Re: "with your permission and all of that"
... and yet you get commentards on here that still insist that you can choose not to use Google.
869 posts • joined 29 Oct 2009
... and yet you get commentards on here that still insist that you can choose not to use Google.
Microsoft, you have yet to be forgiven for dropping XNA.
C# and Monogame had better be an option for developers in this new "Windows 10" world - I'll be damned if I'm going to be reduced to some drag-drop-script-kiddy Unity developer...
Shut up and take my money!
... but Google's tariffs are measured in personal data, not currency, right?
... this is another facet to Microsoft's current privacy stance.
People are becoming increasingly wary of Google - if this loss of trust snowballs and spills over into Android, it could open a potentially huge gap in the market... low cost smartphones that can be trusted with private data.
Of course, it will be an uphill battle for Microsoft, given their past... which makes me wonder if they're trying to lay the groundwork in an attempt to overcome this and be ready to jump in.
Given their track record, Microsoft are due a "right" decision, simply by laws of averages and the fact they've made so many crap ones over the last few years!
Think about a serious photographer with all his lenses - I can see the same sort of thing happening for this. Normally, you just need a basic phone that fits in your pocket, but every now and then, you need your "better camera" module for a special event, or your "bigger battery" module for a long trip, maybe combined with your "game controller" module so you can keep the kids quiet in the back of the car...
"No, but it'll be the only browser that will come preinstalled with new phones, if manufacturers want Google Play."
... and the irony will be how many fandroids try and justify this happening while still bashing Microsoft from shipping Windows with IE pre-installed back in the browser wars era...
"I'm surprised they didn't clone Flappy Bird"
They're probably the only buggers who haven't, then!
Guess he had to quit Microsoft in order to "move fast"...
They were so astounded that someone affiliated with Microsoft had a reasonably secure system in their possession, and had to see it in action to believe it?
"...aimed at the more mature users who are looking at moving to a smartphone but want a brand they find reassuring."
But isn't it these "more mature" users who - thanks to often not being as tech-savvy as younger people - are thought of as more vulnerable to fraudsters?
And onto this smartphone, aimed at these more mature users, they load the least secure operating system?
I can see it now - an email arrives:
"From: Official-sounding company that's actually someone pretending to represent Kodak
Your phone is vulnerable! To fix this, go to security settings, allow app installation from any location, then tap this link to download and install the official Kodak phone protector app (that will actually start dialing premium rate numbers between the hours of midnight and 5:00am)!"
The problem I've found is getting the certifications for these areas - tried to get one for Brazil and the amount of hoops I found myself jumping through... certainly not a five-minute job!
>> requiring makers of Android smartphones to bundle its search app on their devices.
No it does not. There are plenty of Android devices that do not have nor require Google search installed: Amazon's Kindle, Nokia's X, many small makers.
And what kind of market share do these Google alternatives have? Most of them are barely visible on Google's search unless you are looking for them specifically. The fact is that an average spod who walks into Phones4U (or somewhere similar) looking for an Android handset will walk out with something running the Google-based flavour.
It was also possible about 15 years ago to buy a desktop running something other than Windows, thus avoiding having IE pushed on you as the default browser... but very unlikely to happen for the average man.
Fortunately, we seem to have dodged the Android Silver bullet... for the time being at least.
"But it's just a well known and widely used tool. Users do have a choice."
Users also had a choice to download Mozilla, Opera or another browser back when Microsoft bundled IE with Windows - not that that mattered then, or even now, the way some comments read.
Legal precedent has been set.
... buried in the mix:
"It could also provide Google with a brand-new treasure trove of data to feed to its ravenous search and analytics engines."
Substitute "could" for "will" and you're pretty much there. Although the way things are going, it's a fairly safe bet that anyone providing an OS for this sort of purpose would end up data mining it.
"It certainly appears that any criticisms of Microsoft elicit lots of mysterious down votes."
Every major player has its faithful that will downvote anyone who dares suggest that their beloved Microsoft/Google/Apple/[insert company here] are wrong.
"The vendetta looks to originate from Microsoft."
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah!!! Please! Someone send this guy a tinfoil hat!
Seriously, it's not healthy to hold a grudge like this for so long. Yes, we all know that Microsoft have done some downright filthy things over they years, but to immediately round on them when another big corporation starts getting questioned? Jeez, next thing will be that the axing of Google Earth API at the end of next year will be due to the actions of all the Microsoft staff who have "defected" over the years actually being trojan horses!
"Come friendly bombs and fall on Antarctica..."
Nah, just doesn't quite have the same ring.
I'll get me coat.
"So it’s with real sadness that on 16 December (before the new law comes into effect in January) we’ll remove Spanish publishers from Google News, and close Google News in Spain."
"We own web searching world-wide. Play by our rules."
