Coffeehouse Thread

93 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Google doesn't allow Microsoft to use YouTube's API in Windows Phone

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    MasterPi

    @BitFlipper: It is pretty odd to access the website version of maps on a touch screen because the map area captures the gestures so you can't zoom out of the page easily. Not sure I'd miss this in any way, but it is sort of a d*ck move.

    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.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , 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?

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @Blue Ink:

    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.

  • User profile image
    cheong

    , 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.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    DCMonkey

    Looks like Google's doing something similar with Google Maps...

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

     

    Do no evil my *.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , 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.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @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.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , 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.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , PaoloM wrote

    *snip*

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



    Brilliant retort.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , 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.

    , 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.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @Blue Ink:

    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.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , 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? Expressionless

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

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @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.

  • User profile image
    cheong

    @Bass: Btw, IE in Windows doesn't use webkit either and AFAIK it's not blocked. So that it's indeed more a technical excuse to me.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , 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. Smiley

    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.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , 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.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , 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.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @Blue Ink:

    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.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.