Here's my comment:

Yeah, like I would listen to someone who sues for patents in Linux (!) and takes money from andoroid manufacturers for using patents like "add a phone number to the contacts by long-pressing it".

Microsoft = patent troll!  It's a shame, it used to be tech company with some jewels like COM (CORBA done right), AJAX (thank IE 5.5, and the web outlook team for that), dotnet (java done right and agile-ly, think were it would have been today if it was TRULY open. think dotneters and weep).

Most, if not all, presenters on youtube and vimeo about programming, web, startups, nodejs, nosql DBs, what not, USE MACS. Most users of tech-related sites like arstechnica, USE CHROME. Startups pretty much settled on POSIX. Show me sites on the alexa 100 using Windows servers.

Now, please don't replay if it's along the lines "Microsoft is doing it legally" or "defending it's IP". That's BS. No true developer who likes programming and computers would say that.

Microsoft, leave the high-tech world alone. Compete with technology, not patents.

Yeah, like I would listen to someone who sues for patents in Linux (!) and takes money from andoroid manufacturers for using patents like "add a phone number to the contacts by long-pressing it".

Microsoft = patent troll! It's a shame, it used to be tech company with some jewels like COM (CORBA done right), AJAX (thank IE 5.5, and the web outlook team for that), dotnet (java done right and agile-ly, think were it would have been today if it was TRULY open. think dotneters and weep).

Most, if not all, presenters on youtube and vimeo about programming, web, startups, nodejs, nosql DBs, what not, USE MACS. Most users of tech-related sites like arstechnica, USE CHROME. Startups pretty much settled on POSIX. Show me sites on the alexa 100 using Windows servers.

Now, please don't replay if it's along the lines "Microsoft is doing it legally" or "defending it's IP". That's BS. No true developer who likes programming and computers would say that.

Microsoft, leave the high-tech world alone. Compete with technology, not patents.

If MS are sued for anti-competitive actions, then so should everyone else who acts anti-competitively.  Imagine you peed on your neighbour's lawn and they sued you, then the neighbour on the other side peed on your lawn; wouldn't you think it would be unfair for them to get away with it if you didn't?

Herbie

EDIT: My argument above is purely based on personal morals, but we mustn't forget that MS is a publicly owned company, so they have to do everything they legally can to ensure a level market with their competitors (and if they do something illegal, they deserve to be sued).

EDIT, EDIT:  I'm not saying I don't see the irony, but suggesting that MS cannot morally make this argument is stretching credulity.

if (CODE_SIGNATURE == GOOGLE) PerformShuperShecretAPI(); // ?

and you think this argument would fly in court?

"Your honor, we did this provably illegal blocking of API because they sued us in the past for patent infringement?"

No, me neither.

3 hours ago, fanbaby wrote

Show me sites on the alexa 100 using Windows servers.

For fun, in alexa100 the following use IIS:

www.live.com
msn.com
microsoft.com
conduit.com
go.com

The following use Apache:

youtube.com
wikipedia.org
linkedin.org
ebay.com
mail.ru
apple.com
fc2.com
ask.com
craigslist.com
bbc.co.uk
odnoklassniki.ru
avg.com
mywebsearch.com
rakuten.co.jp
adobe.com
alibaba.com
wigetmedia.com
netflix.com
livedoor.com
huffingtonpost.com
uol.com.br
360.cn

The following use nginx:

yandex.ru
wordpress.com
163.com
vk.com
tumblr.com
pinterest.com
xhamster.com
soso.com
xvideos.com
pornhub.com
cnn.com
redtube.com
sogou.com
about.com
imgur.com

The following use other servers, are using load-balancer, bespoke webserver or security settings that obscure the server header:

facebook.com
google.com
yahoo.com
baidu.com
amazon.com
qq.com
twitter.com
taobao.com
blogspot.com
sina.com.cn
bing.com
babylon.com
weibo.com
googleusercontent.com
paypal.com
hao123.com
blogger.com
tmall.com
livejasmin.com
flikr.com
aol.com
youku.com
t.co
ifeng
thepiratebay.se
alipay.com
dailymotion.com
stackoverflow.com
360buy.com
adcash.com

Based entirely off the "Server" header from requesting the "http://www." form of the server and following all redirects.

Omitted from the results are duplicates in alexa that are effectively localisations of other sites in list list (e.g. amazon.co.uk is not included because amazon.com is, similarly for google.de and bing.co.uk, ebay.jp etc).

Warning: Before doing this yourself - not all of those URLs are safe for work!

