Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 233 posts

Re: Bullshit

#201

Post by drivebyacct2 »

huhtenberg wrote: post #179
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Google is "bad" because they provide a lot of really good services that are also well integrated? How dare they!

Ask yourself - why is Google actively trying to become a major provider of webfonts? They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creating a wide variety fonts - both original and knock-offs. Fonts that then they are offering for free. The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in o…

I'm glad you ended it with rant, because this is the exact brand of FUD I was referring to.

>The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used.

All of those fonts are freely downloadable. Nothing about them requires you to go through Google (and is in fact impossible due to how webfonts work).

Further, do you have ANY evidence that G+ is tracking non-loged in users?

Also, I'm pretty sure the privacy policy of... ANY webmail client (save for self or ISP hosted) is going to violate such a policy, and I still find it completely irrelevant in a discussion of Google being dangerous.

Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS?

Re: Bullshit

#202

Post by jrockway »

riffraff wrote: post #75
jrockway wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be that hard. You're one MX record change away from changing your mailhost without anyone ever knowing. You can continue using your gmail.com address without ever seeing ads by connecting with IMAP. You can get maps from anywhere, including Open Street Map. You can move your photos from Picassa to your own machine and to Flickr, if you desire. Google Chat is XMPP, so you can get a new "chat pro…

I believe you are arguing against something I didn't posit. Google certainly has a lecit business and has gained success because of good products, and it's easy to "liberate" a lot of data. My point was that while changing search engine is easy: * migrating all your data is way harder * opting out of some google online services (e.g. maps) does not free me from third parties relying on them (e.g. android, iphone) * I…

So your complaint is that other people use Blogger blogs, so you can't opt out of Google? That's interesting, but it seems like what you really want is to opt out of tracking in general. Google tracks you, sure, but so do a bunch of shade-ball sites you've never heard of. Why would you trust a company you've never heard of over a company that actively lets you opt out of tracking and migrate away from their services?

I don't think you need to email yourself web pages, but I do think you need to use Tor or some other anonymous HTTP proxy. If you are paranoid about the "paper trail" that browsing the web leavers, then you need to take measures to make that paper trail less useful. Complaining about "lock in" to services that other people uses, though, is just confusing the issue; the Internet has never let you choose what service providers other people use, and you will have to live with that.

Re: Bullshit

#203

Post by drivebyacct2 »

jballanc wrote: post #166
notatoad wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, OSX is not open. you can't take the published source code and compile it into a useable copy of OSX. you can take the published android source code and create a useable copy of android from it. the entire operating system is there. android is open source. the people criticizing android for not being open are either lying, or have forgotten that we have moved on from the 3.0 branch which was not open.

You can take the published source code and compile a useable copy of OS X. In fact, for many years the OpenDarwin project did just that. What you could not do is run the Aqua GUI or many of the default applications that come with a Mac bought in the store. But that's the point. Sure, you can compile and run "Android", but is it the same as the OS that runs on a phone I buy from Verizon? Android phones sell with propr…

>But that's the point. Sure, you can compile and run "Android", but is it the same as the OS that runs on a phone I buy from Verizon? Android phones sell with proprietary software that is most definitely not open.

Yes, the image of AOSP that I built for my Nexus is identical to the shipping image, minus the Verizon apps (Voicemail and My Verizon). I'm running CM9 now. Motorola/HTC/Samsung all have their custom overlays for skins, but that's not really the point. The stock ICS is a pleasure to use and is ages about Blur/Sense/TouchWiz in usability.

Re: Bullshit

#204

Post by jrockway »

huhtenberg wrote: post #179
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Google is "bad" because they provide a lot of really good services that are also well integrated? How dare they!

Ask yourself - why is Google actively trying to become a major provider of webfonts? They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creating a wide variety fonts - both original and knock-offs. Fonts that then they are offering for free. The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in o…

Google just doesn't behave like this. I've talked to many people that work there (and I will be one of them soon), and this is just not the culture. Google maintains webfonts because someone said, "hey, our products would be better if they didn't look like shit on certain machines". Someone else agreed and now they have their own fonts.

