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

31–40 of 122 posts

Re: Balls

#31

Post by asknemo »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #9
asknemo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Threatening to go after other Android partners makes little sense for Motorola. It's not something Motorola would do to get most profit from it. If Motorola has threatened Google something, it would be to sell to Microsoft. That will make much more sense.

I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very stro…

That doesn't mean the action make sense. My point is that it won't make sense for Motorola to do that, not whether they did or did not do it. Google can easily tell them that if they do that prematurely, Android ecosystem will fail, rocking the same boat they are in. Sensibly, you can't get much royalties from a failed platform, and Apple/Microsoft won't give Motorola any medals for going that path.

Re: Balls

#32

Post by recoiledsnake »

orangecat wrote: post #18
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.

I think Gruber, Asymco, et al. have been taken aback by Android's year over year ascendancy. They were certainly predicting gloom and doom of Android, so patents are their last resort to reign in Android now.

See units and marketshare of Android for 2nd quarter 2010 vs. 2011.

http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/image66.pn...

Asymco failing at analysis and predictions:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2887430

Re: Balls

#33

Post by danilocampos »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #30
ellyagg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> because they get to make money on every sale

Even the most cursory glance at real numbers establishes this as irrelevant. Apple's App Store revenues are measured in millions of dollars. Apple's revenues on hardware are measured in billions. They use the App Store to sell more hardware. It's infrastructure with next to no margin.

Re: Balls

#34

Post by GHFigs »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #23
GHFigs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 paten…

I don't see a bit of sense in that.

On the one hand, you're complaining about his supposed "near-obsession" (as opposed to every other person writing on the subject? what's the measurement here?) but on the other you're saying that one sentence is proof that it was all some kind of ruse and he'll never speak of it again. As if patents not figuring into one sentence means he can never say anything about them again. What a great leap that is! He's trying to make a point about something, but you're treating it as if it's a total retraction of every other point he's ever tried to make--even in the same post--because...why? Because it's not just a restatement of what he said last week, in a different context? I don't understand that at all, even under the banner of HN's predictably frothing meme of disdain for the man.

Not only do I not understand that, I don't understand how on earth one man gets such scrutiny about precisely how much he talks about something, down to the sentence, when dozens of sites have been publishing on the same subjects. This is news. When new things happen, people write about them. Google bought Motorola. That's news. But must Gruber (or anyone) interpret or discuss that solely in terms of patents (or any one angle)? Why is commenting on any other aspect of the deal forbidden? Makes no sense.

Re: Balls

#35

Post by divtxt »

divtxt wrote: post #26

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…

To clarify: a biased Gruber article may actually have valid points. The problem is that Gruber will only include pro-Apple points.

For example, note that Gruber does NOT point out how the acquisition will allow Google to do Apple-style seamless hardware/software design.

edit: Android -> Google as pointed out by m_eiman below

Re: Balls

#36

Post by tjogin »

socratic wrote: post #28
ellyagg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, the first and most obvious example is the inconsistency and arbitrariness with which Apple approved or rejected AppStore applications. Gruber was probably Apple's most vocal critic at the time. Apple have improved a lot since, but still have some way to go in that department.

Re: Balls

#37

Post by tjogin »

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…

That patent portfolio can't be that threatening to neither Apple nor Microsoft, considering the fact that both companies are already in litigation against Motorola and those specific patents, and so far it's not looking grim.

Re: Balls

#38

Post by GHFigs »

divtxt wrote: post #26

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…

google never cried sour grapes on nortel

The argument for this is pretty simple: They bid up several billion dollars. They lost. Suddenly, they decry the bidding as anti-competitive. Sour grapes.

"The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop." -- http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...

Re: Balls

#39

Post by ryanhuff »

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.

The worst thing is that Google is now invested in the problem by $20 billion more than it was previously. The more invested U.S. companies become in patents, the more difficult it becomes to make change.

Re: Balls

#40

Post by [deleted] »

blinkingled wrote: post #19

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN