Item — HN Reader

"Not a client side problem. I just ran it through a network capture. (see here[1] )

Google is 302 redirecting anything with a WinPhone user agent to the main page. This may be a bug rather than an intentional thing, but it's Google's bug to be sure." Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/15yx0a/after_mic...

[1] http://i.imgur.com/Hfum6.jpg

---

And update here:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/4/3836510/windows-phone-8-use...

Seems this is 100% intentional from Google. What the fuck? I was completely blindsided by this, I couldn't imagine a huge company like Google doing this at this scale.

6 comments

> Seems this is 100% intentional from Google. What the fuck? I was completely blindsided by this, I couldn't imagine a huge company like Google doing this at this scale.

The funny thing about this is that Microsoft used to employ such methods to harm the competition, or so it was claimed (regarding WordPerfect etc.).

It's also mildly amusing that a lot of people still believe the "Don't Be Evil" credo Google used to have.

MS blocked Firefox from Hotmail for a while back in ~2001. Changing the useragent to IE would make it work.

Well... it's their service. And you're not paying for it. Seems to me they can offer it any way they want.

I don't know if it's a good move on their part, that's a different question.

This is exactly the reasoning that pisses me off. If MS pulled the same shit, we would be out with pitchforks ready to bury them. Have some consistency. Any corporation using their monopoly product to provide a bad experience for competitive products is evil.

Microsoft has already pulled it. Please point me to a native version of Office running on any Linux distro...oh that's right, doesn't exist.

Bing Maps does exist.

Google went out of their way to prevent MS phones from using Google maps. MS did not go out of their way to allow Linux to use Office. There is a big difference.

Some Microsoft software was supported on other Unix platforms through Wabi and similar tools, and IIRC there may also have been native ports. Microsoft rather pointedly has avoided supporting the Linux market, with the exception of tools which allow interoperability with Windows systems (notably kernel contributions most of which relate to Azure).

> Microsoft rather pointedly has avoided supporting the Linux market.

Please. Wake up and smell the coffee.

EVERY major software company has avoided the Linux market. It's because of the questionable market opportunity that is the reason not any competition issues.

As noted: there was specific end-user software supported on Unix platforms, which could be, but never was, trivially ported to Linux.

More tellingly: Linux's overarching success has been in the server space (and the platform is emerging as the mobile leader). Microsoft's server software, including most notably SQL Server (derived from Sybase, originally targeted at Unix systems) isn't available for Linux. Neither are Exchange, Active Directory, Sharepoint, IIS, or Windows File Sharing. Free Software (and proprietary) alternatives and work-alikes for each exist, and in many or most cases are more successful, though AD remains a market leader.

Microsoft conquered the desktop PC market by leveraging compulsory per-CPU OS license via bundled office software to create a self-reinforcing illegal monopoly, which it then attempted to extend into the small server space. It's fought every attempt to crack any part of that stranglehold, fighting OEMs providing other operating systems (DR DOS, Novell, BeOS, Linux), by not porting its Office products (except to Mac OS X, since discontinued), and by not porting/building its server products to other platforms.

Major companies which have not avoided the Linux market include IBM, Oracle (and acquired companies Sun and PeopleWare), and Informix. Yes, all server space. I'm making a point here.

There actually was an IE for Unix way back in the day. Probably when it was just relabeled Spyglass Mosaic.

Microsoft's pretty agressive against Android (license fees for every sold Android, #droidrage campaign etc.) so I fully approve of this Google's move.

Spitefully blocking Windows Mobile's browser because Microsoft is insufficiently humble in its competition against Android is a raging dick-move.

Yeh no. Microsoft extracts patent royalties (e.g. the FAT32) from pretty much everyone and anyone. They haven't targeted Android in any unique way.

If anything Google's abuse of FRAND patents against Microsoft over the XBox 360 H.264 codec is the most egregious example of aggressive behaviour.

Besides developing office on Linux means commiting resources to support that platform. In this case its a website and Google actually spent resources to break a site that was working previously.

It didn't work previously. It loaded, but was unusable.

However, I think that a big box with notice about unsupported browser and trying about own risk would help more that redirect.

Completely and utterly different, to the point that your assertion borders on the ridiculous. So much for the "open" and "choice" mantra's. However you look at it, this is a dick move.

Isn't it exactly what Google is refraining from? Since the Maps work crappily on non-WebKit mobile browsers, allowing them to be used is delivering bad experience.

I fail to see how this is different than e.g. not supporting Flash on iOS devices due to poor performance and battery drain - a then-controversial move which is now seen as reasonable even outside the circles of Apple fans.

