The company didn't go bankrupt or anything like that.  It would seem like it would be better to have a title like "split" or something.  Springee (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: good question.  I agree it is sort of a misleading word, because we all know that the "Motorola" brand still exists and makes things.  I am having trouble thinking of a better word, and I tried to think of others companies that have been through similar situations, like Continental Airlines, whose article says that it "ceased operations".  I wonder if a word like "Dissolved" or "Split up" would be better.  I suppose the unique element of Motorola's history is that it wasn't acquired -- it was split in two pieces and one piece was acquired. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for the reply.  I think split might be better but I looked at some other examples and it seems that "defunct" is what Wikipedia uses when a company no longer exists as a legal entity even if the parts of the company still exist either via merger, spin off etc.  Lockheed Martin shows founded in 1995 while listing two predecessor companies.  Each of those companies (Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta have a "fate" tag showing the merger and a "defunct" tag listing a date.  Curtiss-Wright and it's predecessors and Rockwell International all follow the same pattern.  Based on those examples I guess we should keep "defunct" but I would suggest changing Fate: Divided into Fate: Split as Divided, to me anyway, suggests this was done by an outside force vs the management of Motorola Inc deciding to split the company.  Perhaps it would also be better to move the defunct date next to the split so it's clear what happened.  I think I was thrown off because the defunct was what I saw and the fate wasn't near it.  Springee (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  based on what you see in the other articles, I agree that it should continue to say "Defunct".  I also agree that "split" is a better word than "divided".  Though the actual article itself doesn't really touch on why the company split, this CNBC article makes it clear that the company did it for strategic reasons ("In 2008, under pressure from investor Carl Icahn, Motorola set the breakup in motion"). -- Cloud atlas (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Defunct the correct term?

message: As reported by the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most  Motorola had a regular ongoing relationship with the NSA and CIA, likely covering a lot more territory than Crypto.  Perhaps someone in the know could start a new section covering that?  Ealtram (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSA/CIA work 

message: Some people want to change the rules about the infobox data in Wikipedia. It is dangerous, because some new data is wrong and this is wrote for ever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitholov (talk • contribs) 08:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WARNING 

message: I heard that a brand made washing machines for Motorola and put their name on it, can you please elaborate more on the subject?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:C099:DC00:11D4:CC9C:836E:B63A (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was with Motorola for a long time but this is long after my time there. Anyhow, see this and this. Also click the misshapen Hamburger button in the upper-left and open Smart Appliances in the drop-down menu. Motorola might be buying the basic appliances from elsewhere and marketing them after adding the smarts or they might have acquired an appliance company to build them in-house -- I dunno. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Those links above to go Motorola India. See also this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  washing machines under the brand name 

message: Why is there no mention of the major investment in time and money Motorola made to the development of the Iridium Satellites, hand-held terminals and satellite network? This is clearly part of the 4.5 billion dollar loss that forced Molorola to break into two pieces. Boggsa53 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iridium