While there might be some similarities, security vulnerabilities in Google gadgets are presumptive. Google gadgets run on the OpenSocial spec supported by many companies. Microsoft and Facebook use proprietary specs. There's more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSocial and here http://docs.opensocial.org/display/OS/Home.
We certain agree Google needs to come clean and address developer concerns. On Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:42:45 PM UTC-6, David Cook wrote: > > Hmm...now today I just read that Microsoft (on Windows OSes) also has a > 'gadget' which is built very similarly to > Google's gadgets. Microsoft just announced it is discontinuing their > 'gadget' because of various security > vulnerabilities. REF: > > http://www.zdnet.com/security-flaws-signal-early-death-of-windows-gadgets-7000000724/ > > > Which makes ME wonder whether Google is nuking iGoogle (and hence its > gadget-API!?) for similar reasons? > > Come on Google, PLEASE answer this thread, so we can understand the WHYS > and WHEREFORS for your > decision to dis-continue iGoogle!!! > > [Google: This IS 'Google Groups'! Don't you monitor your own damn > forums???] > > Geez... > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:43:10 PM UTC-4, David Cook wrote: >> >> Yes, you mention that gadgets can be deployed onto any arbitrary website. >> Which is >> a VERY NICE feature! And, that's exactly why I'm asking, as I wrote my >> gadget for that, >> and use it on such a page. >> >> For that reason, Google should keep the Gadget-API alive! >> >> So respond please, Google, and let us know, so we know whether we >> need to recode our gadgets into some other API. >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:32:23 PM UTC-4, FabriceL wrote: >>> >>> I'm wondering about the same thing... >>> >>> Most likely they would discontinue the Google Gagdet Editor... and the >>> Google Gadget API. >>> Open Social is an open source project so in theory you coul just set a >>> server up to host your own gadget. It's just makes it much more challenging. >>> >>> I also really disagree with Google. Gagdets are really different that >>> apps from Chrome or the Play Store or Google+ because they can live on any >>> website. >>> If anything, Play Store and Chrome store should be one and the same >>> thing. Google Gadgets would be great for Google+ >>> >>> A while back it was said that OpenSocial had nothing social about it... >>> that it should be called OpenGagdet. This was untrue but it begs to wonder >>> how to define a social experience... >>> >>> There is many ways to be social: >>> >>> - social media producing: allowing anyone to create content >>> - social media distribution: allowing anyone to share, comment, or >>> distribute content >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:42:45 PM UTC-6, David Cook wrote: > > Hmm...now today I just read that Microsoft (on Windows OSes) also has a > 'gadget' which is built very similarly to > Google's gadgets. Microsoft just announced it is discontinuing their > 'gadget' because of various security > vulnerabilities. REF: > > http://www.zdnet.com/security-flaws-signal-early-death-of-windows-gadgets-7000000724/ > > > Which makes ME wonder whether Google is nuking iGoogle (and hence its > gadget-API!?) for similar reasons? > > Come on Google, PLEASE answer this thread, so we can understand the WHYS > and WHEREFORS for your > decision to dis-continue iGoogle!!! > > [Google: This IS 'Google Groups'! Don't you monitor your own damn > forums???] > > Geez... > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:43:10 PM UTC-4, David Cook wrote: >> >> Yes, you mention that gadgets can be deployed onto any arbitrary website. >> Which is >> a VERY NICE feature! And, that's exactly why I'm asking, as I wrote my >> gadget for that, >> and use it on such a page. >> >> For that reason, Google should keep the Gadget-API alive! >> >> So respond please, Google, and let us know, so we know whether we >> need to recode our gadgets into some other API. >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:32:23 PM UTC-4, FabriceL wrote: >>> >>> I'm wondering about the same thing... >>> >>> Most likely they would discontinue the Google Gagdet Editor... and the >>> Google Gadget API. >>> Open Social is an open source project so in theory you coul just set a >>> server up to host your own gadget. It's just makes it much more challenging. >>> >>> I also really disagree with Google. Gagdets are really different that >>> apps from Chrome or the Play Store or Google+ because they can live on any >>> website. >>> If anything, Play Store and Chrome store should be one and the same >>> thing. Google Gadgets would be great for Google+ >>> >>> A while back it was said that OpenSocial had nothing social about it... >>> that it should be called OpenGagdet. This was untrue but it begs to wonder >>> how to define a social experience... >>> >>> There is many ways to be social: >>> >>> - social media producing: allowing anyone to create content >>> - social media distribution: allowing anyone to share, comment, or >>> distribute content >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:42:45 PM UTC-6, David Cook wrote: > > Hmm...now today I just read that Microsoft (on Windows OSes) also has a > 'gadget' which is built very similarly to > Google's gadgets. Microsoft just announced it is discontinuing their > 'gadget' because of various security > vulnerabilities. REF: > > http://www.zdnet.com/security-flaws-signal-early-death-of-windows-gadgets-7000000724/ > > > Which makes ME wonder whether Google is nuking iGoogle (and hence its > gadget-API!?) for similar reasons? > > Come on Google, PLEASE answer this thread, so we can understand the WHYS > and WHEREFORS for your > decision to dis-continue iGoogle!!! > > [Google: This IS 'Google Groups'! Don't you monitor your own damn > forums???] > > Geez... > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:43:10 PM UTC-4, David Cook wrote: >> >> Yes, you mention that gadgets can be deployed onto any arbitrary website. >> Which is >> a VERY NICE feature! And, that's exactly why I'm asking, as I wrote my >> gadget for that, >> and use it on such a page. >> >> For that reason, Google should keep the Gadget-API alive! >> >> So respond please, Google, and let us know, so we know whether we >> need to recode our gadgets into some other API. >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:32:23 PM UTC-4, FabriceL wrote: >>> >>> I'm wondering about the same thing... >>> >>> Most likely they would discontinue the Google Gagdet Editor... and the >>> Google Gadget API. >>> Open Social is an open source project so in theory you coul just set a >>> server up to host your own gadget. It's just makes it much more challenging. >>> >>> I also really disagree with Google. Gagdets are really different that >>> apps from Chrome or the Play Store or Google+ because they can live on any >>> website. >>> If anything, Play Store and Chrome store should be one and the same >>> thing. Google Gadgets would be great for Google+ >>> >>> A while back it was said that OpenSocial had nothing social about it... >>> that it should be called OpenGagdet. This was untrue but it begs to wonder >>> how to define a social experience... >>> >>> There is many ways to be social: >>> >>> - social media producing: allowing anyone to create content >>> - social media distribution: allowing anyone to share, comment, or >>> distribute content >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iGoogle Developer Forum" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/Google-Gadgets-API/-/NKsXv3Y90bcJ. 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/Google-Gadgets-API?hl=en.
