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

271–280 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#271

Post by dkuntz2 »

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

I don't believe that antitrust law applies here. There's no collusion, there's not cartels, the monopolization aspects don't really come into play.

Yes, they can't literally do whatever they want, but in this instance, it's their code, their servers, their data (in a sense), they're permitted to define how others may use it, and use it in a separate way themselves.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#272

Post by Sathi »

I think that Google has a Search app on Windows Phone. If the platform does not have the numbers, then why make the Search app? When Search app is released, why not release Youtube and other apps?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#273

Post by dkuntz2 »

amanne wrote: post #259
beagle3 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

Requiring someone to play by the rules to use the data isn't being not open. The data is accessible, and you can use it, provided you follow the rules. And there really only seems to be one rule that Microsoft keeps breaking (and even admitting to breaking), which is using an HTML5 video tag to wrap the video in.

If Microsoft can't put a simple web frame in their own application and have only an iframe, video tag, or whatever it is that Google wants to display the video, Microsoft has a problem.

The data is open, and free for anyone to use, provided they follow the rules. Microsoft doesn't want to follow one simple rule. One. Simple. Rule.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#274

Post by dkuntz2 »

mjolk wrote: post #9

This whole thing is passive aggressive, but the best part is: >"Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues..We enabled Google’s advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos. We did this all at no cost to Google, which one would think would want a YouTube app on Windows Phone that would only…

And after they stopped breaking Google's ToS, they decided to re-release the application that was breaking the ToS, and decided to cry foul on Google, for not liking that they re-released the old app.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#275

Post by kbaker »

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…

Except, Google might not be able to show that prefix video using the API MS is/was using, but they would be able to do it if MS supported the standard HTML5 iframe API...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#276

Post by sbuk »

mjolk wrote: post #129
sbuk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't get this line of thinking. This isn't about Google or Microsoft, rather it's about the end user who is essentially a customer of both parties. IMHO, Google aren't just screwing MSFT, they are screwing users, which doesn't really hold with the image that they like to portray. It's actually rather spiteful.

How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones? This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services." Microsoft is trying to weasel this into good PR for themselves, but the fact is this: Google has no obligation to people that are not making them money. It is not their responsibility to keep people buying Microsoft phones.

> "How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?"

That is a snide comment that reveals much.

> 'This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services."'

That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube. It's certainly not the behaviour of the company that Google projects itself to be. I totally agree that Google owe Microsoft nothing, but this has the potential to do much harm to their image. A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then. I'm not suggesting for one minute that were Microsoft to do the same it would be OK (or that indeed it is or was OK). I'm suggesting that there appears to be a double standard being applied to Microsoft from more that a few parties. Google cannot have their cake and eat it, as the saying goes...

Edit: Cleaned up my shameful grammar and spelling...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#277

Post by Dylan16807 »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #273
amanne wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Requiring someone to play by the rules to use the data isn't being not open. The data is accessible, and you can use it, provided you follow the rules. And there really only seems to be one rule that Microsoft keeps breaking (and even admitting to breaking), which is using an HTML5 video tag to wrap the video in. If Microsoft can't put a simple web frame in their own application and have only an iframe, video tag, or…

A simple rule that degrades the experience that the official app doesn't follow.

It's apparently not a very pleasant rule if the largest API consumer doesn't follow it.

It's not 'open' if some users get the good API and some users get the bad API.

And it makes you sound ridiculous to put so much emphasis on 'one simple rule'. It's very easy for rules to be both simple and unfair at the same time. How about '$500 entry fee for short people'.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#278

Post by Dylan16807 »

beagle3 wrote: post #209
improv32 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the app being written in HTML5 have to do with Google changing the API? The app would still have to be updated when the API changes. Additionally, if that were a concern of Google's, why aren't their apps written in HTML5?

> What does the app being written in HTML5 have to do with Google changing the API? Everything. As I explained above, please reread. > The app would still have to be updated when the API changes. With an HTML5 API, the API can be stable and still support many new features, video formats, ad formats, etc without change. NOT SO if you don't let google have their iframe. > Additionally, if that were a concern of Google'…

>Because they can update their own apps whenever they want to

No they can't. Not on the phones, where it matters.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#279

Post by Dylan16807 »

beagle3 wrote: post #175
asterix9 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

> 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? Yes, it is very reasonable. The server doesn't, but google does. The HTML5 requirement means that google can change everything about their service (e.g. they can switch the ads from being h264 videos today, to javascript games tomorrow, to 3d interactive items the next day when 3d s…

The HTML5 requirement stops YouTube apps from having any control over the experience. They barely even deserve the name 'YouTube app' any more. They're closer to 'YouTube embed containers'.

Google isn't forcing Microsoft to write better code. They're trying to force Microsoft to write no code at all, and instead execute whatever javascript comes from the Google servers, sight unseen.

Google is refusing to provide a real API that deals in discrete chunks of data, where the consumer chooses how to interpret them. Even though Microsoft is willing to display ads or presumably do anything else Google asks for that its own apps do.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#280

Post by Dylan16807 »

beagle3 wrote: post #233
Anderkent wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're talking about openness of an API, not open business ownership or whatever the hell you're describing there. An open API gives consumers an equal footing in terms of the API. It doesn't affect any other part of the business.

Don't be willfully dense.

Post reply on HN