So - spend time building and promoting an API, allow developers to invest time and energy building applications based on it - some of whom may now depend on said applications to make their livelihood - then axe it.
Bravo Google. A classic Microsoft-style move if ever there was one.
"I *think* what you actually mean is Google are evil because of all the *eyeballs* they control. Except the owners of the eyeballs chose Google of their own free will."
Ah, the old battle-cry of the Google supporter - "you can always choose not to use Google!"...
... but can you? As the AC has said above - if you have a directory for looking things up and you choose not to list your business in that directory then you're not going to get found and not do very much business.
The fact is that Google is the biggest "directory" on the internet by a country mile - period. To "choose not to use" is - unless you have a fantastic marketing budget - tantamount to business suicide. Go out onto the street and ask any average bod how you find something on the internet. I'd be willing to bet that at least 75% say "Google it" - a company name has now become a verb in common everyday use.
I'm not debating the hows and whys of how they got to this position as I don't have all the facts - although I will admit that Google do have a damn good search engine. But the point is that the internet real estate they have almost monopolistic control over is "search" - and therefore the power to control who gets discovered and who does not (including potential startup competitors and anyone Google "just doesn't like").
"Oooh, you are gonna get SUCH a downvoting for that!"
What can I say? Truth hurts. I remember the browser wars too, and loads of FUD-spreading from the Microsoft faithful, and look how that turned out - 15+years on and there's still people holding grudges.
"Google: ok, we won't pay so we'll remove your news headlines from our service... Where's the evil?"
The evil lies in the fact that thanks to the huge amount of internet real estate they control, Google can pretty much decide who get the publicity to stay in business, and who is dropped into obscurity and financial ruin.
It's like watching certain live football games a few years back when Sky had all the rights - if you wanted to, you could go digging around and chance watching it on some obscure Russian stream that also carried a payload of viruses (happened to my mother-in-law)...
... but most people would stump up and pay for Sky, because that was the only thing they knew. Same as the browser wars - even at that point, it was possible to choose a different browser... but most went with what was already there as part of what they already knew.
... but if you don't do things our way, we'll ensure you disappear from the internet.
"Don't be evil" - yeah, right.
Too bad Eadon got banned - this is probably the one time he would have posted "EPIC FAIL" and I'd have agreed with him...
Another BOFH, another appearance for Gina...
Could this mean that - for the first time since the PFY - we're getting a new permanent addition to the BOFH family*?
* The boss doesn't count, as there have been so many over the years. Blame stairwells, lifts doors that opened without the presence of lifts, over-voltage cattle prods, skips full of glass, spontaneous mental breakdown, etc., etc.
... my personal gear and accounts are sacrosanct - strictly off-limits for work purposes.
"When did puzzle games become moron fodder?"
They didn't. Falling for King.com's social engineering tricks that keep people coming back to this farce they have created by cloning CandySwipe is the moron-fodder aspect.
The worst kind of person playing the worst kind of game from the worst kind of studio. Sounds like a match made in heaven.
... I'll get me coat.
"Xbox was a long haul."
... but that had the advantage of almost no Microsoft brand association whatsoever.
Certainly, it's not like having "Microsoft" stamped down the back of your handset.
The problem is that "Microsoft" and "Windows" still have a large amount of toxicity associated - a large chunk of this is due to some absolutely horrendous decisions, probably made due to complacency, on the part of management.
Another part is that while people in tech often love being up with the latest and newest things, a great many seem to love living in the past when it comes to holding grudges - the near habitual anti-Microsoft posts of a number of commentards on here are proof enough of that.
Microsoft would do well to rebadge their mobile offering in an Xbox-like manner (although I can see Apple kicking off at "Xphone"), and re-invent themselves. The recent open-sourcing of .net was a step in the right direction, but there's still huge amounts of ground to make up.
I can't help wonder though - will Microsoft get another crack of the whip when Google inevitably falls, or will it be someone else's turn?
"If it does provide this service, then the US$50 a year plus $100-$500 hosting costs of other domains may suddenly start looking a little steep."
In many places predatory pricing is deemed anti-competitive and is illegal.
At what point does offering free stuff - or "free stuff with lots of extras (eg: huge storage space)" become anti-competitive?
"new security tools to help Google Apps users take more control of their security online"
Yup, all about giving users more security. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact it's yet another data stream for Google to harvest. No sir.
"One does not HAVE to type http://google.com into the address bar and press return. With MS, there was no alternative installed."
Key word - "installed". Back in the browser wars era, even with IE bundled, I could have searched for and installed Firefox or Opera.
Similarly, if I were to install Chrome right now, I could type "http://www.duckduckgo.com" into the address bar and search from there. However, if I enter something that isn't a web address, it goes through Google's search.
There were browser choices then, and there are search engine choices now. What there is very little choice in, however, is what happens when you are on the web - and this is the crux of the problem. Regardless of what search engine you use to get there, the chances are that the site you're visiting will have Google analytics and tracking. So regardless of what search engine I've chosen to use, the chances are that Google have data about me.
