The limits of Google’s openness(blogs.technet.com) |
The limits of Google’s openness(blogs.technet.com) |
Am I missing something with what is going on here?
Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents
> ... Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects have been
> able to enter the market for servers is the use of standardized protocols.
> It then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and
> developing new protocols" and "de-commoditize protocols & applications."
> This policy has been nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Now all of a sudden Microsoft is the underdog, and you're whinging in public when the dominant player locks you out?
Cry me a river.
(Not that this is a defense of Google, mind you: I think MS is right on the money w.r.t. to their behaviour. Just saying that Google's tactics couldn't be employed against a more deserving target).
It's hard referring to something as a "default" search engine when you can't change to another search engine.
The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google
The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google
The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first not serving ads on purpose.
It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app would be a tad antagonistic, seeing as the first version released contained no ads. One might suspect Microsoft wanted a PR fight more than they wanted a Youtube app, or that they wanted both.
Alas, we can read for clues.
The title of the article is: "The limits of Google’s openness"
But the tags are: "marketplace, Windows Phone"
It's not an article about Google now, is it?
~~~
The article doesn't help WP users. Instead they get no Youtube app while watching a hissy fit occur if they google (ha) to find out why the app is gone.
I like both these companies, but for however-much of a PR stunt this is, Microsoft does not come out looking good.
Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software.
And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux.
edit: typos
The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked.
Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.
Heck, isn't this Microsoft's own point of view? Or do they have plans to write Office for Linux?
A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome".
Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.
Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.
Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that
> Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...
The iOS app would've been developed in partnership and with the blessing of Google (aka Co that owns YouTube).
Microsoft had no such relationship with Google and instead chose to release their own unofficial YouTube app (first without ads) clearly violating the YouTube API TOS. Knowingly breaking the law and expecting a favorable outcome reminds me of "Queue Jumpers" who illegally enter Australia, they're not legally allowed to enter, but they continue to do so because the outcome is more favorable to their lively-hood when they do.
So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse.
Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).
EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.
Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired.
I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).
> With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May
If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like:
1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that.
2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown.
3. Using YouTube's branding without permission.
I am but a lowly engineer and the actions of executives confuse me, but I don't see how Microsoft didn't realize the above was batshit crazy. I can only assume this is some sort of weird ploy.
YouTube's entire business model is about getting content providers to put videos up there so that people will watch ads to see them. If you let people take videos off the site, or just skip the ads, that breaks the fundamental business proposition.
This would be like me making an Android app called "Bing from Micrsoft" that let you perform bing searches but then stripped out all of the ads. Microsoft would shut that shit down, with good reason.
> When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year.
"Open access to content" doesn't mean "ignore the requirements of the people who created that content". People make their livelihoods producing YouTube videos and the only way that money flows to those creators is because of ads. If you make a Windows Phone app that lets you watch Cooking with Dog without the ads, you aren't doing Francis any favors by giving out "open access" to his content.
(Yes, I did just imply that they are the dog's videos. He is the host, after all.)
>"Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues..We enabled Google’s advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos. We did this all at no cost to Google, which one would think would want a YouTube app on Windows Phone that would only serve to bring Google new users and additional revenue."
"We stopped breaking Google's ToS at _no cost_ to Google"
Cry me a river, Microsoft.
If you react emotionally to arguments between these companies (unless they pay you to) you should find something worthwhile to be angry about. They're all whores who would screw every customer they have for a dime.
Use them any way you can but don't invest in them emotionally. It's a waste of your time.
And 2nd people do like to be screwed, if that means less effort and lower risk. The vast majority of civilizations in human history were slave based, with the majority of people being slaves.
Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections.
In the end, both companies have blemishes and so far I can't determine who's really at fault here. The soap opera will continue, I'm sure.
[1] http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4...
[2] http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-em...
If I'm not mistaken all the other "native" Youtube apps on other platforms are Google's own apps, and it's also their prerogative to choose the platforms they want to make native apps on. For example, they haven't made one for Roku either, and it's the #1 media streaming box right now.
So I don't see the problem here?
EDIT: One other thing. Google told them from the beginning that they'll only allow an HTML5 app. So what does Microsoft do? They make a native app - again. And then Microsoft releases the native app to their store, without Google's approval, even though they were supposedly "collaborating" on this, and then seeds press releases to the media that Google-the-bad-guy blocked them "again" - like it was "completely unexpected" or something.
It's not obvious why using the HTML5 API is "impossible". Windows bundles a <video>-capable browser; assuming IE's capable of playing either H.264 or WebM, it should be relatively easy to build a YouTube app on top of it. Maybe there's some internal reason why an app can't easily embed an IE widget.
[1] http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe...
It would proxy everything alla google translate and serve a text only version of the whole web under the pretext that "my phone's browser sucked and they were helping me".
But it's ok as long as you pretend to do no evil.
> Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services
> now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM
> Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server
> to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in
> favor of their own lock in protocols.
Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product (affiliated with Google+) that doesn't support federation.
> Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other
> standards for example
Sometimes "open standard" is code for "designd by committee, compliantly implemented by nobody".
This is only partially true. Many folks had no choice.
For example, on Android, anyone who had automatic updates enabled was automatically upgraded to Hangouts. No choice involved, Talk simply worked one day, and was gone the next, replaced with an purposely-incompatible 'Hangouts' app.
