Balls • Hacker News Board

Re: Balls

#11

Post by gc_val » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:47 AM UTC

Is it an analysis or rant? Looks like JG is more annoyed with the fact that GOOG got patent portfolio than credible threat to iPhone with possible all integrated Moto based Android devices.

He is absolutely wrong on whole "patent wars" issue. Of course GOOG is showing its "big brother" attitude time to time but his beloved AAPL is not clean either. This holier than thou attitude sucks!

Moto may be "second-rate" mobile maker. They may be in loss. GOOG is not stupid to shell out 12B "just" for patent portfolio. Always remember GOOG thinks ahead of everyone. People were criticizing GOOG when they made Android open and free. They were criticizing about paying too much money to YouTube (which is on fire now). GOOG is definitely smarter than Gruber.

Re: Balls

#12

Post by GHFigs » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:48 AM UTC

icarus_drowning wrote: post #5

The primary issue that I have with Gruber's argument is that it seems to reverse some of his more recent assertions about the Google Patent Wars(TM). Haven't we been hearing from Gruber for months on end how patents were going to somehow destroy Android (or cripple it, which is basically the same thing)? Now we're supposed to simply ignore that Google bought 3x the Nortel patents at 3x the price[1] (Gruber's math, no…

"I think Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. Google needed Motorola’s patent library to defend Android as a whole, Motorola knew it, and they made Google pay and pay handsomely."

I don't see how you're getting a reversal out of that. Talking about Motorola's problems is only to highlight that Google would not have spent $12.5 billion on the company if not for the patent issues.

Re: Balls

#13

Post by ellyagg » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:48 AM UTC

icarus_drowning wrote: post #5

The primary issue that I have with Gruber's argument is that it seems to reverse some of his more recent assertions about the Google Patent Wars(TM). Haven't we been hearing from Gruber for months on end how patents were going to somehow destroy Android (or cripple it, which is basically the same thing)? Now we're supposed to simply ignore that Google bought 3x the Nortel patents at 3x the price[1] (Gruber's math, no…

If you read the story carefully and completely, you'll note that he agrees that this very well may have been the right move, but right relative to the weak position that he has been arguing Google was in. He's by no means being inconsistent to say that their improved position is still weak.

Re: Balls

#14

Post by tjogin » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:48 AM UTC

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #2

Motorola held out for a full acquisition at a premium far above the company’s actual value, and threatened to go after its sibling Android partners if Google didn’t acquiesce. Say what you will about Gruber and his Apple fanboyism, this rings true to me. By and large, the article seems very astute.

I have to agree, this was a very insightful piece if you ask me. Not rambling or scrambling to make sense of everything, which is how some of the other analysis reads on the topic.

Gruber took a few steps back, somehow saw the hole picture and described it tersely. Maybe one of Gruber's best.

Re: Balls

#15

Post by squidbot » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:50 AM UTC

staunch wrote: post #4

All I can think about is that Microsoft/Apple blew billions on patents which forced Google to blow billions more to block their move. Think how much real innovation $20 billion could have created if it weren't for the shitty patent system.

This is the most sensible commentary I've seen yet. Fits the "America is pretty much screwed" articles making the rounds these days. It's actually pretty damned depressing that $20 billion dollars was spent on a legal game rather than awesome R&D.

Re: Balls

#16

Post by icarus_drowning » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:53 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #12

icarus_drowning wrote: post #5

The primary issue that I have with Gruber's argument is that it seems to reverse some of his more recent assertions about the Google Patent Wars(TM). Haven't we been hearing from Gruber for months on end how patents were going to somehow destroy Android (or cripple it, which is basically the same thing)? Now we're supposed to simply ignore that Google bought 3x the Nortel patents at 3x the price[1] (Gruber's math, no…

"I think Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. Google needed Motorola’s patent library to defend Android as a whole, Motorola knew it, and they made Google pay and pay handsomely." I don't see how you're getting a reversal out of that. Talking about Motorola's problems is only to highlight that Google would not have spent $12.5 billion on the company if not for the patent issues.

Because Gruber's summary of the entire story is "I think Apple and Microsoft probably feel pretty good, competitively, about having forced Google into spending $12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management", which ignores the single most salient factor in the deal. Ultimately, Gruber would like us to believe that, all things aside, Google has bought a crappy handset maker, rather than a massive patent portfolio.

