The limits of Google’s openness

Post by RivieraKid » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 11:00 PM UTC

asterix9 wrote: post #151

jorgecastillo wrote: post #119

You can down vote me all you want, but I feel zero sympathy for Microsoft. If their app is being blocked from YouTube is because they deserve it. Google has all the right to choose which third parties can access YouTube. Microsoft is in no positing to criticize the actions of other companies.

Agreed 100%, but my question is, can Google still [call itself]/[be considered] open and "not evil" ?

Post by rubberband » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 11:03 PM UTC

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…

Post by baddox » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 11:05 PM UTC

wslh wrote: post #198

baddox wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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.

Post by improv32 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 11:07 PM UTC

dkuntz2 wrote: post #154

pionar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did change it, except for the one thing the provider of the so-called "open" API doesn't even do - HTML5. Why should Google hold MSFT to that standard when it doesn't even do it itself? I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.

Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 11:11 PM UTC

improv32 wrote: post #206

beagle3 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if the HTML5 requirement can considered reasonable. Why does the server's web service API care if the client is HTML5 or not? Yes, it is very reasonable. The server doesn't, but google does. The HTML5 requirement means that google can change everything about their service (e.g. they can switch the ads from being h264 videos today, to javascript games tomorrow, to 3d interactive items the next day when 3d s…

What does the app being written in HTML5 have to do with Google changing the API? The app would still have to be updated when the API changes. Additionally, if that were a concern of Google's, why aren't their apps written in HTML5?