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

191–200 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#191

Post by tanzam75 »

majc2 wrote: post #99
briandear wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing is that this isn't anti-trust. If you want to use a google product, then you have to follow the google rules. I think the rules are a bit ridiculous, but YouTube doesn't have a monopoly on online videos. Well, except maybe cat videos.. so there might be a case in there somewhere. No app or company has a "right" to create Youtube apps. For anti-trust, one would have to prove a monopoly and they would be…

According to http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/video-websites YouTube gets 450,000,000 uniques against NetFlix who get 55,000,000. I'd argue there different markets and the key comparable would be dailymotion at 27,000,000. I think there is a good chance it'd pass the monopoly test.

The lead that Youtube has over Dailymotion is enormous. It's higher than the ratio of PCs to Macs at the time of the Microsoft antitrust case.

(Which is why the DOJ defined the market as the one for x86 PC operating systems. That excluded Mac OS from being considered a competitor to Windows, as it ran only on PowerPC at the time.)

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#192

Post by AaronFriel »

kllrnohj wrote: post #87
barista wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The experience you can provide with an HTML5 app are many times subpar as compared to a native app. Note how facebook abandoned their HTML5 app and went native.

YouTube's API only requires the video player itself to be in HTML5, the rest of the app can be native or whatever the hell you want. The engineering work here is youtube hands you an HTML snippet (specifically an ), and you plop that into a UIWebView where you want the inline video to be and you're done. https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference

The issue then is that Google will complain that the rest of the app doesn't adhere to all of Google's terms of services regarding displaying of ads, which are difficult to implement without their blessing.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#193

Post by wslh »

jorgecastillo wrote: post #190
wslh wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't avoid AdWords. Have you tried to sell your software products via Bing/Yahoo? There is no audience there.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#194

Post by yuhong »

beagle3 wrote: post #165
rubberband wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now? Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

> I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone. The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety. It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus No…

designed?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#196

Post by yuhong »

rubberband wrote: post #90
taylodl wrote: post #18

Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years? Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections. In the end, both companies ha…

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now? Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

Personally, I wrote a blog post on the decades old MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco, just to make it clear that it was pretty seriously bad (I don't see PX00307 mentioned anywhere before I mentioned it for example), even though I know it is too late (fortunately the x64 transition went much better).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#197

Post by jorgecastillo »

wslh wrote: post #186
beagle3 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even Apple has published plenty of open source code (non GUI stuff). Microsoft doesn't make significant open source contributions, because they don't get open source or because the only thing that makes them valuable is their huge desktop market share.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#198

Post by wslh »

baddox wrote: post #182
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…

> - 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 t…

No, it's not only your problem.

If Google is a monopoly and this is probed in some court (EU/US) the issue will crystallize in another way.

Meanwhile, it can be analyzed in an ethical way and some people think that the problem extends beyond you.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#199

Post by tanzam75 »

docdendrite wrote: post #85
briandear wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing is that this isn't anti-trust. If you want to use a google product, then you have to follow the google rules. I think the rules are a bit ridiculous, but YouTube doesn't have a monopoly on online videos. Well, except maybe cat videos.. so there might be a case in there somewhere. No app or company has a "right" to create Youtube apps. For anti-trust, one would have to prove a monopoly and they would be…

I'm not so sure. You don't have to prove a monopoly. You have to show a selective targeting of a competitor. Manufacturer's using Google as a search engine allegedly have a different set of standards for their YouTube app than manufacturer's that don't use Google as search default. Whether or not that's how things actually transpired, it sure smells awfully fishy to an FTC regulator. This isn't about following rules…

You actually do have to show a monopoly. A monopoly is prohibited from doing certain things that would be perfectly legitimate if a smaller competitor did it.

Example 1: The EU required Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with a browser choice screen. However, Apple does not have to offer an alternative to Safari. Reason: Windows was a monopoly, but Mac OS X wasn't.

Example 2: The EU permitted Windows Phone and Windows RT to default to IE, without offering a choice of other browsers. Reason: Windows Phone does not have a monopoly of the smartphone market, and Windows RT does not have a monopoly of the tablet market.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#200

Post by Sven7 »

beagle3 wrote: post #66
badman_ting wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

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…

Great point. Amazon should do the same thing. Since they host all these sites on their cloud. The only browser that should be allowed to access it should be Amazon's.
Post reply on HN