Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 14:53 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And so this situation is starting to get ridiculous - and consumers are, as usual, caught in the middle of it all. Google has just blocked Windows Phone devices from accessing Google Maps on their phones. In addition, it also seems Windows Phone users are now restricted to the basic HTML version of the mobile GMail website. While understandable from a defensive perspective - Microsoft's extortion scheme targeting Android device makers and all that - it's still a massive dick move that only hurts consumers. Update: the media attention has worked - Google is backpedalling, and will remove the redirect. "We periodically test Google Maps compatibility with mobile browsers to make sure we deliver the best experience for those users. In our last test, IE mobile still did not offer a good maps experience with no ability to pan or zoom and perform basic map functionality. As a result, we chose to continue to redirect IE mobile users to Google.com where they could at least make local searches. The Firefox mobile browser did offer a somewhat better user experience and that’s why there is no redirect for those users. Recent improvements to IE mobile and Google Maps now deliver a better experience and we are currently working to remove the redirect. We will continue to test Google Maps compatibility with other mobile browsers to ensure the best possible experience for users."
Order by: Score:
Why does HTML5 exist?
by Nelson on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:03 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Why does HTML5 exist if Google is just going to optimize their websites for their own browser?

Google is literally, with this, killing the promise of the mobile web. When Microsoft did it with IE6 they were rightly criticized for it.

This is not understandable. Not by any stretch of imagination. It is unbelievable, and further reinforces the notion that Google is systematically locking out competing platforms.

I'm interested in how some of you will spin this.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Laurence on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:10 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Why does HTML5 exist if Google is just going to optimize their websites for their own browser?

Google is literally, with this, killing the promise of the mobile web. When Microsoft did it with IE6 they were rightly criticized for it.

This is not understandable. Not by any stretch of imagination. It is unbelievable, and further reinforces the notion that Google is systematically locking out competing platforms.

I'm interested in how some of you will spin this.

To be fair, they do optimise their sites to run a number of other browsers, including later versions of Internet Explorer. This is just a petty move by Google backed by an even weaker argument from Google.

That said, there is still an increasing issue of sites being developed that do specifically target webkit. And not just from Google nor Apple web developers either.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Nelson on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, I don't doubt their intentions were more malicious than their statement lets on, I was just addressing their excuse. Its pathetic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well last time we spoke you thought that was kinda of okay ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Laurence on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well last time we spoke you thought that was kinda of okay ...

No, what I said was that it's ok to have targeted -sometimes even necessary- just so long as you're not excluding browsers.

What I'm saying here is that some sites target webkit specifically and ignore other browsers.

There's a subtle but important difference between the two. One is using each browsers features to bring about the best usability experience, and the other is not supporting browsers entirely.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by microFawad on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:17 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

That's the only reason I don't support Chrome and IE. I have always supported Mozilla because of their philosophy of Open Web. Mozilla is non-profit foundation and they had never done anything bad to create monopoly.
I fully support and promote their new mobile OS (Firefox OS) because they are working hard to keep the mobile platform open and promoting the use of open technologies to build mobile apps.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Lazarus on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:44 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

I'm interested in how some of you will spin this.


It is definitely a dick move, and the people with Windows Phone shouldn't suffer because of this IP war between corporations.

However, there is a part of me that hopes this puts some hurt on Microsoft, and that they learn something about how it is not nice to do such things to others.

I can dream, can't I?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:48 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's a dick move, what else to spin?

I believe it's only for mobile versions? So HTML5 isn't really at issue here. I don't believe that their site is actually only WebKit optimized.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by judgen on Sat 5th Jan 2013 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Is it a dick move when the bullied nerd on the schoolyard stands up against said bully too? I would just call google's move blowback.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by jared_wilkes on Sat 5th Jan 2013 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Android market share: 65%
Google search market share: 65%
Google maps market share: unknown but probably similar

Windows Phone market share: 2% and declining

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Nelson on Sat 5th Jan 2013 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

And that has to do with Google breaking the promise of the web how?

It isn't as if Google Maps did not work with IE's rendering engine before, because it did and still does on endpoints that Google has not redirected yet. It is an artificial limitation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by jared_wilkes on Sat 5th Jan 2013 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You misunderstand: my point is that Microsoft's bullying nearly 20 years ago doesn't justify Google's current bullying.

This isn't self-defense or reciprocity. This is the kid that was picked on when he was ten going to that bully's house 15 years later when he is a washed-up, friendless homebody and kicking the crap out of him as an adult. Yes, that is a dick move.

Self-defense analogies are weak sauce. The obvious cliché is: two wrongs don't make a right. (Especially when separated by 15 years.)

Edited 2013-01-05 20:42 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Eh, Microsoft is extorting and threatening Android device makers NOW, not 15 years ago.

Reply Score: 11

v RE[7]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Nelson on Sat 5th Jan 2013 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
RE[7]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by jared_wilkes on Sat 5th Jan 2013 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Microsoft is collecting a couple tens of millions from many OEMS of Android devices. (They also do this with many other companies for products in many other fields.)

You call it extorting. Crime vs. perfectly legal. Rhetoric.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by andydread on Sat 5th Jan 2013 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Eh, Microsoft is extorting and threatening Android device makers NOW, not 15 years ago.


Its not just Android device makers. Its Linux device makers including Android.

TomTom (Linux GPS Devices)
Amazon. (Linux Servers and Android)
Buffalo (Linux NAS) Devices.
Amdocs (A User using Linux Servers)
Casio (Linux devices non-android)
Itronix(General Dynamics owns them now) (Rugged Linux Notebooks for the military.
Onkyo (Audio Sytems with Linux integrated)
IO Data (Linux NAS servers)
Kyocera Mita (Copiers with embedded Linux)
Brother International Corp (Printers w/embedded Linux)
Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd(copiers,Printers w/embedded Linux)
Kyocera Mita Corp (copiers, printers w/embedded Linux)

There are more.

Microsoft has vowed to use software-patents to destroy the use of the Linux kernel in the marketplace by driving up the cost as much as possible. This is their plan in action.

Reply Score: 9

RE[7]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Deviate_X on Sun 6th Jan 2013 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Eh, Microsoft is extorting and threatening Android device makers NOW, not 15 years ago.


Arguabled Apples intentions are even more damaging to Android than Microsoft. Google however does not dare retalitate against Apple because iOS is the 800 lbs Monkey and Microsoft is the 2%.

You forgot to take that into account in you analysis.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by delta0.delta0 on Sun 6th Jan 2013 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

Firstly let me say Good ! Then to say this post is a lot longer than I intended it to be initially.


There are aspects that you are missing, what platforms support what web browsers? :

Apple does lock it to their rendering engine ie webkit / safari build, but still allows chrome and other browsers in the appstore.

Android supports multiple browsers, available from the play store.

Blackberry has allowed multiple different browsers, not sure about bb10 but I bet it will allow multiple browsers still.

What about Windows Phone ? AFAIK only IE is allowed.

Luckily for all of us, WP owns 2% market share, To quote Tomi T Ahonen :

" I am allowing 33% better performance. And if you have 4% of the global market for smartphones, you are a tiny meaningless shit. Sorry, didn't mean to say that. A tiny meaningless 'niche', you are not 'the third ecosystem' by any stretch of that definition. Sorry, Ballmer..."

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/12/android-won-wi...


Maybe this move will open up the WP store to allow webkit browsers, maybe MS will be forced to open up their platform.. Otherwise if MS were ever allowed to get WP into any sort of meaningful position, we would all suffer again, it would be a shitty locked down Microsoft World filled with stagnating MS shit while they milk everyone.



Microsoft bullying 20 years ago ?

Your right Microsoft were evil 20 years ago and now they are spotless, they are absolutely above board and act completely humanely, with complete humility and decency.. Give me a break the company doesnt have 1 shred of decency ...

I have stopped reading the commments on the Verge, on practically every major Web site, because of the blatent Astro turfing.


Proof Microsoft hasnt changed at all:

In 2003:
Microsoft bankrolled SCO to try and destroy Linux, luckily IBM and Novell stepped in and destroyed SCO. That case ended in 2007, 6 years ago...


In 2004:

http://battellemedia.com/archives/2005/09/ballmer_throws_a_chair_at...

Ballmer Throws a chair and threatens to f'ing destroy Google..


In 2007:
http://247wallst.com/2007/05/14/microsoft_marke/

Microsoft (MSFT) says that open source Linux violates 235 of its patents. And, the world’s largest software company wants royalties. Perhaps the whole thing will end up in court.

Note the year, 2007. Its attempt with SCO has failed, New battle plan : Linux violates 235 of its patents, and along with it starts the patent extortions.


In 2000-Present:

Get The FUD sorry Facts Campaign, on going campaign to try and prove Linux as bad and Microsoft as better mainly through manipulation and outright lying.

Have to add this because it is just pure poetic justice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwSM55bsCrM
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_fai...

After suffering extended downtime and unreliability[6][7] the LSE announced in 2009 that it was planning to switch to Linux in 2010.[8][9]
In October 2010, the London Stock Exchange announced that the new Linux based trading system named Millennium Exchange, had smashed the world record for trade speed, with 126 microsecond trading times.. (wikipedia)

Listen to that youtube clip its just so hilariously funny listening to the complete bull about how reliable and fast the MS .NET based platform was, the Linux based system comes into play and destroys it.


In 2010:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10458849-16/when-will-microsoft-s...

"Microsoft believes it has valid patent claims on Linux. Fine. Why not put its money where it's mouth is and sue Google to put those claims to the test?"


In 2011:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/barnes-noble-bets-on-nook-and-b...

Microsoft Go after Barnes & Noble, Barnes & Noble fight back, we find the patents are complete tripe:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296

Then Microsoft settles with Barnes & Noble and claims it as a victory when they pay out 200 Million and B&N has not released a single MS based tablet and its still releasing Android based tablets:

http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/handheld/barnes-noble-deal-... --> great victory that cost them $200 Million


In 2012:

Incredibly Evil act: Secure Boot
Secure Boot --> One of the most Evil things to be done making it more difficult for newbies to try a different OS on hardware they own. Boot Sector Viruses are a strawman, name me a recent Windows Infection that attacked the Boot Sector, or required secure boot, absolute bull.

http://www.zdnet.com/2013-installing-linux-on-windows-8-pc-is-still...

http://www.zdnet.com/more-fun-with-windows-8-uefi-secure-boot-fedor... --> what a joke !!


Then we have the Marketing antics:

https://twitter.com/windowsphone/status/276140670505340928 --> #droidrage directly trying to paint android as malware infested.

http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-droidrage-twitter-campaign-goes-pai...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/12/06/why-microsofts-mo... --> glad to see it went wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-pr-boss-attacked-a-google...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battles-goog...


Then there is the direct attacks of Google:

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2012/11/28/microsoft-takes-aim-at-g...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-latest-google-compet...

Then the constant disgusting Astro Turfing, which is ruining nearly all commenting systems.


What about Nokia ? Its just about destroyed Nokia:

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/01/second-picture...


Microsoft is one of the most selfish, abusive companies to ever infest the IT industry. It goes on and on and on..


The pusxxxs still havent gone after Google directly because they are full of it and if they took a Linux Vendor directly to Court such as RHEL they would have practically every old school Unix Vendor joining the court proceedings leaving Microsoft with a new asshole ripped the size of the Grand Canyon. It only takes Big Blue, IBM to step in ...


