Crack down on Google: Microsoft

falcon786 said:
Sorry I don't know what the whole process is exactly in this but when I say taken to task I don't mean be punished I mean be investigated with regards to these claims.
Click to expand...

No. You should not be investigated simply because your competition demands it. Otherwise you will have to spend millions defending yourself against everyone that wants to destroy you simply because your business model works. You bring evidence of wrongdoing FIRST, then open up the investigation.

After all, I can make a court case against you for breach of contract every week, and it warrants a serious investigation each time, right? Whether I have proof or not. Or even know you. That wouldn't prejudice you in the least.

MS should come out and say WHICH API's they are not allowed to use. And whether and to what extent Google intentionally blocks them (as they claim), or whether it is simply because the API is under a license they don't like.

Google has been investigated for almost 2 years now. So far not much damning has been turned up, as far as I can see.
 
Valerion said:
No. You should not be investigated simply because your competition demands it. Otherwise you will have to spend millions defending yourself against everyone that wants to destroy you simply because your business model works. You bring evidence of wrongdoing FIRST, then open up the investigation.

After all, I can make a court case against you for breach of contract every week, and it warrants a serious investigation each time, right? Whether I have proof or not. Or even know you. That wouldn't prejudice you in the least.

MS should come out and say WHICH API's they are not allowed to use. And whether and to what extent Google intentionally blocks them (as they claim), or whether it is simply because the API is under a license they don't like.

Google has been investigated for almost 2 years now. So far not much damning has been turned up, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
Why the condescending "no" when you are just arguing the process,naturally it will have to be done that way but I'm not interested in the nitty gritty surely microsoft will be asked for emails or correspondence as proof of the information or API withheld.Like I said above I don't know the exact process but if google is wrong here and indeed doing what ms claims then they should answer for it.
 
Last edited:
Valerion said:
Since it's impossible to write a YouTube app for Windows phone ...

http://www.windowsphone.com/en-za/store/app/metrotube/8d93224f-2808-e011-9264-00237de2db9e

Also, stating "The #1 TOP rated YouTube app on the marketplace!" implies there are more than one.
Click to expand...

Did you have to come in here bursting Microsoft's bubble? I mean really how can they continue to spread false rumors if you go around posting links proving em wrong?

Side note: Lemme guess you used Google to find it as well?
 
AlphaJohn said:
Did you have to come in here bursting Microsoft's bubble? I mean really how can they continue to spread false rumors if you go around posting links proving em wrong?

Side note: Lemme guess you used Google to find it as well?
Click to expand...

No, actually. Slashdot, where they discussed the same story.
 
Valerion said:
Since it's impossible to write a YouTube app for Windows phone ...

http://www.windowsphone.com/en-za/store/app/metrotube/8d93224f-2808-e011-9264-00237de2db9e

Also, stating "The #1 TOP rated YouTube app on the marketplace!" implies there are more than one.
Click to expand...

Maybe there are some legal issues that the smaller guys wont bother with because Google wont bother suieng them but Google would love to sue microsoft if ever they cross paths.

Dont be so quick to write ms's story of just because you have reservations about them.I really am thankful that we have google for bring us very very high quality apps free but theres two sides to every story and defending Google blindly is hardly the way to do things.
 
Valerion said:
Since it's impossible to write a YouTube app for Windows phone ...

http://www.windowsphone.com/en-za/store/app/metrotube/8d93224f-2808-e011-9264-00237de2db9e

Also, stating "The #1 TOP rated YouTube app on the marketplace!" implies there are more than one.
Click to expand...

Well maybe there are legal issues that Google could use against Microsoft if they ever cross paths while the smaller guys would not be worried about this because Google would probably not bother suing them.

Look I also love Google and I'm really thankful to them that they brought us some of the best high quality apps available and at no cost that to me personally really revolutionized my world for the last few years but there are two sides to every story and I would not be so quick to write Microsoft's claim of just because I don't particularly like em.Just saying.
 
falcon786 said:
Well maybe there are legal issues that Google could use against Microsoft if they ever cross paths while the smaller guys would not be worried about this because Google would probably not bother suing them.

Look I also love Google and I'm really thankful to them that they brought us some of the best high quality apps available and at no cost that to me personally really revolutionized my world for the last few years but there are two sides to every story and I would not be so quick to write Microsoft's claim of just because I don't particularly like em.Just saying.
Click to expand...

I agree but some said in the thread that the api's are open source. And that screams to me where the problem is for MS. It would mean there app needs to be Open Source and I don't think they like that idea so much.
 
OK Google now you just pushing it....

http://wmpoweruser.com/now-google-is-blocking-windows-phones-from-accessing-maps-google-com/

Now Google is blocking Windows Phones from accessing maps.google.com

I guess we missed the declaration, but it seems the cold war between Microsoft and Google has really warmed up.

Google has previously already said they will not be making apps for Windows Phone and Windows 8, but now they have taking things a step further by blocking Windows Phones (both 7.5 and 8) from accessing maps.google.com.

If you try you are automatically redirected to Google’s mobile search page, even if your phone is in desktop mode, which of course does not give you access to Google Maps.

Strangely enough, for now, maps.google.co.uk works perfectly fine, indicating some switch somewhere did get flipped.

I guess being given a pass by the FTC has made Google a bit more bold. That $25 million in lobbying sure went far…
Click to expand...

As much as I love someone sticking it to Microsoft, this is going a tad overboard (Well if true)

Side Note: Dont know how they found this but who uses Google maps on a Windows Phone anyway, I thought Nokia maps was much better?
 
