Google "working to remove" the redirect from Google Maps on Windows Phone(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Google "working to remove" the redirect from Google Maps on Windows Phone
http://www.zdnet.com/google-shouldnt-forget-history-when-blocking-its-competitors-products-7000009411/
49 comments
I can't speak for the Maps team because I'm not involved, and I can't speak for Google because, well, I can't speak for my employer. But I've been a developer in very similar situations before, and here's what pops into my mind when I hear statements like this:
The team has been pushing hard to get the new functionality out the door. They are perhaps behind schedule, nobody has yet looked at IE, and then someone finally gets their hands on a Windows 8 phone to test. It doesn't work. The product manager makes the call: cut IE support so that the Webkit version can launch on time. A redirect's put in place to avoid serving a completely broken experience to Windows 8 users, so they can at least do a search for businesses instead of having it not work.
They launch, the press picks it up, and conspiracy theories start flying. Somebody pages the team, emails start flying, there's a huddle to figure out how to fix it. An engineer (or a few engineers) "donate" their weekend to fixing IE compatibility. They work day and night until the bugs are fixed, and then remove the redirect.
PR makes a statement, and then another one once the problem can be fixed. Like all PR statements, they try to say the minimum amount possible to calm people down, since everything they do say will get picked apart by the press. They aren't engineers, they know only what the engineers tell them, and they say even less because whatever the engineers say will get wildly distorted as it passes from engineer -> PM -> PR -> press -> Hacker News.
Just my humble conjecture, as an engineer who's been in this situation several times before at a few different organizations (both Google and otherwise). I'd think critically before reaching for pitchforks, though.
The team has been pushing hard to get the new functionality out the door. They are perhaps behind schedule, nobody has yet looked at IE, and then someone finally gets their hands on a Windows 8 phone to test. It doesn't work. The product manager makes the call: cut IE support so that the Webkit version can launch on time. A redirect's put in place to avoid serving a completely broken experience to Windows 8 users, so they can at least do a search for businesses instead of having it not work.
They launch, the press picks it up, and conspiracy theories start flying. Somebody pages the team, emails start flying, there's a huddle to figure out how to fix it. An engineer (or a few engineers) "donate" their weekend to fixing IE compatibility. They work day and night until the bugs are fixed, and then remove the redirect.
PR makes a statement, and then another one once the problem can be fixed. Like all PR statements, they try to say the minimum amount possible to calm people down, since everything they do say will get picked apart by the press. They aren't engineers, they know only what the engineers tell them, and they say even less because whatever the engineers say will get wildly distorted as it passes from engineer -> PM -> PR -> press -> Hacker News.
Just my humble conjecture, as an engineer who's been in this situation several times before at a few different organizations (both Google and otherwise). I'd think critically before reaching for pitchforks, though.
In most cases I think I'd agree. I'm suspicious here because of the other things I point out:
1. Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube APIs, although everyone else seems to have access.
2. Google cutting EAS support.
3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8.
4. FRAND patents against XBox.
5. The Google Maps debacle.
Any of these by itself doesn't seem like a big deal, but all put together makes it look like an orchestrated plan by Google, rather than just bumbling Google engineers and incompetent PR people.
1. Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube APIs, although everyone else seems to have access.
2. Google cutting EAS support.
3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8.
4. FRAND patents against XBox.
5. The Google Maps debacle.
Any of these by itself doesn't seem like a big deal, but all put together makes it look like an orchestrated plan by Google, rather than just bumbling Google engineers and incompetent PR people.
> Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube APIs, although everyone else seems to have access.
What? Everyone who? Nobody has access to Google's Youtube API's. Android has a Youtube app because Google made it, and it's the same with iOS. WP will only have a Youtube app if Google makes it, and they won't, and nobody can force them to write for all platforms.
Giving Microsoft access to them would mean giving them preferential treatment over anyone else. Obviously Google is not going to do that.
> Google cutting EAS support.
Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies.
I'm not saying Google didn't do the Maps thing on purpose. Maybe they did. I'm just picking on these because you seem to think that somehow it's not Google's right to do all that.
What? Everyone who? Nobody has access to Google's Youtube API's. Android has a Youtube app because Google made it, and it's the same with iOS. WP will only have a Youtube app if Google makes it, and they won't, and nobody can force them to write for all platforms.
Giving Microsoft access to them would mean giving them preferential treatment over anyone else. Obviously Google is not going to do that.
> Google cutting EAS support.
Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies.
I'm not saying Google didn't do the Maps thing on purpose. Maybe they did. I'm just picking on these because you seem to think that somehow it's not Google's right to do all that.
Yeah, my understanding was that they wanted much more information than is available through the Youtube API, presumably because the Youtube API was not designed to make a full Youtube client replacement, complete with the ability to "search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth".
It's not clear to me why a phone vendor would be entitled to an API that provided that information, especially if theres a mobile web client available (that you don't get redirected from). I understand why a phone vendor would want it, but if Samsung started saying that their new Tizen deserved access to a more fully featured Youtube API, would they be getting any press?
It's not clear to me why a phone vendor would be entitled to an API that provided that information, especially if theres a mobile web client available (that you don't get redirected from). I understand why a phone vendor would want it, but if Samsung started saying that their new Tizen deserved access to a more fully featured Youtube API, would they be getting any press?
From what I can tell there is nothing stopping anyone from making a decent YouTube app with their public API.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_p...
What exactly is missing that they want?
https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_p...
What exactly is missing that they want?
> Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies.
Sounds like a case of Microsoft's user lock-in strategy backfiring. They have had plenty of time to fix their IMAP implementation over the years, but it hasn't been a priority for some reason.
Sounds like a case of Microsoft's user lock-in strategy backfiring. They have had plenty of time to fix their IMAP implementation over the years, but it hasn't been a priority for some reason.
I don't see anyone saying it's not Google's right to do these things. People are simply saying that it looks as though Google is attacking Microsoft.
>I don't see anyone saying it's not Google's right to do these things.
I've seen plenty of people claiming that they think it's an antitrust violation and arguing that regulators should go after them for it. Though I'm not sure when not supporting a small minority platform like Windows Phone became an antitrust violation; if it has then Microsoft had better get to work shipping that edition of Office for FreeBSD.
Also, Google and Microsoft are competitors. And Microsoft has been attacking Google at every opportunity. I suppose using Microsoft as the standard for corporate citizenship is kind of a low bar, but you can only turn the other cheek so many times before some kind of response becomes an inevitability.
Especially when you have such a large organization. People keep thinking that corporations are like individuals, as though the CEO and the full legal department approves every decision an engineer makes before pushing an incremental update to one of a thousand different products.
Stories like this are completely plausible to have happened by accident or by a tiny minority of rogue individuals -- and then, multiply by tens of thousands of engineers, you see more than one such story because Microsoft PR turns every single one into front page news, and confirmation bias makes you believe it's the rule rather than the exception. Opposition research working as intended.
I've seen plenty of people claiming that they think it's an antitrust violation and arguing that regulators should go after them for it. Though I'm not sure when not supporting a small minority platform like Windows Phone became an antitrust violation; if it has then Microsoft had better get to work shipping that edition of Office for FreeBSD.
Also, Google and Microsoft are competitors. And Microsoft has been attacking Google at every opportunity. I suppose using Microsoft as the standard for corporate citizenship is kind of a low bar, but you can only turn the other cheek so many times before some kind of response becomes an inevitability.
Especially when you have such a large organization. People keep thinking that corporations are like individuals, as though the CEO and the full legal department approves every decision an engineer makes before pushing an incremental update to one of a thousand different products.