Additionally, if your device doesn't have the Talk apk already on it, there's no user facing way to get it back. (you can only 'uninstall' Hangouts if it Talk shipped on your device. The 2013 Nexus for example, is blocked from installing Talk from the Play Store, and blocked from uninstalling Hangouts. Users have to either root, or hunt down the APK from random internet sites to get Talk back).
Smart move, look at what happened to the previous one where they DID allow comments :p http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
There is a petition on change.org with almost 10,000 signatures.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-cr...
In this case I understand that they have valid grievances with Google, but there's this German word, schadenfreude, that comes to mind.
*schadenfreude requires a HN Enterprise reply agreement before being used in a post. :)
This is somewhat similar to Google's blocking of Maps from the Windows Phone web browser. A feature that worked fine originally and once there was uproar from users came back and continued to work fine.
Google is attempting to deny service to Windows Phone users to avoid competition in the handheld market. It isn't pretty and it does make me rethink my daily usage of Google services. Windows Phone users are Google customers too and I couldn't care less about their petty rivalry with some other mega-corp.
There's a bully in the handheld wars, and it isn't Google.
In May, Microsoft released a YouTube app for Windows Phone that didn't show ads and allowed users to download videos. Google said no.
Microsoft removed the download capability but didn't restore the ads. Google said no.
Then the PR comes out that Microsoft and Google are working together on a new app. I'm guessing that was PR from Microsoft's side.
Now Microsoft has tried to release an app that follows the rules but Google looks like they are being petty about it after Microsoft has repeatedly violated their terms of service.
So Microsoft posts a blog article angling for FTC intervention, and here we are.
Is there no equivalent to embedded webivew for native windows phones?
Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?
Its clear this is an anti-competitive action on Google's part and while they have that right (if they aren't a monopoly, which is increasingly unclear), they really can't claim with the other side of their mouth that they are open.
Google's T&Cs that M$ is citing, it would seem to me, apply to third-party use of YouTube data. Since Google wrote the Android and iOS YouTube apps, this is not "third-party use." Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot.
Presumably, a Google-written YouTube app for WinPhone would also be allowed to be non-HTML5. However, I'm sure readers here have a pretty good grasp on the chances of that happening.
Heureka! My timemachine worked and I'm back in the 90s!
Well, yeah. But for a company so heavily invested in HTML5 to demand another company apply it, while simultaneously not doing so themselves, is a little hard to stomach.
I personally feel more wronged by Microsoft than by Google, I've never been forced to use Google products. The pervasive dominance that Microsoft still holds on the desktop is poisonous. Until I am free to choose or not to choose Microsoft products I will feel wronged by Microsoft.
I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. It sounds like Microsoft's application added features that even Google wouldn't give its own apps. However, the argument that Google is simply allowed to write its own apps, for its own platforms and them impose extra restrictions on third parties who use its APIs is anti-competitive. This is the kinda crap that got Microsoft in trouble in the first place.
Again, I'm only speaking to the argument I see in the threads here, not the reality as it appears in the story. In reality, it appears Microsoft may have overstepped a bit.
The hypocrisy is truly hilarious, lambasting others for "Antitrust violations". They can still be the victim here though, I'm not ruling that out at all.
Microsoft is truly synonymous with Antitrust in my mind, on an unparalleled level. With regards to Windows/Xbox/anything they can really.
I don't think Google are playing fair here either, but MSFT are hitting new levels of childishness in my mind. If MSFT truly believe it's unfair, why not take them to court in CA for Antitrust? Take a shot at being on the side receiving the settlement for once.
Also, Google isn't preventing Microsoft from creating a Youtube app, they are only requiring that it meet certain requirements. Since Microsoft is a direct competitor in the search (and therefore advertising) space, it's not unfounded that Google do what they're doing.
I personally think it's crap, however Microsoft brought this on themselves by blatantly violating the Terms of Service.
However, when all is said and done, Microsoft deserves it -- they are, after all responsible for Internet Explorer and while it isn't related to Youtube, they deserve to suffer for all of the hours and hours developers have spent trying to make their products compatible with that hell-demon of a browser.
But that's impossible: the company is French, and partially owned by the French government which keeps its companies valuation as low as possible by forbidding US companies to acquire DailyMotion. Yahoo! wanted to buy the company, and the "French Productivity Minister", no joke, killed the acquisition.
This was poor judgment from Microsoft, and as far as I can see, was addressed in this new version of the app.
> 2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown.
Blocking on this basis alone is a double standard from Google. As others have pointed out, the iOS app developed by Apple never showed ads, even if the videos were monetized. Google never unilaterally revoked Apple's API access over it.
Though one could argue that they did and that's why iOS 6+ doesn't include it. But that doesn't explain why Apple TV, to this day, still plays all videos—even with required monetization—without ads. Why is it okay for Apple to do this, but not Microsoft? Why won't Google license YouTube API access on the same terms?
> 3. Using YouTube's branding without permission.
As above, why won't Google license this to Microsoft on the same terms as other competitors? Why is it tying a "must be HTML5" requirement to Microsoft alone, and no one else? Apple's Apple TV app isn't in HTML5 and uses the YouTube branding.
