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

261–270 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#261

Post by sounds »

yuhong wrote: post #194
beagle3 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#262

Post by rsynnott »

interpol_p wrote: post #243
rsynnott wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know this is exactly how the popular third-party iOS Youtube client Jasmine works. It used to be better than it is, but a couple of versions ago the developer mentioned that he was changing the means of showing the video to comply with Google's requirements, and it became a (relatively well-concealed) embedded HTML5 video pane.

Yes but as you say, the user experience became worse after that change. Google is forcing developers to implement a lower quality experience. This seems bad. Is it so they can maintain more control?

Yep, more or less; I'm fairly sure it's so that they can guarantee their ads are shown.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#263

Post by yuhong »

sounds wrote: post #261
yuhong wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

designed?

Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?

My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#264

Post by polyomino »

amanne wrote: post #247
mythz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it say YouTube is open?

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html Especially the section "Open Information". There's a lot of the world's information exclusively on Youtube, not just entertainment.

That article is funny, if you click on Googe Data Protocol, the cornerstone example for openness, you get "Warning: Most newer Google APIs are not Google Data APIs."

https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/developers-guide?cs...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#265

Post by amanne »

beagle3 wrote: post #254
amanne wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser. >That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption. The degraded experience causes many folks to leave the web app instead of going on to watch more videos, especially related ones. Also assuming that f…

> Just Nokia seems to have sold 20 million phones in the past few quarters. Ok. Nintendo has sold more than 100 million Wii consoles. It has no kindle app. It has a YouTube app. Your comparison to Amazon is still bogus. > How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to? I'm…

>Google is under no obligation whatsoever to give preferential treatment to Microsoft, regardless of how much money it costs or earns them. And as Microsoft is still bullying Google's Android partners with patent threats, Google refuses to give Microsoft a preferential treatment. It's so simple. And yet, it seems so hard for many people on this thread to understand.

And if YouTube's content providers and users are hurt by this, so be it?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#266

Post by sounds »

yuhong wrote: post #263
sounds wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?

My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.

I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here.

If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key!

Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also, I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift, click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument.

[1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#267

Post by mehrdada »

itafroma wrote: post #131
y2bd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nitpick, but although Jasmine is a native iOS application, when it comes to actually playing a video, it opens a YouTube video embedded in a web view. That is why you see the YouTube player for a brief moment before the video starts.

That's true; I updated my comment to clarify that. If that's the difference between Google being okay with it and not, I guess I don't see where the chasm of difference is: * Microsoft claims they've enabled ads on YouTube videos. How, if they're not using the same technique as Jasmine? * If they are using the same technique as Jasmine, why is that not enough? Why is Google still saying (or at least Microsoft is clai…

My gut tells me that everything falls down to your last bullet, i.e. Google does not care if the full app is HTML5, but they want the an HTML5 YouTube player with appropriate DRM to be embedded in the app so they have full control on the ads and other stuff they are serving, and Microsoft is deliberately trying to avoid it and misleads everyone into thinking that they require full HTML5 app to be implemented.

You know what? If it is time consuming to implement, it's Microsoft's problem, not anyone else's. Lots of people would be happy to get shitload of money from Microsoft and assemble a team to implement it if their problem is difficulty and they are so generous to be willing to pay cash, as they brag about in their blogpost ("...at Microsoft's expense...").

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#268

Post by yuhong »

sounds wrote: post #266
yuhong wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.

I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here. If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key! Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later versio…

After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#269

Post by sounds »

yuhong wrote: post #268
sounds wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here. If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key! Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later versio…

After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.

That's what I said above.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#270

Post by duncan_bayne »

Karma is a bitch, isn't it Microsoft? Remember when you were the dominant player back in the mid 90s? Does the term 'Halloween Documents' ring a bell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents

> ... Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects have been

> able to enter the market for servers is the use of standardized protocols.

> It then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and

> developing new protocols" and "de-commoditize protocols & applications."

> This policy has been nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish".

Now all of a sudden Microsoft is the underdog, and you're whinging in public when the dominant player locks you out?

Cry me a river.

(Not that this is a defense of Google, mind you: I think MS is right on the money w.r.t. to their behaviour. Just saying that Google's tactics couldn't be employed against a more deserving target).

Post reply on HN