Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google now owns Twitch!
- Thread starter bobenhaus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh joy, now they can try to use it as another weapon against Microsoft and screw over some users.
And how does anything Google has done recently help with innovation? How does attacking Microsoft through their products help drive prices down? How is any of this good for anyone other than Google?
What an astounding viewpoint coming from someone who is obviously a Microsoft supporter.
You're either pretty young or you have a very short memory.
I'm sorry, please tell me the relevance of the past where Microsoft has been sued and lost to now that Google is able to do the same crap and get praised for it? Oh, right, it helps show the double standard where Google is praised for the same behavior that Microsoft was being sued for. :|
as long, as they keep it a separate site and don't merge it into youtube livestream its a great move.
Google has a history of giving Microsoft and their users the finger, and this isn't likely to change with this purchase.
OK, pardon me for being out of the loop on this but what has Google given Microsoft the finger at?
For instance, Microsoft was going to have a Nokia phone running Android and they (Micorosoft) are nixing that.
Alright, let's look at all of the Google Apps that have been made for Windows 8. You'll find Google Search. Or how about abusing the ticking system with Chrome that leads to it draining battery life on laptops? We could always go with throwing out EAS and almost making it to where WP users can't get Gmail at the very least. We could go with actively fighting against Microsoft making a YouTube app, giving special conditions that they don't even follow. All of those are just off the top of my head.
Google is a strong force that is throwing its weight around where it has it.
We compare that to Microsoft that has just this week announced applications for the Amazon Fire phone.
Edit: Let's not forget the horrible Metro Chrome version that is really Chrome OS. That's less giving Microsoft a finger, though, and just Windows users.
If you think Google is doing anything even remotely similar to what Microsoft was doing in the 90's then you do not understand either situation.
----------
None of that is even close to what MS was doing nor is it anticompetitive. If Google doesn't want to support a platform with less than 5 percent market share they don't have to waste their time and money. The fact that all their apps and services are available on their biggest competitors ios supports this.
Google would be similar to Microsoft if they were doing something as outrageous as approaching Htc, Samsung and anyone else making windows phones and told them they would bar them from licensing android and google services if they continued to use any Microsoft products or services.
I believe the key word, one that every single person here is missing, is was. Microsoft used to do those things. Also, you underestimate the way that Google controls Android. Anyone can use it, it's Open Source, but it has a lot of holes without Google's own special software. It's obvious to anyone who looks that this isn't some random error, this is by design.
Do you expect Microsoft to include office in Windows? Nah didn't think so... And given one of Google's biggest competitors is basing their whole mobile experience around android with their own custom ecosystem there's not much validity in your argument.
And I don't care what they do now, Microsoft massively and illegally exploited their monopoly for over a decade.... Too little too late. It just means that I can sit by and smugly watch their decline.
Depends on the SKU of Windows. Certain ones get a free version of Office.
Also, you're ignoring my actual argument about Android. There are major issues with AOSP that aren't fixed. They don't get fixed because most companies just pay Google to be able to sit their services on it (which fixed a lot of the issues).
By the way, it's nice to know that I shouldn't bother responding after this. Your response made it kind of obvious that you're not a serious poster.
This is wrong, the conditions MS had to use are exactly the same that all 3rd party developers must use.
Strangely enough that the owner of a service uses private API's? In what world?