This looks like the specific API for category https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol_category_keyword_browsing

Why is Microsoft having to do anything other than fill out the same form to get a developer account that everyone else fills out?

explains the whole Google stopping MS make a good Youtube app situation quite well

I'm not a Google hater or Microsoft lover.  It just seems illogical to not anticipate a 3rd party changing APIs and have a means already in place to send out an update in hours to adjust to the change.  I'm still missing something here.

Here's the problem:

Google would like to keep the APIs to itself because it can use the better YouTube/Maps/Whatever experience to sell more Android phones and harvest more personal information for their marketing partners. They have no reason to hand over any part of their service that will make Windows Phone better.

The reason they allow Apple access to the APIs is simple: although Android has a far greater market share in terms of phones sold, iOS accounts for nearly 74% of the profits generated in the mobile market. The fact is, iOS users are more valuable to Google's marketing partners, which is why the company did such a rapid about face on their mapping app (remember they didn't want to give Apple access to turn-by-turn or voice commands) when Apple released their own mapping application. Google is even bragging that their iOS version of Google Maps is better than their Android version. 

MS is in a tricky position; their small marketshare in the mobile space means they have no leverage. But they do have one big bargaining chip: the patents they're using to extract money from the Android OEMs.

Usage and Quotas. YouTube may, in its sole discretion, set a quota of operations on Your YouTube API usage. You shall not attempt to circumvent automated use-quota restrictions.

Now, since the total number of people using Windows Phone's YouTube API key is pretty large, a restriction on this effectively disables the app.

Unfortunately Microsoft isn't able to get around this legally because of other restrictions in the terms:

Prohibitions

Your API Client will not, and You will not encourage or create functionality for Your users or other third parties to:

...misrepresent your identity when registering for use of the YouTube API, use the developer credentials licensed to a different individual or entity, or mask Your usage of the YouTube API

A consequence of these two rules is that Google can (and presumably has chosen to, if Microsoft are to be believed) block Microsoft's YouTube app from properly working, and although other developers on other platforms are not affected, and Microsoft would be able to technically work around the restrictions (e.g. by registering lots of API keys), doing so would be in violation of the terms and conditions of the YouTube player - and hence would put Microsoft in a bad legal position if they released their "working" YouTube player.

It does seem to me that companies should provide the same service to all users of any given API. If Microsoft started playing tit-for-tat by doing shenanigans like saying "HeapAlloc returns NULL always if the process is called 'chrome.exe'" the world would be a worse place.

Other than when a court order instructs you otherwise, you shouldn't have any logic anywhere in your app that treats some customers as different to other ones.

12 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

My understanding of it is that Google are exercising item 8 in their terms of service:

Usage and Quotas. YouTube may, in its sole discretion, set a quota of operations on Your YouTube API usage. You shall not attempt to circumvent automated use-quota restrictions.

...

It does seem to me that companies should provide the same service to all users of any given API. If Microsoft started playing tit-for-tat by doing shenanigans like saying "HeapAlloc returns NULL always if the process is called 'chrome.exe'" the world would be a worse place.

I see... restriction via the API key.

The US does have anti-competitive laws that would prevent Google from offering Apple 1 deal and not MS the same. The only way Google is getting away w/ it right now is that the new YouTube app is Google's, not Apple. Google can just say, we haven't made the investment in making our own YouTube app for WP8 because there's so FEW users lol

And in NO way would degrading the OS for Chrome.exe be legal

6 hours ago, Dr Herbie wrote

@fanbaby: "What's sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander".

If MS are sued for anti-competitive actions, then so should everyone else who acts anti-competitively.  Imagine you peed on your neighbour's lawn and they sued you, then the neighbour on the other side peed on your lawn; wouldn't you think it would be unfair for them to get away with it if you didn't?

Herbie

 

EDIT: My argument above is purely based on personal morals, but we mustn't forget that MS is a publicly owned company, so they have to do everything they legally can to ensure a level market with their competitors (and if they do something illegal, they deserve to be sued).

 

EDIT, EDIT:  I'm not saying I don't see the irony, but suggesting that MS cannot morally make this argument is stretching credulity.

Microsoft may or may not have to do that as a public company, but I hope that isn't anyone's personal moral code. Its the opposite of morals, because it shows a lack of integrity. Integrity means you don't do something just because everyone else is doing it.

The #1 reason people act immorally is because they use this excuse, and then other people see them doing it and use that excuse, and then everyone is doing it and using that excuse. Meanwhile people imagine they're better than everyone else because they're only doing it because others are, while they imagine others aren't. That's what goes on in politics all the time. "Lets run smears against our opponent, because if we don't, they'll run them against us. Lets make deals with lobbyists, because that's what our opponent will do"

Personally, I don't buy the argument that companies can't legally act in a more ethical manner, either. Maintaining a good reputation is a good way to keep market-share.