So to summarize I am very glad Google have done this and Long may they continue and I hope others join in to break up and destroy any monopoly Microsoft holds in any area, simple as that, once their monopoly is destroyed and they are forced to co-operate with others then maybe, maybe they will change their ways and just embrace interoperability without trying to extend it to be Microsoft only.

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Jan 2013 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The thing is that we will have have every popular browser code base funded primarily by two large corporations (Google and Apple), and Webkit will become the defacto standard instead of IE.

This will actually split web-standards yet again into two browser groups and we will have the browser wars all over again.

Microsoft supply IE because their corporate clients demand it (usually for Group Policy and the slower release cycle which let said clients develop intranet applications against a set of features that won't change while the browser and OS are still supported).

So you will have Webkit based browsers, IE and then you will have 3rd and 4th place to Opera and Firefox. Microsoft will still hold on to their corporate clients and like before there will be two different browser code bases being utterly incompatible when it comes to client side abilities.

What will happen is the opposite of what you want.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Morgan on Sat 5th Jan 2013 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Bullied nerd, my ass. Anyone who claims Google is the weaker power here is either grossly misinformed or outright lying. Google owns search, they own the mobile market, and they own online mapping and webmail. They are using their considerable power and influence to shut out an already weak player in those areas. That's the very definition of bullying.

What I don't get is why anyone would want to use mobile Google Maps or mobile Gmail on a Windows Phone anyway. When I used a WP7 device, I preferred the native Maps app to Google Maps on Android, as it was faster and more accurate with navigation, and the native WP email app has full support for Gmail via IMAP.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You are mistaken if you think they own webmail.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Morgan on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

In the mobile space, which we are discussing here? Of course they do. Gmail was the first webmail service that was actually functional on a mobile browser, despite being one of the youngest webmail services alive today. Hotmail and Yahoo have greatly improved their mobile experience, but they don't come close to Gmail right now.

The thing is, the built in mail clients in all of the major phone OSes still beat any mobile portal by a wide margin. Basically, if your webmail service offers IMAP or POP access, you shouldn't be using their mobile webmail portal, ever. That includes Gmail, and of course if you have a Windows Phone you don't have a choice now.

Just so you don't misunderstand my position though: Google sucks donkey balls for doing this. As others have said, they are taking the low road and being absolutely childish about it all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Jan 2013 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Mobile users don't generally use webmail.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Delgarde on Sun 6th Jan 2013 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I believe it's only for mobile versions? So HTML5 isn't really at issue here. I don't believe that their site is actually only WebKit optimized.


Their mobile site? It probably is, actually - WebKit is basically the only browser engine of interest on mobile platforms, seeing as that covers both iOS and Android devices. So given that, I'd say yes, it's entirely plausible that their mobile site relies on WebKit-only features...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by cjosc99 on Sat 5th Jan 2013 23:46 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
cjosc99 Member since:
2011-07-13

If Microsoft does nothing but to attack, extort and denigrate Google. What is what Microsoft expects? A flower bouquet and a box of chocolates?
That's just not going to happen!!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by Deviate_X on Sun 6th Jan 2013 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

I own a windows desktop, a mac laptop, a nexus tables and a surface rt. Like most i also use a lot of google services. So who is being more damaged?

It's not Microsoft who is being damaged here, its googles own users and customers and its googles own reputation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Jan 2013 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I see that you're not a WP user, therefore you definitely are not affected by any of this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by bassbeast on Sun 6th Jan 2013 03:27 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Because we are going back to the days of "This site works best in" thanks to corporate douchebaggery? To be fair the W3C is slow as Xmas but the answer there is obvious, fire their behinds and start a new standards org that doesn't take 3 forevers to get new features into the spec.

But of course that wouldn't let big corps like Google lock people into their platform, can't have none of that. does anybody else find it ironic that after years of having to fake user string with FF and Opera thanks to IE 6 that now its IE that is gonna have to fake user strings? Doesn't make it any less douchebaggy though and I think this can finally lay to rest that whole "do no evil" bit, since locking down the web with platform specific crap and redirects is pretty damned evil in my book.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You have described the WHATWG.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by bassbeast on Mon 7th Jan 2013 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Sorry, didn't know they had already come up with a replacement for W3C but that just drives my point home more, doesn't it? If there is a group with standards that doesn't take forever like W3C then the ONLY reason to do HTML redirects and "works best in" crap is good old fashioned proprietary lock in, just as we saw for half a decade with IE.

To me the sad part if I truly believe we are going "back to the 80s" with locked down boxes running locked down OSes to surf a locked down web, because it seems like Google and MSFT took one look at how much money that Apple was making (as has been reported iPhone makes more than every product MSFT makes combined) and are simply gonna copy all the nasty lock in that Apple and days past MSFT were famous for.

I truly believe the teens will be looked back upon as "the years when all tech became glorified game consoles" because it'll all be so locked down that when the corps no longer support the device it'll be landfill fodder, just as that old GameCube or Dreamcast is worthless without parent corp support. damned shame as never before as the hardware been so cheap and so powerful, but the profits Apple has been making is just too much for the IT world to ignore it seems.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by HappyGod on Mon 7th Jan 2013 03:36 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

I'm bracing myself for the torrent of hate here, but:

You can't literally kill a promise.

I'm sorry. Really :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why does HTML5 exist?
by WereCatf on Mon 7th Jan 2013 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Why does HTML5 exist?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You can't literally kill a promise.


Actually, if it's a person who shows a lot of promise or a person who made a promise then you just need to kill the person... ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by segedunum on Tue 8th Jan 2013 09:46 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It is unbelievable, and further reinforces the notion that Google is systematically locking out competing platforms.

I'm interested in how some of you will spin this.

The same way you spin Microsoft Exchange's 'enterprise' lock-in. It's called hypocrisy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why does HTML5 exist?
by WarpKat on Thu 10th Jan 2013 20:39 UTC in reply to "Why does HTML5 exist?"
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

Probably because Webkit supports HTML5 much better than IE?

Reply Score: 1

Wow, bad form
by andrewclunn on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:04 UTC
andrewclunn
Member since:
2012-11-05

Way to bring yourself down it their level Google.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:05 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

One day, when I have kids, I'm going to tell them about an era when everything on the web was open and free. When nearly any device owned by any manufacturer could access any data. When people would upload their favourite parodies without getting sued by content publishers and when we had freedom of speech without fear of being arrested at airports because of a (bad) joke getting misinterpreted. And what's more, an era when we didn't have to pay for these freedoms with intrusive advertising.

They'll probably think I'm making the whole thing up though.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Laurence
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And what's more, an era when we didn't have to pay for these freedoms with intrusive advertising.

When was that? Everything that you say never existed at one single period of time. And the internet was expensive and slow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


When was that? Everything that you say never existed at one single period of time. And the internet was expensive and slow.

Maybe I have rose tinted glasses, but swear it's only in recent years that adverts have become intrusive.

Thinking about it again, those Flash banners from yesteryear used to drive me nuts - particularly the ones with audio.

I don't think think the internet was that slow though. At least not where I lived. Sure, it's slow by todays comparisons, but the net has grown a bit like HDDs (10 years ago I bought a 120GB HDD for my NAS and wondered how the hell I'd fill it - and yet these days I have close to 40 times that capacity and still have managed to get 3/4 full).

Going back to my original point though; I do often wonder what the internet will be like when my kids are teenagers. If only because of the different power struggles that are currently happening.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Laurence
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

yes you are making everything up.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

yes you are making everything up.

Grow up already. This grudge match you have against me is pathetic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by Morgan on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Pathetic? Who are you kidding, I brought popcorn! Game on! ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 6th Jan 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Pathetic? Who are you kidding, I brought popcorn! Game on! ;)

lol

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Jan 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I wasn't aware we were having one, do I have to put a smiley at the end of every post?

No I wasn't really happy with you saying "You will have a horrible new year of misery after the holidays" ... I like my job thanks and I get to live in sunny Spain which is a nice bonus.

In anycase you were talking a lot of rubbish ... lots of people can use the internet in pretty much anyway they like as long it isn't illegal, while Google pulling this is shitty, the subsequent uproar has made them open it back up ... how about that a company actually responding to consumer pressure and criticism.

Edited 2013-01-07 19:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jan 2013 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well at least now you've bothered to explain your position ;)

That comment was a tongue-in-cheek hypothetical piece where I speculated about a future web based on the trends and pressures facing us in current years.

It wasn't meant to be taken literally because, as much as I may wish to, cannot predict the future.

I'm sure even you have held such discussions before ;)

Edited 2013-01-07 21:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Laurence
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Jan 2013 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Laurence"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Would you like to explain yours where I was a "mickey mouse programmer"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jan 2013 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Would you like to explain yours where I was a "mickey mouse programmer"?

Not really.

I could pick out a number of offensive comments you made as well but that would get us nowhere.

Water, bridges and sleeping dogs ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Laurence
by lucas_maximus on Tue 8th Jan 2013 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Laurence"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I could pick out a number of offensive comments you made as well but that would get us nowhere.


Which were born out of frustration with your attitude. Anyway I had my pop back at you now, so all is good.

Tit for Tat.

Edited 2013-01-08 14:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Proves me right.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:11 UTC
RE: Proves me right.
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:55 UTC in reply to "Proves me right. "
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well duh... Though it might force Microsoft to implement open standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Proves me right.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 5th Jan 2013 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Proves me right. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Well duh... Though it might force Microsoft to implement open standards.


Well a lot of people argued it was all about open standards and had nothing to do with punishing MS.

But if Google cared about open standards they would of took it out of all their products but they didn't. They kept it in their paid products.

Open standards my booty. They know active sync works better then DAV services and for sure is more easy to use so they kept it for their business customers.

It's just punishment for MS. Lol.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Proves me right.
by unoengborg on Sun 6th Jan 2013 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proves me right. "
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

"Well duh... Though it might force Microsoft to implement open standards.



But if Google cared about open standards they would of took it out of all their products but they didn't. They kept it in their paid products.

"

Google is a business and need to support their existing customers, so they keep it in their paid products. Not having it for free will create an incentive to create better solutions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Proves me right.
by Windows Sucks on Sun 6th Jan 2013 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proves me right. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10



Google is a business and need to support their existing customers, so they keep it in their paid products. Not having it for free will create an incentive to create better solutions.


Right so you would think they would want to move their customers to a better solution if there was one.

So they are saying that DAV is not good enough for their business customers. If it was they could transition them off active sync since they have consultants working with most of their business customers.

Fact is Active sync is the best solution if you want blackberry like sync connected to Google Apps in the enterprise.

That open standards talk is BS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Proves me right.
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Jan 2013 14:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Proves me right. "
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If only these devices had support for the open standards that Google provides...

Customer is always right, so when their customers(like myslef) say that they need EAS...(you know the rest)

PS: EAS is not necessarily the best, it's the best and widespread protocol.

Edited 2013-01-07 14:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Proves me right.
by shotsman on Sun 6th Jan 2013 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Proves me right. "
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

The only standards MS will implement are THEIR 'open standards' which are slightly different from everyone else's open standards.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Proves me right.
by Morgan on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proves me right. "
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Not always; Microsoft does actually contribute a tiny bit to the F/OSS community. There are two problems though. One, they only contribute when it benefits them, which is selfish but not unheard of (I'm looking at you, Canonical). The bigger problem is that for every tiny bit of positive contribution, they take away a pound of flesh elsewhere, for example with the patent extortion of various companies that use GNU/Linux in some form.