Hell, the entire SEO industry is founded on the principle of trying to second-guess how Google wants your web page to behave and jumping when they tell you to. I don't hear any talk of Duck Duck Go analytics or rankings...
So - coming back to the idea of choice: there were other browsers available, but because Microsoft had bundled IE with Windows, and so the average Joe didn't bother looking any further. In other words, the reason the issue came about was awareness. Now consider searching the internet for something... except we don't search for it any more, do we? We Google it. Yes, just like "Hoover" for example, "Google" is now part of common parlance as an adjective. So people don't learn about choice, they learn about Google, just like when Windows told them to use Internet Explorer (conveniently bundled) whenever they wanted to get online back in the day.
And so we reach the present: Google has managed to get such a stranglehold on the web that major players are forced to bow to their will, or suffer loss of ranking. Other search engine choices get little publicity (or are tainted by their parent company's past), and even if we do use another search engine, unless we go out of our way to avoid it, our data is Google's property if we want to do anything on the web.
The thing is, we've been here before, nearly 15 years ago, when it was decided that by bundling their internet browser with their OS, Microsoft had become a monopoly and were engaging in practices contrary to competition law.
Even now, nearly a decade and a half later, there are many who are all to quick to remind us of how Microsoft took such a massive fall - many of whom are now championing Google.
So not only is the idea of a giant corporation having such access to individuals' data and almost unilateral control of the web a concern to many, but there is also a legal precedent for dealing with a case in which a company in the IT sphere has reached a position where they can effectively prevent any competitors from challenging them.
"Google should just block all European IPs for a week"
... instant proof of Google's monopoly! The damage to business and commerce should easily be enough to invoke all the anticompetitive laws under the sun and ensure Google go the same way as Microsoft when they tried to bundle IE with Windows...
"NO ONE IS FORCED TO USE GOOGLE!!!"
I've said it before and I'll say it again: find me reputable websites where I can do what I need to do - shopping, banking, information lookup etc. - that aren't polluted with Google facilities (tracking, analytics, web fonts and so on), and I'll use 'em.
Like Microsoft with Windows and IE bundling back in the 90s, people are beginning to wake up to the effective monopoly Google have built up and the potential for its abuse. How about a ruling that states that Google's Chrome browser has to offer a choice of search engines? After all, this would follow the aforementioned IE bundling precedent...
@dogged - steady! You can have comments deleted for accusing people of being shills these days*!
* unless they're Microsoft shills - apparently that's still ok.
"Do we need google for everything????"
Google - and their brainwashed masses - are doing their damnedest to try and convince us that this is the case...
"Is it now if you can't beat them, join them to improve the revenue stream?"
The major players recognised just how dangerously powerful Google has become, and made the move in an attempt to redress the balance...
"Google immediately volunteered to stop using the word "free" when games contain in-app purchases"
... and watch the Android piracy rate leap ever higher...
2) Once you apply a piracy rate of up anything up to 95%, only about 4% (at worst case) of the total smartphone market can be deemed "Profitable Android"...
... add to that the huge overheads of fragmentation etc. and it's no wonder that serious developers are quitting Android development.
"just ignore windows mobile"
Of course - it's been pretty much abandoned since 2011.
"Perhaps the solution is not to use Google?"
Find me websites that offer the products/service I need without implementing Google tracking/analytics etc. and I'll use them.
"Google don't shove the data they gather in your face."
So what exactly do they do with it?
Let's face it - thanks to analytics, it's practically impossible for the average Joe to surf the web without Google mining data. Same with emails, if anyone you know has a gmail account. And I dread to think what data-gathering goes on under the hood of Android...
Suffice to say that Google has probably gathered enough data to be able to ruin anyone in the western world, from an individual to a large company - probably largely without said person/organisation's knowledge.
I can live with a few targetted adverts - so long as I have a cast-iron assurance that that's all my data is being used for...
"it's possible that the talks broke down over the Firefox-maker's stance toward the Do Not Track browser privacy standard."
Typical Google, trying to force their will on everyone and too hell with the general public's privacy and choices.
Mind you, this is a win-win situation: If Mozilla and Firefox thrive in this new situation, it helps prove to the world that you don't have to kowtow to the Googleborg, and if they end up struggling financially and either go back or go out of business, it proves that Google have the power to pretty much dictate what goes on the web, and thus should be treated as an anticompetitive monopoly.
"Is there anybody with an internet connection who doesn't know Google[?]"
The question here is not "how many people with an internet connection do not know Google?", but "how many people with an internet connection do not know how much Google know about them, and what does Google do with this data?"
Here's hoping they're still rolling with their own fork of the AOSP, not the widespread Google poison everyone seems to be happy with these days...