The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning:
- Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?
- Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
- Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.
- Yes, I do want to view SilverLight videos on Linux. But I can't. Because Microsoft won't let me (or Xamarin or Ximian) implement the DRM parts.
- Yes, I do check that an nvidia card is supported on Linux before I buy it; That's why, for example, I avoid AMD, and it IS my problem if I buy an AMD card for which there is no good driver on Linux
> I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.
The implied argument (Microsoft is more open because you CAN reverse engineer their products) is complete bullsh*t. Evidence: http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html
I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines in their investor reports) or connects to their search engine without showing any ad.
I just said that Google Achilles' heel is in another place and because we have a bias in favor of free software we are not seeing the big picture clearly.
Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?
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.
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?
Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone in an effort to cripple it?
The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this to help Android.
I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?
If Google wanted to fulfill it's obligations to content providers and advertisers, they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.
The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.
Yes, but if I install Linux expecting to have support for nvidia cards, it is my problem.
> - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to connect to a Windows share, it is my problem.
> - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to print to a windows share, it is my problem.
There is no problem when you extrapolate this reasoning.
If Google is a monopoly and this is probed in some court (EU/US) the issue will crystallize in another way.
Meanwhile, it can be analyzed in an ethical way and some people think that the problem extends beyond you.
