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

251–260 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#251

Post by beagle3 »

amanne wrote: post #244
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) >…

>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 ve…

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

No, they're just refusing to give Microsoft preferential treatment. Microsoft can write a native app as long as they comply with Google's terms. There are at least 5 different YouTube native apps in the iOS store last I checked, and at least 5 in the Android Play store. See "Jasmine" on iOS for a great example.

If Microsoft is so bad at writing software that they can't follow simple terms and conditions, maybe they should hire the Jasmine guy.

> allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads

That would require them to develop a new API for microsoft, and maintain it. Why would they do that, when they already have a perfectly good API that Microsoft refuses to use?

> 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.

This is an assertion without proof, which personally I find implausible.

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

You are welcome to stop using Google products. Especially, you should stop using YouTube. Please do. Please. Blacklist the youtube.com website (which works perfectly well on WP) so you don't go there accidentally.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#252

Post by enneff »

interpol_p wrote: post #245
pritambaral wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Where is the claim that YouTube is some big open ecosystem? Google provides APIs for working with YouTube, which to me seems the only sane way to protect its content providers. MS refuses to use those APIs. What is hard to digest about this situation?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#253

Post by amanne »

beagle3 wrote: post #249
amanne wrote: post #240

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. 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 Th…

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

>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.

The degraded experience causes many folks to leave the web app instead of going on to watch more videos, especially related ones. Also assuming that fickle users with low attention span are going to remember to search for the video later on on their other devices is also a bogus assumption.

Lack of an officially sanctioned solution definitely hurts content producers.

>(incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).

Just Nokia seems to have sold 20 million phones in the past few quarters.

Anyway, if Windows Phone has very few users, how are the content producers hurt if they watch videos without ads?

How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to?

Even Vimeo with its puny marketshare and revenues compared to Youtube has developed an official Windows Phone app!

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#254

Post by beagle3 »

amanne wrote: post #253
beagle3 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Th…

>If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser. >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. The degraded experience causes many folks to leave the web app instead of going on to watch more videos, especially related ones. Also assuming that f…

> Just Nokia seems to have sold 20 million phones in the past few quarters.

Ok. Nintendo has sold more than 100 million Wii consoles. It has no kindle app. It has a YouTube app. Your comparison to Amazon is still bogus.

> How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to?

I'm sorry, we appear to be living in different planets.

Google is under no obligation whatsoever to give preferential treatment to Microsoft, regardless of how much money it costs or earns them. And as Microsoft is still bullying Google's Android partners with patent threats, Google refuses to give Microsoft a preferential treatment. It's so simple. And yet, it seems so hard for many people on this thread to understand.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#255

Post by beagle3 »

simonsarris wrote: post #31

A summary for those not following along at home: The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first not serving ads on purpose. It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app woul…

I actually think Google's response is very civil and restrained.

A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome".

Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#256

Post by paulftw »

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…

I think single Main Reason why Google requires 3rd parties to use an iframe is that it keeps them in control of when and how ads are shown, what can be rewinded, etc. Without updating the 3rd party app and republishing it to all stores.

They loosen this requirement for google's own youtube clients because they can push new version of those apps whenever they like. They had no guarantee that MSFT would respond to their requests for changes in a timely manner in the future.

Why didn't MSFT want to use an iframe? Because arrogant ignorance of the open standard of HTML5 is part of company DNA. Any web developer can rant for hours how crappy IE6-9 are and what a drag it is to maintain compatibility with IE when you are building a modern webapp.

To remind everyone that IE11 will be dead on arrival, I'm copying some html5test results: Chrome - 463 Firefox - 410 Safari - 378 IE 11 - 355

But if MSFT bothered to properly implement HTML5 then a) they wouldn't have difficulty building a youtube app in accordance to the google's terms and conditions b) WP users would enjoy better browsing experience c) developers wouldn't have to deal with the compatibility mess caused primarily by IE6-10 and not yet released IE11

Everyone would win.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#257

Post by sounds »

improv32 wrote: post #207
dkuntz2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.

> Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. No, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Yes, they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo....

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#258

Post by sounds »

beagle3 wrote: post #255
simonsarris wrote: post #31

A summary for those not following along at home: The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first not serving ads on purpose. It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app woul…

I actually think Google's response is very civil and restrained. A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally…

Kudos for your hard work answering so many posts.

Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#259

Post by amanne »

beagle3 wrote: post #251
amanne wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ve…

> Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone? No, they're just refusing to give Microsoft preferential treatment. Microsoft can write a native app as long as they comply with Google's terms. There are at least 5 different YouTube native apps in the iOS store last I checked, and at least 5 in the Android Play store. See "Jasmine" on iOS for a…

You're making a lot of unfounded assertions about Google's terms.

Anyway this is a good read from Google's official blog.

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

"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important."

It's hard to read that and then say Google is not being hypocritical here.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#260

Post by asterix9 »

beagle3 wrote: post #254
amanne wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser. >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. The degraded experience causes many folks to leave the web app instead of going on to watch more videos, especially related ones. Also assuming that f…

> Just Nokia seems to have sold 20 million phones in the past few quarters. Ok. Nintendo has sold more than 100 million Wii consoles. It has no kindle app. It has a YouTube app. Your comparison to Amazon is still bogus. > How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to? I'm…

>And as Microsoft is still bullying Google's Android partners with patent threats, Google refuses to give Microsoft a preferential treatment. It's so simple. And yet, it seems so hard for many people on this thread to understand.

If that is so, Google should come out and say that instead of hiding behind a façade and playing whack-a-mole with the API, terms that are ambiguous and selectively enforced and making a mockery of the word 'open'.

Post reply on HN