Stories like this are completely plausible to have happened by accident or by a tiny minority of rogue individuals -- and then, multiply by tens of thousands of engineers, you see more than one such story because Microsoft PR turns every single one into front page news, and confirmation bias makes you believe it's the rule rather than the exception. Opposition research working as intended.
I don't think you've ever actually worked at a large organisation.
Engineers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. That is the purview of the Product Manager and I assure you that senior executives (possibly even the CEO) do sign off on major product decisions like which platforms to support.
Engineers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. That is the purview of the Product Manager and I assure you that senior executives (possibly even the CEO) do sign off on major product decisions like which platforms to support.
I assume that the large organization you've worked at isn't Google.
Product Managers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. Most such decisions are made by consensus within the team (Eng + PM + UX), with the PM acting as the tiebreaker if the team can't reach consensus. Many product decisions are in fact made by engineers - a PM friend of mine once told me "The difference between Microsoft and Google is that at Google, engineers are expected to have product opinions."
As for which platforms to support - it varies based on the scale of the project. There've been times I've made the call myself (as a TL), for smaller projects like doodles and easter eggs. For a larger product like Maps as a whole, I'd imagine a VP would sign off on it.
Yes, in theory the CEO is responsible for everything that goes on at the company. As a matter of culture, though, Google tries to delegate as much decision-making power down to lower levels as possible, and then just deal with the inevitable screwups as they happen. It wouldn't be nearly as nice a place to work otherwise, nor would their "hire the best people and give them the tools and information to do their jobs" strategy work out. Yeah, PR flareups happen, but the team fixed the problem, and I bet we'll forget all about it by next week.
Product Managers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. Most such decisions are made by consensus within the team (Eng + PM + UX), with the PM acting as the tiebreaker if the team can't reach consensus. Many product decisions are in fact made by engineers - a PM friend of mine once told me "The difference between Microsoft and Google is that at Google, engineers are expected to have product opinions."
As for which platforms to support - it varies based on the scale of the project. There've been times I've made the call myself (as a TL), for smaller projects like doodles and easter eggs. For a larger product like Maps as a whole, I'd imagine a VP would sign off on it.
Yes, in theory the CEO is responsible for everything that goes on at the company. As a matter of culture, though, Google tries to delegate as much decision-making power down to lower levels as possible, and then just deal with the inevitable screwups as they happen. It wouldn't be nearly as nice a place to work otherwise, nor would their "hire the best people and give them the tools and information to do their jobs" strategy work out. Yeah, PR flareups happen, but the team fixed the problem, and I bet we'll forget all about it by next week.
It could be argued that the "hire the best people and give them the tools and information to do their jobs" strategy hasn't worked out that well for product management at Google. Google Docs and App Engine are two prime examples of dysfunctional product management that seems to value the opinions of "the best people" (supposedly Google employees) more than those of the customers.
Malcolm Gladwell's article "The Talent Myth" seems fitting: http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm
Malcolm Gladwell's article "The Talent Myth" seems fitting: http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm
>Malcolm Gladwell's article "The Talent Myth" seems fitting
I don't think the article supports your argument. You can't argue against "talent" -- talented people are tautologically more capable than untalented people. If you don't want smart people making decisions, who do you want making them? Stupid people? Some unspecified different group of smart people under unspecified different conditions?
The article makes the strong point that certain reward systems are harmful. If you give anyone who shows strong short-term results a huge bonus and a promotion and anyone who doesn't a pink slip, you create an overwhelming incentive for people to fudge the numbers and take bad risks in order to stay on the A list. But that's not the same thing as hiring the best and brightest and then (perhaps after some probationary period) giving them the equivalent of tenure and autonomy as long as they don't start any major fires.
If the article can be summed up in a single paragraph, it's this:
"Groups don't write great novels, and a committee didn't come up with the theory of relativity. But companies work by different rules. They don't just create; they execute and compete and coordinate the efforts of many different people, and the organizations that are most successful at that task are the ones where the system is the star."
