Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Backs Down On Maps Redirect

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the on-second-thought dept.

Google 240

Dupple writes "A few days ago Google blocked access to its maps on Windows Phone 8, claiming that it 'worked best' on WebKit-based browsers — effectively excluding WP8 users. This, despite Google Maps working fine on desktop versions of IE that use the same rendering engine and users being able to spoof the user agent string on their WP8 devices to gain access. Now it appears that Google has backed down and is now allowing WP8 users access."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't be evil (5, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#42496421)

How soon they forget.

Re:Don't be evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496573)

You were same fucking assholes who complained when Microsoft excluded people 10 years ago by using propriety APIs. Google wants to use open APIs and now they are being "evil". They want to remove the crap API code and the easiest way to start that was denying access when using Internet Explorer. Its not a monopoly when you have choices. Don't like Google Maps, use Bing Maps, don't like Google, use Bing. There is a choice shop being a bunch of crying fucking babies.

Re:Don't be evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496579)

Don't be evil to whom?

Google has always been evil.

Re:Don't be evil (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#42496777)

To me. Fix the Chrome focus stealing for fuck's sake!

Re:Don't be evil (3, Informative)

allo (1728082) | about 2 years ago | (#42497049)

use kwin and try to change the level of focus stealing prevention (maybe only with a per window rule)

Re:Don't be evil (3, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about 2 years ago | (#42497523)

They were pretty cool before the IPO, after that their morals have been in a slow downward spiral. Although I wouldn't consider this move evil, just petty and immature.

Re:Don't be evil (3, Insightful)

carvell (764574) | about 2 years ago | (#42496667)

Can we please have one discussion regarding Google without somebody chiming in with the "Don't Be Evil" thing?

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496693)

Wouldn't that be evil?

Re:Don't be evil (4, Insightful)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 2 years ago | (#42496695)

If they hadn't made the grand declaration of it being their motto in that holier than thou kind of way which was directed at companies like Microsoft, then yes, but since they did, then no.

Re:Don't be evil (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496831)

Google has yet to behave in the same manner Microsoft has for decades.

It is funny how the "Hey Google, stop being evil!" only applies to Google controlling how Microsoft uses its systems. If a Microsoft employee walked onto my property, it is a right to kick them off, not "being evil."

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497553)

Google has yet to behave in the same manner Microsoft has for decades.

*exactly* the same? no. no one can behave exactly the same, but google pulls similar stunts and WORSE....

plus there's all that data they collect across all their services and products (think about all of that some day.. it's a lot more than most realize, and the 'i have nothing to hide' argument is bullshit, everybody does), that they will never, ever purge. the data they have on, and can match up to, people is way more massive and intrusive than all but the spookiest of acronyms.

Re:Don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496833)

They're not an open source comunity, but a company. That means, the product is tightly linked to their image. If they believed it wouldn't render well, then they're right to block access.

People seem to confuse this practice with something similar practiced by some websites in ancient times before Firefox became popular, when anything but Internet Explorer was blocked. Which was due to the web developers snobbery and lazyness, than any actual marketing concerns.

Frankly, right now, the WinPhones need all the publicity they can get, but if they need to stoop this low, then the numbers must be really really bad.

Re:Don't be evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496941)

They're not an open source comunity, but a company. That means, the product is tightly linked to their image. If they believed it wouldn't render well, then they're right to block access

Such is the justification of the sanctimonious.

Thanks for proving the point.

Re:Don't be evil (4, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42497185)

If they believed it wouldn't render well, then they're right to block access.

Except why would they believe that it didn't render well unless, you know, it actually didn't render well?

People seem to confuse this practice with something similar practiced by some websites in ancient times before Firefox became popular, when anything but Internet Explorer was blocked.

It looks to me like people are correctly equating the practice with a Microsoft service requiring that the user agent be Internet Explorer even when it works fine on different browsers.

It also looks to me like you are working hard trying to convolute the issue in order to make it seem like Google didn't just do what it did.

