Comment I can't believe no one has yet said... (Score -1, Redundant) 138
Epic fail.
Epic fail.
Maybe it is said by other companies, but they don't make such a big deal of it.
I disagree. I actually think it's standard practice for companies, especially the big ones, to make a big deal of their values.
Microsoft, for example, makes a big deal enough to have a verbose code of values documented online. http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/Compliance/Buscond/Default.aspx#values
Other companies do the same, but only internally. Google just condenses it to "Don't be evil", but if you look at their code of conduct http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html, the format is very similar to Microsoft's. They do have differences, but they have striking similarities:
Microsoft: Integrity and Honesty
Google: Integrity, Responsiveness (see how they define it)
Microsoft: Open and respectful with others
Google: Respect Each Other
Microsoft: Accountable for commitments, results, and quality
Google: Ensure financial integrity and responsibility
Those are pretty close to what we define as "good" ethically, in terms of a company's relationship with its customers.
Also, to be quite pedantic, "Don't Be Evil" is Google's INFORMAL company motto, and the place it appears in their website is in the same place Microsoft puts theirs in their website: in their investors relations pages. That's pretty standard.
So, back to you. Can you substantiate your claim that Google makes a big deal of their motto any more than other companies? Editorials from the free press not included.
It's naive to think that people have a moral/ethical framework?
No, but you are attacking a straw man. Remember when you contradicted this statement?
They may not always reach that standard... but heck, most actual people don't even try.
That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.
You were using, as an argument, that "most actual people don't even try [to do good]" is very doubtful because people have a moral/ethical framework. You could only be right IF people are always consistent with their moral/ethical framework -- that MOST people ALWAYS do the right thing BECAUSE they have morals/ethics. That's what makes your argument naive.
Furthermore...
If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
How so? Google might be particularly prone to evil, hence the need to proclaim "do no evil."
I'm not saying that Google might NOT be particularly prone to evil.
I'm saying that your belief:
"most people have a moral/ethical framework, therefore people MUST be good at some level"
contradicts with your other belief:
"Google has a moral/ethical framework, therefore Google MUST be bad at some level"
That shows that either you have a double standard with particular malice against Google (at worst), or simply confused (at best). I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.
For a company to even suggest that "do no evil" is a corporate value is amazing.
What's so amazing about it? It's pretty normal actually. I don't think any large companies these days don't have statements of ethics.
Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".
You're pretty confused. Those statements of ethics that you were talking about are SPECIFICALLY for stating corporate values. Make up your mind -- either it should be said, or not.
That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.
That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion. If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
there is a high possibility of Google naturally being evil, so they have to make efforts keep it in check.
Assuming you can set the screen down flat, you can do a lot of multiplayer games with this. Like duet piano, or playing Magic the Gathering with two players (and "tapping" virtual cards couldn't be any more realistic too!)
C'mon, it's obviously about relative suckage
1. It is NOT obviously about relative suckage. The original contention was that Skype "can't accept the fact that your programmers suck". Furthermore you only provide debatable personal experience with the clients you are using. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to give quality metrics the way you are doing it now (i.e. pretty subjective metrics), then I will give my own personal experience running counter to your experience, the same way you delivered them (i.e. my connection WAS flawed, it exposes the faults of the protocol of yahoo, skype handled it well). In other words, it's arguable. You can only get ahead by citing real performance data, which the original poster purposely chose to omit in order to insult Skype in defense of Fring.
2. If it IS about relative suckage, the comparison would have to be between Skype and Fring. So far the impression I'm getting is that "Fring's programmers suck so bad that they probably haven't realized that Skype didn't block them; that their own system overload is causing the block."
I haven't used Gtalk's videocalls or Jingle VoIP.
But even if they are better, that's hardly proof that Skype programmers suck. Skype handled beautifully even when my connection in Singapore was bad when I was videocalling to Canada. That was enough for me. Maybe gtalk was better, who knows, but my experience definitely didn't SUCK (that is the point of contention, isn't it?) as compared to yahoo's service.
Not being able to bring videocalling to mobile is not necessarily a programming decision. It may be a business one. But if they do release a client and it was plagued with problems, THEN you can unarguably say that they suck.
Good for you! I use Skype specifically for video calling though.
Fring's press release only *claims* that Skype blocked Fring (probably through the legal system, but in that case they should have been more clear with that). We do not see any actual C&D to remove any functionality whatsoever. (If you do find one, let me know.)
Skype's position clearly states otherwise.
"In this case, however, there is no truth to Fring’s claims that Skype has blocked it. Fring made the decision to remove Skype functionality on its own."
