Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 23:38 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft's legal chief: "We continue to be dogged by an issue we had hoped would be resolved by now: Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering consumers a fully featured YouTube app for the Windows Phone." Utter nonsense, since MetroTube offers a complete and full YouTube experience on Windows Phone (it's one of the best Windows Phone applications), and YouTube+ on Windows 8. Two fantastically rich applications, built by small ISVs - yet Microsoft can't do the same? Don't make me laugh. Coincidentally, Microsoft is also whining some more about Google's removal of ActiveSync - Redmond again refuses to acknowledge that all it needs to do is implement the open standards CalDAV and CardDAV, just like everyone else has done. Times have changed, Ballmer. You don't get to dictate the industry anymore.
Order by: Score:
Yay !?
by Lennie on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 23:49 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

"Times have changed, Ballmer. You don't get to dictate the industry anymore."

I hope Android and other Linux based (maybe other OSs ?) can keep Apple down (yes down: Android has 30% of the market and Apple has 22% based on webbrowsing, when you look at current sales numbers Android is doing even better).

Having open source supporting companies at the top would at least seem to be a better way. I don't know if it actually will be.

Edited 2013-01-02 23:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Yay !?
by bassbeast on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 08:08 UTC in reply to "Yay !?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Here is what I predict, and I did call both Vista and Win 8 right on the nose.

Within 3 years all of the OEMs will be selling ChromeBooks and ChromeTops instead of Windows PCs (because they frankly have NO choice, not only is MSFT sticking it to them with OEM pricing but also stabbing them in the back by announcing they are gonna build their own desktops, laptops, and phones to go with the tablets so every dime they give MSFT is a dime to a company that wants them out of business) and Google will own the low end while Apple will keep the high but will see their market shrink as Android devices become more powerful and cheaper. Cook has already seen this trend, hence the iPad Mini, but when you will soon be able to buy multicore Android tablets for 4100 it will be hard to get more than the Apple faithful to buy your next $500+ products.

The only thing that worries me about this is it is increasingly looking like Google is gonna keep ChromeOS locked down and OEM only, looking at the new ChromeBooks you can't even run Linux on them without 3 pages of CLI and a lot of finger crossing, so we may end up replacing one company that wants everyone locked down into black boxes with another and for those of us that like to build our own hardware things look quite bleak indeed.

It is increasingly likely that computers will become the new consoles, locked down and disposed of when the companies no longer support them, just as an old GameCube is worthless for anything but some legacy games. Its a real shame as we are getting all this crazy powerful hardware that will end up going to the dump even when it could be used, simply because you'll have no access to the hardware at all.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Yay !?
by Nth_Man on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Yay !?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

when you will soon be able to buy multicore Android tablets for 4100 it will be hard to get more than the Apple faithful to buy your next $500+ products.


I think that you mean "you will soon be able to buy multicore Android tablets for $100".

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Yay !?
by bassbeast on Fri 4th Jan 2013 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yay !?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Yeah sorry about that, I really need to take the number 4 key off my old clacky and clean it as its hit or miss, especially when I'm typing quickly.

But my point still stands, just as IBM started the PC market by using a little OS later known as "MS-DOS" because they couldn't get CPM so too is the OEMs gonna have no choice but to switch as every dime they give MSFT is money that will be used to try to put them out of business. Just look up the "Windows Blue" memo by Ballmer's team, I'm sure every OEM has read it by now, where it states flat footed that "The future of Windows is MSFT hardware running MSFT software and sold in MSFT stores" thus making it clear they consider the OEMs to be history as far as MSFT is concerned.

They will gouge the OEMs for every penny they can, thus not only taking money from a rival but also making it harder and harder for them to sell a Windows machine and make a profit, so their only choice will be to switch to another OS or close the doors, simple as that. While I'm sure the OEMs hope that Ballmer gets fired and somebody who understands the Windows ecosystem brought in you can't base your business on hopes so I have NO doubt they are all setting up meetings with Google as we speak.

Ironic that the FOSS zealots dreamed for years that MSFT would just dry up and blow away, but who would have thought the death of MSFT would come not from a competitor but from a truly pathetic CEO killing the company trying to raise the stock price.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yay !?
by Nth_Man on Fri 4th Jan 2013 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yay !?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

But my point still stands

I just tried to correct a number you gave. I didn't said that your point didn't stood; greedy managers lead those companies to abuse, and, like you say: people will react buying other kind of computers... or "computers will become the new consoles, locked down and disposed of when the companies no longer support them".

Reply Score: 2

DAV
by telns on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 23:51 UTC
telns
Member since:
2009-06-18

The various "DAVs" don't really serve quite the same purpose as synchronization protocols.

It isn't worth going into more detail unless someone cares, but it really is an apples to oranges thing (or at the very least it is an oranges to tangerines kind of thing).

Edited 2013-01-02 23:59 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: DAV
by Adam S on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 17:41 UTC in reply to "DAV"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I'd really like to hear more about this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: DAV
by telns on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: DAV"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

The first barrier is that there is no equivalent industry-wide "DAV" for e-mail. I'll actually ignore that, though, as at least in theory one could develop.

For mobile sync, the primary focus will be on efficiency and prompt change notification. Dedicated sync protocols can do this fairly well, and aggregate all the data types (email, calendar, contacts, tasks) into a single point, delivering changes to them in near real-time and minimizing the number of open connections required on the phone (important for battery life). The integration is key, because some of these are more closely related than you'd think. I get an e-mail invitation, which needs added to my calendar--and my free/busy index updates so other people can see I'm booked--and then I do a search in my company contact's directory to add another attendee.

That tight integration is missing in the DAVs, as is any standardized method of "pushing" changes.

Another big one is the fact that now I have all this important mail, calendar, and contact data on my phone, what if I lose it? What if my company wants to make sure I use a PIN? Sync protocols usually include extra commands to provision the phone according to company policies for encryption and passwords, allow remote wipe, &c.

DAV is great as an API, but to turn it into a sync protocol, you really need some kind of shim in between that trims it all down, aggregates the data sources, simplifies change notification, and provides just the subset of functionality needed on mobile devices, while adding in specific new capabilities like remote wipe. When people feel like getting super fancy, that can also add mobile enhancements like sending only the new text in a reply or a forward, pulling in the original text on-the-fly, and other such niceties.

But by the time you've done all that, it no longer looks like plain-vanilla DAV.

Edited 2013-01-03 22:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: DAV
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DAV"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Prompt change notification is only relevant to messaging. Calendar, contacts and tasks are not time critical, or are already triggered by other messages.
Also, the number of connections is not as important as the amount of data that needs to be transferred. CDMA networks spend energy per bytes transferred, TDMA per time connected.(Thus standby time for TDMA is lower than CDMA)

What DAV and IMAP are not are sync protocols.

Reply Score: 3

RE: DAV
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 21:50 UTC in reply to "DAV"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Not knowing the limitations and differences of design goals of *DAV versus EAS, I would like to hear more, as well.

