4 ms·

There's a subtle irony in that while Cortana can probably be more deeply integrated with Android than iOS, the same can't be said for Google Now on Windows Phon

There's a subtle irony in that while Cortana can probably be more deeply integrated with Android than iOS, the same can't be said for Google Now on Windows Phone...

higherpurpose 11y ago
Yup. Android is still far more open than Windows Phone/mobile from that point of view, which is why it's possible for Microsoft to do many of these things with Android. Last I checked you couldn't even have another browser other than IE on Windows Phone, and I assume that won't change with Windows 10 mobile. Also you can make Android apps work on Windows or another OS relatively easy but the reverse isn't true (not counting the very hacky WINE on Linux). All of that still shows that at least for now Google is still much more "open" than Microsoft is. The unfortunate thing is that these moves where Microsofts gets to integrate with "open" stuff from Google, and then gets all credit for doing that, is only going to force Google to become more closed to stop Microsoft from doing that. It's kind of a nash equilibrium. When you open up a lot of stuff and your competitor uses it freely and gets credit for doing that, but you can't do the same with your competitors' products - what's the outcome? It reminds me of when Gtalk was open right until Microsoft wanted to integrate it with Skype. Then Google shut down that API because it couldn't have done the same with Skype, and Microsoft would've been the one with the app that has "both Skype and Gtalk", and not Google.
- Artemis2 11y ago
  Android is open, Google is not at all. Google is actually pulling source code off AOSP (the actual open-source Android) to put more of it into their custom, closed-source applications. As a result, a base install of Android without all Google's services is very poor and pretty outdated. [0] Most of the work Microsoft does on Android (and iOS) would easily be replicable by Google on Windows Phone: Office, Skype, OneDrive... are all apps that Google has competitors for on Android and iOS. Instead of playing the same game, Google chooses to be the evil one. [1] 0: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610371/android/meet-aosp--the-other-android--while-you-still-can.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610371/android/meet-aosp--... 1: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-googles-openness/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2013/08/15/the-lim...
  - tdicola 11y ago
    That is an impressive spin. He's not talking about apps like Office, etc. he's talking about Windows Phone having less extensibility points than Android. Like being able to plug in 3rd party browsers, voice search/assistants, etc.
  - skybrian 11y ago
    Some trends are in the opposite direction. Chromium for Android is mostly open source now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/36py7f/chrome_for_android_is_now_almost_entirely/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/36py7f/chrome_for_...
  - yohui 11y ago
    > As a result, a base install of Android without all Google's services is very poor and pretty outdated. You can install AOSP or custom ROMs such as CyanogenMod and have a perfectly free, modern smartphone OS. You won't have access to all the Android apps in the Google Play Store, but that's self-evident. The F-Droid repo provides verified FOSS apps, or if non-Google proprietary sources are permitted there's the Amazon Appstore. > Most of the work Microsoft does on Android (and iOS) would easily be replicable by Google on Windows Phone: Office, Skype, OneDrive... are all apps that Google has competitors for on Android and iOS. The app in question, Cortana, will be able to integrate into Android at least as deeply as the Bing app does now, which means it can replace Google search in most ways. If Microsoft had an Android launcher, they could ensure Google is completely replaced (by supplanting Google Now). Combined with Microsoft's existing Android lock screen and other apps, all that's needed to complete the Microsoft Android experience is Windows Store for Android. On the other hand, the closest you can get to replacing Cortana on Windows Phone is to disable Cortana completely, which means queries will be handled by the search engine in your default browser instead. IE is the only browser option, but you can choose either Google or Bing (except on phones that disable the Google option). Google does achieve remarkable results on iOS despite its restrictions. But that simply demonstrates the monumental effort it would take to bring a sub-par version of the Google experience to a locked-down platform, whereas Microsoft can take over Android with relative ease. iOS has marketshare and legacy ties to justify the expense, but WP has neither.