It's one company's word against another, yes, but since Fring is the accuser, it is in their burden to prove what they are saying. Let's see the legal documents, not a flowery press release (one that suspiciously advertises their own service as an alternative). If Fring doesn't provide that, it just reinforces the possibility that they are lying, as Skype has already shown that there is a clear motive for them to drop Skype support.
Wow, who is failing basic reasoning here and has his head up Fring's "ass" as you so call it. The facts remain that Fring intentionally crippled access (with the temporary part apparently an exaggeration judging from the blog commenters' complaints afterwards), while there is no evidence, technical OR legal, that Skype pulled the plug on them. Solely on that, it is reasonable to assume that the party with technical evidence of the other party's actions is more credible. What's YOUR basis for trusting Fring other than a press release with unfounded legal accusations and an apparent loathing of Skype's programmers (from your own scathing post)?
Fring has a very good reason to lie--they had a blunder and their users are irate about it (see their own blog post). For a free service, losing users is the worst thing to happen. And as you yourself said sarcastically, "guilty people (or companies) are always so eager to admit to being guilty".
I rest my case.
Except that, if *you* understood what you read, "Skype cut them off entirely" is NOT a "fact" as you so claim -- it is an unproven accusation, one that Skype totally rejects.
And Skype's rejection has a much stronger basis -- it is provably true that they reduced the support to Skype; Fring admits it themselves in their own blog. What's Fring's basis for their accusation? Nothing but a few press releases with no technical facts proving that the block exists at all.
Frankly, it leads more credence to the likelihood that Fring INTENTIONALLY decided to remove one of their biggest features, pissed off their users (by accident), and NOW blaming it on Skype in an effort to save their faces. Rather unprofessionally, too -- who calls a company they are piggybacking on "cowards"?
EXACTLY! Use common sense!
This is Fring's blog post that Skype has posted in their response, which many apparently have not read:
http://www.fring.com/blog/?p=2303
And since people still don't bother clicking links:
As even more fringsters video call their friends on Android, Nokia and iPhones, we have seen some network ’stress’ (as the techies are telling me). So to free up capacity for more the fring-to-fring video calling, we are temporarily reducing support to 3rd –party Skype. Thanks for your patience.
Tell me NOW, is Skype sabotaging them and lying about it by merely linking to Fring's OWN blog announcements?
Let's face it -- Fring is piggybacking on Skype infrastructure. So change #3 to:
3) Skype told Fring that they should be PROPERLY using their infrastructure. It has nothing to do with adding stuff in their client that wasn't in the official client -- it has everything to do with "stop leeching off of us, we are explicitly not providing that service! If you want it, go build your own infrastructure, but don't piggyback on us!".
After that, #4 seems like a bitch response to intentionally tarnish the Skype brand.
Skype's response says "Fring was using Skype software in a way it wasn’t designed to be used – and in a way which is in breach of Skype’s API Terms of Use and End User License Agreement. We’ve been talking with Fring for some time to try to resolve this amicably." Nowhere did they claim that they blocked them.
Heck, Skype's response links directly to the Fring blog post where Fring ADMITTED that they reduced Skype functionality.
It's pretty clear cut. Fring is being VERY unprofessional by accusing Skype of things that Fring broke themselves, and then later calling Skype unpleasant names.
Society suffers just because you can't accept that your programmers suck.
Do you have proof of this "suckage"? Skype is pretty good for me -- it does not drop my video calls like Yahoo's VoIP does, and I get a higher frame rate. If I had to describe their programmers, "suck" is the farthest thing from my mind.
Frankly, judging from the comments of other users here about Fring's UI, it seems to me Fring's programmers are more deserving of that title.
then all of the sudden Skype bans them.
Skype firmly claims the direct opposite of this accusation. Not a downplaying like "they were using functionality that was not supported", but a firm denial, "they removed their support THEMSELVES". Again, I'd rather believe them than you.
Scour the internet. You will not find a single page, post, or comment from me wherein I bashed the Android for having multitasking.
I have no reason to care whether you have bashed the Android or not. But, as exemplified by your statement...
Ever since I've had an iPhone, I've wondered what the obsession is with multitasking. I couldn't really think of any two *productive* things to do simultaneously on a phone.
If you're visiting YouTube, you've already decided that your time isn't valuable
All of what you said has just shown that you are being ignorant of the real applications people use their phones for -- I've JUST pointed out two examples where I am doing two *productive* things simultaneously on a phone. (One of which you specified so many preconditions, ignoring the fact that they aren't all that hard to achieve in practice.)
It's not right for you to bash iPhone bashers (as you have just admitted doing) when you are deliberately ignoring WHY they were bashing it in the first place -- it couldn't do what they require it to do for tasks they deem important.
Besides, it's improper to bash people based on the importance of what they are doing, all for the glory of defending a phone. At least those people are bashing inanimate objects, not people.
Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!
