3 ms·

Useless article. This has nothing to do with "openness", just marketing: what is Google's incentive to building the site in the first place if they can't make p

by mvzink 15y ago

Useless article. This has nothing to do with "openness", just marketing: what is Google's incentive to building the site in the first place if they can't make people download Chrome to view it? That said, they could at least add a "Try it anyway" button for other browsers.

CrazedGeek 15y ago
They had a "Try it anyway" link for "3 Shades of Black": http://ro.me http://ro.me
drcube 15y ago
Chrome is free. Google builds websites to attract advertisers. Which makes Google's lack of openness all the more perplexing. And what's this about not being able to get the Android source!? I'll buy an iphone right now if that's true. At least Apple doesn't try and pretend they're not evil.
- zobzu 15y ago
  Android source for Honey comb is indeed not available and hasnt ever been, so far. Only the GPL parts (kernel, iptables basically) are open because they're forced by law. I don't think we'll ever get HoneyComb source. We might get Ice cream sandwich source. Might. Only Google knows.
- mvzink 15y ago
  I don't see how this makes Google's lack of openness perplexing at all. On the contrary, I would be surprised (and pleased) if they were at least as "open" (which I don't think is the right word anyway) as to include a "Try it anyway" link as they did in ro.me
Toady 15y ago
You only think it's "useless" because it bashes Google, obviously a company you like. You ask what Google's incentive is to build the site if they can't make people download Chrome to use it, which is a bizarre question that seems to admit that Google is not about open standards at all. If Google was all about open standards, it wouldn't matter which browser you used. The reality is that Google is not some benevolent open source company as they're often portrayed but are a gigantic advertising company with a financial incentive in getting you onto their products, which gives them data to index for advertisers. Chrome, for example, automatically interfaces with the Google search engine by default. They don't care about openness--that's a feel-good buzzword they use to make techies like them. Google defenders have gotten worse than Apple defenders when it comes to justifying absolutely every shitty move Google makes.
- mvzink 15y ago
  Your comment is full of ridiculousness. Please stop. I wasn't making the claim that "Google is about open standards at all", or that they are "some benevolent open source company". I would argue that they are not. I was in fact pointing out the author's own misunderstanding of this, as they seemed to expect Google to "be about open standards" and what not, which is ridiculous; they are a business, you should expect them to try to make money. None of what I have said is in any way "justifying" anything about Google, merely providing an obvious explanation for a trivial situation which the author of this article apparently couldn't grasp.

by mvzink 15y ago

CrazedGeek 15y ago

They had a "Try it anyway" link for "3 Shades of Black": http://ro.me http://ro.me

drcube 15y ago

Chrome is free. Google builds websites to attract advertisers. Which makes Google's lack of openness all the more perplexing. And what's this about not being able to get the Android source!? I'll buy an iphone right now if that's true. At least Apple doesn't try and pretend they're not evil.

zobzu 15y ago
Android source for Honey comb is indeed not available and hasnt ever been, so far. Only the GPL parts (kernel, iptables basically) are open because they're forced by law. I don't think we'll ever get HoneyComb source. We might get Ice cream sandwich source. Might. Only Google knows.
mvzink 15y ago
I don't see how this makes Google's lack of openness perplexing at all. On the contrary, I would be surprised (and pleased) if they were at least as "open" (which I don't think is the right word anyway) as to include a "Try it anyway" link as they did in ro.me

Toady 15y ago

You only think it's "useless" because it bashes Google, obviously a company you like. You ask what Google's incentive is to build the site if they can't make people download Chrome to use it, which is a bizarre question that seems to admit that Google is not about open standards at all. If Google was all about open standards, it wouldn't matter which browser you used. The reality is that Google is not some benevolent open source company as they're often portrayed but are a gigantic advertising company with a financial incentive in getting you onto their products, which gives them data to index for advertisers. Chrome, for example, automatically interfaces with the Google search engine by default. They don't care about openness--that's a feel-good buzzword they use to make techies like them. Google defenders have gotten worse than Apple defenders when it comes to justifying absolutely every shitty move Google makes.

mvzink 15y ago
Your comment is full of ridiculousness. Please stop. I wasn't making the claim that "Google is about open standards at all", or that they are "some benevolent open source company". I would argue that they are not. I was in fact pointing out the author's own misunderstanding of this, as they seemed to expect Google to "be about open standards" and what not, which is ridiculous; they are a business, you should expect them to try to make money. None of what I have said is in any way "justifying" anything about Google, merely providing an obvious explanation for a trivial situation which the author of this article apparently couldn't grasp.