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

You know, Google, the web already had this feature

blog.vrypan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 444 posts

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#261

Post by intractable »

kunai wrote: post #122
blhack wrote: post #114

You guys in this thread whining about google: It isn't google that has changed, it is the whole world which has changed. Look at the things that some of you champion; the iPhone, the iPad...anything running iOS, anything made by apple computer, the company that is pushing the hardest against openness on the internet. Oh, you want some basic browser functionality like uploading files? Spend time learning objective C,…

There is nothing Google Glass does that my smartphone already can't. And how is Apple waging war against openness? WebKit is open-source. They're pushing HTML5 against Flash (open vs proprietary). Darwin (OS X without Quartz and DPS) is open source. A few of the apps included with OS X are open-source. Google cars? Driverless car research has been going on for years, both before and alongside Google. Look, I'm not ba…

> And how is Apple waging war against openness?

This does not need to be an either / or proposition.

_Both_ Apple and Google are doing "evil", in their own way. Along with a bunch of cool stuff, too.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#262

Post by guard-of-terra »

rohamg wrote: post #219
coldtea wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then stop using their products. Switch to bing, switch to Internet Explorer, get an iPhone and shut up about it. And who exactly are you to tell him to "shut up about it"? He made his case. You might disagree. State your case and let the discussion continue. Anything else --like telling him to "shup up"-- should be beneath HN standards. For one, people do use alternative products. It's not as if Chrome is the ultim…

Your example of china (where google sacrificed profit in order to stay true to their ideals of openness) destroys the rest of your argument. "1.3 billion Chinese" are living in a censored Internet, that is a far greater tragedy than how an public corporation chooses to prioritize feature requests.

Google doesn't lead in South Korea and Russia either - and challenged in Czech and Japan. It is possible.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#263

Post by devcpp »

clobber wrote: post #238
NewAccnt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTML5 is not standard, certainly not open. Everyone abandoned WebKit for some unknown reason having to do with Apple. Please list these OSS Apps, I would love to know since Google and Wikpedia say nothing like that.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Crazy, huh?

Oh come on, even Microsoft has their "open source" website: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/openness/default.aspx

This is marketing bullshit directed at developers angry at all their surveillance, their walled gardens, their "you can't replace our OS" and so on.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#264

Post by zero_intp »

tomkarlo wrote: post #146
kaoD wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I've had difficulty opting out, and new Google accounts are linked to Google+ by default. E.g.: I have an Android phone and I would like to rate a scam app so people don't download it. Oops, it's not possible without a Google+ account. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5535556

While you may not want to comment on Google Play apps publicly, there's a lot of value for other users in being able to see what their actual friends said about an app rather than just random anonymous commenters. (And we've seen the issues on places like Amazon with ratings spamming.) It's just reality that some features may benefit the larger population but might not be to your taste - obviously every feature can't…

"[...] value for other users in being able to see what their actual friends said about an app [...]"

Problem: I add value to their ecosystem at the expense of my anonymity. Loosing my anonymity does not return the value to me in any use case.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#265

Post by devcpp »

reidrac wrote: post #260
clobber wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Crazy, huh?

I don't know if it's crazy, but I wouldn't say that site is the answer. Yes, it has the open source word all over it, but have you spent two minutes to look at the content? Most of the "relevant" stuff is just to comply with third party OSS licenses (read: non APSL projects). Although not exactly the same, it looks to me more or less like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2... OSS is ab…

You're thinking free software. Open source does not mean free. But you're right, open source without being free is pretty bad, as is locking your devices on your software and your own only, even for the purpose of making the experience "perfect".

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#266

Post by guard-of-terra »

bulatb wrote: post #254
WayneDB wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion. In my opinon the Gmail web client is a disgusting mess of anti-usability and Chrome is arguably not "the best". Webkit is the best - Chrome is a good browser, but empirically - not - the best for ever type of user. Google Maps / Earth may be the best overall free mapping solution for consumers, but it's certainly not the best for all mapping needs. The client applications are somewhat anaemic. Youtub…

I've found the web becomes much better when you make Flash click-to-play. YouTube especially, since the videos don't start until you ask.

Click-to-play doesn't work along with 1px players. For video it's okay, but come to some music streaming service and be confused how to turn music on.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#267

Post by pointyhatuk »

white_devil wrote: post #258
blhack wrote: post #114

You guys in this thread whining about google: It isn't google that has changed, it is the whole world which has changed. Look at the things that some of you champion; the iPhone, the iPad...anything running iOS, anything made by apple computer, the company that is pushing the hardest against openness on the internet. Oh, you want some basic browser functionality like uploading files? Spend time learning objective C,…

> Apples complete joke of a mobile operating system How could you possibly think iOS is a "complete joke".. without being a raging GooGoo fanboy, that is?

Perhaps the GP owns a windows phone :)

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#268

Post by dredmorbius »

ianstormtaylor wrote: post #58
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

Personally I'd hate a default to 240 feature. I don't care about bandwidth, I'm tired of clicking the HQ button.

I think the point is more "set a preferred default resolution" than "default to least BW".

I increasingly use youtube-dl for YouTube, Vimeo, and a few other sites. I prefer watching videos using something other than my browser, with uniform controls, the ability to speed up (especially talking head crap) and slow down (um, explosions and crashes) video. Preferences and commandline options can be used to specify preferred resolution, though HD can be really nice.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#269

Post by iand »

white_devil wrote: post #258
blhack wrote: post #114

You guys in this thread whining about google: It isn't google that has changed, it is the whole world which has changed. Look at the things that some of you champion; the iPhone, the iPad...anything running iOS, anything made by apple computer, the company that is pushing the hardest against openness on the internet. Oh, you want some basic browser functionality like uploading files? Spend time learning objective C,…

> Apples complete joke of a mobile operating system How could you possibly think iOS is a "complete joke".. without being a raging GooGoo fanboy, that is?

There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for the word fanboy and its derivatives. When I see it I immediately know rational conversation is over.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#270

Post by claudius »

bulatb wrote: post #254
WayneDB wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion. In my opinon the Gmail web client is a disgusting mess of anti-usability and Chrome is arguably not "the best". Webkit is the best - Chrome is a good browser, but empirically - not - the best for ever type of user. Google Maps / Earth may be the best overall free mapping solution for consumers, but it's certainly not the best for all mapping needs. The client applications are somewhat anaemic. Youtub…

I've found the web becomes much better when you make Flash click-to-play. YouTube especially, since the videos don't start until you ask.

That, unfortunately, only works for Flash and not HTML5. But maybe I should just use a better browser and then magically this wouldn’t be an issue or something.
Post reply on HN