Playing devil's advocate: Given that the apps are owned by google and paid by google why shouldn't they put their names? Tough luck for everyone else i guess. I'm not really sure that the argument that google will scare away good developera is true. On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote:
Not to drift too far off topic here, but vlc isn't windows-native any more than mplayer is. (NOW windows is a supported/standard platform, but it started elsewhere and gained popularity before that port.) If google wants a level open playing field, let their devs release apps anonymously. On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Jesper Lundgren<[email protected]> wrote: VLC has by far most users on windows ( there is no download for solaris, and just recently someone put together a script that made it compile with reasonable ease on opensolaris...). the point is, sure most users might use google, but it's impossible to make an application that appeals to everyone and that leaves room for other developers. It has to be remembered that googles PR machine is drawing lots of users to the platform, and that will benefit everyone So if google didn't put out some solid apps to the platform it would it would make it look less interesting for the consumer, and there would be less users for everyone. On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: Er... name a major media player that is native to windows. (Winamp counts, but only barely - they came in at a time when WMP didn't handle mp3s, playlists,libraries, etc. And even they lost to iTunes in the end.) Mplayer? Linux. VLC? Solaris (iirc), then linux. Etc. Google competing with you on their home turf is a very BAD thing, no matter how you look at it. (And several of their apps have system permissions, so they at least can do things you can't - not least of which is automatic signup by using the google account info instead of making you fill out another form. I'd need to spend some time with dismali to see if they're taking unfair advantage otherwise.) On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jesper Lundgren<[email protected]> wrote: with this reasoning there would be no other media player then windows media player on windows computers, but clearly that is not the case, and they even ship it with windows and their os is not opensource so they can possibly use things that other developers can not get access to. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