Reply Score: 2

Please Thom
by Nelson on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 23:59 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

For once, actually use the Windows Phones you claim you have.

MetroTube, YouTube+, et all are ROUTINELY BROKEN by YouTube. In fact, MetroTube was broken by YouTube just the other day. The FACT is that Google is actively subverting these applications.

If Microsoft did ANYTHING on this level, there'd be 10 articles a day, you'd probably find a Jury foreman on a murder trial somewhere, and do some kind of witch hunt against him too.

This is utterly and completely RIDICULOUS.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:08 UTC in reply to "Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They were broken because YouTube changed its API in various ways. That's life. APIs change. Third party developers adapt. Every company known to man does this, and there's no evidence WHATSOEVER that this was done on purpose just to break everything.

They are also not "routinely broken". That's a clear and utter lie. I've been using YouTube+ for god knows how long, and this was the FIRST time this happened - and it was fixed quickly.

MetroTube and YouTube+ (and various others) are evidence that Microsoft is making excuses for its own failing to provide a good YouTube application.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

MetroTube and YouTube+ break because they use non-documented APIs, the public facing YouTube API has hardly changed.

Why does MetroTube need to use these APIs?

Wait for it.


Because YouTube doesn't offer up an API. It's also interesting that only third party YouTube apps which are forced to use these APIs break, and not officially sanctioned YouTube apps.

The fact that you make excuses for this is ridiculous.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They break because the API changes. Documented APIs change too. Third parties adapt. That's life as an ISV. Ask the SAMBA guys. Ask OpenOffice. Ask anybody who has ever had to tap into someone else's APIs, specifications, or standards.

You have offered up zero evidence that this is all a big conspiracy to harm consumers using Windows Phone, as you claim. Until you do, you're just rambling nonsense.

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The public facing YouTube API changes rarely. But, if it changes, that's great. Because it's documented.

When YouTube changes their private API, in an effort to subvert MetroTube and other third party apps, it becomes a bigger deal because time must be spent figuring out a work around, resubmitting to the Windows Store, and hoping it doesn't break again.

You're suggesting Microsoft use undocumented APIs and submit it out to consumers on the hopes that Google doesn't decide to do something about the blatant violation of their terms of use. Perhaps Google can willy nilly ignore the legal ramifications of what they do with others property, but Microsoft can't.

Why is it so difficult for you to get behind Google opening up their YouTube API? Why is it so hard for you to point the finger at Google?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

, in an effort to subvert MetroTube and other third party apps,


Proof buddy! You have none. If you do, please show it. Otherwise, this conspiracy of yours is bullshit.

Why is it so difficult for you to get behind Google opening up their YouTube API? Why is it so hard for you to point the finger at Google?


It would be great if they did - but the fact of the matter is, is that it doesn't seem to matter. Closed or not, there are fantastic third party YouTube applications, and for the first time in eons, we saw breakage a few weeks ago that lasted a whole day (wow!). It'd be great if they opened it - it just doesn't seem to matter.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Proof buddy! You have none. If you do, please show it. Otherwise, this conspiracy of yours is bullshit.


So providing access to the API for iOS and Android clients but refusing to grant Microsoft permission to use said API, and refusing to grand MetroTube permission to use the API isn't a direct attack on third party YouTube apps?

I really struggle to understand your thought process sometimes.

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Please Thom
by sec0ndshadow on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please Thom"
sec0ndshadow Member since:
2013-01-03

A couple of things. Firstly, I don't understand what _you_ don't understand about the work "private" in "private API."

Second, I don't understand why, exactly, it is you think that they are in any way, shape or form obligated to provide the same level of access to 3rd parties to begin with...

Those iOS and Android apps? They were developed _by Google_ last I checked. Could it be, just maybe, that they don't see the _value_ in developing a Windows Phone version because it's just not a large enough market and viewed as a waste of time?

And maybe, just maybe, part of the reason that they don't have a fully featured public API is that they are still changing it and don't want to be tied to an API interface that would be sub-optimal? The fact that the private interface changes and breaks things is a bit of a hint...

They've been doing an awful lot with YouTube lately that seems to be in an effort to bring it in line with the rest of Google's product offerings and this may be part of that.

OR

Perhaps they don't have a "fully featured" public API because, well, they just don't want to.

Which brings us full circle back to using private APIs to build one. Well thats cool. Go ahead. But understand that if you use undocumented, private APIs to do anything they _can and will_ break. It's not necessarily trying to actively subvert 3rd party clients. It's a developer changing an internal API. Private APIs are subject to change at _any time_ without notice because they are PRIVATE. That's what PRIVATE API means.

Get. Over. It. There is not conspiracy. Some just did the equivalent of changing a function signature or move a class around.

There is no conspiracy. That's just how software development works.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Please Thom
by andrewclunn on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
andrewclunn Member since:
2012-11-05

It'd be great if they opened it - it just doesn't seem to matter.


That's like saying that it doesn't matter that Windows is closed source because it can be pirated.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Please Thom
by Tony Swash on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
RE[6]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Because he loves Google.


I wondered when Mr. Cognitive Dissonance would show up. As always, I can rely on you to disregard 7 years of posting history chock full of love AND criticism for each AND every company, just to maintain your world view.

I've been for and against everything, buddy. Nobody takes nonsense like that seriously anymore. I've advised people to switch to DuckDuckGo. I point and laugh at Google+. I regularly dump on Chrome for Android. I have posted countless articles on Google's utter failure in the Android update situation. I have condemned Google for its actions regarding the handling of adult content in image search. I have condemned Google's actions regarding SkyHook, going even so far as to interview the CEO of SkyHook himself. And much more.

But sure, I love Google. Whatever you say. I don't think "love" means what you think it means.

Edited 2013-01-03 11:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Please Thom
by MOS6510 on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please Thom"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

So you have a love-hate relationship then.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Please Thom
by kwan_e on Fri 4th Jan 2013 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Google is only the champion of open source when it involves opening and devaluing other companies business models. Google does not champion open source search algorithms, for example, because that would devalue their own business model.


What does that even mean?

What open source thing has Google participated in that devalued other companies' business models?

And yes, Google is not going to open up their algorithms, but when have they actually sued a competitor over their search algorithms? Even when Bing was alleged to have copied Google's results, they did nothing than write a strongly worded blog posting.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Perhaps Google can willy nilly ignore the legal ramifications of what they do with others property, but Microsoft can't.

The fact that Google is actively making sure it's hard to download copyrighted material from YouTube is evidence to the contrary - protecting IP that does not belong to them.(FYI: YouTube videos don't belong to Google)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

OOXML and the network protocols SAMBA uses are open and documented standards/protocols.

YouTube is not. You can't find documentation to make a fully featured YouTube client. I don't think you understand this.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You can't find documentation to make a fully featured YouTube client.