1 hour ago, Minh wrote

And in NO way would degrading the OS for Chrome.exe be legal

That's my point. Google shouldn't decide to return different results through one API key because the guy on the other side is Microsoft any more than Microsoft should return different results through their APIs because the guy on the other side is Google.

Google needs to stop playing shenanigans.

"Google did agree to license patents deemed to be "essential" for rival mobile devices such as Apple Inc.'s iPhone, Research in Motion Ltd.'s BlackBerry and smartphones running on a Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software."

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Google+agrees+license+smartphone+patents+Apple/7771630/story.html

I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

In addition, it's no secret that I personally respect and look to Google as the technical leader in our industry. I'm sorry if that frustrates some people who seem to have followed different paths, but it is the way it is.

22 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

In addition, it's no secret that I personally respect and look to Google as the technical leader in our industry. I'm sorry if that frustrates some people who seem to have followed different paths, but it is the way it is.

Wow, the double standard is strong in this one...

10 hours ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

Right. Google are so open with their software and so non-discriminatory that they should be allowed to close their effective monopoly on their closed source online free video distribution website to competitors on business grounds.

In fact, because they're never evil, they should be allowed to prevent Windows Phone customers from viewing their friend's videos on YouTube via Windows Phone in a dispute that doesn't involve that customer.

If Microsoft released a silent update to ASP.NET that made it detect and return a "Error 600: Google Not Allowed" webpage every time someone viewed the site in Google Chrome, there'd (rightly) be an outcry.

For the same reason, Google shouldn't have released a silent update into their YouTube API that makes it detect and return an "Error 600: Microsoft not allowed" result every time someone tries to use a YouTube app on a Windows Phone.

Code should always treat everyone the same (up to authentication). Doing otherwise is explicitly "doing evil", undermines competition in the market place, is contrary to the entire principle of FOSS, in that it is narrow, centrally owned, hidden and subject to malicious "political" manoeuvres.

It doesn't matter if Microsoft used to be evil. What matters is that Google should aspire to be better. It's motto is "don't be evil" for heaven's sake.

16 hours ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

In addition, it's no secret that I personally respect and look to Google as the technical leader in our industry. I'm sorry if that frustrates some people who seem to have followed different paths, but it is the way it is.

So, you don't have a problem with a company that deliberately bypassed browser security to illegally harvest folks' private data?

Google had to pay billions for YouTube. The idea that Microsoft can go and take advantage of YouTube to their own business ends without contributing anything is legalizing parasitic behavior at best.

Microsoft is a big boy, they shouldn't need the government to help them keep their business relevant.

Specifically, see this comment:

It is definitely on purpose.  If you change the user agent in Firefox (using User Agent Switcher) to "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows Phone 8.0; Trident/6.0; ARM; Touch; IEMobile/10.0", you get redirected to the Google home page. But if you set the user agent to "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows Phne 8.0; Trident/6.0; ARM; Touch; IEMobile/10.0" (notice I intentionally misspelled Windows Phone), the maps.google.com page comes up just fine. In other words, the only way I was able to get it to redirect is to have Windows Phone in the user agent string.  So something on Google's side is keying off the user agent for windows phone

You must be so proud of them.

4 hours ago, Bass wrote

@magicalclick:

Google had to pay billions for YouTube. The idea that Microsoft can go and take advantage of YouTube to their own business ends without contributing anything is legalizing parasitic behavior at best.

Then they shouldn't provide the API. Or they should charge for it. Or they should put limits on it that affect all providers equally. And why isn't that the case on iOS? Essentially we have Microsoft doing Google's job for them for free (and if it's not "Google's job" then why have they written an app for iOS while arguing that Microsoft can't release theirs because it wasn't written by Google?).

Don't see the problem. If I have a website and want to block people by user agent string or IP address or whatever the hell I want, I can. Because it is my website. Maybe you want administrator access too, I hear Google doesn't share that with many people.

I personally think Google has been treating Microsoft too nicely. This is a company who's CEO wants to "f**king kill" them and plays cheap by randomly suing their partners. So quite frankly, most forms of retaliation are appropriate.

2 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

Don't see the problem.

Of course you don't. You've drunk too deep from the Kool-Aid to know any better.

6 minutes ago, GoddersUK wrote

@Bass:

*snip*

Then they shouldn't provide the API.

It makes even more sense to hand API keys only in situations where it is in their business interest, and not in situations where it isn't in their business interest. I think giving Microsoft access to YouTube is not in Google's business interest, and it seems they agree.

Maybe they are wrong, and this hurting them. But regardless, it is within their right to run their business in the way they feel is optimal. The only time the government gets involved is in the case of monopoly, and I highly doubt YouTube is a monopoly or it is impossible for Microsoft to make a competing service.

