If nobody buys a Windows phone, is this just a theoretical argument about legal semantics?
Around 8 million Windows Phone devices were sold last quarter (March-June 2013). That's quite a few nobodies.
Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
31–40 of 59 posts
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#32Besides that this was heavily commented a few hours earlier in another thread, everyone can play YouTube videos without ads via VLC. Is VLC a YouTube application or not? Because it doesn't use HTML[5].
Yes, but this is a hidden feature :)
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#33I'm not sure if it's Ars' commentary, or just the commenters, but it seems entirely sided towards Microsoft. Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. Plus, it seems like the author of the post fails to understand what Google wan…
>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. What are you talking about? It says that in the article right here: >First, the advertising giant is demanding specifically that Microsoft rewrite the application to use HTML5. Microsoft…
I don't agree that an iframe would suck compared to directly playing the video.
If Microsoft can't write a browser with an acceptable video tag, it's their own fault, not an API provider's fault. Mozilla, Apple, and Google all seem to have been able to create browsers with good video tags, especially Apple and Google, who have great support on their mobile systems, which implies that Microsoft should be able to either write their own, or copy the Webkit or Gecko implementation.
It's not inconsistent with other platforms, because anyone who isn't Google is required to follow the same rules as Microsoft. The only difference between Android/iOS and Windows Phone in this instance is that Google isn't going to build a WP app. When they're making the application, they know when they're going to make a change to the entire system, nobody else does, unless they publicize it, and nobody has an incentive to make the switch unless Google is willing to be more proactive about making sure everyone follows more rules.
How does requiring one component, the video, lower quality? If Microsoft doesn't have a web view for WP, and requires applications to be entirely native or entirely web-based, how is that Google fault?
If Google let anyone use the same system they use for their own YouTube app, they'd have to have a grace period where applications could use the old system before updating to the new system, and they'd have to be proactive about making sure everyone uses the new system after their deadline. That's a whole lot more work than saying "follow our really simple rule of using a web view".
Google has every right to make their demand. Google has every right to enforce their rules. Google has every right to ignore their own rules. They have a good reason to have the video tag rule. If they weren't the ones actively developing YouTube, and the Android and iOS apps, they'd probably agree to following the video tag rule, because it makes sense.
----
As for your quote from the article, it doesn't say Microsoft re-released their application after agreeing to follow the rules. It doesn't mention that they're not willing the follow the rules. It just says they didn't follow the rules because they didn't like them.
There are several iOS and Android apps for YouTube that aren't the official app. They all seem to be able to follow Google's rules, and don't seem to be doing poorly.
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#34I'm not sure if it's Ars' commentary, or just the commenters, but it seems entirely sided towards Microsoft. Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. Plus, it seems like the author of the post fails to understand what Google wan…
>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. What are you talking about? It says that in the article right here: >First, the advertising giant is demanding specifically that Microsoft rewrite the application to use HTML5. Microsoft…
The down arrow is for inappropriate or off-topic posts, not for opinions you disagree with...
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#35I'm not sure if it's Ars' commentary, or just the commenters, but it seems entirely sided towards Microsoft. Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. Plus, it seems like the author of the post fails to understand what Google wan…
>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. What are you talking about? It says that in the article right here: >First, the advertising giant is demanding specifically that Microsoft rewrite the application to use HTML5. Microsoft…
The simple reason for requiring them to embed it using HTML5 is that then YouTube can control the presentation, including advertisements. Otherwise they would have to constantly work with Microsoft to have them update their native code when they make changes.
It's the same reason Twitter has these guidelines for how you can display tweets.
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#36just out of curiosity, are there official youtube apps on blackberry, new and old, Bada and the new comers like Jolla,FirefoxOS etc?
FirefoxOS doesn't need a native or official YouTube app, because the entire thing is just web pages. If Google wanted to make something official, all they would need to do is add an app manifest file with some metadata about the app.
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#37Besides that this was heavily commented a few hours earlier in another thread, everyone can play YouTube videos without ads via VLC. Is VLC a YouTube application or not? Because it doesn't use HTML[5].
The Youtube lua script in VLC breaks often. If you don't keep your VLC at head it becomes very noticeable.
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#38This whole thing is a giant nothingburger. There are plenty of Youtube apps for WP. The official one on iOS that got so much hype on release (and talk now regarding the lack of a WP version) is frankly awful compared to many of the alternatives and currently sits at 2 stars on the iOS store.
WP users be thankful you don't have either the MS port or an official Google one. From what I gather even if you had both, you'd still want to download Metrotube.
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#39I think Google is wrong and fighting the wrong company. But not all Larries can become "the Larry".
Re: Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules. What are you talking about? It says that in the article right here: >First, the advertising giant is demanding specifically that Microsoft rewrite the application to use HTML5. Microsoft…
The down arrow is for inappropriate or off-topic posts, not for opinions you disagree with...
The following line by OP is not an opinion, it's a material statement of fact which is wrong.
>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame"
Ars did mention it.