Re:Don't be evil (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42497075)

Ohhh, I don't know about all that. The DOJ spent - what? - nineteen months and several millions of dollars investigating Google. They couldn't find anything with which to beat Google down. I would guess that Google isn't doing a very good job of being evil. Note that they said "don't be evil", they did not say "let's be fucking saints".

Can Google screw up? Yes.

Has Google screwed up? Yes.

Has Google pissed me off? Yes.

Even so, Google is more good than bad. Microsoft can't say the same. The DOJ was about to tear them a new asshole, until George Bush took office. Bush Junior has never met a monopoly that he didn't like, so the DOJ was called off.

Re:Don't be evil (0)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 2 years ago | (#42496729)

It would seem not...

No (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496743)

Can we please have one discussion regarding Google without somebody chiming in with the "Don't Be Evil" thing?

No. "Don't be evil" was the founders mantra and part of their mission statement for Google.

Well, they're not following that anymore. And I think it's necessary for people to post this to remind us of Google's desire not to be another Microsoft.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#42497107)

microsoft has been evil a lot.

Re:Don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497499)

Define evil.
What ethical theory are you using to determine that what Google is doing is evil? Then please explain its application. Because, as I understand it there is really no such thing as evil. Unless maybe if your religious, and I don't recall any religious doctrine that explicitly relates to the internet.

If I were to use the idea that limiting is evil, then by negation i would have to assume that allowing any browser (other than the one you personally developed) into your services is good. So the fact that they are allowing Firefox, Desktop IE, Safari, Opera, etc... In to any of their services is a good thing. So, the limiting of one of those platforms (Eg: windows phone 8 IE) is simply less good, not evil. It's not Google's fault that IE has decided that Microsoft doesn't like WebKit, and why should they be required to code their services differently because Microsoft doesn't like how they are doing something. Especially since Microsoft was guilty of the same issue they are now accusing Google of.
Google has provided the interface, it should be Microsoft's job to make it work with their software. It is not Google's job to make their interface work with everyone else software, unless the interface is somehow a bad interface. Since every other browser seems to have no issue with it, I would have to assume that is not the case.
Heck why is anyone even complaining? After all goggle maps is a free service. And you going to complain because Google wants to make sure it works right the device your using? Just a few years ago almost every mapping service cost a lot of money, now in less than a few seconds you can look up an address get a map with directions, and not have to pay a cent? How cool is that, where is the evil? Am i to understand that you think it's evil because they are limiting one interface on one platform? Cant you just download Firefox, or Chrome and bypass that one issue? It's not like they are saying WP8 can't use it, they are just saying they would like to simplify things for themselves by restricting you to using the popular WebKit enabled browsers. And you want to call them evil for it? i feel sorry for their developers, I'd like to see you code something so cool, then i will complain that your evil for not making it work with my "preferred" interface.

Money money money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496423)

Gotta get that location based advertising revenue.....

Re:Money money money.... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 2 years ago | (#42496509)

That's pretty much what it boils down to.

On one hand there's the chance to let Microsoft swallow some of its own medicine (especially after MS has pissed off web developers for years) and on the other hand there's the data that Google could use to its advantage.

Re:Money money money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496611)

So google gets back at Microsoft by pissing off web developers for a few more years?

We're the ones who get blamed when the little store locator map (or what have you) doesn't work in any given browser. It's hard to explain to an angry client that Google is having a pissing contest with the guy who built their phone/computer/whatnot, and that's why their site doesn't work.

Re:Money money money.... (1)

Shemmie (909181) | about 2 years ago | (#42496881)

Can anyone tell me if IE10 on Windows Phone 8 supports location via the browser?

If it can, surely Google win, MS win (by not having their phone blocked by arguably the market leader in consumer digital mapping) and the users of the phones win?

Re:Money money money.... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#42497259)

Its not W3C standard. Under that arguement IE6 wins them all with the most hidden features.

its* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496431)

its*

Re:its* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496675)

its*

tits :)

ftfy

It's official. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496445)

Google is the ultimate Micro$oft $hill.