Not my fault, it's a Friday night and it had plenty of vodka.

I guess 2013 is an all out Google war against Microsoft. I don't really see this being good for Google in the long-term, even if they make gains in the immediate future (e.g., kill MS' dominance in the productivity sector). From a games perspective, cutting out a competitor like that is a very suboptimal strategy because you just set yourself up for failure, often because you were too busy looking at one region of the board to notice the impending threats on the other side.

5 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

It makes even more sense to hand API keys only in situations where it is in their business interest, and not in situations where it isn't in their business interest. I think giving Microsoft access to YouTube is not in Google's business interest, and it seems they agree.

Maybe they are wrong, and this hurting them. But regardless, it is within their right to run their business in the way they feel is optimal. The only time the government gets involved is in the case of monopoly, and I highly doubt YouTube is a monopoly or it is impossible for Microsoft to make a competing service.

That's an interesting view of what a monopoly is. By the same standard, Google can make their own OS (actually, they do), so it should be right for Microsoft to prevent Chrome from installing on a Windows box, right?

Microsoft has magical native APIs they use in Windows 8 apps that other companies can't use. So I would say that is already the case. The reason they get away with this is because the DoJ no longer regulates Microsoft's behavior in regards to browser bundling.

Also, it's a lot harder (sometimes impossible) to change operating systems. Going to a different website is trivial.

19 minutes ago, Blue Ink wrote

That's an interesting view of what a monopoly is. By the same standard, Google can make their own OS (actually, they do), so it should be right for Microsoft to prevent Chrome from installing on a Windows box, right?

I was about to say the same thing...

Imagine one day if Microsoft modified the e-cert store in Windows to prevent any e-cert with the name "Google" in it from being added as "trusted", so all current Google web applications will look broken in some way. Will Google cry foul?

Edit: Okay, this is not good example, but maybe if Microsoft modified Windows certificate store to only trust a special subset of CA, and make secret deal that those CA will not produce e-cert for Google? This is actually feasible because most CA in current database has expiration date from 2015 to 2025. If Microsoft would willfully neglect to put their new cert in the updates for the database, these CAs will no longer be trusted after the original CA e-cert has expired. And given the number of Windows machine, we could effective call Microsoft has the access to kick them out of business.

http://wmpoweruser.com/now-google-is-blocking-windows-phones-from-accessing-maps-google-com/

Do no evil my *.

18 seconds ago, Bass wrote

@Blue Ink:

Microsoft has magical native APIs they use in Metro IE that Mozilla nor Google has access to, so I would say that is already the case. The reason they get away with this is because the DoJ no longer regulates Microsoft's behavior in regards to browser bundling.

Not really; the restrictions you mention only exist in Windows RT, which is not what I had in mind.

For the record, I think Microsoft would have gotten away with that DoJ notwithstanding, unless you are implying that Windows RT has monopolistic status in its market, in which case I would be really interested in knowing where you buy your vodka.

Which is their flagship product going forward.. I don't think what Google is doing is wrong if they company they are going against is a puppy refuge. Your rights end at my Ethernet card. But when it's Micro "convicted illegal monopolist" soft doing the complaining makes it that much more inane.

@evildictaitor:

"Code should always treat everyone the same"

I mean this a Maoist philosophy. As long as you treat everyone like criminals, that's treating them equally. 

"It doesn't matter if Microsoft used to be evil."

Used to be? The company is more evil then it ever was. Sorry to beat the proverbial dead horse, but did you see what the new version of Windows does to the idea of third party software? I guess it's okay because Apple did it first. Or something. Maybe evil is relative these days.

10 seconds ago, Bass wrote

@Blue Ink:

Which is their flagship product going forward.. I don't think what Google is doing is wrong if they company they are going against is a puppy refuge. Your rights end at my Ethernet card. But when it's Micro "convicted illegal monopolist" soft doing the complaining makes it that much more inane.

@evildictaitor:

 

"Code should always treat everyone the same"

I mean this a Maoist philosophy. As long as you treat everyone like criminals, that's treating them equally. 

"It doesn't matter if Microsoft used to be evil."

Used to be? The company is more evil then it ever was. Sorry to beat the proverbial dead horse, but did you see what the new version of Windows does to the idea of third party software? I guess it's okay because Apple did it first. Or something. Maybe evil is relative these days.

We'll just chalk this retarded rants to you being drunk. No problems.

10 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

We'll just chalk this retarded rants to you being drunk. No problems.

42 seconds ago, Bass wrote

@Blue Ink:

Which is their flagship product going forward..