And yet, they exist. Many of them. Often better than Google's own offerings. It would be great to have it open, but from a practical standpoint, it doesn't seem to matter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The point is that exist in spite of Google's efforts, and they constantly need reengineering to work again. It's far from a pleasant experience.

MetroTube has broken 2-3 times in the past year, and then earlier in 2011 for over a month. To say this is good enough, and then dismiss Microsoft's claims as petty is unfair.

But okay, I get it, you did your little OSNews hit job of the week. Good job.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Please Thom
by gedmurphy on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

Thom, you're desperately wrong on this! MetroTube is a hack which uses undocumented APIs to get access to youtube's content.

iOS and Android are given unrestricted access to the public APIs, but Windows Phone is blocked.

Microsoft have a 'MetroTube' available, but the reason they can't release it is because they're obviously under a lot more scrutiny and can't get away with what indie devs are doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

iOS and Android are given unrestricted access to the public APIs, but Windows Phone is blocked.

That is incorrect. YouTube apps on Android and iOS get unrestricted access because they are made by Google and are 100% proprietary.

YouTube API on Android and iOS is no different from API on WP8.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Please Thom
by tylerdurden on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


You can't find documentation to make a fully featured YouTube client. I don't think you understand this.


Huh?

https://developers.google.com/youtube/

Edited 2013-01-03 05:41 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Have you actually tried to use the API? Are you stupid? Is this entire article made up? Are the issues that third party Windows Phone and Windows Store apps have imaginary? Are you inebriated?

YouTube offers a SUBSET of APIs available, you CANNOT build a fully functional YouTube client using the public API because it is incomplete and only allows for superficial integration with the service.

If you had bothered to read the documentation (you didn't) or even bothered to try to implement the API (again, you didn't) or even did the slightest amount of due diligence (nope again) you'd know this is true.

This is what is truly infuriating, you're so interested in a fucking gotcha that you don't even take the time to do basic research.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Please Thom
by tylerdurden on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please Thom"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You made a claim, and I simply pointed out a link to the documentation for the youtube APIs. If you have nothing to add to the conversation so be it, no need for silly strawmen about what I may or may not have done.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Please Thom
by The1stImmortal on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

Sorry to butt into the convo here, but:
Documentation to create a fully featured YouTube client:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/
- http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-2...
- http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devne...

There's some other docs those ones depend on but that's pretty but the core of it right there.

Of course, most computing devices have at least a partial implementation already.

;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Deviate_X on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

They break because the API changes. Documented APIs change too. Third parties adapt. That's life as an ISV. Ask the SAMBA guys. Ask OpenOffice. Ask anybody who has ever had to tap into someone else's APIs, specifications, or standards.

You have offered up zero evidence that this is all a big conspiracy to harm consumers using Windows Phone, as you claim. Until you do, you're just rambling nonsense.


thom you are loosing credibility i'm surprised

i'm sure you can't see the bigger commercial picture (not conspiracy) being played out

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Furthermore, Microsoft has stated they are ready to release a YouTube app, and is just waiting on consent from Google to do so, since it is part of the non-public API.

Google refuses to do so. Microsoft has stated that the YouTube team themselves would like this to happen, but higher ups at Google prevent this from happening.

Seriously, not having YouTube is a serious chink in Windows Phone's armor, and I don't think Microsoft would lie about honestly wanting a YouTube app on the platform but being blocked by Google. They're not the ones with the leverage here.

MetroTube and YouTube+ have to spoof their requests to make them seem like they're coming from supported platforms. Its a constant cat and mouse game.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Maybe they should stop with their dirt flinging campaigns and FUD spreading. Or maybe they should come stop bashing Google, who they obviously need, and come up with a good offer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Please Thom
by Kochise on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Thom"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I'm wondering : how MANY times the MSN APIs and protocol slightly shifted and rendered third parties' client non functioning ?

"Hello!!?? Hello!?? ANYBODY HOME!??? Think McBallmer Think?!"

Kochise

Edited 2013-01-03 06:44 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I agree with you. It is wrong of Microsoft.

See what I did there? I acknowledged that yes, it is possible to hold a consistent view point and not be hypocritical.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Kochise on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Of course, because we're gentlemen. If Google is really preventing Microsoft from providing a correct YouTube exprience to WP users, that's not great of them and against Google's "Don't be evil" moto.

However, while the DAV subject refers to "OPEN" protocols, H264 is not. Let's start by sorting out this issue first, or knock's the top of Ballmer's head for not implementing the "OPEN" WebM standart into their Windows products in the first place.

That would sure ease creating streaming clients over YouTube's content.

Kochise

Reply Score: 4

RE: Please Thom
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:53 UTC in reply to "Please Thom"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If Microsoft did ANYTHING on this level, there'd be 10 articles a day, you'd probably find a Jury foreman on a murder trial somewhere, and do some kind of witch hunt against him too.

This is utterly and completely RIDICULOUS.


Of course, you're right. But with Microsoft having been evil jackasses for well over a decade, it's kind of hard for me to shed a tear for them. It's like watching a bully finally getting his ass beat.

What can I say? karma is a bitch ;) And Google is going to get theirs one day as well, especially if they continue their path to the dark side.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I hear you 100% on the karma bit, but there are ways to hurt Microsoft without hurting end users.

Google has now purposely crippled their Email offerings and locked out consumers from one of their most popular services, all over a petty pissing contest with Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Please Thom
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Thom"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, Google really have no obligation to support Microsoft's protocols and it's none of Microsoft's business what Google does.
It might be smart of them to do it but that's a different matter. If users really need this feature it will either a) be re-introduced or b) they'll get a different phone.
What, you think Microsoft cares about how this affect users? No, they care about how it affects the company.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Well, Google really have no obligation to support Microsoft's protocols and it's none of Microsoft's business what Google does.
It might be smart of them to do it but that's a different matter. If users really need this feature it will either a) be re-introduced or b) they'll get a different phone.
What, you think Microsoft cares about how this affect users? No, they care about how it affects the company.


Let's swap roles "Microsoft really have no obligation to support Google's protocols" .

Except I think in these very comments you lambast Microsoft for doing just that.

Pot, Kettle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Please Thom
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Except I think in these very comments you lambast Microsoft for doing just that.


Say what? For doing just what? Not supporting Google's protocols? Uh....
I said that Microsoft is still anti-competitive and monopolistic which isn't at all the same thing as Google not supporting EAS.
I also agreed that Google's isn't exactly a saint either.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

However, unlike Microsoft's offerings, Google's services are accessible using free and open standard based protocols/technologies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

However, unlike Microsoft's offerings, Google's services are accessible using free and open standard based protocols/technologies.


Like YouTube. Right? No.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

HTML5 no?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Please Thom
by The1stImmortal on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Thom"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

Google has now purposely crippled their Email offerings and locked out consumers from one of their most popular services, all over a petty pissing contest with Microsoft.


This is a little unfair. Google provide a means to access their services (Google Apps/GMAIL/etc) using a publicly documented and (mostly) standardised protocol suite (*DAV+IMAP).