Heck, there's even a third-party app for iOS called Jasmine[1] that is a native app (embedding just the HTML5 video player inside the app as y2bd points out below) and uses YouTube branding. Why is Google making it more difficult for Microsoft to do the exact same thing? We're clearly not getting the full story from anyone here.
[1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-client/id554...
It has been mentioned else where in the thread that apple had licence from google to use youtube without ads and when that licence ended they removed the app from the market.
>Though one could argue that they did and that's why iOS 6+ doesn't include it. But that doesn't explain why Apple TV, to this day, still plays all videos—even with required monetization—without ads. Why is it okay for Apple to do this, but not Microsoft? Why won't Google license YouTube API access on the same terms?
Apple may very well have a licence for this as they did previously with the iphone app.
> As above, why won't Google license this to Microsoft on the same terms as other competitors?
The article does not even say if Microsoft has been seeking such or if Google has denied them. If they are/have been seeking then the author of the article should have included this fact to make their argument stronger, but if it is there I missed it.
> Heck, there's even a third-party app for iOS called Jasmine[1] that is a native app (embedding just the HTML5 video player inside the app as y2bd points out below) and uses YouTube branding. Why is Google making it more difficult for Microsoft to do the exact same thing? We're clearly not getting the full story from anyone here.
Big players get more attention because they have a larger effect. It would be unprofitable and unproductive for its long term survival for google to pay equal attention to small players transgressing rules as they do larger players.
Google signed some sort of license with Apple for access to YT via that app, and when it was up, they pulled the app (despite there being no official Google YT app at the time) from iOS. It's very possible that the ATV app for YT is still under some sort of license with Google, which is why it can play videos ad-free.
I think this is purely a game of numbers, and if/when WP gets big enough that the additional income from eg. youtube outweighs the income generated from users who picks android next time.
This one isn't quite so clear. Microsoft had no way of showing ads, and Google provided them none. Google's "solution" for them was to direct them to a skinned version of mobile YouTube... which also didn't show ads.
But should respect content owners preference for where and how their videos are shown.
HTML5 provides the video, the client just choose to stream me but can choose to save it as well, that's no constrain here. Likewise, the browser can choose to display whatever it pleases, adverts or not.
I really wouldn't be surprised to see this kind of legislation in 5-10 years, or sooner.
There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google
asked us to transition our app to a new coding
language – HTML5.
[...]
For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish
our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google
long-term on an app based on HTML5. [...] Google, however,
has decided to block our mutual customers from accessing
our new app.http://slashdot.org/story/05/08/02/2219208/the-dos-aint-done...
Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now?
Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.
They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone.
The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety.
It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)
It kind of makes "open" another doublespeak term: we're Open, but terms and conditions apply...
Of course we can have debates on the semantics of the word "open": should it be assumed to mean tolerance?
Semantics aside, Google's "open" is marketing artifice, akin to Apple's many pompous adjectives for mundane or even inferior things ("beautiful", "revolutionary", "insanely great" etc.) or Microsoft's old message of empowerment ("where do you want to go today?") to sell an unremarkable but popular OS and productivity suite.
Why? The two customers are competitors and Microsoft has a history of just ripping off Google's services.
The current fight started when Microsoft released an update that showed all YouTube videos, without ads, ignoring the advertising-requirement flag.
I have to agree with Microsoft here. It seems they are doing everything they can and getting no clear responses. It's funny because this is the same type of junk that happens to small dev companies submitting to app stores in general, however that doesn't make it right. And when you are talking YouTube, which pretty much has a monoppoly on many different types of video content online, it's quite ridiculous to say its ok for Google to do this in the long term.
Isn't it more like Google is forcing them to write an HTML5 app by refusing to allow native app?
Google is allowing them to make an HTML5 app, and forbidding them from making a native app. They are not forcing them to do anything.
the biggest problem with HTML 5 video is that it does not support adaptive bitrate streaming. notice that the desktop experience of YouTube still uses a flash player instead of an HTML 5 video player. notice that apple used QuickTime as their default player on their site.
in short, HTML 5 video player is an absolute last resort player.
Example 1: The EU required Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with a browser choice screen. However, Apple does not have to offer an alternative to Safari. Reason: Windows was a monopoly, but Mac OS X wasn't.
Example 2: The EU permitted Windows Phone and Windows RT to default to IE, without offering a choice of other browsers. Reason: Windows Phone does not have a monopoly of the smartphone market, and Windows RT does not have a monopoly of the tablet market.
(Which is why the DOJ defined the market as the one for x86 PC operating systems. That excluded Mac OS from being considered a competitor to Windows, as it ran only on PowerPC at the time.)
> Users have to either root, or hunt down the APK from
> random internet sites to get Talk back).
... except complying with Google's terms for displaying YouTube videos.
> And when you are talking YouTube, which pretty much has a monoppoly on many different types of video content online, it's quite ridiculous to say its ok for Google to do this in the long term.
It's definitely OK for google to do this for as long as they want, and then some. Windows Phone users are not blocked from accessing YouTube, so it's perfectly OK (and even if they were, it might arguably still be ok, but that's not even the case). They just have to spend 3 more seconds waiting for the first page to load.
