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

51–60 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#51

Post by xradionut »

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?

Microsoft has made many recent decisions that have irritated or pissed off people including their customers and developers.

In this case I understand that they have valid grievances with Google, but there's this German word, schadenfreude, that comes to mind.

*schadenfreude requires a HN Enterprise reply agreement before being used in a post. :)

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#53

Post by jlgreco »

barista wrote: post #10
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…

>It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app Isn't it more like Google is forcing them to write an HTML5 app by refusing to allow native app?

Google cannot force them to make anything; they are separate companies.

Google is allowing them to make an HTML5 app, and forbidding them from making a native app. They are not forcing them to do anything.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#54

Post by simonsarris »

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

Google sorta did have an issue, and Apple's Youtube app it was built on borrowed time, under a "license". It was then (forcibly, or per-license) removed when Google decided its time was up, and notably before the Google Youtube app was finished. From Aug 2012:

> Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#55

Post by sp332 »

Kylekramer wrote: post #36

This has always been somewhat true, but this is a definitive sign open has lost all meaning. Now it means you have to allow third parties to use your resources to do what they like?

Google requires MS to display ads based on information they won't release to them. That's not open.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#56

Post by justina1 »

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.

Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone.

The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked.

Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#57

Post by rsynnott »

cheald wrote: post #24
outside1234 wrote: post #19

Another too wordy document on Microsoft's part. The core of the issue is that Google is forcing Microsoft to jump through hoops that it is not forcing iOS devices to jump through. Its clear this is an anti-competitive action on Google's part and while they have that right (if they aren't a monopoly, which is increasingly unclear), they really can't claim with the other side of their mouth that they are open.

Doesn't Google publish its own YouTube app on iOS now?

Yup, there is at least one major third-party one, though (Jasmine), which complies with the API requirements that Microsoft is apparently not willing to deal with (presentation of the actual video via HTML5, etc.)

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#58

Post by the_unknown »

I'd be more inclined to give Google a bit of leeway here if they hadn't already pulled out some petty behaviour against Windows Phone.

This is somewhat similar to Google's blocking of Maps from the Windows Phone web browser. A feature that worked fine originally and once there was uproar from users came back and continued to work fine.

Google is attempting to deny service to Windows Phone users to avoid competition in the handheld market. It isn't pretty and it does make me rethink my daily usage of Google services. Windows Phone users are Google customers too and I couldn't care less about their petty rivalry with some other mega-corp.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#59

Post by corresation »

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

Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired.

I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#60

Post by mratzloff »

Some background for people who may not have followed this:

In May, Microsoft released a YouTube app for Windows Phone that didn't show ads and allowed users to download videos. Google said no.

Microsoft removed the download capability but didn't restore the ads. Google said no.

Then the PR comes out that Microsoft and Google are working together on a new app. I'm guessing that was PR from Microsoft's side.

Now Microsoft has tried to release an app that follows the rules but Google looks like they are being petty about it after Microsoft has repeatedly violated their terms of service.

So Microsoft posts a blog article angling for FTC intervention, and here we are.

Post reply on HN