
Google "working to remove" the redirect from Google Maps on Windows Phone - depoll
http://www.zdnet.com/google-shouldnt-forget-history-when-blocking-its-competitors-products-7000009411/
======
kenjackson
Something really odd is going on at Google.

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...](http://wmpoweruser.com/video-proves-that-the-google-maps-mobile-web-
app-is-perfectly-usable-on-windows-phone/)

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.

~~~
nostrademons
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.

~~~
kenjackson
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.

~~~
mtgx
> 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.

~~~
magicalist
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?

~~~
rodion_89
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...](https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol)

What exactly is missing that they want?

------
Posibyte
_"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.

------
cromwellian
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.

------
aphexairlines
When will Microsoft start working to remove their arbitrary limitations on
Windows Phone so that Google and Mozilla can port their browsers to it?

~~~
doublec
What limitations are those? Windows Phone 8 allows native code which was a
stumbling block in WP 7.

~~~
aphexairlines
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...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2011/02/windows-phone-marketplace-bans-the-gpl-and-the-app-store-
should-too/)

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.

------
sergiotapia
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.

~~~
martinced
"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.

~~~
azakai
> 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.

~~~
yuhong
My favorite is the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco:
[http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-
os2-20-fiasco-...](http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-
os2-20-fiasco-px00307-and-dr.html)

------
brownbat
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...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/03/microsoft-chrome-virus)

Are they breaking each others' tech in a war of plausible deniability?

------
franze
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...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!category-
topic/websearch/google-images/2YQZwS0xtP0) "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)

