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

111–120 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#111

Post by asterix9 »

Kylekramer wrote: post #91
NegativeK wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. The argument is about openness, not about rights.

The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

>I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

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?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#113

Post by gebe »

beagle3 wrote: post #66
badman_ting wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. 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. Lesse…

Silverlight for Linux has existed through the Mono platform since 2007 under the name Moonlight: http://mono-project.com/Moonlight . With Microsoft's blessing I might add.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#114

Post by beagle3 »

wslh wrote: post #98
beagle3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. 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. Lesse…

> If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. 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. M…

Your arguments are nonsensical:

- 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

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#115

Post by test-it »

mythz wrote: post #70
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

YouTube isn't open source or open content, they're a business and their services aren't free, they're subject to the wishes of YouTube and its content owners. 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…

Crazy talk.

>> 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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#116

Post by beagle3 »

gebe wrote: post #113
beagle3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. 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. Lesse…

Silverlight for Linux has existed through the Mono platform since 2007 under the name Moonlight: http://mono-project.com/Moonlight . With Microsoft's blessing I might add.

Without the DRM parts, making e.g. NetFlix streaming unusable on Linux (until recently, when someone managed to get Wine to the point where it can run Microsoft's own SilverLight DRM properly).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#117

Post by pionar »

justina1 wrote: post #56
badman_ting wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone. 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…

They did change it, except for the one thing the provider of the so-called "open" API doesn't even do - HTML5. Why should Google hold MSFT to that standard when it doesn't even do it itself?

I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#118

Post by saraid216 »

zobzu wrote: post #95
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…

Note that, according to point 1 & 2, adblockers should be forbidden by law and browsers should all include DRM by law. 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.

You realize that they're probably investigating or lobbying for doing just that, right? AFAIK, the only reason no one has gone after AdBlock yet is because they do not actually have enough users to make a demonstrable dent on the advertisers' revenue streams.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see this kind of legislation in 5-10 years, or sooner.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#119

Post by jorgecastillo »

You can down vote me all you want, but I feel zero sympathy for Microsoft. If their app is being blocked from YouTube is because they deserve it. Google has all the right to choose which third parties can access YouTube. Microsoft is in no positing to criticize the actions of other companies.
Post reply on HN