Sergey Brin: Facebook and Apple a threat to Internet freedom | Hacker News Reader

Sergey Brin: Facebook and Apple a threat to Internet freedom

news.cnet.com

88 pointsgamebit07104 comments

Despite everyone else seemingly being on the opposite side here, I agree with Brin.

Google allow you basic functionality over your own data with them, such as the freedom to migrate to other services, which Facebook and Apple restrict (and profit from).

And he is right that when companies horde user information and then control access to it (for profit) rather than provide it freely, it stifles innovation [though Google themselves do a little of this too].

I'm sure that Google could be doing a lot more to screw everybody's personal information for profit if they chose to, but they dont because they have at least some respect for the common user (though they are not perfect either).

Also, as a side issue, the original (guardian) article is very poor in the sense that the journalist imposes their own narrative on top of what Brin is saying.

I agree, new start-ups like mine (or Pinterest, Google) benefit from an open web. however all of them/us after going strong, we want to create a walled garden. Assuming that openness wins at the end, the whole idea is to keep the openness as a feature not as a starting point.

The original guardian article is pretty poor (not much of an "interview", it's pretty much just a regular story with a few quotes from Brin in it), but both the Wired article and this cnet article are really playing up the Facebook/Apple thing (and maybe that's why those stories are on the front page and the guardian article isn't). Notice, for instance, no mention of Facebook or Apple before the "it's scary" quote in the guardian article, but cnet makes it seem like he's referring specifically to them when he said that.

On your larger point, I have to agree. If you think about preserving a universally accessible, open web, balkanized data in proprietary app datastores and a privately controlled internet within the internet are definitely two big threats (of course, China's censorship and Iran shutting down internet access and making their own are probably bigger threats, but that doesn't make for page views).

Private data should remain private, but requiring a particular app, or a Facebook account, or a google+ account, to view what is supposed to be public content does actively work against the open web.

Can we please stop with the misinformation.

As it stands today. Facebook has more complete APIs and is much easier to get your data from them than Google+.

And don't forget that Google makes significantly more profit from its users than Facebook does.

> Facebook has more complete APIs and is much easier to get your data from them than Google+.

Can you please quantify this?

They probably mean this: https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=116481065103985

It doesn't look like the Google+ APIs provide anything even slightly as comprehensive, for now.

Of course, what Brin is complaining about isn't that Facebook won't give your data to _you_; it's that they've been reticent about giving it to Google.

he said what he's really talking about: you can get email addresses out of gmail but not out of facebook.

Given the age of g+, it will take a little time before it reaches FB levels, I'd think.

There is a real threat, but Google could answer to it in a much better way: By positioning Google Plus as "the open web alternative to Facebook". To do so, they should make G+ the identity/social graph platform on which third parties want to base their own services instead of FB connect. I'm sure they could do that, because Google can profit from people going around in the web, while FB needs to keep people as much as possible inside its walled garden.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like G+ is moving towards that direction.

It would be nice, though it would be even better if we could settle on a more federated model (like Mozilla's BrowserID).

The lack of success with previous federated ID systems isn't encouraging, however.

In theory, I agree that a federated approach would be more desirable. But in practice that looks even more difficult to do right.

For a counterpoint, my company is one of the larger players in our field measured in terms of user numbers, but we have zero visibility in Google on anything but brand searches. We survive in part thanks to decent visibility through Apple and Facebook where word-of-mouth recommendation actually works because the recommendation networks are human-powered.

If the aim is promoting a healthy online ecosystem, Google is a greater threat to startups than either Apple or Facebook in the sense that it is heavily biased against new entrants, and encourages a competitive equilibrium in most markets which encourages the gaming of its search algorithms by actors working in bad faith. Google meanwhile insists that the ranking problems of good sites are the fault of webmasters rather than its own problems measuring site quality, focus and user engagement.

The problem here is with Google, not with Facebook or Apple.