Which is bullocks, because it's overly broad. "Companies" are not a uniform thing. If you're General Electric or NASA and you make jet engines and nuclear reactors and spacecraft, you need to run everything by the lawyers and the actuaries because if you make a mistake then literally planes fall out of the sky.
But you don't design web apps the same way as you design medical devices. The risk profiles are totally, comprehensively different. If a pacemaker fails, someone dies. If Google Maps is not available on your device, you just use Mapquest. Or a paper map. Or ask someone for directions. If some engineer collects wifi data that they probably ought not to have, again no one dies, and the ultimate outcomes in the case of "collected and then deleted before being used" vs. "prevented by bureaucratic process from being collected" are, as far as I am aware, completely identical for all parties other than from a public relations perspective.
When the cost of a mistake is low, it makes good sense to take more risks. If the damage that someone can do is smaller, you don't need to put so much effort into preventing it. Which is good -- it's efficient -- because having to check and double check is slow and expensive.
There are legitimately cases where it costs more to prevent a mistake than to clean it up. In those cases it is completely rational to allow mistakes to happen. Science needs negative results. Sometimes we need to be allowed to make mistakes in order to learn from them. And companies in such industries can do far worse than to act as a risk pooling apparatus for a loosely federated collection of small teams of individual inventors.
This is probably not a strategy that works well if you're making war machines or dangerous chemicals or massive scale financial transactions. But it seems to be a strategy that works well for making web apps.
I mean, they are making billions of dollars. Enron didn't make billions of dollars. Enron lost billions of dollars and then lied about it. That's a pretty big difference.
I don't think the article supports your argument. You can't argue against "talent" -- talented people are tautologically more capable than untalented people. If you don't want smart people making decisions, who do you want making them? Stupid people? Some unspecified different group of smart people under unspecified different conditions?
The article makes the strong point that certain reward systems are harmful. If you give anyone who shows strong short-term results a huge bonus and a promotion and anyone who doesn't a pink slip, you create an overwhelming incentive for people to fudge the numbers and take bad risks in order to stay on the A list. But that's not the same thing as hiring the best and brightest and then (perhaps after some probationary period) giving them the equivalent of tenure and autonomy as long as they don't start any major fires.
If the article can be summed up in a single paragraph, it's this:
"Groups don't write great novels, and a committee didn't come up with the theory of relativity. But companies work by different rules. They don't just create; they execute and compete and coordinate the efforts of many different people, and the organizations that are most successful at that task are the ones where the system is the star."
Which is bullocks, because it's overly broad. "Companies" are not a uniform thing. If you're General Electric or NASA and you make jet engines and nuclear reactors and spacecraft, you need to run everything by the lawyers and the actuaries because if you make a mistake then literally planes fall out of the sky.
But you don't design web apps the same way as you design medical devices. The risk profiles are totally, comprehensively different. If a pacemaker fails, someone dies. If Google Maps is not available on your device, you just use Mapquest. Or a paper map. Or ask someone for directions. If some engineer collects wifi data that they probably ought not to have, again no one dies, and the ultimate outcomes in the case of "collected and then deleted before being used" vs. "prevented by bureaucratic process from being collected" are, as far as I am aware, completely identical for all parties other than from a public relations perspective.
When the cost of a mistake is low, it makes good sense to take more risks. If the damage that someone can do is smaller, you don't need to put so much effort into preventing it. Which is good -- it's efficient -- because having to check and double check is slow and expensive.
There are legitimately cases where it costs more to prevent a mistake than to clean it up. In those cases it is completely rational to allow mistakes to happen. Science needs negative results. Sometimes we need to be allowed to make mistakes in order to learn from them. And companies in such industries can do far worse than to act as a risk pooling apparatus for a loosely federated collection of small teams of individual inventors.
This is probably not a strategy that works well if you're making war machines or dangerous chemicals or massive scale financial transactions. But it seems to be a strategy that works well for making web apps.
