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

241–250 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#241

Post by moutarde »

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.

Amazon is actually relevant here, because their Kindle Fire browser is partly cloud based. Microsoft may say that HTML5 on the Win Phone isn't feasible, but they own a giant cloud based server farm (Azure) just like Amazon. So if Amazon can make a browser that splits tasks between the cloud and the physical device why can't Microsoft handle HTML5 this way?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#242

Post by beagle3 »

kvb wrote: post #238
moutarde wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads?

Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons.

> Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?

The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year license agreement to Apple. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is possible that Apple actually paid in lieu of showing ads.

Either way, there is no reason an 2007 agreement between Google and Apple should apply to Microsoft in 2013.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#243

Post by interpol_p »

rsynnott wrote: post #39
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…

As far as I know this is exactly how the popular third-party iOS Youtube client Jasmine works. It used to be better than it is, but a couple of versions ago the developer mentioned that he was changing the means of showing the video to comply with Google's requirements, and it became a (relatively well-concealed) embedded HTML5 video pane.

Yes but as you say, the user experience became worse after that change. Google is forcing developers to implement a lower quality experience. This seems bad. Is it so they can maintain more control?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#244

Post by amanne »

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) >…

>The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google. I know what my response to that would have been: No more MS products.

Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone?

Windows Phone holds about 3.5% marketshare, and by refusing to make an official app (with ads) or allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads and because of the degraded experience of the mobile site which discourages people from searching, watching related videos etc. , they're hurting revenues of content providers to help Android.

So if you're a content provider, you can and will be used as a stick to further Google's selfish interests even if the actions hurt you.

Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#245

Post by interpol_p »

pritambaral wrote: post #187
axus wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needing Google's permission to release an app on their own platform doesn't sound very open.

Not needing Google's permission to consume Google's content sounds very .... umm ... you decide.

Well if Google are claiming their platforms are open, then as long as Microsoft can comply with content providers (showing ads, etc), Google should not have a problem with them hooking into their platform?

Google is not interested in "openness" except where it benefits them. They are just as controlling as Apple when it comes to their viable properties (and rightly so, but they should stop using "open" to describe their platforms).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#246

Post by TheLegace »

jmillikin wrote: post #215
caruana wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn also abandoned their HTML 5 mobile app experiences. the biggest problem with HTML 5 video is that it does not support adaptive bitrate streaming. notice that the desktop experience of YouTube still uses a flash player instead of an HTML 5 video player. notice that apple used QuickTime as their default player on their site. in short, HTML 5 video player is an absolute last resort player.

> notice that the desktop experience of YouTube still uses > a flash player instead of an HTML 5 video player YouTube uses HTML5 on my machines, since I don't have Flash installed. It works fine.

Don't get me started on how terrible all of it is on Linux. Incapable of dual screen full screen in flash, HTML5 has to buffer every time you enter full screen mode.

Incredible slow performance, buggy, crashes. I actually have to boot into Windows VM just to watch flash/youtube.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#247

Post by amanne »

mythz wrote: post #160
Anderkent wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Goo…

Where does it say YouTube is open?

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html

Especially the section "Open Information".

There's a lot of the world's information exclusively on Youtube, not just entertainment.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#248

Post by kvb »

jorgecastillo wrote: post #197
wslh wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments are nonsensical I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines…

Even Apple has published plenty of open source code (non GUI stuff). Microsoft doesn't make significant open source contributions, because they don't get open source or because the only thing that makes them valuable is their huge desktop market share.

Even at Microsoft there are several open source projects (though maybe fewer than you'd hope for a company their size). See F# for one compelling (IMO) example. And it's not the same thing, but Microsoft publishes way more research than the other tech giants.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#249

Post by beagle3 »

amanne wrote: post #240
moutarde wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 countr…

> Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone?

If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser.

> 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

That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption.

> 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?

The would also benefit if Google gave a free android phone to all WP users so they can watch it. So? Google is not a charity. They set terms and conditions for implementing a YouTube app. There are tens of youtube apps for both iphone and android that abide these rules (not talking about Google's official apps here! see e.g. Jasmine on iOS).

Microsoft insists on not observing the terms and conditions, and then blames google.

> they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.

There's no kindle app for Linux. Or the Raspberry Pi. Or the the BeagleBone Black. Or the Chumby. or my smart Vizio TV. And yes, I run all these platforms at home. Does that mean Amazon doesn't care about Kindle content? (incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).

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

Next time, you should start with the facts and work out to a logical conclusion, rather than starting with a conclusion you want, and trying to fit the facts into it.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#250

Post by moutarde »

beagle3 wrote: post #242
kvb wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons. > Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed? The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year li…

> Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe

YouTube also offers a Flash based API to show videos with adverts. If HTML5 wasn't feasible for Microsoft they could have paid Adobe for a licence to use the Flash runtime in their YouTube app.

Post reply on HN