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

41–50 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#41

Post by jmillikin »

jarjoura wrote: post #7
devx wrote: post #5

It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app, even though Microsoft has repeatedly breached their TOS multiple times (like allowing users to download the videos). If Microsoft's WP8 platform is so behind the times, it can't even make an HTML5 web-app possible, that's really Microsoft's problem. If I'm not mistaken all the other "native" Youtube apps on other platforms are Google's own apps, and it's also the…

Prerogative or not, it's still douchey of Google to outright block Microsoft. The original Apple version of YouTube only shows videos that do not want advertising (granted a smaller and smaller # of videos).

Microsoft used to distribute a YouTube app that did not show videos with advertising. This lasted for, if I remember correctly, several years.

The current fight started when Microsoft released an update that showed all YouTube videos, without ads, ignoring the advertising-requirement flag.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#42

Post by badman_ting »

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.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#44

Post by rsynnott »

dhawalhs wrote: post #34
taylodl wrote: post #18

Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years? Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections. In the end, both companies ha…

I had no idea what you meant by "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!", so I googled it. This is the first link that showed up: http://slashdot.org/story/05/08/02/2219208/the-dos-aint-done...

Whatever about this particular instance, there are documented incidents where Microsoft deliberately made things not work; in particular, the Java thing, and the DR-DOS Windows thing (where Windows would run on DR-DOS if it pretended to be MS DOS, but not otherwise).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#46

Post by velodrome »

Avalaxy wrote: post #4
samspenc wrote: post #2

Looks like Microsoft disabled comments. Smart move, look at what happened to the previous one where they DID allow comments :p http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...

I can't imagine TechNet being so full of Microsoft-haters. Was this sponsored by HN/reddit/4chan or something?

That's because Microsoft kind of screwed over its TechNet subscribers. In a way, they poisoned their TechNet community.

There is a petition on change.org with almost 10,000 signatures.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-cr...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#47

Post by mjolk »

Refefer wrote: post #28
mjolk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prerogative or not, it's still douchey of Google to outright block Microsoft. Why? The two customers are competitors and Microsoft has a history of just ripping off Google's services . http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/bing-copies-google/

Do two wrongs make a right?

No, but Google doesn't owe Microsoft any favors.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#48

Post by jmillikin »

barista wrote: post #40
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…

>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. Microsoft's YouTube app used to work the same way, until they updated it to show all videos but still not show ads.

EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#49

Post by tnuc »

Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone? Google has written one for the iphone.

Am I missing something with what is going on here?

Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#50

Post by rsynnott »

devx wrote: post #5

It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app, even though Microsoft has repeatedly breached their TOS multiple times (like allowing users to download the videos). If Microsoft's WP8 platform is so behind the times, it can't even make an HTML5 web-app possible, that's really Microsoft's problem. If I'm not mistaken all the other "native" Youtube apps on other platforms are Google's own apps, and it's also the…

There are native apps, like Jasmine, on other platforms, but they use an embedded HTML5 video thing to show the actual video.
Post reply on HN