[citation needed]

It seems that Intel is getting its act together w.r,t, low power chips; not on par with ARM just yet, but close enough that I doubt there's much of a future for Windows on ARM.

42 seconds ago, Bass wrote

I don't think what Google is doing is wrong if they company they are going against is a puppy refuge. Your rights end at my Ethernet card. But when it's Micro "convicted illegal monopolist" soft doing the complaining makes it that much more inane.

Agreed, except that my definition of the boundary is not restricted to the Ethernet card. Caveat Emptor, regardless of monopolistic status, previous convictions and what not. Microsoft complaining is ironic, but so is Goo-"do no evil"-oogle engaging in business practices they are so vociferously condemning when it's them getting the short stick. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and all that, but this is taking things a bit too far.

The famous unnamed "Google Spokesperson" responded to the Map thing.

The mobile web version of Google Maps is optimized for WebKit browsers such as Chrome and Safari. However, since Internet Explorer is not a WebKit browser, Windows Phone devices are not able to access Google Maps for the mobile web.

TBH, I don't like this reply. I'd respect Google more if they said they blocked it because Microsoft is bad to us and our ecosystem and we want to do everything we can to trash their ecosystem.

But this technical excuse is lame. If this is the real reason, I think they should show a warning page or better yet a banner and let you through. The idea of a redirect is even worse than just blocking the user with "Your browser is not supported", because it's not clear what is even wrong. Or they are just lying about the reason in some pointless effort to appear politically correct.

Microsoft blowing all sorts of time and money reinventing its own quasi-comptable rendering engine instead of using the industry standard Webkit renderer is kind of stupid too, but that's a different story. I guess "helps the economy".

It seems that Intel is getting its act together w.r,t, low power chips; not on par with ARM just yet, but close enough that I doubt there's much of a future for Windows on ARM.

Cheers, but the new and modern(tm) metrosexual Windows interface that you SHOULD be using if you are cool and hip is still locked on the app store, x86 or ARM. They took it to levels that even Apple won't touch. Who says Microsoft isn't innovative? Regardless, I don't want to be involved in the endless Windows 8 debate, is plenty of other people around here that can hate on Windows 8 better than me.

32 minutes ago, Bass wrote

Microsoft blowing all sorts of time and money reinventing its own quasi-comptable rendering engine instead of using the industry standard Webkit renderer is kind of stupid too, but that's a different story. I guess "helps the economy".

Yay monoculture, eh?

Seriously, lay off the vodka. It makes you sound like fanbaby or Beer.

Said like someone who never had to test web apps in two vaguely different engines. When something is free and open to everyone, strongly adopted and works well, there is absolutely no reason to not use it. I suggest you need to adjust your Ballmer Peak calculations, because they seem off.

43 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@Blue Ink:

Cheers, but the new and modern(tm) metrosexual Windows interface that you SHOULD be using if you are cool and hip is still locked on the app store, x86 or ARM. They took it to levels that even Apple won't touch. Who says Microsoft isn't innovative? Regardless, I don't want to be involved in the endless Windows 8 debate, is plenty of other people around here that can hate on Windows 8 better than me.

I appreciate that you don't want to start yet another "I hate Metro" argument and I will return the favor by not entering into a "the desktop is not legacy" one.

As I mentioned, browser vendors get equal API access in the x86 Windows 8 Start Screen, which means that more x86 tablets will make the original complaint even less relevant than it is right now. And I don't really get your point about the app store: you should be thrilled that you can actually download your browser of choice on Windows without having to touch IE.

Microsoft blowing all sorts of time and money reinventing its own quasi-comptable rendering engine instead of using the industry standard Webkit renderer is kind of stupid too, but that's a different story. I guess "helps the economy".

We had a dominating rendering engine once, and it didn't turn out very well. Just say no.

Google must think so, too, given how they are funding the development of Gecko.

44 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@PaoloM:

Said like someone who never had to test web apps in two vaguely different engines. When something is free and open to everyone, strongly adopted and works well, there is absolutely no reason to not use it. I suggest you need to adjust your Ballmer Peak calculations, because they seem off.

I am pretty sure I wrote and tested web apps starting with Mosaic 0.9b1 on HP/UX 9.x. So I wouldn't go ahead and assume things if I were you, it just makes your point - if there ever was one - silly.

After all, why bother with Linux or Firefox or Chrome when Windows is strongly adopted and works well?

Again, drink some water and go to sleep, it's probably after your bed time anyways and in the morning everything will be better.

51 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

After all, why bother with Linux or Firefox or Chrome when Windows is strongly adopted and works well?

Sure, go ahead and open the source code so others can use it.

We had a dominating rendering engine once, and it didn't turn out very well. Just say no.

