Microsoft should attack Google for its proprietary ways

[brmiller1976]

Tell you what, Irvin -- I'll steal his car. Then you point out that I didn't steal YOUR car, so his car wasn't stolen. Then -- free car for me, and I'll split the proceeds of the sale with you and celebrate what a cool Don't Be Evil group we are!

 

[HeyCori]

Vaguely worded criticisms are fun and all....

What did google steal from you, personally ?

From me personally? Nothing as I'm not reliant on any Google services.

Well, other than the fact that I've watched as the internet become more infested with more Google ads, robbing me of a positive web browsing experience.

And of course they're actively sabotaging ActiveSync, maps.google.com, and Youtube on WP. Something that has a detrimental affect for all those that depend on those services. And then there's purposely hacking browsers to ignore Do Not Track Settings, downloading data from WiFi networks without permission, illegally scanning copyrighted material without the author's permission, and forcing inferior proprietary formats on people.

But if you're argument is that all those things are okay because Google didn't personally slap me in the face then you should stop with that argument, because it's terrible.

Or, if you're argument is, well other companies do bad stuff too, that argument is also terrible because two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[irvin792]

Tell you what, Irvin -- I'll steal his car. Then you point out that I didn't steal YOUR car, so his car wasn't stolen. Then -- free car for me, and I'll split the proceeds of the sale with you and celebrate what a cool Don't Be Evil group we are!

lmao Brilliant!!!!!

 

[ohgood]

1) From me personally? Nothing as I'm not reliant on any Google services.

2) Well, other than the fact that I've watched as the internet become more infested with more Google ads, robbing me of a positive web browsing experience.

3) And of course they're actively sabotaging ActiveSync, maps.google.com, and Youtube on WP. Something that has a detrimental affect for all those that depend on those services. 4) And then there's purposely hacking browsers to ignore Do Not Track Settings,
5) downloading data from WiFi networks without permission,
6) illegally scanning copyrighted material without the author's permission, and
7) forcing inferior proprietary formats on people.

8) But if you're argument is that all those things are okay because Google didn't personally slap me in the face then you should stop with that argument, because it's terrible.

9) Or, if you're argument is, well other companies do bad stuff too, that argument is also terrible because two wrongs don't make a right.

1) ok, cool
2) I love adblock, flashblock, chrome
3) mmm
4) not an expert in this
5) ditto
6) gotta disagree, a book should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. This is a huge benefit to kids, education, etc. I think its called "fair use" but I'm no lawyer. The scans kinda suck, compared to pay-for digital copies, if that helps anyone feel better. I like the library. Everyone can't goto a library without fear of beheading.
7) mmm, I remember trying to open word documents on newer/older versions of word... the irony
8) just wondering how you were personally effected
9) nah didn't argue that either

Good points, thanks for the opinion

 

[kerryprsp]

A lot of people especially Google fans fail to realize that Google's bread and butter is advertising and it's products are made to get information on it's user base to sell to advertisers. In other words, Google's true customers are the advertisers.

 

[HeyCori]

6) gotta disagree, a book should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. This is a huge benefit to kids, education, etc. I think its called "fair use" but I'm no lawyer. The scans kinda suck, compared to pay-for digital copies, if that helps anyone feel better. I like the library. Everyone can't goto a library without fear of beheading.

I'm not against digital books, the problem was that Google wasn't going to pay author's for their work. A lawsuit occurred around 2009ish and project was put on hold. I haven't heard about it since.

7) mmm, I remember trying to open word documents on newer/older versions of word... the irony

I'm not sure what you mean. Newer versions of Word have, as far as I know, always been backwards compatible with the older versions of Word.

 

[ohgood]

I'm not against digital books, the problem was that Google wasn't going to pay author's for their work. A lawsuit occurred around 2009ish and project was put on hold. I haven't heard about it since.



I'm not sure what you mean. Newer versions of Word have, as far as I know, always been backwards compatible with the older versions of Word.

Folks that fear the loss of knowledge to rot and civil unrest are building scanning machines to preserve books in digital form, forever. If there are enough digital copies, in enough places that aren't riddled with drm, there is hope. Do you expect children living on $3 a month to pay royalties ? I don't. Let them read and learn. Otherwise they will learn what war is. Who should pay ? Good question, I'm not sure.

I haven't used office in 6-7 years, (This statement makes microsoft very nervous) and don't miss the inconsistencies. One file is fine, another corrupt, a third unrecoverable. All generated on one or another version, of the same software. Before someone calls google evil, or "stolen office", I'm not using that suite much either. But I'm very happy with what I have.

 

[brmiller1976]

I doubt that Microsoft is "very nervous" that Google fans don't use Office.

The few major sites that experimented with OpenOffice or Google Docs as a replacement for Office have mostly returned to Microsoft solutions. The highest-profile "Microsoft defector," a town in Germany, returned quite recently after noting that the cost of the poor UI for OpenOffice and Google Docs -- along with reduced productivity -- more than ate up any savings they got from using "free" software.