I mean, they are making billions of dollars. Enron didn't make billions of dollars. Enron lost billions of dollars and then lied about it. That's a pretty big difference.
I have no doubt that in many cases you will be able to find a piece of paper with a high level executive's signature on it or an email with that person CC'd for all manner of minutiae, and I'm sure if you're a lawyer then you like to make a big deal out of that kind of stuff.
But the truth is, decisions get delegated. The CEO signs off on the VP's recommendation, which was really a mid level manager's recommendation, which really came from someone at the bottom of the totem pole. The degree to which each of the approvers actually decided anything as opposed to merely placing their trust in the subordinate's judgement at any given company is to a large degree a matter of personal preference, individual trust relationships and corporate culture.
Moreover, there are rules and there are facts. Just because the CEO thinks he decided something doesn't mean that by the time the game of telephone is fully played, something distinctly different isn't going into the market. And in altogether too many cases, the first indication the top level executives get that something is awry is an article in the New York Times.
But the truth is, decisions get delegated. The CEO signs off on the VP's recommendation, which was really a mid level manager's recommendation, which really came from someone at the bottom of the totem pole. The degree to which each of the approvers actually decided anything as opposed to merely placing their trust in the subordinate's judgement at any given company is to a large degree a matter of personal preference, individual trust relationships and corporate culture.
Moreover, there are rules and there are facts. Just because the CEO thinks he decided something doesn't mean that by the time the game of telephone is fully played, something distinctly different isn't going into the market. And in altogether too many cases, the first indication the top level executives get that something is awry is an article in the New York Times.
> 2. Google cutting EAS support.
As others pointed out already, android manufacturers are chased by Microsoft for patent royalty to support this proprietary thing (ironic?). It's costly and of no merit, thinking of standard IMAP protocol.
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualprope...
> 3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8.
by app, period. Why bother?
> 4. FRAND patents against XBox.
You can read the story behind this via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104031515319. It's Microsoft's lawyers fxxked up and got backfire.
IMHO, google/motorola is on the defensive, in good faith.
As others pointed out already, android manufacturers are chased by Microsoft for patent royalty to support this proprietary thing (ironic?). It's costly and of no merit, thinking of standard IMAP protocol.
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualprope...
> 3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8.
by app, period. Why bother?
> 4. FRAND patents against XBox.
You can read the story behind this via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104031515319. It's Microsoft's lawyers fxxked up and got backfire.
IMHO, google/motorola is on the defensive, in good faith.
The YouTube API in question only Apple and I remember TiVo had access to it at some point because they had deals with Google. I am sure a few other partners may have access today but it's not exactly everyone.
This is a possible scenario.
On the other hand I've heard first hand a story about MS devs being ordered to break an MS web property on a competing browser. The manager who gave that order now works for Google.
On the other hand I've heard first hand a story about MS devs being ordered to break an MS web property on a competing browser. The manager who gave that order now works for Google.
Eegads, that's depressing.
I'd like to think that he'd find that engineers at Google are nowhere near as compliant as they are at Microsoft if he tried that, though. There've been times I've questioned VPs about whether their decisions really are in the best interest of users. Sometimes they explain and I'm satisfied that it really is, and other times I've just flat out refused to do it without an experiment to verify, and we run the experiment and find that it's not, and then the executive lets it drop.
I'd like to think that he'd find that engineers at Google are nowhere near as compliant as they are at Microsoft if he tried that, though. There've been times I've questioned VPs about whether their decisions really are in the best interest of users. Sometimes they explain and I'm satisfied that it really is, and other times I've just flat out refused to do it without an experiment to verify, and we run the experiment and find that it's not, and then the executive lets it drop.
I used to work at Microsoft and can say that acknowledging the existence of Android was for a long time absolutely verboten, even at the VP level. I believe this was abandoned when Android passed 50% market share or so. Google's monetization strategy terrifies Microsoft more than Apple- Microsoft understands Apple's business model.
