3 ms·

No, it's not the same. It's one thing to say a product isn't obligated to support all potential platforms, it's another to actively disallow other platforms. I

by chewxy 14y ago

No, it's not the same. It's one thing to say a product isn't obligated to support all potential platforms, it's another to actively disallow other platforms. If you watch this video (or time travel back to about 4 hours ago and use a useragent string modifier) [0], you'll note that using a Lumia 920's user agent string [1] will redirect you to a desktop version of the site. But now if you try it, the URL will redirect to the main search page. [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z8vfzurnKw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z8vfzurnKw [1] Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows Phone 8.0; Trident/6.0; IEMobile/10.0; ARM; Touch; NOKIA; Lumia 920)

garuda 14y ago
Why should Google provide their service for free to their competitor's customers?
- bdash 14y ago
  If that is the logic involved then why is iOS not affected?
  - garuda 14y ago
    Because iOS is still influential and they are hedging their bets.
- kvb 14y ago
  They have no obligation to do so. But then why not be honest about refusing service to users of a competing platform, rather than claiming that it's about the technical capabilities of the browser? This is something that was working on WP devices until today and has been intentionally disabled.
CurtHagenlocher 14y ago
Companies do things that hurt their competitors all of the time. Often, consumers are the beneficiaries (at least in the short term) -- as is the case when a new entrant into a market is able to provide a better or cheaper service, and supplants an older or less efficient competitor. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Other times (like now, or when Google announced it was ending support for ActiveSync), the decision is a little more ambiguous. But in both cases, there's a potential cost for Google that's being avoided -- and that aligns nicely with competitive considerations. I don't think we want to live in a society where anyone can be legally compelled to provide a service at a loss to a small number of users. The rules change, of course when we're close to a monopoly situation. But Google isn't at that point for either maps or mobile devices -- so at least legally, there's really no issue here. I think that what people are really reacting to is that this is a decision which (at least superficially) is at odds with the way that Google markets themselves to us tech folks. And as such, it's a good reminder not to consume marketing messages without at least a few grains of salt.
- garuda 14y ago
  I don't see it as at odds with how they market themselves. They position themselves as providing an Open, non-proprietary option as an alternative to monolithic and traditional closed solutions from Apple and Microsoft, and they are delivering on that in the form of Android.

by chewxy 14y ago

garuda 14y ago

Why should Google provide their service for free to their competitor's customers?

bdash 14y ago
If that is the logic involved then why is iOS not affected?
- garuda 14y ago
  Because iOS is still influential and they are hedging their bets.
kvb 14y ago
They have no obligation to do so. But then why not be honest about refusing service to users of a competing platform, rather than claiming that it's about the technical capabilities of the browser? This is something that was working on WP devices until today and has been intentionally disabled.

CurtHagenlocher 14y ago

Companies do things that hurt their competitors all of the time. Often, consumers are the beneficiaries (at least in the short term) -- as is the case when a new entrant into a market is able to provide a better or cheaper service, and supplants an older or less efficient competitor. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Other times (like now, or when Google announced it was ending support for ActiveSync), the decision is a little more ambiguous. But in both cases, there's a potential cost for Google that's being avoided -- and that aligns nicely with competitive considerations. I don't think we want to live in a society where anyone can be legally compelled to provide a service at a loss to a small number of users. The rules change, of course when we're close to a monopoly situation. But Google isn't at that point for either maps or mobile devices -- so at least legally, there's really no issue here. I think that what people are really reacting to is that this is a decision which (at least superficially) is at odds with the way that Google markets themselves to us tech folks. And as such, it's a good reminder not to consume marketing messages without at least a few grains of salt.

garuda 14y ago
I don't see it as at odds with how they market themselves. They position themselves as providing an Open, non-proprietary option as an alternative to monolithic and traditional closed solutions from Apple and Microsoft, and they are delivering on that in the form of Android.