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

The limits of Google’s openness

blogs.technet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#181

Post by Karunamon »

jlgreco wrote: post #180
Karunamon wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's in a ToS doesn't mean it's reasonable or immune from complaint or criticism. I can require in my ToS that everyone who uses my Awesome(C) API to do a headstand on first access, that doesn't make it reasonable. It's completely unreasonable, to the point of being WTF-worthy, to require the app which accesses the API to be in a certain language. Seriously. I'm having trouble phrasing how dumb this is.…

Microsoft are lucky Google isn't cutting them off entirely. If I were Google, that's what I would do.

At least that would be more defensible than what they're doing now.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#182

Post by baddox »

wslh wrote: post #98
beagle3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software. And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesse…

> If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning: - Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux? - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX? - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX? And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. M…

> - Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?

Yes, but if I install Linux expecting to have support for nvidia cards, it is my problem.

> - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to connect to a Windows share, it is my problem.

> - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to print to a windows share, it is my problem.

There is no problem when you extrapolate this reasoning.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#183

Post by baddox »

barista wrote: post #40
simonsarris wrote: post #31

A summary for those not following along at home: The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first not serving ads on purpose. It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app woul…

>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

Didn't Apple and Google explicitly work closely together for the original YouTube app? I thought that Google even encoded all their videos to h.264 specifically so they could be easily viewed on iPhones (and subsequently other smartphones).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#184

Post by BrandonY »

beagle3 wrote: post #145
HelloMcFly wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft could not restore the ads because Google provided no API access to them. They weren't being contrary, they were making due with what they had.

"Your honor, Microsoft did not provide me with a way to sell Windows 8 for $3, so I had to find my own way to crack it. It's not my fault, it's Microsoft's fault for not giving me any way to do that" Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?

Isn't that the basic argument Microsoft is making about "standards-essential patents" in the Microsoft v. Motorola suit?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#185

Post by pritambaral »

prostoalex wrote: post #125
asdasf wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also note how sencha then went and re-created the new facebook app in html, showing that facebook was full of shit.

For one, Sencha's app doesn't allow commenting. For two, it doesn't support notifications, so "re-created" is a generous verb there.

Sencha's app was a proof-of-concept. Their motivation was to show how and where facebook was "full-of-shit" which they did beautifully. If you read their respective articles, you can discern for yourself.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#186

Post by wslh »

beagle3 wrote: post #114
wslh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning: - Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux? - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX? - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX? And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. M…

Your arguments are nonsensical: - Yes, I do want to view SilverLight videos on Linux. But I can't. Because Microsoft won't let me (or Xamarin or Ximian) implement the DRM parts. - Yes, I do check that an nvidia card is supported on Linux before I buy it; That's why, for example, I avoid AMD, and it IS my problem if I buy an AMD card for which there is no good driver on Linux > I think Microsoft is more open than Goog…

Your arguments are nonsensical

I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines in their investor reports) or connects to their search engine without showing any ad.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#187

Post by pritambaral »

axus wrote: post #159
jmillikin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that they decided to release the app over Google's objections: There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. [...] For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5. [...] Google, however, has decided to block our mutual customer…

Needing Google's permission to release an app on their own platform doesn't sound very open.

Not needing Google's permission to consume Google's content sounds very .... umm ... you decide.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#188

Post by munificent »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #179
munificent wrote: post #77

Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion. > With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like: 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. 2. Allowing users to not view…

Well the upside of all this drama is that I just found out about Cooking with Dog. Thank you.

I spend entirely too much time watching Cooking with Dog and Essential Pépin with my kids.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#189

Post by yuhong »

tanzam75 wrote: post #177
rsynnott wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever about this particular instance, there are documented incidents where Microsoft deliberately made things not work; in particular, the Java thing, and the DR-DOS Windows thing (where Windows would run on DR-DOS if it pretended to be MS DOS, but not otherwise).

> and the DR-DOS Windows thing (where Windows would run on DR-DOS if it pretended to be MS DOS, but not otherwise). Only in a beta, not in a released version: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2004/08/12/213... Since it did not make it into a released version of Windows, it did not actually affect DR-DOS. Still, Novell eventually got an 8-digit settlement out of Microsoft.

I mentioned that lawsuit (particularly the Win95 parts) in my blog article on the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco:

http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-os2-20-fiasco-...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#190

Post by jorgecastillo »

wslh wrote: post #174
mncolinlee wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft? Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?

Before answering your question my extended rant is here: http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a... Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft? You agree with me then! that was my po…

One big difference is that you can choose to use or not to use Google Search. For all intents and purposes you can't avoid using Microsoft products.
Post reply on HN