  - 11y ago
- xexers 11y ago
  > Last I checked you couldn't even have another browser other than IE on Windows Phone, and I assume that won't change with Windows 10 mobile. Opera is available for Windows phone now. https://www.windowsphone.com/en-ca/store/app/opera-mini-beta/b3bf000a-e004-4ecb-a8fb-9fc817cdab90 https://www.windowsphone.com/en-ca/store/app/opera-mini-beta...
  - yohui 11y ago
    Opera Mini, not the full Opera Mobile browser. Like on iOS, the loophole is that web pages are sent to Opera's servers for processing, therefore the app itself bypasses the restrictions on rendering engines. It's similar to mobile Chrome's "Data Saver" feature, or Turbo mode in the full Opera Mobile browser. Great for saving data, if you're on a limited connection. Would be nice if you could set it as the default browser on iOS or WP, too.
- ntakasaki 11y ago
  >When you open up a lot of stuff and your competitor uses it freely and gets credit for doing that, but you can't do the same with your competitors' products - what's the outcome? You mean like how Chrome is bundled with Flash and Java updates on Windows, yet alternate browsers cannot even be made for Chromebooks? >is only going to force Google to become more closed to stop Microsoft from doing that. Being "Open" is about principles, no matter the outcome. If you close off something because people are using it, then it was never open in the first place. It's like saying I offer you $100 on the condition that you won't take it. What would be your reaction if MS restricted Secure Boot on Windows to stop Linux because people are dual booting or switching to it? Or what if they block Chrome on Windows to boost IE/Edge? Would you say they are being forced to do that because Chrome is getting marketshare, like you said Google was forced to close Hangouts and Android?
- Aoyagi 11y ago
  >Android is still far more open than Windows Phone/mobile from that point of view From any point of view. WP is the tightest OS I can think of (or at least as tight as iOS) without the user benefiting from it in any other way besides general security. Heck, even the settings menu is depressingly limited.
  - kropotkinlives 11y ago
    Agree. After 15 years of using smart phones right back to Palm Treo things WP is the only platform that is depressingly boring and entirely uneventful. And you know what, that's why I use it. It just works. I've been left in the poop a couple of times by Android and iOS. Even old windows mobile shot me down once or twice.
Redsquare 11y ago
Nor IE on any os apart from windows
- soperj 11y ago
  Kind of wonder now why they don't cross platform IE?
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    They did, once upon a time; IE was available for Mac OS (pre-X, IIRC) and Unix back in the 90's. Bringing back cross-platform IE is probably a lost cause nowadays, but a cross-platform Spartan is possible.
    - baghira 11y ago
      IE was available for OSX all the way through 10.6 IIRC.
      - yellowapple 11y ago
        Was that native support, or was it based on OS 9 / Classic emulation? I know that the PowerPC versions of OS X (i.e. every OS X up to and including 10.5) supported running OS 9 software in a sort of emulation layer (though I don't remember if this was first-party or third-party; I do recall PowerPC Macs with OS X having a "Classic Mode" that booted into OS 9, however).
        abrowne 11y ago
        Carbon, so not Classic, but based on the updated Classic Mac OS layer. It was PPC only, last updated in 2003.
    - erickhill 11y ago
      IE 5.5 on OS 9 was, at the time, the best browser available for the platform. Literally every fruity iMac had it and used it by default that I ever encountered. Including my own.

