Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Balls

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Balls

#21

Post by int3 »

squidbot wrote: post #15
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.

The money's not gone, it's mostly just transferred from one party to another -- in this case, from Google to Motorola's shareholders. Of course, many man-hours are wasted in the legal wrangles, but it certainly doesn't add up to $20 billion dollars of lost productivity.

Re: Balls

#22

Post by icarus_drowning »

ellyagg wrote: post #13
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.

I appreciate the advice, but I did read the article carefully and completely. My original comment, read carefully, has far more to do with the nuances of Gruber beginning to turn his arguments now that he can't bray night and day about how very threatened Google is by the combined patent portfolios of it's enemies.

Re: Balls

#23

Post by icarus_drowning »

GHFigs wrote: post #20
icarus_drowning wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Look, this is Gruber's bottom line, all of his caveats aside. At the end of the day, that's how he views this story, and I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that this is going to be a fairly succinct example of his thinking and arguments going forward.

That strategy is going to conveniently rely on his readers forgetting his near-obsession with Google's supposed doom at the hands of Apple and Microsoft's patent portfolios.

That's why it is a reversal-- because patents, once so important, probably aren't going to factor into his incessant Google criticism in the future, despite the fact that he has made them the cornerstone of many of his arguments until now.

Re: Balls

#24

Post by [deleted] »

gc_val wrote: post #11

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" mobil…

[deleted]

Re: Balls

#25

Post by progolferyo »

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.

Whenever these ridiculously huge acquisitions take place, it's always the same. How can Google possibly think that 20 billion couldn't have created something far better than anything Motorola has to offer. They have the talent, the infrastructure, the money, the manpower.

The Skype deal felt like just the same...

Re: Balls

#26

Post by divtxt »

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension:

- Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he get so bitter?

- you just look childish when, only after losing the auction, you then claim you didn’t really want the thing anyway (google never cried sour grapes on nortel)

- Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. ... and they made Google pay and pay handsomely

The trick is not to get fooled by the reasonable-sounding phrases like: Another way to look at this story... and That’s not to say it wasn’t a bold, brash move, or even... the right move.

To those of you discussing Gruber's position on patents: it is the patents that change position relative to Gruber. :)

edit: typos, formatting

Re: Balls

#27

Post by spiffworks »

ellyagg wrote: post #17
spiffworks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sou…

As you can see, I'm being downvoted, and that's fine. Gruber is a polarising topic on HN. I just find that he has long since departed from any actual insight and instead works mostly with snark and misdirection to the point where it is pointless to even discuss his opinions. Perhaps I should be downvoted for the previous post, because it is not pertinent to the discussion, but I felt it had to be said.

Re: Balls

#28

Post by socratic »

ellyagg wrote: post #17
spiffworks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sou…

Is Gruber right, or has Apple made all the right moves since about 2003? I think the main complaint by people who see Gruber pieces on HN all the time is that they argue that he's just an Apple pundit and/or apologist.

Another way of asking this question is, can you name three times that Apple and Gruber differed, but Gruber was in the right?

Re: Balls

#29

Post by philwelch »

int3 wrote: post #21
squidbot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The money's not gone, it's mostly just transferred from one party to another -- in this case, from Google to Motorola's shareholders. Of course, many man-hours are wasted in the legal wrangles, but it certainly doesn't add up to $20 billion dollars of lost productivity.

You can say that about practically any transfer payment. The cost of a transfer payment is opportunity cost. If Google invested 20 billion dollars in R&D, we'd have 20 billion dollars of R&D done in addition to someone, somewhere, having that 20 billion dollars to spend again.

Re: Balls

#30

Post by recoiledsnake »

ellyagg wrote: post #17
spiffworks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sou…

> For example, he took a lot of flack here for defending Apple's move to leave flash out of mobile safari

It's been much more than a year since Steve's blog post about how Flash is unneeded because of HTML5, and I am still waiting for the improvements in Safari so that Flash like functionality can be used in web pages. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

I am not holding my breath though, Apple wants to push developers towards apps and not web pages, because they get to make money on every sale and also because it creates a lock-in for their platform.

http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

Post reply on HN