If this is to be believed as anything other than rumor and innuendo, it would be productive if you could supply the manager's name. Both to prove that it's a real person, and so that anyone in a position to do so is better able to have them fired.
You deserve to be banned for this.
You don't attempt to publicly slander a person's reputation (on an influential site like HN no less) based on unsubstantiated heresay.
You don't attempt to publicly slander a person's reputation (on an influential site like HN no less) based on unsubstantiated heresay.
I'm sorry, what? My primary point is that the poster won't be able to supply any name because the story is exceedingly likely to have been spread by public relations flacks and no such person actually exists.
And if such a person does exist, then it isn't slander if it's true.
And if such a person does exist, then it isn't slander if it's true.
"And if such a person does exist, then it isn't slander if it's true."
It's slander if we have a name and the statement is false.
Also there is a, very possible, potential that the person isn't here to defend their reputation. Thus having a name provides us with no clarity and potentially harms an individual's reputation.
I think it's enough that you've made the point that this should be taken with a grain of salt.
It's slander if we have a name and the statement is false.
Also there is a, very possible, potential that the person isn't here to defend their reputation. Thus having a name provides us with no clarity and potentially harms an individual's reputation.
I think it's enough that you've made the point that this should be taken with a grain of salt.
OK, I should clarify, I am not looking for mob justice here. My intent in asking for the name is not for the purpose of publicizing it (again, I have my suspicions that it even exists), but rather so that if someone has actually done such a thing then the appropriate higher ups can be notified and some formal accountability can follow.
Maybe the thing to ask is not that it be posted here but that it be supplied to some officials at the company so that they can conduct an investigation and ascertain the truth. Would that be more to everyone's satisfaction?
Maybe the thing to ask is not that it be posted here but that it be supplied to some officials at the company so that they can conduct an investigation and ascertain the truth. Would that be more to everyone's satisfaction?
(Technically, it'd be libel, not slander. Libel is written, slander is verbal, and we write on the Internet.)
Pedantry aside, I also don't think it's appropriate to name names. There's too much risk of not getting the full story when you name & shame on a public forum, and it can have very real consequences for people's lives. If you wouldn't want 4chan or SomethingAwful doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
Pedantry aside, I also don't think it's appropriate to name names. There's too much risk of not getting the full story when you name & shame on a public forum, and it can have very real consequences for people's lives. If you wouldn't want 4chan or SomethingAwful doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
I stand corrected.
Sane perspectives like the above are why I come here instead of say r/technology where the dominant mindset currently paints a picture of Larry Page sitting alone in a room like Mojojojo, disabling APIs from Google properties to competing platforms with the pull of a lever.
Seems like it was WP7 performance that was the deciding factor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfTS1f8vqAo
The mistake seems to have been not testing WP8 performance with the new IE engine before setting up a blanket block. Only the older devices needed to be blocked.
The mistake seems to have been not testing WP8 performance with the new IE engine before setting up a blanket block. Only the older devices needed to be blocked.
The only problem with that is the follow-up statement(1) from Google indicating that the re-direct was not something that was recently added and that it has always been in place when that has not been the case.
The fact that they made a couple different statements (first it was that Google Maps only works with Webkit-based browsers, and now the re-direct nonsense) that are not completely truthful makes me doubtful.
1) http://www.zdnet.com/google-shouldnt-forget-history-when-blo...
The fact that they made a couple different statements (first it was that Google Maps only works with Webkit-based browsers, and now the re-direct nonsense) that are not completely truthful makes me doubtful.
1) http://www.zdnet.com/google-shouldnt-forget-history-when-blo...
This seems to fit with the fact that even here on HN, people were claiming that Mobile Google Maps did not work with Mobile IE10 but now(?) does. That seems like it would be easy to overlook: Block for broken version, push new version, people change UA and find the new version works in IE10M?
Who knows, either way, it seems like Google would rather have more users (for data/to brag about/to show ads to) than block them out of spite for a mobile platform that is still struggling to be relevant.