There's a subtle irony in that while Cortana can probably be more deeply integrated with Android than iOS, the same can't be said for Google Now on Windows Phone...

higherpurpose 11y ago

Yup. Android is still far more open than Windows Phone/mobile from that point of view, which is why it's possible for Microsoft to do many of these things with Android. Last I checked you couldn't even have another browser other than IE on Windows Phone, and I assume that won't change with Windows 10 mobile. Also you can make Android apps work on Windows or another OS relatively easy but the reverse isn't true (not counting the very hacky WINE on Linux). All of that still shows that at least for now Google is still much more "open" than Microsoft is. The unfortunate thing is that these moves where Microsofts gets to integrate with "open" stuff from Google, and then gets all credit for doing that, is only going to force Google to become more closed to stop Microsoft from doing that. It's kind of a nash equilibrium. When you open up a lot of stuff and your competitor uses it freely and gets credit for doing that, but you can't do the same with your competitors' products - what's the outcome? It reminds me of when Gtalk was open right until Microsoft wanted to integrate it with Skype. Then Google shut down that API because it couldn't have done the same with Skype, and Microsoft would've been the one with the app that has "both Skype and Gtalk", and not Google.

Artemis2 11y ago
Android is open, Google is not at all. Google is actually pulling source code off AOSP (the actual open-source Android) to put more of it into their custom, closed-source applications. As a result, a base install of Android without all Google's services is very poor and pretty outdated. [0] Most of the work Microsoft does on Android (and iOS) would easily be replicable by Google on Windows Phone: Office, Skype, OneDrive... are all apps that Google has competitors for on Android and iOS. Instead of playing the same game, Google chooses to be the evil one. [1] 0: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610371/android/meet-aosp--the-other-android--while-you-still-can.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610371/android/meet-aosp--... 1: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-googles-openness/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2013/08/15/the-lim...
- tdicola 11y ago
  That is an impressive spin. He's not talking about apps like Office, etc. he's talking about Windows Phone having less extensibility points than Android. Like being able to plug in 3rd party browsers, voice search/assistants, etc.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Some trends are in the opposite direction. Chromium for Android is mostly open source now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/36py7f/chrome_for_android_is_now_almost_entirely/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/36py7f/chrome_for_...
- yohui 11y ago
  > As a result, a base install of Android without all Google's services is very poor and pretty outdated. You can install AOSP or custom ROMs such as CyanogenMod and have a perfectly free, modern smartphone OS. You won't have access to all the Android apps in the Google Play Store, but that's self-evident. The F-Droid repo provides verified FOSS apps, or if non-Google proprietary sources are permitted there's the Amazon Appstore. > Most of the work Microsoft does on Android (and iOS) would easily be replicable by Google on Windows Phone: Office, Skype, OneDrive... are all apps that Google has competitors for on Android and iOS. The app in question, Cortana, will be able to integrate into Android at least as deeply as the Bing app does now, which means it can replace Google search in most ways. If Microsoft had an Android launcher, they could ensure Google is completely replaced (by supplanting Google Now). Combined with Microsoft's existing Android lock screen and other apps, all that's needed to complete the Microsoft Android experience is Windows Store for Android. On the other hand, the closest you can get to replacing Cortana on Windows Phone is to disable Cortana completely, which means queries will be handled by the search engine in your default browser instead. IE is the only browser option, but you can choose either Google or Bing (except on phones that disable the Google option). Google does achieve remarkable results on iOS despite its restrictions. But that simply demonstrates the monumental effort it would take to bring a sub-par version of the Google experience to a locked-down platform, whereas Microsoft can take over Android with relative ease. iOS has marketshare and legacy ties to justify the expense, but WP has neither.
- 11y ago
xexers 11y ago
> Last I checked you couldn't even have another browser other than IE on Windows Phone, and I assume that won't change with Windows 10 mobile. Opera is available for Windows phone now. https://www.windowsphone.com/en-ca/store/app/opera-mini-beta/b3bf000a-e004-4ecb-a8fb-9fc817cdab90 https://www.windowsphone.com/en-ca/store/app/opera-mini-beta...
- yohui 11y ago
  Opera Mini, not the full Opera Mobile browser. Like on iOS, the loophole is that web pages are sent to Opera's servers for processing, therefore the app itself bypasses the restrictions on rendering engines. It's similar to mobile Chrome's "Data Saver" feature, or Turbo mode in the full Opera Mobile browser. Great for saving data, if you're on a limited connection. Would be nice if you could set it as the default browser on iOS or WP, too.
ntakasaki 11y ago
>When you open up a lot of stuff and your competitor uses it freely and gets credit for doing that, but you can't do the same with your competitors' products - what's the outcome? You mean like how Chrome is bundled with Flash and Java updates on Windows, yet alternate browsers cannot even be made for Chromebooks? >is only going to force Google to become more closed to stop Microsoft from doing that. Being "Open" is about principles, no matter the outcome. If you close off something because people are using it, then it was never open in the first place. It's like saying I offer you $100 on the condition that you won't take it. What would be your reaction if MS restricted Secure Boot on Windows to stop Linux because people are dual booting or switching to it? Or what if they block Chrome on Windows to boost IE/Edge? Would you say they are being forced to do that because Chrome is getting marketshare, like you said Google was forced to close Hangouts and Android?
Aoyagi 11y ago
>Android is still far more open than Windows Phone/mobile from that point of view From any point of view. WP is the tightest OS I can think of (or at least as tight as iOS) without the user benefiting from it in any other way besides general security. Heck, even the settings menu is depressingly limited.
- kropotkinlives 11y ago
  Agree. After 15 years of using smart phones right back to Palm Treo things WP is the only platform that is depressingly boring and entirely uneventful. And you know what, that's why I use it. It just works. I've been left in the poop a couple of times by Android and iOS. Even old windows mobile shot me down once or twice.

Redsquare 11y ago

Nor IE on any os apart from windows

soperj 11y ago
Kind of wonder now why they don't cross platform IE?
- yellowapple 11y ago
  They did, once upon a time; IE was available for Mac OS (pre-X, IIRC) and Unix back in the 90's. Bringing back cross-platform IE is probably a lost cause nowadays, but a cross-platform Spartan is possible.
  - baghira 11y ago
    IE was available for OSX all the way through 10.6 IIRC.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      Was that native support, or was it based on OS 9 / Classic emulation? I know that the PowerPC versions of OS X (i.e. every OS X up to and including 10.5) supported running OS 9 software in a sort of emulation layer (though I don't remember if this was first-party or third-party; I do recall PowerPC Macs with OS X having a "Classic Mode" that booted into OS 9, however).
      - abrowne 11y ago
        Carbon, so not Classic, but based on the updated Classic Mac OS layer. It was PPC only, last updated in 2003.
  - erickhill 11y ago
    IE 5.5 on OS 9 was, at the time, the best browser available for the platform. Literally every fruity iMac had it and used it by default that I ever encountered. Including my own.