Reply Score: 3

The proper response...
by howitzer86 on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:27 UTC
howitzer86
Member since:
2008-02-27

The solution is simple enough.

"If this website, then this user-agent."

If Google wants to continue to isolate an entire platform just because its a competitor, they will have to take further steps. These steps will harm them in the public sphere, further helping Microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The proper response...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:37 UTC in reply to "The proper response..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Agreed. Just to piss off Google, Microsoft should send out an update that alters the user agent when visiting Maps and Gmail.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: The proper response...
by andydread on Sat 5th Jan 2013 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE: The proper response..."
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Microsoft has pissed off Google and the entire Linux and FOSS community enough don't you think? The software-patent extortion scheme they are running is way more damaging to the industry than this childish move by Google. I don't see Google ushering in an era where you can't sit down and your computer and write useful successful system software without having to pay a patent tax or have an army of lawyers. I See Microsoft doing that damage. I have news for you. If ReactOS or Wine ever gets any traction on the radar you bet Microsoft will use software patents to tax the crap out of any device that is produced with a functioning Wine or ReactOS, or even Haiku or drive them out of town on software-patent rail. What gets me is that you have smart people who know this and even complain and write blogs about this extortion yet they still go purchase devices with Microsoft OS installed.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: The proper response...
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The proper response..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The application in hand is a web application.

The said Web application works fine in mobile IE.

Evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Dd7RiMCrZFw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gG6pQviJ8XY

It got nothing to do with desktop stuff, so I don't understand why you are bringing it up.

This is about the Web pure and simple, either you want another company to dictate the web like the IE6 days or you don't.

Edited 2013-01-06 00:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: The proper response...
by Almafeta on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:42 UTC in reply to "The proper response..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

"If this website, then this user-agent."


Like I had to do for a little bit to continue using Google+ on Opera.

Reply Score: 3

We are talking about IE here!
by willm.wade on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:39 UTC
willm.wade
Member since:
2010-07-13

So as a web developer many hours extra are put into supporting IE. We only just stopped supporting IE7,and now you get a not supported/out of date browser warning. The web thinks nothing of that practice. The death of each new IE version is celebrated.

Perhaps, in the nice version, Google said we have been screwed over and over again by IE. But no more! Sure perhaps IE10 mobile is ok now, but in a year? When all the other mobile browsers move on?

Edited 2013-01-05 15:41 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: We are talking about IE here!
by Nelson on Sat 5th Jan 2013 20:24 UTC in reply to "We are talking about IE here! "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think congratulations is in order. This is by far the silliest defense of Google I've seen all day.

Reply Score: 2

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

So as a web developer many hours extra are put into supporting IE. We only just stopped supporting IE7,and now you get a not supported/out of date browser warning. The web thinks nothing of that practice. The death of each new IE version is celebrated.


So you're saying that the reason (some) web browsers don't bother complying with W3C standards properly is that they don't need to bother, because web developers will work-around issues anyway?

In that case, the only people we should be blaming is web developers. They should comply with the relevant standards (and nothing else - no browser specific extensions); and if a browser sucks dog balls that's the browser developer's problem and not the web developer's problem.

Instead of putting many extra hours into supporting a broken browser, do nothing, or just add a warning at the top of the page.

- Brendan

Edited 2013-01-06 01:57 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think web devs can use browser extensions, but should also provide un-prefixed versions of said extensions to "future-proof" their site.

This way you get the best of both worlds:

- You can prototype with many browsers
- You can implementations which are in a state of flux separate
- You are sure to support the unprefixed version when the standard is ratified and less volatile.

So for example if "StandardA" is finalized, you can use a prefixed version of it for say IE if Microsoft's implementation differs (say they implemented a Working Draft) and you can always keep the unprefixed version up to date.

The bigger issue imo is that these things need to happen faster. It shouldn't take years for a group of people to agree on things. It reminds me of the US Congress.

Reply Score: 2

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I think the "user agent" string should be banned, and replaced with something to indicate which standard/s the client supports.

This way you get the best of both worlds:

- Web developers don't need to prototype with many browsers
- Web developers don't need to care about broken implementations
- Web developers can easily support older or newer standards (e.g. if browser says it only supports HTML 3, then don't give it HTML 5)
- Browser developers that keep screwing things up end up having a reason to fix their broken puss

The bigger issue imo is that these things need to happen faster. It shouldn't take years for a group of people to agree on things. It reminds me of the US Congress.


There's a completely separate issue (most of the stuff designed by W3C takes an excessively large amount of work for browser developers to support correctly, because most of it is a "designed by committee" ugly and overcomplicated pile of puke that tries to be bad for many things instead of being good for one thing), but this doesn't change the basic idea that if you're adopting a standard you should adopt that standard correctly.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We have most of these features provided by JS libraries like Modernizr.

TBH I don't bother supporting anything lower than IE7 these days.

Edited 2013-01-06 12:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Those exist:

http://www.javascriptjedi.com/browser_js_features.htm

Not that they are particularly useful to most webdevelopers, most of the time, but they do exist.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It not always possible to do that.

I like to keep my job and I work for a gambling website, saying to the head of products "I can't do that because it isn't standards compliant" would get me a right rollocking.

Reply Score: 2

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

In that case, the only people we should be blaming is web developers. They should comply with the relevant standards (and nothing else - no browser specific extensions); and if a browser sucks dog balls that's the browser developer's problem and not the web developer's problem.


Well, following that philosophy would've meant that Microsoft would've put out more standards-compliant IE versions earier? Like before or around IE6? Right? Yeah, right.

While I don't like what Google has done here, it also feels very hard for me to not to laugh when I hear Microsoft, IE and standards in the same sentence, paragraph even. Yeah, I have a long memory, especally in topics that have left a lasting negative impression.

However, Google's goals of providing service for everyone is, and will always prevail over any kind of browser wars, since it's part of a much bigger picture than "just" browsers. So this hiccup will fade and they'll make the eventual - if any 0 IE-specific changes and go on.

Treat this whole issue as just a poke towards IE from one of its "friendly" neighbors ;)

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Standards compliance was a joke for every browser at the time of IE6, IE6 was created against a draft specification that was changed after its release.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

That is why we now have:

-moz-border-radius, etc.

It isn't perfect, but is an improvement.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually it is counter productive, I don't think that those attributes should be available unless you run the browser in developer mode.

Web developers are lazy and -webkit extensions have pretty much broken the web, especially on mobile.

I am sure you will go "oh well IE is free to implement their own version of webkit" ... well that is the same as Asking Opera or Firefox to change their rendering to webkit.

Edited 2013-01-09 22:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm sorry, I don't think it has anything to do with the method.

The problem is the webdevelopers, they should build stuff which 'degrades'. If you do that, some features will not be enabled, but things don't break.

But you should first understand why it exists and how it is supposed to be used:
http://vimeo.com/16326857 23:13

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I'm sorry, I don't think it has anything to do with the method.

The problem is the webdevelopers, they should build stuff which 'degrades'. If you do that, some features will not be enabled, but things don't break.


I understand perfectly why it exists. However you are expecting a lot of "web developers" a lot of who are designers doing their bit or simply don't care/don't know any better about doing it properly.

The same could have been achieved with a simple "developer" mode and checking for a particular JavaScript property to see if it was available, it is no different than a debug mode in some IDEs such as VS.

What you are expecting just simply doesn't happen, I would suggest you browser thedailywtf.com for how pretty much every good idea in Software Engineering can be abused.

A lot of senior developers at my place are great at writing SQL Stored Procedures and Optimizing Databases but are clueless to how to write a standards compliant webpage.

The fact is that unless the browser makers make it extremely difficult to use these hacks and experimental features outside of a "developer mode", they will continue to exist. Unfortunately they would break the web if they did.

BTW IE 10 has removed support for the IE comments hack, which is good IMHO.

I don't expect the situation to improve. All I can do is try to tell my Juniors to do things properly and hope they get the message when I reject their code on review if it doesn't work cross browser (which is part of our peer review process before test).

Edited 2013-01-09 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Bad journalism
by zimbatm on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:45 UTC
zimbatm
Member since:
2005-08-22

You present no evidence that Google is blocking Windows Phones as a form of retaliation. While it may be true, this view doesn't really add value to the article and just obfuscate rational discussions that may follow. Unless you want OSnews to become sensationalist press I recommend that you clearly separate speculation from facts.

Reply Score: 2

Understandable
by timdp on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:48 UTC
timdp
Member since:
2009-06-19

"Google's move is understandable."

Is it? What ever happened to "Don't be evil"?

Edited 2013-01-05 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Understandable
by silviucc on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:06 UTC in reply to "Understandable"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

He said it is understandable as in "I get why they do it" but you seem to have missed the rest of the article where he says he does not agree with it.

I'm really getting tired of spotting shills and fanbois.It's unfair, the first ones get paid to write crap, I don't. The fanbois are beyond anyone's power to cure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Understandable
by timdp on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Understandable"
timdp Member since:
2009-06-19

"Understandable" implies Thom would've at least considered doing the same. Perhaps it's just bad wording, but as emarkp points out, it's an unprofessional move on Google's part, and no matter what Microsoft did to provoke them, this is a level Google should not be stooping to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Understandable
by Delgarde on Mon 7th Jan 2013 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Understandable"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

"Understandable" implies Thom would've at least considered doing the same.


No, it means he understands why they're doing it. That's what the word "understands" means...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Understandable
by emarkp on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:51 UTC in reply to "Understandable"
emarkp Member since:
2005-09-10

Remember, "don't be evil" is the lowest possible standard. This is childish, unprofessional, and harms your customers, but it's not like they're eating babies.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Wafflez
by Wafflez on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:49 UTC
Wafflez
Member since:
2011-06-26

Normally I wouldn't care, "it's karma" and what not, but..

DON'T BE EVIL MY ASS. ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Wafflez
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Wafflez"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Don't be evil is actually being better than those that want to bring you down.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Beerfloat
by Beerfloat on Sat 5th Jan 2013 15:59 UTC
Beerfloat
Member since:
2011-06-05

I think this is an awful move by Google, and though I wouldn't want to own a Windows Phone, I think we should all show solidarity with Thom and the other 2 Windows Phone users and call Google out on this.

Edited 2013-01-05 16:00 UTC

Reply Score: 10

What?
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:02 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

I have a WP7 phone and just checked - I use an app to access google maps, still works fine. The Mail app still works with my gmail. Non issue for me.

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Moral of the story: Be an inconsiderate dick to others, and expect to be treated the same way by them in return. Is that not the basic reaction of any living animal--not just humans? I don't think you'll see a praying mantis turn the other cheek if another one starts acting aggressively toward it, or a snake back down if you manage to piss it off. Rabbits are cute, but I bet very few people have seen how ferocious they can be to each other.

In my opinion, it's a suitable form of defense considering who they're going up against and relatively mild compared to what Microsoft has done to their competition (and even their own partners) in the past.

In fact, it should even help Microsoft get Windows Phone users to use other Microsoft services instead of Google's, which alone should make Ballmer's day. It's like vendor lock-out... but done completely ass-backwards.

Edited 2013-01-05 16:16 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Breaking the web is relatively mild? Uh, okay. Anything to bash Microsoft, I guess.