It's so easy to blame others for our failures. If Google's unable to capitalize on their social strategy with G+, they better get back to the drawing board and stop blaming companies that simply have a different business model than theirs.

I think what Brin is highlighting here is a problem in those 2 companies. Mentioning other problems that Google itself has doesn't take away from those companies having openness issues. Please stay on topic.

It is on topic - Google has the exact same openness issues that these other companies have, and yet Brin fails to mention this.

If you had to rank them, Google would be the lesser of the offenders.

Even more so, considering the vast amount of information they DO have.

That doesn't make it any less hypocritical when they attacking others for doing it.

If they think it's a problem they should stop doing it themselves.

Come now, that's hardly fair - you are asking them to unilaterally open their doors And be open with their data, while the others would obviously not reciprocate.

Your standard for credibility ensures the speakers suicide, at which point there is no conversation to be had because the remaining players don't give a damn.

How do you suggest they go about handling this?

Edited for brevity.

I suggest they acknowledge that business realities are driving them to do the same thing but that it would be better for everyone if they could find a way to cooperate.

Painting themselves as somehow superior while they engage in the same behavior doesn't seem likely to engender trust.

Huh? Yes, google is the usual way that people search for sites on the internet, but in the end it's just an index and search engine for other people's content.

You've posted before about your troubles with SEO and google, but remember that ranking is inherently unfair, and there's no reason that new entrants should have any ranking advantage just because they are new. Word of mouth is also heavily biased against new entrants but there is no bad actor there.

I still think there's no such thing as a perfect ranking algorithm. There is an argument here about the internet becoming ossified, but it's not clear to me that google is being an active bad actor here.

Google is not just an index and search engine for other people's content.

It also provides a range of services e.g. news, maps, social networking which it preferentially sorts above others. If you were trying to compete in these markets you would be at a disadvantage.

That is exactly what makes them vulnerable to losing out to competition.

Have a look at this app :http://itunes.apple.com/in/app/shazam/id284993459?mt=8

What does it do? Given a music sound input it will give you the exact and song and all metadata related to it.

This kind of apps are the biggest threat to Google. Because they do vertical search far too well. And too many apps like this cut off oxygen bit by bit on the longer run making you vulnerable. Facebook realized this, hence they acquired Instagram.

The thing about Apple and Facebook is they allow such kind of apps to not just thrive but also remain profitable through their platform. I am sure a lot of iPhone apps have eaten into the potential of Google products. Apple's platforms are becoming start up incubators. The same with Facebook. This is the biggest threat. Because they are setting the momentum in a very different direction.

Now imagine, if something like Apple consumer TV brings this platform to every living room. I bet that is going to really hurt Google a lot.

Again, there's an argument there for reinforcing incumbency, but just because something is the second result on a page and so doesn't get the traffic it would if it were first is not equivalent to removing it from the internet (in terms of this topic, at least).

I'm not sure I understand your point. I was just trying to point out what I think is obvious to a lot of founders but was missing from the article: right now both Facebook and Apple offer a much better distribution channel than Google for products and services that compete on merit and word-of-mouth.

As long as Google is putting sites with no word-of-mouth or inbound links on its front page and positioning itself as a champion of the imperiled developer, I don't see what is wrong with developers pointing out that Facebook and Apple are in fact more supportive. There are much greater and more opaque barriers to getting traffic from Google than from either Apple or Facebook.

If Google wants a healthier Internet, it should figure out how it is contributing and retarding the dynamism of the sector. As is, this piece is feel-good self-puffery and Sergey and the Guardian deserve to be called out on it.

You can get your website recommended the same you get your app, through word of mouth. I don't understand the difference.

After having my Google account suspended because I made a stupid mistake when creating a YOUTUBE account, and all my appeals (with my ID) denied until I chose to have my CC charged (what would happen if I had an Android ? ).

After having my Adsense banned without warning, with money cancelled and no (real) appeal feasible.

