Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The limits of Google’s openness

blogs.technet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#101

Post by j_baker »

barista wrote: post #35
jmillikin wrote: post #23

It's my understanding that YouTube officially supports access via either a Flash applet or the HTML5 tag. Windows Phone doesn't support Flash[1], so the only option for writing a mobile app using the official API is to use HTML5. It's not obvious why using the HTML5 API is "impossible". Windows bundles a -capable browser; assuming IE's capable of playing either H.264 or WebM, it should be relatively easy to build a Y…

The experience you can provide with an HTML5 app are many times subpar as compared to a native app. Note how facebook abandoned their HTML5 app and went native.

What the hell does facebook's HTML 5 app have to do with the subject at hand? And how is HTML 5's experience subpar for a video app like youtube?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#102

Post by jmillikin »

lnanek2 wrote: post #79

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. Other products are following suit, Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other standards for example, but tries to force you to use Google proprietary stu…

  > 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.
Google Talk still works, and still supports server-to-server XMPP federation.

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
I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, it's obviously better to use an open standard when available. On the other, DLNA and UPnP and all the other associated standards were terrible. As a user I was never able to get my TV to stream music from my computer, and as a developer I couldn't wade through all the XML and acronyms to get something that worked.

Sometimes "open standard" is code for "designd by committee, compliantly implemented by nobody".

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#103

Post by cantankerous »

This discussion brings up the point about how the usage requirements and restrictions of the API applies to third-parties and not Google itself. If Google, for example, wanted to keep the iOS platforms and Android platforms in an advantageous spot for whatever reason, they could just write the apps for those platforms themselves and say that the terms don't apply.

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#104

Post by itafroma »

jmillikin wrote: post #82
itafroma wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. 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.

Are you sure? I believe I remember my iPad being unable to play videos with ads, and having such videos not even show up in search results. Separately, some videos would not play on mobile or when embedded, but those seemed to be much more rare.

Yes, I'm quite sure. Load up any monetized video on Apple TV or any iOS device that's still running iOS 5 or earlier. It will work just fine and play no ads. Here's an example video I just tested to confirm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2HZWHimKas On the web or in the official YouTube apps, there's a required pre-roll ad; on iOS5- and Apple TV, nothing.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#105

Post by HelloMcFly »

mratzloff wrote: post #60

Some background for people who may not have followed this: 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 Micro…

Microsoft could not restore the ads because Google provided no API access to them. They weren't being contrary, they were making due with what they had.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#106

Post by cantankerous »

rsynnott wrote: post #57
cheald wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Google publish its own YouTube app on iOS now?

Yup, there is at least one major third-party one, though (Jasmine), which complies with the API requirements that Microsoft is apparently not willing to deal with (presentation of the actual video via HTML5, etc.)

Does Google abide by its own API usage restrictions? It might seem like a trite point, but it's important given that it publishes for the two dominant platforms. It'd be an easy way to edge out competing applications restricted to a less feature-rich toolset.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#108

Post by y2bd »

itafroma wrote: post #93
munificent wrote: post #77

Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion. > 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…

> 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. 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 A…

A nitpick, but although Jasmine is a native iOS application, when it comes to actually playing a video, it opens a YouTube video embedded in a web view. That is why you see the YouTube player for a brief moment before the video starts.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#109

Post by saurik »

simonsarris wrote: post #54
barista wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

Google sorta did have an issue, and Apple's Youtube app it was built on borrowed time, under a "license". It was then (forcibly, or per-license) removed when Google decided its time was up, and notably before the Google Youtube app was finished. From Aug 2012: > 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…

That transition did not seem very positive for Google, although maybe the new app lets them monetize better; I'd be interested in hearing more detail about the various aspects of this deal. (I see what the massive theme community from Cydia cares about being themed, and while I insist that featured themes theme the YouTube icon, the feedback I get is that very few people actually bother to install the app now that it is separate. As for the website, it was the case that you could view YouTube's content from the website since at least the era of iPhoneOS 2.) I thereby would have assumed that the situation went in the other direction: Apple chose not to renew their license for YouTube, as they no longer felt it gave them enough value for the cost.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#110

Post by rsynnott »

cantankerous wrote: post #106
rsynnott wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, there is at least one major third-party one, though (Jasmine), which complies with the API requirements that Microsoft is apparently not willing to deal with (presentation of the actual video via HTML5, etc.)

Does Google abide by its own API usage restrictions? It might seem like a trite point, but it's important given that it publishes for the two dominant platforms. It'd be an easy way to edge out competing applications restricted to a less feature-rich toolset.

No, I don't think so. Certainly, Youtube for iOS lacks the behavioural problems that showed up when Jasmine shifted to HTML5 for the video pane
Post reply on HN