Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th May 2013 21:46 UTC
Google "Wired has obtained a copy of a cease and desist letter sent by Google to Microsoft today, demanding Microsoft immediately remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phone Store and disable existing copies on consumers' devices by May 22. The YouTube app for Windows Phone - developed by Microsoft not Google - strips out ads and allows downloading, both violations of YouTube's terms of service." Incredibly petty. Just come up with a solution, you bunch of kids.
Thread beginning with comment 561776
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by silviucc on Thu 16th May 2013 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
silviucc
Member since:
2009-12-05


So? You pay to implement WiFi, LTE, and 3G.


WiFi, LTE, 3G are not controlled by a single entity with discretionary licensing policies. Read on FRAND on wikipedia and 3G for example.


Sorry, Google has like 14 Chat APIs, I actually meant Google Talk, which is being superceded by Hangouts (which itself is a FB Messenger/WhatsApp/Kik competitor now)

FTA it states that Hangouts replaces Google Talk. I'm not sure if Google Chat is tied into Google Talk, or if its yet another separate protocol.


Again, you quote just stuff the helps your argument while ignoring the truth. Here:

On the surface, Hangouts is essentially a messaging app in the same vein as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. Hangouts replaces Google Talk, Google+ Messenger, and the classic Google+ Hangouts video chat.

The app — available on Android, iOS, and Chrome (but not Windows Phone or BlackBerry) — starts with text conversations. You're presented with a list of your recent conversations instead of a contact list. That's the first sign that this is more of a mobile messenger than a traditional instant messaging client, a distinction that becomes even clearer once you dive into a group chat or one-on-one conversation. Conversations get names, like chat rooms, and it's simple to add an image or one of Google’s 850 new hand-drawn emoji.


The first two were mobile applications that a new app is replacing. It does not mean that the old Google Talk, as a serviced is phased. They mean to keep an interoperability between them, even if limited by technological constraints:


The flip side of this new system is that you lose the more traditional "Active / Away" presence indicators that Google Talk users have grown accustomed to. It’s a hybrid of instant messaging and mobile messaging, though Hangouts will on some levels remain interoperable from Google Talk.


You have the ability to use Hangouts in Gmail, but it's opt-in.


Proof I get paid to shill? I make money off of Microsoft platforms, but I also make money off of Apple and to a more limited extent Android.



The proof is in the pudding as they say. Every time there is a wiff of MS on OSNews, there's Nelson "setting the record straight" with arguments that contain enough truth to be believable for the ones poorly informed, but which are essentially "marketing/damage control" talk filled with half-truths and nothing more.

The fact that you "cut out" parts of the information in order to make your arguments, as illustrated above, shows exactly what you are. A shill.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 16th May 2013 10:14 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


WiFi, LTE, 3G are not controlled by a single entity with discretionary licensing policies. Read on FRAND on wikipedia and 3G for example.


So? They are an actively licensed standards based technology. FRAND is merely coincidental in this case.

The point is that licensing costs for EAS, especially on mobile is not prohibitive. And if you're lucky and get the next big thing, Microsoft does offer volume licensing rates which push the cost down further.

EAS licensing costs were pocket change for Google, who makes and obsoletes new products and services left and right, similarly, for other players, licensing IP is just standard operating procedure.


The first two were mobile applications that a new app is replacing. It does not mean that the old Google Talk, as a serviced is phased. They mean to keep an interoperability between them, even if limited by technological constraints:


Right, so they are moving away from XMPP for the future of their chat based communication?

Its obvious Google Chat is still there, but where are they investing in the future? Will it be taken out back and put out of its misery during the next spring cleaning? Maintenance mode isn't something I'd be glad over.

And its interesting that you say I keep taking things out of context, only to provide no additional context yourself. I don't understand what was so illuminating about the additional sentence or two you quoted, because it did exactly nothing for your argument.

"Google isn't killing the old thing as fast" isn't an excuse for them moving away from another standard, while at the same time, acting holier than thou on standards support at I/O. Its corporate double speak, and its amusing you can't see past it.


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Every time there is a wiff of MS on OSNews, there's Nelson "setting the record straight" with arguments that contain enough truth to be believable for the ones poorly informed, but which are essentially "marketing/damage control" talk filled with half-truths and nothing more.


I'm generally first on most threads, including a few Android, Google, developer, and patent based. I post in what interests me, and I've already stated that I enjoy the Microsoft platform and others.

I still don't understand how any of the above makes me a paid shill? Am I not allowed to hold an opinion that's different from the OSNews echo chamber? Maybe you, and dopes who think like you, take pride in being wrong (like they were on Samsung-Apple trial, Nokia dying any day now, Google/MS EAS spat, etc) but I try to see things the way they actually are.