It opened my eyes and I really want to move away from Google more than Facebook (which has only stupid data about me) or Apple (which I don't use any product).

I use more than 10 Google services that are somewhat critical to me and now that I have the feeling that it can be blocked anytime it has become very uncomfortable.

Sure, let's all kill the messenger, he has selfish intentions. But let's also consider the message.

There would be no Wikipedia today if Microsoft would have control over its ecosystem back then in the way Apple does today.

Wikipedia was a direct competitor to one of Microsofts Products. They would have simply rejected it to make us buy Microsoft Encarta on DVD.

There would probably be no internet at all. Don't fight Netscape or Firefox. Just reject them.

I'm sure that with Apple's declining and certainly minority market share in one form of computing (cell phones), that would be the biggest issue here? When the web is fully accessible on these devices, and something like Wikipedia can and was created there?

Google could also be more open:

- They introduced 'rel author' HTML attribute to assign authors to web-content. Despite being an OpenID provider, they only allow you to 'verify' with a Google+ profile. This doesn't feel much like the 'open web'.

- Google+ isn't crawlable from the outside. (just like Facebook isn't).

- The Facebook API allow a user to 'connect' with a site so they can pass data back and forth. Google+ does not.

- Google search now strips your search term from the referrer header so webmasters cannot analyse the data. They state privacy as the reason, yet will sell you the data if you pay via Adsense!

Google are great company, who have done some awesome stuff and been a positive force for the internet. However, since Page took the helm they seem to have changed direction somewhat.

"First thing I'd say to Brin, if you're sincere in your concern for the open web, why aren't you leading it?" -- Dave Winer

https://twitter.com/#!/davewiner/status/191579280034103296

Winer put this whole debate succinctly.

Hypocritical comments like this often seem to stem from one of two things: a desire to drum up needless press conflict or a complete lack of self-awareness. Perhaps Google has gotten the best of itself and in their all-consuming "must be, er, kill Facebook" dogma not realized that they are likely more a threat to privacy and openness as those they criticize.

The problem may essentially be that Brin is now too close to the whole situation to see the problem as it really is, that in his head what's right for Google and what's right for the internet are too closely linked.

Obviously there are two things here regardless of who you are - what you think is "good for" the internet and what you think is helping and hindering it. Brin's view is predicated on a particular view of the first point - what's good for the internet which is (for obvious reasons) very similar to Google's own view.

But any view on what's helping and what's hindering has to be viewed in terms of what you actually see as good for the internet.

Pot, kettle?

All popular internet services used to be designed in a distributed fashion, with no central servers, no single point of failure and no single organization to tell you whether you get access or not.

Then came Google.

Did you have something in mind for how a modern design of such systems would work?

The better question is, why are people wasting their time trying to invent a federated Facebook instead of a federated Google? People already have lots of ways to share pictures of their cats. But they only have one way to find information on the internet, and if the people running that monopoly did something like compromise the quality of that service to promote their sharing-cat-pictures product, we'd be screwed.

And yet better still, why implement a federated anything when you can hypothetically have a framework off of which you can spawn a whole host of distributed integrated web services.

Or maybe that's just impossible, haven't really done the research.

>But they only have one way to find information on the internet

That isn't remotely true. There are dozens of alternatives; Google's simply better. That said, the difference in quality is not so pronounced as it used to be.

You can still get access to the internet without Google. I do not get your point.

Search is a popular internet service, of which Google is the primary, and for most people, only entry point. Unlike other internet services, such as Usenet or the web or email, there's a single actor that controls the vast majority of search. What's more, this actor will arbitrarily stop listing legitimate websites without explanation, they maintain little to no customer service force to deal with the cases where they mess up, and they seem to not care whatsoever.

AOL preceded Google by a large margin, and was much, much worse for the Internet. Google has its problems, but it has been by far a net positive.

google have slowly been rebuilding AOL's walled garden for five years now. if anything, they're jealous apple and facebook beat them to it

You can't simply name Google a walled garden and expect the moniker to reflect reality. Android apps can be acquired anywhere, and most Google services allow you to export your data. Compare that to needing to jailbreak an iPhone to download an app Apple doesn't like, or the complete inability to get your data from facebook.

