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

231–240 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#231

Post by beagle3 »

Sven7 wrote: post #200
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…

Great point. Amazon should do the same thing. Since they host all these sites on their cloud. The only browser that should be allowed to access it should be Amazon's.

.... and be in breach of their own contract with those sites, who pay amazon for the privilege - for which they would lose in court if sued.

If microsoft had a signed contract with google, (which would probably entail payment to google) they would have a case. As it stands, they don't.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#233

Post by beagle3 »

Anderkent wrote: post #127
beagle3 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Proof by contradiction:

Google can close and shutter youtube, Microsoft cannot. Therefore, by your definition, there is no way for youtube to ever be open unless Google commits to irrevocably fund youtube forever and ever. Alternatively, they could give Microsoft the option to close YouTube at any point in time for any reason, just like Google can.

?!?!?

ergo, your definition of openness makes no sense.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#234

Post by jorgecastillo »

wslh wrote: post #223
jorgecastillo wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am only a consumer so I wouldn't know about such issues. Maybe in the future my opinion of Google will change, but so far my experience with Google has been very positive. I can not say the same about Microsoft.

Did you hear about Google Reader?

Yes, I didn't use that service & Google Reader was totally opt-in, in no way were people required to use it.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#235

Post by nivla »

beagle3 wrote: post #226
nivla wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pissed because the outcome of my choice shouldn't be affected by faux restrictions. I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience. Had MS or Apple pulled a similar crap, everyone would be crying an antitrust river and carrying a nail to the cross. Why does Google get a free pass at this? Its by now clear that Google want…

> I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience. If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone. Your experience is not worse in any way than it was then (although it might not be as good as android or ios users; but then, you didn't buy an android or an iphone) >…

>If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone.

No its not, you know since flash is disabled.

>Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less.

And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.

>The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google.

I would have to agree with you on that, especially with their scroogled ads campaign. However without such public announcement, no one will ever know what the reason behind the app's breaking. Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.

>AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE!

Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#236

Post by fpgeek »

nivla wrote: post #224
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…

I am pissed because the outcome of my choice shouldn't be affected by faux restrictions. I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience. Had MS or Apple pulled a similar crap, everyone would be crying an antitrust river and carrying a nail to the cross. Why does Google get a free pass at this? Its by now clear that Google want…

Um, if Firefox OS needs a native app for YouTube, something has gone horribly wrong. The whole point of Firefox OS is to demonstrate that a phone can do everything it needs to with web apps in the browser, without native apps outside it.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#237

Post by Mikeb85 »

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…

This has to be a joke.... Microsoft has tried their best to prevent Linux from working or even existing... The fact that Linux hackers are smarter than them doesn't make them open...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#238

Post by kvb »

moutarde wrote: post #167
asterix9 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 downloa…

Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#239

Post by beagle3 »

nivla wrote: post #235
beagle3 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience. If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone. Your experience is not worse in any way than it was then (although it might not be as good as android or ios users; but then, you didn't buy an android or an iphone) >…

>If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone. No its not, you know since flash is disabled. >Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less. And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service. >The only thing that's cle…

> No its not, you know since flash is disabled.

Did you try to open your web browser on your phone and go to http://youtube.com ? please try. I don't have a windows phone, but when I tried it in a store, it seemed to work well - and other people on this thread claim it also works well,

> And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.

The terms of service actually mandate either flash or html5, nothing else. Microsoft chose not include flash. Microsoft chose to avoid using HTML5 for the youtube app. They are not complying with the terms of service, and it is ENTIRELY their fault.

> Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.

Yes, and at that time Google was at fault, and it took them a couple of days to make things right. In this case, Microsoft has been playing the PR game for more than 3 months now, instead of doing the right thing (honoring terms of service).

> Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!

Again, go to youtube in your web browser. it worked for me. Yes, it's not as nice as a YouTube app, but you don't actually lose out on any content.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#240

Post by amanne »

moutarde wrote: post #167
asterix9 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 downloa…

>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.

Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone in an effort to cripple it?

The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this to help Android.

I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?

If Google wanted to fulfill it's obligations to content providers and advertisers, they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.

The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.

Post reply on HN