Home Internet of Things Aerospace Apparel Energy Defense Health Care Logistics Manufacturing Retail

RFID Journal Blog

BlogsRFID Journal BlogWhat's Behind the Motorola Deal

What's Behind the Motorola Deal

A lot of RFID companies are wondering why Motorola decided to leave the RFID industry now.
Posted By Mark Roberti, 04.23.2014

I received several calls last week from radio frequency identification solution providers wondering why Motorola decided to sell its enterprise business to Zebra Technologies (see Zebra Buys Motorola Solutions' Enterprise Business and Motorola Exits Stage Left). A common question is whether the top guys at Motorola see something about the RFID market that the rest of us do not.

It is possible, of course, that Motorola Solutions' CEO, Greg Brown, has access to some information that the rest of us don't have. But I don't think that's the case. I think he just didn't see RFID's potential. Here's why I believe that.

There are only three reasons you would sell a business that has the market share and brand awareness that Motorola has in RFID readers. One is you simply fail to see the potential, the second is you see a threat from a competing technology, and the third is you see a threat from a competing RFID company that you don't think you can address in a timely manner.

First, let's consider the latter two scenarios.

I don't see another technology that can compete with RFID. Bluetooth low-energy beacons, ZigBee-based tracking devices, ultrasound and infrared are all useful and can be used in some automatic data-capture solutions. But each requires a battery, making it too expensive for apparel items and millions of other low-cost objects that companies and consumers want to track and manage. 2-D bar codes are also a great technology with many applications. But the problem with bar codes is they require line of sight, and usually a person to orient the scanner to the bar code. There is nothing out there that is low-cost, non-line-of-sight and truly automatic, other than passive RFID.

A threat from another RFID systems provider? That's possible. Overhead readers could make Motorola's handheld and fixed models less attractive if the market were to embrace overhead readers. But Motorola could buy a company that already has such devices, or develop the technology itself. I sincerely doubt the top brass at Motorola threw in the towel because of the threat from overhead readers.

That leaves the belief that there was not much growth potential in RFID. This doesn't make the top brass at Motorola stupid. They certainly are not. They have invested a lot in RFID, but it's a small part of their business, and they don't live and breathe RFID every day, so they are not as focused on it as those of us in the industry are. Motorola's RFID team is very bullish on the technology and has argued, I'm sure, that RFID can be a revenue driver for Motorola.

So the top executives did a strategic review. The expected synergies between the government and communications side of the business and the enterprise business (bar codes and RFID) did not materialize after the firm's acquisition of Symbol Technologies in 2006 (see Motorola Acquiring Symbol).

The bar-code business is growing slowly, or shrinking. In-store systems are facing competition from the likes of Apple, as retailers put iPads in the hands of staff members. RFID has potential, but no one knows when it will take off. So, I believe, the senior executives examined the situation and decided it made more sense to sell. This was an entirely rational decision—though one, I believe, they might come to rue.

So what are they missing that I see? I believe they don't understand that the growth of any new technology remains slow until certain market conditions are met, and then it explodes. Take PCs as an example. During the first 10 years after the first personal computer—the MITS Altair 8080—was released in 1975, cumulative sales of PCs totaled a little more than 17 million units. Over the next decade, cumulative sales were nearly 194 million units. And in the 10 years after that, sales expanded to 1.15 billion units. Very few people expected that kind of growth.

Moreover, I think, companies do not understand how one player can dominate a new technology. In 1980, there were more than 100 manufacturers of personal computers. At the time, IBM was not yet one of them, but within a decade, IBM PCs and clones accounted for 90 percent of all personal computers sold.