Who knows, either way, it seems like Google would rather have more users (for data/to brag about/to show ads to) than block them out of spite for a mobile platform that is still struggling to be relevant.
That shows it working fine on Windows Phone 8, not Windows Phone 7.X. Here's a video of a device running it on 7.X: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfTS1f8vqAo
Practically unusable. Seems like they didn't test WP8 devices before making the call for whatever reason.
Practically unusable. Seems like they didn't test WP8 devices before making the call for whatever reason.
"The same Google spokesperson said the redirection for Windows Phone users seeking access to Google Maps via IE in the browser has "always" been in place."
I don't think I've ever seen this. I had a Windows Phone a few months ago and was able to browse the site with only a few problems (panning was kinda laggy and a couple other graphical issues).
I was kind of supportive of Google, placing my faith with them to make the best of the situations, but the reasons they gave are disjoint, and some past problems are giving me the impression they're just attacking the platform as a whole.
I don't think I've ever seen this. I had a Windows Phone a few months ago and was able to browse the site with only a few problems (panning was kinda laggy and a couple other graphical issues).
I was kind of supportive of Google, placing my faith with them to make the best of the situations, but the reasons they gave are disjoint, and some past problems are giving me the impression they're just attacking the platform as a whole.
When it took a few months to deliver a quality Google Maps for iOS after Apple removed GMaps, the speculation was Google was withholding it on purpose to "hurt" iOS and help Android. Other speculation was that Apple was deliberately not approving it for anti-competitive reasons. The truth was neither, the reality is, quality software takes time.
Look at all the hoopla over Facebook's abandonment of HTML5 on mobile. HTML5 is not write-once run anywhere on mobile, where implementations are deliberately constrained in CPU and memory, and where GPU acceleration is all over the map. To get good performance out of HTML5 on mobile, people often have to tune specifically against an OS and browser version. Sencha went through herculean efforts to tease out good performance in their Fastbook HTML5 clone.
I think people should not jump so fast to nefarious conspiracy theories and give things time.
Look at all the hoopla over Facebook's abandonment of HTML5 on mobile. HTML5 is not write-once run anywhere on mobile, where implementations are deliberately constrained in CPU and memory, and where GPU acceleration is all over the map. To get good performance out of HTML5 on mobile, people often have to tune specifically against an OS and browser version. Sencha went through herculean efforts to tease out good performance in their Fastbook HTML5 clone.
I think people should not jump so fast to nefarious conspiracy theories and give things time.
When will Microsoft start working to remove their arbitrary limitations on Windows Phone so that Google and Mozilla can port their browsers to it?
What limitations are those? Windows Phone 8 allows native code which was a stumbling block in WP 7.
You might be right -- WP8 introduces an unmanaged C++ SDK, and some people from the Chromium project are currently evaluating it:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=153802
The other stumbling block was a licensing issue where the Windows Phone Marketplace prohibits copyleft licenses, which prevents software like Firefox from being published there:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/02/window...
That's again from the WP7 days, so the agreement might have changed since then, but if it hasn't, and if there's no way to sideload apps onto WP8, then it's a major blocker for Firefox.
Opera's last statement on the matter was on Oct 1, and at that time they were still waiting to see what avenues the SDK would allow.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=153802
The other stumbling block was a licensing issue where the Windows Phone Marketplace prohibits copyleft licenses, which prevents software like Firefox from being published there:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/02/window...
That's again from the WP7 days, so the agreement might have changed since then, but if it hasn't, and if there's no way to sideload apps onto WP8, then it's a major blocker for Firefox.
Opera's last statement on the matter was on Oct 1, and at that time they were still waiting to see what avenues the SDK would allow.
The damage is done and Google has tainted their good name with consumers. This isn't just a case that pissed off developers, this is actually moms, dads, and grandmas who suddenly find themselves annoyed by Google.