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

A few Google services not working on the default browser of one minor platform does not equal "breaking the web." At the most, it's breaking a few web pages on that platform's default browser. At the most, it's discriminating against that particular OS/browser combination in retaliation against Microsoft's crooked (as usual) moves.

You want to see truly breaking the web? Look no further than IE5/6, from none other than Microsoft themselves. That was a disaster for everyone; not just the users of some obscure platform but pretty much all competing browsers, both Windows-native and those on alternative platforms. Netscape was destroyed by it. Even IE users suffered from Microsoft's complete neglect of the browser after they pretty much annihilated all of their competition and security issues kept building up for Microsoft's own paying customers. Web developers were left with a stifled web, unable to move on until sometime after Phoenix rose from Netscape's ashes and eventually became Firefox.

Like I said--Microsoft has done far worse for the world than this little bitch-slap aimed directly at Windows-powered phones dealt by Google. It may not be the best thing to do, but at the same Microsoft has been guilty of crooked moves on a much grander scale, many times over.

I know, I know. Sometimes it's just convenient to ignore the past and purposely forget about who or what we're really dealing with here.

Edited 2013-01-05 22:01 UTC

Reply Score: 8

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The IE5/6 crap is a decade old.

Google using -webkit extensions and user agent sniffing to exclude people from using their service when it works without the user agent sniffing is wrong.

JUST f--kING WRONG.

Basically you are saying because it is Google and not Microsoft it is okay.

Edited 2013-01-06 00:17 UTC

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The IE5/6 crap is a decade old.

So you're saying that it effectively never happened? Time has moved on and the entire Web as it stands today would not be any further at the present time in a parallel universe in which Microsoft had not done it? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. Microsoft has set the web back YEARS, and it really hasn't been all that many years ago that some serious progress has been made after it finally got back on track. Microsoft never gave the Web all those wasted years back; it had to go through a painfully slow process of correcting itself.

Basically you are saying because it is Google and not Microsoft it is okay.

No, if you'd read I'm only saying: You get treated by others in the same (or similar) ways that you treat them. And this really is just a little slap in the face compared to what Microsoft has done. I even said "it may not be the best thing to do."

Anyway, there is an update that Google is apparently reverting this behavior to please all five Internet Explorer on Windows Phone users. I find it ironic that according to Google's explanation, the whole thing was because the browser produced an inferior experience. Which, by Microsoft web browser standards, sounds highly plausible to me.

Edited 2013-01-06 01:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


So you're saying that it effectively never happened? Time has moved on and the entire Web as it stands today would not be any further at the present time in a parallel universe in which Microsoft had not done it? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. Microsoft has set the web back YEARS, and it really hasn't been all that many years ago that some serious progress has been made after it finally got back on track. Microsoft never gave the Web all those wasted years back; it had to go through a painfully slow process of correcting itself.


I am not saying that, actually earlier version of IE actually advanced it better than netscape ...

Anyway, Google a WEB company playing tit for tat and using browser sniffing agents to make a WEB App not work deliberately is just as bad as what you were complaining about.

No, if you'd read I'm only saying: You get treated by others in the same (or similar) ways that you treat them. And this really is just a little slap in the face compared to what Microsoft has done. I even said "it may not be the best thing to do."


Oh so you are advocating tit for tat technological enhancement ... as I said anything but Microsoft.

It would be better if everyone worked together and grew up.

Sorry I am better than that, and you are supposed to be also.

Edited 2013-01-06 01:35 UTC

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Oh so you are advocating tit for tat technological enhancement ... as I said anything but Microsoft.

No, it's a natural instinct. It doesn't need to be advocated, it's natural and it already happens. Take the computers, technology, corporations, money, etc. away and replace humans with any other animal (or even a combination of different species) and you'll get the exact same results. That's just reality... what part of it is so hard to understand? I already pointed this out in my original post.

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No, if you'd read I'm only saying: You get treated by others in the same (or similar) ways that you treat them. And this really is just a little slap in the face compared to what Microsoft has done. I even said "it may not be the best thing to do."


So, do tell me, what did all the end-users do to Google in order to deserve being locked out?

I find it ironic that according to Google's explanation, the whole thing was because the browser produced an inferior experience. Which, by Microsoft web browser standards, sounds highly plausible to me.


And another silly jab at Microsoft. If you'd cared to pay any attention you would've noticed already that IE10 is actually pretty standards-compliant and offers a perfectly useable experience.

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

So, do tell me, what did all the end-users do to Google in order to deserve being locked out?

Well, according to Google's own words, they were saved the hassle of a buggy experience with their services.

And another silly jab at Microsoft. If you'd cared to pay any attention you would've noticed already that IE10 is actually pretty standards-compliant and offers a perfectly useable experience.

Yes. Because bugs don't happen. IE10 is perfect.

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Google using -webkit extensions and user agent sniffing to exclude people from using their service when it works without the user agent sniffing is wrong.


What's Microsofts use of Silverlight on Bing maps, then? "Broken" or "Working as intended"?

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"Google using -webkit extensions and user agent sniffing to exclude people from using their service when it works without the user agent sniffing is wrong.


What's Microsofts use of Silverlight on Bing maps, then? "Broken" or "Working as intended"?
"

I've just tried using it with Silverlight turned off, works fine.

http://i.imgur.com/0hhNn.jpg

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

The basic maps functionality works without Silverlight, but the "Streetview" equivalent does not:

https://region-b.geo-1.objects.hpcloudsvc.com:443/v1/81913991838883/...

(Chrome 23.0 on Linux)

Reply Score: 2

Stupid Google
by BluenoseJake on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:12 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

This is not the same as MS extorting fees from Android phone manufacturers, not even close. Those fees are 5-15 dollars per device, that even when passed on directly to the consumer do not hinder the consumer in any way.

Google's actions are just anti-competitive, plain and simple. They only hurt the users, not MS, who hopefully will just change the useragent string so Google can't tell the difference, and then tell Google to go pound sand

Reply Score: 3

RE: Stupid Google
by tylerdurden on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:41 UTC in reply to "Stupid Google"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You're comparing apples to oranges. A more apt comparison would be with Microsoft's pollution of the web a while back, when lots of sites would only work with IE browsers, for example.

Google is being idiotic in this case getting down to Microsoft's old level.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Stupid Google
by BluenoseJake on Sat 5th Jan 2013 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Stupid Google"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You're comparing apples to oranges. A more apt comparison would be with Microsoft's pollution of the web a while back, when lots of sites would only work with IE browsers, for example.

Google is being idiotic in this case getting down to Microsoft's old level.


The operative part is "Microsoft's old level" MS of today is not the MS of 10-15 years ago, and they have learned(forced) to change.

I don't want to trade one group of assholes for another, altogether more far-reaching group of assholes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Stupid Google
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 5th Jan 2013 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stupid Google"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Forced to change? Let me know when I can actually use this page on my operating system of choice:

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/webclient/

No--Mono is an outdated joke and it does not work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Stupid Google
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stupid Google"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I don't have silverlight installed and I am using Firefox ... seems to work fine.

http://i.imgur.com/uBkOz.png?1

Edited 2013-01-06 00:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Stupid Google
by tylerdurden on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid Google"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Try it on a non-windows machine...

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Stupid Google
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid Google"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I don't have it installed as a plug-in. Thus the screenshot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Stupid Google
by tylerdurden on Sun 6th Jan 2013 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Stupid Google"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I'm just letting you know that it does not work on firefox on a non-windows machine (and sans silverlight).

PS, That screenshot really does not add much (e.g. whether or not you have silverlight installed on your system, etc).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Stupid Google
by WereCatf on Sun 6th Jan 2013 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid Google"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't have silverlight installed and I am using Firefox ... seems to work fine.

http://i.imgur.com/uBkOz.png?1


Silverlight is under plugins, not extensions, you took a screenshot of the wrong section.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Stupid Google
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid Google"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I realised my mistake, I use Chrome mostly at work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Stupid Google
by RawMustard on Sun 6th Jan 2013 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid Google"
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

This page requires Silverlight 4.

Get Microsoft Silverlight


Where do I get Silverlight 4 for linux?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Stupid Google
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 6th Jan 2013 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid Google"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Where do I get Silverlight 4 for linux?

You can't. Mono/Moonlight is supposed to be the "universal" .NET/Silverlight for UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, but its very existence is more of a joke than anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_%28runtime%29

In fact, it appears that Microsoft themselves used their typical EEE "extend" tactics to extinguish it. Big shock!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Stupid Google
by Nelson on Mon 7th Jan 2013 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Stupid Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You can't. Mono/Moonlight is supposed to be the "universal" .NET/Silverlight for UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, but its very existence is more of a joke than anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_%28runtime%29

In fact, it appears that Microsoft themselves used their typical EEE "extend" tactics to extinguish it. Big shock!


Moonlight ran most that I threw at it back in the day, but obviously its stagnated in the past few years. Then again, so has Silverlight. Times change, the web Changes, and Silverlight changed mid-way through its life time.

The issue with Moonlight was the stigma associated with Mono hurt them when it came to finding people interested enough to maintain it. It wasn't that of a lack of interoperability (Microsoft made available to test test suites and notified them in advance of pending changes to Silverlight), but one of a lack of manpower.

Silverlight started out as a RIA plugin (back when those were popular) because TBH every other alternative (Flash, JavaFx, HTML5, Air) sucked balls at doing it in a RAD fashion.

However this fad slowly faded, then it kinda settled in to be a Flash competitor, and had some limited success as a proprietary streaming solution way during the HTML5 video rise.

Then after that, it settled into a kinda niche where people can write pretty full featured Line of Business apps with it, and many people still do.

It also still powers Windows Phone 7, and it's a hybrid platform in Windows Phone 8. Windows 8's WinRT is based off of Silverlight's DNA. It's been evolved into a general purpose framework for Windows.

Basically this was a long, drawn out journey for Microsoft to build itself a platform that would form the foundation for its OS moving forward. The way it got there was pretty fucked up and crazy, but its there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Stupid Google
by tylerdurden on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stupid Google"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Correct, I was just pointing out that I felt your initial analogy was a bit off the mark. That's all.

It's a really stupid/dick move by google (if this was done on purpose). I assume not that many WP users were using the google maps web client anyway, nokia seems to be the bigger player in that space. But blocking those few users creates a pretty bad PR perception of google altogether.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Stupid Google
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:59 UTC in reply to "Stupid Google"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Google's actions are just anti-competitive, plain and simple.

You use that word, you may not understand what it means. Blocking Google Maps impacts no-one. Nokia's maps are there to use.

Also, how is this surprising? "Don't be evil" was a result of them hating Microsoft that much.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stupid Google
by BluenoseJake on Sat 5th Jan 2013 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Stupid Google"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Google's actions are just anti-competitive, plain and simple.

You use that word, you may not understand what it means. Blocking Google Maps impacts no-one. Nokia's maps are there to use.

Also, how is this surprising? "Don't be evil" was a result of them hating Microsoft that much.
"

What word? Anti-competitive? It is anti-competitive, the word has more meaning than just anti-trust law.