Do no evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496463)

This isn't genuinely evil, it's just a dick move.

Re:Do no evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496475)

So if Microsoft had blocked access to Google from IE five or six years ago, that wouldn't have been evil either?

Re:Do no evil (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42497147)

Microsoft was already evil. Blocking Google from IE would have just been one more evil act floating in a sea of evil.

Perfect Example (-1, Flamebait)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 years ago | (#42496473)

This is a perfect example of why no company should have monopolistic power.

Google is showing they are getting too big for their britches.

Re:Perfect Example (5, Informative)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42496543)

This is a perfect example of why no company should have monopolistic power.

Yeah. Except... there is that little think called Bing Maps, which does more or less what Google Maps does and is even owned by the company who's mobile browser couldn't access Google Maps.
So, no monopoly here.

Re:Perfect Example (0)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42496559)

'thing' not 'think'

Re:Perfect Example (2)

quacking duck (607555) | about 2 years ago | (#42496621)

Not sure rolfwind is saying Google is a monopoly. Just like Apple, Google is showing anti-competitive behaviour, that demonstrates they would do far worse if they actually did have a monopoly or significant majority.

Not that I'm in any way supporting Microsoft's browser. Those bastards held back web development for a good decade, so a little Schadenfreude is in order.

Re:Perfect Example (0, Flamebait)

mrbluejello (189775) | about 2 years ago | (#42496761)

That's not the issue. The issue is that Google Maps works perfectly fine on desktop IE, and mobile IE uses the same rendering engine / works the same. You would be correct if Google had blocked desktop IE too, BUT THEY DIDN'T. This was Google exercising their power to try to damage the Windows Phone experience.

I think that they are just jealous that Microsoft came up with an original mobile experience and all they could do is copy what Apple had going on. If Google didn't see Microsoft as a threat, they wouldn't be doing these antics, so I see this as validation of the Windows Phone platform.

Re:Perfect Example (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42496955)

Not even RIM looks on MS's mobile offerings with jealousy.

Re:Perfect Example (2)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 2 years ago | (#42497059)

Re:Perfect Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497313)

That only shows which phones were sold in the last 12 weeks, not market share. Considering Microsoft just launched WP8 phones, and RIM's last new phone was over a year ago while the new Blackberry 10 phones will be out soon, those numbers aren't very useful for drawing any such conclusions.

Re:Perfect Example (0)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#42497069)

I think that they are just jealous that Microsoft came up with an original mobile experience.

Sayyy what? How is it original? Please give examples.

And don't say "live tiles" are original either. Widgets on Android have been doing the same things for years.

Re:Perfect Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496935)

This is a perfect example of why no company should have monopolistic power.

Yeah. Except... there is that little think called Bing Maps, which does more or less what Google Maps does and is even owned by the company who's mobile browser couldn't access Google Maps. So, no monopoly here.

And there have always been alternatives to Windows, so no monopoly there?

Re:Perfect Example (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42497105)

Windows hat upwards from 90% of the desktop market.
Google has, what, 50-70%, depending on country/region?

Re:Perfect Example (1)

oldlurker (2502506) | about 2 years ago | (#42497389)

Windows hat upwards from 90% of the desktop market. Google has, what, 50-70%, depending on country/region?

Depending on whose numbers you use, Google has 70-80% share in US (Comscore being the lowest, with just below 70%, NetApps and other measurement services pegging it higher), 80%-90% WW, and in Europe 90+% (as high as 95+% in many markets). And that is if you are measuring searches, their share is significantly higher on revenue, because they are the only actor in the market with enough critical mass in the ad auction system

Latest US ComScore: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2232359/Google-Takes-67-Search-Engine-Market-Share [searchenginewatch.com] One by country list: http://returnonnow.com/2012/06/search-engine-market-share-country/ [returnonnow.com]

Not arguing that Windows doesn't have a high marketshare (at least on traditional PCs, there was a story recently that the true market share on computing devices - including tablets and smartphones etc - was around 20%). But Google has a stronger dominance than many think. As for arguing monopoly or not, that is a different discussion, just jumping in on the numbers here.

