5 ms·

> I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself

by DCKing 12y ago

> I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself). Fair enough. Make it "Google really does not care much if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever". The point is that even if Google prefers that you use Chrome, it's not an argument to go for vendor lock-in. It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns.

wfjackson 12y ago
They do try to break other platforms, like refusing to make a YouTube app on Windows Phone and then sending a takedown on a Microsoft written app. YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. Even Vimeo has a Windows Phone app since many years. Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly.
- DCKing 12y ago
  > YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. This is false. Having third party apps that do not adhere to the ad- and video distribution policies hurts Google/YouTube's money sources. So they have valid reasoning - evil, yes, but valid. The browser app does follow YouTube's policies, so Google's reasoning here is still valid without breaking access to their platform. The browser and MetroTube still work, so it's not as if Google is actively breaking WP access to their services. They just did not accept Microsoft's "official" app. I do agree that Google should stop being such a scumbag about Windows and just make some apps for them. But "refusing to make an app" does not equate to "breaking another platform". There is/was no official YouTube app for BB10 or WebOS either, and Google is/was not trying to break them either.
- walterbell 12y ago
  > Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly. This article moved directly from #2 to #247. It's not obvious why an entire thread of 255 comments was moved, instead of downvoting a single sockpuppet post.
  - dang 12y ago
    The post was a duplicate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8185935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8185935
stephenr 12y ago
> It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns. I'm going to guess you weren't active in the industry when Microsoft was at it's "peak". Try this little scenario in your head: Google owns web properties that are highly trafficked on a variety of devices/browsers. Google then says "hey guys we're going to make the web better by building a browser ourselves!". They're quick to focus on making it faster using existing standard technologies. A bit later they create some non-standard stuff for their browser like Dart, Native Client, WebP, etc. Slowly they start to rely on these new things they've created on their highly trafficked websites, and encourage people to use their browser because it will give "a better experience". Yes, some people will find an alternative (if they are able to make that choice, and it hasn't been bought out/squeezed out by Google's "free" offering) thus "hurting" Google, but if they have to sacrifice some of their user base in order to have more control over the rest of the user base, they will absolutely do that.
- DCKing 12y ago
  > I'm going to guess you weren't active in the industry when Microsoft was at it's "peak". Microsoft sold their platforms for money. Microsoft never open sourced anything. All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced. Dart and WebP work in Firefox as good as they do in Chrome. NaCl is open source and it looks like a failed project. How is this even remotely comparable to Microsoft's practices? Google are being assholes often and they should be called out for it. I agree that it is frightening that they are getting so much power. But this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    > Microsoft sold their platforms for money. Microsoft never open sourced anything. Remind me when Internet Explorer or Hotmail or MSN/Bing was sold for money? > All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced. Show me where Chrome or Chrome OS are open source. Explain to me how Android can be considered open source when companies are forced to ship it with Google's services? > this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die and yet you haven't really demonstrated that?

by DCKing 12y ago

wfjackson 12y ago

They do try to break other platforms, like refusing to make a YouTube app on Windows Phone and then sending a takedown on a Microsoft written app. YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. Even Vimeo has a Windows Phone app since many years. Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly.

DCKing 12y ago
> YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. This is false. Having third party apps that do not adhere to the ad- and video distribution policies hurts Google/YouTube's money sources. So they have valid reasoning - evil, yes, but valid. The browser app does follow YouTube's policies, so Google's reasoning here is still valid without breaking access to their platform. The browser and MetroTube still work, so it's not as if Google is actively breaking WP access to their services. They just did not accept Microsoft's "official" app. I do agree that Google should stop being such a scumbag about Windows and just make some apps for them. But "refusing to make an app" does not equate to "breaking another platform". There is/was no official YouTube app for BB10 or WebOS either, and Google is/was not trying to break them either.
walterbell 12y ago
> Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly. This article moved directly from #2 to #247. It's not obvious why an entire thread of 255 comments was moved, instead of downvoting a single sockpuppet post.
- dang 12y ago
  The post was a duplicate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8185935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8185935

stephenr 12y ago

> It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns. I'm going to guess you weren't active in the industry when Microsoft was at it's "peak". Try this little scenario in your head: Google owns web properties that are highly trafficked on a variety of devices/browsers. Google then says "hey guys we're going to make the web better by building a browser ourselves!". They're quick to focus on making it faster using existing standard technologies. A bit later they create some non-standard stuff for their browser like Dart, Native Client, WebP, etc. Slowly they start to rely on these new things they've created on their highly trafficked websites, and encourage people to use their browser because it will give "a better experience". Yes, some people will find an alternative (if they are able to make that choice, and it hasn't been bought out/squeezed out by Google's "free" offering) thus "hurting" Google, but if they have to sacrifice some of their user base in order to have more control over the rest of the user base, they will absolutely do that.

DCKing 12y ago
> I'm going to guess you weren't active in the industry when Microsoft was at it's "peak". Microsoft sold their platforms for money. Microsoft never open sourced anything. All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced. Dart and WebP work in Firefox as good as they do in Chrome. NaCl is open source and it looks like a failed project. How is this even remotely comparable to Microsoft's practices? Google are being assholes often and they should be called out for it. I agree that it is frightening that they are getting so much power. But this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die.
- stephenr 12y ago
  > Microsoft sold their platforms for money. Microsoft never open sourced anything. Remind me when Internet Explorer or Hotmail or MSN/Bing was sold for money? > All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced. Show me where Chrome or Chrome OS are open source. Explain to me how Android can be considered open source when companies are forced to ship it with Google's services? > this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die and yet you haven't really demonstrated that?