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

121–130 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#121

Post by beagle3 »

zobzu wrote: post #88
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…

And.. thats pretty much being closed. Point microsoft, not you, nor google. Go "cry your river" elsewhere.

open does NOT equal putting yourself on equal footing with your competitors.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#122

Post by CurtHagenlocher »

forgotAgain wrote: post #63

Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance. 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…

As a Microsoft employee, I endorse this position.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#123

Post by mncolinlee »

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…

- 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?

Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#124

Post by mythz »

test-it wrote: post #115
mythz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not argument, it's a carefully crafted anti-Google PR statement with the goal of getting the public to do their own bidding for them, so they can get Google to do as they wish and further their own competitive platform.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#125

Post by prostoalex »

asdasf wrote: post #74
barista wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also note how sencha then went and re-created the new facebook app in html, showing that facebook was full of shit.

For one, Sencha's app doesn't allow commenting. For two, it doesn't support notifications, so "re-created" is a generous verb there.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#126

Post by test-it »

briandear wrote: post #67
forgotAgain wrote: post #63

Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance. 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…

I guess people like being screwed, given the market caps.

Well 1st people often don't have an alternative (driver and app support of Windows, Google's search results quality).

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#127

Post by Anderkent »

beagle3 wrote: post #121
zobzu wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And.. thats pretty much being closed. Point microsoft, not you, nor google. Go "cry your river" elsewhere.

open does NOT equal putting yourself on equal footing with your competitors.

Actually, yes, it does. If you're giving preferential treatment to your apps that's not possible to replicate, you're not being open.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#128

Post by asterix9 »

bo1024 wrote: post #89
simonsarris wrote: post #31

A summary for those not following along at home: 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 woul…

So is there any less-biased explanation of what exactly the new app does and why Google blocked it? Or even a statement from Google?

From http://www.wpcentral.com/official-youtube-windows-phone-app-...

>Google said in a statement that the HTML5-based YouTube app still violates Google's terms of service, and therefore cannot be permitted to remain active.

Google's statement:

  "Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service," says a spokesperson. "It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines."
Sounds pretty vague and beating around the bush. Why don't they tell us why they're blocking the new app? After all, if they want to call themselves "open", can't they at least tell us the reason it's blocked?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#129

Post by mjolk »

sbuk wrote: post #75
mjolk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but Google doesn't owe Microsoft any favors.

I genuinely don't get this line of thinking. This isn't about Google or Microsoft, rather it's about the end user who is essentially a customer of both parties. IMHO, Google aren't just screwing MSFT, they are screwing users, which doesn't really hold with the image that they like to portray. It's actually rather spiteful.

How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#130

Post by drivebyacct2 »

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.

Yeah, you keep using that example and conveniently ignoring that there are still huge numbers of users that refuse to use the native app because the web app works great for them. Plus Sencha redoing it and having it work better than the remade native Facebook app.

Whatever, just saw the username and won't waste my effort. iOS is the greatest thing ever.

Post reply on HN