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

161–170 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#161

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#162

Post by davorak »

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.

> which also didn't show ads.

But should respect content owners preference for where and how their videos are shown.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#163

Post by jlgreco »

Karunamon wrote: post #149
jlgreco wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> WHY?

Well, because apparently there isn't a soul at Microsoft who knows how to read a ToS...

Why do you think Microsoft are resorting to a smear campaign? They don't have a leg to stand on.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#164

Post by hexasquid »

rubberband wrote: post #90
taylodl wrote: post #18

Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years? Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections. In the end, both companies ha…

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now? Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

As a Windows Phone user I am just going to have to accept I will never get YouTube, G+ or Google Drive while Android and iOS users can get onenote, lync, skydrive and the Xbox companion shit.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#165

Post by beagle3 »

rubberband wrote: post #90
taylodl wrote: post #18

Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years? Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections. In the end, both companies ha…

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now? Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

> I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins.

They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone.

The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety.

It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#166

Post by asterix9 »

beagle3 wrote: post #155
asterix9 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 HTM…

> Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. To most of the world, it means "you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable. it does NOT mean "I must let everyone compete with me on equal footing".

Even granting your point which I think is a bit of a stretch for "open", I think there are some unreasonable requirements at place here.

>"you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable.

I wonder if the HTML5 requirement can considered reasonable. Why does the server's web service API care if the client is HTML5 or not?

Microsoft says this in their post:

>There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.

Google's statement is totally mum on the matter except for "it violates terms of use". If they want to call themselves open, they should atleast let us know what the HTML5 requirement is about, as it is certainly strange for a web service API. And in my opinion this makes it a 'unreasonable' condition for an open API and Google's silence does not help it. I do think Google is within their rights(absent monopoly concerns) though.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#167

Post by moutarde »

asterix9 wrote: post #136
mncolinlee wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

Google has obligations (both legal and moral) to both the content providers of YouTube and to the organisations who buy adverts on it. In order to 'not be evil' they have to take actions that respect these obligations.

Microsoft's original version of the app either:

a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing

b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown

The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights.

Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount.

How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#168

Post by drivebyacct2 »

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…

>Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other standards for example

That's because DLNA is a fucking nightmare and everyone who has ever touched it with a 60 foot pole agrees. Further, they've not released all of the docs, but ChromeCast is a very simple combination of SSDP (a piece of DLNA, in fact) and DIAL. It's trivial to create an app that interacts with the ChromeCast with the same level of functionality as Google's SDK.

The CC already supports all of my XBMC remote play scenarios and then some. Every media server software I've ever heard of has already added or is adding ChromeCast support.

XBMC isn't incompatible in the least. It's very easy for me to send a url to either my xbmc plugin or to the Chromecast itself.

And there are python and Android emulators of Chromecast. Eh. I'll rally with you on XMPP any day, but it sounds like you need to read up more on Chromecast.

(would someone un-hell-ban me or un-rate-limit OR un-slow-ban me? Using any of them in combination with a hell-ban is pretty much the dumbest thing I could conceive, but all three together is a real stroke of genius).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#169

Post by y2bd »

itafroma wrote: post #131
y2bd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clai…

Assuming they figured out how to display ads without using the embedded HTML5 player, a guess I can offer (as a WP user) as to why they don't is that if they do, the video would launch in the default webview video player, which is honestly pretty terrible. You can't even scrub through videos. The MS-built YouTube application however had a much-more featured video player[1].

Quite a few WP applications that are video-centric (such as the non-MS YouTube apps, Netflix, etc.) use their own much-improved video player. Even Microsoft provides a better video player for usage in WP/W8 applications[2]. Making an improved video player on a per-app basis probably would require a lot less overhead than changing the system-wide video player.

This is all just a guess of course.

[1] http://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/store/app/youtube/dcbb1ac6..., check the screenshots

[2] http://playerframework.codeplex.com/

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#170

Post by [deleted] »

solomatov wrote: post #147
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…

> 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN