[Svip]

I don't find the argument that 'if the other guys are jerks, then I too can be a jerk' to be an argument that makes me see anyone in a more favourable light. I thought Google wanted to avoid being Microsoft and Apple, with their unofficial motto, 'don't be evil'.

I prefer it when someone showcases their willingness to be 'the nicer guy' by opening up while the others are closing down. Like allowing to export your GMail contacts, while Facebook won't go the other way around.

I always find Microsoft complaining to be hypocritical, they are usually committing a similar overreach towards a competitor themselves. But still, where are the 'good guys'?

I know, that would be naïve, this is business.

[patrickaljord]

It's not about being jerks too, it's about being able to compete. They can't compete by giving away free stuff to competition when the competition refuses to do the same which gives the competition an unfair advantage (in this case, MS customers being able to use both gtalk and skype inside of outlook but Google customers being unable to run skype inside gmail, this makes people just want to use outlook as it provides more than gmail thanks to MS unwillingness to open skype, see the difference?).

[wangii]

there are two issues involve here. 1) business strategy, 2) being Mr. nice. if google's openness is a business strategy, then there is no excuse to point the finger to microsoft. if google is just a nice guy, why change b/c ms being a jerk? ok. i know folks are afraid of saying it, let me do it: Larry Page and Google are evil. Larry Page, in his best, will be an other John Sculley.

[hyperbovine]

You have led a charmed life if you believe this constitutes evil.

[chris_wot]

That is hopelessly naive, and not only that but it allows Microsoft to continue to lock in people to their own products.

Think about this: Microsoft spent a fair amount of resources integrating with gtalk, now they can't use it. The only way for them to gain access is to open up their own platforms. Once they do, then everyone is on a more level playing field.

The days of Microsoft shafting the competition through lock-in and anti-competitive behaviour is fast coming to an end. I'm not shedding any tears.

[Svip]

I am not shy about being naïve (I think I said so myself), and I completely understand why Google is doing what it is doing (or why Microsoft is), but that doesn't mean I agree or support what they are doing.

So rather than waiting for Google to become the 'bigger man' (or Microsoft for that matter), which will likely never happen, I will move onto other services, because - fortunately - I have a choice.

My argument being, that if someone is trying to stop me changing services, because I am unhappy about the fact that Google are dropping or federalising their XMPP services, then 'Microsoft is doing the same thing' isn't the argument that is going to send me back to Google.

[rbanffy]

> I don't find the argument that 'if the other guys are jerks, then I too can be a jerk' to be an argument that makes me see anyone in a more favourable light.

Why would Google want to invest resources on giving Microsoft an unfair advantage over themselves? Microsoft being jerks is the rule since that open letter Bill Gates sent to the Homebrew Computer Club.

In other words, why would you invite a guest that is known to steal stuff and not flush toilets into your home?

[reneky]

> Why would Google want to invest resources on giving Microsoft an unfair advantage over themselves?

Because it's good for the users.

[chris_wot]

It's not good for users to allow Microsoft to get away with vendor lock-in. This may force Microsoft's hand. That's good for users.

[clockwerx]

So you can have them steal the 'i am with stupid' branded clothing; with the giant arrow to the thief?

microsoft permitting mitm/google ads in their product ftw