In this case, I use it to mean they don't want to compete, so they just lock MS out, easy as pie.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Stupid Google
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Jan 2013 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stupid Google"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Anti-competitive means restricting competition. Locking out WP from using a service is not restricting competition in the mapping market. They effectively took themselves out of that market(WP browser based mapping apps), they have not prevented anyone from providing a competing service.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Stupid Google
by BluenoseJake on Sun 6th Jan 2013 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stupid Google"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It amazes me the excuses people will make to give Google a pass, but will condemn MS for similar actions done 10 years ago.

Apple proved that without enough data, writing a useful, safe mapping app is not easy, but hey, Google isn't being anti-competitive, they only have 98% share of mapping usage in mobile.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Stupid Google
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Jan 2013 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid Google"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I gave you the definition of what is anti-competitive and you chose to interpret that as a pass for Google? (You seem to think that any action that harms your competitor in any way is anti-competitive, which is not true)

Microsoft was never condemned for pulling IE from Mac, even though IE had the dominant position as the browser. You know why? Because removing yourself from a market segment is not anti-competitive.

The fact that Apple could write an app that is in direct competition to Google's app only reinforces the claim that Google has done nothing to restrict competition in that market. Therefore is not anti-competitive by definition.

Edited 2013-01-07 14:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Stupid Google
by Slambert666 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid Google"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

I gave you the definition of what is anti-competitive and you chose to interpret that as a pass for Google? (You seem to think that any action that harms your competitor in any way is anti-competitive, which is not true)

Microsoft was never condemned for pulling IE from Mac, even though IE had the dominant position as the browser. You know why? Because removing yourself from a market segment is not anti-competitive.

The fact that Apple could write an app that is in direct competition to Google's app only reinforces the claim that Google has done nothing to restrict competition in that market. Therefore is not anti-competitive by definition.


You obviously has no real knowledge about competition law yet you feel compelled to express views and opinions as if you do... I just do not understand that attitude.
For the record: Googles actions in this case are highly anti competitive, and illegal (besides immoral). That's why it only took them a day to "fix the problem".. Obviously cheaper than paying a $Billion$ fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Stupid Google
by JAlexoid on Thu 10th Jan 2013 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Stupid Google"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You obviously has no real knowledge about competition law yet you feel compelled to express views and opinions as if you do... I just do not understand that attitude.

Maybe because I have enough to form an opinion and these views are not only my own?

For the record: Googles actions in this case are highly anti competitive, and illegal (besides immoral).

I'd like to see an actual reasoning behind the whole "You're wrong" comment.

That's why it only took them a day to "fix the problem".. Obviously cheaper than paying a $Billion$ fine.

Is that your only proof? I mean, you could link to the appropriate legal document that explains it(like proper scholars do). Not just cite circumstances.

My reference is:
Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (2009/C 45/02) <- The whole document explains what and how.

THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Art 102

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Stupid Google
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Stupid Google"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The Web app worked fine before in mobile IE9 & IE10 browsers ... they are restricting it on the user agent.

It is shitty.

Reply Score: 2

Bye Bye User Agent String
by jburnett on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:16 UTC
jburnett
Member since:
2012-03-29

I do not like IE, but this action is outrageous. It also makes it very difficult to justify the existence of user-agent strings if they are going to be used to target and harm innocent civilians in the technology wars companies fight.

Reply Score: 6

Who are potential google apps customers?
by aijosh on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:29 UTC
aijosh
Member since:
2013-01-05

I've seen articles recently about google's grand targets for google apps sales this year. Who are their potential customers? Mostly Microsoft Exchange users, yes? The people most likely to actually own a windows phone? How is antagonizing these people (like me) going to be better for their bottom line? I have considered the switch myself many times, and it is unlikely I will ever again.

If you do have a paid google apps account (I do for personal use), I suggest opening up a support ticket to let them know how you feel. Maps is not a supported application but gmail certainly is.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The people most likely to actually own a windows phone?

I'm sorry, but WP was until recently the least corporate friendly mobile OS of all. Most corporate users are anything but WP users

Reply Score: 6

aijosh Member since:
2013-01-05

Good point. But they've made amazing progress there. There are people (like me) who were waiting for Microsoft to get their act together in mobile. Microsoft's market share, small as it is, had to come from somewhere, and the cool kids certainly aren't the ones demanding windows phones.

And yes, we bought Android because it was by far the best product at the time. I'm not in the habit of shooting myself in the foot just to stay loyal to a software vendor. I had the original android dev phone as well as the G2.

I still love Android even though I'm on windows phone. I didn't leave Android for a single technical reason, I left because it bored me and I wanted to try something different. I've always told people if MS is still flailing in another year or two I will probably switch back. Now I'm not so sure as my opinion of google has dropped significantly.

Reply Score: 3

Not just Windows Phone
by Lava_Croft on Sat 5th Jan 2013 16:30 UTC
Lava_Croft
Member since:
2006-12-24

I think Google blocked *all* non-webkit browsers from accessing the Google Maps mobile site. The same probably happened to the 'fancy' Gmail mobile site.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not just Windows Phone
by No it isnt on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:08 UTC in reply to "Not just Windows Phone"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Actually some WebKit browsers as well. Google Maps has never worked on my Nokia N9, I'm just redirected to Google search. So it's not exactly new, and not exactly Microsoft only.

Edited 2013-01-05 17:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah. Its odd. Firefox mobile on Android still can access google maps mobile version.


If blocking all non webkit browsers was their goal, they may have missed a few user agents.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not just Windows Phone
by Lennie on Tue 8th Jan 2013 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not just Windows Phone"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

No, Thom mentioned it already in his article.

Google actually test browsers, Firefox Mobile works, so it does not get the redirect.

Reply Score: 2

Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Be careful what you say about Google, you don't want them to blacklist OSNews.

Reply Score: 5

Karma
by bert64 on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:04 UTC
bert64
Member since:
2007-04-23

If this was happening to anyone else that would be unforgivable, but given that MS has a history of screwing others in ways just like this or even worse it is poetic justice to see the boot being on the other foot for once.

Keep in mind that aside from blocking competing browsers or operating systems from their own products in the past, MS have actively encouraged or tricked those relying on their development tools to do the same.

Edited 2013-01-05 17:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Karma
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:29 UTC in reply to "Karma"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is okay when Google does the same thing.

Pot and Kettle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Karma
by mistersoft on Sun 6th Jan 2013 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Karma"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

..i don't think the whole 'pot kettle black' thing is lost on anyone here.


If i were summing it up (presuming Google has done this very much on purpose and not at all accidentally; backpedalling or no) then:

Google -it's Wrong!....but almost a bit funny...but still wrong!.


Whoever it was earlier that proposed banning user agent strings and replacing with a standards/extensions compatibility string(s) - not a bad idea really

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Karma
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Karma"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

do you realise that already doable via JavaScript? Also any string would be ridiculously long.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Karma
by mistersoft on Sun 6th Jan 2013 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Karma"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

In fairness, yes I know you're entirely right strictly speaking - I just like the idea of trying to promote a change in emphasis really ; from the flagging up differences or perculiarities in handling to a (ideal) wholesale concentration on the flagging up of compatibilities.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Karma
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Jan 2013 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Karma"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://modernizr.com/

TBH, so far the JS community has basically started filling the gaps in browser support. I don't really need modernizr for our website since we haven't even started going towards HTML 5 yet.

I haven't needed to resort to user-agent sniffing unless it is something that is going on mobile, we have a separate mobile website so it really isn't my department.

Edited 2013-01-07 18:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Karma
by Lennie on Tue 8th Jan 2013 18:27 UTC in reply to "Karma"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"Keep in mind that aside from blocking competing browsers or operating systems from their own products in the past"

In the past ? Let's see:

Microsoft CRM supports: IE
Microsoft Exchange webmail has 2 modes. The flat HTML4-kind and the fancy Ajax-style. The Ajax-style version only supports: IE and Firefox.

I can probably name more, if you want.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:18 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Of all the things Google has done, this is the first to be completely unacceptable and untolerable. There is no excuse this time.

Did they wait for the end of the FTC investigation to make this move ?

Between this and the Free.fr "GoogleAd Blocker", this is a sad first week of 2013. The Verge saw it coming:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/20/3669590/ecosystem-microsoft-appl...

But I did not expect the internet giants to be stupid enough to go thermonuclear so soon. And certainly not Google to fall so low. Even when they took offense, they used to be less crude in their retortion schemes.

Reply Score: 5

Webkit on WP
by Jbso on Sat 5th Jan 2013 17:22 UTC
Jbso
Member since:
2013-01-05

Since Microsoft doesn't block competitors the way Google is doing, why not just use one of the many Webkit browsers available for Windows Phone?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Webkit on WP
by cetp on Sat 5th Jan 2013 19:41 UTC in reply to "Webkit on WP"
cetp Member since:
2007-12-16

You think that being WebKit based makes it work with google maps? Then try WebKit based browser on Nokia N9 or other Nokia devices...

Reply Score: 2

v ...
by Hiev on Sat 5th Jan 2013 19:47 UTC
Disappointment city
by orfanum on Sat 5th Jan 2013 20:12 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

I have just moved from iOS to Android in the (now revealed to be naive) hope that I might just be moving from an overall closed environment to a generally more open one.

I won't of course be directly affected by this but not only am I frustrated at this stance on principle but Android isn't all it's cracked up to be either.

I just hope that what appears to be the increasingly varied development of alternative phone operating systems comes to greater fruition in 2013, so that I can install something else on this Galaxy S2 sooner rather than later.

Reply Score: 3

llamakiller4
Member since:
2007-04-12

They'll be as mad as all the other people who cant buy Samsung products because of all the ongoing litigation.

Edited 2013-01-05 20:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 5th Jan 2013 22:50 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I'm not a Windows Phone owner and I rarely use Google Maps. I do however use their search engine, ...for now. This is a blatant abuse of the consumer/user for exactly the purpose pointed out, to be a dick.

I'm getting sick of Google in general and am starting to think I wouldn't mind eliminating them from my use.

Reply Score: 2

Mozilla and Opera also blocked?
by mormon on Sat 5th Jan 2013 23:21 UTC
mormon
Member since:
2005-08-13

I wonder if they also blocked Mozilla and Opera mobile browsers. There are such versions of those in Google Play. If they don't block them, that means it is only against Microsoft. "Don't be evil" is crap.

BTW. Did Google thank Microsoft for AJAX, they are using in GMail?

Reply Score: 1

I don't know which is funnier...
by Shadowmane on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:01 UTC
Shadowmane
Member since:
2006-06-16

I don't know which is funnier. That Google screwed Microsoft over like this, or that Microsoft fanboys are all up in arms about it.

Reply Score: 0

bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

I don't know which is funnier. That Google screwed Microsoft over like this, or that Microsoft fanboys are all up in arms about it.

Some of us who are up in arms about it are not Microsoft fanboys. Crap like this is wrong, regardless of who's doing it.

Reply Score: 7

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Still, there is some perverse irony in google "microsofting" microsot's "googling." Apparently, once a business reaches a specific volume they seem to display similar predatory tendencies.

Edited 2013-01-06 01:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Exactly right. These are, in the end, all greedy corporations. There is no morality, there is only convenience. Google is kind (or semi-kind, and tolerable) to the open source community because it is convenient for them, not because of some moral high ground they take.

As soon as it becomes unattractive to them, they show their teeth and act as any other corporation would.

Reply Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Indeed. Just like how Microsoft's recent "openness" is due mainly to external legal pressure and to the fact that they are having a hard time penetrating certain markets where they can't leverage their desktop monopoly, not because they have any sort of moral drive to play nice with others.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sure. I can agree with that. Its a business decision, not because they like Android, or iOS or anything.

