rbarooah

54 ms·

511.
by rbarooah 16y ago
But do you see how Google buying up significant percentages of web content and only allowing their own search engine to index it properly would make it impossible for other search engines to compete?
512.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I agree. I never said anything about fairness. I simply showed that Google is being hypocritical . Hypocrisy is a perfectly valid strategy under capitalism.
513.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Well you said it: Lunch isn't free anymore. The point is that Google is using Android to do precisely what they claimed they stood against - which is to control other players in the industry. That's what makes it hypocrisy. I assume you'd
514.
by rbarooah 16y ago
So it's ok to have Google Search be a monopoly that nobody can compete with because they own the content too? Personally, I think competition in the search space might lead to better results.
515.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Do you really think that people who have to fork a months old version are at no disadvantage to those who have access to the current source?
516.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Here: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." (from: http://source.
517.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Google: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." The fact that they'r
518.
by rbarooah 16y ago
"We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." How is Google not restrict
519.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Google's behavior is consistent with their past behavior, but not consistent with what their words. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.
520.
by rbarooah 16y ago
The whole 'more open' thing leads straight to Godwin's law.
521.
by rbarooah 16y ago
DR is correct. The actual accusation is that YouTube only allows Google to properly index their videos, giving Google Search an unfair advantage. Consumers won't switch to a search engine that can't index everything they want, and Bing can'
522.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I guess you didn't read the article. The core complaint is that YouTube isn't allowing search engines other than Google to access their metadata, preventing Bing from searching properly. If Google is actually doing this, and is allowed to c
523.
by rbarooah 16y ago
The anti-competitive behavior they're accused of is using their dominance in online-video to secure their dominance in search. Bing can never compete effectively with Google if Google blocks them from properly indexing video. By your Androi
524.
by rbarooah 16y ago
The problem is that that by acquiring large stores of content (e.g. Video, Books) and stopping other search engines from to indexing them properly, they are giving Google Search an unfair advantage. If they aren't stopped from doing this th
525.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I'm guessing you don't understand the Godwin reference.
526.
by rbarooah 16y ago
"Unlike Google, you see, Facebook has been known to promptly open-source some of the most important pieces of its back-end infrastructure."
527.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I guess 'open' doesn't always win.
528.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Claiming it's 'more' open just begs a Godwin conclusion.
529.
by rbarooah 16y ago
It may be an outlier but it proves that access to Android source is unreliable.
530.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Does Linus control what people do with Linux?
531.
by rbarooah 16y ago
That's exactly the point I was making.
532.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I find it hard to come up with a definition by which Android is an open system. It seems to pretty much boil down to: Some of the time, some people can see some of the source, but some of those people may be restricted in what they can d
533.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Are you saying most Android users don't want it to be open?
534.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I beg to differ. We could have it all if it was really an open source project. The community would be able to make it into something great - not just by making apps. If it was great, it would be desireable. Carriers probably wouldn't li
535.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I think power is very much an issue. Most people I know who have an iPad 1 complain that speed is an issue. The iPad 2 certainly fixes that, but Apple's have focussed a lot on optimization and their stack is all built around compiled code.
536.
by rbarooah 16y ago
The complaint is that Google has a conflict of interest as it becomes a content provider as well as a search engine, and that it is exploiting this. For other content providers, more search engines indexing their stuff, means more traffic.
537.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Google makes some of the source available when they want to but restricts what people can do with it using licenses, and now they insist on giving their approval to modifications. Can we finally stop saying Android is 'open' now when it's b
538.
by rbarooah 16y ago
So much for 'let the market decide'.
539.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Well personally, I'd prefer the latter, but if it really was going to crash the economy completely, then the former might be necessary. But the only point in forcing them into smaller entities would be so that in future they would be allow
540.
by rbarooah 16y ago
It was magnificent back then. I know it's not the same thing, but seeing the logo and installing the new 'helper' gave me a good feeling.

More ›