As for facebook's app, I was commenting about HTML5 still not being the best option for mobile app development.
Only in a beta, not in a released version:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2004/08/12/213...
Since it did not make it into a released version of Windows, it did not actually affect DR-DOS. Still, Novell eventually got an 8-digit settlement out of Microsoft.
http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-os2-20-fiasco-...
* Microsoft claims they've enabled ads on YouTube videos. How, if they're not using the same technique as Jasmine?
* If they are using the same technique as Jasmine, why is that not enough? Why is Google still saying (or at least Microsoft is claiming that Google is still saying) the entire app must be HTML5?
* If the technique Jasmine uses does, in fact, satisfy Google's "HTML5" requirement, but for some reason Microsoft isn't using it (but somehow is playing ads anyway), why doesn't Microsoft just do it? Embedding a web view into a native app isn't exactly rocket surgery: why do they claim it's technically difficult and time consuming?
Quite a few WP applications that are video-centric (such as the non-MS YouTube apps, Netflix, etc.) use their own much-improved video player. Even Microsoft provides a better video player for usage in WP/W8 applications[2]. Making an improved video player on a per-app basis probably would require a lot less overhead than changing the system-wide video player.
This is all just a guess of course.
[1] http://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/store/app/youtube/dcbb1ac6..., check the screenshots
You know what? If it is time consuming to implement, it's Microsoft's problem, not anyone else's. Lots of people would be happy to get shitload of money from Microsoft and assemble a team to implement it if their problem is difficulty and they are so generous to be willing to pay cash, as they brag about in their blogpost ("...at Microsoft's expense...").
> notice that the desktop experience of YouTube still uses
> a flash player instead of an HTML 5 video player
Incredible slow performance, buggy, crashes. I actually have to boot into Windows VM just to watch flash/youtube.
That's not correct. The original iOS app played all videos, regardless of whether they were monetized, as long as the creator checked the "make available for mobile devices" option. It works the same with with the current Apple TV app: monetization options have no effect on videos' availability.
I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.
They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.
No, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Well, because apparently there isn't a soul at Microsoft who knows how to read a ToS...
Why do you think Microsoft are resorting to a smear campaign? They don't have a leg to stand on.
It's completely unreasonable, to the point of being WTF-worthy, to require the app which accesses the API to be in a certain language.
Seriously. I'm having trouble phrasing how dumb this is. As long as the app can generate the appropriate requests and serve the appropriate data, who cares? What possible legitimate reason does Google have to decide if the app is written in HTML5, Java, INTERCAL, brainfuck, or lolcode? Why provide an API at all if you're going to do platform restrictions?
Google is not interested in "openness" except where it benefits them. They are just as controlling as Apple when it comes to their viable properties (and rightly so, but they should stop using "open" to describe their platforms).
But, again, my quarrel is with people who choose to continue pouring salt on old wounds when there are many more relevant grips to bring up.
>> Knowingly breaking the law
Yeah, mythz's crazy anti-Microsoft law ...
MS argument here is that Google is pushing for open platforms and standards when it's profitable for G and closing their own when not.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Google might be doing a legal thing, but they're still doing the wrong thing.
>Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).
I dont think not actively preventing them from doing the same thing your apps do is 'bending over backwards'. The other points are irrelevant. If you claim to be open, you must be open to everyone, not just the people you do not consider competitors.
Especially the section "Open Information".
There's a lot of the world's information exclusively on Youtube, not just entertainment.
Yes, they can't literally do whatever they want, but in this instance, it's their code, their servers, their data (in a sense), they're permitted to define how others may use it, and use it in a separate way themselves.
Google often talks about the broader web and services in ways that encourage openness and standards. Yet here they are making it difficult for someone who wants to hook into their data while respecting the content owners' rights.
https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/developers-guide?cs...
This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services." Microsoft is trying to weasel this into good PR for themselves, but the fact is this: Google has no obligation to people that are not making them money. It is not their responsibility to keep people buying Microsoft phones.
That is a snide comment that reveals much.
> 'This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services."'
That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube. It's certainly not the behaviour of the company that Google projects itself to be. I totally agree that Google owe Microsoft nothing, but this has the potential to do much harm to their image. A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then. I'm not suggesting for one minute that were Microsoft to do the same it would be OK (or that indeed it is or was OK). I'm suggesting that there appears to be a double standard being applied to Microsoft from more that a few parties. Google cannot have their cake and eat it, as the saying goes...
Edit: Cleaned up my shameful grammar and spelling...
How so? It's not that popular a device.[0] If you work at Microsoft or have a significant interest in them not failing, you might want to divulge your bias here.
>That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube.
You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.
>A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then.
If Microsoft cut off access to Bing from Android Phones (and if, for this example, if Bing was as ubiquitous and useful as Google Search) due to Google flagrantly violating ToS, I'd understand and be mad at Google for selling me a device and then fucking me over by locking me away from a good service through their posturing.
Microsoft is becoming less relevant, but they're still trying to act like the big bully of yesteryear.
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_...
If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key!
Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also, I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift, click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument.
If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users.
> You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.
You are semantically correct. 2 issues though. If it's business, surely developing a version for the device is worth the ad revenue. Also doesn't this directly contradict the benevolent and altruistic business image that Google like to project. Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.
