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

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Balls

#51

Post by danilocampos »

fpgeek wrote: post #43
danilocampos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

That point is a clear but unrelated piece of strategy. Apple doesn't want Flash for myriad reasons before you even get to "maybe people wouldn't build as many native apps."

I think you'd get a chuckle from the Apple brass if you asked if they were worried that people would stop building apps if only they had access to Flash. Of course they wouldn't — the UX and fiscal rewards are unbeatable.

Apple creates lock-in all on their own by providing a solid set of developer tools and APIs, along with UI/UX patterns that work really well. You get some great stuff on iOS that's tough to build, and so tough to find, elsewhere. Flash wouldn't change that — it's general purpose, not specialized to the platform.

It's a bit like saying you don't eat sewage because it's bad for your health. I mean, that's true, but the real reason you don't do it is because you find it revolting to the senses. Apple may enjoy strategic benefits from their Flash stance along the lines of what's been described here. But their opposition to it comes from much more high-level, basic concerns.

Re: Balls

#52

Post by Tichy »

It's true that Motorola is not the most exciting handset maker. However, if Google could just get rid of the nonsense and get Motorola to create "pure" devices, some very good things could come out of it. They are certainly capable of it.

Personally I am hoping to hear an announcement of the Xoom 2 as soon as possible.

Re: Balls

#53

Post by oemera »

divtxt wrote: post #47
GHFigs wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

No it's not! Google wanted those patents "to save Android from the competitors" and when didn't get them they just said: "Nah, we didn't want them anyway". Are you kidding me? Who on earth would bid such an amount if they didn't want those patents.

Also no-one wrote a article about the patents beside Google itself. The ones who didn't get shit.

Sorry but if this aren't sour grapes I don't know what is.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Microsoft wanted to gang with Google in the first place but after Google lost they said "they ganged against us". It's just ridiculous.

Re: Balls

#54

Post by couriernew »

progolferyo wrote: post #25
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...

I think speed is often the issue with in-house development. Sure, you could make a pretty good product by spending a few billion dollars, but you won't get it next week. An already established install count has to be worth something too.

Re: Balls

#55

Post by mayanksinghal »

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.

$20 billion? Did I miss a vital piece of news?

Re: Balls

#56

Post by mayanksinghal »

oemera wrote: post #53
divtxt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

No it's not! Google wanted those patents "to save Android from the competitors" and when didn't get them they just said: "Nah, we didn't want them anyway". Are you kidding me? Who on earth would bid such an amount if they didn't want those patents. Also no-one wrote a article about the patents beside Google itself. The ones who didn't get shit. Sorry but if this aren't sour grapes I don't know what is. Edit: I forgot…

This has been stated a lot of times on HN, but anyways :)

1. I think you are mixing deals

2. GOOG accepting MS offer would have been dumb. Google wanted the patents to avoid lawsuits from MS-Apple. Teaming up with them would have meant that these patents are useless against them (I assume that Apple/MS would not have said - okay we team up for now, but you can sue us using these patents later).

3. I am not sure, but a lot of people have quoted that Google has been vocal about the stupidity of patent system even before these deals. Also if I am involved in a deal, I will never speak of it (or the stupidity of it) in public. That again, would be a dumb move. So yes, Google's statement should have arrived after they lost the deal. Also, AFAIK they said that the patents might be useless to them technically, but they needed them for litigation wars.

4. Using Pi*1bil as a bid, is no different than 4bil (Other than the magnitude of course). Not to logical people at least. Yes, lawyers who are not aware of the digits of Pi or shareholders who bought shares of the company X because the saw it climbing a month ago, would feel that, but that's dumb stereotyping of numbers - I would say. In fact, 3.14Bil sounds a lot more cultural and sophisticated to me than 3.1 or 4. But that's probably the geek in me.

5. Yes they paid 3 times more. But they also got 3 times the patents (and these are not licensed to MS!) + 1x times patents in review. In addition they got a manufacturing line they can innovate on and a lot of talent.

Also, MM has 3.5Bil in cash reserves. That means that it's actually 12.5 - 3.5. So, still a better deal, I would say. Then again, that's just a CS student talking - I have no idea what these patents are worth.

Edit: Formatting.

Re: Balls

#57

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

Sour Grapes has a very specific meaning. It's not obvious to me that it's being used correctly here, or in the discussion of the Nortel Patents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes

Re: Balls

#58

Post by cageface »

guywithabike wrote: post #46
recoiledsnake wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

They do if selling phones is a means to a greater end, which it is for Google.

Re: Balls

#59

Post by chanux »

Google picks up nearly three times as many patents as AppleSoft got from Novell and Nortel...

And they paid… nearly three times as much...

and a phone company came free?

Re: Balls

#60

Post by cageface »

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.

The other big non sequitur in this argument is that Apple and Microsoft claim that Android steals their own hard-won inventions but they're buying up other companies' IP to bludgeon Android with.
Post reply on HN