Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th May 2013 00:45 UTC
Google "So in summary... Google has pulled the plug on support on a protocol they've helped popularize, after years of promising interoperability, for reasons that are dubious at best, and in a way that leaves people who don't jump to the new Hangouts app unable to talk to their contacts without any feedback that their IMs aren't getting through... And they've done that with no warning to anyone. I imagine there's a bunch of people out there wondering where some of their buddies have gone, or why their messages aren't getting responses, because this isn't documented anywhere." Google really messed this up. Such a dick move.
Thread beginning with comment 562947
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Mon 27th May 2013 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

The same could be said about every company, including Google. Google uses open source because it is a convenient tool,

It doesn't matter why they are supporting open source, the end result is that they are supporting open source, which ends up benefiting open source.

I'm using their services for as long as they keep supporting open source, again, if they stop supporting open source, or someone else comes along and does a better job at it while offering the same services I will jump ship in a heartbeat.

You might love to pretend there's a difference between Google and Microsoft on this, but there really isn't.

Of course there is, Google is actively supporting lots of open source projects right now, Microsoft, not so much.

Microsoft happens to offer Azure choice (as opposed to lock in) because they want reach across a broad spectrum of developer tools.

Drop the corporate bullshit speak, Microsoft wants in on the 'cloud' action as it's a massively growing market, a market where their desktop monopoly isn't giving them any OEM favours and where other systems already have a large presence. That large presence means that unless they support those other systems, companies won't use their cloud offering.

and by the same token one could argue that Google is trying to force vp8 and vp9 as a default codec. Something they obviously have a vested interest in seeing happen.

Let's compare, Google offer a royalty free codec which anyone can implement for free, the resulting video files can be distributed for free, this means a free standard for video across the internet.

Microsoft wants to push a royalty laden video codec format from which they will gain royalities, which company has a 'vested interest' here?

But you're not locked in AND Microsoft achieves their goal. You're technically running Windows, but you can move anywhere you want.

Not if you rely on any of Microsoft's proprietary Windows-only 'technologies' aswell.

Microsoft locks you in by providing Windows only technology, that obviously doesn't preclude them from bringing in popular outside technology with which they can't compete.

It's like DirectX / OpenGL, one is a proprietary Windows only 'technology', the other is a cross platform open technology.

Microsoft wants to lock-in as much software as possible using their proprietary DirectX, but they can't afford to not support OpenGL since there is a lot of key software which requires it.

The whole point is to is to lock users to their platform. -'Look, you can have all our windows only shiny toys and the cross platform shiny toys!'

So yes, Microsoft helping to support Node on Windows is perfectly in line with serving their vendor lock-in strategy.

One isn't magically better than the other,

Certainly not, it's practically better than the other when it comes to open source, as in actual support to open source projects in the form of code and funding.


This is false.

No it's not, Microsoft .NET is not an open source platform. It's a proprietary platform with some open source components.

The crux of the argument is that the differences are imaginary.

No the crux of the argument is that you are lying through your teeth, whatever the motivations of Google's open source support are, the end result is that they are benefiting free cross platform open source much more than Microsoft.

That is NOT an 'imaginary' difference.

You might want to invent a difference for your own rationalization eg. "Google contributes more to open source", but it is one thats in your head only.

Oh please, now you are outright lying (as opposed to lying through your teeth), Google contributes far more to open source than Microsoft. How can you pretend otherwise?

I like I said have no illusions about what Microsoft is or why it does what it does -- there's a business decision behind everything.

I've already said the exact thing about Google, or ANY company.

So I look at what they actually do for that which I care for, and Google contributes a lot of open source code, and also money to a lot of open source projects which I use.

And that's what it boils down to, they do more for open source than any other company offering similar services, so I use their services.

If you cared about open source you'd push open source, not help prop up a company that is detrimental to open source.

Bullshit, how is Google detrimental to open source? In comparison to what?

I think it sucks that they abandoned open standard solutions for interoperability, but that doesn't make them worse than the competition, not better, but certainly not worse.

Beyond that their open source contributions/funding still stands, unlike that of the competition.

So when it comes to whose services I use, it's still going to be Google, until something better comes along.

Me, personally, I don't give a rats ass about open source.