I can see it. But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food.
>Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.
Microsoft is trying to access a popular service while breaking the terms of service. What guarantee does Google have that Microsoft won't try to pull more shit in the future, requiring Google to take action in response (at a cost to themselves)? Everything is opportunity cost; why should Google spend any more time on Microsoft's phone's relatively small user base?
Edit: Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a webbrowser.
> "But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food."
I disagree. My indignation is firmly rooted in Googles bare-faced hypocrisy. http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ This is hypocrisy. This is what Google want you to believe. Their behaviour suggest that this is marketing bullshit on their part.
From where I'm standing Google are essentially harming their own users for what seems like nothing more than malicious reasoning masked as T&C's. It is they and no-one else who are getting fucked in all of this. I couldn't give a shit about Microsoft. Do they deserve it? Yeah probably, karma and all of that. I do give a shit about the utter hypocrisy exhibited by Google and their fans however. The double standards on display in this and other threads on the 'net are astounding.
> "Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a web browser."
Indeed they could (funny, but when that was the response to the lack of Flash on iPhones, it was mocked...). Or Google could just stop being hypocrites and practice what they preach. We'll see snow in Hades first.
The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning:
- Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?
- Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
- Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.
- Yes, I do want to view SilverLight videos on Linux. But I can't. Because Microsoft won't let me (or Xamarin or Ximian) implement the DRM parts.
- Yes, I do check that an nvidia card is supported on Linux before I buy it; That's why, for example, I avoid AMD, and it IS my problem if I buy an AMD card for which there is no good driver on Linux
> I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.
The implied argument (Microsoft is more open because you CAN reverse engineer their products) is complete bullsh*t. Evidence: http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html
I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines in their investor reports) or connects to their search engine without showing any ad.
Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?
Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft?
You agree with me then! that was my point. You can't reverse engineer Google Search, you can't connect with it in an unlimited way (except using web scraping techniques or using the restricted local search API). With Microsoft you can reverse engineer it.
And I have an story to tell: my company started selling a full API for a Microsoft product without one. Not only we reverse engineered the product but we built a complete API on top. One day Microsoft QA call us if they can help to test the compatibility of our product in operating systems under development.
Yes, but if I install Linux expecting to have support for nvidia cards, it is my problem.
> - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to connect to a Windows share, it is my problem.
> - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to print to a windows share, it is my problem.
There is no problem when you extrapolate this reasoning.
If Google is a monopoly and this is probed in some court (EU/US) the issue will crystallize in another way.
Meanwhile, it can be analyzed in an ethical way and some people think that the problem extends beyond you.
The argument is about openness, not about rights.
It's in Microsoft's favor to damage that image. Don't take it personally.
Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTML5? Why do they care if it's HTML5 or something else? It sounds fishy, and Google should come out with a real reason for requiring HTML5 if there is one, after all they call themselves open.
It is probably well within their rights to screw around since it's their stuff, but lets not pretend it's open. Didn't MS get lambasted for private APIs in Windows? Why does Google get a free pass now and get away with calling itself open?
IMO, it's not about rights. It's about anti-competitive behavior of Google. WP might easily get on par with Android and OS and this why Google doesn't allow Youtube there.
I think a bigger problem here is why people think YouTube or Google are "open" to begin with. There are some areas in Google businesses that being more open than the alternatives (note the emphasis on more, sometimes they are just "open" in comparison with Microsoft and Apple policies) serves them well, thats why the do it, but it's not a dogma inside the company and will never be.
If microsoft had a signed contract with google, (which would probably entail payment to google) they would have a case. As it stands, they don't.
If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone. Your experience is not worse in any way than it was then (although it might not be as good as android or ios users; but then, you didn't buy an android or an iphone)
> Had MS or Apple pulled a similar crap, everyone would be crying an antitrust river and carrying a nail to the cross. Why does Google get a free pass at this?
Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less. Twitter does it every other week, and so does facebook - and people are upset, but everyone understands that this is entirely within their rights. (Unlike stuff Microsoft did, for which it was convicted of antitrust violations).
> Its by now clear that Google wants to provide a degraded experience to the windows phone users, thus deliberately rigging the market place.
The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google. I know what my response to that would have been: No more MS products.
> What guarantees that the same wouldn't be pulled when Firefox OS or Ubuntu OS comes to the market? If so what can possibly replace Youtube? 90% of the video links on the web are to Youtube.
AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE, INSIDE THE WEB BROWSER, LIKE LINKS ARE SUPPOSED TO! WHAT ARE YOU UPSET ABOUT?
No its not, you know since flash is disabled.
>Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less.
And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.
>The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google.
I would have to agree with you on that, especially with their scroogled ads campaign. However without such public announcement, no one will ever know what the reason behind the app's breaking. Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.
>AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE!
Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!
Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone?
Windows Phone holds about 3.5% marketshare, and by refusing to make an official app (with ads) or allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads and because of the degraded experience of the mobile site which discourages people from searching, watching related videos etc. , they're hurting revenues of content providers to help Android.
So if you're a content provider, you can and will be used as a stick to further Google's selfish interests even if the actions hurt you.
Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.
Did you try to open your web browser on your phone and go to http://youtube.com ? please try. I don't have a windows phone, but when I tried it in a store, it seemed to work well - and other people on this thread claim it also works well,
> And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.
