Hacker News Reader

Comment by sz | Hacker News Reader

It's hard for me to feel the same way about a Google-sponsored open source project as I do about Microsoft's commercial ventures.

Maybe it's just the masterful PR, but I really do believe Google is actually doing good here.

View on HN

Google aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Just like with WebM/VP8, there's huge commercial value in this for them. This doesn't make the project any less worthy, but their OSS approach shouldn't veil their corporate gain.

This doesn't make the project any less worthy, but their OSS approach shouldn't veil their corporate gain.

On the contrary, that actually makes it more worthy, since they're providing a clear example of how a publicly-traded company can profit by being a good corporate citizen.

Google open sources things when it is beneficial to them to do so, or when it is not very central to their business strategy. Every time an oem takes the android source and makes it run on a new device, they are doing Google a favor, and missing an oppertunity to differentiate themselves from other handset makers.

So yes, it is good to show that there is a way to make money giving away open source software, but i'm not at all convinced it is an example other companies out there right now could actually follow. Google is in a position where they can make lots of money off of people's attention without directly taking their money, so they can afford to give away a MASSIVE piece of software to anyone who asks. Who else could do that? Maybe Microsoft. But I can't think of anyone else. The amount of money and man hours Google has spent on Android must be truly staggering, the fact that they can recoup it on advertising dollars alone is really, really impressive.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a general accomplishment. This "doing well by doing good" thing could inspire people who run companies in other industries as well.

It's called win-win. The handset makers are not doing Google a favor, they are saving the costs for developing their own OS.

Exactly, do you have any idea how bad phone software is? Have you ever tried to use Nokia's MusicXpress? God what a nightmare. Most phone related software is diabolically horrible. The sheer torture I had to go through to get playlists synced to my phone is unreal.

The reason the iPhone (and more recently Android based systems) are doing well is the great software, which has been lacking since phones started doing more than calls & SMS.

For the good of humanity this part of phone development must be taken from the phone makers hands. The next greatest thing to come out after sliced bread will be an Android -Lite for use in normal, low end phones, I look forward to this day with bated breath(Google Android developers, if your reading).

I agree. I mean, most of Google's software projects are open source lately. Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their projects to make them better. I think the comparison to Microsoft in this article are kind of off base here. I mean, look at WebM... Google acquired the codecs and technology when they bought On2 a while back and now instead of sitting on it or using it for proprietary purposes, they completely open it up so people have a choice for an open web standard.

So if google does one thing you like, then their off the hook?

> Not only that, but they encourage developers from all over to work on their projects to make them better.

Of course they do... free labor that they can make money off of, even if indirectly.

No, that's not what I mean. I just think there's a lot more merit in what Google is doing than what Microsoft did with things like IE, entering in gaming, etc...and keeping everything proprietary on top of it.

Google shouldn't be immune to criticism, but I just think it's misplaced here. Yeah, the draconian comment was stupid and probably not the best reasoning to give, but they're doing things in a good way in my view.

It's true, they're not like Microsoft in their method. But every good thing they do makes us more dependant on them. Even if the founders are without spot (hard to believe given the "if you have something to hide" comment), they wont live forever. What will we do when all competition has died off thanks to Googles goodness and they decide that "evil" means "things that don't make us more profits"?

I don't hate google, I use them for things. But I really hate the wreckless abandon with which people embrace them. The market can't "correct" them when they do wrong because they have another source for their income.

Very true. I'm definitely more weary of them as they get bigger and expand into more and more markets, but I think there will always be alternatives in the future. I mean, who knew Microsoft would be second in so many areas at this point?

I don't mean to paint a doomsday scenario, I know that if google turns evil we'll find a way to break out of it.

It's just that in my opinion MS' lock in set the computer industry back at least 10 years. I think we could have a lot more advanced technology today if we hadn't been locked into an inferior platform for so long (today it's not as inferior, but imo everything pre-win2000 had superior alternatives).

I would hate to suffer another set back by too many people betting on the same horse again.

EDIT: Clarification

I agree. And I think with the openness of the internet and free technologies (especially ones that Google is now promoting), people will be able to break free easier than they were when Microsoft was ruling. Information flows freer now, a lot of things are becoming open source so people can make their own changes or versions of software, and there's a lot more competition than there was back in the day (especially in areas like the browser market).

I think WebM is a good thing, but then I also think Apple's Webkit is a good thing too. Doesn't give either of them a free pass in other areas.

Something that annoyed me for a long time as an Apple user was that people would criticize them very strongly for the wrong things, while ignoring, not understanding or actively embracing them when they did bad stuff. It seemed to be the wrong kind of feedback loop. (The absolute roasting they got from Mac developers when they suggested web apps were the future being a good example).

For an example of a Google faux pas, they're crowdsourcing map data in the developing world and then keeping the data proprietary.

If we can't give feedback about companies at any granularity lower than loving or hating the whole company then we're in trouble as an industry (and sadly that often seems to be the case).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com