It's your prerogative, while I don't find anything ethically wrong with proprietary code, I find open source to be practically superior as I or anyone else can examine, enhance and of course use it.

You're so against Microsoft that you've started shilling for a company that acts just like them.

Only thing I 'shill' for is open source (ok, Haiku aswell). My dislike for Microsoft comes from their aggression towards open source and open source projects, aswell as their long history of extremely dirty tactics.

Congrats, you're trying extraordinarily hard to be me. ;)

You wish ;) Even if I wanted to be 'shilling' for open source the way you 'shill' for Microsoft I just wouldn't find the time, between work and family there's no way I could keep up.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Tue 28th May 2013 17:28 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It doesn't matter why they are supporting open source, the end result is that they are supporting open source, which ends up benefiting open source.


But it clearly didn't benefit XMPP. They have now had their technology and hardwork used by Google to Google's benefit, without Google contributing much back, and in fact dumping the technology when they no longer needed it.

Where is the benefit in that? How is XMPP better off? How is CalDAV better off? They're not. This is a variant of EEE, a Microsoft tactic.


I'm using their services for as long as they keep supporting open source, again, if they stop supporting open source, or someone else comes along and does a better job at it while offering the same services I will jump ship in a heartbeat.


Microsoft and Google both misuse open source. You're just hyper sensitive to Microsoft's actions and blind to Google's. Whereas Microsoft is the arch nemesis of open source, you view Google through understanding and sympathetic glasses (no pun intended) while making excuses.

Later in your comment you misunderstood my position. It isnt that Google doesn't contribute more to open source, it's that you use that to excuse Google's harm to open source. That is where I believe you're wrong, along side being wrong about Microsoft having a culture of lock in.

Google's lock in is actually clear to anyone who wishes to have Push Gmail and not use their official apps. Google's lock in exists in that they force you to use Google sanctioned platforms to have a premium experience with YouTube. Windows Phone and Windows 8 are proof positive of this.

Drop the corporate bullshit speak, Microsoft wants in on the 'cloud' action as it's a massively growing market, a market where their desktop monopoly isn't giving them any OEM favours and where other systems already have a large presence. That large presence means that unless they support those other systems, companies won't use their cloud offering.


So is Microsoft locking you into Windows Azure? You can go on and on about why they don't lock you in (which I disagree with, but its obvious we won't get anywhere there), but it doesn't answer that key question. In what way are you locked into Azure? When instances can be managed by open source tools, provisioned by open source tools, and services can be developed and deployed with open source tools.

Its one thing for it to be a token gesture of interoperability, but its another thing to have high quality SDKs for a variety of languages and support for various open technologies like Git and Hadoop.


Let's compare, Google offer a royalty free codec which anyone can implement for free, the resulting video files can be distributed for free, this means a free standard for video across the internet. Microsoft wants to push a royalty laden video codec format from which they will gain royalities, which company has a 'vested interest' here?


Oh come on, Google having control over the default web codec has far larger rammifications than royalties that most end users never pay over H264.

Besides, Nokia has an IPR declaration on VP8 and various pending cases, so its relative safety remains to be seen in the courts.

Not if you rely on any of Microsoft's proprietary Windows-only 'technologies' aswell. Microsoft locks you in by providing Windows only technology, that obviously doesn't preclude them from bringing in popular outside technology with which they can't compete.


Are you aware that you can do everything end to end using open technologies? You can fully manage, provision, and develop on Azure using open technologies. The only thing proprietary are the PaaS things like Azure Table/Blob Storage, SQL Azure, etc. which is the same were you deployed on AWS and used their key/value stores. This is where actually knowing about the technology helps.


It's like DirectX / OpenGL, one is a proprietary Windows only 'technology', the other is a cross platform open technology. Microsoft wants to lock-in as much software as possible using their proprietary DirectX, but they can't afford to not support OpenGL since there is a lot of key software which requires it. The whole point is to is to lock users to their platform.


But if you're using OpenGL, you're not using DirectX. Its about developer choice, not ideology. Developer choice is as much a selling point as proprietary technology when you're a services vendor. What you're seeing is Microsoft's transition into a services company.

Thats where there's less of an emphasis on lock in, and more of an emphasis on reach. My prediction is that you'll see Microsoft become more Google like in its use of open standards and open technologies to bootstrap their services.