The terms of service actually mandate either flash or html5, nothing else. Microsoft chose not include flash. Microsoft chose to avoid using HTML5 for the youtube app. They are not complying with the terms of service, and it is ENTIRELY their fault.
> Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.
Yes, and at that time Google was at fault, and it took them a couple of days to make things right. In this case, Microsoft has been playing the PR game for more than 3 months now, instead of doing the right thing (honoring terms of service).
> Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!
Again, go to youtube in your web browser. it worked for me. Yes, it's not as nice as a YouTube app, but you don't actually lose out on any content.
I just said that Google Achilles' heel is in another place and because we have a bias in favor of free software we are not seeing the big picture clearly.
Google can close and shutter youtube, Microsoft cannot. Therefore, by your definition, there is no way for youtube to ever be open unless Google commits to irrevocably fund youtube forever and ever. Alternatively, they could give Microsoft the option to close YouTube at any point in time for any reason, just like Google can.
?!?!?
ergo, your definition of openness makes no sense.
Don't be willfully dense.
When you get to define terms, that may be. Here on earth, you're just making no sense whatsoever.
IF you are at equal footing with everyone else, THEN you are "open". But the other way around does not follow.
e.g. Mozilla (or Digia, or SourceFire, or thousand others -- take your pick) can relicense their open source software as closed source, and put out binaries for future versions without releasing the source. Others using the same source code base cannot. That does not make that source code any less open.
2. The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.
But it's still an "open" system by everyone's definition of the word - the source is open, the API is open, everyone is welcome to use it and make changes. It's just that Google is not obligated to accept them into the official tree. Who cares how the development process looks like? Android is open, and claiming otherwise is foolish. e.g. Amazon's Kindle Fire version of Android.
> The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.
Do you actually have an idea of how the GPL works? Because what you wrote here indicates you do not. SourceFire (the company that makes Snort) used to provide the source under the GPL, but then continued to develop it and provide PUBLIC copies without source. No one, except themselves (as the right holder) could legally do that. That does not make the open GPL versions any less "open source" or "open" in general.
To most of the world, it means "you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable. it does NOT mean "I must let everyone compete with me on equal footing".
>"you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable.
I wonder if the HTML5 requirement can considered reasonable. Why does the server's web service API care if the client is HTML5 or not?
Microsoft says this in their post:
>There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.
Google's statement is totally mum on the matter except for "it violates terms of use". If they want to call themselves open, they should atleast let us know what the HTML5 requirement is about, as it is certainly strange for a web service API. And in my opinion this makes it a 'unreasonable' condition for an open API and Google's silence does not help it. I do think Google is within their rights(absent monopoly concerns) though.
Yes, it is very reasonable.
The server doesn't, but google does. The HTML5 requirement means that google can change everything about their service (e.g. they can switch the ads from being h264 videos today, to javascript games tomorrow, to 3d interactive items the next day when 3d screens become the norm on phones). If they had to expose an "ad inventory API", they couldn't change these things without breaking older clients.
An analogy: Microsoft relies on the TCP packets coming from YouTube being always 100 bytes or less (because they are). Google says "no, you must use a general TCP stack, because one day we might want to make our packets longer". Microsoft dedicates significant engineering resources to examine the possibility, and at the end of the day recognizes that even though they have a general purpose TCP stack, switching to it will result in some inconvenience to users. So they release an app that has a TCP stack that expects 100 bytes or less -- and google refuses to serve it.
This is exactly the same, except at a higher abstraction level. Google doesn't care to spell it out, because anyone who is capable of understanding that issue already does.
No, they're just refusing to give Microsoft preferential treatment. Microsoft can write a native app as long as they comply with Google's terms. There are at least 5 different YouTube native apps in the iOS store last I checked, and at least 5 in the Android Play store. See "Jasmine" on iOS for a great example.
If Microsoft is so bad at writing software that they can't follow simple terms and conditions, maybe they should hire the Jasmine guy.
> allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads
That would require them to develop a new API for microsoft, and maintain it. Why would they do that, when they already have a perfectly good API that Microsoft refuses to use?
> because of the degraded experience of the mobile site which discourages people from searching, watching related videos etc. , they're hurting revenues of content providers to help Android.
This is an assertion without proof, which personally I find implausible.
> Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.
You are welcome to stop using Google products. Especially, you should stop using YouTube. Please do. Please. Blacklist the youtube.com website (which works perfectly well on WP) so you don't go there accidentally.
Anyway this is a good read from Google's official blog.
From http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important."
It's hard to read that and then say Google is not being hypocritical here.
If Microsoft can't put a simple web frame in their own application and have only an iframe, video tag, or whatever it is that Google wants to display the video, Microsoft has a problem.
The data is open, and free for anyone to use, provided they follow the rules. Microsoft doesn't want to follow one simple rule. One. Simple. Rule.
Which assertions am I making that are unfounded or not supported by fact (and examples from other native apps)?
> It's hard to read that and then say Google is not being hypocritical here.
It's actually quite easy. They are hypocritical in some places, but not here.
Microsoft's original version of the app either:
a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing
b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown
The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights.
Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount.
How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?
Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons.
> Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?
The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year license agreement to Apple. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is possible that Apple actually paid in lieu of showing ads.
Either way, there is no reason an 2007 agreement between Google and Apple should apply to Microsoft in 2013.
Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone in an effort to cripple it?
The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this to help Android.
I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?
If Google wanted to fulfill it's obligations to content providers and advertisers, they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.
The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.
If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser.
> The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this
That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption.
> I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?
The would also benefit if Google gave a free android phone to all WP users so they can watch it. So? Google is not a charity. They set terms and conditions for implementing a YouTube app. There are tens of youtube apps for both iphone and android that abide these rules (not talking about Google's official apps here! see e.g. Jasmine on iOS).
Microsoft insists on not observing the terms and conditions, and then blames google.
> they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.
There's no kindle app for Linux. Or the Raspberry Pi. Or the the BeagleBone Black. Or the Chumby. or my smart Vizio TV. And yes, I run all these platforms at home. Does that mean Amazon doesn't care about Kindle content? (incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).
> The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.
Next time, you should start with the facts and work out to a logical conclusion, rather than starting with a conclusion you want, and trying to fit the facts into it.
When people say talk about something being open, they mean in a specific context. They don't mean that literally the entire business is open and you could wander into their meetings, etc.
We agree then on that, I think, but it has nothing to do with the API openness so I'm not going to pursue it.
They loosen this requirement for google's own youtube clients because they can push new version of those apps whenever they like. They had no guarantee that MSFT would respond to their requests for changes in a timely manner in the future.
Why didn't MSFT want to use an iframe? Because arrogant ignorance of the open standard of HTML5 is part of company DNA. Any web developer can rant for hours how crappy IE6-9 are and what a drag it is to maintain compatibility with IE when you are building a modern webapp.
To remind everyone that IE11 will be dead on arrival, I'm copying some html5test results: Chrome - 463 Firefox - 410 Safari - 378 IE 11 - 355
But if MSFT bothered to properly implement HTML5 then a) they wouldn't have difficulty building a youtube app in accordance to the google's terms and conditions b) WP users would enjoy better browsing experience c) developers wouldn't have to deal with the compatibility mess caused primarily by IE6-10 and not yet released IE11
Everyone would win.
YouTube also offers a Flash based API to show videos with adverts. If HTML5 wasn't feasible for Microsoft they could have paid Adobe for a licence to use the Flash runtime in their YouTube app.
It's apparently not a very pleasant rule if the largest API consumer doesn't follow it.
It's not 'open' if some users get the good API and some users get the bad API.
And it makes you sound ridiculous to put so much emphasis on 'one simple rule'. It's very easy for rules to be both simple and unfair at the same time. How about '$500 entry fee for short people'.
And that degrades the experience how? Just because Google doesn't use the same API (nor are they required to) doesn't mean everyone else gets a poorer experience. There are a number of unofficial YouTube clients for iOS and Android, and they all use the public API.
Again (and I say again because I replied to another one of your comments), if Microsoft doesn't have a web frame for their mobile apps, and has to make the entire app web-based, how is that Google's fault? They didn't create a (in that case, because if it's not the case, I have no comment) sub-par API for their mobile OS.
> It's apparently not a very pleasant rule if the largest API consumer doesn't follow it.
Again, how so? They don't need to follow the rule because they know when their advertising is going to change, nobody else does. The overhead involved in allowing everyone to do things the same way Google does is too high compared to just saying use a web view. Would you want to monitor every use of the API and make sure everyone was up to date by a certain point of time?
> It's not 'open' if some users get the good API and some users get the bad API.
How is the public API bad? Because it requires a frame? What's bad about that?
Also, really, no users are using a "good" or "bad" API, everyone who isn't the producer has access to the same API. All users get your so-called "bad" API.
> And it makes you sound ridiculous to put so much emphasis on 'one simple rule'. It's very easy for rules to be both simple and unfair at the same time. How about '$500 entry fee for short people'.
But how is this rule unfair? You've yet to convince me that the rule is unfair. This argument only works if everyone agrees that the rule is unfair. I don't see any preference for anyone other than the producer. Everyone who doesn't manage the entire infrastructure is given the same treatment as the other people not managing the system.
How does that make Google un-open?
> It's apparently not a very pleasant rule if the largest API consumer doesn't follow it.
The largest API consumer is also the API provider. They can (and should, and do) iterate faster than a stable API they provide to others. That's almost always the case.
> It's not 'open' if some users get the good API and some users get the bad API.
All users get the same API, but provider is using a different API (which may, and does, change every other day). And it's perfectly open. Openness does NOT mean everyone gets to be on equal footing! Google can shutter youtube tomorrow, but Microsoft can't, which is always going to be the case.
Open is about having access to the data at all, under reasonable terms and conditions, that Microsoft refuses to follow.
> It's very easy for rules to be both simple and unfair at the same time. How about '$500 entry fee for short people'.
It sounds even more ridiculous to compare "use a standard HTML5 iframe section provided to you" to "special fee for short people".
History shows that indeed, Microsoft and standards don't mix well. But that's hardly a Google problem. Microsoft could have spent a tenth of the energy (and money, and goodwill) in this case, and just hired someone who knows what they are doing (e.g. the guy who wrote Jasmine for iOS, which provides an experience way better than the official client, using only this 'one simple rule')
>That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption.