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

once a business reaches a specific volume they seem to display similar predatory tendencies.


It's when the company is no longer ran by a founder that values the business along with the customers and is instead ran by a board of directors that wants a profit and nothing more. All the large publicly traded corporations today would prostitute 10 year old girls if it made them a decent profit and didn't malign their public image. Just look at how the Google CEO talked about how evading taxes is actually a good thing. No loyalty at all to the country that helped foster its growth, it's just a geographic area of resources to them. Morality only matters to them in terms of legality and public perception.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Are you sure? Currently, both Google and Microsoft are run by founding members of their respective organizations.

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Schmidt and Ballmer are not founding members and they both answer to shareholders.

But it's obviously a generalization, you can find small businesses that are ran by total assholes.

In general though I would trust the moral decisions of a small business owner over a CEO that answers to shareholders.

I once ran into a compatibility problem with some small business software and the owner contacted me personally and even worked on a solution before I read his email.

To Microsoft, Apple and Google I'm not even worth considering unless it involves thousands of dollars or their public image. Even when they do care it's only out of obligation. None of those companies take pride in developing relationships with partners. Microsoft only contacted us once in the last few years to make sure we were going to follow through with a big purchase and not go open source. They never even followed up with a thank you for sending them thousands of dollars. Not going open source? That's all we need to know. Goodbye.

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

yeah, but I was simply pointing out that in this case, since the thread involved google and miscrosoft, your appeal to emotion was based on a bit of an iffy premise; Ballmer is a founding member of microsoft for all intents and purposes. And Schmidt is no longer the CEO of google, Larry Page is.

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Ballmer did not found the company, he was brought in later as a managing executive. He didn't create anything.

As for Schmidt he is still the executive chair and he and Larry both have an obligation to serve shareholders over the public.

Morality isn't built into the corporate structure. That's not an appeal to emotion but a well known fact. If humans want corporations to place greater emphasis on the public good then the corporate structure should be reformed. Capitalism can take many forms and we don't have to allow it exist in a state where publicly traded corporations prioritize profit above all else.

Reply Score: 2

Competitive or Anti-Competitive
by DavidStone on Sun 6th Jan 2013 00:14 UTC
DavidStone
Member since:
2011-08-26

Hmmm, how can forcing users to use a competing product (Bing maps) be anti-competitive? Wouldn't forcing consumers to use your own product (ahem, Windows on x86 computers) be much more anti-competitive?

Reply Score: 2

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Hmmm, how can forcing users to use a competing product (Bing maps) be anti-competitive?


It's not unless you are a monopolist and using that leverage to make competitors products worse, ie:

Android -> can access Google Maps + Bing Maps.
Windows Phone -> can access Bing Maps.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 6th Jan 2013 01:09 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Why didn't Google have guts to ditch H.264 from Youtube and Chrome, to force Apple to start supporting open codecs like VP8 for WebM video? It seems strange that Google pushes Microsoft in that direction with CardDav and etc., but tolerates Apple's sabotage of open codecs on the Web.

Edited 2013-01-06 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by shmerl
by jared_wilkes on Sun 6th Jan 2013 02:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

In one scenario, they have leverage. In the other, they do not.

Despite androids thinking so, Google does not have enough power in the marketplace to get everyone else (in every facet of video, not just web) to abandon mpeg standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by ilovebeer on Sun 6th Jan 2013 05:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

In one scenario, they have leverage. In the other, they do not.

Despite androids thinking so, Google does not have enough power in the marketplace to get everyone else (in every facet of video, not just web) to abandon mpeg standards.

You got that right. If they would have tried to force VP8 over h264 it would have been a disaster for them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Sun 6th Jan 2013 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Stop making excuses for them.

They claim to support open video codecs and then they bundle Flash with Chrome and leave it on by default. What is the excuse for that? That's not even a neutral position, they're encouraging the use of Flash by inflating the install base. It would be like a store stating they are against guns while handing out free bullets to every customer. I cannot believe how much of a pass Google gets just because they toss couch change at a few open source projects. They are the masters of open source p.r., basically the open source equivalent of green washing.

As I have said many times if anyone really thinks they are an open source luvin' company then write them a letter and ask them for the source to Google search or Google Docs.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Sun 6th Jan 2013 06:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

As I have said many times if anyone really thinks they are an open source luvin' company then write them a letter and ask them for the source to Google search or Google Docs.


Now you're being silly. Loving open-source doesn't mean one has to be 100% open-source.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Sun 6th Jan 2013 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

No I'm not being silly.

You can't love open source and needlessly promote Flash. It's like saying your are pro-vegan while needlessly adding meat to your restaurant's salads.

It's too contradictory to take seriously.

I'm not an open source lover and I would have ran Flash into the ground if I owned YouTube. All they had to do was require an alternative codec or plug-in to view YouTube videos when it was the only site of its kind. What did Google do? Bundle Flash with Chrome and leave it on by default.

What's silly is that so many people actually buy into the bullshit that these megacorps come up with. Actually it's just sad.

Edited 2013-01-06 21:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 6th Jan 2013 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Google also went against their own promise to drop H.264 support from Chrome. (They never promised to drop Flash though). Not keeping their own words is worse. However dropping H.264 from the browser wouldn't be enough to promote open codec. They had to ditch it from YouTube to make a real push. But probably because of slow adoption of accelerated VP8 hardware decoding, they decided not to. I hope they'll do it when more chip makers will support VP8 out of the box.

Edited 2013-01-06 22:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Jan 2013 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yep. Maintaining plugins for all popular browsers instead of using a widespread technology is why you shouldn't be allowed to run a company. Because in your own words "I would have ran Flash into the ground"(Flash being your company).

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

It takes less effort to provide a warning screen for unsupported browsers. It's a couple lines of code.

I don't care if some of you think MS deserves it, these petty tech pissing contests hurt consumers more than the companies.

I am also equally opposed to the user agent string checks that sniff out Linux or Opera. It's total bullshit if your website or service only works once the browser has lied about who it is. Total bullshit and inexcusable. Provide a warning if you don't have the resources to provide support or insure compatibility.

Google of course has the resources and on that note I'm sick of Google, Microsoft and Apple acting like they don't have billions of dollars and an army of developers. Make sure everything works in all browsers? Gosh willickers that sounds like a lot of work! We only have billions of dollars in the bank!

Edited 2013-01-06 05:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

I could complain about..
by jarkkot on Sun 6th Jan 2013 06:36 UTC
jarkkot
Member since:
2010-01-14

accessing Microsoft services with other products.

- hotmail/outlook.com does not work with mobile Chrome.

- outlook web access gives just basic HTML version with desktop Chrome

- And how do i configure thunderbird/ligthning against that office 365 / exchange account to have calendar / contacts sync.. they haven't implemented standard protocols!

Reply Score: 2

RE: I could complain about..
by bentoo on Sun 6th Jan 2013 07:22 UTC in reply to "I could complain about.."
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

accessing Microsoft services with other products.

- hotmail/outlook.com does not work with mobile Chrome.


Sure it (outlook.com) does.

- outlook web access gives just basic HTML version with desktop Chrome


Huh? Not sure what you expect from a webmail interface. The interface looks and functions the same on Chrome, IE, and Firefox.

- And how do i configure thunderbird/ligthning against that office 365 / exchange account to have calendar / contacts sync.. they haven't implemented standard protocols!


Use one of the many Exchange extensions available for Thunderbird/Lightning such as the Exchange Calendar and Tasks Add-On for Lighting (http://www.1st-setup.nl/wordpress/?page_id=133).

Standards? Remember, closed standards are standards too.

Sure you "could complain about.." but it would be better to do some research before posting such nonsense.

Edited 2013-01-06 07:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I could complain about..
by jarkkot on Sun 6th Jan 2013 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE: I could complain about.."
jarkkot Member since:
2010-01-14

"accessing Microsoft services with other products.

- hotmail/outlook.com does not work with mobile Chrome.


Sure it (outlook.com) does.
"
No it does not, it is impossible to use with touch screen chrome on android. just tested it, gives same layout as to desktop browser

"- outlook web access gives just basic HTML version with desktop Chrome


Huh? Not sure what you expect from a webmail interface. The interface looks and functions the same on Chrome, IE, and Firefox.
"
no it does not, chrome and opera get some basic view, as ie and firefox get other. Some webmail interfaces are pretty good these days, ie roundcube and gmail, better than many desktop clients, imo.

"- And how do i configure thunderbird/ligthning against that office 365 / exchange account to have calendar / contacts sync.. they haven't implemented standard protocols!


Use one of the many Exchange extensions available for Thunderbird/Lightning such as the Exchange Calendar and Tasks Add-On for Lighting (http://www.1st-setup.nl/wordpress/?page_id=133).

Standards? Remember, closed standards are standards too.

Sure you "could complain about.." but it would be better to do some research before posting such nonsense.
"
[/q]
standards, so is the exchange protocol open and free for everybody to implement?

and yes i know and have used that plugin ;)

you could do some research also ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I could complain about..
by Nelson on Sun 6th Jan 2013 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I could complain about.."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Standards do not have to be free. The various wireless communication standards are not free. You must license all standard essential patents from the relevant vendors.

In practice, what you're suggesting is true is a fairy tale.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: I could complain about..
by jarkkot on Sun 6th Jan 2013 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I could complain about.."
jarkkot Member since:
2010-01-14

but the fairy tale happened, Microsoft does not rule anymore ;)

In practice, market leader gets to decide, now it is Google and Microsoft just has to be humble and stop complaining. At least they are given a fair chance with open standards, it's up to them if they want to give better experience to their customers.

Edited 2013-01-06 08:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I could complain about..
by MYOB on Sun 6th Jan 2013 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I could complain about.."
MYOB Member since:
2005-06-29




Huh? Not sure what you expect from a webmail interface. The interface looks and functions the same on Chrome, IE, and Firefox.


Upgrade Exchange. Newer versions provide the full webmail interface to Firefox and Chrome. And not IE6 - it gets the cut down version.

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft has never changed
by PieterGen on Sun 6th Jan 2013 15:51 UTC
PieterGen
Member since:
2012-01-13

Microsoft in 2013 is just as anti-competetive as it was in 1999. Some problems I run into TODAY:

1- UEFI Crippled Boot. It's getting hard to put a non-Microsoft OperatingSystem on a computer, due to UEFI Crippled Boot.

2- Forced to buy Windows. I can't buy a pre-installed Linux laptop at the large stores & webstores. And I cannot get the license money back. Dell sometimes offers linux laptop, put somewhere in the dark dungeons of their webstore (do they want to sell it at all?) Plus, it is more expensive (!) as the laptop with Windows installed...... Also, if you buy a laptop with the obligatory windows installed, when you don't need it and uninstall it, you cannot get your money back for the Windows license I don't need, despite the legal obligation.

3- Patent trolling. Android makers are "invited" to pay for sketchy patents MS claims to have on Android.

4- Collusion with Apple against Google. The 2 never ever attack each other, but both go after Google. MS uses the patent troll methods and the sock puppet campaigns (see 5), Apple's trick is sales bans.

5- Sock puppet campaigns. MS puts millions of dollars into fake organisations whose only goal it is to slander Google. In this same veign is the #droidrage campaign.

