taway990
He is simply pointing out that in the light of a much, much larger than standard break-up fee someone in the deal (Motorola) must have concerns about it being approved. You don't tack on a 'ohhh and by the way if this doesn't go through you still owe us 2.5 billion' just for fun, and Google doesn't agree to it because they are such swell guys.
His remarks about using search to subsidize below/at-cost competition is a legitimate concern for a competitiveness perspective. It is one of the things that got Microsoft in trouble (http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-0002856...), specifically the part of leveraging cross-subsidies to avoid having to worry about financial success of an unrelated product (see: Android) and using said lack of concern to smother your competitors ability to make money/drive them out of business.
I personally don't know how this whole thing will play out, but I would strongly suspect Google's mobile channel partners (the ones licensing Android + paying Google a fee for use of their stack on said devices) are NOT thrilled with the idea that the one licensing them the technology has now become a possible competitor. They may say one thing in public, through their PR agents, but I strongly doubt any of them like this turn of events.
They (Google) seem to believe they will be able to do what few if any companies historically have been able to do. Buy a large, established business in an area they are not expert in then run it as an isolated entity within their larger organization. Sounds good on paper, doesn't tend to work out so cleanly in real life with all the complexities that arise. We shall see, assuming the deal goes through.
Openness, unless of course you are talking about the one thing that brings them money, that is surprisingly not open...I am sure it is just a coincidence...ohhh, no wait, it is for the 'good' of the end user, I forgot. Luckily for them it happens to also work out perfectly since it is their dominant source of income.
People's blind belief that Google's motivation is solely the good of the world is amazing, especially for people that claim they are objective.
That has been true in most every version of VS I have used...almost like Resharper itself sucks from a software engineering point...hmmmm
>Crashes every 30 mins or so. Using SP1.
Try taking off Resharper. I hate how Visual Studio is so unguarded against poorly written components / extensions, but it is. The single biggest point of slowness / crashes I have ever seen is in third party crap, they just figure you'll blame Visual Studio so they don't care.