We had a dominating proprietary rendering engine once. The proprietary thing is key.

Once you put total control of the direction of something universally important under one entity, that's that the key problem that leads to stagnation.

It makes bad politics and you know what it makes bad science and bad software too.

Again honestly if Microsoft wants to waste some of their best talent and significant money to duplicate lots and lots of work that is already been done and is completely available to them ... excellent!

Do you honestly think I'd even mention something I view as a significant inefficiency at Microsoft without any motive? Why in the world would I do that? If fixing CSS for IE wasn't so annoying I'd be cheering it on.

The fact is, it makes a lot of sense to adopt Webkit at least for mobile. That's what people tend to target. Microsoft is literally the sole outlier, and with their 2% marketshare (and Webkit with pretty much the rest) browser support is just not going to work out very well with them. They'd save money maintaining Trident, which can't be cheap, and they'd instantly have a rendering engine with more HTML5 support. I don't see how there is a disadvantage for Microsoft at all. It's win-win-win-win all around.

Google must think so, too, given how they are funding the development of Gecko.

No.. they are paying Mozilla for adding branded search to their browser, it has nothing to do with Gecko. It is quid-pro-quo.

13 hours ago, Bass wrote

@Blue Ink:

Microsoft has magical native APIs they use in Windows 8 apps that other companies can't use.

Name some.

So Google is basically lying about compatibility issues. If anyone still thinks this isn't Evil then you need a recalibration of what Evil is.

In the big scheme of things, I don't believe they will be able to affect WP marketshare with these tactics. However the good thing is that this will hopefully open some people's eyes that think Google can do nothing bad.

It sure didn't take Google long to start using that blank check the FTC just gave them.

Google can be evil. To fight evil.

Anyone who claims patents like "downloading browser background images in parallel" are even worthy of being talked about, is no true developer

Bas

It definitely sounds like the failure of the open web...

Keep it going guys, this is really entertaining

I believe that the people here that cheered and gloated every time another Linux or andoid company signed patent licensing deal, were mostly Silverlight supporters. They were willing to throw the open web to the dogs, for the sake of what? Microsoft success? Their skills to be more relevant? I don't know for what, but the openness of the web meant nothing to them. I would even go further and say that most of them spread FUD w.r.t. HTML5. FUD like "html5 standard would be done in 2022" etc. All for the sake of Silverlight's (RIP) fight. Now some of them come and talk about standards and cross-platformness? hahaha

To sum up my thesis: Microsoft patents supporters==Silverlight Supporters==Open-web/standards haters==hurt by Google actions==Open-web/stanrdas lovers. a contradiction

11 seconds ago, fanbaby wrote

One more thing. Bare with me please, this one isn't simple

I believe that the people here that cheered and gloated every time another Linux or andoid company signed patent licensing deal, were mostly Silverlight supporters. 

(citation needed)

They were willing to throw the open web to the dogs, for the sake of what?

I don't know, you'd have to ask Google this. They're throwing the "open web" away by coding against a single rendering engine instead of using open standards and protocols...

I don't know for what, but the openness of the web meant nothing to them. I would even go further and say that most of them spread FUD w.r.t. HTML5. FUD like "html5 standard would be done in 2022" etc.

Well, it's painfully obvious that, according to Google (patron saint of the open web, apparently), HTML5 utterly failed. If even they cannot make it work cross-platform, what chance any other puny human being has to achieve the lofty goals set by the W3C consortium?

Face it, the fact that Windows Phone cannot access Google Maps is completely irrelevant here. What IS relevant is the admission that either:

a) HTML/JS cannot be used to develop cross platform applications and you must target a very specific rendering engine implementation in order to achieve some kind of usefulness,

or

b) Google's developers are muppets and can not code their way out of a paper bag,

or

c) Google is lying.

Your pick.

Google doesn't need to make it easy for their competitors. They don't need to write the app for Windows Phone. They don't need their API to be stable. They don't need to fix their site to run on IE. They just need to play fair.

Targeting one competitor for special negative treatment is classically evil because it punishes the innocent bystanders (i.e. competitor's users) in order to try and score pathetic "points" against the competitor.

-Josh

You forgot to add that the video applet should have been Silverlight damn it!

-Josh

29 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

a) HTML/JS cannot be used to develop cross platform applications and you must target a very specific rendering engine implementation in order to achieve some kind of usefulness,

or

b) Google's developers are muppets and can not code their way out of a paper bag,

or

c) Google is lying.

Your pick.