Microsoft also provide a means to access their services (Exchange servers & Outlook.com/hosted exchange) via a publicly documented and entirely unstandardised protocol (EAS/EWS for mobile/desktop - there's also RPC[oHTTP] which is a mess even Microsoft is trying to figure out how to get away from and which I'll ignore)

This is in both cases in addition to the web interfaces of course.

Google should no more be expected to provide, for free (to users), EAS and EWS access to their services, than Microsoft should be expected to provide, for free (to users), *DAV+(decent)IMAP support via Outlook.com & Exchange based systems. (Exchange backed IMAP kinda sucks)

In fact, given the open, unencumbered nature of *DAV+IMAP, there should in fact be more reason to expect MS to adopt these protocols in their services than for Google to adopt EWS/EAS.

(Yes I know EWS hasn't come up, but as the desktop complement to EAS it makes sense to mention here)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


This is a little unfair. Google provide a means to access their services (Google Apps/GMAIL/etc) using a publicly documented and (mostly) standardised protocol suite (*DAV+IMAP).


Except that Google doesn't use the DAV suite (not even implemented by default in Android, ffs) or IMAP with Push on Android or on iOS. They use their Gmail app with a proprietary syncing solution.

So what Google is doing is locking a competitor out, saying they should implement standards that they don't even implement (Because they're not ready for prime time, IMAP doesn't have a true push solution), and then some how, they have tons of cheerleaders here.


Google should no more be expected to provide, for free (to users), EAS and EWS access to their services, than Microsoft should be expected to provide, for free (to users), *DAV+(decent)IMAP support via Outlook.com & Exchange based systems. (Exchange backed IMAP kinda sucks)

In fact, given the open, unencumbered nature of *DAV+IMAP, there should in fact be more reason to expect MS to adopt these protocols in their services than for Google to adopt EWS/EAS.


Google is leading from behind here, they don't implement the standards they advocate. And I think this is where we differ a bit, I think its fair to expect Microsoft to implement IMAP+*DAV if Google is also expected to implement EAS.

In the end the consumer wins when all options are covered. Just ditching EAS is divorcing yourself from the reality that EAS is in many instances the best way to get push email out of Gmail. Its very heavily used on iOS for exactly that reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Except that Google doesn't use the DAV suite (not even implemented by default in Android, ffs) or IMAP with Push on Android or on iOS. They use their Gmail app with a proprietary syncing solution.


Only push mechanism is proprietary and undocumented, the actual sync is IMAP(with GMail extensions, documented) and CalDAV+CardDAV.

Google is leading from behind here, they don't implement the standards they advocate.

They may not use those standards everywhere, but they do implement them. (Implement != use)

Edited 2013-01-04 13:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Only push mechanism is proprietary and undocumented, the actual sync is IMAP(with GMail extensions, documented) and CalDAV+CardDAV.


No. Android does not implement the DAV suite. Sorry. Contact, Calendar, and Push on Android is proprietary.

So basically what Google did was make their own proprietary syncing solution the only one people have at their disposal while simultaneously not releasing such a syncing solution for Windows or Windows Phone.


They may not use those standards everywhere, but they do implement them. (Implement != use)


So it's do as I say, not as I do? Ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No. Android does not implement the DAV suite. Sorry. Contact, Calendar, and Push on Android is proprietary.


It's not available for use for non-Google accounts, but the built-in apps use CardDAV and CalDAV as the protocols.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 12:43 UTC in reply to "Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The FACT is that Google is actively subverting these applications.

Maybe because they are not adhering to YouTube ToS and use the same hacks as YouTube video downloaders use. And YouTube video downloaders are violating both ToS and copyrights. These are essentially illegal apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I agree. I don't think I ever disagreed. My comment was in reply to Thom saying that because these apps do it, it must be feasible for Microsoft to do so as well.

Read for comprehension.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft PR
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:02 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

is Microsoft PR. There is nothing to see here.

Then again, there had been a curious lack of red meat for the Microsoft haters as of late. This will probably do.

PR for Company says bad things about other Company. News at 11.

Seriously, Mirosoft and Google are in this crazy fucking proxy patent war and taking 100% of what Google or Microsoft says at face value is ridiculous.

Just like Microsoft should implement the DAV suite (Alongside ActiveSync, and not instead of, as people who have probably never used EAS for anything serious will advocate), Google should let Microsoft implement a YouTube app.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Microsoft PR
by pos3 on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 12:36 UTC in reply to "Microsoft PR"
pos3 Member since:
2010-06-25

I don't get it. Are you saying you are Microsoft PR guy?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Microsoft PR
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft PR"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You can however figure out what I'm saying by reading my comment.

Reply Score: 2

Laughable
by tomz on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:06 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

Remeber Palm? And when Microsoft (Gates) was actively trying to break things for Palm? Or Netscape, where Gates said to try to give them a "jarring experience"? Or the logic bomb in Win 3.1 beta directed against DRDOS?

Out! Out! damned spot!

There was one critical difference. Microsoft directed their breakage against many who had the majority and were winning.

WP8 is a blip on the market charts.

I'm quite sure if Microsoft would take the money they are using to sue Google by proxy and paid Google to develop Apps, they would get very good apps, even if no one used them (mainly because they don't use the phones running WP8).

Reply Score: 10

RE: Laughable
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:08 UTC in reply to "Laughable"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The EAS support impacts a lot more people than Windows Phone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yes...
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 02:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Laughable"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Its just semantics.

Poor Microsoft can't release a YouTube App.

Poor Microsoft doesn't have the support for EAS in a third party application.

Poor Microsoft has to defend itself from the mean Google-Monster.

Get over it. Poor Microsoft isn't poor at all. Its just them complaining because they ran the Computer World for so long, they are getting comeuppance and don;t know how to handle it.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Yes...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yes..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and Microsoft was locking Google and Android out of Skype, or Skydrive, or Outlook. Or if Microsoft blocked Google access to the Microsoft Store or whatever underhanded tactic you could think of, I guarantee that you, and many others would be up in arms and this post would have 200 comments instead of just 25.

There is such a double standard that it is ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not particularly...
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yes..."
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Not particularly true, since Google isn't the Pink 8,000# over-weight bald-headed Gorilla in the room.

Plus... Microsoft have such such such history its not even funny. I mean Microsoft has done that as a matter of course. And where was the double standard there when it was happening? There wasn't, because nobody dare try it to Micorosoft as they'd be *DEAD* commercially... and they *DID* change APIs all the time at any whim and still do.

Its more like why cry for Microsoft right now, when its seriously getting its comeuppance.

Obviously you've only been in the computer industry for 6 or so years, since they started the decline brought on by their decades long haughtiness and hubris.

Its not at all a double standard... its a more of "About effing time they got what is coming to them!"

I'll never shed a tear for Microsoft, they don't deserve a single one. Maybe they could drink their own Alligator Tears.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Not particularly...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not particularly..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I get it, Microsoft shit in your cornflakes. They did some terrible, anti-competitive things, but what happened then, is not what is happening today.