In one case we are talking about the absence of software/support; the iPhone does not ship with Flash. Actively preventing software from running is another; Apple preventing jailbreaking. Now, who do I blame for my iPad mini's lack of an Android port?

> Well... it's their service. And you're not paying for it. Seems to me they can offer it any way they want.

It doesn't so much work that way for Google in 2013. They must be above reproach. Using their dominant leverage in one business to fiddle with competition in another would invite much unwanted government scrutiny – however chuckle-worthy the irony might be, with Microsoft now the aggrieved party.

Windows Phone has a very small market share. If we discovered that people running Opera on Maemo (if there even is such a thing) are getting the same behavior, would it surprise anyone? Would anyone even object?

They don't have an obligation to support tiny platforms that would cost more to support than they're worth just because Microsoft is very loud to complain about anything they do. Or subject users to a crashy experience because the site doesn't need Webkit to load but still needs it to not crash. Any more than Microsoft has to make officeupdate.microsoft.com support Firefox on Mac rather than just redirecting it to office.com like they do now.

As a matter of fact, they do try to block Opera aggressively from their Google Apps. Gmail on Opera (Linux version only) will force you to use the HTML-only version of the site, while display a message telling you to switch to a more modern browser (even though Opera is usually the most standards-compliant browser at any given version compared to its rivals), linking to Google Chrome. I searched on the internet for this, and it seems to happen to non-Linux machines too, but since reports of it are so scarce (Opera is probably the least used browser out there), no one seems to care.

I'm very saddened by the results of the antitrust motion and I hope they get cornered again on antitrust issues. Google and Apple are the new MS, really.

At the very least, you need better examples. OfficeUpdate.microsoft.com redirects me to Office.com in IE10 on Windows 8.

OK, so they discontinued it. For many years windowsupdate.microsoft.com and officeupdate.microsoft.com were Internet Explorer requiring websites with Active X controls to update the appropriate Microsoft software. No support for Firefox on Windows and no support for Mac at all. How does the fact that they discontinued the website itself make the example less valid? It still happened. And there are plenty of other examples from across the industry, if you're actually questioning that.

Anything that still uses Active X is IE-only. It has been slowly dying, but it most certainly still exists, and for many years (even fairly recently) Microsoft was one of the major perpetrators. And Silverlight is almost as bad (but thankfully much less widely used). Half of Apple's web services only work or work fully with Apple's operating systems. There is no Mac OS X support on Amazon EC2 (you can certainly blame Apple for that more than Amazon, but then you're just blaming Apple instead of Amazon). I'm sure you're aware of the kerfuffle over Microsoft shoving proprietary "do it like this version of Microsoft Office" specs into the OOXML standard over strenuous objections by competitors. Almost all of Microsoft's server products rely on Active Directory for feature completeness and don't play half as well with non-Microsoft implementations of LDAP or Kerberos.

If competitors had an obligation to support competing platforms then you could find no saints in this industry.

Edit: Incidentally, I'm really enjoying the irony of you loudly and repeatedly complaining about people downvoting pro-Microsoft content (notwithstanding that this story has remained on the front page for almost a full day) while your brethren simultaneously downvote my comments instead of responding to them.

I think it's important not to use this sort of response to excuse the behavior of companies who don't respect their customers. Google is making money from this traffic. Plenty of companies offer a free service and treat their customers very well.

"This development shouldn't come as any type of shock, however, since Google Maps relies on WebKit on mobile devices"

This is ridiculous. User agent checking / "This site is best viewed with" in my 2013, by Google. What happened to their "Don't be a monkey armed with a hand grenade" motto?

(I understand that might be loose journalism)

Microsoft predicted this to an extent, just a few months back: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/micros...

Not sure why there's so much noise around this. I have an old Nokia N8, and maps.google.com doesn't work (and has never worked) on either the Webkit-based stock browser or Opera Mobile.

There is however a native Google Maps app which works just fine.

"... (and has never worked) on either the Webkit-based stock browser"

Interesting, given Google's statement regarding why maps cannot be used.

Try going to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com with a non-IE browser and be amazed.

I tried in Opera and IE10, and in both got the message to open Control Panel and access Windows Update.

Anyway yours is a very bad example since Windows Update needs an ActiveX component to update the OS itself, which is not amenable to web standards, unlike a mapping service.

And it was cleared by FTC of any misbehavior!

They may very well not be so lucky the next time around, and they have the EU commission to be wary off as well.