Google might not be FSF open, but it's far better than those it criticizes.

Like this, you mean? https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=116481065103985

It's certainly not a complete copy of everything referencing you in their database, and it only includes information you entered (not friends' details), but it does exist.

Doesn't FB keep shadow information as well? Information onpeople who,likely exists, but aren't on FB yet?

So how do those people get their info out?

FACT: Facebook allows you to get all your data. Google+ doesn't.

As at least two other comments have responded to you

https://www.google.com/takeout

AOL predates the modern commercial internet. Heck, the first HTTP spec came out 8 or so years after the company started and in the same year they named themselves America Online. Picking on them for not grokking the internet is a bit facile for my liking.

I'm not picking on them; I'm saying their approach to the Internet was similar to Apple's, and the antithesis of Google's.

Also, while they may have predated the web (not Internet), they still acted in direct opposition to it.

They did predate the modern commercial internet. Commercial ISPs didn't appear till the late 80s (at best) and AOL started in ~81. In that context they're a weak example to cite.

Did you a thallus create an account just to respond to me? I didn't think our exchange was so contentious as to merit a new account.

Kinda sick of hearing this. I mean, you've been able to download an archive of everything you've posted to Facebook for awhile now. The Facebook APIs are way more built-out than the Google+ APIs. And here are like a billion other web sites out there that only make information available after logging in and so also qualify as walled gardens, but apparently aren't worthy of criticism.

Meh.

you can't download/export your social graph.

Am I missing something here? All the pontifications around threats to Internet Freedom and the oft-referenced perils of walled gardens aside, where is Google going here? Where's the revenue?

How is Google going to compete going forward, and with what? With Google+? Google Wallet? GMail? Google Play? Google Glasses? Are these offerings growing (fast) enough to support Google? How do they recoup their investments in these and other projects?

What will Google do as the search market becomes increasingly commoditized and specialized and, yes, fragmented? The ever-present walled gardens are just one part of this. It appears likely that the flagship Google apps and services will become increasing commoditized, and available from existing providers such as Rackspace and Amazon, or entrants such as HP Cloud and Microsoft Windows Azure? By providers that might choose to offer better customer support, for instance.

How is Google going to continue to provide a platform for their advertisements, when queries are being fed (from apps and tools and walled gardens) more directly to specific (and tailored) hosts and search engines; with queries directly connected into Yelp, LinkedIn, Wolfram Alpha?

How are they going to recoup their investments in the Android platform? Chrome? With their investments in browser search boxes?

Certainly this whole effort involves speeches and press releases and related marketing, but I don't see the platforms and the updates and the new sources of revenues that the Google folks need to be investing in; not at the scale that they need to maintain themselves. Walled gardens have and will continue to happen and tech markets can and will fragment, particularly if the results cater to the end-users and provide sufficient the revenues for the vendors.

TL;DR: What's Google doing about their risk for disintermediation?

Now that they've shown everyone how valuable data is, probably the only thing they can do is to start to pay for it and take a hit to profitability.

He may have a valid point to certain extent regarding a controlling nature of those two firms, but if I look at last 10 years, I see more innovation out of Apple than Google, and even in it's controlled way Apple through iOS has driven more innovation (Instagram?)

Some of you may be a fan of Apple but I do not think one can deny the quality of innovation that has come from Apple vs. lack there from Google. I am talking about innovation that change the way we live.

Supposed innovation doesn't excuse what they're being accused of here.

All they seem to be being "accused" of is not giving data for free to Google to sell advertising against.

> not giving Google to sell advertising against.

Fair enough - Google sells advertising against data which they search and index, which is publicly available.