Forgiving Google today because of the sins of Microsoft in the past is nonsensical and hypocritical.

I understand full well that you think its some sort of poetic justice, understood, but that doesn't mean what Google is doing is right, or justified, nor does it make it okay for you and others to be so dismissive about their behavior.

Remember, Google's priorities just happen to somewhat align with yours today. They may not tomorrow. So be careful what actions you cheer on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Not particularly...
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not particularly..."
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

I get it, Microsoft shit in your cornflakes. They did some terrible, anti-competitive things, but what happened then, is not what is happening today.
It absolutely is still happening to this day. What with the changes to Windows Phone 7, 7.5 and 8... RT is an abortion they are slamming into peoples throats...

[g]Forgiving Google today because of the sins of Microsoft in the past is nonsensical and hypocritical. [/q]They haven't even began to be anywhere *CLOSE* to anything Microsoft did or *IS* doing.

I understand full well that you think its some sort of poetic justice, understood, but that doesn't mean what Google is doing is right, or justified, nor does it make it okay for you and others to be so dismissive about their behavior.
There is NOTHING to be dismissive about... its Microsoft going about the whole thing the wrong way and doing the public whining thing that they admonished and quashed companies and peoples for... I can say one thing:

Remember Ed Curry!

Go find out about him.

Remember, Google's priorities just happen to somewhat align with yours today. They may not tomorrow. So be careful what actions you cheer on.
If Google changes tomorrow or even in 5-10 years from now. It won't be to our detriment, except to commoditize things like Apple's Device Cash Cow or Microsoft's Application Cash Cow.

Soon, Microsoft's and Apple's Cash Cows are going to be relegated to razor thing margin, which is where they should be.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Not particularly...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not particularly..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Okay. This has ceased to be productive.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not particularly...
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not particularly..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Forgiving Google for what?

For allowing only mobile IE to access YouTube? But not giving the convenience they provide for leading platforms?
For making it harder to setup new* devices from a competing company?(The one that chose only to have implemented their own licensed and proprietary protocol)

Forcing Microsoft to implement free and open standards or actually help develop those open standards is in my interest as well.


Do you think that IMAP Push would have been nowhere is EAS was not as widespread? The internet was built on free and open standards, Microsoft was never a positive element on that front.(from their own internet to promoting standards that include patent licensing)

*-Existing devices will not stop working, you know.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not particularly...
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not particularly..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Forgiving Google for what?

For allowing only mobile IE to access YouTube? But not giving the convenience they provide for leading platforms?
For making it harder to setup new* devices from a competing company?(The one that chose only to have implemented their own licensed and proprietary protocol)


It isn't just Windows Phones affected. Anyone who does not want to use the Gmail app, but wants true push, used to use EAS. Specifically on the iPhone, it was THE way to do Gmail push there.

This isn't about open standards, or how much Google likes DAV or IMAP, its about pushing people to use the Gmail App.


Forcing Microsoft to implement free and open standards or actually help develop those open standards is in my interest as well.


Microsoft and Google earn equal marks for their support. Android does not support DAV. Again, Android does not support DAV. Android does not use IMAP for Push.

The same exact situation is true for Windows Phone.


Do you think that IMAP Push would have been nowhere is EAS was not as widespread? The internet was built on free and open standards, Microsoft was never a positive element on that front.(from their own internet to promoting standards that include patent licensing)


IMAP Push is a misnomer. There is no such thing as IMAP Push.


*-Existing devices will not stop working, you know.


I am well aware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yes...
by The1stImmortal on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yes..."
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and Microsoft was locking Google and Android out of Skype, or Skydrive, or Outlook. Or if Microsoft blocked Google access to the Microsoft Store or whatever underhanded tactic you could think of


Brilliant example!

Actually, Skype's protocol is locked up - ISV's *cannot* build a full featured client around Skype's protocol without the same kind of issues third party YouTube apps face (even more, in fact, due to the nature of the protocol). Additionally, since the Microsoft acquisition of Skype was first announced, there's been a few licensing agreements for the protocol pulled (Skype for Asterisk being the big example)

Also, last I checked, Microsoft's store didn't support clients running Google's Android. Nor should they be forced to.

Likewise Google should not be forced to support clients running on MS's OS. Especially while Google is not the dominant/monopoly Email/Groupware provider, and while MS Phone 8/RT is such a small segment of the market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yes...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yes..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Brilliant example!

Actually, Skype's protocol is locked up - ISV's *cannot* build a full featured client around Skype's protocol without the same kind of issues third party YouTube apps face (even more, in fact, due to the nature of the protocol). Additionally, since the Microsoft acquisition of Skype was first announced, there's been a few licensing agreements for the protocol pulled (Skype for Asterisk being the big example)


I agree that Skype needs to be opened up. I will however give Microsoft a little tiny bit of leeway, the Skype acquisition was relatively recent and who knows the state of that source code. Judging by how terrible the Desktop app was, I wouldn't be surprise if it was an absolute mess.

But again, I agree this is a move they should make. And that's why I think its so unreasonable of people to try to deflect the blame on Google by going after Microsoft.


Also, last I checked, Microsoft's store didn't support clients running Google's Android. Nor should they be forced to.


But Google will soon need to face the reality that to remain relevant on Windows going forward, they need to use the Windows Store.

It would be a completely different story if Microsoft somehow blocked Google from their Store. However when Google does it via their closed API (and not even that, they refuse to even offer NDA'd documentation, the same courtesy they extend other platforms) its somehow alright.


Likewise Google should not be forced to support clients running on MS's OS. Especially while Google is not the dominant/monopoly Email/Groupware provider, and while MS Phone 8/RT is such a small segment of the market.


Google isn't the one writing the client. Microsoft has engineered the YouTube client. Much like they do the Facebook one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yes...
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yes..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Now I don't believe that Microsoft has to open Skype protocol. Neither does Google have to open up YouTube protocol(which would be harder to do, since YouTube is a good source of content licensing nightmare).
These protocols are tied into a service, they are not general purpose protocols.

It would be nice to have that, but it's not essential. Adopting open protocols would be much better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Yes...
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yes..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Now I don't believe that Microsoft has to open Skype protocol. Neither does Google have to open up YouTube protocol(which would be harder to do, since YouTube is a good source of content licensing nightmare).
These protocols are tied into a service, they are not general purpose protocols.


The service is nearly ubiquitous and not offering an open way to provide an experience (or even offering under NDA a way to access YouTube, as they did to Apple) is wrong.

Wrong when Microsoft does it. Wrong when Apple does it. Wrong when Google does it.

The issue is that others seem to be able to both simultaneously criticize Microsoft for instances in which they have not done it, but deflect criticism from Google.


It would be nice to have that, but it's not essential. Adopting open protocols would be much better.


A protocol becomes open..if you open it up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yes...
by Deviate_X on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yes..."
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Its just semantics.

