What exclusive IP?
What's being discussed is "non-exclusive access" to IP.
Meaning that Google/Alphabet can make use of that IP and HTC can still use it or license it to other companies.
You still don't get it. This does not mean Google has the whole IP. In simple terms, what Google gets is not the best deal if what they can access are also available to other competitors for a deal. Get it now? You usually want to have exclusive access, like certain songs are exclusively released on Spotify. Get it?
It means that Google can use it at all. Otherwise they would be unable to use it. Which is what they're concerned about. Previously, with other companies actually making the phones, they didn't have to worry about that kind of thing. Now that they're looking to do more of it themselves, they do.
Google doesn't give a damn if Samsung can come in and use the same IP and have similar features on their phones. Remember, Google just wants to improve the Android experience as a whole. If they use the HTC IP in a cool way, it's good for Google if Samsung does the same thing.
I am confused. What kind of things? Google's intention is not to improve Android. They know what features people want. What they want is to expand their business in consumer hardware. This could be useful for technology such as Google hlr Glass. Whatever they can scrape together. The real only exclusive deal right now is they have a bunch of HTC engineers working at Google.
I do not understand how so many still don't get why I brought up this exclusive vs non-exclusive deal. The best deal one can get is exclusive rights. The unknown here is we don't know whether Google's agreement includes (NDA) any exclusive IP.
Google's intention is to improve Android, because that's how they make their money: People using Android, and sending their data to Google so Google can sell ads. Google doesn't make their money selling consumer hardware; that's more of a side business, and is really there to push Android forward, so more people use Android, so more data gets slurped up by Google.
They don't need to improve Android that way. Google already know how to push Android forward through marketing research. Even though $1 billion dollar is a penny to Google, they didn't have to go through all that trouble if they want to "improve Android." You have look at the diverse investment Google has made. They want to try new things by looking at IP and acquiring talents. That's all the agreement is all about. Google business team isn't a group of third-graders.
The Motorola acquisition was both desire to exercise the IP and as a mean to defend patent wars. But people thought they were all about making new phones (which can always make more money and more ad money). In the end engineers got transferred to other teams within Google.
Of course they want to move into consumer hardware for the exact reason you listed: sell more ads. They got certain group of engineers so they can work on projects Google either haven't revealed or improving existing hardware projects, most of the code will remain proprietary. You don't see most of the Google Home code in open source Android codebase, except whatever Google believes are valuable for the community.
There is no altruism here. Otherwise there would not be any patents and any licenses except "no license" license. I suggest those downvoted me please think about why software companies want to move into consumer products in the end. Why is FB building hardware? Why Kindle in the first place? Why Google Home or Amazon Echo? Read up various highly regarded analysts' reviews on new sites. Those people do better analysis than I do here.
