The limits of Google’s openness • Hacker News Board

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#301

Post by mjolk » Fri, Aug 16, 2013, 6:50 PM UTC

sbuk wrote: post #299

mjolk wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is a snide comment that reveals much. How so? It's not that popular a device.[0] If you work at Microsoft or have a significant interest in them not failing, you might want to divulge your bias here. >That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube. You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business. >A good check is to…

> How so? If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users. > You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business. You are semantically correct. 2 issues though. If it's business, surely developing a version for the device is worth the ad revenue. Also doesn't this directly contradict the benevolent and altruistic business image that Google like to project. Microsoft…

>If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users.

I can see it. But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food.

>Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.

Microsoft is trying to access a popular service while breaking the terms of service. What guarantee does Google have that Microsoft won't try to pull more shit in the future, requiring Google to take action in response (at a cost to themselves)? Everything is opportunity cost; why should Google spend any more time on Microsoft's phone's relatively small user base?

Edit: Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a webbrowser.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#302

Post by sbuk » Fri, Aug 16, 2013, 8:41 PM UTC

mjolk wrote: post #301

sbuk wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How so? If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users. > You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business. You are semantically correct. 2 issues though. If it's business, surely developing a version for the device is worth the ad revenue. Also doesn't this directly contradict the benevolent and altruistic business image that Google like to project. Microsoft…

>If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users. I can see it. But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food. >Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.…

And if it'd been Microsoft (or for that matter Apple) doing the blocking there would've been an enormous outpouring of indignation and scorn from the Open Source crowd. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

> "But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food."

I disagree. My indignation is firmly rooted in Googles bare-faced hypocrisy. http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ This is hypocrisy. This is what Google want you to believe. Their behaviour suggest that this is marketing bullshit on their part.

From where I'm standing Google are essentially harming their own users for what seems like nothing more than malicious reasoning masked as T&C's. It is they and no-one else who are getting fucked in all of this. I couldn't give a shit about Microsoft. Do they deserve it? Yeah probably, karma and all of that. I do give a shit about the utter hypocrisy exhibited by Google and their fans however. The double standards on display in this and other threads on the 'net are astounding.

> "Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a web browser."

Indeed they could (funny, but when that was the response to the lack of Flash on iPhones, it was mocked...). Or Google could just stop being hypocrites and practice what they preach. We'll see snow in Hades first.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#303

Post by xster » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 1:12 AM UTC

izaacj wrote: post #153

mh- wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhone (and Android) have sufficiently-large userbases.

BB10 has an YouTube app, and that's just a fraction of the marketshare that WP has, so that statement is invalid.

BB10 has a compliant app built using public APIs that Google is suggesting Microsoft to use.