Poor Microsoft can't release a YouTube App.

Poor Microsoft doesn't have the support for EAS in a third party application.

Poor Microsoft has to defend itself from the mean Google-Monster.

Get over it. Poor Microsoft isn't poor at all. Its just them complaining because they ran the Computer World for so long, they are getting comeuppance and don;t know how to handle it.


And in the process it is the end-user getting screwed over so that google can have its comeuppance

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yes...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yes..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And in the process it is the end-user getting screwed over so that google can have its comeuppance


Microsoft could have addressed all of these years ago. They chose not to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Yes...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yes..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Addressed what years ago? The DAV suite has only been recently fully ratified.

Does Google implement DAV or IMAP Push on Android? No. They use their own proprietary syncing solution.

Then they switch over to IMAP/DAV, and don't even use it on Android, but somehow have the testiciular fortitude to suggest others do so.

Reply Score: 2

Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:39 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

While Microsoft has documented, opened up, and even implemented apps and protocols on other platforms, Google can't be bothered to do the same.

However, to some people on this site Microsoft is still anti-competitive and monopolistic and Google can do no evil.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Perspective
by wojtek on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:48 UTC in reply to "Perspective"
wojtek Member since:
2010-01-24

MS only has done that becase they finally acnowlaged that they are kinda non-important... oh the pity - noone want to use IE so we have to give up all this 'jarring experience' bullshit... at MS they were probably crying while coding...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think its past your bed time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Perspective
by wojtek on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Perspective"
wojtek Member since:
2010-01-24

oh dear, personal because argumentation is lacking...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I went and re-read your original comment. Nope, still didn't find any logic in it.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to reply with. Maybe I should applaud you for firing your synapses and making a comment?

Congrats. We're all proud.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Perspective
by kwan_e on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:51 UTC in reply to "Perspective"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

While Microsoft has documented, opened up, and even implemented apps and protocols on other platforms, Google can't be bothered to do the same.

However, to some people on this site Microsoft is still anti-competitive and monopolistic and Google can do no evil.


If anyone remembers Steve Yegge's publicized rant, this is a long running problem with the Google culture. It is incompetence, no malice.

Basically, the point of Yegge's rant was that Google can't do platforms. It takes a huge cultural shift and enormous dedication the kind he claims he saw when he worked at Amazon but was lacking in Google. It seems it is still lacking.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Perspective
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:23 UTC in reply to "Perspective"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

However, to some people on this site Microsoft is still anti-competitive and monopolistic


Maybe that's because they still are?

Google can do no evil.


Dude, it's in their mission statement. Who are we to doubt that?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Do _any_ of your comments contain substance? Ever?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Perspective
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Perspective"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Oh, because I'm like six pages into your comment history and haven't found one yet. But I'll take your word for it and keep looking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Perspective
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Perspective"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow, don't you have better things to do? Like, I dunno, have a life?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Perspective
by 0brad0 on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Perspective"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Wow, don't you have better things to do? Like, I dunno, have a life?


Doesn't seem to. He just trolls really hard on this site.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Trolling is a euphemism for "I disagree with what you say" on OSNews.

How dare I point out the double standard, how dare I point out how blatantly wrong Thom was, how dare I mention that Microsoft should implement the CalDAV and CardDAV. What a troll!

Yes, this same troll that likes Ubuntu's Phone OS, develops for iOS, Android, and Windows, and uses Google Hangouts and Google Voice.

This meme that I'm in the tank for Microsoft, or that I'm trolling, merely because I state my opinion on subjects, or because I dare dare, to challenge the echo chamber here, is so completely off base its not even funny.

If you let me go off on what I feel is wrong with Microsoft, it'll be hard to stop me, but they are actual real issues that they need to address. Not tired accusations of Anti competitiveness, vendor lock in, or whatever it is that gets you all so fired up.

What a troll.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Perspective
by 0brad0 on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:11 UTC in reply to "Perspective"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

While Microsoft has documented, opened up, and even implemented apps and protocols on other platforms, Google can't be bothered to do the same.

However, to some people on this site Microsoft is still anti-competitive and monopolistic and Google can do no evil.


Ya, kicking and screaming as they were forced to. MS is still very much anti-competitive. Google is far from perfect but at least the file formats they introduce are open and documented in full with reference implementations and the protocol extensions are documented.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Ya, kicking and screaming as they were forced to. MS is still very much anti-competitive. Google is far from perfect but at least the file formats they introduce are open and documented in full with reference implementations and the protocol extensions are documented.


Nobody forced Microsoft to do any of the above. Unless you have any proof? You called me a troll in your other comment but the only one spreading falsehoods here is you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Perspective
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Perspective"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Nobody forced Microsoft to do any of the above. Unless you have any proof? You called me a troll in your other comment but the only one spreading falsehoods here is you.

WHAT?
The whole SAMBA v4 thing was a Lawsuit that forced them to open the stuff up.

Why was it that Microsoft themselves taught their protocol with Samba, was it because they were OPEN with it... no it was because Jeremy and they other chaps made Samba BUG for BUG compatible with the protocol as implemented over the wire by Microsoft and it is *MUCH* cleaner and easier to read... plus if does/did dual/tri modes.

Or how about the Memory Management mess they did with DOS.

Hmmm, how about them buying and deep-sixing whole companies because they were competition... even though *MANY* commercial customers were materially harmed by them flush the bowl... after they took a dump on those companies?

Again, I'm guessing you have *REALLY* little experience in this industry or you have a very bad memory.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

And I mentioned none of those. Do I need to rephrase my question?

I specifically mentioned protocols and services Microsoft has themselves implemented on other platforms. Its one thing to be forced to document a protocol and dump it on Samba, it's another thing for them to go ahead and do the leg work themselves.

Look at HyperV code in Linux, Hotmail/Outlook on Android, Skype, ActiveSync, Silverlight, etc.

The point is to show that Microsoft is (albeit slower than I'd like) turning towards a more general direction.

All of this is lost in your blind fury over the past.

Edited 2013-01-03 06:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Perspective
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Perspective"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

And I mentioned none of those. Do I need to rephrase my question?

I specifically mentioned protocols and services Microsoft has themselves implemented on other platforms. Its one thing to be forced to document a protocol and dump it on Samba, it's another thing for them to go ahead and do the leg work themselves.

Look at HyperV code in Linux, Hotmail/Outlook on Android, Skype, ActiveSync, Silverlight, etc.

The point is to show that Microsoft is (albeit slower than I'd like) turning towards a more general direction.

All of this is lost in your blind fury over the past.


HyperV code for Linux... purchased product they stapled in, badly at that. Look at the friggin code. Its horrible.

HOTMAIL? Purchased oh so many years ago... HUGE HUGE debacles in getting it to run on Windows. They couldn't get it to run right... actually run at all. They ended up having to throw like 20 times the hardware at the backend just to get sames performance levels that was on BSD.