Are you kidding me?
"The damage is done and Google has tainted their good name with consumers."
Remember how many times MS did taint their "good name"? Did it hurt them?
What do we have know? Moms, dads, grandmas and grandpas who thought MS was a "good name" and who hence bought Windows phones who are pissed off at Google, telling their kids / grandkids how nasty Google is.
And their kids / grand-kids are answering them:
"I told you to buy either an iPhone or an Android phone mom/dad/grandma"
and having a good laugh.
Remember how many times MS did taint their "good name"? Did it hurt them?
What do we have know? Moms, dads, grandmas and grandpas who thought MS was a "good name" and who hence bought Windows phones who are pissed off at Google, telling their kids / grandkids how nasty Google is.
And their kids / grand-kids are answering them:
"I told you to buy either an iPhone or an Android phone mom/dad/grandma"
and having a good laugh.
> Remember how many times MS did taint their "good name"? Did it hurt them?
Yes, it most definitely did. Many developers left Microsoft platforms for Linux and later OS X, for various reasons but including Microsoft's actions. (It was my reason.)
Stories like this harm the Google brand, and that is never a consequence-free thing.
Yes, it most definitely did. Many developers left Microsoft platforms for Linux and later OS X, for various reasons but including Microsoft's actions. (It was my reason.)
Stories like this harm the Google brand, and that is never a consequence-free thing.
My favorite is the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-os2-20-fiasco-...
A few days of blocking an unsupported device and the damage is done? Wow, doesn't take much to do damage these days, also considering they are working on fixing it already (on a weekend).
I don't see Microsoft being harmed much by all the blatant FUD anti-Google campaigns (most of which backfired). Still a whole bunch of Microsoft fanboys commenting that they'll never use a Google product again and switching too all Microsoft products following this user agent blocking news.
I don't see Microsoft being harmed much by all the blatant FUD anti-Google campaigns (most of which backfired). Still a whole bunch of Microsoft fanboys commenting that they'll never use a Google product again and switching too all Microsoft products following this user agent blocking news.
Reminds me of when Chrome was "mistakenly" classified as a virus by Microsoft:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/03/microsoft-chr...
Are they breaking each others' tech in a war of plausible deniability?
Are they breaking each others' tech in a war of plausible deniability?
google has some other mobile unfriendly redirects in place, in my case they break http://search-by-drawing.franz-enzenhofer.com/ for mobile devices. basically googles search by image feature redirects any standard search by image url to the google homepage, if a mobile device is detected. why? http://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!category-topic/web... "Just to follow up on this, this isn't working because we haven't designed it for mobile yet (phones or tablets)." (but it would work perfectly fine, if the just would scrap the redirect)
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
In this post they say:
"In our last test, IE mobile still did not offer a good maps experience with no ability to pan or zoom and perform basic map functionality. As a result, we chose to continue to redirect IE mobile users to Google.com where they could at least make local searches. The Firefox mobile browser did offer a somewhat better user experience and that’s why there is no redirect for those users.
Recent improvements to IE mobile and Google Maps now deliver a better experience and we are currently working to remove the redirect."
When did they last test it? In any case, why did they say this the day before:
"The mobile web version of Google Maps is optimized for WebKit browsers such as Chrome and Safari. However, since Internet Explorer is not a WebKit browser, Windows Phone devices are not able to access Google Maps for the mobile web."
Those aren't the same reason at all. And it's not like Google is a company that should be confused about how browsers and browser engines work.
And of course here is video showing mobile IE working just fine on mobile Google Maps (pinch to zoom, panning, etc...):
http://wmpoweruser.com/video-proves-that-the-google-maps-mob...
This coupled with the ending of GMail EAS support, not allowing YouTube APIs, and their explicit statement they are not going to support WP8, makes me think they have a clear mission to attack Windows Phone, but may have stepped a bit too far too quickly on this one. But I think they'll find a way to exclude support in the future if they can find a way.