The limits of Google’s openness • Hacker News Board

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#141

Post by kevingadd » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:49 PM UTC

jmillikin wrote: post #102

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 produ…

Is 'an Android OTA update replaces Google Talk with Hangouts without advance notice' your definition of 'chosen to switch'?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#142

Post by Kylekramer » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:49 PM UTC

cantankerous wrote: post #135

Kylekramer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And my point is that Microsoft's article fails to convince me of that. I am sure the image Google would like the public to have about their openness and the reality don't match up, but in this particular case I fail to see any Google hypocrisy.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#143

Post by maxsilver » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

jmillikin wrote: post #102

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 produ…

> Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product.

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).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#144

Post by manacit » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:52 PM UTC

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…

I believe, and I could be wrong, that the iOS YouTube app was developed jointly by Apple and Google back when iOS first came out in 2007, when YT and mobile video was in an entirely different place than it is today.

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#145

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

HelloMcFly wrote: post #105

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.

"Your honor, Microsoft did not provide me with a way to sell Windows 8 for $3, so I had to find my own way to crack it. It's not my fault, it's Microsoft's fault for not giving me any way to do that"

Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#146

Post by mh- » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

tnuc wrote: post #49

Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone? Google has written one for the iphone. 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.

iPhone (and Android) have sufficiently-large userbases.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#147

Post by solomatov » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

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…

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#148

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:58 PM UTC

the_unknown wrote: post #58

I'd be more inclined to give Google a bit of leeway here if they hadn't already pulled out some petty behaviour against Windows Phone. 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 i…

Microsoft is still threatening Android makers with lawsuits, and making way more money from Android patent extortion than from Windows Phone.

There's a bully in the handheld wars, and it isn't Google.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#149

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:58 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #53

barista wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app Isn't it more like Google is forcing them to write an HTML5 app by refusing to allow native app?

Google cannot force them to make anything; they are separate companies. 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.

Sophistry. Users expect a Youtube experience on an average mobile device, and by dictating the language it must be written in (WHY? What possible legitimate reason does Google have to do this?), they are effectively forcing Microsoft's hand.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#150

Post by will118 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 9:58 PM UTC

The author was given the tricky task of padding out 60 or so words to nearly 1000, it's almost prose.

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.