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 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."
Thread beginning with comment 547527
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Sun 6th Jan 2013 06:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 6

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

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 Parent Score: 1

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

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 Parent Score: 2

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

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 Parent Score: 2