 

[stmav]

While a noble statement, what does it have to do with Google not paying an author. Very misdirecting.

 

[HeyCori]

Folks that fear the loss of knowledge to rot and civil unrest are building scanning machines to preserve books in digital form, forever. If there are enough digital copies, in enough places that aren't riddled with drm, there is hope. Do you expect children living on $3 a month to pay royalties ? I don't. Let them read and learn. Otherwise they will learn what war is. Who should pay ? Good question, I'm not sure.

I haven't used office in 6-7 years, (This statement makes microsoft very nervous) and don't miss the inconsistencies. One file is fine, another corrupt, a third unrecoverable. All generated on one or another version, of the same software. Before someone calls google evil, or "stolen office", I'm not using that suite much either. But I'm very happy with what I have.

As stmav said, that was a very misdirecting reply using straw man tactics. No reason to give a legitimate reply.

I will instead watch this thread to check for thread crapping and derailing.

 

[brmiller1976]

I have to love the idea that Google can be trusted to "preserve a work for posterity without DRM," at the same time that it's using its proprietary APIs and browser-agent codes to lock out users it doesn't want. Limiting access based on any characteristic that Google doesn't like is just another form of DRM... no different than Apple saying you cannot play an iTunes DRM song on a Samsung MP3 player.

 

[ohgood]

I doubt that Microsoft is "very nervous" that Google fans don't use Office.

The few major sites that experimented with OpenOffice or Google Docs as a replacement for Office have mostly returned to Microsoft solutions. The highest-profile "Microsoft defector," a town in Germany, returned quite recently after noting that the cost of the poor UI for OpenOffice and Google Docs -- along with reduced productivity -- more than ate up any savings they got from using "free" software.

I wish that town the best, and and the "few major sites" the same. Putting a few pecks at a keyboard into a file doesn't need a revamp of software every 2-3 years, for me.

 

[ohgood]

While a noble statement, what does it have to do with Google not paying an author. Very misdirecting.

Sorry, google wasn't my focus. More precisely, who should pay the author: the scanner, the isp, the reader, or every step along the way ? It was a question, not a misdirection. Where does fair use happen ? I'm not really sure.

 

[ohgood]

I have to love the idea that Google can be trusted to "preserve a work for posterity without DRM," at the same time that it's using its proprietary APIs and browser-agent codes to lock out users it doesn't want. Limiting access based on any characteristic that Google doesn't like is just another form of DRM... no different than Apple saying you cannot play an iTunes DRM song on a Samsung MP3 player.

much more than just google. How about 10 or 20000 scanners, all archiving files without drm ? could regular libraries be trusted to do it and backup the digital files redundantly ? If microsoft was doing the same, would it become ok with or without drm ?

 

[AngryNil]

Fair use generally entails the limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as education and research, whereby "limited" can mean a restriction to a chapter or similar.

Neither Microsoft nor Google should be trusted with the scanning, you would want a party with few to no ulterior motives or chances of future misuse. Huge, profit-making corporations don't fit that bill.

 

[omniusovermind]

Given that the founder of MS is a regular attendee of arguably the most secretive meeting in the world, with arguably the world's most powerful elite, I find this thread's accusations rich in irony.

 

[ohgood]

Fair use generally entails the limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as education and research, whereby "limited" can mean a restriction to a chapter or similar.

Neither Microsoft nor Google should be trusted with the scanning, you would want a party with few to no ulterior motives or chances of future misuse. Huge, profit-making corporations don't fit that bill.

I know you're on the right track, but who does fit the description ? If regular joes do it, they get slammed with dcma and copyright suits. I'm guessing the acceptable numbers of torrents just continue...

 

[ohgood]

Given that the founder of MS is a regular attendee of arguably the most secretive meeting in the world, with arguably the world's most powerful elite, I find this thread's accusations rich in irony.

The irony helps with levity of the accusations... there is still real content too ;-)

 

[Big Supes]

Do you know if the same is true in Firefox?

AFAIK, no. Firefox is a pretty solid browser, IMO.

But my phone isn't allowed access to microsofts bing ! (Touche)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Bing is available on all browsers. . . unlike Gmaps! Touch?!

I read, sounds lame, and like crap browsers if they're tricked by the cookie monster. My 4 year old knows all the cookie monsters tricks. Sheesh.

Comparing Google to an irresponsible child is actually quite fitting. Unfortunately it doesn't excuse Google. It's no different to claiming it's ok to let yourself into a strangers home, if they have failed to lock their door at night.

I have to say, I'm quite bemused by your blind loyalty towards Google throughout this conversation. What is the source of this reasoning? :wink:

 

[Big Supes]

Given that the founder of MS is a regular attendee of arguably the most secretive meeting in the world, with arguably the world's most powerful elite, I find this thread's accusations rich in irony.

I'm more curious as to what you're accusing Mr Gates of? Apart from being an attendee of some glorified freemasons. . .