4 ms·

I am taking what you say about historical events as you say it, but It still doesn't seem like the move is "anti-competitive". At worst its bad engineering. It

by sqeaky 10y ago

I am taking what you say about historical events as you say it, but It still doesn't seem like the move is "anti-competitive". At worst its bad engineering. Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it worked fine. Even if there were some killer feature, they are free to release it in such a way that it only works with their software. I hate microsoft but I still don't give them flak for not releasing Linux versions of office and excel. They are allowed to not do that. Where it steps into anti-competitive is when they start breaking other's people things or maliciously manipulating standards. Google has demonstrated a willingness to go out of their way and fix things for most things not NaCl related. Even per your recounting of history they weren't trying to coerce the standards body, they just asked for comments and then unilaterally did something else. They didn't force it on anyone else.

pcwalton 10y ago
> I am taking what you say about historical events as you say it, but It still doesn't seem like the move is "anti-competitive". It sure is when combined with Google releasing NaCl-based software, such as Google Earth. > Google has demonstrated a willingness to go out of their way and fix things for most things not NaCl related. Not with Dart, which followed a very similar trajectory (see my other comments). Not with -webkit prefixes. Etc. etc. > Even per your recounting of history they weren't trying to coerce the standards body, they just asked for comments and then unilaterally did something else. They didn't force it on anyone else. When you release software that only works on your platform that you aren't open to outside comments on, then you are forcing others to implement it, warts and all, or lose users.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  I had a misunderstanding with Google earth vs maps. I used Google maps in Firefox just fine, and that is what I meant earlier. I was unaware even of the existence of a web based version of Earth. The last time I used Google earth was as a desktop client. That was back when I worked in the Air Force Weather Wing almost a year ago. Have they done away with the desktop client? Starting over with whether or not this is anticompetitive; who are they repressing by giving away free software that runs on other free software? Does this software need to be used? This all seems to hinge around this part of what you are saying: > When you release software that only works on your platform that you aren't open to outside comments on, then you are forcing others to implement it, warts and all, or lose users. The option to lose users here is huge. How is this different than microsoft making excel and only supporting it on windows? I choose not to use excel at least in part because it doesn't run on any platform I care to use. I feel I should clarify here, I don't condone this obnoxious behavior from microsoft or Google. I think it is wrong from the stance that all software should inter-operate smoothly and be open source, but it doesn't seem illegal or even unethical. The answer for a users to both Earth and excel seems to be to use some other competing software. For mapping software something like openstreetmap or even some other Google software like Google maps (or even a pay for solution). For spreadsheets I use libreoffice. Even if this is anti-competitive it seems so minor that it dilutes the meaning of the term. Lumping this in with things like the Dr DOS fiasco just doesn't seem right. For reference in the Dr DOS times there was a DOS competitor to microsoft's DOS. Dr DOS was a relatively bug free DOS and it worked fine with windows until the 3.0 release (I think). Until this specific version/patch started intermittently causing windows to not run if Dr DOS was detected even though it was advertised as working. The end result was Dr DOS being run out of business because it looked like a bug in Dr DOS and sometime ms even claimed such. The Dr DOS team was very overtly fucked by ms. Nothing about most of the things brought up in this thread seems overt. No money is being paid for web browsers or this mapping software. Having users takes significant effort to monetize. It seems detached from web standards in any direct way (I agree it indirectly relates to webassembly, but not in a way that seems legally relevant). Most of it seems like engineers being engineers and fixing their own little slice of the world and hoping everyone works with their stuff because they don't want to change. Shortsighted and imperfect just like most humans. Thank you for taking the time to explain (and listen) to me in a rational and level headed way. I won't be checking my messages here again until I start another build or boring process tomorrow. Have an upvote.
pikzen 10y ago
>Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it worked fine. Even if there were some killer feature, they are free to release it in such a way that it only works with their software. http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png k You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards >when they start breaking other's people things They are! They actually are! These bugs I listed aren't "bad engineering". They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". In what world is that not deliberately breaking people's things? Users access Inbox on Firefox, see that their friends on chrome that sent him the link can actually access it, they're not going to blame Google, they're going to say that Firefox is a piece of crap and dump it. > maliciously manipulating standards. chrome.* javascript APIs Bluetooth API FileSystem API -webkit CSS prefixes not manipulating standards, just implementing half assed things on their side of things and leaving the blame on other browser manufacturers when they don't implement them. >They didn't force it on anyone else. "Company with 50% of desktop browser share and 80% of mobile browser share only unilaterally did something non standard and screwed everyone over. But that's not forcing everyone's hand I swear, they're only the biggest players on the market." k You know, when pcwalton keeps proving you wrong over and over again, you might want to rethink your opinions. It's not as if he knew what he's talking about or anything, right? :>
- sqeaky 10y ago
  > They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". If you must pick an example of them breaking stuff, please pick one that they didn't already apologize and fix. > http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png My mistake on confusing google earth with google maps, that is an important point that issue. It does suck that doesn't work on firefox, but no one is forcing any one to do anything. Its not like you paid for any of this, or there is some law that says companies have to give stuff away for free. > You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards I am not reversing my stance or saying anything self contradictory. I am attempting to define nuanced boundaries around some who would rather bludgeon things into a simple categories whether or not it fits. So far all I hear are complaints about company giving away huge amounts of value for free, but isn't doing it the way you (or I) want. I never said Google was paragon of anything and I admitted they could do better (I really do wish they would do better), the only line I am taking is that their behavior is not "anti-competitive", which is not a high bar. Which has not been disproved or this case even rationally approached. I am open to having my mind changed, but I would need well thought out discourse and evidence to change it. If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again.