If you look in this thread and stop making excuses for Google you'll see that I criticize both Microsoft and Google, as well as provide some context as to why Google may be acting the way they are (Quid pro quo comment in reply to another, in light of CEO comments from Google), so I certainly tell both sides of the story.

I can admit that Microsoft was wrong in breaking its terms, but I can at the same time provide context and show that Google is no saint either.

The inconvenient truth that you, and others refuse to admit is that Google mightve actually been wrong in this instance, but that's inconceivable and you'd rather imagine me taking quotes out of context (despite you never providing the supposed proper context).


The fact that you "cut out" parts of the information in order to make your arguments, as illustrated above, shows exactly what you are. A shill.


They're cut out for brevity and you didn't really add much more. You showed that Google is phasing out XMPP support in favor of something proprietary in their Chat platform, which is in line with what I said.

You're speaking as if you'd shown that Google is not doing this, which isn't what you've done (though I'm sure you wish you couldve, given your comical disbelief when I first brought it up).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by silviucc on Thu 16th May 2013 11:01 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

Right, so they are moving away from XMPP for the future of their chat based communication?


Where the hell did you get that from? They are not moving way from it, it was never in Hangouts to begin with.

People will be able to interact with it through XMPP but in a more limited way. Facebook does the same exact thing. They both want users to have the best experience by actually *using* their site. It's their technology, they can do whatever they wish.


Its obvious Google Chat is still there, but where are they investing in the future? Will it be taken out back and put out of its misery during the next spring cleaning? Maintenance mode isn't something I'd be glad over.


Oh, you know that for a fact huh? Sure you're not just interpreting facts to fit your argument?


And its interesting that you say I keep taking things out of context, only to provide no additional context yourself. I don't understand what was so illuminating about the additional sentence or two you quoted, because it did exactly nothing for your argument.


You presented XMPP as being gone. The text I quoted showed that 1) it was not gone from Gmail 2) it was never used in hangouts which had never been fully open as you implied.

Then you said they phased out Google Talk which they did not. The service is fine and dandy and will probably be there for a long time.

You say it won't/ We shall see. Until then, stop presenting fiction as truth.


"Google isn't killing the old thing as fast" isn't an excuse for them moving away from another standard, while at the same time, acting holier than thou on standards support at I/O. Its corporate double speak, and its amusing you can't see past it.


They can't move away from something that was not there in the first place.

Let me repeat that. "Hangouts never, ever, EVER" used XMPP. Now they're mobile applications that were used from two different services have been unified into one that uses the hangouts protocol. Clear?


I still don't understand how any of the above makes me a paid shill? Am I not allowed to hold an opinion that's different from the OSNews echo chamber? Maybe you, and dopes who think like you, take pride in being wrong (like they were on Samsung-Apple trial, Nokia dying any day now, Google/MS EAS spat, etc) but I try to see things the way they actually are.


You spin the facts not show them as they are. Makes your arguments flimsy. I take pride in being correctly informed about stuff and also for seeing past a professional bullshitter's bullshit.


If you look in this thread and stop making excuses for Google you'll see that I criticize both Microsoft and Google, as well as provide some context as to why Google may be acting the way they are (Quid pro quo comment in reply to another, in light of CEO comments from Google), so I certainly tell both sides of the story.


I do not make excuses for nobody. I talk about facts as I see them. You slap MS on the wrist and then turn and say "but Google kicks dogs and eats babies"


I can admit that Microsoft was wrong in breaking its terms, but I can at the same time provide context and show that Google is no saint either.


Then admit that MS is wrong in not allowing Google to interact with Outlook.com and grab your mail from there.

Admit that MS is wrong in not providing the ability for others, even if limited, to interact with their skype service. They've already modified the initial skype protocols to use their servers for better eavesdropping (skype was initially point to point and only used relays if it absolutely had to) why not open them up, if even partially?

Admit that they are wrong in not providing a way for outsiders to interact with their calendar tool.

Admit that they are full of shit when they call out Google for parsing email messages when their service does exactly the same damn thing.


They're cut out for brevity and you didn't really add much more. You showed that Google is phasing out XMPP support in favor of something proprietary in their Chat platform, which is in line with what I said.


I've shown no such thing. But I did show that the stuff you quoted was conveniently left out for the sake of you making a point, even if that point proved to be wrong/false.


You're speaking as if you'd shown that Google is not doing this, which isn't what you've done (though I'm sure you wish you couldve, given your comical disbelief when I first brought it up).


What I've shown is that they have not done what tyou said they did. They might do it, but they've not done it yet. THAT is fact, the rest is speculation.

Reply Parent Score: 2