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

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Balls

#41

Post by bgentry »

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…

just FYI, the "Droid" brand is licensed by Verizon, not Motorola. There have been many "Droid" phones, all of them on Verizon and from several different manufacturers.

Re: Balls

#42

Post by m_eiman »

divtxt wrote: post #35
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

the acquisition will allow Android to do Apple-style seamless hardware/software design.

It will allow Google to do that, but I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

Re: Balls

#43

Post by fpgeek »

danilocampos wrote: post #33
recoiledsnake wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think you skipped the other part of recoiledsnake's point about how app sales create lock-in. To me, that is the bigger reason for Apple's focus on apps (and on controlling the content delivered to iOS devices).

Re: Balls

#44

Post by Confusion »

philwelch wrote: post #29
int3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google bought a lot more than just patents.

Re: Balls

#45

Post by Confusion »

GHFigs wrote: post #38
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…

The weasel word here is 'suddenly'. They first tried to win the game the easiest, surest way. Now they have to resort to an unsure, annoying, longwinding way. They probably always considered it anti-competitive. That doesn't mean they first and only try to resolve it through playing that card.

Re: Balls

#46

Post by guywithabike »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #32
orangecat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Units and market share don't mean much if your margins are razor thin (or, worse, nonexistent).

Re: Balls

#47

Post by divtxt »

GHFigs wrote: post #38
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…

Sour grapes would be if Google had said "the Nortel patents suck" after they lost.

What you're describing is closer to "they ganged up against us".

Re: Balls

#48

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Balls

#49

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?

Another example, I'm not sure it qualifies, is that Gruber never liked the brushed metal theme and the inconsistency with which Apple applied it to different applications.

Apple did eventually retire the brushed metal theme and is getting a bit more consistent in the styling of their applications. Still some way to go here, too.

Apple and Gruber has generally diverged in how they think the Apple Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) should be applied. Gruber has called them out for not applying it as consistently as they did in the past.

But regarding the HIG, it seems Gruber has resigned and is now calling the HIG basically defunct.

I think in general, Gruber is not trying to be right/wrong vs Apple, not trying to offer a strong opinion, except in some unusual cases (see: AppStore rejections). Mostly, he is just trying to understand Apple, and to offer his analysis since Apple is famously quiet and other analysts are often clueless as Apple is a bit of an oddball in the corporate world.

Re: Balls

#50

Post by thomholwerda »

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…

Could somebody - for the love of god - FINALLY explain to me where in this quote he is saying they're going to sue other Android phone makers? Because all I'm reading is Motorola explaining IP is going to be a differentiating factor - both in terms of avoiding royalties and collecting them.

The "...from Android phone makers" is added to the "collecting them" by the guy who wrote that article - very disingenuous, and of course, folk like Gruber gobble it up without a second thought. Pathetic.

Post reply on HN