From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redirects needed[edit]

Motorola Corporation needs to redirect to this article because that is a very descriptive and accurate of what it is. Also Motorola, Incorporated should redirect here.
Likewise for the General Motors Corporation, the Digital Equipment Corporation, the Boeing Corporation, the Chrysler Corporation, the Cisco Systems Corporation, the Computer Sciences Corporation, the Data General Corporation, the General Electric Corporation, the Honeywell Corporation, the Intel Corporation, the Ford Motor Corporation, the Hewlett-Packard Corporation, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, the Nabisco Corporation, the MCI Corporation, the Radio Corporation of America, the Texas Instruments Corporation, the United States Steel Corporation, and the Xerox Corporation.
There is a good deal of laziness going on here, as you can see. Some people "do it" right and some people "do it" wrong. Furthermore, the Wikipedia is very lazy itself. Motorola Corporation should redirect to Motorola Incorporated without anyone even having to think about it. Computers are capable of doing that work, and they should be made to do so.
As Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics state: Second Law of Robotics - A robot must obey the orders of a human being, unless such orders contradict with the First Law.
When I command "Give me the article on the Motorola Corporation," this should be done immediately and without question. (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You can easily create all these redirects yourself. It's a wiki! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reads like the company's internal report[edit]

Too much proud-sounding "Motorola relased the first this, the first that, etc." And it looks like a timeline you'd find on a company website or brochure. The article needs a more general, third-party feel, if you will.Kuahmel (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Car radios[edit]

Was Motorola actually the first to make car radios? --Zilog Jones 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and the article contradicts the Bill Lear article on several key points. Motorola's history as cited is inaccurate, and this article makes claims not even supported by the Motorola citation. Lies, I tells ya! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with this? Bill Lear and Howard Gates create the first radio, and Paul Galvin and Bill Lear came up with the name. And the name didn't mean sound in motion, it was a spin on the ola term using 100's of times in those days. the Motor ola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How many different versions of the motorola razr are there?[edit]

does any one know how many different versions of the motorola razr are there? I looked on and found 3. Is their any more that I don't know of? Maybe ones that only celebrities have.

current ones are being refered to as V3 (version 3). Realize that the 'ones that only celebrities have' are only different in the color of the housing, not the 'guts'. 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)emb021

an answer[edit]

As of Dec 16 2005, there are:

  • the original silver
  • black
  • magenta (pink)
  • ice blue (coming soon if not out yet)
  • Some crazy gold-colored Dolce-Gabbana (spelling probaby wrong) edition phone which will be high-priced and exclusively available in Europe at specialty stores
  • CDMA RAZR (all others are GSM), a slightly darker shade of silver, I believe

These don't distinguish hardware revisions or feature upgrades. For instance, I believe newer silver RAZRs have upgraded cameras or additional features as compared to the first models.

Note: the site you mention above is not an official Motorola site and the info is probably not reliable. It's just some guy in Texas, probably trying to get some ad dollars. See the whois record:

At present, there are no "celebrity"/promo models that are not available to the public. (For instance, the Black RAZR was at first given only to Oscar nominees, but is now widely available.)

How many different Motorola Razr?[edit]

How many different Razr phone are out there? I have looked into site and they have Black Razr V3,Pink Razr V3,Silver Razr V3,Cosmec Blue Razr V3,Lite Blue Razr V3,Gold Razr V3,Magenta Razr V3,Lite Pack,Half Pack,Full Pack,Flashable,Non Flashable (different verision software)and more.

The moterola DynaTAC x8000 was the first mobile hand held phone.

Weasel word[edit]

OBSERVER is marked as a weasel word. though, the sentence subject is MARKET SHARE, so i do believe that it is the correct term, no? i don't even know another word for market observers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:24, 6 March 2007

You need to provide a citation for exactly which market observers have made that statement. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

has anyone noticed?![edit]

The Motorola Logo looks like a Butt pissing outward like a rocket. Can anywone write a reference to this in the article? 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it looked like a stylized letter "M". I guess it can have an effect similar to a Rorschach inkblot test in evoking subconscious thoughts in some people.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really funny, i was laughing my ass off when i read this guy's discovery. Seriously, though, someone should put it in the article. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote against that. Besides the fact that it would add nothing constructive to the article, it counts as original research. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Batwing M was a comment I saw at one time in an electonics magazine shortly after they abopted the (then New) logo. cmacd 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA! It's still funny, everytime i look at my Moto v176, i laugh at the little insignia on my phone! But you're right, it's not wikipedia material. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 06:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Motorola bat wing logo looks like an incipient act of sodomy viewed through the legs of the active participant. Try to forget _that_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


We need more 2way radio info. We also need info on Quik call 1 and 2. Thedjatclubrock :) 10:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very poor representation of the company[edit]

No comment about products, no comment about market share, no comment about lay offs, no comment about reputation...Perhaps anything posted on this site is deleted the same day (was deleted by Kansascitygold). This page is not worth calling upNighthawkx15 07:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Hawk

"Kansas City Gold Wireless" section[edit]

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something, but the article says: "...without the nagging gotcha's that the other phone companies do." What on earth is a "nagging gotcha"? (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't expect an answer, I don't know either. If an answer is forthcoming it is likely to involve some pompous wikipedia editor telling you all about how this is a wiki and you need to add and research this yourself. Funny how the books on my shelf never do that. (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism (3 April 2008)[edit]

A user at IP address has vandalized this page a couple of times today. Should we lock the page or the user? (If so, how?) - Johnlogic (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism[edit]

The section removed was irrelevant and misleading. The Scottsdale ground water issue was mostly a fabrication started by a small group of real estate types who were hostile to Motorola. Motorola was in no way responsible for the small levels actually found. The real source was an EPA certified facility. Despite this unwarranted but obvious attack, Motorola funded the cleanup. A quick look at a geo map would revile that Motorola could not have possible been responsible. The noise of the malfunctioning blower is just that, noise. It was final made up to try to pin some culpability onto Motorola. This whole mess was widely recognized for what it really was, a real estate scam.

The rest of the deleted section is nothing more then an attempt to make Motorola look bad. It is silly and immature. It is mostly just rumor, innuendo, and anti-technology propaganda. Its like criticizing Nabisco for all of the deaths caused by explosives because someone made a bomb out of a box of cake mix.

And were is the discussion of all of advances in low impact wafer fabrication that Motorola has implement over the decades. Not because they were forced to but because that was a natural outgrowth of the original Motorola culture. Of course the US government did its best to destroy that culture during the late 80s and 90s for political reasons, and the anti-tech types jumped in to do their part. After all, the existence of a company that does not conform to their misguided characterizations is rather distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was vandalism.[edit]

It took me a few moments to find what I had reported, but here it is: Comparing revisions made on 3 April 2008 as of 17:54 (by and as of 17:54, I removed petty vandalism in the form of the comment on line 20 reading "THIS IS SO GAY!!!!!!!".

Clearly this comment has no place here.

Anonymous Agilent Technologies user, please do better research before calling me a liar. - Johnlogic (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. First off, John, your comment here was the first one in three weeks, you are apparently replying to an anonymous user from over a month ago. Also not sure where they called you a liar; you both seem to be referring to two separate incidents. You said something on April 3, they said something on July 22, then you respond today (August 25). Let's all move on. Tan ǀ 39 23:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article seems very biased[edit]

it looks like a bunch of samsung execs got together to slam motorola. can we get a less biased article in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and started some work on making the article more neutral. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Engadget as a source[edit]

Engadget does very little of its own reporting, and yet (particularly in the Finance section) it's cited repeatedly. These references should point to primary sources, not just secondary sources. More background is also needed in general about this company. White 720 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

bankruptcy reference is incorrect[edit]

At no point in the last 15 years has Motorola been close to bankruptcy. I am not sure what source the writer is using for reference but the assertion that the company had to act to stave off bankruptcy is incorrect. With more than $6B in cash the company’s balance sheet is relative strong. It has about $1.50 in cash per share and has been cash flow positive throughout every quarter for more than a decade. Even during the recent struggles, cash from other business has financed the large deficits of the handset segment. The company has definitely fallen on hard times but it is a long way from failure. The tenor of the comments in this article seem overly negative and short-term focused. Motorola has a long history of stellar accomplishments, few of which have found their way into this description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambino440 (talkcontribs) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Irridium project should be named the Dysprosium project instead.[edit]

Since they only succeded with 66 satelites instead of 77 as planned, they should have changed the project name to, leaving the 'cooler' name to those who could actually finish the job. For those not getting it, they named the project after the element number 77 in the periodic table, which is irridium, 66 is dysprosium and as you can hear that doesnt sound nearly as 'cool', guess they could have completed the project on time and budget if they had fired those marketing guys firsthand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

what is a "the world's first-only commercial cellular device"[edit]

What is a "first-only" in the statement:

In September 1983, the firm made history when the FCC approved the DynaTAC 8000X telephone, the world's first-only commercial cellular device

It appears to be first and not first-only to me. Please revert if I am wrong. (or make it clearer?) Kushal (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "first only" and today being the end of the analog era, I came up with an idea for the future of television. Yes today is the beginning of the digital era. So digital, might just lend itself to this new system. Im mailing a leter along with a sketch to Mr. Greg Brown today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What can be said...[edit]

about this page?

It's a disaster. Neutrality issues in the history section, writing issues, possible NPOV things elsewhere...

While parts of this are pretty obviously pro-Motorola, I've looked, and it's been anti a few times too, and keeps see-sawing between these extremes. Can we just find some middle ground? (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle ground is for people who don't care about the truth as much as they do dialectic. Middle ground is for lawyers and idiots, not scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the history page are copied verbatim from Peter Ballard (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's still a mess over three years later. --Ef80 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


In which countries the Motorola handsets that are available today are usually manufactured — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Motorola Mobility deal by Google[edit]

Just to add to the consensus that this article is substandard, the Motorola Mobility deal by Google has no references and reads like something from a junior high school book report69.196.182.46 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

spinoffs section is horrilbe[edit]

A bunch of 1= and 2- sentence statemnts generally without refernces, and the longer entries are horrible as well69.196.182.46 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it is a small part but Motorola Embedded Computer group was acquired by Emerson in 2007. mmunroe (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He Last Dismissed It?[edit]

What's the meaning of this sentence:

Bill Lear presented Paul Galvin with the prototype, and he last dismissed it.

He last dismissed it? rowley (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed page merge of Symbol Technologies into this?[edit]

Just trying to get discussion started. I know there has been some significant cleanup of the page recently by J Milburn, and we've briefly discussed the option - he suggested I bring this up here. I could see a scenario where that page's key information is brought into this page to expand the one sentence on Motorola's acquisition of the company. Thoughts from others? Again, just trying to get a communal input on the possibility. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


In short: (1)for some reason Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance isn't mentioned as aren't their microprocessors (2) Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was approved by US, EU and China. While it's obvious with US, would someone be so kind to explain why EU and China had to approve this bargain for it to happen? The latter wasn't clear for me. (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Peak employment[edit]

As a Motorolan in 2000, I recall some company documentation saying that they had grown to 159,000 employees (this was shortly after the acquisition of GI and Zenith Network Systems). But I can't find any proof of that, the best I can find is 3rd party material referencing 150,000 employees. Anybody have anything definitive on that? Nerfer (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)