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

131–140 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#131

Post by itafroma »

y2bd wrote: post #108
itafroma wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's true; I updated my comment to clarify that. If that's the difference between Google being okay with it and not, I guess I don't see where the chasm of difference is:

* 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?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#132

Post by GoNB »

Avalaxy wrote: post #4
samspenc wrote: post #2

Looks like Microsoft disabled comments. 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...

I can't imagine TechNet being so full of Microsoft-haters. Was this sponsored by HN/reddit/4chan or something?

I thought Reddit was fairly pro-Microsoft? I mean, if we're talking Reddit as a whole and not /r/programming. Reddit has a lot of general users who use Windows, especially any gamers, so they take kindly more to Microsoft. I remember articles on Reddit that mocked Bing and most of Reddit seemed to support Microsoft.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#133

Post by Systemic33 »

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…

It all comes down to the fact that iOS is too significant source of users to give the cold shoulder. Windows Phone is still sufficiently small fraction of the market, that Google has more interest in degrading the Windows Phone OS instead of earning from the additional users.

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#134

Post by Anderkent »

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…

>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.

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#135

Post by cantankerous »

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.

The whole article was written to point out that Google's not as "open" as they proclaim they are. In reality, they're just another one of the big guys. Apple is "Beautiful", Google is "Open". Neither of them is either. It's all marketing.

It's in Microsoft's favor to damage that image. Don't take it personally.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#136

Post by asterix9 »

mncolinlee wrote: post #123
wslh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

One difference is that Microsoft and Nvidia are considered evil and are derided for it and they don't pretend that SMB or graphics drivers are open. While Google has a 'do no evil' official policy which many folks seem to think they comply with. Similarly, with regards to openness.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#137

Post by barista »

j_baker wrote: post #101
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.

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?

Calm down. So you think a youtube app with a big rectangle that plays video and another one that allows you to type the url is the right experience? Video playback is just one aspect of it. search, lists, subscriptions, commenting, uploading, tagging, etc.

As for facebook's app, I was commenting about HTML5 still not being the best option for mobile app development.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#138

Post by ZeroGravitas »

indubitably wrote: post #71
erbo wrote: post #15

M$: "Google also says that we are not complying with its 'terms and conditions.' What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone." Google's T&Cs that M$ 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 i…

> Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot. 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've ben using thé web app on iPhone and iPad recently, and I'm guessing thats not flash. Whats wrong with thé WinPhone browser that it xan't use that?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#139

Post by hbbio »

webwanderings wrote: post #30

Microsoft, build your own YouTube.

Even better, acquire the #2, DailyMotion.

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#140

Post by makomk »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #100
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…

> 2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown. 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.

The mobile version of YouTube also didn't show videos that the uploader had blocked from displaying on mobile (for example, because they didn't want people watching it without ads). Microsoft's app ignored those restrictions amd showed the videos anyway without any ads.
Post reply on HN