61–70 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever ones views on Android's openness, this is one interesting way to defend open.
They're just trying to avoid having a single company, Microsoft, dominate the industry again.
See: http://dotnetbyexample.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/google-maps-fo...
I did a similar project a couple months back on the WP7 platform and ended up using OSM + ORSM instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol i call that barely working. Barely moves and the user didn't do anything but load the site.
Here's more videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfTS1f8vqAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z8vfzurnKw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maps on Opera, Ubuntu 12.10: http://i.imgur.com/KKVbj.png Maps on Opera, Nexus 4: http://i.imgur.com/0DXVz.png You were saying?
I was talking about a number of sites all over the web (including several at Google) that user agent string sniff and tell opera that it isn't supported, not maps specifically. But, speaking of maps specifically, maps.google.com in desktop Opera works fine, but clearly you didn't try using Opera Mobile, because as soon as you start dragging the map, it disappears. (at least on a galaxy nexus running jelly bean)
(a) Ubuntu for mobile will not radically alter the mobile OS options for carriers and hardware manufacturers (despite its appeal to many hackers).
(b) Apple is suffering the pain of developing their own maps application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) any kind of anticompetitive argument like that is a dangerous road to walk down. Is Google leveraging the popularity of maps.google.com to also marginalize rockmelt? Is a "install chromeframe" interstitial on IE6 some strategy beyond "we don't want to support your browser"? there is always a line, and considering how widespread UA sniffing and webkit-only prefixes are, you would need a considerably higher bar of e…
From http://www.google.com/about/company/ "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."
"Universally accessible" doesn't seem at odds with the fact that there's always going to be a browser support cutoff point. Google just picked a poor cutoff point in this case. It's only in light of google's commitment to cross-browser standards that this disappoints me.
Google's decisions around Windows Phone are probably why: (a) Ubuntu for mobile will not radically alter the mobile OS options for carriers and hardware manufacturers (despite its appeal to many hackers). (b) Apple is suffering the pain of developing their own maps application.
If not, then boo Google, are you becoming the new MS?
Time will tell
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol i call that barely working. Barely moves and the user didn't do anything but load the site.
Here's more videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfTS1f8vqAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z8vfzurnKw
That looks completely unusable. Considering they launched the new version over a year and a half ago[1] and there was no widespread discussion (at least reaching outside of windows phone blogs) about the pain of the "interaction" those videos show, I'm not really feeling like a lot was lost here.
I would love to see a survey of Windows Phone users and how many have ever even attempted to use it. I know if I'm using a phone that can run a web browser at all, I would never even think to not use the native mapping app.
Google was wrong on the principle, but was anyone actually in the forest to be harmed? In any case, everyone should think hard before the next time you feel compelled to make a joke about testing and Opera's marketshare.
[1] http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/05/google-maps-on-your...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google gives away all their client platforms as open source (i.e. Chrome and Android), so it's hardly a power play when compared with the other options.
Neither chrome nor android are fully open source. I don't see why that matters, though.