Interesting points, I had the same thought that Google could be bailing out a partner.

Per your comment that they want to “cut out the middle” man that is the network when it comes to device sales. That’s tricky, two things come to mind about that. First, Google tried and failed. What, if anything, did they learn from it that could help here? Second, Moto has always been in bed with the networks and now more so with Verizon. Verizon saved Moto with the Droid brand. It’s going to be a hard mindset change for the leadership of Moto to do that to such a long standing partner, technology issues aside.And of course there is Google’s lack of a proven track record of integrating existing businesses into their own efficiently and effectively. 

Definitely worth noting that they did try to shut out networks with the first Nexus phone and failed.  Their position is a little different then it was then.  Also, I don’t see either Google or Apple being successful in cutting out the networks alone… however if they were to both jump.

Google has failed to integrate acquired companies in the past, but I wouldn’t say their reputation is that much worse than anyone else… particularly when they are largely leaving the acquired company alone (YouTube anyone?).  Hopefully it’s a sign that they’re not going to be messing with the Android EcoSystem too much.

You are dead on that they can integrate some companies. But Moto is 80 years old. YouTube barley had revenue. That’s the difference.

Microsoft makes their living off NOT owning a hardware platform, providing the OS, and then blaming platform vendors for the OS crashes.  It would be unreasonable for them to make their own handsets.  

Ok that was a less than serious comment, but I still don’t think it plays well with their corporate strategy as a whole.  They did change their mindset in the gaming space, as well as some of their novelty computing space like the Surface technology, but I’m still having a hard time seeing them buy a manufacturer, even though it does make logical sense.

And it was in Google’s typical space to buy a handset manufacteur? RIM has an OS and hardware, Apple has an OS and Hardware, Google has an OS and Hardware, HP has an OS and Hardware, Microsoft is the only guy out in the dark and I think competitive pressures might drive them to do something they normally wouldn’t (just as it did with Google). Not saying it WILL, but MSFT is vulnerable as they are.

You’re probably right about that, but I’ve kinda gotten used to not putting anything past google.  I mean… they still make the vast bulk of their revenue on ads, and have been throwing money in every direction to see what sticks, so buying a manufacturer didn’t strike me as odd as MSFT buying one.

Fair, hadn’t thought about it that way. I may do a post on it later this week, but I’ve been thinking about how it’s early enough and MSFT’s mobile OS is good enough that they could buy RIM, make versions of MS Office that are WAY better than the Office ToGo stuff that’s out there for Android and Apple, integrate the security of Blackberry Server and just OWN the business part of the world. At least for companies/government agencies that insist on not allowing personal technology on their network.

See that would be a smart move for Microsoft AND for RIM.  They are both already well rooted in the corporate space.  RIM is still viewed as the de facto security standard in corporations when it comes to mobile computing, and MSFT is a trusted vendor with a very large footprint globally.  

My understanding right now is that RIM is all but abandoning NA enhancements and is focused on emerging cell markets overseas instead of trying to innovate and improve.  Their latest tech is already a late comer to the game, and is being rushed out the door which will make for a mediocre product at best.  

Something has to change at that company and a MSFT buy would position them pretty favorably provided they can turn around the hardware and a mobile office platform that would be appealing relatively quickly.