No it's not, Microsoft .NET is not an open source platform. It's a proprietary platform with some open source components.


Proprietary platform built on open technologies, mostly open components with a few sprinkles of Microsoft stuff on top thats not in the base class library and was never meant to be portable.

Its like dinging C++ for being non portable because the Windows SDK that sits on top of it doesn't run on Linux.
Again, these are not sublte differences I'm particularly interested in rehashing over and over. If you still don't get it after this, then there's a saying about leading a horse to water which I think is applicable here.

Bullshit, how is Google detrimental to open source?


You answer your own question:

I think it sucks that they abandoned open standard solutions for interoperability, but


And the "but" at the end is particularly telling. They abandoned open standards. It sucks. There's no excuse.
They're a business. They do this. Just like Microsoft does it.

You might point to open standards or technologies that Google contributes to right now, but remember, they were very friendly with XMPP, right until they weren't.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Wed 29th May 2013 00:26 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Later in your comment you misunderstood my position. It isnt that Google doesn't contribute more to open source, it's that you use that to excuse Google's harm to open source.


I don't excuse Google's 'harm', although I'd like to know what 'harm' it is that they have done to open source, dropping XMPP harmed open standards, Google's XMPP open source code contribution (libjingle IIRC) is still available.

That doesn't take away all that they give back to open source, and again, compared to their service competitors their contributions to open source are outstanding.

As for their 'harm' done to open standards, again I think it sucked that they dropped XMPP for their own proprietary format, but they are certainly no worse than their competitors in this area, and again their open source contributions are still so much better.

And this is what I've been saying from the first post to the last (and let's hope this is the last, as we are getting nowhere):

If I were to choose between using rivaling services, I will go with the one which best benefit my interests (open source), this doesn't mean that I think they are without fault (if that was a prerequisite I couldn't use a single service at all), or that I think they're the 'bees knees'.

Since I advocate open source, and Google is the service provider which by far benefits open source the most, I will use Google.

Again, if some other service provider shows up and offers adequate services while doing a better job at benefiting open source, I will not hesitate to jump ship, as my interest in using Google (as opposed to something else) is directly tied to them being benefactors of open source.

Google's lock in is actually clear to anyone who wishes to have Push Gmail and not use their official apps.

Lol, so you say that Google's lock in is 'clear to anyone', while denying that Microsoft has a culture of lock in?

I've never claimed that Google isn't trying to lock users to their services, and of course they use their services as leverage to draw/keep users to their platforms.

Just as Microsoft and Apple does, but the latter is something you are trying to dispute, which makes you look like 'super shill'.

Microsoft 'wrote the book' on user lock-in, and in terms of open source they have a very bad track record.

Furthermore, despite your unsubstantiated claims that Google 'harms' open source, Microsoft actually has a long history of doing what they can to harm open source, you don't have to go further than to read the Halloween documents to have confirmation of that.

So is Microsoft locking you into Windows Azure?

I never claimed Microsoft is using Azure as a lock-in venture, as they simply can't.

This is a market segment where if they want customers they must support the systems customers want to run on the 'cloud', as such they can't afford not supporting other systems, particularly extremely popular VM workhorse systems like Linux.

And the reason they enter this market segment is not because they want to 'open up'. They enter this market segment because they can't prevent the increased transition towards the 'cloud', and as such they have to play along in order to have a piece of the increasing pie.

And since this is actually a truly competitive field they have to offer what their competitors are offering, hence interoperability, 'sdk's' and 'support for technology x'.

Oh come on, Google having control over the default web codec has far larger rammifications than royalties that most end users never pay over H264.

Describe these rammifications then, h264 as a de facto standard (as it is now) have the exact same rammifications except they also come with licence costs, and end users sure as hell pay them as there isn't some 'licence fairy' which covers the royalties which MPEGLA members demand.

My prediction is that you'll see Microsoft become more Google like in its use of open standards and open technologies to bootstrap their services.

Let's just say that I will believe it when I see it. I would be glad to as I advocate open standards along with open source.

You might point to open standards or technologies that Google contributes to right now, but remember, they were very friendly with XMPP, right until they weren't.

Well I can't judge them on things they might do, only what they've done and what they currently do.

Currently they do contribute a lot (source, funding) to open source, far more so than their competitors.

Reply Parent Score: 2