As opposed to Apple and Facebook, where you have to join a system that holds your personal data under their lock and key, before getting to access data that they will sell advertising against.

And everything in their ecosystem is not publicly available.

EDIT: Reducing the data to "goog just wants to sell against FB and APP data", is to reduce many major issues into irrelevancies, which is incorrect. Its not about 'just selling ads'.

It's only 'under lock and key' if you are Google.

For Google it is very much about selling ads. That's their business.

The data is obviously worth a lot of money to Google, and yet they want it to be given to them for free.

That seems like an unrealistic expectation now that the market understands how valuable data is.

Really? Google circa 2002 had nothing but the search engine. You call Gmail, maps, youtube, docs, analytics, cal and Android "lack of innovation"?

how is that at all relevant?

I think Brin is being somewhat of a hypocrite.

User data should roam freely between services and shouldn't be locked-in.

But asking Facebook and Apple to open-up their core products is like asking Google to publish their search algorithm or publish the profiles of all their advertisers.

> asking Facebook and Apple to open-up their core products is like asking Google to publish their search algorithm

Nobody ask Facebook to open-source their algorithm or other fabrication secrets. What we should be asking them is to allow users to choose to open doors in the walls.

I, as a Facebook user, would much prefer getting the few baby pics I receive there from some friends directly into any "social content client" of my choice. I wrote something about it there: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104035200377885758362/posts/EWjN...

I am no Apple product user, but if I was I would require Apple to allow me to have full ownership on the files I store on the gadget, and I would require to be allowed to install manually any app I choose to install, however "harmful" it may be to my user experience.

Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

> Nobody ask Facebook to open-source their algorithm or other fabrication secrets.

No, but Google isn't interested in algorithms. Facebook's main asset are user profiles and Google wants to use them free of charge in order to sell more ads. No sane company is going to share its main asset with other companies, let alone free of charge.

Now Google is playing the "everything should be open" card to make Facebook and Apple look bad and force them to share their main asset. But has Google opened-up their main asset?

Unless they open-up their search algorithm, Google's main asset, they shouldn't be blaming other companies for not being open.

That's why I think Brin is a hypocrite. And user data should be free to roam despite everyone's stance.

How is Apple a threat to the open web? They don't even DO web... At worst they make it possible to write (walled in) native clients that perform better than a browser for specific tasks.

On the contrary I think Apple has had a possitive effect on the web:

1. Most of those native clients use public Web-APIs

2. The iOS platform was one of the kick-starters to get rid of the closed Flash environment

3. And one of the kick-starters for better video standards, h264

Maybe Brin mentioned Apple to generate more headlines.

Further, I don't think they are interested in controlling it because it's really really hard. Their web strategy has been to push open standards. They can't reasonably curate it or control it in any meaningful way. So they probably want to level the playing field and then deliver the best possible experience they can.

That would be the best stance for every party to have. Nobody controls the internet.

So your biggest argument that Apple is pro-web is that instead of choosing a proprietary plugin they chose a proprietary codec? That's not a very big improvement at all, at least not in terms of "openness", though it is an improvement in performance.

Still if they really wanted to support an open web, they'd support WebM.

> they chose a proprietary codec

A codec which no single party controls and is free for anyone to include in their video decoders.

> not in terms of "openness"

I'm not claiming Apple is "open" and nor is Apple. The one who is claiming to be open is Google, or Brin to be more specific.

> they'd support WebM.

At the time of writing, WebM is still not an option for mobile devices as it lacks support for hardware acceleration. Playing a WebM video on a mobile device would drain the battery at an unacceptable rate.

The only party claiming to be "open" is Google. And to the untrained eye Google looks very "open" with all its open-source projects. While both Facebook and Apple have their own open-source projects.

But these open-source projects don't necessarily make a company any more open than its competitors as long as their main asset stays closed:

- Google's main asset is search, closed - Apple's main asset is the iOS platform, closed - Facebook's main asset are the user profiles, closed

And now Brin is blaming Facebook for not opening-up the user profiles.

