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

281–290 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#281

Post by Dylan16807 »

beagle3 wrote: post #229
wklauss wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually does. It not only means that, but its one of the outcomes if you are truly open. I think a bigger problem here is why people think YouTube or Google are "open" to begin with. There are some areas in Google businesses that being more open than the alternatives (note the emphasis on more , sometimes they are just "open" in comparison with Microsoft and Apple policies) serves them well, thats why the do it,…

No, it does not mean that. You have things confused. IF you are at equal footing with everyone else, THEN you are "open". But the other way around does not follow. e.g. Mozilla (or Digia, or SourceFire, or thousand others -- take your pick) can relicense their open source software as closed source, and put out binaries for future versions without releasing the source. Others using the same source code base cannot. Th…

1. 'open source' and 'open' are not the same thing. Look at android being open source but with closed development.

2. The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#282

Post by hrjet »

amanne wrote: post #265
beagle3 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. And if YouTube's content providers and users are hu…

Being hurt is a subjective thing.

Imagine YouTube tomorrow decides to encode videos with a new codec, one which a particular processor can't decode easily?

Will the users which own that processor feel "hurt" / get "hurt"?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#283

Post by wdr1 »

badman_ting wrote: post #42
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…

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

You can't expect Google to develop for every niche platform, such as Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc.

Heck, isn't this Microsoft's own point of view? Or do they have plans to write Office for Linux?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#284

Post by beagle3 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #277
dkuntz2 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ent…

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

How does that make Google un-open?

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

The largest API consumer is also the API provider. They can (and should, and do) iterate faster than a stable API they provide to others. That's almost always the case.

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

All users get the same API, but provider is using a different API (which may, and does, change every other day). And it's perfectly open. Openness does NOT mean everyone gets to be on equal footing! Google can shutter youtube tomorrow, but Microsoft can't, which is always going to be the case.

Open is about having access to the data at all, under reasonable terms and conditions, that Microsoft refuses to follow.

> It's very easy for rules to be both simple and unfair at the same time. How about '$500 entry fee for short people'.

It sounds even more ridiculous to compare "use a standard HTML5 iframe section provided to you" to "special fee for short people".

History shows that indeed, Microsoft and standards don't mix well. But that's hardly a Google problem. Microsoft could have spent a tenth of the energy (and money, and goodwill) in this case, and just hired someone who knows what they are doing (e.g. the guy who wrote Jasmine for iOS, which provides an experience way better than the official client, using only this 'one simple rule')

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#285

Post by beagle3 »

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…

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

Which assertions am I making that are unfounded or not supported by fact (and examples from other native apps)?

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

It's actually quite easy. They are hypocritical in some places, but not here.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#286

Post by beagle3 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #278
beagle3 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, they can; they can have the older app say "you need to upgrade your app" (likely with a 60 or 90 day grace period), and put the new one on the play store. Alternatively, maybe their native client already falls back on an HTML5 alternative on a cue from their server - I have no idea.

What is clear from this debacle, though, is that Microsoft was unable to write their app according to Google's guidelines, and then took 3 months and still couldn't fix it - which means that Google definitely cannot expect them to upgrade to newer APIs ever - so it doesn't seem onerous to require them to actually use the official API now.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#287

Post by beagle3 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #279
beagle3 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

> The HTML5 requirement stops YouTube apps from having any control over the experience

That's demonstrably false. Have a look at the "Jasmine" app for iOS - it's way, way better than the official iOS client, despite using the same HTML5 API. It does NOT, in any way, provide a degraded experience compared to the official app using.

> and instead execute whatever javascript comes from the Google servers, sight unseen.

Well, yes. Microsoft also doesn't vet the videos it is going to show - google might instead stream rickrolls. Google is not asking Microsoft to execute arbitrary javascript (which allows e.g. stealing credentials). They're asking them to use an iframe, which is perfectly sandboxed. And they actually need to run javascript for functionality - I don't know if you've noticed but Google keeps adding features like captions, annotations, multispeed, multiquality, etc - they need to run code so they can add more features and make them accessible to all.

> 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.

Well, Microsoft is refusing to let me sell Windows Premium addition DVDs for $10, even though I'm willing to pay them the $0.50 that a DVD costs, and displaying their logo and whatever it is they do themselves when they sell a Windows equipped computer on the Microsoft store.

Do you realize how stupid it sounds? Google/YouTube is not a charity, nor a utility, and not even a monopoly. They're accessible on Windows Phone, and they're happy to have Microsoft play according to the same rules they set for everyone else. I understand Microsoft is really not use to playing by the rules, granted - but that's hardly Google's fault.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#288

Post by beagle3 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #280
beagle3 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> An open API gives consumers an equal footing in terms of the API. It doesn't affect any other part of the business.

When you get to define terms, that may be. Here on earth, you're just making no sense whatsoever.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#289

Post by beagle3 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #281
beagle3 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it does not mean that. You have things confused. IF you are at equal footing with everyone else, THEN you are "open". But the other way around does not follow. e.g. Mozilla (or Digia, or SourceFire, or thousand others -- take your pick) can relicense their open source software as closed source, and put out binaries for future versions without releasing the source. Others using the same source code base cannot. Th…

1. 'open source' and 'open' are not the same thing. Look at android being open source but with closed development. 2. The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.

> Look at android being open source but with closed development.

But it's still an "open" system by everyone's definition of the word - the source is open, the API is open, everyone is welcome to use it and make changes. It's just that Google is not obligated to accept them into the official tree. Who cares how the development process looks like? Android is open, and claiming otherwise is foolish. e.g. Amazon's Kindle Fire version of Android.

> The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.

Do you actually have an idea of how the GPL works? Because what you wrote here indicates you do not. SourceFire (the company that makes Snort) used to provide the source under the GPL, but then continued to develop it and provide PUBLIC copies without source. No one, except themselves (as the right holder) could legally do that. That does not make the open GPL versions any less "open source" or "open" in general.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#290

Post by dkuntz2 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #277
dkuntz2 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ent…

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

And that degrades the experience how? Just because Google doesn't use the same API (nor are they required to) doesn't mean everyone else gets a poorer experience. There are a number of unofficial YouTube clients for iOS and Android, and they all use the public API.

Again (and I say again because I replied to another one of your comments), if Microsoft doesn't have a web frame for their mobile apps, and has to make the entire app web-based, how is that Google's fault? They didn't create a (in that case, because if it's not the case, I have no comment) sub-par API for their mobile OS.

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

Again, how so? They don't need to follow the rule because they know when their advertising is going to change, nobody else does. The overhead involved in allowing everyone to do things the same way Google does is too high compared to just saying use a web view. Would you want to monitor every use of the API and make sure everyone was up to date by a certain point of time?

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

How is the public API bad? Because it requires a frame? What's bad about that?

Also, really, no users are using a "good" or "bad" API, everyone who isn't the producer has access to the same API. All users get your so-called "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'.

But how is this rule unfair? You've yet to convince me that the rule is unfair. This argument only works if everyone agrees that the rule is unfair. I don't see any preference for anyone other than the producer. Everyone who doesn't manage the entire infrastructure is given the same treatment as the other people not managing the system.

Post reply on HN