3 ms·

> Skype for that matter Not really an issue because Skype releases clients for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Kindle Fire, PlayStation... > Useless DRM/telecoms re

> Skype for that matter Not really an issue because Skype releases clients for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Kindle Fire, PlayStation... > Useless DRM/telecoms regulation What's that in reference to? Haven't heard Google say anything about that. > HTML5 versions of pretty much everything Sort of. See this thread on Google Inbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8495257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8495257 And this for Google Hangouts: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/486575645338918912 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/486575645338918912 > delicious To me as I consumer, schadenfreude is never delicious when it affects me. > It doesn't count when the standard just says "do it the way X version of Microsoft Office does it" without actually specifying what that is. Which API are you talking about? There are published, documented API endpoints for all kinds of Office services: https://www.google.com/?q=office+apis https://www.google.com/?q=office+apis I wasn't just talking about Office, by the way. For example, part of the HoloLens announcement was the invitation for Oculus, Magic Leap and Google Glass devs to build on the holographic APIs (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865539/microsoft-windows-10-event-what-you-need-to-know http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865539/microsoft-windows-...). Back to the original point - if a service provider won't provide an app, they should provide an API. Ideally both, but at least one. It's in their rights not to, but that's my cue to go somewhere else because that's not how I want to be treated.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Not really an issue because Skype releases clients for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Kindle Fire, PlayStation... It's still kind of an issue if you want to run it on SteamOS, Solaris, FirefoxOS, Tizen, BeOS/Haiku, Plan9, all the different BSDs, etc. etc. You can't expect anybody to support everything. > Sort of. Yes, Chrome-only for the brand new bleeding edge stuff is stupid. But it doesn't actually exclude any platforms because chromium is open source and anyone can port it to whatever you like. And then they end up supporting other browsers anyway. > To me as I consumer, schadenfreude is never delicious when it affects me. Yeah, I was a little confused about that. It seems like you were saying that Windows Phone users are having a hard time so you decided to switch to it. In which case it affecting you would seem to be intentionally self-inflicted. > Which API are you talking about? The "standard" for OOXML that Microsoft pushed through so they could say it was a "standard" even though the standards document was essentially entirely written by Microsoft and didn't provide all the information necessary to actually implement it correctly. > Back to the original point - if a service provider won't provide an app, they should provide an API. What you're really saying is that they should always provide an API, because nobody is going to provide an app for each of 10,000 different platforms. And I completely agree. But YouTube is doing the same as Netflix/Hulu/HBO and Google Voice is doing the same as Skype/MagicApp/Vonage. Blame all of them or none of them.
- jongalloway2 12y ago
  First, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Good points, and it's nice to have avoided Godwin's law in a thread this deep. > Skype I fundamentally agree with you. Skype does support way more platforms than just about any service I can think of, especially when you consider Skype for Web beta (http://blogs.skype.com/2014/11/14/please-welcome-skype-for-web-beta/ http://blogs.skype.com/2014/11/14/please-welcome-skype-for-w...). But I agree that nobody can support every platform. > Chrome Kind of true, but not all platforms can or will support arbitrary browsers. Worse, as a user I should never have to run multiple browsers just to use a web app. Extra chagrin here because holy cow this is the web we're talking about, and Google's established a pretty clear pattern over the past year of Chrome-only dev that should be pretty worrying to anyone that cares about web standards. >shadenfreude In my case, I decided that I was irritated enough at Google's actions that I'd rather not have Google apps on my phone apps than support their ecosystem. Plus, I genuinely prefer Windows Phone as a platform. >OOXML That was 2006, the same year jQuery was first released. Cars and Da Vinci Code were big movies that year. That was before Windows Vista shipped. It was a long time ago. If that's your reference on Microsoft's standards support, it's not the full picture. >Blame all of them or none of them I'll blame them all then, but I definitely feel like Microsoft's by far the least bad in this area. I'm disappointed, when I first got excited about the Android platform, I had high hopes that it would be something else. I ran early releases in VM's before phones were available. I was excited about an open source phone platform, and Google's general trend (at that time) of doing cool stuff on open source, open services, open API's. Things turned out differently. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...
  - phaemon 12y ago
    > That was 2006...If that's your reference on Microsoft's standards support, it's not the full picture. The new standard for high capacity SD Cards - SDXC - specifies a filesystem in the standard. That filesystem is exFAT, a proprietary, patent-encumbered filesystem from Microsoft. Microsoft like to make out that they're an all new and open company, but they were a nasty company in the past, and they're a nasty company now.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> Not really an issue because Skype releases clients for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Kindle Fire, PlayStation... It's still kind of an issue if you want to run it on SteamOS, Solaris, FirefoxOS, Tizen, BeOS/Haiku, Plan9, all the different BSDs, etc. etc. You can't expect anybody to support everything. > Sort of. Yes, Chrome-only for the brand new bleeding edge stuff is stupid. But it doesn't actually exclude any platforms because chromium is open source and anyone can port it to whatever you like. And then they end up supporting other browsers anyway. > To me as I consumer, schadenfreude is never delicious when it affects me. Yeah, I was a little confused about that. It seems like you were saying that Windows Phone users are having a hard time so you decided to switch to it. In which case it affecting you would seem to be intentionally self-inflicted. > Which API are you talking about? The "standard" for OOXML that Microsoft pushed through so they could say it was a "standard" even though the standards document was essentially entirely written by Microsoft and didn't provide all the information necessary to actually implement it correctly. > Back to the original point - if a service provider won't provide an app, they should provide an API. What you're really saying is that they should always provide an API, because nobody is going to provide an app for each of 10,000 different platforms. And I completely agree. But YouTube is doing the same as Netflix/Hulu/HBO and Google Voice is doing the same as Skype/MagicApp/Vonage. Blame all of them or none of them.