Re:Perfect Example (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42497189)

You're forgetting that "vendor lockin" thing with the OEM's. "If you want to sell Windows, then you can ONLY sell Windows OS's." Remember that? BECAUSE of that little bit of arm twisting, then no OEM could afford to be locked out of Windows, so they ALL agreed to those terms.

That was a very effective monopoly. Worldwide, Microsoft has owned more than 90% of all desktops for how long now? Definitely a monopoly.

Re:Perfect Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497315)

Not really. That doesn't count and even if it did, you have no proof it ever happened. What google is doing is FAR FAR worse than anything Microsoft ever allegedly did. This is all a direct result of the irrational hatred linsux losers and their free software nazi friends have against Microsoft.

Re:Perfect Example (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#42496953)

I don't get why anti-competitive abuse shouldn't be decried if the company is a non monopoly. Otherwise you end up with a few actors controlling the whole market and raising the bar for entry and colluding to raise prices. For a big example, see the US wireless carrier market.

Re:Perfect Example (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497093)

It's not. Slashdot commenters with slightly above average IQs just think they're experts on everything. In reality, antitrust violations never require literally being a complete monopoly (not having any competitors whatsoever). Certain offenses require having some market power, but some don't even require that.

Don't wory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496477)

Google will soon be announcing Chrome's support for ActiveG plugins. This will make excluding Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer even easier. Oh, and Opera user, this will also affect you, but that pretty much goes without saying.

Re:Don't wory (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#42496549)

There ought to be a meeting between big browser makers to come up with a standard version of HTML that fixes this platform-specific web app mess. Maybe one of Google's employees can author it.

Re:Don't wory (4, Insightful)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42496591)

Well, as a Opera user I can use pretty much any website that works with Firefox or Chrome. As long as the designer of that page didn't artificially exclude Opera or I mask my browser as Firefox or IE.

The problem is not Opera but bullshit web designers.

Re:Don't wory (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496719)

No, the problem really is Opera.

Re:Don't wory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497329)

The problem is the standards behind the browsers, which allow bullshit web designers to do what they do. The idea of a user agent string should never have been incorporated into HTTP: the people developing the standard should have foreseen this sort of abuse, and simply excluded it.

Re:Don't wory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497043)

Already done, see Native Client

I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (4, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42496493)

This whole idea that Google wants to shut device users out from their services is beyond stupid. Google wants one thing - to make money serving up ads. They want users of ALL devices looking at their maps, using their search, using their gmail, etc, etc, etc.

Re:I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496605)

It's because someone else can use google's APIs and bypass google adverts to server their own. Why do you think Apple preferred to release a broken maps application rather than continue to use google's? Because they wanted that ad revenue for themselves, and don't care about their customers. Google did not block browser access, win-phone could still using the service with their browsers, what they couldn't have was alternative win-fied applications.

I see your point on that. (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42496697)

Yes, if you could block the Google ads and replace them with your own you'd be doing well.

Re:I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496855)

Why do you think Apple preferred to release a broken maps application rather than continue to use google's? Because they wanted that ad revenue for themselves.

Damn all of those ads on the Apple Maps app. Wait what ads?

In fact I don't have any ad laden apps on my iPhone, free apps with ads aren't quite as common place as they are on my Nexus 7, generally iOS users seem to spend the buck.

Re:I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | about 2 years ago | (#42496911)

Why do people just make things up as you've done here?

Using the built in browser, browsing to maps.google.com redirected to just the generic search page. Google was refusing to serve up the webpage to windows phone users. This has nothing to do with APIs accessing google maps. They blocked the phones' browsers entirely.

Re:I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (2)

oldlurker (2502506) | about 2 years ago | (#42497187)

Why do people just make things up as you've done here?