Easy, it's C. You see, please let me tell you a little history lesson. It used to be that, in my life time, Microsoft was the 800 lb. gorilla that no one wanted to mess with. Everyone wanted to be its friend. Why, people even wanted to pay money to get its certifications. Mothers said to their kids, if you wont eat your meat, Microsoft will come and take your toys. Life was good. But suddenly, the gorilla discovered that the times were a changing. There was this new kid that was talented. Not only that this kid made many awesome toys, it open a lemonade stand and everyone came to drink. I mean everyone (I just saw Coca-Cola the other day). 

This gorilla was kinda old and knew it's gonna bite the dust one day, so it had a baby, it named WP7, later to be renamed WP8. The gorilla loved the little ugly baby (just teasing you), and said to all the kids you better watch my baby, or else... Then the cool kid said no way that gorilla's baby going to drink at my lemonade stand. No fscking way. Suddenly the poor gorilla found itself in a terrible (so it thought) spot....

To be continued

Paolo, lighten up, everything turned out great, Google will bite the dust, Silverlight will make a comeback, JavaScript would disappear, android would bite the dust, and Windows Phone will have 97% market share, and you will be a level g7j at Microsoft.

54 minutes ago, fanbaby wrote

*snip*

Easy, it's C.

See? It wasn't that difficult to admit that your favourite company is lying just as they claim others to do. It's ok, everybody know that by now.

*snip retarded stuff*

 and you will be a level g7j at Microsoft.

Nice, tho I'd need to go back to work there for that.

• Buy Vimeo
• Create an Vimeo app for Windows Phone 7, 8 and Windows RT
• Remove Flash support from Windows RT
• Launch a promo campaign for Vimeo and questioning Google's net neutrality

4 hours ago, JoshRoss wrote

@ZippyV: Remove Flash support?

I have doubt on that one too... Flash is still too important to be removed from any useful web surfing device.

If Microsoft wants to make Youtube unable to render on Windows, they should just ban the WebM codec.

7 hours ago, ZippyV wrote

Some counter-actions Microsoft should do:

• Buy Vimeo
• Create an Vimeo app for Windows Phone 7, 8 and Windows RT
• Remove Flash support from Windows RT
• Launch a promo campaign for Vimeo and questioning Google's net neutrality

I gather your point was to ban YouTube from Windows RT. Wouldn't it make more sense if Window RT had more market share? 

*snip*

(citation needed)

*snip*

[/quote]

Do a simple test: search twitter for HTML5. Check out the negative tweets. For example a recent tweet is:

the wave is huge, I don't see it changing, devs will code to WebKit and hit huge majority, easier than supporting "HTML5" whatever that is

Now look at this Bill Reiss profile: "Senior Consultant at AgileThought, Silverlight MVP, indie game developer of Popper 2 and Wipeout games for Windows Phone and soon for Windows 8"

A few notes:

1. As time goes by, you see fewer negative tweets about HTML5
2. You might argue this is anecdotal, but I find that high percentage of HTML5 FUDders are like this

When you think about it, even if they might not own a single Microsoft stock, they are still literally invested in Microsoft because their skill set is so focused on what Microsoft puts out. I think they believe if they FUD HTML5 enough, Silverlight will come back from the dead, WP will emerge from obscurity, and the years of professional experience they invested in it will suddenly become relevant again.

It's kind of a sad thing in a way though, but fortunately the tech industry always has lots of open jobs so it is never hard to be employed even with obsolete skills. I doubt this will change any time soon, but if it does expect it to get even dirtier.

 You guys are a riot, it looks just like watching Fox News

16 hours ago, cheong wrote

*snip*

I have doubt on that one too... Flash is still too important to be removed from any useful web surfing device.

Flash is partially disabled in Windows RT. There's a whitelist of sites that flash will work on which currently includes YouTube. The intention is that as sites on the whitelist move to HTML5 they will be removed from the list until the list becomes empty, at which point Microsoft will have in effect banned flash from Windows RT.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Enable-Flash-Websites-on-Windows-RT-and-Surface-RT-311245.shtml

Also, unless you are claiming that the iPhone and iPad are not "useful", they are good counter examples of web surfing devices that don't have flash.

3 days ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

For fun, in alexa100 the following use IIS:

www.live.com
msn.com
microsoft.com
conduit.com
go.com

I just felt like mentioning this earlier but didn't. fanbaby, see you are wrong.

As you can see. IIS is go.ing places, like go.com places. And not just go.com which seems to be a glorified RSS feed with a Yahoo search bar. No siree. It's also powering conduit.com, which provides a pretty amazing "social toolbar" that I'm sure you will all install because it won't do anything bad to your computer.

This is honestly more pathetic then I thought. I could have sworn more people used IIS, wasn't it  just behind Apache at some point. Weird.