The degraded experience causes many folks to leave the web app instead of going on to watch more videos, especially related ones. Also assuming that fickle users with low attention span are going to remember to search for the video later on on their other devices is also a bogus assumption.
Lack of an officially sanctioned solution definitely hurts content producers.
>(incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).
Just Nokia seems to have sold 20 million phones in the past few quarters.
Anyway, if Windows Phone has very few users, how are the content producers hurt if they watch videos without ads?
How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to?
Even Vimeo with its puny marketshare and revenues compared to Youtube has developed an official Windows Phone app!
Ok. Nintendo has sold more than 100 million Wii consoles. It has no kindle app. It has a YouTube app. Your comparison to Amazon is still bogus.
> How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to?
I'm sorry, we appear to be living in different planets.
Google is under no obligation whatsoever to give preferential treatment to Microsoft, regardless of how much money it costs or earns them. And as Microsoft is still bullying Google's Android partners with patent threats, Google refuses to give Microsoft a preferential treatment. It's so simple. And yet, it seems so hard for many people on this thread to understand.
And if YouTube's content providers and users are hurt by this, so be it?
Everything. As I explained above, please reread.
> The app would still have to be updated when the API changes.
With an HTML5 API, the API can be stable and still support many new features, video formats, ad formats, etc without change. NOT SO if you don't let google have their iframe.
> Additionally, if that were a concern of Google's, why aren't their apps written in HTML5?
Because they can update their own apps whenever they want to, but they cannot force Microsoft to.
No they can't. Not on the phones, where it matters.
Google isn't forcing Microsoft to write better code. They're trying to force Microsoft to write no code at all, and instead execute whatever javascript comes from the Google servers, sight unseen.
Google is refusing to provide a real API that deals in discrete chunks of data, where the consumer chooses how to interpret them. Even though Microsoft is willing to display ads or presumably do anything else Google asks for that its own apps do.
That's demonstrably false. Have a look at the "Jasmine" app for iOS - it's way, way better than the official iOS client, despite using the same HTML5 API. It does NOT, in any way, provide a degraded experience compared to the official app using.
> and instead execute whatever javascript comes from the Google servers, sight unseen.
Well, yes. Microsoft also doesn't vet the videos it is going to show - google might instead stream rickrolls. Google is not asking Microsoft to execute arbitrary javascript (which allows e.g. stealing credentials). They're asking them to use an iframe, which is perfectly sandboxed. And they actually need to run javascript for functionality - I don't know if you've noticed but Google keeps adding features like captions, annotations, multispeed, multiquality, etc - they need to run code so they can add more features and make them accessible to all.
> Google is refusing to provide a real API that deals in discrete chunks of data, where the consumer chooses how to interpret them. Even though Microsoft is willing to display ads or presumably do anything else Google asks for that its own apps do.
Well, Microsoft is refusing to let me sell Windows Premium addition DVDs for $10, even though I'm willing to pay them the $0.50 that a DVD costs, and displaying their logo and whatever it is they do themselves when they sell a Windows equipped computer on the Microsoft store.
Do you realize how stupid it sounds? Google/YouTube is not a charity, nor a utility, and not even a monopoly. They're accessible on Windows Phone, and they're happy to have Microsoft play according to the same rules they set for everyone else. I understand Microsoft is really not use to playing by the rules, granted - but that's hardly Google's fault.
It doesn't? Because one of the other posts in this thread says that it is degraded.
> Well, Microsoft is refusing to let me sell Windows Premium addition DVDs for $10, even though I'm willing to pay them the $0.50 that a DVD costs, and displaying their logo and whatever it is they do themselves when they sell a Windows equipped computer on the Microsoft store.
Okay, I can work with this analogy. First off, Microsoft would be giving Microsoft-made DVD printers to the other major stores and letting them do the exact same thing you want to do, on official Microsoft hardware. And you've worked hard to make your hardware be up to spec to theirs, but they don't want you to be in business so they only let you use the method that gives them more control: buying full Windows boxes for $0.50 and packing them with the computer. But they won't let you actually take the disc out of the box and install Windows yourself, leading to a degraded experience.
It seems like a reasonable request to me now, though Microsoft can refuse if they want. But they can't call themselves 'open' at the same time.
> They're accessible on Windows Phone, and they're happy to have Microsoft play according to the same rules they set for everyone else. I understand Microsoft is really not use to playing by the rules, granted - but that's hardly Google's fault.
Google is the one explicitly providing an app that doesn't follow the rules. I'm sure Microsoft would be thrilled to not have to write their own app, but they've only tried to write an app that follows the same rules as the official apps. If they can't, then it really sounds like it's not open. Half-open, maybe.
Imagine YouTube tomorrow decides to encode videos with a new codec, one which a particular processor can't decode easily?
Will the users which own that processor feel "hurt" / get "hurt"?
What is clear from this debacle, though, is that Microsoft was unable to write their app according to Google's guidelines, and then took 3 months and still couldn't fix it - which means that Google definitely cannot expect them to upgrade to newer APIs ever - so it doesn't seem onerous to require them to actually use the official API now.