6- OOXML. I still cannot completely read or edit .doc or .docx files using OpenOffice or LibreOffice. When .odt was adopted as a standard, Microsoft used all tricks to get ooxml adopted as a second standard. Then, in their next MSOffice versions, they did not even implement their own "open" standard. Result: communication between MSOffice and competing office suites is still crippled (yes, it's 90% OK, but the remaining 10% of errors sucks).

7. Other non-standards used to lock out others: Exchange, Mono, Silverlight, and so on.

All this is happening NOW. So, Microsoft has not exactly changed its ways. Add to this a history of these sort of actions. Makes me think Google has the right to be a douche as well. On the other hand, "an eye for an eye will make all of us blind". Google should not have lowered themselves to this level, as understandable as it is. Yet, I am disappointed.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Microsoft has never changed
by smashIt on Sun 6th Jan 2013 16:24 UTC in reply to "Microsoft has never changed"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

1- UEFI Crippled Boot. It's getting hard to put a non-Microsoft OperatingSystem on a computer, due to UEFI Crippled Boot.


then talk to the hardware-manufactorer!
it's their responsibility to deliver a working firmware

2- Forced to buy Windows. I can't buy a pre-installed Linux laptop at the large stores


so it's microsofts fault that stores don't want to stock laptops without windows?
you do realise that they did exactly what you want when the netbooks hit the market.
the result was that everybody bought the windows-edition if they had the choice.

just buy one with freedos and install linux yourselfe, because the preinstalled linux will always be the wrong distribution.




6- OOXML. I still cannot completely read or edit .doc or .docx files using OpenOffice or LibreOffice. When .odt was adopted as a standard, Microsoft used all tricks to get ooxml adopted as a second standard. Then, in their next MSOffice versions, they did not even implement their own "open" standard. Result: communication between MSOffice and competing office suites is still crippled (yes, it's 90% OK, but the remaining 10% of errors sucks).


at the time many governments started to require support for a standardised file-format.
and the only available format was odf.
the only problem was:
what was called a final standard shouldn't even have qualified as a first draft for a proposal.
please remember that odf didn't even support spreadsheets at the time when ms pushed for OOXML.

7. Other non-standards used to lock out others: Exchange, Mono, Silverlight, and so on.


mono is open source, silverlight is an alternative to flash (very open ;) ), and so on

Edited 2013-01-06 16:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

whoah... red herring express.

Reply Score: 0

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

then talk to the hardware-manufactorer!
it's their responsibility to deliver a working firmware

The problem stems from the fact that as long as Windows runs, the hardware vendors assume that to be a "working" firmware. Microsoft obviously just loves this way of looking at it, and they in fact encourage it. The fewer people that know some life outside of Windows even exists, the better. Whether they're firmware developers, hardware developers, or end users, the fewer that know, the better off Microsoft is. There are plenty of things like this to prove it: http://tinyurl.com/win8-another-os

mono is open source, silverlight is an alternative to flash (very open ;) ), and so on

Eh, no. More like "very dead" outside of Windows and possibly Mac.

"In December 2011 Miguel de Icaza announced that work on Moonlight had stopped with no future plans. He explained that, although there was always some bloat, complication and over-engineering in the Silverlight vision, Microsoft had "cut the air supply" to it by omitting cross-platform components, making it web-only plugin, and including Windows-only features."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_%28runtime%29

The traditional Microsoft method of embrace, extend, extinguish is clearly at play here. All despite the fact that just about everyone around here is currently talking like Microsoft is a little angel and is nothing like their former self (hah!) as they try to paint Google as the devil here. Everyone must have an extremely short memory or something, because it's amazing how fast people tend to forget key things an their quest to jump on the next company to demonize.

Edited 2013-01-06 19:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

it's their responsibility to deliver a working firmware

But they are delivering working firmware, it's just they are delivering firmware that works only with Windows.

so it's microsofts fault that stores don't want to stock laptops without windows?

No, they are giving higher discounts to OEMs that don't ship other OS'es. You know why these OEMs don't ship Linux or noOS versions of their top selling devices? Because they have accountants...

the result was that everybody bought the windows-edition if they had the choice.

Oh... You mean that the Linux netbooks just disappeared from the shelves as soon as WinXP devices hit the shelves?

please remember that odf didn't even support spreadsheets at the time when ms pushed for OOXML.

And the first edition of OOXML was a pile of crap, worse than ODF. In addition to MS Office 2007 not supporting OOXML outright.

mono is open source, silverlight is an alternative to flash (very open ), and so on

If you say so...

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No, they are giving higher discounts to OEMs that don't ship other OS'es.


It's not wrong to do that, though.

You know why these OEMs don't ship Linux or noOS versions of their top selling devices? Because they have accountants...


It's because OEMs get to pre-load all sorts of stuff on the Windows-based computers. There is nothing to pre-load on Linux-machines except the OS itself, so of course the OEMs will avoid those because there's no kick-back money to be had. Also yes, there are accountants who realize that Linux-based computers cost more than the Windows-ones and therefore Average Joe won't buy them.

Blaming Microsoft for this is totally disingenuous. If you want to play the blame-game then point the finger at OEMs and the general populace.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's not wrong to do that, though.

With Windows being the dominant platform, having a worse deal from Microsoft can sink a company. That's not a good thing to have. Google is in the same position as Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

No, they are giving higher discounts to OEMs that don't ship other OS'es. You know why these OEMs don't ship Linux or noOS versions of their top selling devices? Because they have accountants...


but OEMs like dell, lenovo, hp and others are selling laptops without a microsoft-os
so why aren't you buying one?

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Let me check... Lenovo's online store has no OS free laptop, HPs as well, Dell has one. Now you were saying?

I'm buying the hardware that I need(an i7 machine with loads of RAM - MBP or Lenovo high-end TP) that don't include the option of not having Windows on it.

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me check... Lenovo's online store has no OS free laptop, HPs as well, Dell has one. Now you were saying?


let me check... laptops that come with freedos:
http://geizhals.at/eu/?cat=nb&sort=p&bpmax=&filter=+Liste+aktualisi...
I'm sure there are more, but who cares if it isn't listed on geizhals.at ;)

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yes. As I said they are the cheapest models.(And by cheapest I mean their build quality is crap)
Also, the price is no different than with Windows.

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Also, the price is no different than with Windows.


why should it be?
a windows license is cheap (~30$) and with the money from crapware-suppliers it gets even cheaper (i would guestimate it at ~20$)

with all the logistical overhead that comes with an aditional model in your productline, especialy one that will see low sales, you can be happy they don't charge you extra for the windows-free system

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft has never changed
by ze_jerkface on Sun 6th Jan 2013 21:20 UTC in reply to "Microsoft has never changed"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

I still cannot completely read or edit .doc or .docx files using OpenOffice or LibreOffice.


That's really not the fault of Microsoft. One of the LO devs already admitted that it isn't a priority for them. It's technically possible for them to provide 100% support. Donate some money and earmark it for docx if you want them to change priorities.

With that said Microsoft has really jumped on the asshead company express in the last two years. I once held Apple below Microsoft and Google but no longer. They're all ran by assholes. Amazon too, just read about how they run their warehouses.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Up until Office 2013 you had to implement the Microsoft Office XML formats, instead of OOXML. Why? Because only in Office 2013 has Microsoft aded support for OOXML Strict.(Not Transitional, with all the exceptions)

Reply Score: 2

All RDF'd up
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 6th Jan 2013 17:22 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

It's pretty funny to read all of the comments from the iFanbois predicting that everyone is going to bend over backwards to find excuses for Google or find some way to spin this, etc. Even more amusing, those comments probably outnumber the comments defending Google. In other words, it's just a "I know you are but what am I?" reaction from iFanboys who get upset when their blind loyalty to Apple is pointed out.

It's an intellectual blind spot that all Apple apologists have: because their blind loyalty to Apple is based largely on fashionability/"coolness", they automatically assume that supporters of other companies have the exact same motivation. But the reality is that Apple is an anomaly in the tech world - other tech companies are liked (or disliked) because of the actual merit of their products, not mere emotion and cognitive dissonance.

Informed techies tend to support Google primarily because of Google's use and support of open standards. This move is contrary to that, so it's criticized - even by people who have supported Google in the past, because (as rational adults) their support of Google is not unconditional. But to Apple fanboys, that's a completely alien concept.

Hence the fact that comments defending Google are almost entirely drowned out by the chorus of comments saying "dick move, Google" - despite the (supposed) legions of blind Google loyalists, who apparently exist only in the minds of Apple fanboys. Seriously, watching iFanboys accuse anyone else of blind loyalty is almost as funny as watching Creatards accuse evolution of being a "religious belief".

Reply Score: 2

RE: All RDF'd up
by ze_jerkface on Sun 6th Jan 2013 21:10 UTC in reply to "All RDF'd up"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Google loves open source and open standards and when they don't it's actually the fault of their ebil megacorp enemies like Microsoft and Apple.

Google will release to the source to their search engine, docs and internal Linux build at any second.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a dinosaur to ride.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: All RDF'd up
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 7th Jan 2013 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: All RDF'd up"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Google loves open source and open standards and when they don't it's actually the fault of their ebil megacorp enemies like Microsoft and Apple.


I doubt that even the most naive, starry-eyed of freetards believes that. But it does make a convenient strawman for people desperate to jump on the "it's cool to hate Google" bandwagon: they can criticize Google for failing to live up to a completely unrealistic standard, that they (Google) never held themselves to in the first place.

Google will release to the source to their search engine, docs and internal Linux build at any second.


Not that either has any direct relevance to open standards. But hey, this is OSNews, where the only positions on any topic are wholly-for or wholly-against. So if Google uses open standards, but doesn't go full-blown freetard, then that must make them hypocrites, right?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: All RDF'd up
by ze_jerkface on Tue 8th Jan 2013 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: All RDF'd up"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

I don't believe that Google loves or even likes open source.

It's really that simple.

I think they are more like the borg in that they want to assimilate open source in pursuit of their own goals but they don't have any emotional attachment to it.

You can't love open source and promote Flash. It's like being a beer loving mormon. You gotta pick one or I'm not going to take your seriously. They're contradictory positions. I realize Google has a lot of fanboys here but I think they are being duped.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: All RDF'd up
by Valhalla on Wed 9th Jan 2013 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: All RDF'd up"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I don't believe that Google loves or even likes open source.

It's really that simple.

If we say for arguments sake that you are right, then open source in general is still benefiting greatly from Google's attempt to pass themselves off as a open source loving company.

Lot's of the open source projects I enjoy using have gotten great benefits from the Google Summer of Code drive, they've directly contributed code to tools I use every day professionaly, Linux, GCC, Clang/LLVM, I'm currently dabbling in Go, a free open source programming language they've created and support, they've released an open source, royalty free video codec, android, chromeOS, the v8 javascript engine, the dalvik vm, etc

As you professed, you are not a fan of open source so you likely have no interest in any of the above offerings, but for those of us who do like open source Google likely comes across quite favourably.

Reply Score: 2

IE vs others in running mobile goggle maps
by franko on Mon 7th Jan 2013 09:59 UTC
franko
Member since:
2012-05-25

Is there a youtube / video showing what the actual differences are if you used a Windows phone versus any other phone with chrome or firefox or safari etc.

It would be interesting to see what the differences are and what caused the concern at Google.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Mon 7th Jan 2013 10:37 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

Hehe...

