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.