Aha! Ever heard of a thing called Siri?

Siri is shifting importance from 'search' to 'finding information' + many other things.

Google knows this damn well, 'search' and 'finding information' are really two different things. As things move on from text based search. Voice based, image based search are really going to be very important in the future.

No doubt apple is being perceived as a threat.

Do people really use Siri (except to demo it) ?

I don't know as I don't own an iPhone.

But the concept itself is frightening to Google. It can enable searching when you are driving, taking a shower or whenever you can't use your hands to search. And a great deal of people come into that category.

And it can be a big thing in the future. And going by Apple's reputation they can leverage it to some amazing things.

Imagine a consumer Apple TV. TV's can't have keyboards but they can have a mike. Imagine finding information through speech. That can really be a killer feature, searching and finding information by just talking through a TV connected to the Internet.

Now this is just tip of the iceberg. Siri can be disruptive in almost device/scenario where a keyboard is not a practical source of input. Going by how small things are getting, Siri is the thing of the future.

While that might or might not be viewed as a threat, it's nothing to do with the "open web" one way or the other.

I think vast majority of the people in this thread believe the "open web" thingy is just a marketing ploy.

Google is no more Open than Facebook or Apple.

I believe the idea is that Apple encourage apps which forces data into proprietary silos rather than leaving it on the web in forms that might are potentially more open.

It's a fair (though hardly killer) point but if he was really going to push it that hard he might need to explain away Google's own app store, the second largest one on the web I believe.

You know who I feel sorry for? Microsoft -- who doesn't even rate as being a threat to the internet...

Well, Gates did feel that this whole 'Internet' thing was a fad. They're preparing to be a major player in the post-Internet era.

Might be that the joke went over my head, but can you specify post-Internet ?

there isn't. Not in the foreseeable future, hence microsoft, a power ONCE to be reckoned with , once king of the technology mountain will have to sit on the sidelines and prepare for the next "big thing" in technology ... whatever that may be.

As it stands now, unless they get their act together quick smart, they have missed the boat on many different things internet related of which they could have ALREADY dominated if they didn't think the internet was just a fad.

May be do an IBM and go after niche markets that pay well?

I hate to say this, but they have an good research department. Some products, like the kinnect aren't half bad. They may not make the billions a year they do now, but they sure as hell can go do something useful and awesome than be jerks going around suing people.

I don't think Microsoft's primary worry is Internet business at the moment.

Their primary worry is mobile computing, and Android and iOS seem to ruling at the moment, the future is really bleak for Microsoft. And they want some internet services like search, news and email ready when they actually make it big in mobile areas(If at all they every make it big).

So at max MS would be looking at internet services as a catalyst to be ready to get into the reaction at the right time.

Gates initially wrote in his book "The Road Ahead" that the Internet was merely a pit-stop on the way to the 'real' information superhighway[1] (which I think he thought was their MSN product, though I'm not quite sure).

[1] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Gates#What_about_.22T...

Was Microsoft ever a serious threat to the open Internet? At worst, they gave us IE6.

Poor MS has even lost its Archenemy of Free Software badge to Apple.

There was MSN, which was a walled garden that did not even run IP.

Openness and freedom are really subjective terms to people.

The common person doesn't give two hoots about all this. Just like how we don't give a damn about openness in the design of car or a truck engine or the chemical composition of engine oil.

I don't get this cry at all. Your data was never personal. The day you used your cell phone your location could be tracked and was tracked I suppose(Even if for merely billing reasons). The day you shopped you were giving away information on your buying habits, spending trends and contributing data to larger data sets used by corporates. All that happened by merely using a credit card.

Nearly everything related to a person is track-able.

But do you know what is bigger threat today? Its massively big monopolies controlling everything about a particular business like online advertising, payments and access to information(search).

According to me that is a bigger threat. Coming to openness of computers in terms of hack ability. For a common man a computer is no different compared to a washing machine. And people don't tear down their washing machines to hack on it. Just like how we don't hack our cars and mixer grinders.