Same shit that Microsoft do to others for decades now is on their own skin.

I am so pleased ;) ...and Google should strike them even more!

Reply Score: 0

it's about time
by bjb1959 on Mon 7th Jan 2013 15:36 UTC
bjb1959
Member since:
2012-03-29

LMAO.. I think this is long overdue. It is high time Microsoft finally get a taste of what they have been dishing out for decades and if the consumers are collateral damage so be it, Microsoft has never cared about that in the past when they were on the top of the mountain. And for those who say Google should be better than that or "don't be evil" If there was someone in your neighborhood that bullied you and kicked your ass on a daily basis and then came a day you were bigger and stronger, maybe you should be the bigger man and not retaliate. But it's much more fun, and satisfying to kick their ass on a regular basis to pay them back.

Edited 2013-01-07 15:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: it's about time
by WereCatf on Mon 7th Jan 2013 16:52 UTC in reply to "it's about time"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It is high time Microsoft finally get a taste of what they have been dishing out for decades and if the consumers are collateral damage so be it


"The mayor of this city is a total asshole and has been like that for decades, let's bomb the whole city along with all of its residents! I mean, they're just collateral damage and they deserve it for being there!"

You really have to be terribly childish in order to entertain such thoughts.

If there was someone in your neighborhood that bullied you and kicked your ass on a daily basis and then came a day you were bigger and stronger, maybe you should be the bigger man and not retaliate. But it's much more fun, and satisfying to kick their ass on a regular basis to pay them back.


Except that in this case you'd also be kicking anyone and everyone in any way related, even people who had done nothing else than mowed his lawn.

Reply Score: 2

RE: it's about time
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Jan 2013 20:34 UTC in reply to "it's about time"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You have some real issues.

Reply Score: 3

RE: it's about time
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 17:29 UTC in reply to "it's about time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

In case you haven't yet noticed, this is the unofficial "feel sorry and kiss Microsoft's ass" thread, where everyone willfully ignores Microsoft's rich and crooked history to instead perceive them as little angels who can do no wrong, instead ganging up to collectively slam Google. You're a few months/years too late; almost everyone seems to have completely jumped ship onto another hate train. It looks like it is time to move on, because by this point Microsoft bashing will only get you modded down... Google bashing is where it's at these days. It's like a sudden change of religion.

The very browser family/rendering engine in question would be much lower in importance in the world if it hadn't gained its position illegally in the first place, through the leveraging of another monopoly--but apparently the past no longer matters in the slightest bit. Never mind that this only effects the default browser of a relatively obscure phone OS, and other browsers even on that same OS would not have been affected.

Edited 2013-01-08 17:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: it's about time
by smashIt on Tue 8th Jan 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE: it's about time"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

The very browser family/rendering engine in question would be much lower in importance in the world if it hadn't gained its position illegally in the first place, through the leveraging of another monopoly--but apparently the past no longer matters in the slightest bit.


you can repeat it as often as you want, but ms didn't need any illegal tactics against netscape
netscape just killed itselfe after 3.x

a quote from wikipedia:
The aging Netscape Communicator 4.x was slower than Internet Explorer 5.0. Typical web pages had become heavily illustrated, often JavaScript-intensive, and encoded with HTML features designed for specific purposes but now employed as global layout tools (HTML tables, the most obvious example of this, were especially difficult for Communicator to render). The Netscape browser, once a solid product, became crash-prone and buggy; for example, some versions re-downloaded an entire web page to re-render it when the browser window was re-sized (a nuisance to dial-up users), and the browser would usually crash when the page contained simple Cascading Style Sheets. Moreover, Netscape Communicator's browser interface design appeared dated in comparison to Internet Explorer and interface changes in Microsoft and Apple's operating systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: it's about time
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: it's about time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Nice way to spin it. If that were the case, if products truly won market share based on their actual merits alone, then Windows itself would not have gained its monopoly in the way it did. And Microsoft would have never needed to use illegal tactics with its monopoly power to crush all competition before it even has time to exist as a threat on the market through strong-arming OEMs (BeOS?). Opera never went anywhere--if Microsoft didn't have the entire world by the balls with their Windows/Office/IE tri-monopoly, people would have been able to switch to it with no problem.

Hell, if a product had to be technically superior to win, Windows' own predecessor--MS-DOS--would not even have been the dominant operating system. Instead, that entire class of operating systems would be seen as the complete piece of shit that it is. Of course, Microsoft's lucky timing and deal with IBM, combined with hardware limitations of the original IBM PC, sealed history--and Microsoft's cheap tactics solidified them as a monopoly in many areas for decades to come.

It's about damn time for their eventual collapse, or at least significant reduction in power. It's what the world needed at least a decade ago.

Edited 2013-01-08 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: it's about time
by Windows8_Hater on Tue 8th Jan 2013 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: it's about time"
Windows8_Hater Member since:
2013-01-08

You darn freetards are incredible. I am pretty pissed at Microsoft right now for their stupid W8 bullcrap, and your retarded GatesSatan talk still was able to persuade me to write this post.

Just when I thought there is nothing worse then the damn W8 loving Metrotards.. Poof, I am again proven wrong. You freetards are Microsoft's biggest ally, seriously.

Anyway, YES, Internet Explorer 4 was better than Netscape 4, by a wide margin. Before you wanna shitstorm me now, read this:

http://penguinday.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-ancient-past/

Edited 2013-01-08 19:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: it's about time
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: it's about time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"A movement can exist without a god but never without a devil"

As a satanist who does not believe in the generically-named imaginary god that Christians claim to worship and who does not view "Satan" as the evil deity that they do, do I really give a damn to read an article with such a subtitle? Further, its (and your) use of the word "freetard" (and "Metrotards") doesn't exactly lead me to believe that anything insightful and of real maturity can be gained from it, either.

Wake me up when those two "words" make it into a real dictionary, and then maybe I'll take it seriously. It's funny that I didn't even mention any "free software" operating systems or applications (only commercial) and you're still just tossing that "freetard" word (if you can call it that) around. And I don't even know or care what a "GatesSatan talk" is, so I'll just not bother with that one and assume that it also will never make it into a dictionary.

Sorry, I don't talk fairy tales, cults and superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Drop the religious nonsense and false words and try again.

Edited 2013-01-08 20:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: it's about time
by Windows8_Hater on Tue 8th Jan 2013 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: it's about time"
Windows8_Hater Member since:
2013-01-08

Oh you damn idiot, I am literally lost for words now. That quote is from Eric Hoffer's classical work "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements"

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060...

And you COMPLETELY missed what that quote means. Hint: Christians usually don't refer to their deity as "a god".

Anyway, congratulations for completely missing the mark. I wonder if your other opinions base on similar mind acrobatics.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: it's about time
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: it's about time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Oh you damn idiot, I am literally lost for words now. That quote is from Eric Hoffer's classical work "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements"

Never read it, or heard about it. So sue me. After you get done with all the name calling.

And you COMPLETELY missed what that quote means. Hint: Christians usually don't refer to their deity as "a god".

Yes, I know that--but in reality, it's just as imaginary as every other god mankind has made up for the various religions out there. There is exactly one, more than one, or absolutely no god(s) in existence depending on who you ask--obviously the closely-related religious groups in question only wants you to believe in "theirs," because otherwise you're going straight to the fiery depths of hell that they made up just for you. I am not looking at this from a Christian point of view; did you seriously expect me to? Some people believe in multiple gods... but not the Christian one. I believe in none, yet I realize that "theirs" is not the only one any one has ever made up, nor is it the first. I already said I don't believe in a god or devil, therefore that quote is meaningless to me.

Anyway, congratulations for completely missing the mark. I wonder if your other opinions base on similar mind acrobatics.

Congratulations to you, too, for completely failing to make a point by hiding it in nothing but flames and nonsense.

Edited 2013-01-08 20:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: it's about time
by WereCatf on Tue 8th Jan 2013 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: it's about time"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

There's something familiar about the name-calling, holier-than-thou - attitude and abrasiveness of your behaviour -- you just made a new account just for this occasion, didn't you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: it's about time
by WereCatf on Tue 8th Jan 2013 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE: it's about time"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

In case you haven't yet noticed, this is the unofficial "feel sorry and kiss Microsoft's ass" thread, where everyone willfully ignores Microsoft's rich and crooked history to instead perceive them as little angels who can do no wrong


I'm sorry, could you please point me to where anyone here has said anything even remotely like that?

You're a few months/years too late; almost everyone seems to have completely jumped ship onto another hate train.


I see atleast you maintain yourself in the old train. But I don't really see these others you claim to have jumped onto another train; I see people who defend or bash whichever party or action that deserves it at any then-current moment. I, for example, do not hate either company -- I dislike both of their antics, I do recognize the wrongs Microsoft has done, but I will still choose to defend them when they deserve it.

Hating some party blindly is for children.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: it's about time
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: it's about time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I'm sorry, could you please point me to where anyone here has said anything even remotely like that?

Just an observation I've noticed from the time this news item went up, both in the modding and the comments themselves, and also in several other Microsoft/Google news stories lately.

I see atleast you maintain yourself in the old train. But I don't really see these others you claim to have jumped onto another train; I see people who defend or bash whichever party or action that deserves it at any then-current moment. I, for example, do not hate either company -- I dislike both of their antics, I do recognize the wrongs Microsoft has done, but I will still choose to defend them when they deserve it.

Hating some party blindly is for children.

I wouldn't exactly say that I "hate" Microsoft, nor are any of my thoughts on them "blind." I have developed a strongly deserved distrust and disrespect toward them over the years from the various vile and wicked misdeeds they've unleashed on the world.

For everything good they do over the years that makes me commend them and lighten this hostility, they do something far worse that just reeks of their old tactics. For example, I have praised the hell out of Microsoft for their stance on the DNT header (although I believe that the standard is nothing more than a joke). They need to earn their trust and respect back--I don't just pass it out overnight like candy. So far for every step in the right direction they take two steps backward, and occasionally they still do something that's of pretty much the same level of "bad" that they used to do and Apple just loves to do now.

Trust me... when Microsoft truly changes and regains my trust by acting like a halfway-decent corporation and once they have proved over time that they truly mean it, then what they did in the past and my overall negative view of them will all be history. But they keep proving, time and time again, that so far that's just not happening.

I do not forget or forgive easily... and respect is earned, not just given. They are getting better in several ways, but continue to do what IMO are 100% unforgivable actions that reek of the past, of the same old giant.

Reply Score: 2

drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

Isn't this an awesome opportunity for a third party Dev to make some serious money?

Reply Score: 2

Potential flame bait
by kenji on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:09 UTC
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

OK, I'm going out on a limb here. Has anyone considered for a moment that google may have actually made this move for the very reason stated?

"We periodically test Google Maps compatibility with mobile browsers to make sure we deliver the best experience for those users. In our last test, IE mobile still did not offer a good maps experience with no ability to pan or zoom and perform basic map functionality. As a result, we chose to continue to redirect IE mobile users to Google.com where they could at least make local searches."

This actually makes sense (if it IS true) because if mobile IE makes google maps UNUSABLE, the arse-hat users will blame google, not their phones. Maybe google was protecting their credibility against bad software?

Stop jumping to conclusions. Where is the proof that this was a malicious move by google? Oh, just more internet speculation. Like the world needs more of that.

:)

Reply Score: 2