Using the built in browser, browsing to maps.google.com redirected to just the generic search page. Google was refusing to serve up the webpage to windows phone users. This has nothing to do with APIs accessing google maps. They blocked the phones' browsers entirely.

To his defense, he just seems to be confusing together two separate recent episodes of Google blocking access to their service for Microsoft platforms.

One was WP8 phones being redirected away from mobile Google maps, just based on browser UA string (if WP8 users faked their UA, the service worked perfectly, so the mobile IE10 browser is fully capable of rendering the code). The other was that Microsoft is not getting the same rich API access to Youtube for WP8 Youtube app as Android and iOS Youtube apps are using, so lacking much of the functionality.

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/05/calling-shenanigans-on-googles-windows-phone-8-maps-narrative/ [thenextweb.com] http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/microsoft-fuming-over-google-block-of-youtube-windows-app-102979 [techweekeurope.co.uk]

Re:I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (3, Interesting)

Dr Modesto (1004773) | about 2 years ago | (#42496641)

True. I think the concern though is that if Microsoft or Apple were to gain dominance of the platforms used to access services then Google is vulnerable. Which is why Android was such a good move and explains their ambivalence toward platforms controlled by rivals.

Re:I don't know why /. does not understand Google. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496651)

Of course they want to shut down device users... They would rather degrade the service from their competitors devices and get them to jump shit to lets say and Android phone/tablet

That makes no sense. (1, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42496681)

It's been covered repeatedly that Google makes more from iPhone than from Android: http://gizmodo.com/5897457/google-makes-four-times-more-money-from-ios-than-android [gizmodo.com] . I don't know what the comparison will be with Windows phone, but it is a source of revenue. And some people will be required to carry a Windows phone device by their companies. Google would surely want a piece of that action.

Android isn't about lockin, it is about lockout (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#42496967)

Google made android NOT to lock people into Android but to avoid being locked out of iOS and Windows Phone and Symbian and Blackberry. Okay, so the last three ain't a threat anymore (or in one case, ever) but we saw what Apple tried to pull, lock Google Maps out and force people to use Apple Maps. Which was an amazing success story for Apple... well... this time. But next time?

Google developed Chrome to push web browser development because they didn't want to wait for IE or Firefox to get off their lazy ass. Especially IE, they made a capable fast browser designed to deal with any futuristic Google wishes to develop and the rest of the browsers either had to catch up OR be replaced.

Google KNOWS that in order to sell petrol, you need to sell cars. Well okay, that in order to sell inkjet ink, you need to sell printers. Google Maps could never have run well enough to replace Tom Tom on IE6, so Google pushed IE6.

And Google knows that on tightly controlled devices like mobile phones were it used to be the norm that the telecoms decided what was and was not available, they could all to easily be replaced. All of their services. So they rolled their own phone just to make sure they couldn't be completely locked out. Google isn't intrested in selling browsers or mobile phones, it primary interest is making its services so widely available that all who want to use it, can use it and then see the ads, that Google serves and makes it money from.

Google has given everyone a fast car, so we will buy lots of petrol. Given everyone a printer so they can sell lots of ink. Make web services supported by ads capable of replacing dedication payed for applications, so Google can sell ad space rather then software.

In order to operate in the open market space it needs to hang up its ads, it has ended up building most of the market. Quite funny if you think about it, because ANY of the other players could have had Androids market share but none did.

More destruction of brand (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#42496513)

A few weeks ago, Google Maps started acting flaky. This was amazing because Google is supposed to be the best at web development. In any case, it was clearly a situation where they just made things needlessly complex. Like MS used to do and still does. It will be googles downfall if the continue to game the market instead of just developing innovative products. And really it will be a shame. They are competent, but if they fall to fear, and the desire for profit instead of providing end users the best product, it will not end well. I hate to say it, but Bing and the MS WIndows Phone are competitive, and they are competative because Google has just been sitting back thinking how they can screw people.