(Part of Android's look-and-feel is based on fonts, too, so it makes sense that if you're going to hire designers to make their phone OS look nice, some fonts are going to get designed along with that. Fonts, icons, backgrounds, and UI layout are all the same thing.)

Before this, Microsoft provided the standard web fonts. They made them very hard to install, and so Google stepped up to provide a standard set of fonts, free to use and modify. This isn't evil, it's just Google ensuring that people can use their products. Bad fonts means their sites look ugly, and ugly sites means users won't use them. That's the only motivation.

Re: Bullshit

#205

Post by jrockway »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #201
huhtenberg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself - why is Google actively trying to become a major provider of webfonts? They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creating a wide variety fonts - both original and knock-offs. Fonts that then they are offering for free. The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in o…

I'm glad you ended it with rant, because this is the exact brand of FUD I was referring to. >The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. All of those fonts are freely downloadable. Nothing about them requires you to go through Google (and is in fact impossible due to how webfonts work).…

I heard Google breaks into people's houses at night and steals any spare change the occupants have lying around. This makes sense because Google must maximize shareholder value, and spare change is money for the shareholders. Therefore, this accusation must be true.

Next week: proof why Google enriches uranium and sells it to terrorists trying to build a dirty bomb. One reason: they would get money from doing so! Man that's evil!

Re: Bullshit

#206

Post by jrockway »

nostromo wrote: post #18

With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer. This makes me comfortable with our relationship. I don't really care about Ping or app store approval policies, so, meh... With Google, I can see their ability to become a shady company pretty easily, but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. Bing isn't so bad you know. But Facebook knows so much about me, and the network effects are so strong -- this is the…

With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer.

Are you sure about that? Apple "sells you" as a user that will buy apps on the app store, and they take 30% of the developer's profit for that privilege. Whenever Apple can, they advertise how their users buy more apps than Android users, and bill this as a reason for developing for iOS and not some other mobile platform.

You are a product.

Re: Bullshit

#207

Post by jrockway »

davidedicillo wrote: post #176
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. Switching search engines seems pointless as they all have the same business model (maybe duckduckgo is different), but blocking all the tracking and analytics stuff solves this problem. Facebook isn't a huge problem for me either. I basically use it in read only mode, blocking them on all third party sites.

> App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. IMHO I think that's a wrong affirmation. They restrict what developer can sell through their platform. Big different. You could then complain about not allowing not approved apps on the device, but it would be like saying that Playstation or Xbox limit your freedom by not allowing Super Mario Kart run on their consoles.

They do. Game consoles were the beginning of this slippery slope. Now we are at phones. Personal computers seem to be next. This is worrisome and it was worrisome before the iPhone was even a twinkle in anybody's eye.

Re: Bullshit

#208

Post by jrockway »

Splines wrote: post #173
nl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get…

What personally bothers me about "Android is open" is that while the OS may be open, the hardware is a moving target. Android phones aren't like desktop PCs, which allow you to mix & match operating systems and hardware components as you like. I'd rather have an open handset that allowed me to install whatever operating system I like and use with whatever carrier I would like. I want to be able to choose . As it stan…

I'd rather have an open handset that allowed me to install whatever operating system I like and use with whatever carrier I would like. I want to be able to choose.

Nobody is stopping you from porting OpenMoko. The problem is that nobody else wants to do this, and so the work hasn't been done. But it's quite possible to do, should you be interested.

Re: Bullshit

#209

Post by zerostar07 »

edw519 wrote: post #102

You forgot the biggest bullshit of all, Marco. Hacker News users: I'm so mad that the government is doing ! I'm so mad that big business is doing ! I'm so mad that venture capitalists are doing ! I'm so mad that angel investors are doing ! I'm so mad that got funding! I'm so mad that language doesn't do ! I'm so mad that I can't jailbreak ! I'm so mad that I'm actually expected to pay for ! I'm so mad that more peopl…

I like the reference to government. Govts b.s., startups b.s. , what next?

Re: Bullshit

#210

Post by angus77 »

"Bullshit" is a lack of concern over whether what you've said was true or not.

"We’re not tracking you when you’re logged out" was a straight up lie.

Post reply on HN