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

221–230 of 233 posts

Re: Bullshit

#221

Post by huhtenberg »

jrockway wrote: post #204
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…

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 i…

They have 393 fonts as of today. Don't you think it's a bit excessive for sprucing up their own products? Also, considering a milder version of "don't be evil" angle - they are effectively on a route to nuke paid online typeface services or render them economically unfeasible to a vast majority of foundries. A policy not very much unlike Microsoft's when they were undercutting superior products and pushing them off the market.

With regards to the "just doesn't behave like this" - Google is not a charity. It might be a wealthy company, but even it needs a justification for spending hundreds of thousands if (not millions) on creating a font library. Do you seriously think "let's have fonts" is the justification enough for that? There has to be a bigger reason and a larger picture. The "culture" is a funny thing. It can be benign and ethical all the way through the organization with an exception of a single room where the lawful interception provisions are enforced.

> That's the only motivation.

Right.

Re: Bullshit

#222

Post by orangecat »

epo wrote: post #55
veidr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're all bullshit except the 'Android is open' thing. That's just a plain fucking fact. Despite the incessant barrage of snarky 'open' jokes from professional Apple frother John Gruber (typically redeemed somewhat by being funny) and M.G. "Mini-Gruber" Siegler (not so much), you can go download the fucking source code : http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html Sure, tons of manufacturers will sell you jun…

"Android is open" is BS for the plain and simple fact that (time delayed) source code availability is of no consequence to the vast majority of Android users. They say it as though it means something, it means nothing, rather like water vendors claiming "100% fat free" on a bottle of water. Marco didn't say the claim was factually incorrect, he said it was BS, it is.

First, by that standard anyone's claim of openness is BS, because most users of any open source project don't actually use the source themselves.

Second, Android is "open" in ways that have nothing to do with source availability. Even with a closed-source Honeycomb device, you can run apps from arbitrary sources, access the filesystem, replace OS components like the keyboard and launcher, and develop your own apps without asking (or paying) for permission.

Re: Bullshit

#223

Post by outworlder »

dextorious wrote: post #211
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…

So, what did YOU build today? And why do you assume we all have to build something? Some of us have actual paid work we like, you know, we're not all "entrepreneurs" building the next whatever...

Everyone should be building something. Technical or otherwise.

Re: Bullshit

#224

Post by statictype »

dextorious wrote: post #213
statictype wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer. I believe the party line is "I'm not the product being sold". but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. Or, you know, run an ad-blocker - much easier than jailbreaking a phone and Google Search/Gmail will continue to work well with an ad-blocker running, even if they upgrade the site.

"""Or, you know, run an ad-blocker - much easier than jailbreaking a phone and Google Search/Gmail will continue to work well with an ad-blocker running, even if they upgrade the site."" Actually, no, Google would stop business if people used ad-blockers en masse. So that's just something that works because few people do it. And it's not like Google is gonna decide where they want to go their services, changes, etc,…

Well, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make.

My point: The downside of Google products is having to look at their ads. The downside of Apple products is getting locked-in to their restricted platform.

You can sidestep Google's downside with an ad-blocker. You can sidestep Apple's downside with a jail break.

It's easier to run that ad-blocker (heck, you can even get it from Google's own store) and keep it running than it is to perform a jail break and keep that updated.

As an aside - just like a lot of people aren't offended by the restrictions Apple places on its platform, a lot of people are not offended by Google's ads. In fact, I bet there's a very significant overlap in those two groups.

Re: Bullshit

#225

Post by ubernostrum »

blinkingled wrote: post #103

Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they…

Android markets itself largely on "open". iOS... does not.

Android has a history of being managed in ways which are anything but "open" -- ranging from the opaque "chuck a bunch of code over the wall" development process up to and including the "we'll provide this release to some of our special partners, but none of you plebes can be trusted with it".

So criticizing Android on the ground that it contradicts its own marketing should be fair game; doing so does not carry with it an implication that any competing platform is more "open", simply the implication that Android does not practice what its hype preaches.

Re: Bullshit

#227

Post by aangjie »

dextorious wrote: post #211
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…

So, what did YOU build today? And why do you assume we all have to build something? Some of us have actual paid work we like, you know, we're not all "entrepreneurs" building the next whatever...

Everyone should be building something employed or entrepreneurs.... Even analysts, are building something a model for his boss to make decisions based on...

Re: Bullshit

#228

Post by nailer »

jemfinch wrote: post #147
potatolicious wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how your'e able to say nine months isn't a long time (especially in this industry!) with a straight face. Also, I subscribe to a pretty liberal interpretation of "open source", and "source will be downloadable at an undetermined date in the future, if we feel like it" really doesn't qualify. There is, of course, the colloquial expectation of open - the implication that Google has never shied away from is…

Six months passed between the announcement of the iPhone and its release. More than a year passes between each iPhone generation. 9 months, even in the mobile world, is just not "a really long time", and we're talking about a version of Android that only ran on tablets (which was, incidentally, why its source wasn't released on schedule). Calling Android "open" is not just "technically" correct. It's really true: you…

You don't address the parents argument or mine at all. Motorola Xoom owners could not download the source code for their OS for most of its existence. Neither could Cyanogen. for example, get source for ICS beta releases, which means the many obvious UI and UX issues in the initial release could not be fixed by anyone but a small portion of people inside Google.

Re: Bullshit

#229

Post by junkbit »

rfergie wrote: post #160
Pheter wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media is by no means a silver bullet, but that's not to say that it doesn't have it's uses for brands. Raising awareness, however, is something that social media can be particularly useful for.

I agree. If you look at it on a CPM basis it is possible to get insane value out of social. However, the main way I've seen people do this so far is with viral content. Producing something that can go viral is very difficult for some brands - their culture does not support the risky, balls out attitude that does well online. (If you have examples of viral content that does not fit this pattern then please let me know…

Some of The Muppets videos went viral on YouTube in the past few years.

Other short form work also tends to go viral, YouTube is often credited with rejuvenating SNL, despite NBCs insistence on taking down every clip

People are brands too. I almost only watch talk show interviews in clip form.

Post reply on HN