Backs Down? (3, Funny)

johnvile (2560845) | about 2 years ago | (#42496525)

I think you mean U-turn

Google's possible complaint... (0, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#42496547)

Internet Explorer asks its users "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" and wrongly conclude that the maps data is fetched from Microsoft servers. If IE changed their title bar to read "We use Google Maps data to guide you accurately", I'm sure Google wouldn't object.

iPhone users recently got lost using non-Google maps, and learnt their lessons the hard way, so Google just want due credit for their maps data, that's all.

Re:Google's possible complaint... (5, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#42496879)

Actually when it comes to navigation, WP uses nokia maps as base. Those are ahead of google map by a very big margin in terms of accuracy, as they use NavTeq mapping data.

NavTeq collects mapping data from paid local agents and organisations, and has been doing so before Google came to existence.

Re:Google's possible complaint... (0)

hammeraxe (1635169) | about 2 years ago | (#42497377)

Not sure where you're getting this from. As an actual Windows Phone user I have tried Nokia Maps, Bing Maps and Google maps. And at least in my local area (central UK) Nokia maps are the worst, followed by Bing. Google maps come out on top.

"Smart" phone my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496561)

Notice how all of the big wheels in the smart phone field are utterly terrified to compete on technical merit, and have to resort to Apple's "thermonuclear" lawsuit strategy, or Google's "no internet for you" strategies?

Post-PC era. Yeah, right.

lol windows phone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496585)

who the fuck would use a windows phone?

2012-2013 wholesale sexy lingerie cheap underwear (-1, Offtopic)

spicyvalentine (2809479) | about 2 years ago | (#42496633)

Dear Sir / Madam, Thank you for your time. Our spicyvalentine is a professional website Fine sexy lingerie, adult clothing, robes, babydolls, bikini, men's underwear, women's panties, teddies, garter sets corseters provide all types of patent PVC leather stockings with different sizes to meet your requirements. To hire experienced workers, introducing top sewing facilities and uses luxury fabric, we have won the recognition of all our customers. Our annual output of over 1.5 million. You can order directly online. If you are interested in a number of projects, from us or place an order, please do not hesitate to contact us. 1) We accept PayPal and drop shipping 100% safe door to door smoothly 2) Transportation Delivery: EMS DHL TNT UPS within 3-7 days, etc. 3) your command, you will get a cheaper price 4) Payment: Paypal, Western Union, Money Gram, T / TETC 5) packaging, and then as soon as possible within 24 hours to send the e-mail client tracking 6) sample test order to accept, when you test the quality, then we can do more and long-term U of further business 7) Our MOQ is one hundred U.S. dollars 8) E-mail: www.spicyvalentine@hotmail.com's 9) our URL: http://www.spicy-valentine.com/ [spicy-valentine.com] . O ( _ ) O Thank you, Welcome! Company About Us Welcome to our website. We are very grateful for your time, whether you are buying or just looking. We are pleased to introduce ourselves as a famous professional manufacturer and supplier from China, wholesale sexy lingerie.We the --- World manufacturing center, our company name is spicy lover Company Limited We provide all types of fines sexy lingerie, such as: adult clothing, tight corsets, chemises, babydolls, bikini, sexy ladies underwear, men's underwear, sexy garter sets, erotic dresses, sexy stockings and sexy leather collections.In a short period of time , we will expand our production capacity in order to accommodate the increased demand for foreign markets. We have a strong technical force, advanced research capabilities and rapid response inquiries, technical personnel more than 7, five years of experience in the lingerie industry. A wide range of styles is always available. We have added a new sexy lingerie styles every business day. We sell our products very competitive prices. We also accept OEM orders or design you printed your logo.We our products are mainly exported to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Europe, the Americas, Japan, South America, South Africa, East Asia, South Asia, South Korea and Taiwan to establish a new production. If you are interested in some of the projects, from us or place an order, please do not hesitate to contact us, we sincerely look forward to the opportunity to cooperate with you on the basis of mutual benefit.

Not So Fast... (3, Interesting)

Squeebee (719115) | about 2 years ago | (#42496639)

My Lumia 920 with WP8 still redirects maps.google.com to the Google homepage.