The market conditions for this kind of growth and dominance do not yet exist in the RFID market. There is still no whole product available for retailers (Motorola's primary market). That is, you can't go out and buy a complete retail solution. You have to buy readers from one company, tags from another and software from another, and then get someone to put it all together. That might be changing, however, given the partnership between Checkpoint Systems, which offers software and integration services, and Mojix, which provides overhead readers that deliver real-time visibility (see Checkpoint Partners With Mojix to Offer Passive RTLS in Stores). The other thing the market lacks is critical mass. But within the next few years, a whole product will emerge and we will reach critical mass, and then sales of RFID readers will explode—just like PC sales did.

Time will tell if I am right, or if they are right. Clearly, the folks at Zebra believe there is a lot of potential in the RFID market. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Zebra.

Mark Roberti is the founder and editor of RFID Journal. If you would like to comment on this article, click on the link below. To read more of Mark's opinions, visit the RFID Journal Blog, the Editor's Note archive or RFID Connect.


Peter EGLI 2014-04-25 04:13:27 AM
Good analysis mark but one still wonders whether other reasons could be - the notorious losses, posted by several listed companies? - the ambiguity within RFID applications? I mean UHF (Logistics side) vs NFC (Consumer information side)? - The unpopularity of "big data" as repeatedly inferred by the IoT community?
Fran Pinyol 2014-05-06 05:32:14 PM
Hi Mark, Let me disagree with the hypothesis of your blog entry. Motorola Solutions is NOT leaving the RFID, instead, they are splitting the company in two and Zebra is aquiring one of those parts that includes barcoding, RFID, etc... If you read and listen to Zebra's aquisition conference call, RFID is one of the pilars of their new portfolio. The "other" Motorola part that stays in Motorola has nothing to do with RFID, therefore it should not be there. Bottom line, Motorola RFID business will be integrated into a larger Identification portfolio and this is good for the industry overall. Disclaimer: www.aidarfid.com is Motorola & Impinj partner and we are happy to be part of the ecosystem of a larger vendor (Zebra+Motorola).
Mark Roberti 2014-05-08 01:55:31 PM
Dear Peter, These are interesting points. Certainly, the slow growth experienced so far by the RFID industry has led to losses. I have heard the Motorola’s RFID business was profitable, at least some years. But there is no doubt the company invested a lot of money in developing and manufacturing products and the fact that sales didn’t rise faster had something to do with why Motorola decided to sell its RFID business. But it still comes back to whether you believe in the future growth of the industry or not. If I any big company believed it would make $250 million a year from a product each year over the next 10, then it would be willing to accept losses of $20 million a year each of the next five years. If you don’t believe you will make that kind of profits, then you are not so willing to absorb the losses in the short term. I don’t see the issue of UHF vs NFC playing any role whatsoever in Motorola’s decision. Motorola has been focused on selling passive UHF readers to retailers. All retailers in every corner of the world are using passive UHF to track apparel items in the store and in the supply chain. NFC is not viable for in-store inventory taking or supply chain applications because the read range is just not long enough. Motorola could have had a successful RFID business just selling to retailers, but of course, passive UHF is being used in many other industries as well. Is big data unpopular? All I read about is big data. At the National Retail Federation event in New York in January, every exhibitor was focused on big data. RFID is actually the key to big data for retailers and many other companies because it provides more accurate data than can be collected today. I would say that if Motorola was looking at the broader trends in technology and business they would have held onto their RFID data. RFID delivers accurate data. It fits with the growing trends of wireless computing and with more distributed computing. It compliments video analytics. It's critical to the omnichannel strategies of brick-and-mortar retailers. It assists with automation, and so on. Mark

Login and post your comment!

Not a member?

Signup for an account now to access all of the features of RFIDJournal.com!

Next Post
Researching RFID's Impact
Previous Post
Fortune Highlights the Value of RFID to ...
Case Studies Features Best Practices How-Tos
Live Events Virtual Events Webinars
Simply enter a question for our experts.
RFID Journal LIVE! RFID in Health Care LIVE! LatAm LIVE! Brasil LIVE! Europe RFID Connect Virtual Events RFID Journal Awards Webinars Presentations