EDIT: Stackoverflow is IIS for sure, and it's a Real Site. Rejoice! So it's not the end of the world or anything.

8 hours ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

I just felt like mentioning this earlier but didn't. fanbaby, see you are wrong.

As you can see. IIS is go.ing places, like go.com places. And not just go.com which seems to be a glorified RSS feed with a Yahoo search bar. No siree. It's also powering conduit.com, which provides a pretty amazing "social toolbar" that I'm sure you will all install because it won't do anything bad to your computer.

This is honestly more pathetic then I thought. I could have sworn more people used IIS, wasn't it  just behind Apache at some point. Weird.

EDIT: Stackoverflow is IIS for sure, and it's a Real Site. Rejoice! So it's not the end of the world or anything.

IIS (indeed any Windows setup) costs money to install. Most startups are smart and broke, so they know they can do the same for (more or less) free. That doesn't mean IIS is a bad server, it just means that it costs money.

The fact that StackOverflow runs on IIS is actually a pretty good ad for its robustness IMO

9 hours ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

I just felt like mentioning this earlier but didn't. fanbaby, see you are wrong.

As you can see. IIS is go.ing places, like go.com places. And not just go.com which seems to be a glorified RSS feed with a Yahoo search bar. No siree. It's also powering conduit.com, which provides a pretty amazing "social toolbar" that I'm sure you will all install because it won't do anything bad to your computer.

This is honestly more pathetic then I thought. I could have sworn more people used IIS, wasn't it  just behind Apache at some point. Weird.

EDIT: Stackoverflow is IIS for sure, and it's a Real Site. Rejoice! So it's not the end of the world or anything.

It also runs Paypal (and bing), but they strip the Server header so I decided not to include it in the list.

Note that Apache is pretty poorly represented in the list too. The thing that surprised me most about the list is how many are using bespoke servers.

13 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Flash is partially disabled in Windows RT. There's a whitelist of sites that flash will work on which currently includes YouTube. The intention is that as sites on the whitelist move to HTML5 they will be removed from the list until the list becomes empty, at which point Microsoft will have in effect banned flash from Windows RT.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Enable-Flash-Websites-on-Windows-RT-and-Surface-RT-311245.shtml

Also, unless you are claiming that the iPhone and iPad are not "useful", they are good counter examples of web surfing devices that don't have flash.

Not a very good example for me as I've never like iPhone/iPad. But I do agree you have a point there.

Btw, AFAIK there's still quite some jobs on job market that requires ActionScript skill. In other words, even when HTML5 become mainstream, I don't expect Flash to fade away within 3 years.

PayPal

Apparently, Google say, oops!

Off the top of my head, I know that ordering systems for dell.com, buy.com, newegg.com, godaddy.com, and unline.com run on ASP.NET. tigerdirect.com and armani.com actually both still run on classic ASP, believe it or not.

In finance, the trading system for schwab.com and account management for chase.com run on ASP.NET.

I just traveled this past week. I flew United and rented from Dollar. Both united.com and dollar.com happen to run on ASP.NET. While on travel, I had to buy a webcam for my parents, so I checked microcenter.com. That site runs on ASP.NET.

This is just from the handful of sites that I've used. I can't believe so many of these companies don't realize they're using an obsolete technology.

ASP.NET websites of some other high-profile companies that I know include: kpmg.com, accenture.com, bain.com (Bain & Co.), bcg.com (Boston Consulting Group), and rbs.co.uk.

ml.com (Merrill Lynch) is still running on classic ASP.

I've also seen plenty of government sites running on ASP.NET: defense.gov (US Department of Defense), navy.mil (still on classic ASP), marines.mil, uscg.mil (classic ASP), sfgov.org (City and County of San Francisco), and sccgov.org (City and County of Santa Clara, of all places).

Yeah, it's pretty pathetic.

http://jobsearch.monster.com/California+Santa-Clara_12?sf=17&re=nv_gh_gnl1147_%2F

Anyway, thanks for pointing out all the impressive stuff going on in the ASP world I guess. I'm more interested in learning more about all their COBOL opportunities though.

A common shorthand for hydroxocobalamin.

1 hour ago, Bass wrote

@cbae:

A common shorthand for hydroxocobalamin.

Your knowledge of chemicals is impressive, and you didn't even have to go back to correct the spelling.

51 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

The old ASP .NET prior to WebMatrix is not for the faint of heart. It is hard to find an use case for those complex framework until you need it at larger scale. Most pages are just fine with simple HTML, CSS, and jQuery. And to my knowledge, when one is good at ASP .NET, they don't stay in web designer shop for long. Web designer and web programmer are two very different career path and skill set.

Since we're now just throwing out non-sequiturs, did anybody catch how NOK traded today?