Re:Not So Fast... (2)

tpotus (1856224) | about 2 years ago | (#42496749)

Clear your cache and wait for the DNS to catch up.

Re:Not So Fast... (5, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#42496765)

My Lumia 920 with WP8 still redirects maps.google.com to the Google homepage.

Dude... did you install the latest Service Pack which came out yesterday?

And did you reboot your phone after taking off the battery, removing your clothes and loudly proclaiming "I Love Microsoft Products"? Follow the above steps and if your phone still behaves oddly, chances are, the 128-bit registration key has already been registered by the only other user of Windows phones, so call support to get a different key.

Re:Not So Fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496871)

My Lumia 920 with WP8 still redirects maps.google.com to the Google homepage.

Dude... did you install the latest Service Pack which came out yesterday?

And did you reboot your phone after taking off the battery, removing your clothes and loudly proclaiming "I Love Microsoft Products"? Follow the above steps and if your phone still behaves oddly, chances are, the 128-bit registration key has already been registered by the only other user of Windows phones, so call support to get a different key.

Dude.. what a master of wit you are.

Re:Not So Fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496897)

More proof that Slashdot posters and moderators have last used Windows in 1998 and are totally clueless.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/11/19/android-4-2-gate-here-are-some-of-the-major-issues-plaguing-googles-newest-release/ [androidpolice.com]

Re:Not So Fast... (0)

UnphaZeD (552355) | about 2 years ago | (#42497223)

This comment is so perfect. Thank you for pointing it out. I love Linux! (there, that should get me some points.) but seriously, wp8 and IE 10 rock. Way better.

Re:Not So Fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496771)

My Lumia 900 with WP7.5 still redirects maps.google.com to the Google homepage.

Re:Not So Fast... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#42496829)

Nokia N9 with its WebKit based browser does the same. Seems to be a two part block, all windows phones and all Nokia phones regardless of rendering engine.

Re:Not So Fast... (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 years ago | (#42497033)

Yes, I can confirm this as true now.

Whereas I can distintly recall an instance about 2-3 months ago when I accessed maps.google.com, (or was it maps.google.nl but nevermind because both fail now), and maps.google.com worked fine on my Nokia N9 built-in webkit browser, but the interface was un-usable actually. Switching to the built-in Nokia Maps application, (which I previously absently-mindly forgot about), worked wonders at the time when I needed it.

Re:Not So Fast... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#42497025)

For some reason, my Debain desktop was doing the same thing last time I tried to get into Google Maps.

What's going on with Slashdot?!?! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496739)

The mobile version of google maps uses touch events not supported by IE10 mobile, it has nothing to do with the rendering engine!
So they will get google maps but not with the best experience.

Re:What's going on with Slashdot?!?! (1)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42497169)

Even if it were true, shutting out users with a blind redirect is still a dick move. Couldn't they just put up a notice, similar to what they do to peddle Chrome to the GMail users browsing with Firefox?

Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496755)

Hi Admin
This is a very good article...wooow
i am also doing this site grately

http://mobile-dreamz.blogspot.com

Anti-competitive practices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496821)

The real reason they reversed it is that Google is scared that the EU would've used it againt them as evidence of anti-competitive practices.

I love Android (4, Interesting)

Shemmie (909181) | about 2 years ago | (#42496857)

and I'm a huge Google Products fan boy.

That being said, this is stupid, and 'evil' (For their use of 'evil', not "just like the Nazi's" evil).

Intentionally blocking any browser is insane. They have tools already for saying "This version of this browser is known not to work well with this product", without needing to block the product entirely. It's nothing more than Google leveraging its position to block Windows Phone 8 - which is a shitty, cheap thing to do, and something they would have bitched like hell about if MS had done it back when they were the big dog.

It's something I really wouldn't have associated with Google, so clearly I need to re-evaluate my thoughts on them. I didn't see them as a Saint - in fact I viewed all transactions as "I pay for this product with my personally identifiable information so you can sell more ads". But that MO would require them to allow as many people to use their services as possible - not blocking people in some sort of petty attack.