And there is basically nothing wrong with that.

I find this funny considering you need to login with a google account to view public Google+ posts (even though they appear in the SERPs).

When did that happened? I can access public posts without being logged in with no problem.

Facebook, on the other hand, tells me that I can't continue if I don't log in (although I can just cancel the message, and continue reading).

There was a thread a while ago with a google engineer taking bug reports on this. At the time both iOS and Android browsers were redirecting to a login page (on Android you could request the desktop version of the page and it wouldn't prompt you to log in). Since then you no longer get redirected on Android, but maybe it hasn't been fixed in mobile safari?

Or go through a redirection page for most of the top Google search results. Just a matter of time before that starts to be further tweaked.

Oh, and, incidentally, to Google, too ;-)

I think this title is not what Brin was saying. He said government, Apple and Facebook are threats to the 'Open Web'. The web and the internet are totally different things.

Brin acknowledges that the data is valuable. It belongs to other people. Google makes enormous revenue from it. Perhaps it's time for them to start paying for it.

How?

Also, remove google, let's say they collapse, then what? new altavistas? Bings?

And we should now have them pay websites to let them index them?

So that those websites can be found and hence survive?

Isn't google helping those people by letting people find the data in the first place?

I didn't say anything about removing Google. That's a bit of a strawman.

We're not talking about marginal websites that, by your reasoning are dependent on Google for survival.

We're talking about businesses that have accumulated large amounts of valuable data such as FaceBook. The value of being searchable through Google is clearly not enough to persuade them to provide access to their data.

Integration is worth more to Google than it is to Facebook. When this situation arises in business, often the one who values the resource more makes a deal that involves paying money to the one who has the resource they want.

and google is not?

"You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive."

Applies to Google just as well. The more they talk, the more disrespect they earn, seriously.

When Android companies like HTC, Samsung were on a losing side of patent litigations, Google claimed "patents are wrong, hurt innovation" -- and look at the very same people squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio now, when they have some.

Announcing Google+? "Sharing on the web is broken". Yeah, right.

Now this, too. IMO Google poses much more substantial threat to the Interwebs than Apple, while also being 20% more assholes.

> Google claimed "patents are wrong, hurt innovation" -- and look at the very same people squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio now, when they have some.

How is Google squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio? By defensively protecting themselves against offensive patent suits?

Since you're on Hacker News, I believe in your ability to search the web (using Google or otherwise).

> defensively protecting themselves

Not everyone agrees with your point of view, to say the least:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/after-apple-microsoft-als... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/eu-opens-two-antitrust...

As both stories note, Google's purchase has not been completed yet. Read harder next time?

That's a red herring. Google could easily have asked them to desist from this policy while the acquisition was closing. Executives at Motorola know who their new boss is going to be and are acting accordingly.

Do you have anything to back that up? (especially the assertion that they "are acting accordingly").

My last look at the agreement[1] the last time this came up did not come across a provision for that sort of thing (especially before it was even approved by the justice department), but it's been a while. In the meantime, Motorola's board certainly can and will act as the want, good ideas be damned.

[1] http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1495569/00011931251122580...

I don't need data to back up a commonly held observation - people are influenced by those who they have to answer to. Are you really disputing that?

As for the idea that they can and will act as they want - that's obviously not true. For example, what if they decided to sue the other Android licensees as they threatened to do before the acquisition?

Do you think the person who decided to do that would have a great future once the acquisition was completed?

They probably mean Motorola's extremely aggressive behaviour; the two high-profile Motorola suits aren't defensive, in that Motorola sued first. The Apple one was initiated long before the Google acquisition, and is thus nothing much to do with Google (though Google have said they'll continue to look for the frankly insane terms Motorola wants); however, the Microsoft one was initiated during the acquisition process; it'd be normal for Google to have some control over litigation at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com