Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#771

Post by tooltalk » Sun, Nov 03, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #767

tooltalk wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing that they evaluated the patents before Motorola got preliminary injunction against Apple. IIRC, fewer than 2-3% of all patents actually survive and are upheld in patent trials, so they are not probably wrong when they say 48% of Moto's patents are worthless, but that isn't saying much. Take for instance, Apple's design and utility patents asserted against Samsung in Germany. All, 100%, of their patent an…

It’s estimated that Microsoft made more from each Android phone sold via patent licenses than Google. Apple sued Samsung not for the Android parts but for the design of the phones.

Wrong. Apple also sued Samsung for Android core features, but no infringement was found.

Microsoft was a tiny iceberg and exemplified what could have happened to Android. Samsung was reportedly paying close to $1B for a couple of years, until MS bought Nokia.

Google effectively neutered Apple's patent trolling operation by threatening to expose the troll's true motive, and prevented potential threat from Moto patent portfolio by preemptively purchasing it -- on the cheap.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#772

Post by rodgerd » Sun, Nov 03, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

aerique wrote: post #754

rodgerd wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sunday is a random associate product manager who somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome to somehow becoming CEO. Chrome has monopolized not just the Internet[1], but is in the process of monopolising desktop dev thanks to the success of Electron. Of course those are good credentials to end up in charge of Google. [1] As far as most people are concerned, their browser is the Internet.

I have no idea why you are downvoted.

Anything less than violent enthusiasm about Google leveraging their Chrome monopoly tends to go down badly here.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#773

Post by frankzen » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:34 PM UTC

If there was any decent level of customer support at Fitbit, users can say goodbye to that.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#774

Post by frankzen » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:37 PM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #693

troyastorino wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is not a democracy — it is a constitutional republic with democratic elements. America has democratic election of representatives, the the lawmaking is done by those representatives, not directly. California’s proposition system is an example of true direct democracy. The constitutional part is important too — it limits what people, and their representatives, can do even if they have a majority.

> America is not a democracy — it is a constitutional republic with democratic elements. People like to say this all the time like it's clever, but being a republic does not preclude being democratic. The United States is a democracy.

Electoral college, bruh. Not a true democracy.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#775

Post by frankzen » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:38 PM UTC

1000units wrote: post #725

w1nst0nsm1th wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time I heard this stupid argument, that was from a literal neo-nazi who has a svatiska tattoo on his chest. You elect you president ; you elect your representatives to congress and senate at federal level ; you elect your representatives and governor at state level ; you elect your mayor and your city council at local level. That's the definition of democracy.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're in the wrong country if you don't like constitutional republics, because the United States of America is in fact a constitutional republic. I very much dislike neo-nazis, but I have to applaud the gentleman for at least understanding the simplest nature of his government and attempting to educate his countrymen.

Imagine that. Downvoting correct answer. Did I somehow end up on Reddit?

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#776

Post by JohnFen » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

baot wrote: post #674

JohnFen wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when I see so much targeted advertising that fails to leverage the data they already have. Targeted advertising is far from the only thing Google wants data for.

Well advertising is over 80% of their Q32019 revenue, what else do they want it for?

Research.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#777

Post by hlmencken » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

sundvor wrote: post #687

aaron_m04 wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they’re desperately trying not to be microsoft, even though that’s what they mostly are. Mostly because Microsoft became more like Google in recent years. :P

You mean old Google ? They're doing some seriously good things in the dev space.

They are embracing a lot of technologies because that is how they gain market share and then extinguish them.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#778

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #522

closetohome wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend of mine decided to go phoneless -- borrowed an iPhone 6S from his QC department and used it to activate an Apple Watch, which is now his sole mobile device.

The Apple Watch cellular requires an active phone subscription to pair with it.

[deleted]

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#779

Post by punchclockhero » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:23 PM UTC

Merrill wrote: post #106

me_me_me wrote: post #54

And here I was considering getting fitbit... Could anyone suggest an alternative? I really have no trust that google will keep promise not to use the data. edit: thanks all, I have too look into it all back home.

Garmin vívosmart® 4.

I'm split between the Garmin and Mi Band 4. The stress tracking features on the vivosmart really tempt me, but I'm concerned about the irreplaceable band and the whole change in ecosystem as I currently use an old model Mi Band.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#780

Post by _ea1k » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #570

_ea1k wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Uber is not doing that at all. They do make a gross profit on each ride. Its more like asking if you were successful if you were generating a lot of revenue by selling people dollar bills for $1.15/each, but losing money because of very high operations costs. The answer would be "it depends".

Yes and WeWork was profitable when you use their made up metric "Community Adjusted Ebitda". Isn't that true for every money losing company? They make money as long as you ignore expenses? The usual retort is "our addressable market that we have only started to penetrate will allow us to have a large enough marginal profit to cover our fixed cost". But isn't that also in the pitch deck of every startup looking for fu…

There is a lot of truth to that, and that is a big part of what makes it so difficult to filter out the companies that are criticized legitimately from the ones that are criticized wrongly.

I've been around long enough to recognize that the criticisms often look virtually identical for both cases, so you really have to do a lot of the legwork yourself.

The one thing that I'm confident of with Uber is that they take in more from me as a customer than they pay the driver. Is it enough more to build a sustainable business? Considering the volumes and margin, one would hope so, and frankly I find it hard to understand how their spending is so high. But I've never tried to do the math...