- 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
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...
What you're describing is closer to "they ganged up against us".
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
This says that the deal was 100% about patents and nothing else, which in turn says it wasn't that great of a deal in the first place (considering as they paid a big premium for the patent portfolio).
But assuming that they break their promise to partners and do what apple does too by designing both hardware and software together: it would be a good thing for Google as a phone maker, but a nail on the "Android as open" coffin. I don't think they'll be able to risk a move like this - angering their partners and probably breaking Android up -, which just means that the actual impact this will have on the quality of phones coming from Google and Android as a mobile OS is slim to none.
You got two big cultures coming from completely different parts of the tech world. There is no way that you will get seamless vertical integration that way.
It will allow Google to do that, but I'm sure that's what you meant to say.
In other words, the only reason some people are well known is that they're well known. That kind of fame burns out quickly once people stop paying attention.
don't feed the troll!
Battery life is something Gruber likes to talk about a lot, because the open conversation would point arrows right back at him (and Apple). Flash takes battery life, but be fair. It's true to say I couldn't watch movies in Flash for 6 hours, but I can't play Angry Birds for 4 hours, either. In fact, I don't think there is any application I have on my iPhone that would run for 8, 10, 12 hours (screen on), or whatever ridiculous milestone Flash should single-handedly reach. I think the best I've gotten was 6 hours (screen on) of Internet radio.
Think how much real innovation $20 billion could have created if it weren't for the shitty patent system.
The Skype deal felt like just the same...
I get that Gruber's mainly going after the over-the-top Lyons piece (a piece which strikes me as poorly thought out and terribly argued). But it does seem like this is Gruber's first move toward a pivot away from the importance of patents in Android vs. Everyone.
You know, those patents that Gruber has been trumpeting for weeks now as the death knell of Android.
Just ignore those.
[1]: Or cheaper?: See recoiledsnake's comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890038
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 sour grapes every day.
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.
Only on HN or Reddit is Gruber's pro-Apple stance not the most boring conceivable topic. It's embarrassing to see ostensibly smart people pick it apart, as if it was faceted and nuanced.
I myself love Daring Fireball, because Gruber is an f'ing good writer. But I could give a sh!t about discussing him on HN. Anyone else want to just start flagging these things off the site? Look at these silly comment threads. You'd be doing a lot of people a favor by nipping them in the bud.
Sometime Gruber posts interesting theories or observations, and in that case I'm all about discussing them, but this article is just filler for his core demographic.
"I’m continually impressed by the quality of the comment threads on Hacker News, for example."
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/06/16/powazek-comments
Soon after I started flagging posts from sources I didn't like, my flag links vanished.
It is also about the topic at hand and people defending Gruber's(or Asymco's or Marco's) pro-Apple bias as if it were somehow insightful or interesting.
> It's embarrassing to see ostensibly smart people pick it apart, as if it was faceted and nuanced.
It is more embarassing to see otherwise smart people defend it in the comment threads (eg. people saying that a sales comparison of 20 year old failed consoles with current Android tablets today somehow indicates that those tablet makers will fail and should shut shop instead of trying).
>Anyone else want to just start flagging these things off the site? Look at these silly comment threads. You'd be doing a lot of people a favor by nipping them in the bud.
Who upvotes these stories(beyond the reach of flagging) with shallow analysis favoring Apple anyway? I don't think it's the crowd arguing against Gruber's posts. It is people that think that the analysis worth spreading and discussing about.
This is the reason for the disconnect between the HN commenters and the flame wars. It's just hard for people to understand others almost-bordering-on-religion obsessions and biases.
While you say you'd be fine with banning DF from HN, we all know which segment of HN'ers vote up DF, Asymco and some of Marco's stories here, some of which have very convoluted and shallow arguments/analysis/math which seem cherry picked and tailor-made to prop up one particular company and don't withstand five minutes of reasoned analysis.
The problem is that some of these articles are "something that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" (from the HN guidelines) to a group of people rooting for a company and totally shallow drivel to others, so no wonder it's all a flamefest that isn't going to go away soon.
In fact, I often wish there was a writer with as aserbic a wit and as insightful an analytical mind on the subject of Google (Dan Lyons doesn't qualify, though fake Steve Jobs was pretty funny). Not for the apologia like this piece, but for when writers like Gruber, Marco, and especially John Siracusa are critical of their subject of obsession. The thing I love about Siracusa's podcast (Hypercritical) in particular is that you can really feel true, unadulterated, and unself-conscious devotion to the subject in the unchecked criticism he gives. And I wish that culture existed around Google.
There are plenty blogs that follow Google news in a sort of flat way (9to5google, GoogleOperatingSystem), and Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineLand provides analysis, but it's all on sort of a surface level. (And, Sullivan is great, but I wouldn't call him a great writer so much as a comprehensively knowledgeable one.)
Maybe what I really want is Steven Levy to write a blog for real.
(Note: I try to be the change I want to see in the world, but I don't have the talent, sources, or time to write as well as I'd like. But I do my best. http://blog.byjoemoon.com/ )
You want to analyze Gruber? Look at his writing style, which is clearly influenced by David Foster Wallace. He's a damn good writer! Otherwise, take him for what he is -- an Apple pundit with one part brilliance, two parts vitriol -- and stop worrying about what he said 6 months ago. Pundits reverse themselves constantly.