Re: Balls

#17

Post by ellyagg » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 5:56 AM UTC

spiffworks wrote: post #10

icarus_drowning wrote: post #5

The primary issue that I have with Gruber's argument is that it seems to reverse some of his more recent assertions about the Google Patent Wars(TM). Haven't we been hearing from Gruber for months on end how patents were going to somehow destroy Android (or cripple it, which is basically the same thing)? Now we're supposed to simply ignore that Google bought 3x the Nortel patents at 3x the price[1] (Gruber's math, no…

Gruber has for a long time made his living off of propping up strawmen and beating them down, much to the amusement of his readers. Everyone knows that Leander Keahney and Dan Lyons are insane, only Gruber goes to the pain of proving them so, with little insight or value added to the discussion, other than to incite his audience to gleefully laugh at the stupidity of the 'other'. I can't believe it actually took me s…

As you know, it's easy to get backslapped on pro-Google hn by dissing Gruber, but why not just respond to his analysis instead.

Gruber seems to be right an awful lot for someone so casually vilified. For example, he took a lot of flack here for defending Apple's move to leave flash out of mobile safari. I think enough time has passed to make clear that he and Apple were right.

The anti-Gruber hate looks more like sour grapes every day.

Re: Balls

#18

Post by orangecat » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 6:00 AM UTC

socratic wrote: post #3

Does Gruber ever add any real information in an information theoretic sense? He seems to be on Apple's side 100% of the time. (I guess he suggested that the App Store approval process was broken at some point...) He mostly just appears to be a pro-Apple pundit who has a popular blog that gets a lot of revenue in advertising. But I never see Cringely or Dvorak posts upvoted. What gives? This does not seem to be very r…

Does Gruber ever add any real information in an information theoretic sense?

I'd say the main information content is in who he attacks in the process of boosting Apple. Microsoft and Windows barely get mentioned these days; it's all Google and Android all the time.

Re: Balls

#19

Post by blinkingled » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 6:00 AM UTC

Gruber claims that Apple and Microsoft probably are feeling great that Google had to shell out $12.5B to acquire a failing company like Motorola along with its 'misguided' management and rapidly declining sales.

So what is wrong with that loaded closing statement? Well lots. Firstly he admits the patents part was a good move for Google and the Android platform. He also does math and says they bought 3x Nortel patents for 3x the price. So essentially Google got ton of other Motorola stuff (hardware division, cable modem, set top boxes, Android handset software team et.al) for free. Plus so far as I can tell Droid is a pretty well known and fairly successful brand and Motorola's management did the right thing in saving the company from going down under - not exactly misguided. Gruber would perhaps only call them guided if they did not compete with Apple in any way shape or form!

And what did Gruber had to say when Apple spent billions on Nortel patents? Nope not desperation or anything. Just the fact that Google lost was super important and Android was going to be in trouble.

Gruber also leaves us with no insight on what Google could have done better. He also doesn't feel nearly as bad about Google having Apple by the balls on Nortel patents and making them pay good for Nortel patents, as much as he does about Motorola having Google by the balls by just doing what any sane business will do to maximize its valuation. In comparison actually Google got an arguably better deal - 12.5B for 25000 patents, and a whole functional, moderately successful hardware company with diverse business.

P.S. Motorola has done phones long before Apple thought about it. As such they know a whole lot more about the hardware part as I can tell by the signal and voice quality of my Moto phone. Google and you will find many that can make reliable phone calls with Motorola phones when iPhone could never. So dissing Motorola may be fashionable but I think they know better.

Re: Balls

#20

Post by GHFigs » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 6:02 AM UTC

icarus_drowning wrote: post #16

GHFigs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. Google needed Motorola’s patent library to defend Android as a whole, Motorola knew it, and they made Google pay and pay handsomely." I don't see how you're getting a reversal out of that. Talking about Motorola's problems is only to highlight that Google would not have spent $12.5 billion on the company if not for the patent issues.

Because Gruber's summary of the entire story is "I think Apple and Microsoft probably feel pretty good, competitively, about having forced Google into spending $12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management", which ignores the single most salient factor in the deal. Ultimately, Gruber would like us to believe that, all things aside, Google has bo…

So now we're down to judging entire stories based on whether the last sentence includes what you think is the most important thing about it? Why even read the whole thing if you're going to ignore almost all of it?