by sqeaky 10y ago

pcwalton 10y ago

> I am taking what you say about historical events as you say it, but It still doesn't seem like the move is "anti-competitive". It sure is when combined with Google releasing NaCl-based software, such as Google Earth. > Google has demonstrated a willingness to go out of their way and fix things for most things not NaCl related. Not with Dart, which followed a very similar trajectory (see my other comments). Not with -webkit prefixes. Etc. etc. > Even per your recounting of history they weren't trying to coerce the standards body, they just asked for comments and then unilaterally did something else. They didn't force it on anyone else. When you release software that only works on your platform that you aren't open to outside comments on, then you are forcing others to implement it, warts and all, or lose users.

sqeaky 10y ago
I had a misunderstanding with Google earth vs maps. I used Google maps in Firefox just fine, and that is what I meant earlier. I was unaware even of the existence of a web based version of Earth. The last time I used Google earth was as a desktop client. That was back when I worked in the Air Force Weather Wing almost a year ago. Have they done away with the desktop client? Starting over with whether or not this is anticompetitive; who are they repressing by giving away free software that runs on other free software? Does this software need to be used? This all seems to hinge around this part of what you are saying: > When you release software that only works on your platform that you aren't open to outside comments on, then you are forcing others to implement it, warts and all, or lose users. The option to lose users here is huge. How is this different than microsoft making excel and only supporting it on windows? I choose not to use excel at least in part because it doesn't run on any platform I care to use. I feel I should clarify here, I don't condone this obnoxious behavior from microsoft or Google. I think it is wrong from the stance that all software should inter-operate smoothly and be open source, but it doesn't seem illegal or even unethical. The answer for a users to both Earth and excel seems to be to use some other competing software. For mapping software something like openstreetmap or even some other Google software like Google maps (or even a pay for solution). For spreadsheets I use libreoffice. Even if this is anti-competitive it seems so minor that it dilutes the meaning of the term. Lumping this in with things like the Dr DOS fiasco just doesn't seem right. For reference in the Dr DOS times there was a DOS competitor to microsoft's DOS. Dr DOS was a relatively bug free DOS and it worked fine with windows until the 3.0 release (I think). Until this specific version/patch started intermittently causing windows to not run if Dr DOS was detected even though it was advertised as working. The end result was Dr DOS being run out of business because it looked like a bug in Dr DOS and sometime ms even claimed such. The Dr DOS team was very overtly fucked by ms. Nothing about most of the things brought up in this thread seems overt. No money is being paid for web browsers or this mapping software. Having users takes significant effort to monetize. It seems detached from web standards in any direct way (I agree it indirectly relates to webassembly, but not in a way that seems legally relevant). Most of it seems like engineers being engineers and fixing their own little slice of the world and hoping everyone works with their stuff because they don't want to change. Shortsighted and imperfect just like most humans. Thank you for taking the time to explain (and listen) to me in a rational and level headed way. I won't be checking my messages here again until I start another build or boring process tomorrow. Have an upvote.

pikzen 10y ago

>Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it worked fine. Even if there were some killer feature, they are free to release it in such a way that it only works with their software. http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png k You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards >when they start breaking other's people things They are! They actually are! These bugs I listed aren't "bad engineering". They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". In what world is that not deliberately breaking people's things? Users access Inbox on Firefox, see that their friends on chrome that sent him the link can actually access it, they're not going to blame Google, they're going to say that Firefox is a piece of crap and dump it. > maliciously manipulating standards. chrome.* javascript APIs Bluetooth API FileSystem API -webkit CSS prefixes not manipulating standards, just implementing half assed things on their side of things and leaving the blame on other browser manufacturers when they don't implement them. >They didn't force it on anyone else. "Company with 50% of desktop browser share and 80% of mobile browser share only unilaterally did something non standard and screwed everyone over. But that's not forcing everyone's hand I swear, they're only the biggest players on the market." k You know, when pcwalton keeps proving you wrong over and over again, you might want to rethink your opinions. It's not as if he knew what he's talking about or anything, right? :>

sqeaky 10y ago
> They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". If you must pick an example of them breaking stuff, please pick one that they didn't already apologize and fix. > http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png My mistake on confusing google earth with google maps, that is an important point that issue. It does suck that doesn't work on firefox, but no one is forcing any one to do anything. Its not like you paid for any of this, or there is some law that says companies have to give stuff away for free. > You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards I am not reversing my stance or saying anything self contradictory. I am attempting to define nuanced boundaries around some who would rather bludgeon things into a simple categories whether or not it fits. So far all I hear are complaints about company giving away huge amounts of value for free, but isn't doing it the way you (or I) want. I never said Google was paragon of anything and I admitted they could do better (I really do wish they would do better), the only line I am taking is that their behavior is not "anti-competitive", which is not a high bar. Which has not been disproved or this case even rationally approached. I am open to having my mind changed, but I would need well thought out discourse and evidence to change it. If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again.