jongalloway2 12y ago
First, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Good points, and it's nice to have avoided Godwin's law in a thread this deep. > Skype I fundamentally agree with you. Skype does support way more platforms than just about any service I can think of, especially when you consider Skype for Web beta (http://blogs.skype.com/2014/11/14/please-welcome-skype-for-web-beta/ http://blogs.skype.com/2014/11/14/please-welcome-skype-for-w...). But I agree that nobody can support every platform. > Chrome Kind of true, but not all platforms can or will support arbitrary browsers. Worse, as a user I should never have to run multiple browsers just to use a web app. Extra chagrin here because holy cow this is the web we're talking about, and Google's established a pretty clear pattern over the past year of Chrome-only dev that should be pretty worrying to anyone that cares about web standards. >shadenfreude In my case, I decided that I was irritated enough at Google's actions that I'd rather not have Google apps on my phone apps than support their ecosystem. Plus, I genuinely prefer Windows Phone as a platform. >OOXML That was 2006, the same year jQuery was first released. Cars and Da Vinci Code were big movies that year. That was before Windows Vista shipped. It was a long time ago. If that's your reference on Microsoft's standards support, it's not the full picture. >Blame all of them or none of them I'll blame them all then, but I definitely feel like Microsoft's by far the least bad in this area. I'm disappointed, when I first got excited about the Android platform, I had high hopes that it would be something else. I ran early releases in VM's before phones were available. I was excited about an open source phone platform, and Google's general trend (at that time) of doing cool stuff on open source, open services, open API's. Things turned out differently. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...
- phaemon 12y ago
  > That was 2006...If that's your reference on Microsoft's standards support, it's not the full picture. The new standard for high capacity SD Cards - SDXC - specifies a filesystem in the standard. That filesystem is exFAT, a proprietary, patent-encumbered filesystem from Microsoft. Microsoft like to make out that they're an all new and open company, but they were a nasty company in the past, and they're a nasty company now.