10 ms·

- Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PP

- Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft? Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?

asterix9 13y ago
One difference is that Microsoft and Nvidia are considered evil and are derided for it and they don't pretend that SMB or graphics drivers are open. While Google has a 'do no evil' official policy which many folks seem to think they comply with. Similarly, with regards to openness.
- moutarde 13y ago
  Google has obligations (both legal and moral) to both the content providers of YouTube and to the organisations who buy adverts on it. In order to 'not be evil' they have to take actions that respect these obligations. Microsoft's original version of the app either: a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights. Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount. How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kvb 13y ago
    Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?
    - beagle3 13y ago
      > Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons. > Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed? The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year license agreement to Apple. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is possible that Apple actually paid in lieu of showing ads. Either way, there is no reason an 2007 agreement between Google and Apple should apply to Microsoft in 2013.
      - paulftw 13y ago
        I think single Main Reason why Google requires 3rd parties to use an iframe is that it keeps them in control of when and how ads are shown, what can be rewinded, etc. Without updating the 3rd party app and republishing it to all stores. They loosen this requirement for google's own youtube clients because they can push new version of those apps whenever they like. They had no guarantee that MSFT would respond to their requests for changes in a timely manner in the future. Why didn't MSFT want to use an iframe? Because arrogant ignorance of the open standard of HTML5 is part of company DNA. Any web developer can rant for hours how crappy IE6-9 are and what a drag it is to maintain compatibility with IE when you are building a modern webapp. To remind everyone that IE11 will be dead on arrival, I'm copying some html5test results: Chrome - 463 Firefox - 410 Safari - 378 IE 11 - 355 But if MSFT bothered to properly implement HTML5 then a) they wouldn't have difficulty building a youtube app in accordance to the google's terms and conditions b) WP users would enjoy better browsing experience c) developers wouldn't have to deal with the compatibility mess caused primarily by IE6-10 and not yet released IE11 Everyone would win.
wslh 13y ago
Before answering your question my extended rant is here: http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-and-the-cloud/ http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a... Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft? You agree with me then! that was my point. You can't reverse engineer Google Search, you can't connect with it in an unlimited way (except using web scraping techniques or using the restricted local search API). With Microsoft you can reverse engineer it. And I have an story to tell: my company started selling a full API for a Microsoft product without one. Not only we reverse engineered the product but we built a complete API on top. One day Microsoft QA call us if they can help to test the compatibility of our product in operating systems under development.
- jorgecastillo 13y ago
  One big difference is that you can choose to use or not to use Google Search. For all intents and purposes you can't avoid using Microsoft products.
  - wslh 13y ago
    You can't avoid AdWords. Have you tried to sell your software products via Bing/Yahoo? There is no audience there.
    - jorgecastillo 13y ago
      I am only a consumer so I wouldn't know about such issues. Maybe in the future my opinion of Google will change, but so far my experience with Google has been very positive. I can not say the same about Microsoft.
      - wslh 13y ago
        Did you hear about Google Reader?

asterix9 13y ago

One difference is that Microsoft and Nvidia are considered evil and are derided for it and they don't pretend that SMB or graphics drivers are open. While Google has a 'do no evil' official policy which many folks seem to think they comply with. Similarly, with regards to openness.

moutarde 13y ago
Google has obligations (both legal and moral) to both the content providers of YouTube and to the organisations who buy adverts on it. In order to 'not be evil' they have to take actions that respect these obligations. Microsoft's original version of the app either: a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights. Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount. How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kvb 13y ago
  Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?
  - beagle3 13y ago
    > Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons. > Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed? The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year license agreement to Apple. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is possible that Apple actually paid in lieu of showing ads. Either way, there is no reason an 2007 agreement between Google and Apple should apply to Microsoft in 2013.
    - paulftw 13y ago
      I think single Main Reason why Google requires 3rd parties to use an iframe is that it keeps them in control of when and how ads are shown, what can be rewinded, etc. Without updating the 3rd party app and republishing it to all stores. They loosen this requirement for google's own youtube clients because they can push new version of those apps whenever they like. They had no guarantee that MSFT would respond to their requests for changes in a timely manner in the future. Why didn't MSFT want to use an iframe? Because arrogant ignorance of the open standard of HTML5 is part of company DNA. Any web developer can rant for hours how crappy IE6-9 are and what a drag it is to maintain compatibility with IE when you are building a modern webapp. To remind everyone that IE11 will be dead on arrival, I'm copying some html5test results: Chrome - 463 Firefox - 410 Safari - 378 IE 11 - 355 But if MSFT bothered to properly implement HTML5 then a) they wouldn't have difficulty building a youtube app in accordance to the google's terms and conditions b) WP users would enjoy better browsing experience c) developers wouldn't have to deal with the compatibility mess caused primarily by IE6-10 and not yet released IE11 Everyone would win.

wslh 13y ago

Before answering your question my extended rant is here: http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-and-the-cloud/ http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a... Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft? You agree with me then! that was my point. You can't reverse engineer Google Search, you can't connect with it in an unlimited way (except using web scraping techniques or using the restricted local search API). With Microsoft you can reverse engineer it. And I have an story to tell: my company started selling a full API for a Microsoft product without one. Not only we reverse engineered the product but we built a complete API on top. One day Microsoft QA call us if they can help to test the compatibility of our product in operating systems under development.

jorgecastillo 13y ago
One big difference is that you can choose to use or not to use Google Search. For all intents and purposes you can't avoid using Microsoft products.
- wslh 13y ago
  You can't avoid AdWords. Have you tried to sell your software products via Bing/Yahoo? There is no audience there.
  - jorgecastillo 13y ago
    I am only a consumer so I wouldn't know about such issues. Maybe in the future my opinion of Google will change, but so far my experience with Google has been very positive. I can not say the same about Microsoft.
    - wslh 13y ago
      Did you hear about Google Reader?