Outlook? Second most Exploited piece of Software integrated with the OS a bit to deeply... (right along with the ActiveX and insertion of Userland into Ring 0)

ActiveSync? Really, trot that POS out. Its a serious HEAVY and very under documented item that changes nearly daily. (No not really daily, but damned nearly)

Silverlight? What is that? I have to use a Silverlight Application. I have *ZERO* Windows machines in either VM nor in baremetal. I've installed the latest "sponsored" Moonlight. I can't use it... it is unfortunate, since my PCI QSA requires me to upload my tests and proofs and evidence to their Sharepoint Portal and its just doesn't work from either Linux nor from OSX. I can slect things to upload, but CANNOT actually upload them the transfers never start or complete. I've watched the conversations with Linux and OSX and yes Windows... and they conversations only succeed with Windows due to an UNDOCUMENTED feature that the client assumes its okay to continue once the IIS webserver send an ack... but not any "continue" the OSX and Linux clients can't assume... due to the way Moonlight and Silverlight for OSX is written.

I can go on and on and on... I just don't think you get why Microsoft doesn't need nor deserve any pity or special consideration.

Tell me, have you ever been crapped on by a friend time and time and time and time and time and time and time again with updates on being crapped on more often than not... do you stop dealing with the person or do you keep eating the crap?

I know one thing, Microsoft falls into the category that I'll use them only where there is NO OTHER CHOICE and it is required for my continued employment... (Hint: its not for me)

So, seriously Nelson, you've never dealt with Microsoft in its true form... which is still just under the current skin. Its like a Volcano that is dormant but deadly at any time it feels like it.

Cheers, I do believe you'll never get why.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This isn't a list of things for you to opine on, it's examples of Microsoft bringing key services which people value to other platforms. A stark change from the past.

You go on these red herrings about Hotmail on Windows vs BSD and some random crap about ActiveSync and Hyper-V, but your personal opinions are none of my concern, and completely besides the point.

You're so anti-Microsoft it's almost clinical, and you'd rather go on these useless rants than have a sensible discussion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Perspective
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Perspective"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

This isn't a list of things for you to opine on, it's examples of Microsoft bringing key services which people value to other platforms. A stark change from the past.

You go on these red herrings about Hotmail on Windows vs BSD and some random crap about ActiveSync and Hyper-V, but your personal opinions are none of my concern, and completely besides the point.

You're so anti-Microsoft it's almost clinical, and you'd rather go on these useless rants than have a sensible discussion.


You were the one bringing up those particular things. I'm just showing you your vaulted Microsoft Golden Halo is more Lead with gold paint than anything lofty.

Just because you don;t have any way to combat facts and good points shows me you "scripted returns and talking points" are running out. You don't have any choice on your flow chart to be ale to provide good enough responses.

I really wish you would bring some real arguments to here rather than crying wolf for Microsoft.

It is not my problem you can't be asked to actually bring ante-points to my points.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Perspective
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Perspective"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Skype was before Microsoft and their development was in full swing for other platforms.

Also supporting Skype on competing platforms was actually forced on Microsoft as part of Skype buyout approval.

Silverlight what? Do they make one for OSX?
Do please look at Hotmail/Outlook on Android, it's a hack.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Perspective
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Silverlight what? Do they make one for OSX?


Yes. That was the whole point.


Do please look at Hotmail/Outlook on Android, it's a hack.


Again, as I think you also fail to understand, this isn't a list for you to give your opinion on, it is a list of cross platform commitments they have made.

Your comments on quality (which I happen to disagree with, using Hotmail/Outlook on Android, and it has a full implementation of ActiveSync) are your own opinion and not to be misconstrued as fact.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Perspective
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Perspective"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Quality shows their commitment and focus.
Contrast it to Skype app that was in development prior to Microsoft's acquisition.(Which actually looks and works well)

Your "commitments" is also an opinion, that sidesteps the fact that Microsoft is not a major player and has to be on popular platforms to keep it's users. People will not switch to WP8 just because Hotmail/Outlook doesn't work on Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Perspective
by Nth_Man on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Perspective"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

There are more official abuses listed by

The European Committee for Interoperable Systems
www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
"Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm".

Reply Score: 3

RE: Perspective
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:32 UTC in reply to "Perspective"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Microsoft was forced by market conditions. Google makes more apps on competing platforms then Microsoft. Google Maps app on iOS is better then on Android. I'm pretty sure that there is a Google Search app on WP8, as there is one on W8.

Google has started with open protocols(and still do support open and proprietary protocols), while Microsoft is reacting to the fact that they have to implement them to stay relevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Perspective
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft was forced by market conditions. Google makes more apps on competing platforms then Microsoft. Google Maps app on iOS is better then on Android. I'm pretty sure that there is a Google Search app on WP8, as there is one on W8.


I think that's just a side effect of a development cycles. From time to time Microsoft's SkyDrive apps are better than iOS, but as the development cycle turns, the improvements come to Windows Phone and Android apps as well.

The Google Search app on WP8 is useless while the W8 app is superb. Google has at least shown that when pressed, it can make a beautiful app for Windows 8, which is what is even more frustrating for end users.

Google has started with open protocols(and still do support open and proprietary protocols), while Microsoft is reacting to the fact that they have to implement them to stay relevant.


I love how you say "Stay relevant" as if EAS wasn't pretty much de-facto and Microsoft wasn't reaping in serious bank off of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Perspective
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Perspective"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I love how you say "Stay relevant" as if EAS wasn't pretty much de-facto standard(sic.) and Microsoft wasn't reaping in serious bank off of it.


Please see my original comment. I did not single out EAS there. The fact Microsoft isn't implementing CalDAV/CardDAV in Exchange would indicate that EAS isn't the area where they have to do something to stay relevant.(And I know that pretty well) Though Google's move with GMail might force them to

As an example - Microsoft moved away from Silverlight(it's not their focus anymore) to HTML5. That is due to market conditions, where they cannot dictate the majority of the market.

Reply Score: 2

Funny
by Shadowmane on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 01:15 UTC
Shadowmane
Member since:
2006-06-16

I find this all very funny. However, I foresee that in another decade, people will be treating Google like they are Microsoft and Apple now. But in a decade, there'll be another company that everyone is enamored with.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Funny
by kwan_e on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 01:26 UTC in reply to "Funny"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But in a decade, there'll be another company that everyone is enamored with.


They'll get acquired by either Google, Microsoft, or IBM.

Reply Score: 3

it is surely all about ads
by dvhh on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:06 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

Most 3rd party youtube apps skip ads, which in google book is surely an argument for refusing to endorse them as official.
I don t know how youtube client behave on game entertainment system.

However for who would point samba as an open standard, I would lile to ask about the use of live authentication that is breaking any other client.

Reply Score: 3

Fair is fair...
by galvanash on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:38 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Utter nonsense, since MetroTube offers a complete and full YouTube experience on Windows Phone (it's one of the best Windows Phone applications)...


