Burry’s post got me thinking. Of course, the first thought that came to my mind was “That’s ridiculous, Google is 10x the company Motorola was in the 1990s”.

But of course, I had to dig deeper. Here is what I found:

In the 1990s, Motorola was:

• The global leader in mobile phones and wireless infrastructure

• Pioneer of cellular tech

• Hardware + Semiconductor powerhouse

• Key supplier to governments, telcos and enterprises

• A brand that was almost synonymous with mobile phones

It had massive share in handsets and critical IP in telecoms. It was deeply embedded in the physical supply chain of communications.

That sounds impressive, and it was…

BUT, Motorola was in a fragmented industry with many competitors (Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Lucent, etc)

There were almost no switching costs for consumers and software platforms did not exist in the modern sense. Motorola’s might was mainly product-cycle driven rather than an ecosystem lock-in like we see today.

It was truly dominant in certain segments, but not in the whole stack of attention, data and distribution like Google is today.

Today, Google is leading in:

• Search

• Digital Ads

• Mobile OS (Android)

• Maps

• Videos (YouTube)

• Browsers (Chrome)

This enables Google to be deeply embedded in how businesses acquire customers, how creators distribute content, how users navigate the internet and how phones, app, websites are built and monetised.

Google controls the attention and discovery layer of the internet, not a niche segment with low switching costs.

If we wanted to compare Motorola and Google, Motorola in 1990s was the best car manufacturer in a booming car market. However, Google today owns the roads, toll booths and traffic lights.

At its peak in 1995, Motorola earned $2.048B in net income on $27B in sales. Google in 2025 earned $132B in net income on $402B in sales.

It is on another level and should not be compared to Motorola in the 1990s.