EDIT: I forgot to mention his taste for design and art. I'm more interested in his take on Kubrick's films than anything he writes about Apple.
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 reasoned analysis. He calls the CEO childish and Android (the largest smartphone OS in the US?) desperate. This feels like a hyperbolic opinion piece. What should I be getting out of this article?
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.
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:
Given the trajectory of Apple, where would the web be in 10 years if Google wasn't throwing everything, and clearly they are doing so, at keeping their platform alive.
Android is about keeping the web a dominant platform as we shift to the next generation of computing.
Google is right to bet the farm on keeping that endeavor alive.
It appears as though they got backed into the corner, but we've never seen Google make a purchase like this.
It's more expensive than usual. And it's not an obvious up-and-comer.
I imagine the #1 thing they could do would be to start picking off staff from both companies to form a super-group to push the hardware into yet unknown territory.
(As a person whose career interests align with Google's I hope the knock it out of the fucking park.)
Say what you will about Gruber and his Apple fanboyism, this rings true to me. By and large, the article seems very astute.
Gruber took a few steps back, somehow saw the hole picture and described it tersely. Maybe one of Gruber's best.
http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-o...
According to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2888292 the real purchase price is closer to $7B, not $12.5B as stated in the article, due to cash and deferred tax assets.
The Nortel patents went for $4.5 billion and this acquisition gives Google both a ton of patents as well as a company with physical assets that makes the Droid line of phones and the Xoom tablets. Not to mention, Google has $40B in cash or short term investments just laying around to be put to use.
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 for 3x the price. So essentially Google got ton of other Motorola stuff (hardware division, cable modem, set top boxes, Android handset software team et.al) for free. Plus so far as I can tell Droid is a pretty well known and fairly successful brand and Motorola's management did the right thing in saving the company from going down under - not exactly misguided. Gruber would perhaps only call them guided if they did not compete with Apple in any way shape or form!
And what did Gruber had to say when Apple spent billions on Nortel patents? Nope not desperation or anything. Just the fact that Google lost was super important and Android was going to be in trouble.
Gruber also leaves us with no insight on what Google could have done better. He also doesn't feel nearly as bad about Google having Apple by the balls on Nortel patents and making them pay good for Nortel patents, as much as he does about Motorola having Google by the balls by just doing what any sane business will do to maximize its valuation. In comparison actually Google got an arguably better deal - 12.5B for 25000 patents, and a whole functional, moderately successful hardware company with diverse business.
P.S. Motorola has done phones long before Apple thought about it. As such they know a whole lot more about the hardware part as I can tell by the signal and voice quality of my Moto phone. Google and you will find many that can make reliable phone calls with Motorola phones when iPhone could never. So dissing Motorola may be fashionable but I think they know better.
Last quarter they sold 4.4 million smartphones, up from 2.7 million the same quarter last year. (If you're more interested in market share as depicted by Asymco's graph then they're growing slightly at around 5% of the smartphone market, compared with say Apple which is growing slightly at around 15%, or Samsung which has gained 15% in the last year to just under 20%.)
Even if you like to play the Asymco game of including dumbphones that don't run Android to make Android look bad, they still increased total phone sales year-on-year, to 11 million, meaning their increased Android sales replaced a smaller number of lost dumbphone sales.
Google spent 12.5B. Motorola has 3B in cash. The stock market thought motorola was worth around 6-7B incl cash (assuming they weren't just factoring in a takeover already).
So google really paid around 6B for the patents, they don't have to do anything to motorola. They can sell all or parts of it, maybe muck around with some of the parts of Motorola other than cell phones. But either way the Nortel auction was 4.5B for JUST patents while google gets a mobile electronics company + patents for its 12B.
And they paid… nearly three times as much...
and a phone company came free?
I don't have the faintest idea whether these patents are of good quality or not, I just wanted to point it out. It's beyond me why so many bright people here on HN think these 25,000 patents might worth the same as (or three times more of) Nortel's patents. They 'might', but we don't know that as a fact. I'd always heard Nortel was strong on patents, but prior to this day I didn't know that Motorola had any patents at all.
Personally I am hoping to hear an announcement of the Xoom 2 as soon as possible.
The buyout can't have been solely for the patents, because Motorola are losing patent battles. It's unlikely that it was just to own a phone manufacturer, because why buy a 3rd rate one at a 60% premium? So why? Because Motorola had Google by the balls and could have further fucked Android up for everyone else.
It's a shame how every discussion of a Daring Fireball article here collapses into 'Gruber is a fanboy', but it's particularly frustrating when it's an insightful article like this one. If he's half as bad as some of you make out, it should be easy to argue the points without resorting to attacking the man.
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" mobile maker. They may be in loss. GOOG is not stupid to shell out 12B "just" for patent portfolio. Always remember GOOG thinks ahead of everyone. People were criticizing GOOG when they made Android open and free. They were criticizing about paying too much money to YouTube (which is on fire now). GOOG is definitely smarter than Gruber.