You do know that on Dec 22nd the developers of this app decided to pull it from the marketplace - for the very reasons Microsoft is complaining about...

http://www.wpcentral.com/metrotube-be-discontinued-after-january-1s...

Now this may have been a knee-jerk reaction. They have since posted an update that currently works so maybe they thought it over and changed their mind. Point is Microsoft isn't the only party affected by this - 3rd party apps are in the same exact boat.

Yes, you can write a full featured YouTube app - but only if you are willing to use intentionally undocumented and unsupported methods.

Facts are facts - Google does not want unlicensed 3rd parties writing full featured YouTube apps. Whether they actively police it by changing under the hood APIs isn't really relevant - their official policy is they don't want you to write them.

I'm just saying... Sure, Microsoft has been guilty of worse in the past. But you can't just give Google a pass and blame Microsoft for the situation. Microsoft can't do what these small ISVs do - they can't afford it. Just imagine what would happen if 80% of WP8 users were using the official Microsoft YouTube app and Google just decided to pull the plug on them... The PR backlash would be catastrophic.

You can't be Microsoft and write software conforming to unsupported APIs that can change on the whim of another service provider - there have to be guarantees in place...

Google owns YouTube, they can do with it what they will. But the reason there is no "good" 1st party YouTube app on Windows Phone is Google's policies. Its not whining, it is simply the truth.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Fair is fair...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:51 UTC in reply to "Fair is fair..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

MetroTube guys pulled it because Hiding/Unhiding in the Store is an instant process. They wanted to shield themselves as much as possible from the influx of new users and bad ratings/reviews. Windows Phone Store is cutthroat when it comes to reviews. Either it works perfectly or you're 1 starred into irrelevancy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Fair is fair...
by galvanash on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair is fair..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

MetroTube guys pulled it because Hiding/Unhiding in the Store is an instant process. They wanted to shield themselves as much as possible from the influx of new users and bad ratings/reviews. Windows Phone Store is cutthroat when it comes to reviews. Either it works perfectly or you're 1 starred into irrelevancy.


Maybe... I'm just going by what they told their users - which was that Google did not offer supported APIs for their intended feature set.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fair is fair...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair is fair..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

iirc, they do it every time Google changes something. Its unfortunate.

I think the biggest takeaway from this story are the dangers of closed data. Especially if you're a big service. Your data should be open to all clients, and all devices to use.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fair is fair...
by relas on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:25 UTC in reply to "Fair is fair..."
relas Member since:
2013-01-03

Is it me or is that news article from over a year ago? (Dec 22nd, 2011, discussing a takedown on Jan 1st, 2012, and we are in 2013 ..)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fair is fair...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair is fair..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It is an old article, but there was a recent MetroTube outage as well because of YouTube API changes. This one was maybe a week or two ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fair is fair...
by galvanash on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 07:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair is fair..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Eck... The year on that article didn't register properly when I read it. I always get mixed up the first few days of a new year. I was thinking it was recent (i.e. 2012)

Regardless, it still supports my argument more or less. A year ago the developer was making the same complaints that Microsoft is making now. Nothing has really changed in the last year, they are still dealing with API breakages as they come. Microsoft can't afford to operate like that - they need guarantees or at least private channel communications about upcoming changes with some lead time.

Reply Score: 3

bothersome
by bnolsen on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:11 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

It's definitely bothersome google doesn't have a youtube api. I hope this is a case of incompetence instead of malce and doesn't foreshadow upcoming lockdown. That would be bad.

Agreed that MS is inappropriately whining about ActiveSync. MS really needs to start dropping all their NIH proprietary crap if they want to survive or definitely risk collapsing their entire ecosystem. They certainly have the cash and resources to pull this off, perhaps not the clock time though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: bothersome
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:26 UTC in reply to "bothersome"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

ActiveSync is one of their most successful things, ever. Seriously.

Until something can be as data and battery efficient while providing true push email then EAS is here to stay.

That doesn't mean Microsoft can't interoperate better and implement the DAV suite and IMAP into Outlook.com and Windows 8 Mail (WP7/8 Mail supports IMAP already).

To me this is the most pragmatic view. Plus, anyone who really wants to can take an ActiveSync license and implement it.

Reply Score: 2

Long time Linux user here
by PieterGen on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 12:10 UTC
PieterGen
Member since:
2012-01-13

You reap what you sow :-) Yes, MS is misbehaving up till this very day. Some recent ones: the UEFI Restricted Boot (aka, "Use the Hardware to Keep other OSes Out") and Android and FAT "licenses" (aka "Pay us for bogus patents or face long lawsuits")

Google is the only one with the muscle and the will to stand up against this.

LOL :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Long time Linux user here
by vaette on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 12:43 UTC in reply to "Long time Linux user here"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Haha, yeah, anti-competitive behavior is awesome now that the corporate giant of our choice is doing it. Suck it corporate giant we dislike!

Reply Score: 2

Re:
by kurkosdr on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 12:26 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Microsoft:

"Don't ever dare implement ActiveSyncwithout paying respect to our royalty scheme or we"ll get you" (everyone switches to open srandards) "Waa, everyone intentionally makes their products incompatible with ActiveSync"

"Don't ever dare implement WMV without paying respect to our royalty scheme or we"ll get you" (everyone switches to open srandards) "Waa, everyone intentionally makes their products incompatible with our WMV"

Essentially Microsoft thinks they can pull a .doc on everything.

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; el-gr; LG-P990 Build/GRJ23) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1 MMS/LG-Android-MMS-V1.0/1.2

Reply Score: 4

RE: Re:
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:33 UTC in reply to "Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

In some fantasy land of yours, no one takes a royalty bearing license for anything, ever.

Except that's not how the world actually works. People license things all the time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Re:
by bnolsen on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

licensing can hit bottom line profitability. MS has made no friends with google with their patent extortion fees against android vendors. fair is fair here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Re:
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Do you know how much the licensing fees cost Google? I'm not sure you do, so I don't think you're qualified to talk on any potential impact to their bottom line.

If you think a company as large as Google doesn't get major volume discounts you're out of your mind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Re:
by nej_simon on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

So? That doesn't mean you can come whining when someone opts for the royalty-free technology rather than your proprietary stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Re:
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think its perfectly acceptable to complain when they disenfranchise a large amount of users and remove functionality with no replacement.

There is no replacement for the functionality EAS brought to the table, there is no evidence this was financially destroying Google, and there is no excuse for doing this with two months notice.

The way some of you contort yourselves to defend this is amusing.

Reply Score: 2

shoe on the other foot
by TechGeek on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:37 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Nelson,

This past year at the long awaited Novell-Microsoft trial over WP, Microsoft argued that they were under no obligation to help any other business. This is the same exact story. Internal API's that change, preventing people from making apps that work well. Only this time the its Microsoft who is on the losing end. Maybe Google would be nicer if Microsoft hadn't been shaking down Android users for patent fees.

Reply Score: 6