Last edited:
AlphaJohn said:
As much as I love someone sticking it to Microsoft, this is going a tad overboard (Well if true)
Click to expand...

It's true alright...

[video=youtube;Dd7RiMCrZFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7RiMCrZFw[/video]


Whats Google's motto again? :confused:
 
Just confirmed that maps.google.com redirects to the Google search engine on Windows 8 Mobile.
Unless it's a system error it's just looking for trouble ...
 
"Do no evil" my arse...


http://www.marco.org/

Google admits WebM infringes H.264 patents

March 9, 2013 • ∞
Daniel Eran Dilger:

Almost three years after Google released its WebM video encoding technology as a “free” and open alternative to the existing H.264 backed by Apple and others, it has admitted its position was wrong and that it would pay to license the patents WebM infringes.

Looks like we’re establishing a clear pattern: Google clearly (and often willfully) infringes on someone else’s IP, can’t believe that it’ll ever have any repercussions, and claims they’re doing it to be “open” or some bull****. It betrays a culture at Google’s highest levels of arrogance, entitlement, and dishonesty.

“Open” has very little to do with anything they do. What they’re really doing most of the time is trying to gain control of the web for themselves and their products. If they really cared about being so “open”, they’d open up a nontrivial part of their business that hasn’t already been commoditized, like their searching or advertising algorithms.

As usual, “open” is just lip service. And it works. It works damn well. You wouldn’t believe the amount of nasty feedback I’m going to get for writing this from people who think Google is contributing, out of the goodness of its heart, to the grand benevolent technical cause of whatever “open” means to each of them as they happily hand over more and more of their privacy and data to the very closed vaults of the world’s biggest advertising company.
 
undesign said:
"Do no evil" my arse...


http://www.marco.org/

Google admits WebM infringes H.264 patents

March 9, 2013 • ∞
Daniel Eran Dilger:

Almost three years after Google released its WebM video encoding technology as a “free” and open alternative to the existing H.264 backed by Apple and others, it has admitted its position was wrong and that it would pay to license the patents WebM infringes.

Looks like we’re establishing a clear pattern: Google clearly (and often willfully) infringes on someone else’s IP, can’t believe that it’ll ever have any repercussions, and claims they’re doing it to be “open” or some bull****. It betrays a culture at Google’s highest levels of arrogance, entitlement, and dishonesty.

“Open” has very little to do with anything they do. What they’re really doing most of the time is trying to gain control of the web for themselves and their products. If they really cared about being so “open”, they’d open up a nontrivial part of their business that hasn’t already been commoditized, like their searching or advertising algorithms.

As usual, “open” is just lip service. And it works. It works damn well. You wouldn’t believe the amount of nasty feedback I’m going to get for writing this from people who think Google is contributing, out of the goodness of its heart, to the grand benevolent technical cause of whatever “open” means to each of them as they happily hand over more and more of their privacy and data to the very closed vaults of the world’s biggest advertising company.
Click to expand...

So it is impossible that Google may have believed that they were in the clear? Software patents are often very hard to avoid. This just goes to show how insidious they can be. Question - would it even be possible to create a video codec that does NOT violate patents? If not, then we can say goodbye to free web browsers that's natively capable of playing video.

This sounds like a disjointed rant about "the Evil Google that can do nothing right." I have a challenge for the author: Show me how many patent court cases Google has been involved in, and how many they have lost. Since they "clearly (and often willfully) infringes on someone else’s IP"
 
undesign said:
Daniel Eran Dilger: If they really cared about being so “open”, they’d open up a nontrivial part of their business that hasn’t already been commoditized, like their searching or advertising algorithms.

As usual, “open” is just lip service. And it works. It works damn well. You wouldn’t believe the amount of nasty feedback I’m going to get for writing this from people who think Google is contributing, out of the goodness of its heart, to the grand benevolent technical cause of whatever “open” means to each of them as they happily hand over more and more of their privacy and data to the very closed vaults of the world’s biggest advertising company.
Click to expand...

The author of this piece is righteous and full of himself. He betrays too much emotion which waters down his points about privacy. Hmm, just did a little google on him and I find that he is a professional Apple fanboi so it is pointless me bothering about lunatical rantings ... however valid his points are.

As for opening their searching and advertising algorithms, I hope they never do - it would be SEO'd to hell and compromised more than Google is/would be doing. Imagine TV consisting of mostly advertising...
 
Its amazing how The blogger and AI go out of their way to stretch what really happened to make Google the bad guy.

1st lets look at the actual press release where all this is coming from:

Google and MPEG LA Announce Agreement Covering VP8 Video Format

Google Inc. and MPEG LA, LLC announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders. The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one next-generation VPx video codec. As a result of the agreements, MPEG LA will discontinue its effort to form a VP8 patent pool.

“This is a significant milestone in Google’s efforts to establish VP8 as a widely-deployed web video format,” said Allen Lo, Google’s deputy general counsel for patents. “We appreciate MPEG LA’s cooperation in making this happen.”
“We are pleased for the opportunity to facilitate agreements with Google to make VP8 widely available to users,” said MPEG LA President and CEO Larry Horn
Click to expand...

I do not see anything in there that says Google is admitting that they infringed? Besides knowing US patent law if you knowingly infringe your punishment is 10 fold worse than doing it without prior knowledge. All I see is a company that rather take a licence route that adds benefits (VP8 patent pool) than fight it in court.

Either way I would still go THIS* is why we can not have nice things. Cause there is no way to make anything in the US without stepping on someone elses patent pool.

*Broken Software patent system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X