Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamnemecek | Hacker News Reader

I don't get these sorts of articles. The author did not present any sort of argument beyond the implied "because it would be cool". Does he actually think that at no point has it occurred to anyone at Google to buy Twitter? What exactly is he expecting to accomplish with this article? Does he think that after reading this article, some Google fat cats will change their minds?

I should start my own blog. First article will be "Google should buy Uber so that once they roll out driverless cars they already have a customer base".

View on HN

[Do you not know who Michael Arrington is?]

The argument is that Google+ is unsuccessful, and Twitter is, on the other hand. Twitter is booming with growth and is a prime target for Google if their goal is really to own a social network with a high amount of usage and and public knowledge. Google+ is not.

Arrington presents that it would be akin to Google purchasing YouTube even when it had Google Video gaining moderate traction over a slower period of time. Twitter is to YouTube as Google+ is to Google Video.

I do. Does that improve the quality of the article?

Your argument is assuming that Twitter and G+ are comparable products which they are not (unlike YT/Google video). So it's debatable whether Twitter has the same value to Google as a more successful version of G+.

Regardless, is he really expecting that after reading this article, the people who the deciding power at Google will fall to their knees and exclaim "How could we have been so blind? It's so obvious and so genius!"?

Twitter has NEVER made a profit. They can barely monetize their products.

Which makes his youtube analogy more apropos.

Did you intend your question about knowing Mike Arrington in a serious or sarcastic manner? I couldn't tell, though the sarcastic one makes more sense.

I think he presented an argument other than "it would be cool". The post is unlikely to influence the decision makers much if at all. But I don't see any downside to the post. You could write your thing about Uber (which is kind of lame) and I don't think anyone would care.

It was a sarcastic suggestion to suggest that you could take the combination of any large company and any startup and write an article "$LARGE_COMPANY should buy $STARTUP".

Except, counter to your assertion, several other actual arguments were made:

- People care about Twitter, but not Google+

- Twitter has achieved the "network effect"

- Twitter could be a hedge against Facebook

- Combined with Google's data needs, the value could be much higher to Google than the price

Nowhere does it suggest "because it would be cool". All of those are concrete arguments.

Also, you seem irritated at the perceived pretentiousness of the idea that Arrington might think Google will listen.

I don't think that's the point at all. I can't put words in Arrington's mouth, but he's been writing his own thoughts about the industry -- both reflection and speculation -- for years. I'm sure part of the reason he does it is to simply create a conversation -- like we are having here.

Those who can't, blog.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com