You don't have to be a Windows Phone user to be offended by this.

Re:I love Android (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497181)

It was not about making a statement to Microsoft. It was about (a) not wanting to maintain software on an unpopular platform that is causing lots of problems for developers, and (b) not wanting people to use unsupported Google products because they *will* conclude that Google products are bad.

At least that's my guess as a Google employee who knows the company well, but is not involved in maps in any way.

Do No Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496869)

What a load of lying bullshit.

How many more examples must these little dicksucking google apologists have before they realise that the koolaid really does taste funny.

Re:Do No Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42496937)

Fuck you, you POS Microsoft shill. Stick to your shitty ecosystem and quit leeching off Google.

Wow. The articles suck. (3, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | about 2 years ago | (#42496925)

Assume you are google. You obviously test your services for compatibility on some devices and you figure out that maps is basically unusable for a specific user group, which is less than 3.5 percent of all your users. They give negative feedback since they believe they device froze or something, and are as noisy as 20% percent of the other users. Now you decide to place some sign wich says:"sorry doesnt work right now." I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There are enough sources of free and paid for electronic maps on mobile devices. Nokia offers maps, some navigation system providers have apps, and osm also exists. Yipp. I tried it. Its very well possible to live without google maps.

The best part is that the writer of the original article demand detailed infromation from google but whenever he talks about his own (seemingly contradicting) experiences, the article contains a lot of "i am virtually sure" phrases and 'it mast have been in that way' logic.

Re:Wow. The articles suck. (3, Insightful)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42497205)

Assume you are google. You obviously test your services for compatibility on some devices and you figure out that maps is basically unusable for a specific user group, which is less than 3.5 percent of all your users. They give negative feedback since they believe they device froze or something, and are as noisy as 20% percent of the other users. Now you decide to place some sign wich says:"sorry doesnt work right now." I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think so too. Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They just redirect Windows Phone users to www.google.com with no explanation why.

Re:Wow. The articles suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497271)

negative feedback? for a web page?

it does NOT use the same rendering engine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497079)

I agree with Google, if basic pan/zoom did not work in Microsofts mobile browser, it would make Google Maps quite useless.
InternetExplorer is closed-source, so noone can claim that the mobile version uses the same rendering engine. Even if it was exactly the same, it clearly did not work the same since pan/zoom did not work, and last I checked (admittedly long ago) it did work on the desktop version.
Google removed the redirect when Microsoft fixed there mobile browser and pan/zoom as at least usable.
The only interesting question is why Microsoft shipped a new mobile browser without testing it with a rarely used website like Google Maps.

flawed reasoning (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#42497127)

if anything this is Google tightening their grip on mapping. People don't complain about what they don't care about and there is no way to make money if no one uses your services.

I would like to see the redirect stats. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497159)

I think Google is playing way too nice here. Just publish the number of unique Windows 8 phones that where redirected.

Google's new motto: Only be a little bit evil. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497219)

Google's new motto: Only be a little bit evil.

OT: filter bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497471)

Offtopic: Just have to post somewhere as Google doesn't seem to like getting feedback (try to find an email/feedback-form, good luck with that...).

I'm from Finland and I never really though about filter bubble before. Now visiting Japan and it's close to impossible to get any sensible results about anything. It's a real PITA, finally I had to take a proxy in order to find the stuff I'm looking for. This shit is just unbelievable. All but censorship. You guys should really try it abroad: search, youtube, maps (!!!), you name it, returns completely different results without the option to use a "default". It's not just the order of results but the results themselves; depending on your IP you get completely different sets like "no results" for very common queries. Settings & al. do nothing. The Great Firewall is kidsplay compared to this. (Yes, I know ddg & lxsearch but those are probably limited to US-bubble.)

Do no evil indeed.

just try, still not able to visit map.google.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42497491)

just try, still not able to visit map.google.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?